In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.
The moral code here is mandatory & proving to be the problem. Probably, for the future, it would be best to tell the cavalier player "Hey, you're about to break your edict."
That would probably prevent or stem these problems in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it's true that players rarely intentionally violate their code, there is a strong tendency for players to interpret their code so that they can do whatever the h*ll they like. "I'm chaotic good, which means it's ok for me to torture bad people because my chaoticness means I have a personal view of what's good and I'm not willing to abide by the generally accepted view that torture is evil." (I have a real chip on my shoulder about chaotic good).
As a ref and a player I have a real problem with people killing helpless foes and, in relation to the original question, I would say it is an evil act as far as the rather tiresome alignment rules go. But not with monsters 'ceasing to exist' when they hit zero hit points. So, if the party you describe had marched off and left the bandits (including the unconscious one, which is therefore likely to consign him to death) I'd not have noticed. Once the Cavalier decided he was going to kill the unconscious one, then I would have started twisting because at that point the unconscious foe somehow becomes a person (and as a PC in the group would have acted as your Alchemist). (As the Alchemist, had things panned out as described, I would never have been willing to travel with the Cavalier again and this event might have brought a campaign to a crashing halt).
In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.The moral code here is mandatory & proving to be the problem. Probably, for the future, it would be best to tell the cavalier player "Hey, you're about to break your edict."
That would probably prevent or stem these problems in the future.
I think thats a better idea, but it removes agency from the player.
The player is confronted with a difficult moral decision(IE, how to handle a group of unconscious bandits) and after he thinks it through and makes a decision, the GM tells him he loses class features if he does that, which is frustrating for a player.
Yes, he has a difficult moral decision and by taking that Order, he is bound to act within the morals of that order or lose the benefits. Paladins face the same problems every day. If a paladin faces something that is only really weak against poison, and they use poison to take said enemy down, they're going to lose their abilities for a period of time, just the same.
There are going to be consequences, if you have a code, no matter what you do, and the player has to accept that and deal with it; or change orders.
So, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. He can still do these things. Nothing in the rules is preventing him. But there are things in the rules that are going to make strong consequences. If he doesn't like consequences, don't play anything with a code that can take away his abilities.
As I noted in another post, Moral distinction between Lethal and Non lethal damage, Lethal damage vs. a non-combatant is an evil act. The moment the bandits became unconscious, they became non-combatants. The Cavalier executing them in the manner that he did, committed an evil act.
My cavalier, Order of the Lion, has executed bandits that were unconscious, but he is LN and banditry is a crime punishable by death in the game. Also no magic had been suggested or encountered before.
*NOTE: no one in the party specifically requested them to be bound and revived for judgment by trial
I know that what i am about to say isn't going to help the OP in his current problem but hopefully it will help him avoid similar problems in the future.
I apologize in advance for any offense, i really don't mean to insult or offend anyone.
@OP
Was there any reason (at all) to have the bandits (or some of them) alive? If not then you always write off the enemies as dead at the end of every encounter, yes i know it doesn't follow the rules and it's metagaming but that way you avoid situations like that.
Would it be silly to ask why you would want to leave a bunch of bandits who just stabbed you alive?
MrSin, I believe the intent was to tie them up and take them to town for trial. This idea was put up by the Alchemist (a churgeon, who had experience as a Magister)
I'd say it's only a bad thing to do, gnomersy. Not necessarily evil. More of a neutral action, than a good or an evil one. Definitely doesn't fall in the "mercy" category, though, especially if there is another option.
We can argue the morality/edict issue until we are all blue in the face. The real issue is that another option was made available in which life may have been spared. Once the option became available, should the Cavalier have taken some time to consider it as a viable option instead of just arguing to fulfill his bloodlust? Here is where the problem with the player lies.
Honestly? Yes, the Cavalier should have. By his edict, if there was an option that would have resulted in something other than death to enemies, then it should have been done. What he did was not merciful, and I do not believe it would fall under just either.
I don't see how the player could argue it as merciful, and without the merciful part or the just part, we're at a problem there.
Regardless of what the DM wishes to do, there's a big neon sign that says this cavalier was in violation of his edicts. It's the DM's choice what is done, but the deed has been done.
