While I know that chaotic neutral is usually just an excuse to play the typical chaotic stupid character. I also know that the alignment system is very very broken. What I'm wondering is where does a chaotic neutral character land when it comes to killing another sentient humanoid creature.
For example, I am currently playing a chaotic neutral gunslinger in my pathfinder game. He has not respect for authority and constantly bucks at laws especially those in which evil characters can manipulate to punish or keep down innocent town folk all while continuing to be in keeping with the law. He does not kill innocent people for poop's and haha's but whereas the lawful good paladin abstains from killing an evil prisoner who will most likely get loose and inflict more harm or death my character did not have a problem shooting him in the face when no one was looking to prevent greater harm from befalling the town.
As soon as I pulled the trigger two players immediately stopped the game to insist that I be pushed on to the evil alignment which would, in turn, force me to create a new character since we have a no evil character house rule which I'm very opposed to since while yes he killed someone it was for the greater good and he does not commit other serious crimes for his own amusement.
So the question I want to know is actually a two part: one were the actions of my character within keeping with the appropriate alignment and two does that now make my character evil?
My DM has said if I can find sufficient opinion on a site like this or even better someone who may be able to provide an example or some exact text to support my opinion he will allow me to keep my character.
Alignment shifts are in DM fiat territory. My personal litmus test is: is this a consistent (key word) behavior in line with the description of another alignment, or is this an eggregious violation of alignment (Ex: a lawful good character torching an orphanage with children still inside)? A single incident should not shift alignment, but it should warrant discussion and warning.
|
I do not think that kind of act would be an automatic alignment shift to evil.
Think of it like the comic book character The Punisher...I would classify him as a CN character who kills without mercy, yet is not evil.
Evil requires malicious intent, killing an evildoer to stop them from hurting others is not malicious. Now if you tortured the NPC before offing him, that would qualify.
Generally the rule of thumb is, unless it's something that is an unequivocal show of devotion to a clear evil power (e.g. a sincere prayer to a demon lord) it takes at least two evil acts to shift your alignment.
I would say "places a very, very low value on the continuation of any specific instance of sentient life" is totally in keeping with Chaotic Neutral. I mean the God of "War for its own sake" in Golarion is CN.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is killing the innocent.
Don't kill the innocent and you're good. Nowhere does it say that killing is evil. After all, animals do it and they're neutral. Actions don't normally have alignments. It's the intention to hurt the innocent that makes it evil.
When in doubt, what would Deadpool do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lizard folk are typically Neutral and they have a cannibalistic society. Makes you think eh?
Executing a helpless prisoner no matter the danger level is slippery slope territory. That said as long as you don't make a habit of it I wouldn't be concerned. I always tell people CN is all about personal freedom, and does generally care about others one way or the other. Given your willingness to help ensure the freedom of others a solid argument can be made for your character being CG. CN seems to be a happy place for you if you're okay with occasionally doing some morally objectionable things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This site is a pretty good tool for answering alignment questions. Also, TV Tropes provides a ton of ammunition for your argument.
It sounds to me like you're justified in your actions and alignment. Your gunslinger seems like he mostly just wants to live his life without people telling him what to do, hates seeing other people coerced or forced to live under harmful authority and actively rebels against laws he considers unjust or oppressive. If this prisoner had a history of perpetrating malicious acts, especially acts that hurt or killed others, and the GS had reason to believe the "law" would fail to protect victims from further ill, it's totally in character to "take the law into his own hands." The prisoner may have been helpless when you shot him, but a snake in a bag doesn't lose its venom. Just based on that, an argument can definitely be made that your GS is actually a vengeful Chaotic Good.
you're just being utilitarian the one for the many ends justify the means logic over love. None of these things are inherently evil.
Also you're table sounds super repressive.
Animals are amoral. Neutrality implies conscious choice.
I am in the "your character sounds more CG than CN" camp. Your executing the prisoner was just an off shoot of your lack of faith in the law system to protect the innocent. CE would be shooting the Paladin in the face when sleeping so you could cut the prisoner into 4 inch cubes at your leisure.
Then again my groups tend to put the "Murder" in Murder Hobo so your mileage may very. I have known some groups who avoid using non one god pantheons for personal reasons and had very G rated games.
The real question is, is your group more "Rescue Rangers", "Secret of Nimh" or "Willow"
Keep in mind that the paladin is not just good, he is lawful good. The reason the paladin did not kill the prisoner was as much about law as it was good. If the paladin took the prisoner in to the local authorities and they sentenced the prisoner to death and the authorities asked the paladin to kill the prisoner he would be able to do so without the slightest chance of falling. If a paladin can do something without falling it is by definition not an evil act. Killing an innocent person is a different story, but that is not what happened.
The only difference between what you did and the paladin acting as an executioner is the paladin would be authorized to kill the prisoner. This makes killing the prisoner without due process a chaotic act instead of a lawful act, specific a chaotic neutral act.
