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?
You're just making my point for me. Likely? Of course it's
likely. The point is that
without detailed information like, say, whether those villagers are themselves evil, just the act of killing a lot of villagers is NOT in and of itself evil. The motivations of the character in killing the villagers is necessary to determine whether the simple act of killing villagers is evil.
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.
Here, or indeed any website anywhere, one thread after another discussing alignment along the lines of, "Is this evil? Is my character chaotic? Should the characters alignment change?" draws immediate, conflicting conclusions from responders.
What I want is for people to examine the PURPOSE of alignment. My basic assertion is that alignment is a roleplaying guideline and if it assists players in choosing actions for their characters that are consistent and reasonable - or which the player then UNDERSTANDS to be INconsistent and UNreasonable - then it's doing its job. But it is inherently subjective judgement in deciding if a characters alignment CHANGES because of certain actions. DM's must therefore start ANY campaign that uses alignment with a discussion of how HE interprets alignment to work in certain detailed instances, when he would change a characters alignment, the consequences of doing so, etc. And when it comes up in a game the DM should again make sure the player understands the DM's position and the consequences before the consequences are actually APPLIED. That then fulfulls what should be the purpose of alignment. It isn't going to be fulfilled by endless conflicting opinions
here on, "Is this evil? Is that Evil? Should the characters alignment change?"
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.
In fact it's required for that very reason. Players don't maintain a running monologue describing their characters thoughts and motivations. What affects their characters alignment is what their character DOES. When a player has a character do something the DM sees as inconsistent/inappropriate for their alignment then the DM needs to FIND OUT what the player is thinking because judging on the action
without taking the time to learn the players point of view and applying only the DM's own is what leads to arguments about alignment. And again, if the purpose of alignment is to guide players choices of action for their characters it's not doing its job if the way it gets played IN-GAME is as a guessing-game of what he DM will/won't object to.
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."
I'm too old and too much of a grognard for tact to be my first concern. Sometimes though it requires pushing buttons to get people to think of things in different ways. Rudely phrased statements of, "you're all wrong" may be condescending, but if it directs conversation to the core of the problem I don't cry much anymore when I make such blunders. I just TRY not to do it too often/unnecessarily.
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.
Sometimes simple questions and answers hide deeper issues. Have a
better day.
Oh, and stay off my lawn.
