Hi all,
Alignment threads seem to generate a lot of opinions as people view the alignments completely different from one another. Some people think that the alignments don't really matter, some use them as a basic guideline, others try to enforce them strictly.
I've always viewed alignments as a general guideline. I don't really worry about the players adhering to their alignment unless it is a really strong deviation from their alignment. Or a general pattern starts to develop of how they are playing it out, and it doesn't match what they have on their sheet.
Keeping all of that in mind, I don't think a player can ever go against their alignment unintentionally. As an example, a party enters a dangerous cavern where they believe that monsters are lurking. They enter, and see a goblin off in the distance that does not see them. The party's rogue sneaks close to the goblin, and sneak attack kills it.
If in a strange turn of events, the goblin was actually a good character and was there trying to defeat the evil goblins of its tribe, would this be an evil action for the rogue PC? I would say no, as the rogue PC was unaware that the goblin was not evil.
Do other people play it this was as well, or does killing a good character, no matter the circumstances, count as an evil act?
Starting an alignment thread is a Chaotic Evil act.
As for killing a goblin without attempting to engage him in conversation about his life story first, if this is a setting where the "always evil" alignment applies to goblins, I'd call it neutral and be done with it.
This sums up my opinion on the subject of alignments. That and a fondness for Neverwinter Nights's sliding-scales alignment scores.
In this specific instance, I'd agree, not an evil act for the reasons given. Not a good one obviously, so neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the start, I ask my players to give me a paragraph describing how they interpret the PC alignment they've selected. That is far more important to me in designing interesting and challenging encounters than the mere name of the alignment.
Also, in the situation above, I think it would be my job as DM to give a hint that something is not as the PCs might expect. For example, "The goblin is wearing the insignia of a different clan" and/or "The goblin's attention appears to be on something deeper inside the cave rather than watching the entrance." That sort of thing might encourage my PCs to watch and investigate before simply slaying the goblin. Or it might not. :-)
|
About the question from the OP, killing a good character, IMO, even if they KNOW that they are good guys fighting each other, is not evil, it neutral - per se.
Taking the goblin example, the rogue and the goblin had the chance to talk, the rogue realizes the the goblin is good and intend to change the hearts of his fellow goblins. The rogue knows that, if the goblins were not stopped soon, they will destroy the village at dawn. The good goblin is very sorry to know that, it will do his possible to prevent that without harming the goblins, but will not allow the party kill the members of his tribe that he judges (maybe wrongly) they can be redeemed and states that harm to his tribe will only come over his dead corpse. He is so fervently sure that he can change his tribe, that it's pretty obvious that his hope to accomplish this is the only thing that keeps him with a good alignment. Will the party risk the failure of the good goblin, or take hostile action against him?
I've put an very difficult example in mine oriental campaign, there is a good shugenja (kind of oriental cleric), that her father is a evil sorcerer, but then this sorcerer linked his soul with their daughter's. Because of that, as long she remains alive, his father will be immortal. and she is unaware of it.
You, as a friend of this shugenja and good character, would you kill her?
Walking Dead Season 1, the game from Telltale (awesome, by the way), has very intense moral choices the protagonist must make, many of them pits "good" against "good", and "good" vs "right".
Killing a evil character is a good act? I think not.
Finally, how can a Chaotic Evil individual, could survive and thrive in a non evil society? Harder still, how he could contribute to this society?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I follow the rules/guidelines for alignment, which state
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
It is a tool, not a straitjacket, it is a broad range, and no one is ever completely consistent. If more people paid attention to this, there'd probably be fewer alignment arguments. :)
Regarding the "go against your alignment unintentionally..." I agree so far as intent is the key issue. With the scenario of the rogue sneak attacking the goblin, you could bring up an issue of the rogue making assumptions that led, however unintentionally, to murder... but on the other hand, if the rogue felt he was truly in danger and was doing the best thing to protect himself and his party, then it either wasn't an "evil act" or otherwise it was sufficiently "grey area" it by itself is not going to have a lot of consequences (other than the obvious consequence that the party has lost a potential ally). And of course the big thing to remember is that a single act against alignment does not result in an alignment shift---so that even if you ruled that the rogue did an evil thing, he would not suddenly become evil for this one mistake.
|
|
Argh, damnation! I marked deathquaker's post as favorite when she wrote about "alignment being a tool" and kept reading, then i read about the "best thing to the party" part and hit the favorite again, unfavoriting it. Damn, why i can't favor a post twice!?
But i'm still curious how you guys will visualize a chaotic evil individual and his role in a non evil society, be thriving or/and contributing. I would open a thread with this question, but i found this one and seemed better to me just write in here, instead of opening a new thread.
Well, I can provide an example from my current game =)
In my Kingmaker campaign, the party's Magister is a CE Warmage. For reference the rest of the party are a CN Hunter (Fistfull of Denarii version) Spymistress, a TN Cavalier General, a TN Samurai Warden, and an LG Oracle Ruler; the kingdom's alignment is also TN. He likes burning things for fun, is apathetic to the idea of taking prisoners alive ("We can just have the Oracle use speak with dead on the corpse, can't we?"), considers magic more important than people, is fond of the use of torture, and can count the people he actually cares about on his hands with fingers to spare. (Those for now include most of the party - though he'd never admit it - and his NPC wife - who might be the only person he's ever genuinely nice to.)
He gets by in society by being somewhat reclusive, turning his love of magic into a contribution by founding and running a magical academy and being a teacher in his off-time, and actually caring about the kingdom ("It's where all my stuff is") and going to lengths to protect it from threats. He doesn't start fires in town or burn down buildings both because it's a waste of something that is his and he doesn't want it damaged, and because he's smart enough to realize that attacking your citizens tends to result in bad things happening to you, when you can always go chase down some monsters in the wilderness if you feel a pressing urge to get your burninate on.
There was a post in the JJ thread where someone described a character that fit this guy to a T: "I have my close companions, friends, and allies; I would do anything for them, to the ends of the earth and back. But the rest of the world can burn for all I care. What alignment am I?" Jacobs's response was, of course, Chaotic Evil.
The fact that he doesn't care about everything else actually makes him a bit more loyal in the eyes of the party, because the fact that he does care about the party and the kingdom is proof that he considers them of extreme importance, and that since they're something that is his he'll do whatever he needs - unbridled by morality - to ensure their well-being. Even if they do bicker all the time.