| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, when a character does something against his/her alignment I give him 1 point (with my team, most often towards evil) and I tell him about it. When he accumulates 3 points his alignment shifts. Player knows that doing stuff like that is gonna soon change his alignment, the choice - do it (or something like that) again or no is still his.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a true neutral fighter used a coup de grace on a battlefield would it change his alignment? As a DM I wouldn't have it do so, and I feel the same about this situation.
Killing your foes = neutral action.
Doing so within the battle feild = Lawful action.
Doing so while they are unconscious and lying about it = chaotic action.
His actions were perfectly in line with his alignment.
I would like to know why he would let all these bad guys bleed out and why they all saved them and why they all decided to leave them be while he watched over them? That's a lot of... why?
Importantly, did the other players have to watch him do this? That usually doesn't end well in my experience. It can be disruptive and not really have a reason to happen, and may require a quick chat to talk about how that makes everyone feel and about future actions. Not threatening, but just to make sure things go smoothly.
1) Is the act of "finishing off" disabled enemies an act that falls within the very gray purview of Chaotic Neutral, or does this press toward evil?
That's up to the GM imo. Very much up to you and your opinion if your the GM. I know some who'd let it slide and some who'd say your evil if you CdG'd them in combat because CdG is always evil to him.
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
I don't use alignment and see it as optional. All alignment problems solved.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thugs were helpless and utterly at his mercy. He went back AFTER combat ended just to murder them. The thugs may not have been innocent but they weren't a threat anymore. I'd say it's pretty evil.
|
Why did he do it. That is the answer that decides weather it is worth noting to the player that the character is progressing tword evil or if you need to wait for additional actions before letting them know they are working towards an alignment shift.
Covering it up and lying are not party friendly actions either.
1) Without objections otherwise, "finishing off" or mercy killing is a neutral act.
3) I generally let it ride, unless it is obviously against alignment or towards a certain alignment. I also generally let my players know in a non-confrontational manner if the way he is acting might make an alignment shift.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is tricky at best and I find it to be one of the most annoying aspects of any RPG.
This alignment circle I find makes it more concrete. http://www.easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
Based on that, I'd say the action leans evil, but still falls under a chaotic neutral action.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit that it has been my experience in many, many cases that "chaotic neutral" became "evil" as soon as the player created the character concept because "chaotic neutral" is frequently nothing but an excuse to play an evil character without being "evil."
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Adamantine Dragon is right and that's it is usually just an excuse.
I think Riddick is the best example of Chaotic Neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to hurt people, but he will kill anyone that does get in his way without remorse. Stay out of his way, don't try to lock him up and you'll be fine. He isn't random and will protect people he cares about, but will neither help a stranger nor betray a friend. He has no desire to conquer or control, so he's not evil, but he has no desire to fight a conqueror or controller, so he's not good.
I think it's definitely an evil act, but his motive should play a part in it as well. No realistic character sticks to one alignment at all times - to me it's more about their most common behavoir and the sum of their actions. This guy isn't sacrifice babies on an altar, and he isn't going around killing people for the thrill of it. To me, it sounds like it could simply be an otherwise CN character with a vindictive streak - you even see that in LG characters. Any ways you slice it, an act of this magnitude is a drop in the bucket when stacked against a lifetime of experience. If this is something the characters struggles with, make it interesting instead of making it a punishment. Try to find ways to tempt him - see how far he'll go.
Everything about this screams EVIL. The fact that he lied about it to the party is just icing on the cake. A truly CN character wouldn't care what the party thought and would have just killed them without subterfuge.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the most profound concepts when this sort of thing comes up can easily be summed up with:
"... if you have to ask...."
I have to admit that it has been my experience in many, many cases that "chaotic neutral" became "evil" as soon as the player created the character concept because "chaotic neutral" is frequently nothing but an excuse to play an evil character without being "evil."
Amen to this.... Could not be more accurate
pretty sure purposely orchestrating the criminal's deaths (after incapacitating them already, no less) and then lying about it pings as evil to me, since it's kinda beyond self-defense territory and into pre-meditated murder at that point. not saying you should shift him to evil just for that, or to send any heatseeking paladins after him for it.
