At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?
I have a chaotic good gnome merchant PC whose player thinks that constantly lying (chaotic) to and swindling innocent NPCs out of their money (seems evil to me...) falls within his alignment because, in his words, "the alignment system is a broad spectrum," and the other good he does outweighs this.
With that said, he's a level 1 character who hasn't really performed any good deeds yet. I'm running Rise of the Runelords, so when
Keep in mind, the PCs are now renowned in town and DO receive benefits from helping to save the town... if they were to actually treat the town and NPCs as living things, not as a backdrop for their story. That's a separate problem that I'm dealing with and trying to work out.
Anyway, later on, when the sheriff asked the party to accompany him to the tomb to investigate the disturbance, he demanded that he be paid upfront without even knowing what the encounter would involve. Those of you who have run this know that this is hardly a dungeon crawl or cryptwalk, but merely a short little investigation encounter.
While I agree that there is a broad spectrum of acts that one might take that can be considered good or evil, and some falling further into the gray area than others, it certainly seems to me like he's really not willing to play the 'good' part of chaotic good thus far.
Can anyone offer some hints or clarification? Am I justified in changing him to chaotic neutral? When I tried to bring it up outside of the game, as I mentioned earlier, he just argued with me.
And, thanks in advance for any tips or opinions offered. I know I've been posting a lot on these boards lately asking for advice and pointers when it comes to GM and the help I've received so far has been invaluable to me as I take on the role of GM for my group of players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is his PC a class where his alignment matters? If not, just let him have CG written on his paper, and you're free to consider him NE (the "looking out for self-interest" alignment) in your mind.
I agree with you that his PC isn't acting CG, but I've never seen an alignment debate end well.
I mostly agree with Craig Bonham 141.
To me, morality is both absolute and relative, everything is valued in how it affects the (unwilling) subjects of an action and why you're doing it.
Good actions are those in which you pay the price for someone else's happiness. E.g. battling a monster to save peasants without expecting a reward or giving a poor person money.
Neutral are those in which it rather evens out. Others dont pay a (relevant) price for your benefit and vise versa. E.g. battling a monster for a reward (known beforehand) or stealing from the very rich, who could spare it.
Evil are those in which you make others pay a (significant) price for your benefit. E.g. letting the monster eat the peasants for your amusement or stealing from the very poor.
If a PC performs a significant action with a certain intent and sufficient knowledge of the probable consequences, I usually note down one or more plus or minus points. on a scale of 1-100, 1 being absolute evil, 100 being absolute good and ~30-60 being neutral. I inform them when their alignment is nearing a 'border'.
You can have any alignment you want (I've run enough evil campaigns), it will just have consequences on how people will react to you (and some spells and items but thats another matter).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty obvious he is CN at the very least.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that alignments are absolute. An Evil character will NEVER do anything good with good intentions, nor will a Good character ever do anything evil with evil intentions.
Kicking a puppy and then giving a homeless man a gold piece doesn't mean you're still good. That's you trying to delude yourself into thinking you're a good person.
You need to explain this about alignments to your player (as nicely as possible):
They are objective and absolute. Choosing G/E or L/C is not just leaning one way. It is you representing that alignment and fully rejecting the opposing alignment. If you are neutral, then you don't dedicate yourself to that philosophy. If you are not neutral, then you are required to act accordingly to your alignment to the best of your abilities, otherwise your alignment needs to change.
It's pretty obvious he is CN at the very least.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that alignments are absolute. An Evil character will NEVER do anything good with good intentions, nor will a Good character ever do anything evil with evil intentions.
Kicking a puppy and then giving a homeless man a gold piece doesn't mean you're still good. That's you trying to delude yourself into thinking you're a good person.
You need to explain this about alignments to your player (as nicely as possible):
They are objective and absolute. Choosing G/E or L/C is not just leaning one way. It is you representing that alignment and fully rejecting the opposing alignment. If you are neutral, then you don't dedicate yourself to that philosophy. If you are not neutral, then you are required to act accordingly to your alignment to the best of your abilities, otherwise your alignment needs to change.
