| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then we talked about subjective feelings and ideals about real life subjects. Can we like... Not?
Good post, and a very valid point. I think there is another part to this that is the real issue, especially when it comes up in play.
When we really care and we throw out our opinion on sin, evilness, what changes people into monsters and away from being good and decent we are getting into quite emotional territory. This is a problem because as dms if we get too emotional we may try to force our way. This can piss players off quite a bit and then there are arguments and nobody wins.
What can be most offensive for a player, is a dm that tells them how to play their character, what their beliefs should be and that the dm has now ruled that they will be played a certain way, i.e. evil because of a single very questionable action.
I would also say that CN isn't always prospective evil waiting to bloom. As someone who has read the alignment, I don't play CN characters as if they are working up to and going to go evil. Now adventuring can be a bloody and questionable business, but when a dm starts to change what alignment is on the player's sheet and then demand it be followed, it is a source of real issues.
What I have seen and heard is dms tell me:
"Now, you did something I think is dodgy/evil so your character is evil now."
Which leads to such responses as: "What if I don't want to be evil?"
"Your alignment has changed, you are now an evil character."
"What if I don't want to play an evil character? I didn't set out to play this character as evil, it is not in their background, it makes no sense, I am not going to do it."
Now the dm can get agitated and try to say, they know what evil is (emotions again), and doing that one thing in game makes the character evil from this day forth because they said so, but it comes across as a bit bossy. So I am sure we can appreciate that alignment change as a form of punishment is quite annoying.
I like my rp, so a sudden change in beliefs on the sheet because the dm says so seems a bit jejune and inauthentic. Where is the guilt? The transition? The conversations with others that could steer you. The metamorphosis? It is too dualistic and hard and fast for my tastes.
There is also another problem, if you have the rule in place that there are no evil characters in the party, and thereby by becoming evil (because the dm just ruled there will be a change) your character is out, that is some serious policing of roleplaying behaviour. Play exactly according to the dm's beliefs on alignment or you are out is not fair or great for the game or the hobby. As dms we can have really strong opinions, but the characters of the players are not ours. Our reflex-views on what their alignment is based on what they just did in a session may be at odds with the backstory, the personality and the player's view on what their characters is and upholds. I say this as a player that plays a lot of neutrals and chaotics that are complicated enough that they are heroes and heroic, they help people, but they don't always do good all the time. That would be monotonous.
What I have seen and heard is dms tell me:
"Now, you did something I think is dodgy/evil so your character is evil now."
Which leads to such responses as: "What if I don't want to be evil?"
"Your alignment has changed, you are now an evil character."
"What if I don't want to play an evil character?"
<Shrug.> Then you shouldn't have played one.
"...I didn't set out to play this character as evil, it is not in their background, it makes no sense, I am not going to do it."
"You just did. Since your character is now evil, the paladin's smite applies, so you take five extra points of damage."
Decisions have consequences. By rules-as-written, the GM is in control of your alignment, not you You are control of your actions, and the DM is responsible for making sure that your alignment tracks your in-game actions. If you wrote NG on the sheet, but then try to burn down an orphanage, the letters on your sheet are meaningless.
The GM just made a ruling. What are you going to do, refuse to accept the extra damage?
Now the dm can get agitated and try to say, they know what evil is (emotions again), and doing that one thing in game makes the character evil from this day forth because they said so, but it comes across as a bit bossy. So I am sure we can appreciate that alignment change as a form of punishment is quite annoying.
I'm sure we can also appreciate that players breaking the game world is also annoying. The thing is, alignment change is not a punishment. Having CE written on your sheet when you're acting CE is an accurate reflection of your character's behavior.
There is also another problem, if you have the rule in place that there are no evil characters in the party, and thereby by becoming evil (because the dm just ruled there will be a change) your character is out, that is some serious policing of roleplaying behaviour.
It is indeed. On the other hand, it is a rule, and if you know the rule is in place when you sit down, you understand what's going on. Argue with the rule at the beginning of the game, or don't play.