MrSin, I believe the intent was to tie them up and take them to town for trial. This idea was put up by the Alchemist (a churgeon, who had experience as a Magister)
Oh I know that, but I don't see many arguments for letting a bunch of unnamed bandits live beyond "its good", nor why "its good". I do however see someone expediting the journey. I've actually had that exact same situation come up before. The big thing was the player's personalities clashed, not their characters. So I'm not sure how much was in common with this. The compromise was to talk with each other out of game to decide what people were comfortable with, which... Could have been better or worse.
It, from what I see, is more merciful to let the magistrates deal out justice for a crime such as banditry. If it's not a death sentence for banditry, in the world, then this what it's coming down to: is it merciful to kill them outright or let them face trial and possibly survive and have the opportunity to reform and maybe not come back to kill.
After all, the magistrates have much more time to research the how & why of the banditry attack. The party has shown they're in no real danger from this bunch, so it's no skin off their noses for letting the bandits live, and in the case of the cavalier, he is honor bound by his edicts to show them mercy. A merciful solution was given, and the cavalier gave it the big ol' middle finger.
This sounds like an instance of player wants to do whatever & F the consequences, and the alchemist character responds appropriately.
no one is obligated to give enemies non-com status just because they passed out, they are enemies until such a time as they prove they are not.
Non-Combatant status begins the moment you are unable or unwilling to defend yourself. Unconsciousness forces this status on the NPCs. Then the PC became the aggressor once he wanted to continue damaging the NPCs. If you wish to argue, look up the legal definitions of assault and self-defense.
He committed an neutral act of aggression. It became evil the moment an alternative became available. My statement was a generalization of combat statuses and few instances vary on a case by case issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with those above that he 1) did not show mercy, and 2) did not act honorably, and should therefore lose his challenge ability.
In addition, I believe he committed an evil act by killing intelligent free-willed beings who posed no threat to anyone (by virtue of being incapacitated) and should immediately lose his "good" alignment, becoming chaotic neutral.
Yes, I'm replying to myself:)
There's a line in the Order of the Sword that I wasn't aware of, "At 2nd level, the cavalier must select one alignment. As long as he maintains the selected alignment, he receives a +2 morale bonus to one saving throw of his choice." In light of that, as a GM, I wouldn't change the cavalier's alignment on the spot. For a character who has game abilities riding on their alignment, I'd be less cavalier about making a change.
The Law-Chaos/Good-Evil Alignment System
I've been playing and GMing RPGs for more than 20 years, and studying ethics for about as long. As a young man, I spent a few years as a missionary, a few years in the military, and a few more years getting a degree in philosophy with a particular emphasis in ethics. I live with an atheist, a Christian, and a Jew, and my two best friends are a cross-cultural anthropologist and a political scientist working on a book about a dilemma in modern environmental ethics. (Four of those five people are also gamers:)
Why am I blathering on about my background? Just to highlight the fact that my next statement is made after two decades of careful consideration, broad exposure to different systems of morality, deliberate study of the world's most respected works of ethics and religion, and a great number of late night debates;
Here are three ways I've found to reconcile myself with the alignment system, and make it work for better games rather than interfering:
Remember that alignment exists as a roleplaying aid.
To me, the most important part of a character's alignment is that it matches the character's behavior. Some players accomplish that by choosing an alignment, then attempting to act it out. Others accomplish that by thinking of a personality or behavior set, then writing down the alignment that seems to fit best. Neither method is superior.
In making characters interesting, believable, and three dimensional, a certain amount of consistency is necessary. (Does Adonis the Adventurous greet strangers heartily, or eye them suspiciously from a distance? Does Diana the Druid prefer to avoid cities, or burn them down?) When there is no consistency of personality, one of two things is usually going on, there really is no character aside from the numbers, or the character is being subverted to serve the momentary desires of the player.
What I really want from a player when it comes to alignment is that they tell me something about their character that I can believe and count on. If a character (or party) always takes prisoners after a surrender, I may write an interesting NPC and have him surrender, interact with the party, adopt their point of view, and become an ally or follower - or lead them to their certain deaths (which they will dramatically escape). If a party always kills foes rather than taking prisoners, I may have them approached by NPCs wishing to hire them for an assassination. My best GMing efforts, if they don't fit the player's behavior, would be entirely wasted and the game would be disappointing for all involved.
So, I talk to my players about their characters, and specifically about their alignment. The answer to "In what way is your character Chaotic Good?" tells me just as much as the answer to, "What is your alignment?" Occasionally, given a player's description, I'll suggest a different alignment than they originally conceived of, but always to make the words fit their character, and not the other way around.