THIS. And yes, this is exactly what I tried explaining to him, and he came back with the bit above, going on about how alignments are nebulous and malleable. I pointed out to him that someone with a good alignment will, almost always, put themselves in harm's way if it means someone else will benefit. Being good means acting like a hero, in my book, but he doesn't seem to agree.
The English language itself might actually be a problem in this case. 'Good' has wayyy too many meanings and nuances. 'Good vs Evil' might better be defined as 'Altruistic vs Sociopathic' or 'Virtuous vs Vile'
It's pretty obvious he is CN at the very least.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that alignments are absolute. An Evil character will NEVER do anything good with good intentions, nor will a Good character ever do anything evil with evil intentions.
I agree and an evil person will 'commit' good acts in order to disguise himself/herself as being not evil, but acts evil as soon as he/she thinks he/she can get away with it.
For a good person to act evil for the greater good may be possible but will be questionable at best. Sacrificing yourself for the greater good is a good act, but sacrificing someone else is questionable at best.I like to think of alignment in the way that is is as good as the worst act someone willingly and knowingly commits. Like the weakest link of a chain will determine the strength of the chain.
Kicking a puppy and then giving a homeless man a gold piece doesn't mean you're still good. That's you trying to delude yourself into thinking you're a good person.
I agree following the weakest link of the chain explanation.
You need to explain this about alignments to your player (as nicely as possible):
They are objective and absolute. Choosing G/E or L/C is not just leaning one way. It is you representing that alignment and fully rejecting the opposing alignment. If you are neutral, then you don't dedicate yourself to that philosophy. If you are not neutral, then you are required to act accordingly to your alignment to the best of your abilities, otherwise your alignment needs to change.
A neutral alignment in the way of good or evil suggests a will for balance in the universe and the willingness to maintain a balance between both alignments.
The neutral in the Lawful/Chaotic axis explains what means your character thinks are available to him/her. With neutral being again a balance between strict Law and personal freedom (selfishness).I'd say that a neutral character would try to act without upsetting the balance as it currently is, guided by the means available to that character. So stealing for your own good would be evil unless you'd steal something back that was stolen from yourself. it would also be chaotic in nature so a neutral character might do this from time to time as well as calling the authoroties on other occasions. A chaotic neutral character would look after himself/herself without trying to seriously harm others. So a little lie would be possible, as well as a small good act (Did you eat my pie? No...... Now look what I got on sale at the bakers today 2 pies for one. I will share them with you since someone ate yours yesterday). It doesn't mean someone will tally a score counter as long as his/her action generally even out each other to neutral. Also neutral characters will be persuaded easyer to accept surrender and/or a ransom in order to let prisoners go on their way. A good person would like to bring them to justice while an evil person would rob them blind and then ransom them using severed bodyparts as leverage in order to get paid more/faster and not stick to the bargain in the process (off course a real intelligent evil character would stick to the bargain and let the ransommed prisoners go, because if they get back on their feet, you're able to rob them again).
Chaotic means you are whimsical. Basically your attitude towards structure and what is deemed "fit". But Good means he is always thinking of others, he cares about the innocent and is willing to make sacrifices for the "greater good".
I think its fine that he asked for money for protecting the village. Being good doesnt mean you are opening a charity. -But- as a good aligned he would be going to help the sheriff without being paid up-front(although he can still ask for payment afterwards).
Honestly you should set up exactly what you feel each alignment actually is and make it well defined. That way your PC's can make educated decisions on what alignment they truely want.
For mine i dont allow Evil alignments in general because evil is well... Evil. Generally it is saved for campaign villains and the such.
Neutral (between Good and Evil) means you do not see anything as right or wrong, but as hundreds of shades of grey. As such you are not particularly drawn to doing the "right thing" or even doing the "wrong thing". But the smart thing, what a person feels is the correct and beneficial decision.
