|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you as a player needs to ask yourself what your purpose in the game is? Are you there to be purposely disruptive? Your character only does what you decide it does. Obviously you are choosing to cause friction in the party, you could also choose not too. You do not have to change your character concept one bit. The character in the movie you referred to never once carried out an act of violence although she caused problems. Your a cross between her and Jason Voorhees the way you describe your actions. I think, personally and given the bad situation you are forcing upon others, you need to rein in the way to choose to play your character. Roleplaying games are a group sport and groups self destruct when you have a person believing the game is all about them and not moderating themselves for the benefit of all players (and the poor GM).
S.
I have to strongly agree with kyrt-ryder on the interpretation of CE vs CN. At least to me a CE person does things just to make things suffer and actually gets enjoyment out of it, CN doesn't. CN is more spur of the moment however that person is feeling which can be something on any range of the alignment spectrum from LG to CE, just depending on their whims.
The OP isn't playing a CE character by MY assessment of the alignment and what their PC has done. It is much closer to CN with hints of Chaotic Stupid. Simple as that, they aren't getting any actual enjoyment out of roasting the innocents, they are just being too trigger happy on a couple of occasions which cause innocents to die (with and without knowing).
The biggest problem with these kinds of threads though is that EVERYONE has their own opinions on the matter and we will all continue to go around and around in circles trying to back up our arguments and that's why I posted in my first post that it should be up to each person's own group to determine the alignments and stay away from the forums as nothing will ever get resolved here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it the lack of remorse is more bothersome than the killing. It is one thing to accidently kill someone but not to be bothered about it is what is evil. A good character would be horrified at what they had just done. The oops I did it again and giggling about it is flat out EVIL. I don't think the original poster actually said that, but that is the impression I get. She did say in the first example she felt bad, but not enough to have a ceremony. Kind of like the person who kills a kid by running over them with a car, and does not even say they are sorry.
This character seems to fit the description of a psychopath. Shallow emotions check, superficial charm check, Irresponsibility check, impulsivity check, lack of remorse check.
I also just noticed the original poster says that she is having trouble both in character and out of character determining what is evil. If that is the case them maybe what she needs is more help with figuring that out than nuanced discussions of the pathfinder alignment system.
Since when has apathy been an evil trait? There are millions of people who just don't care, are they all evil? I was under the impression that the 'norm' was neutral.
I heartily agree with this point of view. If kindness and compassion are good traits and cruelty is an evil trait, then the middle ground is just not caring, i.e. neutral. And has anyone seen the number of characters that many would term villains, but are classified as chaotic neutral? And that's an alignment set by the professionals! Therefore I'm inclined to agree the character is chaotic neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a Sorcerer of high enough level to cast fireball, a bunch of children throwing rocks at you isn't going to be a life-or-death concern for a long time. Surely they could be subdued by another spell you know, such as Grease, Color Spray or Glitterdust. There are other spells that would work too, I just named some staples that it's likely the character had anyway.
It's also my understanding that the children here weren't even possessed, they were readying to attack their captors. I don't think even neutral characters would react that way to an ineffectual attack. It's like claiming self-defense in shooting someone that poked you.
If you're a Sorcerer of high enough level to cast fireball, a bunch of children throwing rocks at you isn't going to be a life-or-death concern for a long time. Surely they could be subdued by another spell you know, such as Grease, Color Spray or Glitterdust. There are other spells that would work too, I just named some staples that it's likely the character had anyway.
It's also my understanding that the children here weren't even possessed, they were readying to attack their captors. I don't think even neutral characters would react that way to an ineffectual attack. It's like claiming self-defense in shooting someone that poked you.
I was under the impression that they didn't learn it was children in there until after the fireball shenanigans happened?
On other hand, if you're so strong that a crowd amount of rocks to the face isn't bothering you anymore, why the hell would you assume it's a bunch of rocks and not, let's say, glamered daggers or a spell you never seen before. An Elemental(earth) bloodline sorcerer could easily change some low level spell to be flying rocks which hurt like crazy?
Maybe because not everything is a CR appropriate encounter. Sometimes frightened children throwing rocks are just that.
Perhaps it would be best to open with a non-lethal incapacitation spell if there is any doubt.
