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

[Goldmoon]

Is this about those of us on the board or those in your gaming group?

Those of us on the board who think this was an evil act are basing it upon the fact that it was a conscious decision to take an action that was assuring the death of a character that had gotten into the situation by trying to help your PC.

My opinion was that since your PC was a bard is that the character should have more than a rudimentary knowledge about how long one can hold his/her breath as a side benefit (knowledge wise) of the character's profession (read - bard and perform skills here).

Whether or not the PC knew anything about the hardiness of a dwarf the PC should, IMO, have some knowledge (above the norm) on how long one can hold their breath.

Im speaking about my gaming group. To be honest, I see merit to both arguments about my Bard's actions. I still feel that changing my allignment to N from NG based on that one action is too harsh. I wont cop out and saybe maybe it was a log or a rock. I knew it was the dwarf that tried to help me but I thought he was dead. I stand by my actions and if the situation happens, Ill do the same thing. If I think that a character is dead or beyond saving, I wont get myself killed to recover a body. This is just my Bard's feelings on the matter, not my own.

 

[irdeggman]

Sounds more like the below to me:

It would have except per the very first post:

The character I am playing currently is very unlike most characters I play. She is a Bard who will be a chameleon and is pretty much out for herself because she feels most of the party is a bunch of retards. Long story short in the last session she stepped into some quicksand and managed to get out her whip in time and wrap it around a tree branch. (we had just met the new character, a dwarven druid not 10 minutes prior to this.) The Druid climbs the tree and tries to pull her up to him. He rolls a 1 on his strength check AND his balance check and falls head first into the quicksand. 3 rounds later I'm still chest deep in quicksand and the Druid is completely submurged and as far as my character can tell, dead. During my struggle I feel the dwarf near my legs. Like I said, I think he's dead so instead of letting go with one hand and trying to grab him (also remember we just met) I step on him to propel myself upwards. Based on this action the DM changed my allignment from NG to straight N. Im not mad, in fact I find it amusing but it it justified for that one action? Thoughts?

 

[moritheil]

This is also a ridiculous standard to apply to DND and really does not help your POV.

It's ridiculous to apply something that is written in an official book and is specifically called out as explaining how a good character must act? I don't have the BoED in front of me, but it's in there. There's your RAW.

Again, I really have no desire to sit and watch you apply your real-world concepts of what is "reasonable" or "stupid" to matters of DnD. I'm sure you feel strongly about them. Good for you.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sounds more like the below to me:

Ditto.

She has no personal relationship with the Dwarf since she just met him.

And, she has no commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

That is why this action is neutral.

irdeggman is off base with this. Just because an action is not good does not make it necessarily evil by definition.

 

[Goldmoon]

It would have except per the very first post:

I don't mean to say that I wont help the party. I mean to say that if they do something and get into a fight they obviously cant win, I have no compunction about leaving them to their deaths rather than dying with them. I dont engage most creatures we fight until 1 or 2 rounds after the start of the fight anyway. I try and give them the bardic bonus to hit and damage and see how the battle goes since I'm not much of a fighter anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's ridiculous to apply something that is written in an official book and is specifically called out as explaining how a good character must act? I don't have the BoED in front of me, but it's in there. There's your RAW.

Again, I really have no desire to sit and watch you apply your real-world concepts of what is "reasonable" or "stupid" to matters of DnD. I'm sure you feel strongly about them. Good for you.

And your point with this post? You appear to be arguing just to argue and being hostile, just to be hostile.

DND has both absolute and relative morality. Your example only illustrated how a good character might be expected to behave under one set of circumstances (and that under the hotly debatable morality of BoED which is not 3.5). It does nothing to illustrate whether the action of the OP is good, neutral, or evil.

 

[moritheil]

And your point with this post? You appear to be arguing just to argue and being hostile, just to be hostile.

DND has both absolute and relative morality. Your example only illustrated how a good character might be expected to behave under one set of circumstances (and that under the hotly debatable morality of BoED which is not 3.5). It does nothing to illustrate whether the action of the OP is good, neutral, or evil.

BoVD is not 3.5, but my understanding is that BoED is.

My point is that the rules in BoED call this out as an evil act. Someone might potentially suffer, no matter how small the odds are of it actually occurring. You continually disagree with the BoED rules, and that is your affair, but I really do not need you to apply the terms "ridiculous" and "stupid" to my literalist reading of the rules in what should remain a rules debate.

 

[KarinsDad]

BoVD is not 3.5, but my understanding is that BoED is.

My point is that the rules in BoED call this out as an evil act. Someone might potentially suffer, no matter how small the odds are of it actually occurring. You continually disagree with the BoED rules, and that is your affair, but I really do not need you to apply the terms "ridiculous" and "stupid" to my literalist reading of the rules in what should remain a rules debate.

When did you get the (ridiculous ) notion that alignment discussions were rules debates? Alignment by definition is a subjective system, not an objective one. Ok, only kidding. We can discuss it as rules.

As for your BoED example, it showed a good character protecting innocent ones at the cost of his own life. But, it was also an extremist ridiculous example and you said so yourself for real life. I cannot help if it is also a ridiculous example for DND as well. Just because something is written in a WotC book does not mean that it is not ridiculous.

I could easily make a counter example.

The PCs decide to wipe out the nearby evil Orcs. One PC says "If any escape, they could go get reinforcements and take revenge on the villagers and innocent lives could be harmed." Another PC says "Wow. Guess we had better not stir up that hornets nest. No matter how small the chance, an innocent could get hurt. Let's go drink. Nobody can get harmed by that.". A third PC says "But what if us buying drinks forces a different inn to go out of business?".

The point is, if the example in BoED is as you stated, it is both extremist and ridiculous and does not belong in a rules debate in the first place except as an example of how taking alignment to extremes is bad for the game. If your rules alignment example is a bad one, you can continue to attempt to debate with it, but it still is not a strong plank in your position because it is stupid.

Argumentum ad verecuniam. If it shows up in a WotC book, it must be good!


Btw, you are correct that BoED is 3.5. My bad.

 

[Artoomis]

...The point is, if the example in BoED is as you stated, it is both extremist and ridiculous and does not belong in a rules debate in the first place except as an example of how taking alignment to extremes is bad for the game. If your rules alignment example is a bad one, you can continue to attempt to debate with it, but it still is not a strong plank in your position because it is stupid.

Argumentum ad verecuniam. If it shows up in a WotC book, it must be good!


Btw, you are correct that BoED is 3.5. My bad.

BoED is about being EXALTED - that is, more than merely "good." I expect stuff from there to be a bit "over the top."

 

[moritheil]

BoED is about being EXALTED - that is, more than merely "good." I expect stuff from there to be a bit "over the top."

Most of it is, but that example is specifically called out as pertaining to "good" PCs, not just exalted. I do not know if there has been errata on that.