Should this character still be Exalted?

[SWAT]

Please bear with me, this could take a while to explain. I'd like to know if a given Exalted character should still be Exalted after events that transpired during the last game I ran.

I run a multi-genre planes-hopping campaign where the characters all work for a military organization in charge of dealing with multiverse-related issues. The characters present last session were:
- Nezulari. Exalted, Vow of Poverty, super-powered Zeltron (from Star Wars) Force-user. He can live forever and thus believes himself a genuine Zeltron god, albeit a lesser one. He truly cares for his people and spreading good across the multiverse. Being Zeltron, he's as much a "god" of healing and goodness as he is a party "god."
- Jeremy. Militant gun-happy giant mutant cockroach trapped in a human body.
- Demaya. Jedi. Very good, very lawful... very Jedi, pretty much.
- Mark. Ex-Babylon 5 PsiCorps agent. Very lawful and orderly, but has anger management issues.
- Kevvy. Kobold gunslinger from the wild west. Used to be a Sheriff.

So here's the situation. They need to go to Hell to destroy a very evil and intelligent artifact. First, however, they need to find out how to destroy it, and the only person they think would know is an intelligent super-zombie named Zeromus created by the artifact. Zeromus is currently stuck in some universe on a past version of Earth where he's helping the Nazis win WWII with his knowledge of all that is super-high-tech. Also, the characters know that Zeromus knows about how to unseal and unleash the God-Destroyer, an entity capable of destroying the entire multiverse.

They show up at his apartment, where's he's very glad to see them because he absolutely wants to get off Earth. He claims to have a deadman switch he can activate, so they negotiate. Zeromus first wants a trans-dimensional ship, but eventually agrees to give the PCs the info they want if they drop him off on a nice sunny ocean planet with fabulous beaches. To make sure they don't double-cross him, he has the Jedi give her word that they'll drop him off on the right planet and let him go.

On the way there, he tells them how to destroy the artifact, and they believe him. Once on the planet, they let him out and he starts walking away. But, Nezulari and Jeremy, apparently sick and tired of the bad guys winning or getting away, and later claiming that they had made no promises, leave the ship and start attacking Zeromus, who runs. Seeing this, the other PCs try to stop their teammates "non-violently", weather by grappling, mental attacks or simply flying the ship between Zeromus and his attackers. In the end, Zeromus dives into the water, as he doesn't breath, but unfortunately for him neither does Nezulari. They end up fighting it out, Nezulari wins, and blasts Zeromus a dozen more times for good measure, leaving nothing but bits and pieces.

Now, given the utter destruction Zeromus could have unleashed, I don't have a problem with double-crossing the bad guy. The greater good is at stake after all, and I know the PCs' superior would have done the same. Nonetheless, is this acceptable behaviour for an Exalted? What I have more of a problem with is the "I didn't promise anything" attitude after the fact, when he never objected to the Jedi giving her word. Similarly, I have issues with going against the group and doing your own thing when you know it'll put you in conflict with them. But then, he was simply doing his best to defeat evil. So this feels like one big gray area, and I'd very much like some opinions on this matter. Thanks!

 

[Andur]

They show up at his apartment, where's he's very glad to see them because he absolutely wants to get off Earth. He claims to have a deadman switch he can activate, so they negotiate. Zeromus first wants a trans-dimensional ship, but eventually agrees to give the PCs the info they want if they drop him off on a nice sunny ocean planet with fabulous beaches. To make sure they don't double-cross him, he has the Jedi give her word that they'll drop him off on the right planet and let him go.

They took him to the right planet, let him go, and then attacked him right?

It is to the letter of the law a contract fulfilled in good faith. Now as far as attacking him afterwards, not quite a "good" act, but more of a "for the betterment of the multi-verse" act.

I have no idea what an exalted character entails, but as far as the Lawful part, contract was upheld. Lil more neutral in the killing afterwards without provocation, but still an overall threat bit.

 

[Stone Angel]

I cannot say. Nowhere does it say Exalted is x,y but not z.

My advice is to read the sections of mercy, hope, and redeeming evil as well as the straight and narrow section in the BoED. Then decide for yourself.

