Alignment Question

[kreynolds]

First off DnD alignment is an absolute that is defined by the DM.

Oh boy. More of this drivel. Give me a second helping. Really. I'm very excited to have seconds. Seriously. I mean it.

Just because someone can say they are a DM doesn't mean that they are automatically immune to the human diseases know as fullofcrapitis, dontknowadamnthingisis, or cantpourpeeoutofabootwithinstructionswrittenontheheelerosis.

 

[Lord Ben]

I haven't read the holy liberator in awhile, but I'd say that the difference is that one belongs to an organization and has responsibilites to them, while the other is a free spirit. I refuse to believe that a Paladin would be forced to put themselves in danger before engaging in battle. I don't like that concept at all. By all means feel free to do if you're playing one, but you don't have to. I like Xoad the Slayer in RttToEE, he's my ideal Paladin. Go where the god tells you, slay evil, etc. Follow orders when given by a superior, but be a mean, nasty ball of holy fury when fighting.

If an opponent trips and falls use the opportunity to kill him, don't hand him his weapon and help him up.

Ambushing is on a case to case basis I guess. Standing around using detect evil shooting anyone that detects is one thing. Recognizing a known foe and laying in wait is something else.

It's hard to know because the real world is relative, DnD is absolute's. I respect other peoples opinions when they're the DM, but I don't like to be straightjacketed and get toyed with as a player.

When I started DMing a friend told me about one DM who wouldn't let Paladins fight unless they were swung at first, so the rogue would mercilessly tease him and mock him constantly and he couldn't do anything without violating alignment. Anyways, the DM put him in an odd spot and things like that prevent players from being Paladins when they play. I decided I didn't want to be like that.

In my game one of the players accidentally contacted lycanthropy, and was heading to get it cured before the next full moon. He'd already turned once so he knew he had it. Anyways, a couple Paladins and a Cleric (with a lycanthrope turning domain) were dispatched to find them since a farmer saw him eating a few chickens. The PC's were sleeping with one guy on watch. The Paladins rode into camp on horseback in the middle of the night followed by the Cleric. Swords were pointed, crossbows aimed and the PC was told to give up or die. They were all unarmed and unarmoed and really had no option. If they'd have tried something they'd have been in trouble. That's an ambush, but the PC's had a chance the Paladins didn't just shoot the wererat while he slept. I don't have hard and fast rules, but ambushing a cleric of your arch enemy religion is something I'd allow.

Hard to say really, you need to be a supurb DM to not screw up... Not saying I am one, but I'd rather err on PC flexibility. The line is hazy, but cross too far into evil acts and people will know it. Be overly harsh and nobody will play paladins because they're less effective fighting evil then other people. Paladins should be the MOST effective class at killing evil and preserving good by virtue of a good sword-arm. 500 miles from nowhere and you get ambushed by Orcs and cast sleep? Kill em I say.

 

[Morose]

Just because someone can say they are a DM doesn't mean that they are automatically immune to the human diseases know as fullofcrapitis, dontknowadamnthingisis, or cantpourpeeoutofabootwithinstructionswritten
ontheheelerosis.

And neither are the players. So, since no one is immune you have a DM to make the final decisions. You may prefer a form of democracy in your gaming group kreynolds, and that's fine. I personally don't have time to spend an entire 4 hour gaming session debating issues such as alignment in my campaign settings though, so I'd rather the DM just made a call and we live with it. After all, it is a GAME. It has rules that (IMHO) should be enforced. That's one the the important roles of the DM.

As for the original question, if the good folks in the party have a problem with it then most likely the act is evil. How evil? Hard to say. Instantly alignment shifting? That's your call, though I personally always give a player some kind of warning. In this case, since the player is CN and is expected to ride the line of both good/evil I would be especially lenient. It would take a long string of evil acts with no good to offset them before I did such a thing.

Ultimately I agree with the poster who said that the player defines their behaviors... then you assign an alignment that fits rather than trying to have them conform to some set standard for an alignment. Where you run into trouble is if your players don't have a strong sense of what their character would do and rely on the alignment system as a crutch to tell them how to act. Again, this is just my opinion though.

 

[kreynolds]

And neither are the players.

I never said they were.

So, since no one is immune you have a DM to make the final decisions.

My point was that using such a statement as the basis of your argument is meaningless. If all someone has to say is "Yeah, well, the DM has final say!", then they might as well just stomp their foot and stick their fat lip out.

Heh, there's that "kid in the grocery store" thing again.

You may prefer a form of democracy in your gaming group kreynolds, and that's fine. I personally don't have time to spend an entire 4 hour gaming session debating issues such as alignment in my campaign settings though, so I'd rather the DM just made a call and we live with it. After all, it is a GAME. It has rules that (IMHO) should be enforced. That's one the the important roles of the DM.

Again, I think you missed the point, which is fine, but you came in kinda late in this argument. You should go back and read some of my posts, and you'll see that democracy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

 

[Felix]

Geez, you're gone for a few hours and the post doubles.

Anyway....

Originally posted by KarinsDad
So, if you allow neutral alignments and allow your players to do things on a whim, they will start expecting that.

Why, for goodness' sake, does Neutral mean that the character does things on a whim without thinking things through? What it does mean is that the PC must judge things using criterion other than basic Good or Evil.

Originally posted by KarinsDad
I force them to stick to a character conception. It just so happens that it is a Heroic conception, not a sporadic one.

Sigh. So now Neutral = Sporadic?

