Why hello there ladies and gentlemen. Today I'm not feeling to great. It's a worm eating away at my core, a problem nagging at the back of my head since my group's previous session last friday.
I'm an amateur DM and my players are all novices as well. I can forgive them for their inexperience with the rules, the desire to forgo the story sometimes and just kill things, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I've had difficulty getting my players to at least act their characters. I have one player who takes no pretense and tells me that he doesn't want to have to deal with a personality. He's a rogue, and is content in writing for his personality archetype, "I'm a rogue." I'm content in letting him just be the butt-monkey of the party and leaving it at that. Two of my other players have difficulty following their characters personality archetypes, but their learning and I hope they'll eventually grow into their roles, designing their characters as they see fit.
Two of my other players, however, truly sicken me, and I'm not sure exactly how to handle it. One of them is a Monk, but acts the exact opposite of lawful. At first that was what he had on his character sheet, but straight off the bat in the first scenario he preceded to first intimidate the town sheriff and then go grave robbing looking for clues. After the game, I told him he is not lawful at all, but we settled on true neutral. He's actively petty, greedy and cruel, but I'll get to the cruel part in a bit.
The other PC was a guy who was busy so he didn't start with us initially. When some of the other PC's were having difficulty writing their stories, I let them know that I would write their backstories for them. He gave me a personality archetype and I rolled with it, a Chaotic Good character who spent his entire life sequestered in a hermitage in the desert, who escaped and seeks to travel the world and develop his powers within the Sorcerer's draconic bloodline. I thought up a fun way of being introduced to the group, having him fall down the stairs in his smallclothes, being kicked in a humorous fashion by one of the established NPC's. After this happened, he proceeded to attack her, using acid splash, as if he were actively trying to kill her.
The PC's then got into a fight with a bunch of bandits who, in an ironic turn of events, were stealing dead bodies from the local cemetary. A fight ensues and one of the bandits starts to run away. Obviously, it's the monk who goes after him and he eventually manages to pin him to the ground. All well and good.
Then he starts to torture him for information. He runs a knife across his knuckles, a dramatic play on words for the bandit's company name the Bloody Knuckles. Then the sorcerer gets over there. He holds fire in his hand and begins to singe his ear. They easily extract the information, but it all left a bad taste in my mouth. The town's guard shows up, led by the sheriff the Monk tortured in the beginning, telling him to let him go. They refused. The two wanted to torture him. The monk's player later told me that he felt it time sensitive, impertinent that he find out the information. I argued with him, telling him that torture cannot be justified like that and is an evil action with consequences.
I talked to the Sorcerer's player as well, and he told me that he felt he wanted to change his alignment to CN, and that his character has no problem with torture, actively seeking to use it to get what he wants. I'm unsure at this point if we even have a lawful player in our party, and all of the other characters simply stood by and watched as they did this.
Sorry for the block of text, but I want to know other's opinions about this. Is torture acceptable? How well must a character stick to their archetype? Torture is a serious thing, and I'm afraid eventually I'm going to be forced to run the PC's out of town if they are actively malicious.
|
I would agree .. I sometimes put Npc's they run into that can and will set them straight so to speak in such instances .. Maybe the next town's sherriff just happens to be a retired fighter maybe 8th level who could take out the entire party if needed or at least teach them a valuable lesson .
As far as alignments .. I have found it truely hard even for the most seasoned player to play a lawful alignment . It is either they are lead away acting stupid from goings on in the party wink wink nod nod .. or they simply turn a blind eye to it .
The sorecerer in my opinion like another said would be lawful evil just by his words and actions . the monk probably neutral evil unless he showed a lot of chaotic tendencies as well .. however i will add this .. If a chaotic good character uses such means on a character it knows as evil to extract information say to rescue a kidnapped child . is their actions considered evil .. or chaotic .. that's what makes alignments tough and it is up to you to decide each case .. The last case to me is more of a chaotic act than evil as they are doing a good deed with the information by tortuing someone who is known evil .