But writing down "CN" while planning to play "CE" makes you both a liar and a cheat, neither of which are good for the game either. Actually, in my opinion, they're worse for the game, because you just wasted everyone else's time designing characters, getting into the game, when you're explicitly planning to crash and burn the game.
Presumably the gamemaster created that rule because he wanted people's characters to behave a certain way. I've seen similar rules enforced -- see here for an example -- about the types of personalities that are acceptable, in the interests of minimizing interplayer conflict. From that site: "Just so you guys know, I want to minimize inter-character conflict for this campaign. That means that I will not accept evil characters or characters that you think will be difficult for the other players. Feel free to make loner-type or anti-social characters, but make sure they will actually care about what the party thinks of them. And definitely no backstabbing or stealing loot."
If, having agreed to that rule, you now make a character that insists on stealing loot -- "but `my character is complicated enough' that that's what he'd do" -- you're still lying to the game master and the other players at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree.
Even chaotic good characters can kill helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents as long as they deem those opponents evil who no longer need to live.
Much less a chaotic neutral character, who could kill them because he views them as potential threats should they be left alive.
Even chaotic good characters can kill helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents as long as they deem those opponents evil who no longer need to live.
Of course they can. They just cease to be chaotic good as soon as they do.
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You can do anything you choose to do. When you choose to take evil actions (killing for convenience being explicitly listed among them), your alignment is appropriately described as "evil."
Even chaotic good characters can kill helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents as long as they deem those opponents evil who no longer need to live.Of course they can. They just cease to be chaotic good as soon as they do.
Ummm No?
Chaotic good characters do not depend on the law for justice. They act as judge jury and executioner. If the chaotic good character feels that the "helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents" deserve death, then he is well within his alignment to give it to them.
Alignment system is always a problem. Many (if not most) PC parties really act like a bunch of Chaotic Evil thugs when you get right down to it. Not long ago I created a dungeon where -- quite unintentionally -- every single encounter was with intelligent creatures of Neutral alignment (ice elementals, ice toads, an ice weird, a rhemorhaz, ice mephits, and maybe a couple of others). Nearly every encounter could have been overcome by the use of diplomacy -- but everyone knows that that's not the way you get the phat lootz.
By the end of the dungeon the PCs had killed EVERYTHING with the exception of the ice weird, and they did start off attacking her but quickly copped to her being a plot point (at which point they stopped attacking and used Diplomacy to calm her down).
I think the word "murderhobos" is generally appropriate.
Now that aside, I think in the end this is a judgement call (which is why the OP is asking about it here). I'd say that CN shifts over to CE when it shifts from being about personal freedom primarily ("Don't mess with me or you'll regret it, and I'll make good on that threat") to exercising one's freedom to actively abuse others ("I'm going to mess with you because I want to").
It sounds like the PC tried to cheese a way out of "killing" by letting the prisoners bleed out ("I didn't KILL them, I just cut them open and then they BLED to death on their own!"). That's silly.
In making your judgement call, consider details such as how practical it would have been to bring the prisoners to justice, what the justice would likely have been, etc. These are important.
For example -- let's say the nearest town is a mere hour away, and it is of overall Lawful Evil alignment. The penalty for banditry is horrific torture followed by slow disembowelment; immediate family members (innocent or not) are subject to the same punishment. Here the rogue's action could actually be seen as Good in the context of the rest of the party wanting to bring the bandits to "justice" -- he probably saved at least one innocent life by just killing the clearly guilty prisoners, and even if he didn't he spared them all gruesome and painful deaths.
Chaotic good characters do not depend on the law for justice. They act as judge jury and executioner. If the chaotic good character feels that the "helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents" deserve death, then he is well within his alignment to give it to them.
True. What had these bandits done prior to being captured? Raped, mutilated, and disfigured a bunch of kids? And they're known to have connections in the local justice system such that it's reasonable to assume they will go free if brought to the law? Killing them could certainly be Chaotic Good in such a case.
The actions of the character can modify the characters written alignment if said actions do not coincide with the alignment parameters.