Good means you care about the innocent. Do all in their power to respect and protect life and believe that all life has its own dignity.
Lawful. Pretty simple, you believe in the law. Whether it be from your land or someone elses. The local law is always the right course of action. Regardless of good/evil alignment you believe the law itself is absolute and the right(right with accord to your respective alignment) thing to do.
Neutral (between Lawful and Chaotic) means that you have common moral standings. Or the ideals of a peasant. You respect the law as it is but know that some are unjust and can or should be bent. While you do abide the law just like a common citizen you also dont view it as edict and have your own opinion or personal law on what is right and wrong.
Chaotic. Basically you detest being told what to do by a higher power. You feel that respect and authority are not to be forced upon you but earned. And in general those random people in positions of power did not earn respect in your eyes. Since they do not have your respect you more or less ignore what they say and play by your own rules.
Those are my main outlines for alignment and thats what everyone chooses from when i DM. Having these written and stated helps players pick the correct alignment for their characters. But a bit of fair warning. Do -NOT- make neutral too general. Being Neutral does not mean you get to do whatever you want and act like an asshat all the time. Just like any other alignment it has its restrictions and rules. Neutral is -NOT- a get out of jail free card for alignment disagreements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?
I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.
Then you must have some really mature players in your group. Thats simply not possible for mine. I run mine with 9 other players of varius ages, some as younh as 14 some as old and 25. Yet i wouldnt doudt one of them would purposely ruin campaigns if they didnt have to follow alignments. Alignments help keep stupidity to a minimum. Dont know about other groups but if the issue even had to come up then it obviously means that group isnt mature enough to play without them.
At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.
Does this mean you remove all spells, abilities, and classes that rely on alignment? Seems like you'd gimp the game (or unbalance it quite a bit) if you toss out alignment completely.
And to the rest of the posters in this thread: can you guys talk to my player for me? I tried explaining the consensus rules on alignment and how I want to run it and he remained obstinate. :P
The thing about alignment is, as GM you have more control over what this aspect of a character means than any other statistic.
You need to decide what alignment means and clearly explain that to your players. Is poison use always evil? Is it evil to torture a demon for information that prevents the suffering of others? Is it evil to let a child die if a kingdom will be saved?
Once you can clearly answer questions like that, and explain in brief what Alignment means in your game, then your game will improve.
Then you must have some really mature players in your group. Thats simply not possible for mine. I run mine with 9 other players of varius ages, some as younh as 14 some as old and 25. Yet i wouldnt doudt one of them would purposely ruin campaigns if they didnt have to follow alignments. Alignments help keep stupidity to a minimum. Dont know about other groups but if the issue even had to come up then it obviously means that group isnt mature enough to play without them.At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.
Alignment isn't necessary to keep everyone in line. I've found trouble makers will be trouble makers with or without alignment. I do have a small list of things that I just don't allow in my games(like killing children, mass summons/army in battle, or PvP). The idea that alignment keeps people is a little fallacious, at least in my experience. Without it I rarely have people run amuck and go on killing sprees or kill each other or anything. Immature people will be immature though, and I've had my fair share of 12 year old necromancers. That's another set of advice altogether.
Another advantage is mechanically you can do whatever you want with what was once aligned. Such as allowing smite to work on anyone or paladins of all sorts of ideals without having to worry about what you set people up against. I love being able to set people up against angels and Aeons and Inevitables without having people feel screwed out of their class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean you remove all spells, abilities, and classes that rely on alignment? Seems like you'd gimp the game (or unbalance it quite a bit) if you toss out alignment completely.At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.