Remember that the game universe differs fundamentally from our own.
In the real world, we can say thing like, "doing evil things doesn't make you evil" but until someone invents an evil-o-meter that can be waved over a person to determine their alignment, we're just theorizing. In the game world, alignment is a real thing, detectable by fairly common means. Everyone's walking around with a pair of indicators on their soul, the point toward law or chaos and good or evil, and where those indicators point is just as real as any other powerful unseen force like gravity or momentum.
While versions and settings differ, the alignment system also coincides with a universe in which there are multiple planes of existence, may of which are defined by alignment and populated by powerful beings such as gods, angels, devils, and demons. These powerful forces are eternal, they're locked in conflict, and they care which team you are working for. Imagine a conservative MP or Senator who votes with the liberal party on all of the bills presented in government, he would soon be dismissed by his party! Or imagine living in a rough neighborhood when the cops come to ask you about gang activity in your area, whether you talk or not, either the police or gangs will see you as an ally, and the other as an enemy.
So, alignment exists, and powerful forces give a damn (or a not-damn) about whose side your actions benefit.
Moral Foundations Theory
Arguments about cultural differences in morality are endemic in both the real world and in regards to the game world. What constitutes lawfulness vs. goodness, or chaos vs. evil is a also a constant question. A group of people conducted some excellent research which attempts to examine the basis of morals across the diversity of cultures. Here's their Wikipedia Entry, the Moral Foundations Homepage, and a fun online quiz.
I consider these moral factors to be matters of the good/evil axis:
- Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
- Fairness/cheating, justice, treating others in proportion to their actions.
I consider these moral factors to be matters of the law/chaos axis:
- Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
- Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation.
- Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
- Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
This division isn't perfect, but it has two great advantages over many other ways of distinguishing the two moral axis from one another. First, the foundations are intentionally cross-cultural. Second, they're written down! Simply by having this in mind, or being able to point toward it when common ground is needed, can really clear up some fuzzy areas.
In addition, I believe he committed an evil act by killing intelligent free-willed beings who posed no threat to anyone (by virtue of being incapacitated) and should immediately lose his "good" alignment, becoming chaotic neutral.This is among the most absurd things I've seen on these boards... He was punishing evil unlawfully. That's, like, the definition of CG.
I disagree with you on three points.
First, I disagree that he was punishing anyone unlawfully. According to the player, "As a knight, he argues it is his duty to hand out sentence. . ." The player was, by invoking rank and duty, claiming law on his side. Now, it's possible that the GM will declare that knights don't have that much authority, but when the actions were taken the player was acting on what believed the law to be.
Second, I disagree that the definition of "chaotic good" has anything to do with meting out punishment. Good will fight against evil, and attempt to prevent harm. Chaos will subvert authority, flout law, and avoid punishment. I'd say "Punishment" is more of a lawful schtick, with just punishments being the domain of LG, and unjust punishments being the realm of LE.
Third, I've seen some truly absurd things in this forum, and I doubt anything I've ever said could compete with the best of them:)
Consider the following story:
A skirmish unfolds, with the PC's victorious. The count at the end is 1 dead NPC, 5 injured/unconscious, 1 merely unconscious, and 1 escaped. PC-1 states he is going to kill the unconscious men. PC-2 says not to kill them, but instead wants to stabilize them and take them to the city guard en route so they can be put on trial. PC-1 claims they don't have enough time. The PC-2 responds that they do and volunteers to stay behind while the Cavalier goes ahead. PC-1 responds that it is unacceptable, and heads towards the first unconscious man again. PC-2 stands in his way. PC-1 refuses further discussion, and instead demands a formal duel. PC-2 reluctantly agrees and sets the terms as 'to submission'. PC-1 beats PC-2 into unconsciousness. He then kills the NPCs, gathers firewood, builds a pyre, and burns the bodies. PC-1 argues that, due to his rank, it was his duty to pass judgement and mete out punishment.
What alignment is PC-1 displaying?
Something I just noticed, Blueluck. Is to unconsciousness within the terms of "to submission" or does that go beyond the terms of the duel? Well, probably directed towards OP, but definitely an odd situation. If the alchemist submitted before the knockout or was given a chance and didn't, then I wouldn't see an issue, but if not...yeesh. This is why I'm really not a fan of Order of the Sword.
"treating others in proportion to their actions." Killing people who have been trying to kill you certainly fits in there. "Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm." Getting rid of a band of murderous thugs is protecting others from harm.