PS: Once your monk PC ceases to be lawful, he ceases to advance in monk levels. Questions of evil aside.
And yeah, your party is evil.
Alyssa, torture is NEVER a "good deed," no matter the circumstance surrounding it. Just because the victim of torture is evil doesn't make torture good.
I would first consider how much fun you are having running this game.
If you are having fun, but the players aren't seeing things the way you are, talk to them about it, but be willing to compromise.
If you aren't having fun, you still need to talk to them, but in that case you need to let them know that this kind of game isn't fun for you and would like to change the mood of game play.
It is a fallacy that you do have to be law-abiding to be lawful, you merely have to be logical and methodical. A lawful character follows a code, and that code may or may not be the law of the land. As long as the monk was following a code of conduct, and his actions were logically thought out, he's still lawful.
It is also a case that people who are evil do not think of themselves as evil. Having said that, casual torture and seeking out people to torture: evil, end of discussion. Murdering somebody for a slight in a bar: evil.
Your players (some of them) have apparently got the 'hey we can do what we like without consequences' bug. Let consequences commence.
My suggestion: Call a meeting. Ask the players what kind of game they want to run in, and what kind of game you are prepared to run. If they all want an evil game, and you don;t mind running one, go with it. If they are split, run the game you want and make sure they know what the ground rules are.
The monk is lawful evil. Just because you're cruel and greedy doesn't mean you're not lawful. Unless the local government has something against torturing bandits. Also I love your name considering the topic.
|
Your players seem new to roleplaying, and that is a big part of the game. A possible reward system for good roleplay could help with behavior. You will need to balance it as to be inciting, but not overpowered. A system of penalty for bad roleplay can be put in place as well, but should not be too harsh, though definitely not something someone would want. Within the game, your players feel powerful, free to do as they please, but as Stan Lee says, "with great power, comes great responsibility". Your job is to remind them of that.
It is a fallacy that you do have to be law-abiding to be lawful, you merely have to be logical and methodical. A lawful character follows a code, and that code may or may not be the law of the land. As long as the monk was following a code of conduct, and his actions were logically thought out, he's still lawful.
Not arguing that you have to be law-abiding to be lawful; OP said he and the player settled on a true neutral alignment for the monk which is contra the monk class AW.
|
YEAH PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION!
Anyways. Pathfinder, like a lot of tabletop RPGs, has an alignment system.
You need to determine what "good" and "evil" is and share it with your party. Is good and evil based on actions or goals? Do the ends ever justify the means? What situation would the party have gone "too far?"
Make sure YOU decide these and share them with the group, even if they disagree tell them it is not up for debate and that it is set in stone.
Pathfinder MUST have a black and white morality system. Without it the game will devolve into a discussion on the ethics of various actions.
~~~~
The easier option is to throw alignment out the window as its an obnoxious system (just have paladins abilities be "Smite" etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey guys, I'd prefer to run a heroic and mature game here. So, no more of that sort of stuff. Thanks".
This needs to be handled by talking to them, not trying anything IC or doing anything to their characters.
Don;t worry about the lines between Good vs Evil. Just tell them that you are running a High Fantasy Heroic campaign. No "ethically challenged" PCs this time.
I want to point out that torture doesn't work irl. First the victim gets all tough, then he starts lying, then he tells the truth then he starts making up stuff just to stop the pain. You never know what stage he's in once he starts talking.
So, here's what to do. Start over. Give them those ground rules. You can say that since you're a new DM it will just make the game easier and more fun for you.
My advice as a new DM, especially with new players, is ONLY to allow Good alignments. No it may not be what everybody in the party wants, but it will make life a lot easier on you.
One of my big mistakes when I ran my first serious 3.5 game was allow my (very seasoned) players to be Neutral. A CN swashbuckler and a N druid nearly ruined the game for me - I had to bribe them at every corner to get them to follow the plot.
