Self-Preservation vs. Acts of Evil

[TheLucidSleeper]

Hey EN World. It's about time I finally joined the ranks of organized roleplayers. I've been table-top rping for several years now, and I've always been interested in low-to-high fantasy stories, movies, books and video-games. Now that I game, I've found myself most often in the GMs seat. It's rather comfy, and I do enjoy it. However, I've been bumping into a few standard issues that seem to carry over from game to game, setting to setting. The first and foremost of these problems is the issue of Self-Preservation vs. committing acts of evil.

It goes something like this:
My 2 friends PCs are often the focal point of my campaign writing. This tends to give them a, oh how should I put it- narcissistic POV as far as considering the other NPCs I add to their parties. Most recently, the 2 PCs along with 3 NPCs (a warrior, and two commoners) were tasked with taking a castle back from a dark presence within. After fighting through several successful battles, everyone's healing abilities are all but used up. Finally, the Party encounters Vexxa, the 'mini-boss' if you will. After a long battle ensues, it is becoming clear to all that the fight is going poorly. One of my PCs (already at about 4 of 18 HP) begins casting spells that not only harm his opponents, but actually almost kill his NPC comrades! Though he targets his opponents the NPCs are "in the way" and so they are also affected by some of his violent area spells. As a matter of fact, one NPC (a delightful young halfling fighter named Gnaus Caedus) was burned alive in one such episode.

The player, however, makes a decent defense:
"I'm dying; I hardly know these peasants and vagabonds that INSIST on traveling to the keep with us; though I do not enjoy harming them, I must, or I may die."

In this instance, or any similar instance, does the rule of thumb "self-preservation" take precedence over the rules of alignment? Harming friendly, even HELPLESS, NPCs certainly seems like an act of evil to me, though perhaps it is simply a chaotic neutral act of someone trying to survive?

Comments, thoughts?

 

[tylermalan]

When I'm the DM, my thoughts on alignment are the following:

If a player wants to commit an act that possibly sits outside of his alignment but he doesn't want his alignment to change or otherwise be affected, I will let him do it if he can reasonably justify the act as being within his alignment. This applies even if I don't agree that the act is within his alignment - the fact that the player thought about it and reasonably justified it is all that matters to me. Also, of course, I wouldn't let this kind of thing happen a lot, as there would be a clear pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed (within the context of alignment, of course).

In this case, that sounds like a great, well thought-out justification for his character's actions, and I wouldn't touch his alignment at all. If this is something that he continues to do or does often, that's a different story, regardless of justification. In this case, I would probably talk to the player out-of-game (via email or something) and work out a cool way for his character to fall from grace or something.

Essentially, for me as the DM, I WANT my players to think in character and in terms that relate to the game world, as opposed to the metagame. So, even if I don't agree with the player, I want to reward the depth of thought so that it will continue to happen.

 

[TheLucidSleeper]

Thank you kindly, good sir.

I agree, I always try to discourage meta-game thinking. I always want my players to 'become' their characters for the duration of the session and really get into their thoughts and actions.
And thank you for the good advice. I feel similarly about allowing characters to make good explanations and I did think that particular player had a well thought out reason. The concern is that it is going to continue to happen, but I believe you addressed that issue rather effectively as well.

Hazzuh!

 

[Stormonu]

In this instance, or any similar instance, does the rule of thumb "self-preservation" take precedence over the rules of alignment? Harming friendly, even HELPLESS, NPCs certainly seems like an act of evil to me, though perhaps it is simply a chaotic neutral act of someone trying to survive?

Comments, thoughts?

Welcome!

The face of imminent death can make even a normally Lawful Good individual sometimes act in evil and chaotic ways; when the fight or flight response kicks in, all bets are off. In the face of death, the Lawful Good individual may panic and leave his comrades to their fate, the Chaotic Evil individual may stand and take all comers, distracting foes from other opponents to face him alone. The Neutral Evil individual may shout for everyone else to run while he makes a final stand while the Lawful Neutral may drive his associates into a suicidal charge.

However, the difference often between good and evil is not necessarily in the actions of an individual in the face of death, but often the reactions of that individual after the fact.

A truly good individual would most likely feel guilt for causing intentional harm to another. They may go out of their way to make amends for their actions even. Some might donate a part of the treasure obtained to the slain individual's family, ensure the individual is properly buried, memorialize the person's sacrifice or perhaps even vow not to put another individual into a position where they would get hurt.

Neutral individuals may stick to the "it was either me or them" mentality. They may feel remorse, or not. Lawful individuals might try to avoid putting themselves in the same situation in the future, chaotics may not give the situation a second thought - "What happened, happened."

Evil individuals would probably seek to justify their actions, perhaps even gloat. "The fool was standing in my way, getting wailed on, so I just put them both out of their misery." He may put the blame on the individual - "I hardly know these peasants and vagabonds that INSIST on traveling to the keep with us, they got hurt, I survived - end of story."

I don't generally see one act "out of alignment" as being a problem. Only lawful neutral people adhere to their alignment all the time . When it is willingly repeated multiple times, then it's something to discuss with the player to see if that's the alignment their character really is portraying.

 

[Viashimo]

I'd say it's not a specifically evil act, and my thinking follows that of Stormonu. I do like the reasoning though, it makes it sound very "noble adventurer" whose hanger-ons he may care about, but when he's about to die, they can go too.

I feel the excuse is less evil, and more aristocratic. (than what Stormonu suggested).

 

[TheLucidSleeper]

heh heh... aristocratic. That's probably a better way to describe their attitude to their hangers-on than narcissistic.

And thanks, Stormonu, for the break down. That sort of helped put it into perspective. I had the actions pegged for "wrong" as soon as it happened, but then again his character did show some level of remorse (though she still insists she didn't kill the halfling).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

From my perspective, what he did sounds like it was evil, but not Evil. i.e. Good people sometimes do bad things in extraordinary situations. Then they feel bad about them afterwards.

If that kind of behavior was to become a habit, then the character's alignment might shift towards neutral.

In general, I believe that a PC's alignment is whatever is written on the character sheet, but sometimes attitudes can change, even at a subconscious level. Occasionally, it is a good idea to revisit a character's alignment to make sure that it still matches up nicely.

 

[Drathir]

i will point out page 166 of the core book, Alignment Paragraph 2 "Alignment is a tool for developing your characters identity - it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."

So yeah, he/she did something bad does this change anything? ... Are they a Paladin or Cleric, from what I understand no he/she was a wizard, so no change in mechanics comes form the evil act is it enough to change alignment? Not really, he/she did wrong and admits it (though won't admit the full extent of the wrong doing similar to someone in denial). So what would change with an alignment shift? very little, a few spells dont work against them, holy/unholy will now accept/not accept them and if they became evil a Pally will rip him/her a new one... at low levels... Alignment is a tool, it provides guidelines on how the character would normally act, has the character been adversely affected into changing his/her personality? If not then just remind the player it was wrong that their characters alignment said they wouldn't normally do that sort of thing and discourage further actions of a similar nature.

 

[GoldDragon]

I have to agree with pretty much all that has already been said. It's a case-by-case thing, based on the action and the situation and whether or not it's becoming a habit. I would also, as DM, ask for validation for an action that would seem out of character for a character. Great question, though!

 

[frankthedm]

Evil. Betraying someone who counted you as an ally.