It just requires a change. I replaced smite evil/good with smite heathen and detect with detect enmity and protection from evil with protection from Enemy. The thing is since your mostly set against evil foes as good guys you really don't change that much when you do that. The game isn't that dependent on alignment and there are a dozen ways to handle it and I chose to have quiet a few houserules to make the game open to a variety of ideals for each character along with removing alignment. Just stripping out everything related to alignment is one option, but I chose to go the opposite and open up alignment so that they're treated as non specific. Results may vary. I once had a CG paladin of the brew who was a dwarf obsessed with alchohol who had a ton of fun, and another time I had a straight LG paladin who was like every paladin you'd normally play with, even had a LG deity. Its what I have the most fun with so I use it, but I have a long list of houserules because of it, but the general geist gets by that aligned spells are no long alignment specific, and your much more freed up to do what you want without worrying about alignment.
At the risk of starting an alignment thread flame war, what is a good way to handle players who you as GM think are acting out of alignment?I throw out alignment. Easiest way to handle it for me is just not to use it.Does this mean you remove all spells, abilities, and classes that rely on alignment? Seems like you'd gimp the game (or unbalance it quite a bit) if you toss out alignment completely.
And to the rest of the posters in this thread: can you guys talk to my player for me? I tried explaining the consensus rules on alignment and how I want to run it and he remained obstinate. :P
You are the the DM of this session right? Well that basically answers that. When the rules start to run into grey areas its up to the DM to decide how it goes. If thats your rulling then its final. He can disagree all he wants but it isnt his campaign. Its yours. While a good DM talks and tries to meet a common ground with their players it isnt always possible.
Absolutely have the world respond...
Eventually swindled npcs will wise up, perhaps hiring the local lawful good paladin to confront the PC and ask him to do right before turning him in....
Boundaries and consequences are important.
I'll make sure the party paladin's player (he's new to P&P RPG in general, but excited to be playing) understands the paladin would absolutely not put up with this behavior from one of his cohorts. PERFECT.
Absolutely have the world respond...
Eventually swindled npcs will wise up, perhaps hiring the local lawful good paladin to confront the PC and ask him to do right before turning him in....
Boundaries and consequences are important.
It's always a nice wake-up call when the NPC paladins get to smite players. Even the most obnoxious players realize you mean business at that point. Alignment conflicts are about player-versus-DM power, and you really can't afford to let that slip too far.
Another way to tackle is through the party's divine caster, if they have one. If that character is following a good-aligned faith, and they are allowing this miscreant to operate on their side, they could get a warning from their church, or directly from their deity if you are so inclined. Ignore at your own peril - allow evil to happen on your watch and those spells are gone until you atone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment does not impede your actions at all. The actions you take determine your alignment; your alignment does not determine actions you take.
Wrong: "I'm (alignment), so I do this."
Right: "I do this, so I'm (alignment."
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.
His lying/stealing merchant activities are evil, albeit minorly (nobody's getting physically hurt or killed). His demands for payment just mean he's greedy, which isn't really anything re: alignment.
Simply start slowly (SLOWLY) shifting his alignment towards what you think he is. This is not a big deal; alignments are supposed to shift from time to time, because people change viewpoints over their lives.
People around him will react to the character's actions, not his alignment. If someone discovers that he's a dishonest merchant, they'll tell people. If his demands for payment are too rude or too high, people will simply refuse to do business with him.
My real advice, though, would be to throw alignment out of the game en toto.
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.
Maybe you misunderstood my post. I know that I have to take into account all actions by the player when considering his alignment, however this player has done no 'good' deed thus far, as explained in my post, other than killing some goblins, an act of self defense. My post really was directed towards the handling of a player saying he is one alignment (in this case, CG) and acting differently (at my table, I consider his actions to be CN "at best") than what is expected of that alignment.
Anyway, my CG Cleric of Sarenrae PC and LG Paladin of Iomedae PC will have plenty to say to him in order to keep him in line the next time we get together. :D
Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. This thread has been pretty active and has given me lots to think about it. At any rate, feel free to keep the discussion going because this has been invaluable to me thus far.
Cheers. :D
Alignment does not impede your actions at all. The actions you take determine your alignment; your alignment does not determine actions you take.
Wrong: "I'm (alignment), so I do this."
Right: "I do this, so I'm (alignment."