Killing helpless, bound, and unconscious surrendered opponents is pretty much evil. Doing so for convenience and revenge is also evil.
Agreed. As I said, we need to know more about the particulars here.
we need to know more about the particulars here.
Not if you are using Kantian ethics.
Which is where the alignment chart breaks down. If you aren't using virtue ethics the idea of alignment doesn't even work. Most ethical theories cannot even comprehend the idea of chaotic or lawful, there is only good and not-good actions. When people try to apply their own moral code to the alignment chart there is a good chance their personal morals are incompatible with an alignment system.
A Kantian system could work (where all actions have values of chaotic or lawful or neutral and good or evil or neutral). But this leads to books worth of houserules.
Also this -- if you are really roleplaying Chaotic Neutral right, you don't give a damn what alignment the DM writes on the top of your sheet. He can THINK and SAY what HE wants, and YOU are going to DO what YOU want.
I played a CN spiked chain fighter/rogue back in 3E, and he was a very disruptive party member (caused a lot of tension between players, which is another story -- I probably should have dialed him down a bit, but then other players would sometimes purposefully push his buttons, so there you go). His name was Krass. He was intimidating, boorish, and crude, but he wasn't stupid and he wasn't evil either. He got a real kick out of pointing out how some of the more "posh" members of the party weren't really "good", they were just "nice" (shades of Into the Woods!), and in several cases he went against the rest of the party to do something "good" when everyone else was willing to be "neutral" or maybe even "evil" -- particularly when prisoners were involved.
He would probably have advocated for letting the prisoners go. In his mind, he had kicked their asses, taken their stuff, and if they REALLY wanted to come back for revenge -- well, that was their choice, but he couldn't protect them from the rest of the party forever. He would also have voiced his opinion within earshot of the one or two party members he didn't get along with, insinuating that they were a lot more corrupt than he was -- which was sort of true, because he was much more of a "beatdown hobo" than the standard PC "murder hobo".
If you take the time to read through the posts on this thread you will get those particulars.
Screw that. I'm Chaotic Neutral.
lol
People are still arguing about this.
....
All work and no play makes Taku a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Taku a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Taku a dull boy.
....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A major problem is that a lot of DMs will just arbitrarily throw out alignment infractions. Hell, I have had one of my characters threatened with one more than once. The reason? Killing creatures that had been attacking it without any sign of remorse. The character does not accept surrender. If you try to kill it and fail then you are going to die. There is no torture; no drawn out bloodbath, no, just smash-bang-dead. If refusing to accept surrender is an evil act, what does that say about paladins of Torag?
The other problem comes in the form of DMs that believe alignment dictates action rather than actions dictating alignment. Let's assume for a moment that, with chaotic evil is an example, someone's character has just shifted to that alignment. Some DMs will then expect your character's personality to have magically gone from self-serving, thieving bastard rogue to maniacally evil mastermind that burns small children and animals for entertainment. I fail to see how committing an evil act instantly robs your character of its ability to not be a jackass
|
Need some help here.
Here's the situation, in brief: Party encounters thugs / criminals who assault party. Party defeats thugs, disabling (but not killing) the enemies (they stabilize). The party then splits up - CN Rogue stays with the unconscious thugs, rest of group searches building for more enemies to secure the grounds.
While the party is gone, CN Rogue secretly (through a note to GM) injures all the disabled baddies, so they "bleed out", dying before the others return. When others return, he feigns ignorance (backed up by Bluff rolls) and convinces his comrades he doesn't know what happened to baddies.
So I need your advice:
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?
2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
Thanks for any help. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that gets defined many different ways, and this situation is giving me trouble.
This is the original post. The GM is asking for advise on the players actions and when do people think said action are enough to consider an alignment change.
|
|
It sounds like the CN rogue in your example felt that the 3 thugs he bled out had already made their choice in terms of doing good or evil when they attacked the party. They used poison, worked for an employer involved in illegal activities and likely would be killed if they failed in their hired tasks.
He reasonably waited for the rest of the group namely the LG member to exit knowing that they would likely insist on somehow hauling these 4 thugs back to the authorities even though a number of factors probably made this an extremely dangerous and futile task.