Killing people is harming them, and I would argue that a "good" person needs a reason to do harm, and will generally seek methods other than doing harm. You label the mute enemies as "murderous thugs" and presume that they're in the middle of long carriers as murderers, but the PCs have no way of knowing that without at least awakening one of their six captives, perhaps the uninjured one, and asking what the heck is going on.
Come to think of it, it's entirely possible that the group of "bandits" had never killed anyone in their lives, and that the PCs have a trail of dead left behind them.
On the other hand "Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority." Clearly not respecting legitimate authority in terms of the courts since he took it on his own hands to execute the enemy seems pretty chaotic to me.
The player wasn't trying to subvert law, he was claiming his legal right as a Knight to act as the lawful judge in the situation and to mete out a sentence.
Also betraying your group mate could be considered chaotic as well I guess by that standard.
He didn't betray his mate, he challenged his mate to a duel (aka trial by combat). When he disagreed with his companion, rather than working out their differences, he resorted immediately to the available legal recourse - a dual.
But going to available legal recourse when it puts the whole mission in possible jeopardy, slows the mission down, and could actually put the whole party in a situation where they could get ambushed and be down one person?
It's not exactly a bright move.
Thank you all for an excellent and civil discussion. I'm curious to see what other opinions will be expressed and arguments made, but I won't have the pleasure of reading them until tomorrow, because I'm logging off now. I'm going to shower, change clothes, go to a local club with some friends, and dance the night away to EBM, because tomorrow is my birthday. I'll turn 40 in a few hours from now, and it seems like I should either be celebrating or drowning my sorrows when that happens:)
Cheers
30 was like... so last decade!
EDIT: Happy Birthday Blueluck!
|
Thank you all for an excellent and civil discussion. I'm curious to see what other opinions will be expressed and arguments made, but I won't have the pleasure of reading them until tomorrow, because I'm logging off now. I'm going to shower, change clothes, go to a local club with some friends, and dance the night away to EBM, because tomorrow is my birthday. I'll turn 40 in a few hours from now, and it seems like I should either be celebrating or drowning my sorrows when that happens:)
Cheers
Happy Birthday!
Not RAW BTW, which says that Cavaliers can be any Alignment, but I think that if you belong to an Order, you must be Lawful.
I don't see why a cavlier couldn't be Evil, as long as he was still honorable, and therefor Lawful Evil.
I wouldn't pull real world morality concepts into a fantasy world where you live and die by absolute judgements on Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. Absolute morality may be strictly fantasy, but then, so is this game. Stick to the exact words used in the RAW as to what is Good and Lawful, and what is Evil and Chaotic.
Finally, in regards to "punishment", it's not your call to do anything other than check his Scenario Chronicles for previous voluntary violations of his alignment, and note another one. The Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play{/i] has a detailed review process for excluding characters from the PFS campaign due to wantonly Evil acts, and if you are playing in a PFS sanctioned event, you should follow the procedures in [i]The Guide.
By the way, you should have told the Cavalier that his actions were going to affect his alignment before he did them, so that he could make the decision to "voluntarily" go against his sworn duty. It shouldn't come after the fact.
I think that challenging his "friend", the Cleric, and beating him unconscious was the real Chaotic Evil act in this scenario.
To be Lawful and true to his Order, the Cavalier should have let the Cleric heal the poor bastard, and then challenged the bandit to "Trial by Combat", allowing the bandit a choice of weapons, and the right to go free if he won the single combat, which of course would be "to the death". In any Cavalier's eyes, and in quite a few medieval era courts (just to provide an example, and not saying that your campaign has the same court system), this would be a "Fair Trial", as fair as if by "Jury of Peers".
If you follow a Code or Order, the Code is your Law, and is higher than any other Code or Law that you HAVE NOT sworn to uphold and abide by, and most probably higher than any other Code or Law that you HAVE sworn to uphold. If you violate this Code, you will ultimately lose whatever special powers it might give you. However, you should also consider:
How many Chaotic acts does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?
Not RAW BTW, which says that Cavaliers can be any Alignment, but I think that if you belong to an Order, you must be Lawful.
When they first made them there were arguments that they should require lawful actually. Their orders are also ridiculously skewed towards being a good guy and helping/protecting people. That said, not all of the orders are lawful or good. I prefer to work with players over this sort of thing myself, less trouble down the road sometimes.