I agree to this, but that has consequences. For instance not realising that every NPC perceives someone as evil, while he started the game being good and mistakenly still thinks he is
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.
I disagree: A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and trying to wipe willfull evil deeds by performing good deeds to compensate is definitively evil.
His lying/stealing merchant activities are evil, albeit minorly (nobody's getting physically hurt or killed). His demands for payment just mean he's greedy, which isn't really anything re: alignment.
On the contrary: Not killing his victims so that he can rob them again is very evil indeed
Simply start slowly (SLOWLY) shifting his alignment towards what you think he is. This is not a big deal; alignments are supposed to shift from time to time, because people change viewpoints over their lives.
People around him will react to the character's actions, not his alignment. If someone discovers that he's a dishonest merchant, they'll tell people. If his demands for payment are too rude or too high, people will simply refuse to do business with him.
My real advice, though, would be to throw alignment out of the game en toto.
What you mean is that the DM starts tracing someone's alignment instead of the player trying to act within his chosen alignment. That's an interesting vision and not one I oppose, but I would announce such a change in gameplay as a GM and not ambush my players.
I am not saying you would do that Zhayne, but merely stating my opinion. And may I add that I really like your out of the box thinking here, I might use this in the near future. So thank you :)
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.I disagree: A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and trying to wipe willfull evil deeds by performing good deeds to compensate is definetly evil.
Everyone knows that the one time you J-walked far outweighs the many good deeds you've done in your life. Evil is just that heavily weighed on your soul in the eyes of your gods. No amount of good can ever remove the stain from your very soul!
Seriously, don't be the jerk DM who ignores the majority of the good deeds the player has done in his life. How much you weight every action is up to you, but the idea evil weighs heavier is a personal philosophy, and may not be one people agree with, and can be even be taken as an insult when you really do overlook the good deeds done(confirmation bias is the term I believe, and its one you fall into innocently sometimes).
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.I disagree: A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and trying to wipe willfull evil deeds by performing good deeds to compensate is definetly evil.Everyone knows that the one time you J-walked far outweighs the many good deeds you've done in your life. Evil is just that heavily weighed on your soul in the eyes of your gods. No amount of good can ever remove the stain from your very soul!
Seriously, don't be the jerk DM who ignores the majority of the good deeds the player has done in his life. How much you weight every action is up to you, but the idea evil weighs heavier is a personal philosophy, and may not be one people agree with, and can be even be taken as an insult when you really do overlook the good deeds done(confirmation bias is the term I believe, and its one you fall into innocently sometimes).
I agree that one misstep doesn't make your 'soul' black as hell. But I did add the word 'willfully' and that does count heavily. And if you want to be good you'd have to right your wrongs in order to be considered good again.
Remember that racists are only being evil to a certain group and can be really civil against everyone else. Hitler was very civilised with people he shared passions with (like certain music) and seriously tried to be good to the German people (as long as they weren't jewish, communists or against him) and the fact that he also performed many good acts doesn't make him good or even neutral.
What ambush? That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. You don't roleplay an alignment, you roleplay a character. The Pathfinder OGC expressly says that the DM is the person who determines a PCs alignment.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation"
And, to put it simply, I disagree with pretty much everything you say. The idea that you can't do good deeds to wipe away evil deeds means there is no such thing as redemption; once you're bad, you can never change your ways. Ludicrous.
'Not killing people is evil' ... now that's just retardulous. Are you seriously suggesting it's more evil to skim a few coins off the top over stabbing someone? A minor inconvenience of paying too much for a product over getting murdered? Sorry, no comprendo.
Me, I put 'saving the town from goblins' as more good than 'being a dishonest merchant' is evil. To grab arbitrary numbers, I see that as, say, a +3 vs a -1. Net +2.