CN usually equates to "look out for themselves, regardless of what others think", and I'm pretty sure what you described wouldn't fall under that.
CN isn't a free ticket to be a kender or murder-hobo for the lulz (especially since adventurers are generally murderhobos/assassins for hire anyway), and i will hurl pointy metal dice at those who try it anyway--especially if they pull the "i'm just playing my alignment!" card to try and get away with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CN at heart is an individualistic alignment where liberty is valued above all, being free from coercion . To act in a way that oppresses another's free will and liberty would be an act of evil in accordance with a CNs personnel code which is the only one that really matters.
LE and LG are both evil alignments from this perspective, LN less so, as they all seek to impose what amounts to arbitrarily decided order in one form or another.
A CN character will value their personnel word as their only necessary bond. having accepted surrender, that bond was given. That bond, freely given, and upheld is the only glue holding a CN society together and for those that cannot be trusted to do as they say must be evil.
It's a much more complex alignment to play than typically given credit for.
My opinion anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
party makeup plays a part in this also---paladins or other lawful good characters would not allow finishing off a disabled opponent. there are cases where that is not true---but generally speaking. I would not call this evil
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it comes down to the Why he went back and Killed them
If it's because he felt they would still be a danger to people down the road or an act of vigilante justice. Probably stay in the neutral zone.
If it was because he just wanted to kill them or it would make him feel better for them to be dead or he enjoys killing people, then Evil.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If being chaotic neutral means this behavior is "OK" then it is very, very hard to come up with any real distinction between "chaotic neutral" and "evil."
Good luck with this. I'm not sure how you handled the lying to the party bit of this, but I generally apply common sense to things and passing a diplomacy or bluff check doesn't mean my character will believe the sky is yellow. If I were playing a good character in this campaign, I'd probably be digging deeper into this and watching Mr. CN rogue very closely in the future.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you believe that a CN character who commits and evil deed (yes, I agree that murdering a helpless prisoner is an evil act) should become CE, then you should also have a CN character who helped an innocent NPC for philanthropic motives become CG.
I have a problem with people who want to shift the alignment one way, but fail to see the balance when the character performs all those good deeds that PCs usually do routinely. Chaotic Neutral should mean just that - the character will happily perform either good or evil deeds according to what they think is the better solution. They are not restrained by concepts of Good or Evil, they are completely free-willed.
I do not believe my eyes. 'Killing' helpless people after the fight finished, no matter if they are evil, is never anything but an evil act.
And there are other ways of making sure a person does not come after you.
Delivering thugs to justice
Holding them in a prison
Hold them for a ransom
Witholding their personal possesions from them
And when applying metaknowledge: If the GM wants them to become a mortal enemy, then there is nothing they can do about it anyway. Dealing with defeated enemies is a question of the actions of a character and they will reflect on his/her alignment (sometimes the intentions of a character will influence this as well).
But speaking as a player: I would not want to adventure with someone who murders our defeated enemies and then lies about it. Simply because of the fact that this will reflect on me as well. "hey weren't you with the party that wanted to bring the bad guys to justice and then they 'suddenly' all 'died'. Do you actually believe that story????"
That association alone would be harmfull to me. And I do not believe my eyes and ears if anyone tries to sell that off as a neutral act.
Nothing personal. This is just MY opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadurian, deciding whether the killing of helpless prisoners is "evil" or not is not the same thing as automatically shifting the PC's alignment. Most of the GMs on this thread who consider it an evil act would likely mark it down as a factor in a potential future alignment shift.
Also, murdering half a dozen helpless people would far, far, far outweigh just about any "philanthropic" act the PC would be likely able to do. The reality is that it's easier to do great evil than it is to do great good.
"I murdered six helpless people and then lied about it to my own comrades" is not going to be balanced out by "I donated the gold I looted from their dead bodies to the local orphanage."
And I do not believe my eyes and ears if anyone tries to sell that off as a neutral act.
Nothing personal. This is just MY opinion.