Actually killing is explicitly listed as evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Right Pete, but the mitigating factor that the victim will kill again if they don't stop him.
So, -10 for the killing and +10 for preventing him from continuing his evil acts, so net value is Neutral.
whereas the lawful good paladin abstains from killing an evil prisoner who will most likely get loose and inflict more harm or death my character did not have a problem shooting him in the face when no one was looking to prevent greater harm from befalling the town.
Any Paladin of Ragathiel, Vildeis, or Torag is unlikely to even bother taking prisoners.
From Torag's Paladin Code: Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
If a LG deity would do exactly what you did in that same situation, for pretty much the same reasons, how would that make you fall to evil?
I had a neutral player in a game I was GMing a while back. He wanted to be NE, and while I have no problems with evil characters, I told him he couldn't start there, but had to arrive there during the campaign.
You know what he did to change alignment? He put on a fake "magic show" where he sawed 6 people in half, then possessed the body of another player and used him to murder 7 more people in cold blood. He later went on to kill a child in front of her father, backstab the rest of the party, become a vampire, become leader of a country, manipulate that country into giving him unchecked power using organized crime groups that his alter-ego was in charge of, murder the PCs of the next campaign after tricking them into killing another world leader, and start a secret dragon breeding program in a demiplane where he had set himself up as a god. That's evil.
Brew Bird,
If you are OK with the player/character doing that in game, I fail to see the point of not just letting him start his character as neutral evil. Were you just interested in seeing what he would do to make his bones?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brew Bird,
If you are OK with the player/character doing that in game, I fail to see the point of not just letting him start his character as neutral evil. Were you just interested in seeing what he would do to make his bones?
I imagine it was to force him to be truly evil if he really wanted it. Its definitely better than just saying "Yeah my character is evil" it makes a good story and gets the player involved with his character.
Actually killing is explicitly listed as evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
You forgot the next part of the section.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Sometimes killing is evil, but not always. I would go so far as to say that killing is often evil, but it really depends on the motivation and circumstances. Almost any act can be considered evil in some circumstances. So just because an act is sometimes considered evil does not mean it will always be considered evil.
|
|
Good vs Evil deals mostly with how you treat the innocent (even the Evil innocent)
Chaos vs Law deals mostly with how you react to being told what to do
What you did was Neutral and Chaotic IMO
Why did the Paladin even spare the bad guy BTW ? Is it a matter of legality ?
And your GM really should clarify now with the whole group what his take on the alignments is
The bad guy surrendered to the paladin before the pally could land the finishing blow. Earlier in the campaign a bad guy who works with the same BBEG that this particular villain works for begged for mercy from the pally and cleric claiming to repent his sins so they stopped the group from battling claiming we could bring him to the authorities, then he escaped by use of magic before we could detain him then killed a small village and raised them so he could escape. I didn't feel like taking the chance this time with this guy. The paladin and cleric in our group are both extreme LG and of the same deity (as a side note we use our own pantheon and their deity strongly encourages the use of a judicial system).
One common mistake for lawful good is to think that anything that they are opposed to is evil. Even those that favor good over law can fall into this trap. It sounds like this is what is happening with the other players. Lawful good is not the only definition of good.
While what you did might be against their moral code and the teachings of their deity it is not evil. It would not be a good act but that does not mean it was evil. That being said you may still have problems with the paladin and cleric because of their deity. This may fall under the “anyone who consistently offends her moral code” of the Associates rule of the paladins code.
The bad guy surrendered to the paladin before the pally could land the finishing blow. Earlier in the campaign a bad guy who works with the same BBEG that this particular villain works for begged for mercy from the pally and cleric claiming to repent his sins so they stopped the group from battling claiming we could bring him to the authorities, then he escaped by use of magic before we could detain him then killed a small village and raised them so he could escape. I didn't feel like taking the chance this time with this guy. The paladin and cleric in our group are both extreme LG and of the same deity (as a side note we use our own pantheon and their deity strongly encourages the use of a judicial system).
Your cleric and paladin have failed their duties to uphold good and law and should therefore fall.
Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. But this is a perfect example of why it isn't (or shouldn't be ruled by the GM to be) against lawful good to execute prisoners (under some circumstances).
If an evil-doer (such as one who attacks paladins unprovoked) can't be turned over to proper authorities, then he should be executed on the spot. Risking a likely escape or releasing the evil-doer means he might commit evil again. Transporting the evil-doer for extended periods of time (and expending resources to do so) impedes the fight against evil.
An evil-doer who genuinely regrets his deeds doesn't suddenly become innocent. It just means that when executed, he might end up on one of the good-aligned planes.
Or to quote the paladin code:
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Failing to punish those who harm innocents violates the code of conduct.
Intent is everything when it comes to alignment. If by definition "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" then combat automatically makes you evil.