Mercy is a good attribute (in this case, also dictated by edict). The party had experienced an encounter where people were magically made to act against their will. The alchemist also offered an alternative in an attempt to save lives. How can:
a) the cavalier willfully execute the NPCs without investigation that a similar occurrence had not occurred here?
b) the cavalier omit this option completely resorting to violence to get his way?
Did the player not READ the description of his order? Only Order of the Lion does a cavalier serve his sovereign without question. Also being chaotic, why would he serve a sovereign as opposed to a personal code of law?
In this ONE/ scenario, the Cavalier acted against his edict and in an evil manner. Explain to the player that:
a) if this is not his first violation of alignment and edict in such a way, that his alignment is now CN and he is stripped of class ability related to his Order and is now of the Order of the Ronin.
b) if this is his first violation, let it stand with the warning/advisement that further actions along the same line will result in the above punishment.
If you don't want the restrictions of a class that follows certain rules, don't be that class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want the restrictions of a class that follows certain rules, don't be that class.
This, above all else, is what either character, player, or both, forgot.
|
Once he brought the issue to his superiors (having written and hand-delivered a full report), I responded that it was 'strike one against the order, since it is considered a merciless act to kill opponents who are already beaten'. It didn't incur any mechanical penalties, so I didn't expect it to be a big deal. He responded with the justifications, and statements about how things actually worked in medival england.
I have my doubts as to whether he really knows that much about medival england, but that doesn't matter so much because this is my own world.
Maybe that was my mistake. I based the world on a book series, the Firekeeper Saga by Jane Lindskold. He has not read those books, and so couldn't have a basis to understand what all the rules were. Am I asking too much to expect that he ask how things work instead of assume he knows?
Anyhow, the general vibe I'm getting from this thread is that he may be acting according to the CG alignment, but not in keeping with the order's edicts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would be getting the correct vibe, Kahina. If he's going to assume, then that's not your fault. Now, if you didn't provide the proper information at any point along the way, then that might get a finger waggle from us, but that's neither here or there.
As far as from a mechanical standpoint, he should have lost the cavalier's challenge ability for 24 hours. I would just point blank sit the player down and tell them what your rules are, in this game, so he doesn't assume and let him know that his action was against his edict, for whatever reasons you feel are appropriate (and from this thread, there's a number of things).
If he continues to assume it's medieval England and not a Firekeeper Saga-like world, then he's going to have to face the harsh reality of what can happen. From the sounds of it, his order is disappointed, and he is skating on thin ice.
Really, it's up to you whether you want to still hit him with the loss, but he needs to learn to respect his order or leave it one.
Really, it's up to you whether you want to still hit him with the loss, but he needs to learn to respect his order or leave it one.
I don't know a thing about firekeeper saga, and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about medieval times(I thought Chevalier were corrupt to be honest.) It might be nice to talk to your player about your expectations.
I would suggest against stating he's on thin ice or using threats or threatening words to get the point across. Think about how you would feel if the DM were to talk to you like that. Calmly explain that its being an issue and come to a compromise. Working with a player can result in a better game for both sides. Threats are totalitarian and not always the best direction, though I don't know you or the player so its very possibly one of the only ways to get things to work sometimes.
I'd say he's within the realm of chaotic good, there. From the sound of it he's not killing out of convenience, but rather doing a bit of cowboy justice. Clearly played out as a Law vs Chaos thing.
As for the Order of Sword, I'd say it's arguably alright. It's really up to you, but I'd say they didn't really 'wrong' him so much as try to murder him and his fellows with swords, not to mention the murder of that messenger.
I really read the 'mercy to those who have wronged him' bit as an edict of not being a petty vengeance seeker over slights and insults not a declaration of having to show mercy to people that tried to kill you. I mean they came at him with a sword, right?
Either way, the player seems to think it's right, so if you decide otherwise, I'd just let him know about it for future reference, and not hit him with any penalties for playing the character the way he thought was right for this particular incident.
Really, it's up to you whether you want to still hit him with the loss, but he needs to learn to respect his order or leave it one.I don't know a thing about firekeeper saga, and I'm not particularly knowledgeable about medieval times(I thought Chevalier were corrupt to be honest.) It might be nice to talk to your player about your expectations.
I would suggest against stating he's on thin ice or using threats or threatening words to get the point across. Think about how you would feel if the DM were to talk to you like that. Calmly explain that its being an issue and come to a compromise. Working with a player can result in a better game for both sides. Threats are totalitarian and not always the best direction, though I don't know you or the player so its very possibly one of the only ways to get things to work sometimes.