Well, you must be new around here then, because this is probably the single most commonly discussed behavior of chaotic "neutral" characters on these boards. It's so common that it's essentially a stereotype now. Which is one reason I sort of snort up my sleeve when a player pulls it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you can interpret any way you like in your own campaign world, of course.
However, if you have to do Good Actx10 to balance Bad Actx1, I don't see many people being Good aligned for long, and it makes a complete nonsense of the Neutral alignment.
'Want to play Neutral? You have to play Good actually, because that's how I interpret Neutral.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you can interpret any way you like in your own campaign world, of course.
However, if you have to do Good Actx10 to balance Bad Actx1, I don't see many people being Good aligned for long.
You are not listening. There are plenty of "bad acts" that are comparable to donating some gold to an orphanage and would balance that out. Pickpocketing a townsperson for example.
Murdering half a dozen helpless prisoners would NOT be one of them. Balancing THAT out would require something more like saving the entire orphanage from an invading horde of zombies when the PC could just as easily have walked away.
The OP would definitely be an evil act with resultant alignment shift at my table.
|
As a real life parallel, I heard a story about some US soldiers in Iraq that were on a mission, and encountered some local civilians. They were fairly certain the civilians would rat them out, so they contemplated killing them, but they were afraid to kill them because of public sentiment. They let them go, the civilans ratted them out, and the soldiers were promptly surrounded and slaughtered.
I guess my point is to label some act as chaotic evil vs a necessary evil is a fine and delicate line, and we should be thoughtful to judge. Your Rogue murdering the prisoner? Evil. Executing people for a greater good? That arguement has been with us forever as far as its morality, but a gut level way to measure it might be 'you will know it when you see it'.
This is in my games...
I would rule that as an evil act, both the killing of helpless people and the lying about it to his allies.
Both of these could be not-evil, if he had a personal reason(other than felt like it, which appears to be the case) or the party had no means of delivering them to "justice", then killing them isn't necessarily evil. Nor is lying about it if he sees this as the best way for all - and not "you know... for the lulz."
Even evil people don't kill their friends, and even chaotic evil cruel, psychotic mass murderers can have long lasting and trusting relationships with others.
I would not change alignment on this event alone, but I would warn that the alignment chosen at character creation is just a heads up to me - the GM - about how you intend to play this character, it's not set in stone. And murder is evil.
The thugs were not a force for good, so this is a minor offense after a battle - executing enemy soldiers(with no in ransom) is not uncommon, but guess what: Evil acts always happen in war, that doesn't make them good or neutral.
But for most people, alignment and morals is a subject of theoretical debate amongst the clergy and scholars.
TL;DR: It's evil, but not evil enough to force alignment change.
Comparing a during-battle coup de grace to a post-battle coup de grace doesn't really hold. The former is justified as long as the enemies have access to healing--they are still threats, after all. The latter, however, is arguably an unnecessary act. The unconscious attackers aren't gonna be able to hurt you.
I've got no stance either way, but the two scenarios are quite different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are not listening.Well you can interpret any way you like in your own campaign world, of course.
However, if you have to do Good Actx10 to balance Bad Actx1, I don't see many people being Good aligned for long.
Please don't go the patronising 'you'd agree if only you listen more carefully' route, it isn't nice and it isn't in the spirit of this board.
We disagree on how alignment should work. I'm happy with that.
Well the Protean want to unmake reality and thereby destroy all life in the universe but they're not evil. So..... um... I don't know. The whole alignment thing doesn't really make sense.
Most chaotic and lawful outsiders really should be evil. Doing evil in the defense of neutrality/chaos/order is still evil, whether or not your resume says "fiend" or not!
In other words, most alignment debates should treat proteans and their ilk as nazis. Do not bring them up, or you will break the discussion.
|
I think an important point only somewhat touched upon is very much what his *reasons* for it, from what the OP has described he took no pleasure in the act, there was no enjoyment or anticipation. The rogue weighed the odds and decided that for *his* best interests and future good, it was better if the bandits were dead, the balance weighed strongly enough to that side that he would risk the ire of the whole party.