And it sounds like they survived the first volley without any shenanigans, so maybe it was just rocks.
This actually speaks more to me about Lawful vs Chaotic. A Lawful character would do what is culturally expected of him, tell the family, apologize for his crime, and turn himself over to their judgement.
A chaotic character would keep on trucking.
Now, morality would determine how the character FELT about it. A good character would be weeping over the lost life and how they have to focus on their driving and make sure to never do it again. (Maybe even attend the child's funeral to apologize personally and say goodbye.)
A neutral character would shrug, hope they didn't caught, and keep going. They'd try to be a little more careful of course, they don't like killing kids, but it doesn't particularly bother them either.
An evil character would cackle to themselves and start keeping a point tally.
My point is that if she kills the kids and seems to enjoy it that is evil. Notice that I was not saying killing the kids is automatically evil, but enjoying it certainly is. My impression is that she does not intend to change. Your own description of neutral states that they would try to be more careful in the future. If she continues to have the same carelessness about innocents in the future she is starting to slide into evil.
I think everyone on this thread agrees on one thing the character is most defiantly not chaotic good. As I stated in an earlier post she is chaotic neutral with some strong evil tendencies.
|
|
Ultimately due to the grey nature of alignments this doesn't have an easy in-game solution. You need to sit down with the GM and the Paladin player and explain why your character needs to behave this way. Perhaps the Paladin player and you can sort out a reason to stay together. But honestly if you continued this way and I was the Paladin I would either (a) arrest you and hand you over to the local authorities or (b) carry out judgement myself - these are in-game things. The (c) would be retire my Paladin because you have made it too difficult for me to play one.
If I was GM I would need to consider your actions, suggest an alignment shift and then sit down with the Paladin player and see if your new alignment is something they can work with.
My personal opinion is you are taking delight at having the spot light on yourself/character by being a jerk and that you justify this behaviour to yourself as being roleplaying.
S.
it's not character stupidity, it's the player failing to ask questions.
asking "are they hostile?" is a good enough excuse to attack them. even on a good aligned character. though i would consider this character chaotic neutral, or if she was really that innocent and oblivious in her actions, a case could be made for an animalistic true neutral.
it's like Rex,
her actions would have put her deep into chaotic evil territory, but she was so unaware of common morality due to her survival based patterns (akin to a T-Rex) and due to her former life as a slave. she was basically a predatory animal in an unusually tall human body.
but Rex was a relatively insane follower of Rovagug who saw herself more as a beast than a human.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My cents. On the first, no foul. The character did not know, and did not have reason to expect, the wriggling sacks were innocent, and strong reason to suspect they were monsters.
On the second. Morlocks = evil. The adult female and children are also evil. If you leave them alive, they will either die unpleasant deaths, starving or eating each other alive, or they will likely kill more non-evil sentients. Slay them all in a quick, cleaning blast of flame. "Burn the heretic! Kill the mutant! Purge the unclean! " That's my paladin motto ^_^
|
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
I didn't see judgemental anywhere in there. I saw COMPASSION, I saw punish the GUILTY (which by the way is not the same as kill the guilty
The bad guys here are the evil brain things, they are guilty of controlling the innocent children and causing them to be killed.
You still left off punishing the guilty. She most certainly is guilty of murdering innocents. Manslaughter instead of murder, or perhaps negligent homicide. Innocent kids are still dead.
She still has some accountablility to the act.
In my opinion, this is a perfect example of Chaotic Neutral. That seems to be the general consensus here, too.
Yes, the character killed a bunch of children. But they were possessed, and a threat, and it was a mistake. That's the key thing. Sh*t happens. Heck, she could even be Chaotic Good if this was as far as it went.
But the minimal remorse is telling. A Good character would be horrifically torn up about killing multiple children, no matter what the circumstances. It's a seriously awful mistake to make. Heck, even a lot of Evil characters would be upset--especially the Lawful Evil bunch. But like an Evil or Neutral character, this Chaotic Good one very quickly moved on.
Despite what people say, the character did show remorse. The OP described basically a ":/" reaction, though. No serious issues, nor a casual shrug (which would be a definite marker of Evil). Just a kind of, "darn, I messed up". There's no "teehee". But it's still a pretty pathetic way to handle mass infanticide.
