So we have a party with 3 CG Characters and 1 CN Characters. We are in a dungeon to retrieve an artifact (Shattered Star) and come across a sleeping female. We have been fighting a band of female thieves since we arrived. The CN is the only stealthy one. We tell him to sneak over and deal with her. He kills her in her sleep. She was also unarmed and unarmored. He did not attempt any other action. When we protested and asked why, he replied, "She was a threat". When we explained that we could have questioned her, he held up her severed head and replied, "Go ahead and ask her."
In the following battle he cast burning hands into an area containing our tank and 2 enemies. He could have taken a 5ft step and avoided the tank, the GM pointed it out and he declined.
Everyone except the CN character considers his actions to be evil. He considers his character to be perfectly Chaotic Neutral.
Are his actions evil? Has he qualified for an alignment shift?
The answer is (of course) to ask your GM. Alignment is pretty murky at times, so that's the most practical answer.
If you want my personal opinion, then...
...
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
...
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.
...
For some, spreading chaos and destruction is a deliberate goal, yet more often chaotic evil characters are those who simply don't care whom their desires may hurt. They may see a certain nobility in their refusal to be bound by any conventions or creeds, or they may simply indulge their greed, hatred, and lust with no thought to the consequences. They may be emotionally or mentally unstable, letting their inner turmoil and turbulence spill out uncontrollably into others' lives. Yet, they need not be insane—their savagery can be deliberate and intentional, unleashed in carefully directed and rationed bursts.Serial killers, demon cultists, arsonists, dangerous hedonists, and others lured to atrocity by passion are drawn to this alignment.
The "CN" character seems to fit CE almost perfectly
Eh his argument was pretty lack luster but if you find an unarmed woman sleeping in a dungeon full of female thieves who you've been attacked by it's a reasonable conclusion to reach that she is one of said thieves and as such an enemy it's still pretty s~!%ty to not check but you could justify it. Also when you ask someone to "deal" with an enemy what do you think is going to happen?
Was there a reason he didn't 5ft step? He'd have to be casting in threat, or he'd hit fewer enemies, or he'd be in a more dangerous position? If not, is there a valid reason he'd want to in character kill the tank?
Now that being said simply acting in an evil manner occasionally is not a reason for an alignment shift. A chaotic neutral character will act evilly and goodly over the course of his life. Just like a fundamentally good person will have done something scummy over his life either on accident or on purpose. And even a fundamentally evil person is liable to do something good at some point in their lives. It sounds like a few isolated incidents so far and one of which is justifiable if it becomes a constant thing he might have to be alignment shifted but that's up to your DM.
He wasn't in danger, nor would he have been had he moved. He would have hit only the 2 enemies had he taken it and chose not too, even after it was explained to him.
Absent unmentioned mitigating circumstances, both those actions are evil in my book. Doesn't mean the character is necessarily evil, but I'd warn the player that if they keep it up they will need to change alignment to reflect their behaviour.
The DM warned him of exactly that. He still maintains neutrality. The rest of the Party is CG and my character is going to confront him at the end of combat. My character considers what he did to be murder.
Our SS game collapsed for the same reason. We had a player acting incredibly and clearly CE that tried claiming CN, and it basically came down to a "Well if that's how you're going to GM, then I won't play!"
Well, that's how I'm going to GM, so our gaming group regrouped and moved on - without that player (which is extremely unfortunate; I like him quite a lot.)
Additionally, not to get really spoiler-y, but the Tower Girls have clear, reasonable, and compelling motives.
At this point, you know for sure that they were betrayed, robbed, spied on, had their revenge blocked by the PCs (an unknown element), and now the party is invading their turf. They're a Sczarni gang, and the PCs have put themselves in the middle of a gang war - yeah, they're going to be hostile. If your party has researched more, you might also know how they ended up where they're at.
As the GM, knowing what I know, this character is even more CE than the party is even necessarily aware.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually handle Good vs Evil as how much a character values life. A good person values other peoples lives as much as his own or at least nearly as much. A Neutral person values his own life much more than anyone else's including his partners. An Evil person does not really value anyone's life except his own.
