Alignment shift for intra-party murder?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You do not need to know the alignment of the PC to discuss the "alignment" of the action. You can discuss the alignment of the action without determining whether it is appropriate or not.

Actions don't have alignment. My PC kills somebody. Is it an evil act? My PC kills an unarmed opponent. Is it evil? My PC kills an unarmed opponent who is begging for mercy. What if the unarmed opponent begging for his life is a CE mass murderer who has just had his weapon sundered after killing 4 other PC's in a fight to defeat him and has been in this very situation twice before - and gone on to commit more murder...

What your character does is almost irrelevant in the face of WHY he does it. Actions, therefore, are not aligned. The appropriateness of the action is determined by the characters existing alignment and the motivations that are driving the PC to the action.

Example: I said the two characters who walked off behaved in a neutral fashion. Consequence: If they're already neutral nothing happens, but if they're good, there's a little bit of a shift.

What if the good characters believe that the barbarians actions call for immediate retribution and are simply confident that they don't need to be the ones administering that punishment trusting their comrades - and don't expect the punishment to be lethal? In that case walking away wouldn't particularly bear on their alignment. Walking away is not neutral. WHY they walk away determines if they are behaving neutrally, whether that is inconsistent with their alignment, and even if it's NOT consistent with their alignment it helps determine if the action is signficant enough to immediately change their alignment.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It's a bind, actually: you want to teach the kid that people who are powerful cannot walk around expecting subservience and politeness from others, and yet power is the means by which you teach this lesson.

"As a rule barbarians are more polite than civilized men because they know that being rude can mean having your skill split." - Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan

Most of my books are packed for moving so that's only an approximate quote, but might be a good lesson to teach a young player.

 

[SnowHeart]

Actions don't have alignment. My PC kills somebody. Is it an evil act? My PC kills an unarmed opponent. Is it evil? My PC kills an unarmed opponent who is begging for mercy. What if the unarmed opponent begging for his life is a CE mass murderer who has just had his weapon sundered after killing 4 other PC's in a fight to defeat him and has been in this very situation twice before - and gone on to commit more murder...

First one, it depends. Second one, probably. Third, almost definitely. Fourth, see previous qualifications. NONE of what you said requires knowledge of the PC's alignment -- it requires knowledge of the context in which the action occurred, which the OP fairly well described.

I mean, are you seriously trying to say that shooting off a fireball into a town of villagers who are just going about their business is not likely to be an evil or chaotic act? The OP's scenario was not a trick question or Catch-22. It was not an overly complicated question and it was certainly capable of being answered with the information provided.

What your character does is almost irrelevant in the face of WHY he does it.

As I said in my previous post, I somewhat agree with that... you need to talk with the player first to understand how he see's the PC's actions fitting with his alignment (i.e., his motivation). But one can certainly discuss the general ramifications of the actions without knowing all the inner thoughts of the PCs. The OP had quite clearly stated what happened, and how the PCs responded. He described not only the actions, but what those actions were in response to. Action, reaction, cause and effect. Your condescending comments to the entire forum to the contrary, everyone else here was able to offer him responses and input that the OP himself said he found found helpful and informative. More than anything, I think that answers whether we were, as you said, "hopelessly off base."

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a simple question is just a simple question. It doesn't have to be made hopelessly complex. Have a nice day.

 

[green slime]

You don't call "jerk" for following through on a character concept - you call "jerk" for creating a character concept that's bound to cause PVP violence on a very light excuse (just like you call "jerk" on someone that creates a "klepto" rogue who steals other party member's stuff, or a Haley-esque rogue who snitches loot while handling scouting tasks and doesn't include that in party distribution, and so on).

I'd disagree with this, as it is dependant on player expectation. If the players are able to handle it, it doesn't detract from the game at all. As long as all players actually have roughly the amount of wealth expected for their level, how the treasure is accumulated is actually just part of the story.

Trouble occurs when it is done without respect and openness at the table. If everyone is in on the gag, and that really means everyone, then it needn't be time to start name-calling. Trust is called for.

Klepto- and haley-esque rogues can be handled without namecalling. Same with PvP violence. But the issue needs to be handled carefully, and requires that all players can handle it well (which isn't always the case).

