A question for you. When you say "Would you shift his alignment? How harshly would you shift..." what exactly do you mean by shift?
I'll be able to respond once I know that.
-Nearyn
I admit to being a bit biased since we avoid using alignments and their restrictions, but you could simply not tell them anything about alignment shift and play out the consequences.
That is unless there are specific spells or effects you are using that target or use alignment.
Act mysterious and don't actually specify anything about it, but have consequences that may even seem unfair ie. "Why is everyone hunting us, we are the good guys!"
Plus a world with easily accessible magic and witch hunts is a morally grey. Both sides have fair points as to why the other side is evil and they are good.
So yeah, don't make your players stick to an alignment and impose penalties for violating it, just roll with it and show them that actions have consequences.
|
Both guys are fine. You asked Chaotic Neutral guy why he did that, he gave a logical reasoned explanation which fits within the Neutral alignment of not really believing in good or evil acts and acting very selfishly.
True Neutral is not going to act any differently, especially since it is in his own self interest to not tell anyone. As long as a PC has a decent argument for their alignment related actions I would not take any steps against them.
Now if in this case their argument was more like "MURDER MAKES ME FEEL GOOD SO I KILL EVERYTHING!" then shifting them to evil would be wise.
edit - removed sentence about needing a reference to a source book since this is just a 'tracking the character growth' type of alignment question. Everything else I still believe to be true though.
Well the problem with alignment questions is that you can ask 6 different people the same alignment question and you might get 8 different answers.
That being said, I'll start with the Ranger because that is the easier one (in my opinion). The Ranger neither helped kill the boy, nor, intervened to protect the boy. Both of those (imho) represent a True Neutral response. If he is later asked about it and lies, then it becomes a little more along the lines of "helping" the murderer, but that's still not a huge deal to me.
As for the CN sorcerer, I'll confess that CN is my least favorite alignment as a GM. In my experience, players tend to use CN to mean that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want without all the "baggage" of having an evil alignment. I personally don't think that's quite what CN means.
As for killing an innocent boy just because he may or may not understand who or what the sorcerer is, without more information, I would have to say that its an evil act. From your description, there wasn't any indication that the boy knew the sorcerer was a magic user, nor did it indicate the boy heard what happened in the tavern and thus determined other PCs were magic users.
However, even if we were to assume that the boy did figure everything out, there are other means available to the sorcerer than just murdering the boy. He could bribe him. He could "kidnap" him and make him the party's hired hand, etc.
Now, all that being said, while I think its an evil act, I personally do not believe that a single act (typically speaking) should be enough to shift an alignment (assuming you are not talking about said single act being burning an entire village and its inhabitants to the ground, etc.) Rather, I would let the player know that his character absolutely committed an evil act and that he is in danger of having an alignment shift. But the single act in and of itself, would not cause me to shift the alignment. To use a movie analogy, take a look at the Star Wars prequels. There were a lot of acts that ultimately lead to Anakin's shift to the darkside, not just a single act. Or to put it another way, if single acts were capable of shifting alignments, you'd probably have a constant shifting of alignment by your players. What if, for example, the next session the now-evil sorcerer draws the attention of a monster in order to get it off his dying comrade, thus incurring the wrath of the monster and risking his own life? Is he suddenly CG because he was willing to sacrifice himself for a friend?
You could always lie to them about what alignment they are. Tell them they are what they THINK they are, not what they actually are. That way there is an extra layer in your story that might even be resolved by the caracters realising what they have become, since the DM is not a hurdle.
The game flows smoother, grows deeper and allows you to laugh maniacally (on the inside) as you let them dig deeper or try to redeem themselves, or whatever story you have planned for them.
Yeah, echoing some of what was said, it was an evil act, taken out of desperation. Not enough to shift the alignment on its own, but I'd keep an eye out for future evil acts. A neutral character, even a chaotic neutral character will rationalize evil acts, but they will still feel some level of regret, and tend to shy away from them. A neutral character still will have a conscience, after all. They don't necessarily have to role-play out their regret, but it might come down to something as simple as the next time a situation like this comes up, to take another choice.
Okay, with that here's my answer:
The act of killing the stable boy was very much an evil act. The stable boy did not present a threat to the player, and while he may have percieved a potential threat to his safety, the simple fact is that he did not know whether or not the stable boy would have tattled on them. He did not even try to reason with him. It was a simple, kneejerk reaction, and it was an evil kneejerk reaction.