I don't think the other characters should try to attack her or anything, but they definitely need to have a long talk. The paladin in particular needs to work on preventing these atrocities. If he fails to make the effort, it's going to show a major lack of care for his duties to protect the innocent, and he might even end up losing his powers.
That being said, OP, try not to make the paladin fall. ;)
Oh, and I just think we should keep in mind that it was a mistake. The OP described the act as a more-or-less reflexive one. OOC, it was essentially deliberate, but IC, I don't see too much wrong with an impulsive character instinctively lashing out when injured.
Heh, "I-C, I don't see".
Of course, it's kind of questionable roleplaying, since the character has a good Wisdom, but whatever. The main issue continues to be how the character handles the aftermath, because the current status is "not so good".
Have a Mark of Justice put on her and give paladin the keyphrase. Upon activation, she can deal only non-lethal damage with all her spells.
I understand that, which is why I said "whatever". A friend of mine likes to roleplay an incredibly low Wisdom, even though her actual score is 12. Me, I like to play the character I rolled. It's a matter of taste.
Though I'll admit I did ask to actually reroll for a lower Wisdom once. That was because a friend had already based a big chunk of her concept on the concept I had, so I couldn't nix my idea without nixing hers as well.
i have a sickly little vampiric nymph girl awaiting approval for an online game this coming sunday.
she has a 16 constitution, which one would think is quite healthy, but the sickly flavor didn't come from her constitution, but the fact she is a fey on a state between life and undeath.
if a 12 wis/14 int PC can be oblivious and a 14 int/wis PC can think with the patterns of a T-Rex.
a 16 Con half-undead fey can be sickly and a 14 int/16 wis/7 cha human inquisitor can be a cute but creepy and completely insane sadomasochistic turnkey and executioner.
|
|
A few points:
Rocks are lethal. If you're not wearing a helmet and body armor and hiding behind a riot or tower shield and people are throwing rocks at you and you don't stop them or run away you will die unless you're lucky enough to go down to a nonlethal hit and your friends slaughter the rock throwers before they can do to you what mobs always do to fallen soldiers, and if you're outnumbered running has worse odds than fighting unless cover is quite close because you can't dodge or shield yourself with your back to the rock throwers.
Sure rocks are lethal to soldiers and regular people.
But this is fantasy. You are an ADVENTURER. The type that goes toe to toe with horrifying monsters of mythology and dragons and such. WIth access to magic like protection from normal missles and magic items of legend(and no so much legend) that normal folks dont have. Something called an armor class that isnt easy to hit, by CHILDREN. And more HP's then your average peasant.
Rocks, thrown by kids arent that much of a threat, nor leathal, to a party of 5th level, at minium since she's throwing fireballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot ignore the stat and justify everything by saying it is role playing. Your stats describe your character and should mean something. If I had a charter with a 6 strength and my concept was a that I was a strong as a mule no GM is going to buy that. The same should also go for having above average stats. If you want to play the dimwit lower your wisdom. Taking the benefits of the stat but ignoring them when it is inconvenient is the same thing as ignoring the penalties of a low stat. That is one reason point buys work better than rolling your stats.
The big problem come when the characters mental stats are higher than the players. With charisma it is probably not that big of a deal, but with Intelligence and wisdom it can create problems. When I am running and a player has a high intelligence or wisdom I give them a bit more information than they ask for.
i have a sickly little vampiric nymph girl awaiting approval for an online game this coming sunday.
she has a 16 constitution, which one would think is quite healthy, but the sickly flavor didn't come from her constitution, but the fact she is a fey on a state between life and undeath.
if a 12 wis/14 int PC can be oblivious and a 14 int/wis PC can think with the patterns of a T-Rex.
a 16 Con half-undead fey can be sickly and a 14 int/16 wis/7 cha human inquisitor can be a cute but creepy and completely insane sadomasochistic turnkey and executioner.
Actually, I would find that to be much more questionable. Mental stats are pretty roleplaying-based, so you can get away with more. Saying you're frail when your stats show that you're the opposite is kind of pushing it, in my book.
