Evil or just.........mostly evil?

[moritheil]

Do you really believe this or are you just trying to justify an evil conscious interpretation of the OP's decision?

Totally irrelevant. Belief is never a deciding factor in whether or not an argument is valid. ("I believe the sky is green!" "That's nice, but it looks blue to me.")

When drowning or potentially drowning (or in the position to drown as in this case), both arms and legs are used in an attempt to survive.

The player made a conscious decision, but it was a decision for the PC made with the assumption that the dwarf was already dead. Or am I the only one who read his original post?

I could easily counter with something like, "Am I the only one who read both the OP's initial post and the OP's follow up?"

The OP has stated that she was already holding on firmly to a branch by way of a rope. She was no longer in immediate danger. Once the dwarf fell in, she took a moment to think. I was not told that this moment taken was out of character. Generally, if you have to stop and think about something, so does your character.

Now, you seem to be assuming that I'm arguing in favor of the OP's char turning evil. I am not. I have stated before that CN is the best alignment for this character, as a CN character would perform either good or evil actions to ensure her own survival.

I await your next heated reply.

 

[KarinsDad]

Totally irrelevant. Belief is never a deciding factor in whether or not an argument is valid. ("I believe the sky is green!" "That's nice, but it looks blue to me.")

When it comes to alignment, it is a rainbow of shades of gray. There is more opinion (i.e. belief) on what a given alignment means than actual RAW. RAW gives a general guideline, but the specifics are up to the people playing the game.

I could easily counter with something like, "Am I the only one who read both the OP's initial post and the OP's follow up?"

The OP has stated that she was already holding on firmly to a branch by way of a rope. She was no longer in immediate danger. Once the dwarf fell in, she took a moment to think. I was not told that this moment taken was out of character. Generally, if you have to stop and think about something, so does your character.

1) It was not a follow up post, it was the original post. There is no mention of a rope or branch by the OP in a follow up post.

2) It was not a rope, it was a whip.

3) The OP did not state that she was firmly holding on. She is in quicksand, a better interpretation of what the OP wrote is that she is struggling to get out ("During my struggle") than that she is "holding on firmly".

4) This is a game. Players stop and think about things all of the time whereas their PCs make a quick action: especially in rounds (which this was since the DM was counting down by rounds).

Now, you seem to be assuming that I'm arguing in favor of the OP's char turning evil. I am not.

I'm not discussing whether she turns evil. I am discussing whether she did an evil act.

You indicated that it was unfair to question if the Dwarf does an evil act by grabbing her legs in order to survive. So, if someone is drowning, grabbing someone above you and possibly pulling them deeper in is not evil. But, if you are only threatened with drowning, stepping on what you think is a dead guy is evil???

 

[Goldmoon]

Heh, It gets better. This weekend I hear from two players. "My character doesnt trust yours now since you killed the dwarf." My response is: "Only two people know I stepped on him: He and I and since he's dead and I'm not telling, theres no way you can know". Also we got a new player and he's a cleric. Now no one's character comes to me for anything since they dont need healing from me. I find it amusing that grown adults can be so childish personally. they also need to learn that meta-gaming is the opposite of role-playing.

 

[KarinsDad]

I find it amusing that grown adults can be so childish personally. they also need to learn that meta-gaming is the opposite of role-playing.

You'll find this in responses to posts here on the boards as well. Some people have a hard time distinguishing between out of character and in character information. Hopefully, this does not include the DM, but it happens there as well.

 

[Goldmoon]

You'll find this in responses to posts here on the boards as well. Some people have a hard time distinguishing between out of character and in character information. Hopefully, this does not include the DM, but it happens there as well.

No, the DM is getting tired of it too. Two sessions ago he began giving out individual role playing experience instead of the group method. When I make a level a session before anyone else, they'll figure it out.....I hope.

 

[irdeggman]

No, the DM is getting tired of it too. Two sessions ago he began giving out individual role playing experience instead of the group method. When I make a level a session before anyone else, they'll figure it out.....I hope.

Hmm there is no "group" role-playing xp bonuses in the DMG. That is reserved specifically for individuals. It also suggests to limit it to no more than 50 xp/lcharacter level.

The xp for "encounters" is group based, however.

Now if the other players started to role-play their PCs that they didn't trust your PC becasue the character was becoming more withdrawn and less helpful that is another issue. It is usually a good sign of something wrong when a bard becomes less communicative with the other characters.

Regardless, this only serves to validate my original opinion that this is not an in-character issue but rather a player to player (or players) issue.