Interrogating and torturing the head thug who likely would have ordered his henchmen to kill the party (or kidnap them) in order to protect the racket was merely a means to an end. I'm sure the player thought the same would be done to them so the thugs could find out "who they worked for". Think of what Liam Neeson's character did in Taken. Were those acts CE?
You mentioned the CN rogue lit the head thug on fire only to then put him out and let him live after the interrogation. Interesting choice if he is deemed to be shifting towards CE.
In the end perhaps the CN rogue was merely doing what he felt no one else had the stomach to do or he wanted to save some of the members from having to struggle with some very tough moral choices. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he had in mind.... considering I'm the player of the CN rogue ;-)
This is a post from the player who played the Rogue.
You mentioned the CN rogue lit the head thug on fire only to then put him out and let him live after the interrogation. Interesting choice if he is deemed to be shifting towards CE.
Lighting someone on fire as part of an interrogation process isn't what was asked about, but I'd call that pretty damn evil if it were done IRL. Go do a search for images of burn survivors and you might see what I mean.
In Pathfinder land, where fire doesn't seem to cause permanent scarring and debilitation, things might be a little different.
The rogue's player claims that "a number of factors" would "probably" have made this an "extremely dangerous and futile task", but I'm not sure what all of that means.
|
|
Just to be clear the lamp oil thing was only a bold way of getting the boss to talk after he laughed in my character's face and wouldn't crack. A candle was tossed at him as the final "last ditch" effort to break him and the flames were quickly put out. From personal experience (flaming shot gone awry) this would only have resulting in superficial 2nd degree burns which would heal just fine leaving no permanent scars.
The 3 thugs that were killed were unconscious at the time so the idea was to end their lives without additional pain and suffering. My PC also made the choice to cut the ropes off the boss after he went unconscious (was at 0 hp) from the fire damage and give him back the most likely magic dagger the group had taken from him. This same dagger was used by the boss to drop my PC from 10 hp (max) to 0 hp with one critical hit. Poetic I thought.
I tried to play a bit of regret from perhaps going too far with the interrogations and the idea of hopefully tracking this guy to the bigger fish. Interesting that no one other than my GM (the OP) made any comments about my Taken reference. Ask 100 movie goers their thoughts on his actions. Leave a guy tied to a chair and turn on the power? I bet no one polled would say that was evil because it was justified by the bad guy's actions. And therein lies the rub...
This is the only other post from the rogue.
Also this thread lay dorment from oct 9th until a few days ago.
Dont think that the OP and the rogue are even looking at this thread snymore.... could wrong that though.
|
Punching little girls in the face is mean AND evil ... but you're right, it doesn't make you over into Darth Vader instantaneously.lol in general yes it would, but in this situation I considered it just mean
Little escape artist wouldn't stay tied up and locked in a closet after completely refusing to listen to reason, so knocking her unconscious was the next logical step.....it was for her own good I promise, all other avenues were explored before she caught the right hook to her jaw.
Why was it necessary to keep her in the closet? You've worked up my curiosity.
I can think of several personally (ghouls come to mind; had a campaign where a necromancer kept sending those to invade homes). But I definitely want to hear the story behind your's.
I have a NG inquisitor who believes in doing good and justice and protecting the innocent (all the law and order stuff) but believes that some people have to be allowed to step outside of some of the laws in order to fully protect innocent life/fight evil.
His emphasis is on innocent life. So in this scenario we come across a house full of evil outsiders with evidence that a family has been killed there. We find a little girl in a closet hiding who once we find, absolutely refuses to stay in the closet and stay quite. She also refuses to go wait by the road or to go hide in the stables/barn away from the unknown threat and where we had already cleared the area of enemies (I refuse to let an innocent child come along with us as there is no way to guarantee that we can protect her if more bad dudes show up). She starts throwing a fit and screaming (remember house full of evil outsiders). We calm her down, diplomacy won't make her stay or go, intimidate only makes her cry again. We tie her up and jam the door shut, she starts banging against the door and when we break open the door again, she has freed herself. So I had to punch her in the face very hard to knock her out (no magic alternatives prepared in the party at the time). In all fairness I wanted to take her to the barn after knocking her out but the party had had enough and decided just to leave her in the closet all knocked out
It totally wasn't evil. Ultimately it saved a life... a black eye and bruised jaw will heal, death usually doesn't.
|
|
This post was from the OP elaborating on what had happened.