Killing helpless enemies is always a very tough alignment call, if a gnoll surrenders is it okay to still kill it? An orc? A goblin? What if you saw it killing innocents beforehand? Etc. and if so, why? And should that not also apply to an NPC of a player character race if they do the same?
He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer), a chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
Whilst his actions are obviously not good it's hard to catagorise them as evil too, especially from a single choice, a continued trend of this would definitely be worth telling the player his alignment might be subject to change, if he values all other life as nothing compared to his own, that's certainly slipping down an evil path.
But as it is, he's behaving as per his alignment, the darker side of it to be sure but still valuing his own liberty over others and not striving to protect anyone but himself, resenting the restriction the Good characters put on him by wanting to keep the bandits alive.
Well the Protean want to unmake reality and thereby destroy all life in the universe but they're not evil. So..... um... I don't know. The whole alignment thing doesn't really make sense.
Fair point, but there are few things more predictable than half a dusin dead thugs. :)
Another way of putting it is restoring the multiverse to a previous state. A lot is in formulating your intent. Vote Protean!
So... um... ALIGNMENTS ARE AWESOME!!!2!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are not listening.Well you can interpret any way you like in your own campaign world, of course.
However, if you have to do Good Actx10 to balance Bad Actx1, I don't see many people being Good aligned for long.
Please don't go the patronising 'you'd agree if only you listen more carefully' route, it isn't nice and it isn't in the spirit of this board.
We disagree on how alignment should work. I'm happy with that.
Then don't misrepresent my arguments in such a way that it seems clear that you did not understand them.
Well the Protean want to unmake reality and thereby destroy all life in the universe but they're not evil. So..... um... I don't know. The whole alignment thing doesn't really make sense.
Yes, this is true. PF has a lot of great content and very useful and usable rules, some of which they inherited, some of which they created on their own. Alignment is one of the most confusing, inconsistent and contentious aspects of the game. At our table we tread very carefully around alignment issues.
Comparing a during-battle coup de grace to a post-battle coup de grace doesn't really hold. The former is justified as long as the enemies have access to healing--they are still threats, after all. The latter, however, is arguably an unnecessary act. The unconscious attackers aren't gonna be able to hurt you.
I've got no stance either way, but the two scenarios are quite different.
At the Battle of Agincourt, Henry V ordered the killing of thousands of unarmed and helpless French prisoners when he thought that the French were about to attack again. Not all were killed as the English knights refused to be involved, thus leaving the work mainly to the bowmen who probably 'only' killed a few hundred before the order was rescinded.
Yet not even the French chroniclers criticised Henry's actions, recognising that the reality of the situation excused it.
In PF terms it's an interesting situation to interpret. Henry's order was refused by the knights as unchivalric, even though it was an order by their lawful liege lord. If it was Evil then how come the opposition didn't complain in their accounts? Does it lend credence to the view that evil acts are sometimes justified for the greater good?
Killing prisoners is nothing new in warfare, and PCs often find themselves in what is effectively a war situation. Allies killed helpless Axis prisoners in WWII yet are seen as the 'good guys', the reverse (Axis killing Allies) is often used as a measure of how Evil the nasty Axis forces were (I'm not touching on other atrocities, just prisoner killing).
Was the act evil? Yes, it was, certainly within the game environment. Was it enough to make the character change alignment to Evil? Not in my view.
Then don't misrepresent my arguments in such a way that it seems clear that you did not understand them.
Not agreeing does not equal not understanding.
Murdering half a dozen helpless prisoners would NOT be one of them. Balancing THAT out would require something more like saving the entire orphanage from an invading horde of zombies when the PC could just as easily have walked away.
Not to split hairs, but saving the orphanage doesn't really count because to not intervene would, at best, shunt you to a neutral alignment. I would not allow a paladin to get away with that without some darned good reasoning.
A better example would be dying to save an orphanage, or later sparing someone you hate but probably shouldn't kill. In other words, really balancing out an evil act has to be countered by a related act--or something very dramatic.
Otherwise, though, I agree with you, and I think Sadurian oversimplified your point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't misrepresent my arguments in such a way that it seems clear that you did not understand them.Not agreeing does not equal not understanding.