 

[Goldmoon]

Hmm there is no "group" role-playing xp bonuses in the DMG. That is reserved specifically for individuals. It also suggests to limit it to no more than 50 xp/lcharacter level.

The xp for "encounters" is group based, however.

Now if the other players started to role-play their PCs that they didn't trust your PC becasue the character was becoming more withdrawn and less helpful that is another issue. It is usually a good sign of something wrong when a bard becomes less communicative with the other characters.

Regardless, this only serves to validate my original opinion that this is not an in-character issue but rather a player to player (or players) issue.

Yeah, I agree that we have some player issues. Of the 5 we have only 2 are seriously bad. I think maybe the group can be salvaged. Only time will tell.

 

[Artoomis]

Was stepping on the dwarf an evil act? That's an easy one.

No. It was a desperate act for personal survival. The dwarf was a goner anyway - reaching down to save him could very well have drowned you both.

It was neutral. As was previously and correctly mentioned, trying to save the dwarf would be a good act (generally - saving him because you think it's the only way you will be saved is not "good" - but also not the situation here).

Finally, you actually did try to save thr dwarf after you got out. That's very possibly the best you could do - I liken this to an airplane decompression. What do you do if you have a small child? Save yourself first so that you may help the child (you put on your own mask first)

It looks to me like you're playing a neutral character anyway.

Definately sounds like your group has some player maturity issues to work thorugh. I hope no evil characters are allowed - that would make things worse.

 

[moritheil]

When it comes to alignment, it is a rainbow of shades of gray. There is more opinion (i.e. belief) on what a given alignment means than actual RAW. RAW gives a general guideline, but the specifics are up to the people playing the game.

Even if that is true, it is then up to what they believe - and what the DM believes. What I do or do not believe does not enter into it in the least. Thus, it is absurd and nontopical for you to ask what I believe.

1) It was not a follow up post, it was the original post. There is no mention of a rope or branch by the OP in a follow up post.

There is, however, mention of taking time to think in the follow up post.

2) It was not a rope, it was a whip.

It was effectively being used as a rope. I concede the literal detail, but my point was not that a rope was being used, my point was that the character already had something in hand to grab onto.

3) The OP did not state that she was firmly holding on. She is in quicksand, a better interpretation of what the OP wrote is that she is struggling to get out ("During my struggle") than that she is "holding on firmly".

You appear to be arguing that she was not holding on firmly. This would be in direct contravention of the statement that she was engaged in freeing herself from the quicksand. You'll have to abandon one statement or the other to be logically consistent.

4) This is a game. Players stop and think about things all of the time whereas their PCs make a quick action: especially in rounds (which this was since the DM was counting down by rounds).

It was not stated that the thought was not IC. You assumed it was OOC; I assumed it was IC. Are you angry with me for not starting out with the same initial assumption?

I'm not discussing whether she turns evil. I am discussing whether she did an evil act.

You indicated that it was unfair to question if the Dwarf does an evil act by grabbing her legs in order to survive. So, if someone is drowning, grabbing someone above you and possibly pulling them deeper in is not evil. But, if you are only threatened with drowning, stepping on what you think is a dead guy is evil???

I clearly indicated in my previous post that thinking about an action and making a decision before execution vs. doing something suddenly in an altered mental state of blind panic can change whether an action is evil or neutral. If you don't understand that, then I don't think I can help you no matter how much explaining I do.

Overall, here's where you and I seem to disagree, KD: in the strict morality system DnD uses, an evil act is always evil, no matter the circumstances. ("I only opened the portal to the Abyss because otherwise the demons would have slain my wife!" "That's still evil.") This really does not sit well with most people, who view it (rightly or wrongly) as absurd. That's fine, and you can play your game however you want.

I'm just answering the question, "Was the act evil [according to this artificial system of morality that has no relationship to RL]?"

My answer was and is: Yes, it was, but who cares? The character is neutral and can perform evil or good acts freely in order to survive. It makes no practical difference if the action was evil or neutral.

 

[KarinsDad]

Overall, here's where you and I seem to disagree, KD: in the strict morality system DnD uses, an evil act is always evil, no matter the circumstances. ("I only opened the portal to the Abyss because otherwise the demons would have slain my wife!" "That's still evil.") This really does not sit well with most people, who view it (rightly or wrongly) as absurd. That's fine, and you can play your game however you want.

I'm just answering the question, "Was the act evil [according to this artificial system of morality that has no relationship to RL]?"

My answer was and is: Yes, it was, but who cares?

In the strict morality DND system, stepping on a dead man is not evil. It does not matter if you stop to think about it or not.