EDIT: Okay, this talk is kind of starting to derail things. I've made a thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few points:
Rocks are lethal. If you're not wearing a helmet and body armor and hiding behind a riot or tower shield and people are throwing rocks at you and you don't stop them or run away you will die unless you're lucky enough to go down to a nonlethal hit and your friends slaughter the rock throwers before they can do to you what mobs always do to fallen soldiers, and if you're outnumbered running has worse odds than fighting unless cover is quite close because you can't dodge or shield yourself with your back to the rock throwers.
Sure rocks are lethal to soldiers and regular people.
But this is fantasy. You are an ADVENTURER. The type that goes toe to toe with horrifying monsters of mythology and dragons and such. WIth access to magic like protection from normal missles and magic items of legend(and no so much legend) that normal folks dont have. Something called an armor class that isnt easy to hit, by CHILDREN. And more HP's then your average peasant.
Rocks, thrown by kids arent that much of a threat, nor leathal, to a party of 5th level, at minium since she's throwing fireballs.
UNTILL you realise they weren't children, but mind controlled haflings with levels in ranger/whatever class and Throw Anything feats.
Oh right, they aren't, but they could have been. Knowing rocks don't harm you feels too meta-gamey. I know a bb gun won't directly hurt me if I have a thick jacket on, but I'm gonna get irritated if you keep pointing the barrel at me.
Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.
Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider waiting on the ceiling. When you can fire bombs from your fingers, don't take things at face value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure rocks are lethal to soldiers and regular people.
But this is fantasy. You are an ADVENTURER. The type that goes toe to toe with horrifying monsters of mythology and dragons and such. WIth access to magic like protection from normal missles and magic items of legend(and no so much legend) that normal folks dont have. Something called an armor class that isnt easy to hit, by CHILDREN. And more HP's then your average peasant.
Rocks, thrown by kids arent that much of a threat, nor leathal, to a party of 5th level, at minium since she's throwing fireballs.
This is one of those cases I don't think the "this is fantasy" argument really holds water. Rocks are rocks. They will deal about 1d3 damage per hit, and there are quite a few attackers. In fact, if I were the GM, I'd forget about resolving each attack and just have it an area effect with a Ref save for half damage.
Regardless, rational concern doesn't enter into it. The fireball was a reflexive action, made under the impression that the attackers are evil.
And while I'd also agree that alignment is a pretty personal thing, I have a hard time seeing "I don't like killing innocent children, but the fact that I've done so anyway doesn't really bother me" as anything other than evil. "I don't like" must be understood as "I dislike" if it is to mean that one has any compunctions about it in the first place, and I have a hard time squaring "I dislike doing X" with "it doesn't bother me that I've done X," particularly when X is, in fact, taking innocent life on large scales. Obviously, because alignment is a pretty personal thing, YMMV.
The thing is, the character was fairly bothered. If she keeps sweeping it under the rug, it's gonna turn Evil, but the first few times are just disturbing. It's a Neutral act that may turn Evil if she isn't eventually forced to acknowledge what she's done. Currently, I see her reaction as her being in denial/shock. That still ain't Good, but it's not yet Evil. There was a funeral, after all.
Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider...
I completely agree, and this is another reason the act itself is no more than a horrific accident--certainly not Good, but not Neutral or Evil either. Just a reflexive action to defend the group, with awful consequences.
|
|
UNTILL you realise they weren't children, but mind controlled haflings with levels in ranger/whatever class and Throw Anything feats.
Oh right, they aren't, but they could have been. Knowing rocks don't harm you feels too meta-gamey. I know a bb gun won't directly hurt me if I have a thick jacket on, but I'm gonna get irritated if you keep pointing the barrel at me.
Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.
Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider...
Except did she even remotely wait to assess that? ANY of it? No its been fire first, ask questions second. They could have been all that. OR, conversely, could have been survivors that are children and one adult that defended themseleves as only unarmed children with no training have.....by throwing rocks at whatever comes through the door. Because to THEM, SHE and the party are mind controled people the brain thingies are sending to kill them.
Its called threat assessement. If the door opens and its kids throwing rocks. waiting ONE ROUND to see if its something more isnt too much to ask. Asking party memebers what do they see, goblins or children isnt so much to ask.