With my other group I had simply decided to force them to play good characters - motivated to do good for good's sake. They have all now adopted a general "goodly" stance.
As your players evolve as RPers let them play N as they understand the difference between Good, Neutral, and Evil.
In our current campaign we have 1 LG, 2 LN, and 1 CG. We've now been playing together as a group for 5 years, and I would say that the folks I play with are finally "ready" to play a non-good character.
.... All that being said, if your party wants to play an evil "watch the world burn" campaign, I would check out the Evil AP in the Paizo store, it looks pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is Dirty Harry(Clint Eastwood) evil?
Is James Bond? Is Batman? all 3 have used Torture for the better good!
The question is "can good people employ evil acts for the greater good?"
Torture is evil. But there are plausible scenarios where torture provides a "greater good."
This has been one of the core philosophical breakpoints in morality or ethical studies since human civilization began. Anyone who thinks this has been answered definitively one way or the other simply isn't paying attention.
The best you can say is that a person might be willing to perform evil acts under dire circumstances, and accept the consequences for doing so.
Does that make them evil? Who knows. Does it make them good? Well, unfortunately we live in a morally complex universe with no simple answers to some questions. No matter what you read on bumper stickers.
My advice as a new DM, especially with new players, is ONLY to allow Good alignments. No it may not be what everybody in the party wants, but it will make life a lot easier on you.
That really doesn't quite work out so well when they don't think they're playing evil. They are not destroying the world and making it burn. They are not destroying innocent life. They are merely being rough, which in their minds does not equate to evil. Torture in of itself is not evil nor chaotic, even though it often does fly in the face of our current civil, moral codes. Unless the PCs expressed joy in the pain of their tortured captive, I can't see how you justify it as evil, especially when the "good guys" boast about how they killed some poor sap.
The real question is "Does torture make you uncomfortable as a GM?" in which case if this is true then let your players know.
.... All that being said, if your party wants to play an evil "watch the world burn" campaign, I would check out the Evil AP in the Paizo store, it looks pretty good.
Hey, thanks for the plug, dunebugg!
He is referencing the "Way of the Wicked" adventure path part 1 and part 2 of which are available for sale now!
And as someone who has recently spent a lot of time ruminating on what is evil, let me just add this to the debate.
Absolute definitions of what constitutes evil action are always incomplete and flawed. I may not know exactly what evil is, but I know evil when I see it. And really, that is enough for a roleplaying game.
We are getting together to have fun with our friends pretending to be elves and stuff once or twice a week, not trying to unknot the great moral enigmas of the human condition.
Gary McBride
Fire Mountain Games
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -- Terry Pratchett
So is Dirty Harry(Clint Eastwood) evil?
Is James Bond? Is Batman? all 3 have used Torture for the better good!
Did they seek to go out and find people to torture? Did they take gratuitous pleasure in it? If yes, then yes they are evil. If no, then they may not be, circumstances do matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice as a new DM, especially with new players, is ONLY to allow Good alignments. No it may not be what everybody in the party wants, but it will make life a lot easier on you.That really doesn't quite work out so well when they don't think they're playing evil. They are not destroying the world and making it burn. They are not destroying innocent life. They are merely being rough, which in their minds does not equate to evil. Torture in of itself is not evil nor chaotic, even though it often does fly in the face of our current civil, moral codes. Unless the PCs expressed joy in the pain of their tortured captive, I can't see how you justify it as evil, especially when the "good guys" boast about how they killed some poor sap.
The real question is "Does torture make you uncomfortable as a GM?" in which case if this is true then let your players know.
Yes, torture in itself IS evil. One (or two, or three, whatever) evil acts may not make a character evil. But torture is evil, regardless of the circumstances.