Your player is right in that you have to take the all the character's actions into account; someone who does far more good than evil will have a good alignment.I disagree: A chain is as strong as it's weakest link and trying to wipe willfull evil deeds by performing good deeds to compensate is definetly evil.Everyone knows that the one time you J-walked far outweighs the many good deeds you've done in your life. Evil is just that heavily weighed on your soul in the eyes of your gods. No amount of good can ever remove the stain from your very soul!
Seriously, don't be the jerk DM who ignores the majority of the good deeds the player has done in his life. How much you weight every action is up to you, but the idea evil weighs heavier is a personal philosophy, and may not be one people agree with, and can be even be taken as an insult when you really do overlook the good deeds done(confirmation bias is the term I believe, and its one you fall into innocently sometimes).
I agree that one misstep doesn't make your 'soul' black as hell. But I did add the word 'willfully' and that does count heavily. And if you want to be good you'd have to right your wrongs in order to be considered good again.
Remember that racists are only being evil to a certain group and can be really civil against everyone else. Hitler was very civilised with people he shared passions with (like certain music) and seriously tried to be good to the German people (as long as they weren't jewish, communists or against him) and the fact that he also performed many good acts doesn't make him good or even neutral.
And, thread Godwinned. We win.
No, Hitler did not perform sufficient good deeds to overcome killing millions of people. We all acknowledge this. What's your point?
I agree that one misstep doesn't make your 'soul' black as hell. But I did add the word 'willfully' and that does count heavily. And if you want to be good you'd have to right your wrongs in order to be considered good again.
Redemption/confession or bust is again a personal opinion. "You forgot to admit you J-walked one time. Your so evil!" is a little extreme.
What ambush? That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. You don't roleplay an alignment, you roleplay a character. The Pathfinder OGC expressly says that the DM is the person who determines a PCs alignment.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation"
And, to put it simply, I disagree with pretty much everything you say. The idea that you can't do good deeds to wipe away evil deeds means there is no such thing as redemption; once you're bad, you can never change your ways. Ludicrous.
'Not killing people is evil' ... now that's just retardulous. Are you seriously suggesting it's more evil to skim a few coins off the top over stabbing someone? A minor inconvenience of paying too much for a product over getting murdered? Sorry, no comprendo.
Me, I put 'saving the town from goblins' as more good than 'being a dishonest merchant' is evil. To grab arbitrary numbers, I see that as, say, a +3 vs a -1. Net +2.
Someone who insists on payment to rescue a town from goblins isn't good-aligned - he's a mercenary doing a job. Perfectly fine example of a neutral alignment. The vast majority of adventurers will probably fall in that bracket.
Someone who insists on payment to rescue a town from goblins isn't good-aligned - he's a mercenary doing a job. Perfectly fine example of a neutral alignment. The vast majority of adventurers will probably fall in that bracket.What ambush? That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. You don't roleplay an alignment, you roleplay a character. The Pathfinder OGC expressly says that the DM is the person who determines a PCs alignment.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation"
And, to put it simply, I disagree with pretty much everything you say. The idea that you can't do good deeds to wipe away evil deeds means there is no such thing as redemption; once you're bad, you can never change your ways. Ludicrous.
'Not killing people is evil' ... now that's just retardulous. Are you seriously suggesting it's more evil to skim a few coins off the top over stabbing someone? A minor inconvenience of paying too much for a product over getting murdered? Sorry, no comprendo.
Me, I put 'saving the town from goblins' as more good than 'being a dishonest merchant' is evil. To grab arbitrary numbers, I see that as, say, a +3 vs a -1. Net +2.
Again, big picture, all his actions, the whole character. He saved the town from goblins. That's all that matters. THIS ONE ASPECT of his personality may be a 'perfectly fine example of a neutral alignment', but you have to take the whole thing into account, not just zoom in on one thing, no matter how blatantly the character displays it.
Someone who insists on payment to rescue a town from goblins isn't good-aligned - he's a mercenary doing a job. Perfectly fine example of a neutral alignment. The vast majority of adventurers will probably fall in that bracket.Again, big picture, all his actions, the whole character. He saved the town from goblins. That's all that matters. THIS ONE ASPECT of his personality may be a 'perfectly fine example of a neutral alignment', but you have to take the whole thing into account, not just zoom in on one thing, no matter how blatantly the character displays it.