Also an Evil person often enjoys hurting other's, a Neutral person would not enjoy it so much. "but he is Chaotic so he likes to give out pain once in a while." No if he is Chaotic he enjoys breaking the law... not causing pain and injury. Evil people like causing pain and distress... just like Good people like helping the sick and down trodden. Neutral people just like to help themselves and/or the people they know and like (their family for example).
I wouldn't change his alignment for one or two incidents, however I would have explain that Neutral alignment does not mean sometimes you are good and sometimes you are bad (even though that seems to be a popular sentiment) alignments are meant to be a consistent type of behavior. Evil can seem to be good on the surface... for example Ted Bundy. I don't think many people would consider him Chaotic Neutral. If a character is occasionally killing women and setting fire to animals(fighters are at least animals right?) then he is probably an Evil character.
He wasn't in danger, nor would he have been had he moved. He would have hit only the 2 enemies had he taken it and chose not too, even after it was explained to him.
Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.
|OXXO|
|OOTO|
|OOEO|O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?
Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see murdering the sleeping character as a plausible reaction for a CN character. There was a good chance of them being a combatant and that was the safest approach.
The Burning Hands part, if it is as you are putting it, is not an issue of alignment. It's a player issue. CE or LG, there's no reason to do anything like that to another player - given the option. Unless you are playing a PvP game, you really shouldn't go out of your way to damage allies. But I don't think there is any battle situation in which a 5-foot step's only difference is hitting a 'tank' with a 15-ft cone. Wouldn't the caster be closer to enemies? Not have as strong cover due to not being behind soft cover after moving? Etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perfect example of why so many campaigns ban the Chaotic Neutral alignment. The player is essentially rationalizing a chaotic evil character.
The player could have cold cocked the sleeper with a sap and taken her alive for questioning.
Chaotic neutral would kill if they were trapped. He wasn't. The character seems to be a sociopath. Interesting character, but probably better for one person parties. I don't think a chaotic good party wild want to journey with him as he seems to lack remorse. If he wants to screw with things he could prank guards or something like that. The party needs to be a team. If a team member completely disregards the lives of others, the others want a different team. You could have a small campaign that's evil if he needs to purge it.
Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.
|OXX|
|OOT|
|OOE|O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?
*sigh* Well that certainly sounds like the player is playing an evil character with complete disregard for the lives of his allies.
However, if you look at the layout I changed above, a 5ft step to avoid the Tank would allow for two enemies to attack the caster via their own 5ft steps, staying where he was would only allow one enemy to do so. Alternatively if he cast flaming hands where he was and 5ft stepped backwards he could avoid any 5ft steps and attacks from his enemies.
It's entirely possible that a character values his own life above that of his allies and that's understandable, a little evil but understandable.
I just got the orientation from the DM:
|OOEO|
|OOOO|
|OTXO|
|OOXO|
So he could have stepped to the right (his left as he faced south) and avoided the Tank.
1 or 2 actions do not an alignment shift make. A warning is all that is required at the moment, and keep an eye on things.
Although really this sounds like some OOC talking might be required about teamwork, jerk behaviour and making the game unfun for others.
When I played CN, it was based on a 'what will keep me alive' mentality. He didn't wish harm on allies... but he also wasn't going to stick his neck out for them either.
Although, as I play with friends and am not GOOD with that mentality... he really DID stick his neck out for his allies more then would have been in character >.< He also had the mentality that he had a MUCH better chance for survival WITH these people helping him... then if they were dead... so it was a catch-22.
Killing an enemy in their sleep? Totally legit for CN. If it was a mistake... that sucks, but totally in-alignment and may feel guilty later. If he thought they were innocent? Then that would be Evil. However he thought they were the ones out to get them... so get them before they get you. Was it murder? Yeah.. probably... But without spoilers (just starting that AP), most killing done in a dungeon or lair pretty much is.