I wasn't intending it as a means of threatening OOC, but rather a matter of expressing that IC, the order is not happy with him and continuing to do this is really not endearing him to the order's higher ups. Regardless, though, you have the opinions, and you have your intentions & beliefs. We can only sway so much before you decide where you stand.
However it ends up, we hope there won't be any more PC conflicts for ya.
No, the biggest problem is the cavalier blatantly opposing his edicts. Regardless of alignment issues, this is the only problem I see. Never once in Pathfinder does it explicitly state that a cavalier is the equivalent of a medieval English knight. No assumptions should be made as such either.
Well, crappy DMing or not, the orders can really change it, and the edicts can do a heck of a lot in changing the impression of the cavalier. So, regardless of fault, I do like the suggestion of gnomersy on the limited rewrite and second this as a suggestion.
Only retort in a similar reply to the way I was replied to earlier.
In 3.5, your 'judge' character was a Lawful character. Alignment wise, I'm finding it hard to understand his argue on why he took the 'law' into his own hand and portrayed himself as judge and executioner.
I agree. If the OP is asking for personal opinions then my opinion on it is that if the character has been given authority to mete out executions on unconscious foes for the sake of convenience, the character is being ran as Lawful Neutral. Classic 'Field judge' mentality. Edicts are separate from alignment and the edict of mercy could only be considered appropriate if returning them to a local authority would be a guarantee of a slow painful death regardless of if such things are locally regarded as lawful or good...
If the players are part of the same noble family and of the same rank, we then cannot simply assume that these local laws or family values or edicts or orders are appropriate. The fact that these 2 characters from the same rank and same noble family have a disagreement on whether dispatching unconscious helpless brigands without a trial is considered by the nobles in the area to be 'a good thing', means the disagreeing players are not sure, but both are trying to establish which standard is locally and largely true in the world.
Alignment being subjective as it is, the character or player can believe whatever they want to believe, but the question is who at the table decides what the standard by which the alignments/edicts are measured actually is. Maybe its the DM, maybe its up to table vote. In character its clear that the other player did not defacto hold the same subjective standard of what is good as the cavalier. In this case both players are theoretically trying to 'establish the appropriate moral turf' where their own perceptions are in fact the truth... The question is do we let the players control what 'actually constitutes as lawful or good or chaotic or evil' or are the nuances of those determined by table consensus, or by the gm exclusively.
If I were a player at the table and I were given a vote of what I thought was happening I'd say the player had broke his edict of mercy and should be given at least an initial warning that he's treading the path to an alignment change towards lawful and away from good.
Even if the notion strikes me personally as 'definitely not GOOD'... Maybe dispatching helpless brigands for the sake of convenience is the law and is locally considered to be a good thing... Me personlally I feel like 'doing it for the sake of convenience' may not necessarily be evil but sure isn't good. Its more like wild animals... I mean I'm not killing this animal because i ENJOY it... I'm doing it because i'm hungry and I have to eat and this is what I eat... It may not be right or good but its got to be done and this is how we do things out here in the jungle away from more civilized methods... So by its very nature its "law of the jungle mentality". And the cavalier being so attatched to (and not keen to alternatives about) the fact that dispatching the brigands for the sake of convenience is being awfully more lawful than chaotic about sticking to the mentality of 'doing what has to be done whether its the right thing to do or not' sounds like Lawful tendencies to me. I call lawful neutral on this cavalier. Alignment changes would be in the wind if I had my say... Gnomersy's rewrite suggestion is quite appropriate for that.
The biggest problem seems to be the players not understanding the culture of the world. In medieval England a knight would have the right to act as judge jury and executioner. The problem here is not one of alignment, but rather of communication. When a GM creates a custom world he need to explain it to the players so they can create appropriate characters. Using a published world makes it a lot easier because then the player usually has some source for learning about the world.
When a player creates a character they usually have a concept in mind. If this concept does not fit into the GM's world then it is the GM's responsibility to let the player know. while the cavalier class itself does not necessarily imply and European knight, the order of the sword does. The code of Chivalry which the order mentions is a European code, so when a player chooses that order it is reasonable to assume his concept is that of a European knight. In this case the GM should have modified the orders and informed the players.