To add to this, in a big picture it could be that he does in fact need money for upkeep, to support his family/friends/adventuring, and to you know, not starve to death... In fiction when you do it for free sometimes you just get the thanks for free, so that's easily overlooked, but asking for money for a job(especially that risk ones life) isn't really instantly neutral aligned. Now if you said pay me or I do nothing and watch the goblins over run the town, that could be seen as pretty cold hearted and be completely neutral.
What ambush? That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. You don't roleplay an alignment, you roleplay a character. The Pathfinder OGC expressly says that the DM is the person who determines a PCs alignment.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation"
And, to put it simply, I disagree with pretty much everything you say. The idea that you can't do good deeds to wipe away evil deeds means there is no such thing as redemption; once you're bad, you can never change your ways. Ludicrous.
That's not what I said: I stated that in order to redeem yourself you'd have to correct your evil acts. And that doesn't mean confessing, it means correcting your act by apologising to someone you wronged and if you stole from them return or reimburse someone.
'Not killing people is evil' ... now that's just retardulous. Are you seriously suggesting it's more evil to skim a few coins off the top over stabbing someone? A minor inconvenience of paying too much for a product over getting murdered? Sorry, no comprendo.
I did not say not killing is evil, but I said that the motive behind the not killing does not have to be good.
Me, I put 'saving the town from goblins' as more good than 'being a dishonest merchant' is evil. To grab arbitrary numbers, I see that as, say, a +3 vs a -1. Net +2.
And I could easily state that your character was merely trying so save his own ass and still remains an dishonest merchant. And while I believe that being evil as a dishonest merchant is less bad then a murderer I would not think of this character as good, likely evil and possibly neutral.
asking for money for a job(especially that risk ones life) isn't really instantly neutral aligned. Now if you said pay me or I do nothing and watch the goblins over run the town, that could be seen as pretty cold hearted and be completely neutral.
Yup, I'd go more with:
Good - Asked for whatever payment they felt the townspeople could afford, and did it for free if they were absolutely penniless and starving.
Neutral - Asked for their standard fee, but is probably willing to bargain to a degree rather than lose the job.
Evil - Asked for every last penny he could gouge out of the townspeople, took all the weapons from the town armory for his group to kill the goblins with, headed off into the hills, and then told the goblins the town is now completely undefended. Oh, and probably came back afterwards to loot whatever is left on the charred corpses. And *then* tracked the tired goblins down to their camp to kill them too.
AGAIN: You have to look at the whole picture, not just one example, not just one situation. Plus, we don't know what the character will do in the future; there simply isn't a large enough sample size to make an informed decision.
Intention doesn't matter; what you do matters. Did you save a bunch of people from goblin raiders? Yes? Then that's good. Whether you did it because you wanted to get paid, because you're a gloryhound, or because you felt it was the right thing to do doesn't matter. Motive doesn't matter; actions do.
Before you try to dispute that, remember ... Hitler had the best of intentions.
AGAIN: You have to look at the whole picture, not just one example, not just one situation. Plus, we don't know what the character will do in the future; there simply isn't a large enough sample size to make an informed decision.
That's possible, but I wouldn't think about the lying and the stealing as a good start.
Intention doesn't matter; what you do matters. Did you save a bunch of people from goblin raiders? Yes? Then that's good. Whether you did it because you wanted to get paid, because you're a gloryhound, or because you felt it was the right thing to do doesn't matter. Motive doesn't matter; actions do.
Before you try to dispute that, remember ... Hitler had the best of intentions.
Ah you got me there, he had good intentions.
I agree that actions speak louder then words, but I do feel intention matters as well. If a character saves a village from goblins in order to raid it himself, i wouldn't agree with the saving the village being a good act. But as you said, maybe we do not have enough information yet.