Sadurian, you posted a comment where you implied that I was saying that ten good acts were required to balance out one evil act. I did not say what you implied I said.
So either you misunderstood, or you deliberately misrepresented my argument.
I was being generous in stating you misunderstood. Perhaps I was wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that CN people can and will perform evil acts. They also can and will perform good acts. But those acts don't, in and of themselves, warrant shifts towards one extreme or the other because they aren't actively pursuing those ends. The CN doesn't do good acts for the benefit of someone else, they perform acts that benefit themselves and also, on a side note, those acts happen to help others as well. Or, they will perform an evil act because it benefits them personally. Evil does evil because it's evil.
Chaotic Neutral is not embodied by self-interest at the expense of morality. You're thinking of Neutral Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is the for the greater good argument is BS. Anything and everything can be justified with it. For example to save humanity we have to get rid of the jews and degenerates. It's for the "greater good".
Also whenever anyone claims that something is "for the children" it's BS... but that's beside the point. :p
At the risk of diving into the maelstrom of confusion and emotional investment that is the alignment system, it is always educational to me what people view the different alignments to mean.
Of course I do blame Paizo and WoTC for most of this. The alignment system is a horrible mess to begin with, and most of what has been published to clarify the system has just mucked it up worse.
But fundamentally there are two axis, good<->evil and law<->chaos. In this sense "law" is more generally interpreted as "order" and "chaos" can sometimes be understood to be "entropy".
The rule books actually do a decent job of explaining the intent of the alignment system, but it seems that interpreting those rules is very difficult and people apply their own internal filters to it.
In the strictest terms if a character is neutral along one axis, then their acts that affect that axis should be driven by their position on the other axis. So a chaotic neutral character's acts along the good<->evil axis should generally be in the direction of their alignment along the law<->chaos axis.
So if the OP's event had happened in my own campaign I would want the player to explain to me how the obvious evil acts being performed were consistent with the character's desire to advance chaotic ends.
I have not seen any such justification, which leaves the explanation simply being "I wanted to do it", which makes it a purely evil act. As such it would have some impact on the eventual disposition of the character's alignment since the rogue appears, from what we know now, to have done an evil act simply because he could.
Maybe it takes a relatively neutral person to point out neutrality. I know, alignment tests are kind of pathetic and made for fun, but when I'm answer them honestly I come up Chaotic Neutral balanced almost perfectly between good and evil.
One of the biggest problems is that we have essentially good people being judgy when it comes to alignments. Acts that aren't truly evil often get viewed as evil. Just look at how many people (even WotC) think that Riddick is evil even though Riddick never, ever goes out of his way to harm, control over conquer. He outright hates the idea. He's the epitome of a chaotic neutral character.
Based on the motivations of the rogue, his actions were perfectly in line with his alignment are neither evil nor good. The good act would be to turn the characters over to the authorities. The evil act would be torturing them to death. With there being a good likelihood that leaving the NPCs in question alive would bite the party in the ass, killing them is neither a good nor an evil action. The killing is justified but not necessary but neither is it done in a horrendous fashion. Therefore, it is neutral.
By definition, if the choice you are making is a difficult one (ie borderline wrong) but there are no better options, it is not good nor is it evil.
I'll provide another example.
A terrorist his hidden a nuclear device in a city and it will go off in only a few hours. Experts can disarm it in minutes, but it can't be found. You have the terrorist in custody. He won't give up the location, even under torture. You have his wife and child. The good act is try to evacuate the city. Very few will make it, but at least you didn't bloody your hands. The evil act is don't inform anyone and torture the terrorist even though it is hopeless. The neutral act is the necessary one - torture the wife and child in front of the terrorist in an attempt to get the location of the bomb. (Proving that two wrongs can make a right.)
In essence, think of neutrality as the realistic option, good as the idealistic (but not necessarily stupid) option, and evil as the sadistic option.
Again, we end with your chaotic neutral rogue maintaining his alignment from this individual encounter. Until he starts killing without good reason, he doesn't slide into evil.