My advice to the original poster would be to always look over your players characters. I would even suggest to go as far as having a copy of each character so you don't have any surprises. Since I use Hero Lab to run the game the copy on my computer is the official copy. If the player wants to make any changes or updates they need to send me an updated copy of the character or, update it on my system.
After hearing the justification for the cavaliers behavior I would have him lose his challenge ability for 24 hours. If the setting was a medieval England his character would have the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner as he claimed. But the fact that the alchemist was of equal rank, and having served as a magistrate means that he was better suited to the task. The cavalier's treatment of the alchemist was dishonorable. If you challenge someone of noble rank who is not a knight, they usually have the right to a champion. This is based on the laws and customs of medieval Europe but those are the assumptions the cavalier was operating under.
I'd say he's within the realm of chaotic good, there. From the sound of it he's not killing out of convenience, but rather doing a bit of cowboy justice. Clearly played out as a Law vs Chaos thing.
As for the Order of Sword, I'd say it's arguably alright. It's really up to you, but I'd say they didn't really 'wrong' him so much as try to murder him and his fellows with swords, not to mention the murder of that messenger.
I really read the 'mercy to those who have wronged him' bit as an edict of not being a petty vengeance seeker over slights and insults not a declaration of having to show mercy to people that tried to kill you. I mean they came at him with a sword, right?
Either way, the player seems to think it's right, so if you decide otherwise, I'd just let him know about it for future reference, and not hit him with any penalties for playing the character the way he thought was right for this particular incident.
I agree with this. At most, I might have him lose his challenge ability for 24 hours but I'd most likely let it pass.
But then I don't get most of the alignment system. How is it evil to cast a non-lethal pain spell but perfectly good (or at least not evil) to burn someone to death with a fire ball? it's why I find it best to leave that alignment box blank...
The original situation would probably be dealt with by the Order of the Sword as every organization does when faced with something that might be a threat to them: Sweep it under the rug, stall, and assign blame. Most likely, his superiours will start an investigation into this behaviour, declare him under investigation and not formally acting in the order's name. This is also certainly not under any form of time limit, so actually getting a judgement would in itself cost the character something. The reason this is what would happen is that he chose to beat up the alchemist, who might choose to bring this up in public - they don't know. Thus, the order will act this way exceedingly quickly, because they can then claim that the cavalier is not acting in their name (no risk of further serious incidents), the spectific situation is being dealt with, and the order will have the cavalier very eager to show himself in their good graces.
<@><@> ekk alignment.
Did he follow his Order code: No. No mercy.
Did he follow his alignment: Yes and No.
Yes, in how he original was going to treat the braggard.
No, in how he treated his fellow party member, when said party member gave him a "good" option not to kill the braggard, since said party member wanted to split from party and take the prisoner to jail.
In essence, the player(CG) fought another player(LG), to kill a incapacitated and helpless enemy, when said player(LG), had given him another option, that did not require killing.
anyway, thats how i see it.
Context matters here.
Since the cavalier is noble, he is, in many faux-medieval settings, empowered to carry out justice on commoners. So, in this case he was OK from either lawful or chaotic alignment (Chaotic can choose to obey the law, they just don't have to). As for good, it depends. I would say he ought to have allowed them to bargain for their lives with information if appropriate, or to try to determine if they were mentally controlled. If the crime they committed would have resulted in torture as well as death, then a quick death while unconscious could well be merciful.
Seems like there are couple issues here. There is question of both alignment and of the Order's code and these are both separate issues that should not be confused. Their is also the of the interpretation of the Order's edicts. Perhaps the player should get a new order that he will be better able to roleplay.
Also, the Law/Chaos axis of alignment is not very helpful and is all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system makes this easy.
Good - respects life
Evil - kills for convenience, personal gain, and/or malice
This was definitely the latter: "we don't have time."
Alignment in pathfinder becomes tricky when you try to superimpose real world morality with a sense of ambiguity. Frankly, in this world, we don't know jack about the afterlife. If one exists of the heaven/hell paradigm we certain have no idea of what kind of individuals go where for sure. Thus, how people live their lives today is very, very, very gray.
The world of Golarion doesn't have this problem. The afterlife is very known. The gods are fact. The places after death are facts. Enough history and precedence exists to know what is what and who goes where. This is the light the pathfinder alignment exists with and these questions become very simple with this perspective instead of the one we deal with in life.
Heaven is a place of enlightened and goodly souls. A person who kills prisoners because his schedule would be otherwise inconvenienced does not belong there. What does that make his alignment?