 

[aboyd]

The OP had quite clearly stated what happened, and how the PCs responded. He described not only the actions, but what those actions were in response to. Action, reaction, cause and effect. Your condescending comments to the entire forum to the contrary, everyone else here was able to offer him responses and input that the OP himself said he found found helpful and informative.

Yeah, it was great advice, used in my campaign just fine. I suppose this debate about whether we can even know the answer is interesting to some in the abstract, but it's mostly just analysis paralysis IMHO. I was looking for something practical, and no scientific exactness was required. I wanted people shooting from the hip and it worked out nicely.

I'd call the thread a success and wish everyone well!

 

[green slime]

@ManInFunnyHat.

I disagree with your premise that actions do not have alignment. IMC, I have defined certain actions as Evil. There maybe, however, mitigating factors (Intent, previous experience, personal capacity) which affect how your action is perceived by the Multiverse.

Furthermore, commiting a single Evil act does not necessarily mean that your character is Evil. A character's alignment is a composite of far more than a single action. I'd just like to note that it is far easier to slide to Evil than become Good (or even retain Good status).

Thus, (IMC) although slavery is Evil, it is practiced by all worldly nations, even the "Good-est" LN society.

 

[roguerouge]

Oh, come on, maninfunnyhat: there's such a thing as reckless endangerment and manslaughter. Intentions aren't everything, even in this game.

 

[Jack Simth]

I'd disagree with this, as it is dependant on player expectation. If the players are able to handle it, it doesn't detract from the game at all. As long as all players actually have roughly the amount of wealth expected for their level, how the treasure is accumulated is actually just part of the story.

Trouble occurs when it is done without respect and openness at the table. If everyone is in on the gag, and that really means everyone, then it needn't be time to start name-calling. Trust is called for.

Klepto- and haley-esque rogues can be handled without namecalling. Same with PvP violence. But the issue needs to be handled carefully, and requires that all players can handle it well (which isn't always the case).

Okay. In relatively narrows circumstances, when everyone is in on and understands it, when things are well enough controlled that it doesn't cause balance issues, and when it's handled carefully, you don't call jerk for PVP violence or theft. You're right.

 

[irdeggman]

Here is a general gaming suggestion, especially for newer players -

Before they "create" their character have them write down what it is they want their character to "be". What is the kind of character they want, e.g., a character prone to violant rages, etc.

I (and my fellow DMs) have players write up a character history for their character as part of the creation process. This gives them a focus for what their character is about and something they can hang on to for determining "motivations" as the character progresses - this is a history and starting point, PCs always change as the game and time progresses. I also reward xp for the "history" depending on how much effort, creativity and relavance it contains. This xp award tends to provide a fairly good motivation for those players who tend not to "role-play" but rather "roll-play". I also give role-playing awards during the game to emphasize this aspect of the game.

 

[irdeggman]

Here is another house-rule my group has come up.

“Fun” bonuses: We provide a fun bonus (usually for each session) based on how much “fun” the group had. This is an inherently “vague” concept but it has many uses. For example something that would fall under a fun bonus is how well the group functioned as a group and not as a batch of individuals. This doe not fall under “role-play” since it actually a player decision type of thing and really not an individual award but a group one.

I also house-ruled in a “scaling effect” for my games. What I noticed was that the DMG provides for a flat role-playing bonus (I believe it says not to exceed 100 xp). In effect this is a fairly large award at low levels and a meaningless one at mid-to-high levels.

What I have implemented I a scaling effect and a “range” of awards, for both role-play (an individual award) and fun bonus (a group award).

I provide “none”, 25, 50 or 75 xp per level. I use ECL for this purpose. So I might award a fun bonus of 50 xp/level to everyone and one person might get a role-playing award of 25 xp/level while another gets 50 xp/level and someone else might get “none”.

I find this system keeps people interested in these awards as they progress instead of merely at the early game point.

One caution is to keep track of how these fun and role-playing awards stack up against the CR (and story line) awards for the actual adventure. They should not frequently be as much or more than the actual adventure-based awards so sometimes they seem low when compared to other sessions but should be perceived as a percentage of the entire pie and not as an individual stand alone award.