And if its bait, rescuing teh children FROM THE dire spider might be in order if you are chaotic good instead of blowing them up. Just saying...
No remorse we agree on. I've seen my own party memeber go from CG to CN(almost NE)given his actions over many levels. There was no way to continue his ways given his actions when they did nothing to show CG.
UNTILL you realise they weren't children, but mind controlled haflings with levels in ranger/whatever class and Throw Anything feats.
Oh right, they aren't, but they could have been. Knowing rocks don't harm you feels too meta-gamey. I know a bb gun won't directly hurt me if I have a thick jacket on, but I'm gonna get irritated if you keep pointing the barrel at me.
Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.
Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider...
Except did she even remotely wait to assess that? ANY of it? No its been fire first, ask questions second. They could have been all that. OR, conversely, could have been survivors that are children and one adult that defended themseleves as only unarmed children with no training have.....by throwing rocks at whatever comes through the door. Because to THEM, SHE and the party are mind controled people the brain thingies are sending to kill them.
Its called threat assessement. If the door opens and its kids throwing rocks. waiting ONE ROUND to see if its something more isnt too much to ask. Asking party memebers what do they see, goblins or children isnt so much to ask.
And if its bait, rescuing teh children FROM THE dire spider might be in order if you are chaotic good instead of blowing them up. Just saying...
No remorse we agree on. I've seen my own party memeber go from CG to CN(almost NE)given his actions over many levels. There was no way to continue his ways given his actions when they did nothing to show CG.
Now, I doubt the sorcerer was opening the door, as living artillery, she's likely behind the frontliners. If my fighter/paladin opens a door, and the first thing that happens is that I see a bunch of projectiles flying of him, probably a defensive reaction and the sound of something against metal armor after we JUST cleared out some evil monsters and are in fact in their domain, no one would appriciate the caster saying "Yeah, I pass on my turn, I don't know what just attacked my tank." or "I go closer to make sure it wasn't more of the monsters we just killed that attacked my friend."
If foresight isn't one's forte, a fireball makes perfect sense when my comrades are attacked by an unknown enemy to me. In hindsight, it was a stupid thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blasting fireballs indiscriminately into rooms of indeterminate threat when the party has received no significant damage may or may not be an evil act...
But it sure as hell is piss-poor resource management. I'd give that caster a good talking to about that if nothing else.
You cannot ignore the stat and justify everything by saying it is role playing. Your stats describe your character and should mean something. If I had a charter with a 6 strength and my concept was a that I was a strong as a mule no GM is going to buy that. The same should also go for having above average stats. If you want to play the dimwit lower your wisdom. Taking the benefits of the stat but ignoring them when it is inconvenient is the same thing as ignoring the penalties of a low stat. That is one reason point buys work better than rolling your stats.
The big problem come when the characters mental stats are higher than the players. With charisma it is probably not that big of a deal, but with Intelligence and wisdom it can create problems. When I am running and a player has a high intelligence or wisdom I give them a bit more information than they ask for.
Of course no DM is going to buy that a character concept of someone strong as a mule with 6 strength. Carrying Capacity, Strength Checks, Attack Rolls, Melee Damage, it all denies the concept.
Meanwhile someone with a high wisdom is perfectly capable of not being 'Wise.' Game rules don't make a high wis = being wise, they make the character have a better chance at Will Saves, Perception Checks, Sense Motive Checks, Concentration Checks as a Cleric, Druid or Ranger, and the spell DCs of one of the aforementioned classes.
Being a ditz doesn't require a low wisdom stat, it requires being a ditz.
Just like there are different kinds of 'smart' which could be represented by a high intelligence score OR ranks in knowledge skills.
Just like a character with a High Charisma could just as easily be 'Charismatic' or 'Terrifying'
The big problem is when DM's try to confuse the 'game' with the 'roleplay.' A player has the right to roleplay his character without the 'game' (stats) getting in the way of that character's personality.
I am less gullible because I will notice people trying to lie to me. I will also spot things that other people miss. I will be more likely to be able to control myself better and not say things that I latter regret. That sounds pretty wise to me. In case you missed what I was saying that is I made my sense motive, I made my perception roll, and made my will save. Wisdom does equal wise.