Yes, torture in itself IS evil. One (or two, or three, whatever) evil acts may not make a character evil. But torture is evil, regardless of the circumstances.My advice as a new DM, especially with new players, is ONLY to allow Good alignments. No it may not be what everybody in the party wants, but it will make life a lot easier on you.That really doesn't quite work out so well when they don't think they're playing evil. They are not destroying the world and making it burn. They are not destroying innocent life. They are merely being rough, which in their minds does not equate to evil. Torture in of itself is not evil nor chaotic, even though it often does fly in the face of our current civil, moral codes. Unless the PCs expressed joy in the pain of their tortured captive, I can't see how you justify it as evil, especially when the "good guys" boast about how they killed some poor sap.
The real question is "Does torture make you uncomfortable as a GM?" in which case if this is true then let your players know.
How are you defining evil? Does torture fit into that definition. For example if you define evil simply as "destroying innocent life" then torture doesn't actually fit that category.
This lack of accepted definition of evil can cause problems, and if you just shove everything that you think is wrong as "evil" some players might have a hard time.
Gosh, how could the purposeful inflicting of pain on a living being (make that 'sentient' being to cover all bases) to force it to bend to your will be evil? >blinkblink<
/sarcasm
Srsly.
This doesn't have to be as complicated as you're trying to make it. It's a fair bet that anything resembling the torments of damned souls qualifies as evil when the PCs are in the role of demons/devils.
It sounds like your players on some level do not "get it" in terms of what a table top RPG is.
They sound like they have a lot of experience with computer RPGs where you can behave wildly different from one NPC to the next, with little regard for the fact that they are in a large game world.
Mind if I ask what the age range of your group is because it sounds like they are acting out some"tough guy" fantasies inspired by numerous movies where the good guy breaks bones and knocks heads to get info.
There is also the possibility they want to play evil characters. Fine. Let them behave how they wish and face teh repercussions. If they continue you can maybe get them an Evil patron to work for or stop gaming with them, because it sounds liek you don't want to run an "evil" game.
AS A SIDE NOTE:
I really dislike the title of your thread. I'm an "older" gamer and remember the early days of D&D when young kids were called Satanists and devil worshipers and all kinds of nonsense, so to see a fellow player and GM asking if his friends are "evil" (you do say players and not characters) is really something I find disheartening and more than just a little insulting.
Without reading any of this thread except the title I assert that the answer is probably, Yes. yes they are. ;-)
Gosh, how could the purposeful inflicting of pain on a living being (make that 'sentient' being to cover all bases) to force it to bend to your will be evil? >blinkblink<
/sarcasm
Srsly.
This doesn't have to be as complicated as you're trying to make it. It's a fair bet that anything resembling the torments of damned souls qualifies as evil when the PCs are in the role of demons/devils.
Pain being used to influence another person's actions is no different than getting them to do it via any other means.
I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?
It sounds to me like you are having a problem with the choices your players are making, regardless of character motivation/alignment. The first step in solving player problems is talking to them. Explain to them that your game is PG-13 (or whatever), so torture is either not an option or is done "off screen."
I also agree that player choices should have consequences. At the very least law enforcement now knows that these characters are willing to torture, and who knows what else. This could mean all sorts of things for how the party interacts with law enforcement.
I don't think defining the alignments is your problem at all. Alignment only really matters for some spells and class abilities anyway, so I would handwave a lot of it. If you use these spells/abilities often then you should make it clear how they will be used.
Looking at the fantasy genre it seems like good/evil is more about which side of the battle you are on anyway and less about your actions. For instance, Golum is still harmed by elven rope despite many of his later actions being good.
I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?
No, cause that's just emotional pain. And no one gives a **** about emotional pain.
I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?No, cause that's just emotional pain. And no one gives a **** about emotional pain.
Really?
I'd rather break my leg than my heart....
Pain being used to influence another person's actions is no different than getting them to do it via any other means.
I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?
I'm perfectly willing to dump mental control into the 'evil' category. Though you'd actually love being charmed (until it wore off).
