What kind of deity does he follow, and are monsters in your game redeemable or was there a good chance the goblins were going to end up being monsters?
You should probably talk to him about what he thinks his alignment should be and what you think alignment is. It helps to give warnings and talk about things, because sometimes people don't think about actions the same way you do.
Edit: Expectations are a thing. If I just came from a game where looting the knights is actually expected, I won't think too hard about taking them in another unless its hinted that its a bad decision.
|
Sounds lawful neutral to me. Lot of folks don't see killing monsters in any shape as evil or bad though. The looting crypts under the guise of looking for undead is pretty cheesy. I dont know is there a compelling story to your game or is it just hack 'n' slash/monty haul? If the its a dungeon crawler who cares.
Firstly, have you already mentioned this to him? It is extremely unfair to have aligment consequences without warning, as the player may have a different understanding of his actions than yours. Secondly, what god does he worship?
As for your examples,
a) Whilst this action is certainly not comic book good, one could easily argue that freeing the goblins is an act of naivete that will only lead to the death and suffering of innocent people. If anything, killing the goblins is a more 'lawful' act in that it upholds social order at the expense of the individual, where a chaotic good individual may believe the goblins have a right to individual determination (and only if they 'choose' evil should they be struck down), and a neutral good individual may argue that killing in anything but self defense is *always* wrong. A god like Erastil or Iomedae could certainly give justification for the killing of monsters, armed or not.
b) The player was trying to avoid intra-party conflict and meta-gamed an excuse so that the other players wouldn't hate on him OOC. Whilst the act is obviously pretty dodgy, you shouldn't punish players for seeking to avoid intra-party conflict. Perhaps a discussion with a member of his clergy, or even just mention about a graverobbing tragedy
in a local tavern should be more than enough of a guilt nudge.
c) Unless you provide specific encounters, PCs rarely if ever do this kind of thing in-game anyway.
d) Not enough info.
Really, I see this kind of behaviour as disruptive only if you are playing a more roleplay-intensive game. If this a traditional dungeon crawl the behaviour is uncharacteristic of a LG cleric but not enough to warrant punishing the player. Really, you should never be 'punishing' your players. IF he really is acting badly out of alignment, consider having his god talk to him sternly in a dream, but perhaps also another (more appropriately aligned) god whisper to him about the possibility of (mostly) hassle-free conversion, with alignment change bundled. The carrot works better than the stick.
To me, this type of play suggests an alignment shift towards neutral and possibly losing favor from his deity until atonement has occurred.
If his deity is one that accepts Lawful Neutral as an alignment, what is the difference?
Quite frankly, I'd suggest you review the "in a friendly manner" guidelines in the alignment section of additional rules chapter of the core rule book. Don't treat an alignment as a pair of shackles to slap on him.
I'd personally adjust his alignment to whatever 'less good' alignment is acceptable for his deity (Lawful Neutral or True Neutral) on my GM notes and allow the adjustment to be invisible to the player. (if he ever casts detect good... Int check to notice he didn't detect himself)
If he attempts to take a level of Paladin in the future, you might suggest an atonement then (including the specific acts that you think the deity objected to) but as long as he is playing his vision of his character consistently, there is no reason to attempt to insert a high-handed smackdown.
perhaps have him find that his fellow clergy are strangely (+2DC) difficult to sway with diplomacy-based requests if they are aware of his less-than-pious behavior, but let his deity 'punish' him in the afterlife, don't make the game a theological nanny state where the players fear divine requirements for atonement for role-playing.
Not every LG character has to be Clark Kent. While I agree that "the ends justify the means" is not a LG attitude, in my opinion -based soley on the examples you have given- you've not provided enough evidence to claim that this accureately expresses his character outlook.
b) is certainly not evil in any way shape or form. The paramaters of the afterlife are clearly defined in pathfinder, and a knight does not need his armor or any of the belongings he is buried with. Looting is fine. The dead aren't using their equipment, why shouldn't those who fight evil make use of it? The only reason is that it goes against local custom. In other words: it's a chaotic act, but NOT an evil one.
c) Do you consider yourself to be a good person? Do you donate large sums of your personal income to those starving in sub-saharan Africa? No? Well then don't punish your player. Failing to help the poor does not make you evil in a conventional morality, nor is it incompatible with a lawful stance.
If you wanted to change his allignment, then I'd see him slipping slightly towards chaos rather than slipping towards evil.
"The ends justify the means" is, to me, what a chaotic alignment is all about. A lawful character holds proper procedure in highest regard.
"The ends justify the means" is, to me, what a chaotic alignment is all about. A lawful character holds proper procedure in highest regard.
And yet, often lawful-neutral 'grey guard' type characters or lawful-evil villains (including devils) are very much ends-justify-means themed. A brutal dictator who enforces his iron rule so that his country may stand resolute against external invaders is a very typical lawful-evil stereotype (see Cheliax, kinda).