Newbie question about alignment

[seiken]

This is actually about something that came up in one of the Beginner Box Bash demos ("Relics"), but I see myself needing to know how to handle this once my groups gets beyond the Beginner Box, so I thought I should ask here.

One of the players rolled Chaotic Neutral Sorcerer named Jack. In the demo adventure, they had to go into a trapped crypt to retrieve a shepherd's crosier from a hidden cache. Once the crosier is retrieved, they are jumped by the Bloody Knuckles gang who will spare their lives if they hand over the crosier.

In this room, there is a large 40 foot pit with columns reaching up to the normal floor level. They can walk across these columns, but if they step on them too many times, the columns will fall.

So one of the gang members tries to get across to the players, but he steps on a column that has already taken a couple steps, and it falls down 20 feet. He fails the reflex save to keep his balance, so he falls off and lands another 20 feet below. He's not doing so well.

At this point, the thug is done. If he tries to climb up 40 feet, he's either going to fall and die or get shot and die. Once his next turn comes around, he surrenders, and asks if they can just put him in jail instead of killing him. The players all laugh at him (fair enough, he was just trying to kill them). Jack asks if he can throw his flask of alchemists fire on top of him. I say he's welcome to try, but the thug might catch it before it smashes.

So on Jack's turn, rather than go for one of the guys up top who are more threatening, he decides to fire his light crossbow at the thug from atop one of the columns. He misses. On the thug's next turn, he again begs for his life. He says the only reason he was doing this was because of the power his boss has over him. He kneels and begins praying to his god. Jack again shoots and misses.

On the thug's next turn, he is still praying, and says nothing further to the players. The party's oracle appreciates this, and starts to question Jack. Jack, after missing twice already and now getting disapproval from the oracle, is agitated. He fires a third time and puts the thug below 0 hp. You would think that would be the end of it, but no...

Once the other gang members are dealt with, Jack says he could definitely hit with that flask of alchemists fire now. The oracle really doesn't think that is necessary. Jack says, "Oh, now I'm gonna do it just because you said not to!" And he throws the flask down at the unconscious thug, setting him ablaze and completely killing him.

So I guess my question is: Does that fall into Chaotic Neutral, or is Jack evil? If he is actually evil, what happens? Does it actually affect anything? Does anyone care?

[Doodlebug Anklebiter]

I usually stay away from the alignment discussions, but, since you're a newb and since the thread is only 2 minutes old:

Jack's actions certainly appear to me to be evil. Does that mean that Jack is evil? Not necessarily. If he keeps acting like that, however, then, yes, he will become evil.

What happens when he becomes evil? Well, that's up to you and your players. Does it actually affect anything? Rules-wise, not much. Story-wise, as much as you want it to. I am unfamiliar with the scenario, but most people who act like Jack did quickly get reputations, if you catch my drift.

[GeneticDrift]

In most cases alignment changing is not important to the mechanics. The exceptions are classes with alignment requirements like cleric, paladin, monk, and barbarian. (really mostly paladan and cleric).

As a GM it is up to you but generally one act shouldn't make an alignment change.

This sounds like a player issue, if they act like this alot it may be unfun for the rest of the party. This has happened in a few of the games I have played, usually the character gets turned into the law or killed. If talking to they player can work try that first, because a surprise murder/betrayal can be harsh.

Characters can have alignment based tension/disagreement but the players should be enjoying themselves.

Yes the act was chaotic evil. If he limits it to enemies it may be tolerated by the party but the good aligned should not enjoy what he is doing. (I play a lot of LG characters so this happens alot)

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

Alignment is a contentious issue, and pretty much up to each group to deal with themselves. Would I say Jack is Evil? Absolutely. Attacking a defenseless opponent instead of someone actually dangerous, then wasting resources and burning someone alive because of a petty disagreement with a ally would fall solidly in the "Evil" category for me. I would tell the player that, if this sort of thing continued, I would change their alignment to evil. However, other people and groups would disagree, probably with some solid arguments. The weird conflux of morals created by he medieval/modern/adventurer thing gets very weird, and is something people love to constantly debate.

As for whether it affects anything, there is actually a thread here right now called "Powergaming Alignment." Basically, being Neutral has some slight benefits, mostly based around being immune to spells and abilities that target good and evil creatures. There are also implications for certain characters (such as Paladins) who can lose their class features by changing alignment, or even associating with certain alignments without good cause. Overall, it is pretty minor, and forcing characters to change alignments can cause more bickering and problems than it is worth. You have a better idea of your group than anyone here, and will have to be the one to decide whether it is an important enough issue to warrant opening the proverbial "can of worms" over.

[VRMH]

Since Jack didn't actually benefit from this killing (other than getting a sadistic pleasure from it), it's not Chaotic behaviour.
It's an Evil act, but that in itself won't make a character wholly Evil. If Jack keeps this up though, he'll end up CE eventually.

[Kthulhu]

VRMH wrote:

Since Jack didn't actually benefit from this killing (other than getting a sadistic pleasure from it), it's not Chaotic behaviour.

It's an Evil act, but that in itself won't make a character wholly Evil. If Jack keeps this up though, he'll end up CE eventually.

I'd actually view this in exactly the opposite way. If you do something bad for a benefit to yourself, it's evil. If you do it just for the giggles, that's more chaotic.

[VRMH]

Kthulhu wrote:

If you do something bad for a benefit to yourself, it's evil. If you do it just for the giggles, that's more chaotic.

Seriously? Hannibal Lecter is CN is your view?

[seiken]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone.

[ossian666]

Quote:

Chaotic neutral represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal. A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Quote:

Chaotic evil is all about self aggrandizement and fulfilling the individuals desires no matter the cost to anyone else. This ranges from the mad monk, who seeks to return insane outer gods so he may rule what is left of the world, to the armored bully, who enforces his will through brute force and intimidation.

Chaotic evil can be charming and urbane, but brooks no resistance to its goals except those imposed by a stronger force. Even then, it schemes to remove the obstruction without any personal sacrifice.

These are the two you are looking at.

Quote:

Lawful evil is the realm of the individual who knows what they want and will manipulate the system (legal, cultural, and so forth) to achieve those ends, no matter the consequence. This can be for personal gain (for example, the traditional evil vizier who seeks to claim the kingdom for himself) or to better society at all costs - the "I know what's best for everyone else"-attitude without any of the compassionate limits to action found in lawful good (an excellant example is Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame).

I'd put him here. He knows what he wants and how to make what he did justifiable to the party and himself. Just my opinion.

[Fromper]

I'd say that what he did is both chaotic (done on a random whim) and evil (he enjoyed hurting someone else). Doing such things regularly would make a character CE. Doing it once deserves a warning from the GM that he could change to CE alignment if it happens again.

But the part that bugs me the most is the "I'm doing this just to spite my ally" part, which violates the first and most important rule of the game: Don't be a jerk.