An evil act, in itself, however, is of course not grounds for alignment change, and your player should not fear doing evil deeds. As adventurers, especially pilgrims in an unholy land, as they are, they will have to commit many more evil acts over the course of their adventure. Some will be avoidable, others wont, but as long as there does not come to be an overwhelming abundance of aligned acts that stand outside their present alignment, they should be in no real danger of changing alignment.
On the topic on seeing the murder, and doing nothing. Doing nothing is not evil. Doing nothing is neutral. Even if you have the means to stop a horrible attrocity and save lives, and the opportunity to do so, and you refuse, it still does not make it evil.
May I suggest you read the alignment chapter. It has some passages that spell out what constitutes evil acts and good acts. I find it very helpful when making decisions like those you want to make.
Don't hesitate to ask if there's something else you'd like an opinion on. Welcome to the DM seat :)
Also, since you profess yourself new to DMing, let me suggest you take a look at these 20 tips for new Masters.
-Nearyn
|
Okay, I agree with the majority that this was an evil act, and also that one evil act doesn't usually change one's alignment.
That said...there are degrees of evil, and the greater the degree of evil, the more the act should shift one's alignment...and murdering a child because he might have witnessed something, well, that's right up there. How the PC reacts to it is also relevant. If he's laughing and joking hours later, it's worse than if he really regrets it, tries to make amends, etc.
Think of it this way: In a movie, would you ever feel comfortable with a hero who did this and reacted the way the PC does? If the answer's no...then maybe it's evil enough to shift alignment. Me, I wouldn't watch a movie with an unrepentant child-murderer as the protagonist. Not even as a villain protagonist.
I'd also argue that standing by while a child is murdered is totally an Evil act. It's less severe than actually murdering him, but it's not okay,morally speaking.
And finally, a 'balance' of Good and Evil acts isn't enough to maintain Neutrality if the Evil acts are bad enough. If you murder children on a regular basis, I don't care how nice you are otherwise, you're Evil.
|
@Mihalis00
Hi Mihalis00,
It's cool that your group decided to track alignment shifts. Not many people do it, but it's part of game also and can be fun as long as players aren't that connected with their characters.
Regarding the act, I would say it was simply put CE act. It might not warrant alignment change immediately on CE if the player is LN for example, but it was clearly CE act, at least in my eyes.
1) Chaotic - Player responded immediately to the threat to his own liking, by killing the stable boy instead of trying to bribe or blackmail him. Several of these options might have been a lot better without need for bloodshed.
2) Evil - Character killed stable boy due to his own personal interest. This is pure evil act, and it can't be anything else. People in Pathfinder/D&D might tend to take killing things for granted, so you have to warn players sometimes if it's evil enough to do it.
Malag
A few bits of advice:
1. Don't allow evils.
2. Don't allow CN- as Gargs sez "...I'll confess that CN is my least favorite alignment as a GM. In my experience, players tend to use CN to mean that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want without all the "baggage" of having an evil alignment. I personally don't think that's quite what CN means."
3. Explain you want a heroic game
4. Don't try anything weird like a "magic is banned world' if you're a newb DM- run a AP for a year.
1. Don't allow evils.
DrDeth is entitled to his opinion, but I'll just add that I disagree here. I'd replace it with "Don't allow disruptive characters". Good, Neutral, Evil? Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic? Doesn't matter. What matters is if the character detracts from the game or not.
My opinion. Now it has been shared.
Have fun.
-Nearyn
1. Don't allow evils.
DrDeth is entitled to his opinion, but I'll just add that I disagree here. I'd replace it with "Don't allow disruptive characters". Good, Neutral, Evil? Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic? Doesn't matter. What matters is if the character detracts from the game or not.
My advice is for new DM's. A group of mature players with a very experienced DM can have a lot of fun trying all Evil as a 'change of pace" game.
Meh the characters in questions are a ranger and a sorcerer..its not like they are paladins. Alignment shifts dont really have an effect on them/
For the most part you are correct; however, there are certain situations where it would make an impact. Certain weapons for instance, or when up against Protection From Alignment or Detect Alignment, etc. But yes, by and large as a practical matter it won't make a huge difference since characters do not walk around with a shining beacon declaring their alignment for all to see.