Burning his ally? The placement isn't great... However I would have had to be there. When the term 'Tank' gets tossed around, it indicates someone with a lot of HP and can TAKE a little damage. If he really thought his ally could take the hit and heal up afterwards, then it was legit tactic. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in OUR groups where someone yelled out to fireball him too because he was surrounded and thought it best in the long run (and/or had decent HP and saves and thought he could take it...)
My guy would have done the same if there were no better ways to do it... but if a 5' step would have given a clear shot AND protected the ally... AND kept himself safe.. then yeah, he totally would have taken that alternative.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, the whole Chaotic Neutral vs Chaotic Evil thing is a total red herring. The real problem is that the player is being an intentionally disruptive &$@hole. That is what needs to be addressed, not which two letter combination best represents the player's murderhobo PC.
Regardless of what you find here, I'd prepare for this ending badly and your group needing a new player.
The group getting a new player, or just gettig rid of this one, is how it ends well.
Regardless of what you find here, I'd prepare for this ending badly and your group needing a new player.The group getting a new player, or just gettig rid of this one, is how it ends well.
It would end better if the problem player could be convinced to stop being a problem and cooperate with the rest of the party. Throwing someone out of the group isn't pleasant. It might be necessary, but it isn't pleasant.
Okay and did he step backwards away from the the enemy after casting instead or did he just stand still? Because if he backed away it makes some sense if he stands still not so much.
He stayed still.
Someone up thread said that in the situation there is a reason the women are attacking the PCs but the OP hasn't told us if the characters know that reason yet. As such all they know is that these people have jumped them before and tried to kill them, they're enemies there isn't any reason to keep them alive unless you want to interrogate them.
We knew where the Shard was and that the Tower Girls were here. We expected resistance, to be sure. We didn't know why they were here, though.
The OP also said that the party told the sneaky person to "go deal with them" "deal with them" is very commonly used as a euphemism to kill somebody, without further explanation it would be reasonable for the character to assume they wanted the potential threat dead.
Well... here's where it get's strange. The CN Character is a Soulknife 1/Oracle 2 who started the Campaign as Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. So our first impressions were based on that. Then he "had an accident", the trauma from which caused his Oracle Curse and an alignment change to Chaotic Neutral. The only reason for this change was "flavor". However, he knew after 3 levels (Almost 4) of working with us that we were all good and played that way. The character had no history of cruelty and knew we all abhorred it. Given that context, I would disagree with the validity of "miscommunication". We had captured enemies multiple times in the past. That should have been the expectation.
Let people define their own alignments unless most of their actions are basically the opposite of their alignment. A LG character constantly committing LE actions might be worth a conversation with after the game. Don't get involved with alignment, let players define their own moral compass; everything else is messy and detracts from fun.
If the members of the team question their party member's actions in game is fine. Let them handle it through role play or out of game if it's a huge issue, but keep alignment out of it, just make it about enjoyment of the game.
Normally, I would agree and, in fact, I am going to attempt that in this case. The additional problem (which I didn't originally declare) is that this isn't the first time he has done this.
In a previous game he was playing a CN character and I was playing a LE character hired and therefore under contract with the party. He screwed up something in a fight and my character laughed at him. His reaction to shoot me in the chest with his composite longbow. I personally thought this was out of the purview of CN but I handled it in character by silently declaring the contract breached, swore a vendetta, and working to turn the party against him. Then, after a particularly dangerous fight; I attacked him in revenge for breaking the contract. I had him down to 2 HP but another character jumped in (my Wife, even) and intervened on his behalf. He killed me next round.
That was interesting. This time it's detracting from the game.
Alignment isn't the issue in the second case -- being a jerk towards other players is. I am playing a lawful good Sorcerer in a game where I would happily cast a Burning Hands spell at a group that includes my party's tank -- but in my game, the tank in question is a Bloodrager who has resist fire 10 and a +2 bonus to saves vs. fire. But it appears from your description that the party tank had no similar abilities and that the player could have done just as much damage to the enemy from a slightly different position without hurting an ally.