Indus
Replying to my earlier post because some of the details seem to have gotten lost during the course of discussion.
Indus wrote:
To answer the "why did he do it" question, my feeling is that he wanted to eliminate future trouble (aka the thugs hunting him down for retribution) and also for convenience to simplify / control the situation. What I mean by simplify is that, yes, there is a Lawful Good character in the party (who was away with the rest of the party when this happened, keep in mind) and I think he didn't want to have to deal with the LG character insisting on hauling them into the authorities.
Additionally, I'll add that two out of the three of these thugs had thrown down their weapons and surrendered before they were knocked unconscious. Furthermore, all three were tied up with rope and locked inside a jail cell for safekeeping. The CN Rogue was just there to "keep any eye on them".
So yes, he is lying to the party about it because many/most of them are good alignments and would not approve, and he knows this.
Foghammer, to answer your question the Rogue's intelligence is 14.
Shaman, the situation was that the party was moving through the city at night when they witnessed a kidnapping and went to investigate the building where the victim was taken. They were told by two men guarding the building to buzz off, and so they snuck around the back of the building, alerted some guard dogs, and a melee ensued. The party ran and hid, but later returned in hopes of sneaking in. The thugs were expecting trouble, so they engaged the party in battle, in which the party was able to handle the thugs, their dogs, and the thug leader - ALL of whom were disabled by the end of battle. (And again, two of the thugs threw down their weapons and surrendered). The party then went inside the building through a cellar door, found a room with holding cells and decided to tie up the unconscious thugs and their boss and put them holding cells.
Now, the idea was to interrogate the thugs and their boss after searching the upstairs of the house for more possible enemies. The CN Rogue offered to keep an eye on the unconscious foes while the rest of the party, three of which were good alignments and one lawful good, went upstairs. It was during this time the player passed me a note letting me know that he "reopens" the injuries on the thugs so they bleed out. He is very careful to make sure the cells are locked and everything in place before the rest of the group returns.
The rogue DOES let the thug boss live to interrogate later, but the "grunts" are just killed off. Again, it seems the motivation, the "why" is for convenience sake - not having to deal with a bunch of injured enemies when he knows the Lawful Good character might want them brought in to local authorities.
leo1925, as far as the party can tell, the thugs are robbers and/or slavers
Additionally, I'll just add that no one in the party did a "Detect Evil" on the thugs after they were disabled. The party did not find any kidnap victims on the premises. They did find evidence of smuggling. The thugs were attacking with bolts laced with drow poison (I only mention because their intent seemed to be "capture" not kill)
Last, yes, the party did interrogate the boss later that night. The CN Rogue poured kerosene on him, lit him on fire, and then "put out the flames" so as not to kill him. While the other players weren't their for the slayings of the thugs, they did witness this and objected (though not strongly enough for their Lawful Good alignments in my opinion). But that is a whole other issue I'm having to deal with and I didn't want to derail this thread from the main question of the CN Rogue's actions with the disabled thugs.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat, though I fear the amount of detail may just muddle it even further at this point.
As you can see there is a bit for going on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?
3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?
Thanks for any help. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that gets defined many different ways, and this situation is giving me trouble.
I know I'm late to this party, but I am a sucker for Chaotic Neutral debates. (Now if only I could find several dozen other topics on this, fallen Paladins, and how to handle homosexuality in a campaign. But alas, that's just not the world we live in. Le sigh.)
1) I say 'no'. These were obviously bad guys. Thugs. Good might do the honorable thing, but as long as the people he's dealing with are capital 'E' evil then neutral can justify a lot. ESPECIALLY chaotic neutral. Lawful neutral might hold his word as his bond, true neutral might be more concerned with his immediate safety. But that, to me, is chaotic neutral played correctly. This is a case of messing with the wrong freaking guy.