Ehm.... we might be getting off topic and possibly entering the first stages of a flame war. Godwin's law was already invoked, which is never a good sign.
No matter how we define alignments, it is always the DM's prerogative how to interpret it; it is his or her world in which he or she determines the way NPCs, and possibly the laws of the universe itself, interpret and value actions, intentions, consequences and ultimately, alignment itself.
The question was how to deal with a (disruptive) PC whose actions and viewpoint on alignment differ from those of the DM.
I don't think we are on the verge of a flamewar and I don't think Zhayne is either. We were having a nice discussion and were disgreeing on several issues, as well as agreeing on several points of view.
And call me stupid but, what is Godwin's law, because I have never heard of that???
The question was how to deal with a (disruptive) PC whose actions and viewpoint on alignment differ from those of the DM.
The thing is, do their views differ enough that the majority of character actions would belong to another alignment, or just enough that some actions would.
Intent does matter as well, as taking the rulebook text: Good will make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral may help them, but is less willing to make a sacrifice to do so.
So (using our admittedly isolated example) saving the village with the intent of getting paid is more of a neutral thing. Saving it because you believe in saving the people, and any money gained is incidental, is closer to good. That ought to be fairly easy to map onto the full range of the character's activities, and as long as you go by the definition of "making a sacrifice" I'd hope the GM and player would agree on where the character's actions place them overall.
Someone can save hundreds of lives, but if they only doing it because they got paid, and were not in any real danger, then it probably makes that a neutral action even though it "did good". If we go by the book.
A millionaire feeding a few starving families isn't really sacrificing anything, the money is a drop in the ocean to them. Now, if they donated half their fortune to house the poor that's another matter.
If it's truly a borderline case, then I'd suggest the GM purposely gives the character some clear-cut decisions to make that will help place their alignment. For example, put a family in a life-threatening situation that the character would have, say, a 50/50 chance of getting badly injured (although not killed*) in, and no sign of any reward for helping. A Good character ought to be leaping in there and saving them.
* I left that in purposely because some Good characters may believe their own death would result in far less Good being done in the future, and possibly justify the risk being too great.
Obviously you can't go by a single result, but keep on throwing different situations at them and see if they're willing to make that sacrifice for the good of others.
I see.
I was explaining why I think good deeds do not cancel bad deeds/evil acts.
Maybe I went overboard drawing Hitler into the picture as the ultimate racist, but I certainly did not want to end the discussion that way.
So if the example was too extreme, I am sorry.
The question was how to deal with a (disruptive) PC whose actions and viewpoint on alignment differ from those of the DM.
Disruptive and differing alignment are two separate issues imo. One is much more likely to be personal than the other. Discussion helps. Talk with the player about their actions and how its being disruptive. Not much you can do about a difference in philosophy, but there's a lot you can do about deciding if someone who's being disruptive and handling it. Talking (almost) always helps with these things.
Ehm.... we might be getting off topic and possibly entering the first stages of a flame war. Godwin's law was already invoked, which is never a good sign.
Even Godwin himself got fed up some time ago with people using his "law" to kill otherwise decent conversations and claim premature victory, so I think you can be assured that the universe will not spontaneously combust if someone uses Nazis or Hitler as comparisons in a discussion, nor will said discussions quality suddenly mysteriously diminish.
And I say this as a German and a historian.
Ehm.... we might be getting off topic and possibly entering the first stages of a flame war. Godwin's law was already invoked, which is never a good sign.Even Godwin himself got fed up some time ago with people using his "law" to kill otherwise decent conversations and claim premature victory, so I think you can be assured that the universe will not spontaneously combust if someone uses Nazis or Hitler as comparisons in a discussion, nor will said discussions quality suddenly mysteriously diminish.
And I say this as a German and a historian.
It won't??? Ah good I was affraid I had doomed the universe allready ;)
And btw asking as a dutchman: why are you up so late???anyway off to bed it's way too late.