I wouldn't confront the player over the sleeping person he killed (as it seems like a communication error more than anything else) but I would confront him about unnecessarily hurting his allies.
Alignment isn't the issue in the second case -- being a jerk towards other players is. I am playing a lawful good Sorcerer in a game where I would happily cast a Burning Hands spell at a group that includes my party's tank -- but in my game, the tank in question is a Bloodrager who has resist fire 10 and a +2 bonus to saves vs. fire. But it appears from your description that the party tank had no similar abilities and that the player could have done just as much damage to the enemy from a slightly different position without hurting an ally.
I wouldn't confront the player over the sleeping person he killed (as it seems like a communication error more than anything else) but I would confront him about unnecessarily hurting his allies.
From Earlier:
Well... here's where it get's strange. The CN Character is a Soulknife 1/Oracle 2 who started the Campaign as Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. So our first impressions were based on that. Then he "had an accident", the trauma from which caused his Oracle Curse and an alignment change to Chaotic Neutral. The only reason for this change was "flavor". However, he knew after 3 levels (Almost 4) of working with us that we were all good and played that way. The character had no history of cruelty and knew we all abhorred it. Given that context, I would disagree with the validity of "miscommunication". We had captured enemies multiple times in the past. That should have been the expectation.
Sounds like a jerk player who doesn't fit with the rest of the group's play style. If you were being charitable the rest of the group could offer him the option to play in a way that was fun for everyone else. Otherwise his character becomes an NPC and the player finds another group whose play style is more suited to his own.
Killing a sleeping enemy has always been grey. I usually prefer to capture them if possible, for questioning if anything else.
As far as willingly deciding to hit a party member with a spell, especially if the GM said he could easily avoid it...well that's just being a dick.
Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.
Attacking another player's character isn't an alignment problem. It's a table problem and should be discussed out of the game, and the player should know that this won't be tolerated if you guys are not ok with it.
Personally I don't care whether your alignment is lawful good or chaotic evil. Attacking another player's character is a big no and if the matter fell to me I would have the offending player evicted from the game if they persisted in doing so.
|
Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.
This assumes random people are enemies until proven otherwise. Because he killed a sleeping woman who'd never done anything to anyone he'd ever seen. That's cold blooded murder of a presumed innocent for the reason of 'Well, they might be dangerous.' Despite there being no evidence of that.
It's the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in the street because they might be dangerous.
So...yeah, that's cold-blooded murder for no good reason. I'd have put him to CE right there as a GM. And, as a Good character, probably attacked him physically.
CN is often a not understood and thus abused alignment.
Cn is all about preserving your freedom to do what you want. You are an individual not bound by evil or good. Will you kill a sleeping person that you perceive as a bad guy. Heck yes! Now the evilness of killing a sleepign person would depend more on the mental stats of the character. He may have been to stupid to realize she could have been good. I have CN that would have killed this person as it would have been the easiest way to remove something that would go out of it ways to limit my freedom, and since it goes out of it;s way to do so i have the right to preemptively defend myself.
Now blasting a teammate out of laziness is an evil action. Not to mention a jerk at the table. Most evil characters would not do this to the party, because they know the party would turn on them for doing this. They are unpredictable, but NOT random. A CN should be able to explain their thought process. We may not agree with it, and the logic may be missing. But their actions lead to some desired goal. Now one caveat, if he was offended or bothered by the character he burned before the action, he may have some goal they are fulfilling by lighting him up.
I have heard a person say i play Cn so I can be good or evil as a want. No, that is the absolute wrong way to think of it. Neutral is not a gage between good and evil with choatic meaning it flirts both sides. Neutral is its own alignment with it's own opinions.
Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.This assumes random people are enemies until proven otherwise. Because he killed a sleeping woman who'd never done anything to anyone he'd ever seen. That's cold blooded murder of a presumed innocent for the reason of 'Well, they might be dangerous.' Despite there being no evidence of that.
It's the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in the street because they might be dangerous.