I regularly play evil characters, largely because I believe in expedient solutions to my problems, and don't much care about other people's goals/feelings/continued existence if they try to thwart me.
What really pisses me off is stuff like a PC allowed to keep her C/G alignment WHILE WEARING RAKSHASA-FUR TRIM on her boots and cloak. It DOESN'T excuse the vile habit of WEARING SENTIENT remains just because the creature in question happened to be evil, itself. [This really happened in a campaign I was in...]
Gosh, how could the purposeful inflicting of pain on a living being (make that 'sentient' being to cover all bases) to force it to bend to your will be evil? >blinkblink<
Man, Killing sure is evil. Inflicting pain on a living being to force it to stop what it's doing. Forever. And don't even get me started on parents. How dare they spank their kids and tell them how to behave!? [/sarcasm]
Gosh, how could the purposeful inflicting of pain on a living being (make that 'sentient' being to cover all bases) to force it to bend to your will be evil? >blinkblink<Man, Killing sure is evil. Inflicting pain on a living being to force it to stop what it's doing. Forever. And don't even get me started on parents. How dare they spank their kids and tell them how to behave!? [/sarcasm]
Semantics.
Obviously, I forget to make that, 'ongoing torment,' instead of pain.
You're being VERY obtuse, comparing a spanking to torture.
My point that Alitan missed is that torture by function depends upon the individual and therefore any clear delineation of it via action is intent based. Since the action is intent based, and we're operating under the presumption that the pcs are torturing for what they and the general public view as the greater good, then torturing a kobold is no different than killing one assuming that the overall idea is the greater good.
By your definition any killing, that inflicts pain, of any kind is evil according to logical extension.
Edit: Using pain to alter behavior qualifies as torture per your definition that you provided therefore spanking qualifies. By stating that it does not means that you have hidden variables that also determine whether or not an act is evil and therefore a person is evil. How can it be possible to decide what you mean if you don't tell us about them?
|
not read all the replied but if no1 else has already said it then here goes:
The GM dictates the alignment of the PCs in accordance with their actions. in the notes that you keep of every session (you _DO_ keep notes, do you not, Mr. GM?!) you make a note of evil things that the neutrality-claiming character does. Then if/when alignment becomes important.... BAM! you remind him how he ate that child on that occasion, how he walked past the beggars and spat in their face, how he did not donate to the curch of <enter god's name), how he.......... etc.......
If need arises you mention - just mention - as you go along that such actions are.....
Actions dictate Alignment and not vise versa!
I don't like alignment requirements, personally, so if I GM I plan to just remove them. I can see a Monk being non-lawful, or alternative Paladins that aren't LG.
On the other hand, I don't really like the idea of torture in games.
The solution: Use enemies they can't torture, or that can't talk.
Example: Instead of having some Bloody Knuckles bandits, you have a swarm of grave scarabs instead. Instead of a Sheriff, you have a deputy golem. Remove all torture-susceptible creatures from the game, except the PCs themselves.
It DOESN'T excuse the vile habit of WEARING SENTIENT remains just because the creature in question happened to be evil, itself. [This really happened in a campaign I was in...]
Mmmm dragonhide armor... sooo tempting and yet some call you eeeevil ...
-TimD
There's scientific research that shows emotional "pain" is registered in the brain in the same way as physical pain. That said, while it can be fairly severe, physical pain can still greatly outweigh it in an acute episode.
I've had my heart broken and a severely broken leg. I'd rather deal with the heart TBH.
Reaper Miniatures
|
"Hey guys, I'd prefer to run a heroic and mature game here. So, no more of that sort of stuff. Thanks".
I've had to say this more than once. Role-playing often includes power-fantasies, a chance to break from your daily grind and do something you could never do in real life. Sometimes, it's heing the town hero and saving the girl, the gold, and the town. But sometimes it's treating the NPC that reminds you of someone (your boss, a school bully, a despised rival at the office, etc.) and beating the tar out of them like you know you could never do for real.