Clearly your intent was to save lives. This makes your action Good. Especially when you consider how it would negatively impact your character if/when your party members found out. At this point you have fulfilled the personal sacrifice to stop evil part of being good.
On the other hand, if your character killed him because it was easier than not killing him, I would call this neutral or evil. If your character felt the same or better outcome could be accomplished by detaining him and/or turning him over to the authorities, but it would inconvenience you to do so, killing him would not be a good act and could be borderline evil.
If you are killing him because of something unrelated to his actions it's evil.
The fact that you had to wait until your party wasn't looking makes you in conflict with them. This is where the actual trouble lies. Your characters job is to convince 2 lawful/good characters that being lawful is doing more harm than good, or they need to convince your character that he needs to become lawful. If your play group doesn't want to play out this type of scenario, then someone needs a new character.
|
I'd consider it a Chaotic Neutral act and in line with expected behavior.
The problem isn't one of alignment. The party needs to consider if they would continue working together. You have two characters that strongly believe in justice via their belief system, and a guy who wings it. Thinking like a LG character, unless I had some very compelling reasons to work with the CN character, I would be on my way. YMMV.
Is alignment based on intent or actions? Dm fiat
If intent based- you get to decide
If action based- dm decides
If combination- dm still decides but after you explain why
Most of the time we go with combination simply because going purely off intent or your actions is unreasonable. Plenty of examples here. Genocide for the greater good, ending slavery for racism, etc. Just based on what you said about the situation I would argue CN. Not CE because he killed him for the right reasons. Not CG because you didn't seem to try and avoid killing him.
By the book
Relevant Quotes
Chaotic:On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Neutral(G vs E): People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others
Okay, there are several issues here, both in-game and out of game. Your actions as described are not consistent with CE and may even be considered CG. However, your actions are incompatible with the Paladin's and Cleric's code of conduct whom you have described as serving a God of Justice. This could be the fault of your character or either of the two LG characters extreme alignment constraints. In many games this can be the result of a Lawful Stupid Paladin, placing un-fun constraints on the whole party's activities.
In-game, the party does not seem cohesive. What you have not stated is the overall size and composition of the party. If you have a party of four, with a Paladin, a LG Cleric of the same God, your CN gunslinger and one other person who is not chaotic then your character is a poor fit from a team cohesion perspective. If the fourth party member is chaotic then the party is split and if you have a larger group, then from what you have said, the minority is likely to be the two extreme LG characters.
This in-game split has apparently become an out-of-game split because two players are asking for you to create a new character. If you are in the minority, then it is probably best for you to create a character that better fits the rest of the group regardless of whether your character's actions were right or wrong. If they are in the minority then perhaps they should change characters to improve the group's cohesiveness. If there is a split, then it probably best discussing things outside of a session and agree on what would be acceptable to all parties, including the GM. This may mean that some of the characters have their personalities tweaked or codes of conduct adjusted.
So to summarise, you may not be in the wrong, but it might be best to change anyway so the group doesn't fall apart.
|
|
The bad guy surrendered to the paladin before the pally could land the finishing blow. Earlier in the campaign a bad guy who works with the same BBEG that this particular villain works for begged for mercy from the pally and cleric claiming to repent his sins so they stopped the group from battling claiming we could bring him to the authorities, then he escaped by use of magic before we could detain him then killed a small village and raised them so he could escape. I didn't feel like taking the chance this time with this guy. The paladin and cleric in our group are both extreme LG and of the same deity (as a side note we use our own pantheon and their deity strongly encourages the use of a judicial system).Your cleric and paladin have failed their duties to uphold good and law and should therefore fall.
Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. But this is a perfect example of why it isn't (or shouldn't be ruled by the GM to be) against lawful good to execute prisoners (under some circumstances).
If an evil-doer (such as one who attacks paladins unprovoked) can't be turned over to proper authorities, then he should be executed on the spot. Risking a likely escape or releasing the evil-doer means he might commit evil again. Transporting the evil-doer for extended periods of time (and expending resources to do so) impedes the fight against evil.
An evil-doer who genuinely regrets his deeds doesn't suddenly become innocent. It just means that when executed, he might end up on one of the good-aligned planes.
Or to quote the paladin code:
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Failing to punish those who harm innocents violates the code of conduct.
Actually the LG god should fall. Or more precisely, the GM should fall
Additional relevant quotes from the PRD " A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."
And for your character "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."
The Cleric and Paladin should have been punished by their church or their god, or at the very least berated, for letting a criminal escape justice. And they should have asked their superiors or even their god about the proper actions in such a case. In fact they should have been told what to do in this kind of situation. Very likely their characters should know this as part of their religious education. Surely it is not the first time that this happens to the god and his church
In any case, you are not to be punished for others' failings
I Just want to say thank you for everyone's advice, tips, and opinions. Hopefully when my group meets up again ill be able to make my case without having to create a new character