The reason you get the bonus for the stat is because you are wiser, more intelligent or more charismatic than the average person.
|
|
Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.
Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider...
Even if remorseful in a game with things like polymorph, illusions and the like destroying every town you come across because they may all be doppelgängers seems an extreme approach to take.
|
|
The big problem is when DM's try to confuse the 'game' with the 'roleplay.' A player has the right to roleplay his character without the 'game' (stats) getting in the way of that character's personality.
At least those who played a lot of 2e D&D this is an alien concept. The character generation example in the 2e 'black book' PHB has you generate stats and then use those to describe the character. Mechanical bonuses and the like are sorted out later. So for the old timers stats are the real world representation of your character, the frame work if you will, that you build the basic bits of your character on.
Now I agree that no where in Pathfinder does this idea surface. So I'm not sure you can blame the DM as such rather the concepts of 2e D&D vs PF and what stats mean.
I find the old way easy for imagining my character (example),
Str 16
Int 12
Wis 8
Dex 13
Con 10
Cha 6
Under 2e I would have said really strong, high average intelligence, slightly less common sense than most, nimble, healthy but nothing special, and has issues in social settings.
Under PF I see +3, +1, -1, +1, +0, -2 and any description I choose that may or may not relate to the stats. Hard for me to grapple with this idea.
S.
Stefan, the children/evil halflings were attacking the sorcerer and confirmed to be evil. It's not really the same thing as attacking random villages "just in case". The children were trying to kill the party.
But it doesn't matter if it was a tactically sound decision. The point is that the decision was not made with any of these tactics in mind. It was a reflexive act by an impulsive character who just knew "I'm being injured by evil people". Yes, it's not very sensible, but if you buy that this character is impulsive, you have to buy that he did it on impulse. It's the equivalent of a twitchy guy with a machine gun firing on somebody who...well, throws a rock at him. He's startled, he panics and shoots.
Y'seen Buffy? The third season has a great example of accidental murder. It's not the murder itself that makes the character turn to the dark side, it's how she handles it.
|
Make sure the Sorcerer takes merciful spell on her next feat. That should settle some "Ooops" moments. Again, non lethal damage excess of hp is converted to lethal damage, so maybe not so much. Suggest burning hands/flaming sphere instead of using Fireballs. I tend to be a tad trigger happy myself..probably why I've never played a paladin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stefan, the children/evil halflings were attacking the sorcerer and confirmed to be evil. It's not really the same thing as attacking random villages "just in case". The children were trying to kill the party.
But it doesn't matter if it was a tactically sound decision. The point is that the decision was not made with any of these tactics in mind. It was a reflexive act by an impulsive character who just knew "I'm being injured by evil people". Yes, it's not very sensible, but if you buy that this character is impulsive, you have to buy that he did it on impulse. It's the equivalent of a twitchy guy with a machine gun firing on somebody who...well, throws a rock at him. He's startled, he panics and shoots.
Y'seen Buffy? The third season has a great example of accidental murder. It's not the murder itself that makes the character turn to the dark side, it's how she handles it.
I get what you mean and agree.
What I'm having issue with is the player (not the character) has done this more than once and obviously thinks it's funny. At least the paladin player is not seeming to be sharing in the joke. If the PLAYERS (not characters) agree that these encounters are a good avenue to inter-party roleplaying then more power to them. But if the Paladin's PLAYER (not the character) is becoming frustrated with this behaviour is that fair?
S.
|
Does the paladin(or any other good members of the party) have any particular reason to want to continue working with this sorcereress given her pattern of behavior?
I mean, is there any justification for why a group of people who are ostensibly good would want to keep company with an apparent sociopath whose actions get innocent people killed and takes no measures to change that behavior?
Why should the paladin and the rest of the party suffer such a character's presence?
I've seen(and played) evil characters with more restraint and empathy.
|
|
Knowing rocks don't harm you feels too meta-gamey. I know a bb gun won't directly hurt me if I have a thick jacket on, but I'm gonna get irritated if you keep pointing the barrel at me.
If a kid is aiming a BB gun at me or someone else, my first thought would be that the gun needs to be taken away from him, not to throw a molotov cocktail at him.