And I actively discourage the latter. I do not encourage vile, selfish, behavior. Even in our Way of the Wicked game, I have asked for the villains to please be Fun villains, not Dark. And fun doesn't mean be the joker, it means don't be vile. Let's enjoy letting our dark sides out, not succumb to them.
Of course, other playstyles are not automatically BADWRONGFUN, but they are not right for me and any group I wish to play in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It DOESN'T excuse the vile habit of WEARING SENTIENT remains just because the creature in question happened to be evil, itself. [This really happened in a campaign I was in...]
Mmmm dragonhide armor... sooo tempting and yet some call you eeeevil ...
-TimD
Yes, dragonhide armor is reprehensible, by my lights; I wouldn't wear it, or associate/adventure with someone who would.
EDIT: If I were playing a non-evil character; my evil characters don't have a problem with other people wearing it, but don't on the grounds that pissing off every other dragon you come across is a non-survival trait.
My point that Alitan missed is that torture by function depends upon the individual and therefore any clear delineation of it via action is intent based.
Good/evil does not have to be intent based, it could be all sorts of things:
1. State consequentialism; torturing the good guys is evil2. Consequentialism; torture is only evil if the ends are evil
3. Deontology; torture is always evil
I will agree that determining what is good/evil in a specific situation always requires the person to act according to limited knowledge, maybe that is what you mean.
Since the action is intent based, and we're operating under the presumption that the pcs are torturing for what they and the general public view as the greater good, then torturing a kobold is no different than killing one assuming that the overall idea is the greater good.
I have to disagree here. If your character's intent is to minimize universal suffering (for instance) then I would argue that killing is often viewed as more merciful than torture.
As with so many alignment threads, it ultimately comes down to the DM being clear about how alignment will be used in his campaigns.
My point that Alitan missed is that torture by function depends upon the individual and therefore any clear delineation of it via action is intent based.Good/evil does not have to be intent based, it could be all sorts of things:
1. State consequentialism; torturing the good guys is evil
2. Consequentialism; torture is only evil if the ends are evil
3. Deontology; torture is always evil
I will agree that determining what is good/evil in a specific situation always requires the person to act according to limited knowledge, maybe that is what you mean.Since the action is intent based, and we're operating under the presumption that the pcs are torturing for what they and the general public view as the greater good, then torturing a kobold is no different than killing one assuming that the overall idea is the greater good.I have to disagree here. If your character's intent is to minimize universal suffering (for instance) then I would argue that killing is often viewed as more merciful than torture.
As with so many alignment threads, it ultimately comes down to the DM being clear about how alignment will be used in his campaigns.
1.Dude you're arguing my point. The intent isn't just the intent of the given actions. The intent I am referring to is the overall intent of the given action based upon varying perspective of the one delineating terms.
2.You are arguing my statement in a vacuum as opposed to in its context which I thought would be implied by OP's situation, but apparently was not. They were, theoretically, torturing for information for the greater good. The torturing of kobold's was used as a basis of relative comparison. I guess I could've used bandits, but if I'm going to torture something for comparative example I like to use kobolds.
Hrm, I've seen this has progressed slightly out of hand. I suppose it's my bad for initiating a controversial topic.
First off:
I really dislike the title of your thread. I'm an "older" gamer and remember the early days of D&D when young kids were called Satanists and devil worshipers and all kinds of nonsense, so to see a fellow player and GM asking if his friends are "evil" (you do say players and not characters) is really something I find disheartening and more than just a little insulting.
Actually, the topic has nothing to do with that stigma. I believe you've been misled because I in no way seek to promote that sort of nonsense. I know I'm new to the game, but I've heard of the old stereotypes and pervading ideas about the time of D&D's conception and I fervently believe otherwise. My friends aren't evil; it's their understanding of the game's mechanics and my own personal beliefs as they pertain to evil that's my purpose here. I'm asking if my players' characters are evil, no more and no less. I'm genuinely surprised you thought this of me.