The Seraph of Earth and Stone

 

[SpringPlum]

Mmm, I'm gonna have to throw my hat in the ring and say that killing him in that manner was not a proper Exalted-like deed. Although neither of these characters were Jedi, the Jedi (a shining example of goodness and righteousness) do put an awful lot of stock in believing that redemption is possible and the chance should always be fostered. I believe that a truly Exalted character would want to give the guy a chance to turn his life around (the Jedi character should be pretty angry about this). Also, they did attack him without provocation, even though they knew he was a bad dude it still isn't okay to then chase him down when, instead of immediately fighting back, he tries to run away.

Now, they say that they did not make any promises. But this is just trying to justify a gang-beating. They guy they killed was undoubtedly a evil guy and would probably have gone on to do more evil things. So if this was a good-aligned character who killed him, I'd say that even though the deed was a tad in the gray area, he should not lose his good alignment. But he is Exalted and should have known better.

 

[dvvega]

Well for starters ... IMHO ... killing him after the contract was fulfilled was a Lawful Evil act. Although not specified exactly, there is an understanding that the zombie-guy want to "live happily ever after" on the beach. The group agreed, and then the Exalted character looked for that loop hole to justify killing him.

Now to stop any arguments let us assume it was Lawful Neutral - "to the letter of the contract", however I still think it is LE. Okay so the contract was fulfilled. His party has given their word, and he did as well. He may not have verbalised it, however he went along with it. If he knowingly went along with it to kill the guy after the fact, then he was going against an agreement made by the party. By not verbalising against the contract, he accepted the contract.

Now onto exalted characters: did he try to redeem the evil that was the zombie? after a long drawn out attempt at redemption, failure to do so may warrant the attack.

Now lets go all the way to what do the Jedi think? Was this in line with the teachings of the force? No it wasn't. Where was the honor in backstabbing the evil guy (backstabbing in the language sense, not game sense)?

I would remove his Exalted status immediately, but with the "back door" of Atonement. Why the back door? Because perhaps the player didn't fully realise the consequences. Give them a chance to erase the mistake, but make it a difficult one.

D

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

With Exalted being as strict as it is...if you have to ASK if something is Exalted, it likely isn't.

 

[Eolin]

With Exalted being as strict as it is...if you have to ASK if something is Exalted, it likely isn't.

This about sums it up.

To make this not just a "me too" post: I say make him do a penance for what amounts to murder. Its understandable, given that the guy may well have been irredeemable, and from a utilitarian perspective its even a good act, but exalted characters arn't utilitarians.

But before taking away all his benefits, talk to the player. Maybe even out of game. Tell him what your problem was with his actions, and see what he thinks was going on.

Then make him do penance. a thousand hail mary's, or whatever the equivilant is.

*my* exalted character never committed a sin. or ate. and he loved everybody and wanted them to be free. And if at all possible, to worship his god.

He was a self righteous fool.

 

[the Jester]

When in doubt (about whether something is exalted), the answer is prolly no.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well for starters ... IMHO ... killing him after the contract was fulfilled was a Lawful Evil act. Although not specified exactly, there is an understanding that the zombie-guy want to "live happily ever after" on the beach. The group agreed, and then the Exalted character looked for that loop hole to justify killing him.

I agree with this interpretation, twisting an agreement in this way is very much diabolical "you made the contract with my friend, not with me". If a player wants to play an Exalted character, he has to play an Exalted character, even if it's more difficult than normal. The "greater good" in this case is just an excuse IMO. If they HAD to kill the evil guy because of serious reasons they shouldn't have made the pact.

 

[DragonShadow]

This is something that I and my comrades would do in the current campaign I'm playing in, the only problem with that is that we're all evil, and I am personally Lawful Evil.

It was not only an un-exalted act (I think it would be much less of a problem if he were not Exalted), it was resoundingly evil.

If you look at the Star Wars universe, in many of the novels random Jedi get fed up with the way the bad guys are always let off the hook, but the rule of thumb is "Shut up and deal with it."

I'd make him Atone, personally, and at the same time make things up with the players. By all rights, the character(s) have alienated himself from the rest of the party and everybody should act accordingly.