So...yeah, that's cold-blooded murder for no good reason. I'd have put him to CE right there as a GM. And, as a Good character, probably attacked him physically.
I stand corrected, I had not looked at it from that angle. Yes it is an evil act, but I still wouldn't put it past a darker shade of grey neutral character.
I can't really use the hostile environment argument because that doesn't immediately make her an enemy. She could have been a prisoner or a spy working against the organization you are fighting against. So taking her prisoner is both the smartest and not evil thing to do it seems.
Killing a sleeping enemy is something I could see a neutral character doing. It would have been smarter to capture and question her but that's not what is on debate here.This assumes random people are enemies until proven otherwise. Because he killed a sleeping woman who'd never done anything to anyone he'd ever seen. That's cold blooded murder of a presumed innocent for the reason of 'Well, they might be dangerous.' Despite there being no evidence of that.
It's the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in the street because they might be dangerous.
So...yeah, that's cold-blooded murder for no good reason. I'd have put him to CE right there as a GM. And, as a Good character, probably attacked him physically.
Not really... It's more the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in an enemy camp because they may be enemies...
It's still morally wrong... but the kind where he could THINK he was right.
Again... no spoilers please, but the OP said they were in dungeon and were previously fighting females thieves and he thought she was one of them. ALSO (again... no spoilers please) he never said if he was in fact wrong about that assumption.
It would absolutely be dishonorable and would be code-breaking enough act to drop a paladin in a heartbeat... but for a chaotic Neutral roguish type?? I wouldn't call it an immediate alignment change. Not all classes have the same standard. Most can commit quite a few evil acts before it becomes their standard alignment.
though this guy DOES seem to be heading that way...
|
|
Not really... It's more the moral equivalent of stabbing random people in an enemy camp because they may be enemies...
This is Emerald Spire, so it's a lot of different areas, which makes the assumption that she's with a group they've already fought kinda like assuming that all people dressed in brown are part of that brown-dressed gang you fought.
It's still morally wrong... but the kind where he could THINK he was right.
This does not make it notably less Evil.
Again... no spoilers please, but the OP said they were in dungeon and were previously fighting females thieves and he thought she was one of them. ALSO (again... no spoilers please) he never said if he was in fact wrong about that assumption.
Whether he's wrong is immaterial. He killed her in cold blood without even checking on the assumption she might be dangerous. That's Evil.
It would absolutely be dishonorable and would be code-breaking enough act to drop a paladin in a heartbeat... but for a chaotic Neutral roguish type?? I wouldn't call it an immediate alignment change. Not all classes have the same standard. Most can commit quite a few evil acts before it becomes their standard alignment.
though this guy DOES seem to be heading that way...
Killing enemies in their sleep is dishonorable, but not Evil. Killing people you don't even know in their sleep because they might be enemies is...something else entirely, and Evil as hell.
And frankly, Evil enough to be an instant Alignment change in most cases IMO. Especially if there's a been a pattern of shady behavior previously.
I guess there is a strong connection between both events. He didn't like the discussion about his character, he likely felt cornered and tried to escape the corner with his 'witty' reply about the head. Since it wasn't resolved smoothly, he was still upset - and took the first opportunity for petty revenge. I don't think it's specifically about the tank, he just happened to be there. Without the first event he'd likely taken this 5-foot step.
The best way out should be another talk, probably only between you and him. Ask him what he wants to accomplish with this character and listen to him. Afterwards, don't criticize the PC or him but point out how it makes adventuring together difficult. If he wants to play evil, probably a little side adventure or a later campaign is an option. If he wants to play CN, let him look it up himself - it's best he notices it by reading, not by someone else teaching him.
This is Emerald Spire, so it's a lot of different areas, which makes the assumption that she's with a group they've already fought kinda like assuming that all people dressed in brown are part of that brown-dressed gang you fought.
