Alignment Question - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?
Pentius
First Post
Steel Wind has the right of it. Alignment is completely irrelevant to the situation. The barbarian's player was being a jerk, not just to the other characters but to the other players. The DM decided to help him. Well, he's new, and I do like to give new people second chances, but that doesn't mean his next chance has to be with you.
I would definitely report this to the club leader/officer/authority-type-person. Don't make a big deal of it, shouting and pointing fingers, just tell them. They may wish to interview the DM and the problem player too. These two will probably tell the club leader all they need to know, if they keep up the "it was in character" defense(ie, they will look like huge jerky jerks). If the club leader does something about it, stay with the club(though not that table). If the club leader takes the problem player's side, say good day and walk out knowing you haven't left behind anything worth keeping.
And because I can't quite resist saying something on the (still irrelephant) alignment issue: Even the goodiest two-shoes of paladins would apprehend a thief and recover their stolen property.
I would definitely report this to the club leader/officer/authority-type-person. Don't make a big deal of it, shouting and pointing fingers, just tell them. They may wish to interview the DM and the problem player too. These two will probably tell the club leader all they need to know, if they keep up the "it was in character" defense(ie, they will look like huge jerky jerks). If the club leader does something about it, stay with the club(though not that table). If the club leader takes the problem player's side, say good day and walk out knowing you haven't left behind anything worth keeping.
And because I can't quite resist saying something on the (still irrelephant) alignment issue: Even the goodiest two-shoes of paladins would apprehend a thief and recover their stolen property.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
Shamelessly robbing you is perfectly consistent with the other character's Chaotic Neutral alignment.
Gut checking him and leaving him to bleed to death on the dungeon floor is perfectly consistent with... well, any alignment. Probably not okay for a Paladin-- unless he's authorized to dispense the king's justice-- but even they would be well within rights to beat him, strip him naked, and haul him back to town in chains as long as they didn't do any permanent damage. The local lord in town would probably sentence him to hang anyway.
An Evil response would be killing someone he loves, animating the corpse, and casting magic mouth on it so that it says "And now I've stolen something from you. We're even." before it attacks.
Gut checking him and leaving him to bleed to death on the dungeon floor is perfectly consistent with... well, any alignment. Probably not okay for a Paladin-- unless he's authorized to dispense the king's justice-- but even they would be well within rights to beat him, strip him naked, and haul him back to town in chains as long as they didn't do any permanent damage. The local lord in town would probably sentence him to hang anyway.
An Evil response would be killing someone he loves, animating the corpse, and casting magic mouth on it so that it says "And now I've stolen something from you. We're even." before it attacks.
Remus Lupin
Adventurer
I also think Steel Wind has it right, it's fundamentally a player issue, not a rules or alignment issue, and needs to be resolved with the other players.
That said, the underlying CHARACTER actions are interesting. I agree with those who say that the barbarian's theft constitutes a CHAOTIC NEUTRAL act rather than an evil act, but I don't understand why the DM would threaten your character with ANY alignment shift due to retaliation. Even if your actions were not fully justified, as a LN character, if you could justify your actions in terms of some principle of absolute law, it would be consistent with your alignment.
I've had similar player vs. player experiences as a gamer, specifically when a CN gnome rogue played exactly the same kind of trick on me in a game and then justified it on the basis of "playing his alignment." Things escalated and I attacked him (in-character). The DM allowed this as a role-playing experience which developed both of our characters and ultimately the other players, also RP-ing deescalated the conflict with no bloodshed. It provided a memorable gaming experience for all of us, even though the player was being jerk-faced about it. And it all worked out for the best.
Then again, we were all very experienced gamers in our 30s, 40s, and 50s. If we had been teenagers, I'm not sure things would have worked out so well.
That said, the underlying CHARACTER actions are interesting. I agree with those who say that the barbarian's theft constitutes a CHAOTIC NEUTRAL act rather than an evil act, but I don't understand why the DM would threaten your character with ANY alignment shift due to retaliation. Even if your actions were not fully justified, as a LN character, if you could justify your actions in terms of some principle of absolute law, it would be consistent with your alignment.
I've had similar player vs. player experiences as a gamer, specifically when a CN gnome rogue played exactly the same kind of trick on me in a game and then justified it on the basis of "playing his alignment." Things escalated and I attacked him (in-character). The DM allowed this as a role-playing experience which developed both of our characters and ultimately the other players, also RP-ing deescalated the conflict with no bloodshed. It provided a memorable gaming experience for all of us, even though the player was being jerk-faced about it. And it all worked out for the best.
Then again, we were all very experienced gamers in our 30s, 40s, and 50s. If we had been teenagers, I'm not sure things would have worked out so well.
Similar Threads