Second:
I've understood for a while now that the morality system is inherently flawed because it is a system for personal belief structure, not for actions. If my players can make a strong case to argue something in a morality argument, then it falls into a moral gray area, my own personal beliefs aside. I was worried for a while that they either were, as Lochmonster said, gleefully using this as an excercise in power fantasy, or were morally incongruous with me, or worse, apathetic to it all and just want to kill things for shits and giggles.
My own personal beliefs aside, I am a writer, a creator at heart, and I like these kinds of explorations of morality and murder in a fantasy landscape. I might have come across like I hate the idea of an evil campaign. I don't, but that's not the campaign I'm running here. After taking the advice of many in this topic (thanks, all) I talked to the monk and the sorcerer and I'll soon talk to the entire group as a whole.
Truth be told, I'm still not a fan of the Monk's character, as his personality needs definite reconciliation with his background. He was a half orc born to the rape of a noblewoman who spent his entire life in the jungle, learning to kill with only the bare minimum of essentials. I just cannot see how it explains his crass, violent and hostile attitude towards everyone. I've told him that while I will not stop them from doing any perverse or evil actions, I will change their alignments forcibly. There will be dire consequences in game for actions I, as the DM, deem morally degenerative.
I've also spoken with the Sorcerer. As much as I also don't like his character, I've also relented with some more character clarification. He says that he has control issues, that his hot-headedness is a consequence of his sorcerer bloodline and his issues with his father. If he has a tendency to get carried away at times then I will allow him to stay neutral, but if things get out of hand then I will also change his alignment to evil. He says he aims to give the character development, and learn self control over a time. I hope to facilitate that.
Torture is an evil action, as termed by the ruleset. If they can justify it in character, however, playing into the philosophical argument and allowing me and them to explore the different arguments like people have done in this thread, then all for the better. I've discussed some with the monk, who just happens to be my brother. I feel with a party more aligned to neutral that the path of a mercenary company, swords for higher, is a better aim for our troupe than the classic adventuring party archetype. I feel this is for the best, and I will be adjusting my campaign to compensate.
@Rasputin17:
It is all good and well to forcibly change alignments and the like - but I think before you do that you should give your players and their characters the chance to experience the fallout of their actions. Over the course of a long session, or several sessions:
- people in town shun them
- merchants/taverns are more expensive
- the "better" type of establishment might refuse entry
- several types of temples/churches refuse to offer them healing/magic
- wanted posters on PCs go up
- bounty hunters, including eventually paladins, come for them (paladin being particularly nasty since their "smite evil" will inherently work very well against the characters)
- eventually a group of bounty hunters/guards should be able to subdue them and bring them to court
- justice will be sentenced on them and they might spend some time in prison, or in slave labor in the mines
- continued evil-offenses may change their wanted posters to "kill on sight"
Likewise, it can be valuable to show them the benefits of good actions in-story: perhaps in a future encounter they chose not to torture their prisoner - and (not immediately) that has a good consequence down the line as their prisoner "hadn't experienced such kindness in those that held power" before.
The point is to have PC actions have tangible in-game consequences.
I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?No, cause that's just emotional pain. And no one gives a **** about emotional pain.
Have you ever heard about rape? Even if no bodily harm is done, I would think that it's worse than most physically painful experiences.
|
|
Have you ever heard about rape? Even if no bodily harm is done, I would think that it's worse than most physically painful experiences.I cannot stand the notion of being outside of my own control. If someone were to use charm/hold/dominate humanoid on me it would drive me insane and place me in more anguish than breaking my fingers with a hammer. Would that offender be evil?No, cause that's just emotional pain. And no one gives a **** about emotional pain.
Are we talking about ogres now?