(Shattered Star, not ES, as a note - these are the Tower Girls, one of Magnimar's Sczarni gangs. And the party is invading and attacking them on their turf, so... yeah, they're actually justifiably hostile towards the PCs. The party has also certainly had the opportunity to learn *why* the Tower Girls are where they are, and that's a bit of lore that makes this PC's actions even more clearly evil than they already are.)
See, here's the thing: *actual* CN is pretty fun. Think your free-spirited 60's hippie flower child. That's why a lot of fey are CN; they're completely focused on freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom from rules and people trying to tell them what to do. Real CN is about *freedom* over anything else. If you're CN, it's more important than the struggles of Good vs Evil. For you, the conflict is Law vs Chaos, and down with the establishment! Dump that tea into the harbor!
Our group has had some wonderful CN characters over the years, and they're true and loyal friends to their allies, because those things are important to them. Sure, they might make their friends want to pull their hair out sometimes, but that just makes the CN character appreciate them even more.
What it *isn't* is insanity or CE, which seems to be how most people play it.
You can be insane and be LG; you can be insane and be CN, too, but being CN doesn't mean you're insane.
It's also not a license to commit evil acts without repercussions.
Some people can't handle alcohol. Some people can't handle a CN on their character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yikes...still not long enough
It's more that some folks think CN means 'I do what I want and who cares about the consequences?'. And while there's a minor bit of that, you can maintain CN while still having rules.
Case in point: my CN barbarian is a latter-day Gorumite convert. One of the tenets she'd learned (and I read) was basically 'don't kill nonwarriors, that's like zero points you idiot'. She and the rest of the party found some ... unarmoured, unarmed goblin women. I had her see them, and judge them noncombatants and NOT kill them. (Until one grabbed a knife, then out comes the axe.)
As far as the friendly fire? I'd say that should be commented on out of game. If your tank's got fire protection, that's one thing. Or if he/she has called it down on his position intentionally ('Hey, I'm standing in the best spot for you to target a fireball! Roast 'em!'). But if said tank is upset over the roasting ... yeah, that's not alignment, that's table. There's a WEAK case for CN to apply here, but it needs table addressing.
Neutral on the good evil axis would be someone who thinks open murder and cruelty are wrong... but who lacks the will to do anything about it. He wouldn't murder anyone himself (unless it was life or death necessary) but wouldn't lift a finger to stop someone else from doing the murder.
Was killing her 'life and death' necessary? Maybe. If he had reason to fear she could raise an alarm and that capture wasn't really an option... then yes a CN character could murder her. Simply being intruders in an enemy base IS enough justification for CN to pull the trigger. BUT it's dishonorable to off her while she sleeps... yep that is definitely a Chaotic tactic.
As for shooting a team mate and saying he didn't care enough not to... Pure Evil. Leaving this PvP moment aside he literally fired on someone he is supposed to be supporting with lethal intent. Betrayal and attempted murder of an ally are classic hallmarks of Evil with a capital E.
Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.
Actually, that helps a great deal, which is why I emboldened it. Someone who doesn't care about the well-being of his compatriots, particularly one who's chief function is helping him to stay alive, is shortsightedly self-interested to the point of stupidity, or in this case, evil. Barring other, highly different actions on this person's part which have not been mentioned, this person is playing the stereotype.
See, here's the thing: *actual* CN is pretty fun. Think your free-spirited 60's hippie flower child. That's why a lot of fey are CN; they're completely focused on freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom from rules and people trying to tell them what to do. Real CN is about *freedom* over anything else. If you're CN, it's more important than the struggles of Good vs Evil. For you, the conflict is Law vs Chaos, and down with the establishment! Dump that tea into the harbor!
Our group has had some wonderful CN characters over the years, and they're true and loyal friends to their allies, because those things are important to them. Sure, they might make their friends want to pull their hair out sometimes, but that just makes the CN character appreciate them even more.
This. This right here. One of my favorite characters was a CN who most times didn't come off that way because, for him CN was all about 'I'm doing it my way' & nine times out of ten, 'his' way was something that coincided with what the good-guys were doing & usually when it wasn't it was because somebody was being an idiot & he would tell them.