2) I'd say if you still don't buy that, it would only push slightly toward chaotic evil.
3) Even though mechanically I wouldn't make this shift his alignment, I would still provide some in-game consequences. Someone mentioned earlier that, particularly if this took place in an urban environment, the chances of nobody noticing are slim. For that matter, these are brutal thugs --- who knows with whom they are allied?
I personally think it all comes down to this: Can the character make a logical argument justifying his/her action that isn't evil?
So you have captured some bad guys. Can they escape and inform someone within a reasonable amount of time that makes your quest harder? If yes, then killing them is still fine since there is a rational reason behind it that isn't evil in nature.
If there is no chance that they could impede or harm your quest going forward, then killing them would be an evil act, since you can't find a logical reason to kill them.
It has nothing to do with law or chaos, since their isn't a rule they are following or not following. The only rational is can they think of good reason that if they don't do something (if you don't kill the enemy that surrendered), it would harm the character (inform the big bad master boss of their arrival or whatnot).
At least that's the line I have drawn. It is simple to follow.
I personally think it all comes down to this: Can the character make a logical argument justifying his/her action that isn't evil?
So you have captured some bad guys. Can they escape and inform someone within a reasonable amount of time that makes your quest harder? If yes, then killing them is still fine since there is a rational reason behind it that isn't evil in nature.
If there is no chance that they could impede or harm your quest going forward, then killing them would be an evil act, since you can't find a logical reason to kill them.
It has nothing to do with law or chaos, since their isn't a rule they are following or not following. The only rational is can they think of good reason that if they don't do something (if you don't kill the enemy that surrendered), it would harm the character (inform the big bad master boss of their arrival or whatnot).
At least that's the line I have drawn. It is simple to follow.
I could logically justify tying a puppy to a stick and using it as a makeshift flail as not evil.
I could logically justify using someone's baby as a club to beat them to death with as not evil.
I could logically justify giving an elderly man the choice between giving me all of his money or being set on fire and then setting him on fire once he gives me the money as not evil.
I could logically justify murdering the paladin's mount, cooking the horse meat as a stew, and then serving it to the paladin as not evil.
There is a lot of twisted crap I can justify as not evil. The ability to justify should not be an indicator of alignment.
|
|
I know I'm late to this party, but I am a sucker for Chaotic Neutral debates. (Now if only I could find several dozen other topics on this, fallen Paladins, and how to handle homosexuality in a campaign. But alas, that's just not the world we live in. Le sigh.)
1) I say 'no'. These were obviously bad guys. Thugs. Good might do the honorable thing, but as long as the people he's dealing with are capital 'E' evil then neutral can justify a lot. ESPECIALLY chaotic neutral. Lawful neutral might hold his word as his bond, true neutral might be more concerned with his immediate safety. But that, to me, is chaotic neutral played correctly. This is a case of messing with the wrong freaking guy.
2) I'd say if you still don't buy that, it would only push slightly toward chaotic evil.
3) Even though mechanically I wouldn't make this shift his alignment, I would still provide some in-game consequences. Someone mentioned earlier that, particularly if this took place in an urban environment, the chances of nobody noticing are slim. For that matter, these are brutal thugs --- who knows with whom they are allied?
This is why reposted the 4 post, 2 by Indus the OPer and 2 by Artimedorus, so that late comers would not have to read through all the other posts to find pertinent info. Of course I didnt post it in order, so to get the correct info you'd needed to read my posts about Indus first then read my posts about Artimedorus.
That is of course if you want to do that.
The reposts are all on page 6.
I see a lot of debate involving good vs. evil, and using law vs. chaos to help determine that.
My opinion (and it is just mine) is that killing bound, helpless, captured people is evil. Maybe not Evil, but it falls under the little evil heading. I would tell the player his character did commit an evil act, and is in danger of slipping into having the big Evil label. I would then leave it at that until something else crops up (like setting someone's head on fire).