It is possible for a character to be as well thought out, well played, consistent, dymnamic, heroic, whimless as you require for your campaigns and be (GvE) Neutral at the same time. What the character concept and personality requires for such a task is that he weighs his options by considering what would be the best for him, his friends, his followers etc.

[Originally posted by KarinsDad[/I]
I refuse to allow a campaign to disintegrate for everyone else because one ... player ... is itching to play a CN Rogue and thinks that CN means "Can do aNything".

I would refuse to do so as well. I would do it not beacuse a CN Rogue might threaten party cohesion, instead because CN does not mean that the character "Can do anything". As long as we are breaking out the equalities: CN = Look out for #1. If a player were suffering the CN = CrAzY delusion, I would break out the Rod of Correction +4 and begin the whomping. Polite, erudite whomping of course. Hopefully the corrected would gain a new appreciation for the art of a well constructed, well played CN character.

 

[LokiDR]

Matter of Personality

On the matter of the Paladin, if you saw a person who detected as evil, would you kill him? What if the person was a bitter old man who hated every one, but didn't do anything about it? He may be heartless, bitter and full of hate, but that doesn't mean he is some one you should kill.

As for the matter of the rouge killing the helpless enemies, it depends on how the other characters feel. If I were playing that rouge, and most of the rest of the party didn't want me to kill them, I wouldn't. It is less a matter of alignment. I feel justified, and they don't like it. But I have to travel with these PCs, and I have deal with them after the combat is over. Out of game, I make choice not to make the game the disintigrate. Alignment is a question of philosophy, which can be a luxury on the trail. Party unity first, question of morality later.

If it is matter of DM vs players, it only matters for align specific classes. In other cases, don't even bother writing it down, just let the DM decide later. In the case of Paladin, say that "your god shows displeasure with you". Barbarian, "you are losing that wild soul of yours to civilization." Monk, "you seem to be losing your focus"

One way or another, the group deciedes. No players, means no game. No DM, same thing. I could cite moral philosophers like Kholberg, but I am sure no one cares.

 

[Kareyev]

Samothdm, what I would take from the replies from this board is that outside of calling on rule 0 the question is a matter of perception. There have been posts in calling the act evil. There have been others that have defended the act as something a LG character could make. In most gaming worlds I have played in I would expect the same range of reactions from the citizens of the game world.

I once played with an excellent DM whom taught me how to best use alignment in a game (IMO). The party was miles from anywhere working our way to the Vault of the Drow. We ended up with the typical prisoners dilemma with a bunch of drow and had a paladin in the party. We couldn't leave them behind or we would have the entire Drow army upon us. The party tried the old "Gee Mr. Paladin, could you go scout ahead" trick, but it didn't work. The paladin asked the DM "Do I know if this would be an evil act?". The DM looked right back at him with a straight face and said "I don't' know, do you?".

We begged, pleaded, and bribed the DM, but he just sat there. After a conversation much like the one on this board the Paladin acted. As he could not bear to let the others do the killing he personally slaughter each one of the bound Drow. We all looked to the DM. No blue bolts of lighting came raining down. No earthquakes. Just "OK".

As he was a good role player for the next month the paladin was terrified to use any of his divine powers fearing they would not work. At a desperate moment he eventually tried and they worked. We thought that was the end of it. Later, when we returned to civilization is when it started. Someone let it slip to a local about the Paladin's act. The rumor spread like wildfire and grew in proportions. "He killed prisoners. Helpless prisoners of the Drow." Townsfolk began giving him a wide birth. Innkeepers turned us away. Henchmen were had to find. Honest shopkeepers stopped trading with us. The church started to question him publicly. And as people lost faith in him his divine powers started to falter. Was this the divine wrath he though he had escaped?

He begged his church for help. We roleplayed many hours with priests of his church and others on the topic. He looked far and wide for ways to repent, allowing himself to be Quested many times. It took years of game time and many repentant acts before the locals ever believed in him again. And even then they hesitated.

Bottom line for me, don't get caught up on defining a black and white answer to a question of alignment. Let the character live with the consequences of there actions. Find a way to turn the dilemma into a roleplaying opportunity. As to the question of is the act bad enough for the deity to suspend spells, that is something that is a rule 0 situation in my book.

 

[LokiDR]

Kareyev, well said

 

[KarinsDad]

Sigh. So now Neutral = Sporadic?

Never said it had to.

I said it can lend itself to that for a lot of players easier than good or evil alignments.

Come on. Don't tell me you NEVER ran into players who play neutral characters as extremely whimsical, especially with regard to good and evil.

In fact, with as much as you protest for neutral alignments, I'll bet you run your CN Rogues pretty darn whimsical. (just kidding, I really do not know, but it sounds feasible and even humorous based on your POV )

He begged his church for help. We roleplayed many hours with priests of his church and others on the topic. He looked far and wide for ways to repent, allowing himself to be Quested many times. It took years of game time and many repentant acts before the locals ever believed in him again. And even then they hesitated.

That sounds like an awful lot of punishment for a player who thought he was doing the right thing. It also sounds like the townspeople were acting pretty high and mighty considering it was Drow. Might be what would happen in the real world, but this is a game and meant to be fun.

Granted, some players thrive on this type of controversy. To me, it would have been extremely annoying after the second or third quest. Course, I wouldn't have killed them in the first place. I would have attempted to force them to march along back to civilization if at all possible. Failing that, I would have left them somewhere where it is hard for them to get back to their army.