Chaotic does not mean murderer. Taking justice into your own hands would cover beating the crap out of some one. It might mean taking all their stuff, and leaving them bound in some nasty neighborhoods. It might mean tying slavers up and leaving them to their former captives. But killing bound people isn't taking justice into your own hands, its murder. Premeditated murder (you had time to think about it), if it helps.
The above may not apply to evil cleric (who, by default, have absolute proof their evil god is watching and they know where they are going upon death) and irredeemable evil bad guys, with the capital E.
Here, a different track: what historical (or mythical) people were chaotic neutral? Would any of them commit murder? Captain Jack Sparrow (of the Pirate of the Caribbean) is rather iconic for being Chaotic Neutral, and he has never killed prisoners. Jane Cobb (of Firefly and Serenity) is also considered chaotic neutral, but he didn't kill prisoners (perhaps only because of his fellows, but that a good excuse to say he hadn't fallen into evil yet).
Han Solo (from...look, if you don't know, you are a sad, sad person) is also thought to be chaotic neutral, though I think hes definitely on the good side (that might be hero worship).
Look at it that way, and see if it helps any.
|
|
Han Solo (from...look, if you don't know, you are a sad, sad person) is also thought to be chaotic neutral, though I think hes definitely on the good side (that might be hero worship).
Look at it that way, and see if it helps any.
Toward the end, Han definitely became good. But he was Chaotic Neutral first --- and he most certainly killed somebody.
No Greedo killed himself using Han's blaster.
Greedo not only fired first, but successfully framed it so people would have something to argue about for years to come? Sure why not.
No Greedo killed himself using Han's blaster.Greedo not only fired first, but successfully framed it so people would have something to argue about for years to come? Sure why not.
Actually didn't Lucas go back with errata and made Greedo shoot first. I know it's not head cannon, but its George's story, he's free to mess it up.
Actually didn't Lucas go back with errata and made Greedo shoot first. I know it's not head cannon, but its George's story, he's free to mess it up.No Greedo killed himself using Han's blaster.Greedo not only fired first, but successfully framed it so people would have something to argue about for years to come? Sure why not.
|
|
I dont think what Han did to Greedo was bad. The whole situation was bad from the start. Greedo had a blaster on Han the whole time and from the way the conversation was going it didnt look like Han had much of a choice. My opinion of course.
Unlike the rogue in the ops posts. His opponents were defeated (some by surrender), tied up and unconscious. Also the rogue placed as guard to make things stayed as they were, since the rest of the party planned to question them later.
If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this off subject some but I was wondering for 5E what do you for alignment... does anyone know?
You probably roll a d20. It seems to decide everything in that game anyways. last time I looked at 5e it was "low-levels the 1-20 experience" where how good you rolled was far more important than the choices you made or the character you played.
I know this off subject some but I was wondering for 5E what do you for alignment... does anyone know?You probably roll a d20. It seems to decide everything in that game anyways. last time I looked at 5e it was "low-levels the 1-20 experience" where how good you rolled was far more important than the choices you made or the character you played.
Eh, different strokes, I guess. For me it was 'the random element matters at all levels (roughly) equally, making it more interesting than high level 3.x'. I have my own problems with the system, but that would be a tangent off of a tangent off of another tangent, so I won't go there.
|
|
If a CG character can kill helpless foes (which they can), then a CN character can kill hepless foes.
I don't think people understand the ramifications of being Chaotic. You don't have to follow some code of honor when it comes to the people who just tried to kill you.
I would even go so far as to say LG isn't even required to not kill helpless foes. The ideals of alignment differ in many ways and if you read the note in the atonement spell normally a player chooses when to change their alignment not the GM. As a player your alignment is whatever the hell you want it to be as long as you can provide at least thin reasoning to your actions.
My opinion.
Any good character would never kill a helpless foe.
Be chaotic doesnt mean you dont have morals.
A GM can change a characters alignment based off the characters action. If you dont agree you can always walk away.
Is a goblin baby helpless?
Is a goblin baby helpless?Is an unconscious, tied up person helpless?
Answer mine then I'll answer yours.