Exalted moral dilemma

[twofalls]

Being Exalted though places a lot more liminations on what he can do though.

IMO, yes and no Crothian. Being Exalted doesn't take a Neutral Good player and turn him into a Lawful Good player in disguise. I have an exalted character in my game and unfortunately he has my BoED right now so I'm unable to quote exact passages from the book.

An exalted character is the epitome of his alignments "Good" aspects. The morality of his alignment is stressed over the ethics of his alignment (as defined in D&D terms). If this Merchant knows of the pervading evil and denies the item in fair exchange to the party anyhow, then other actions to obtain the item to safeguard the greater good isn't (in my game) going to remove his status.

That being said, blackmail isn't the way to go. I'd require that the Exalted character meet with the merchant to find his price, and failing that find out why the merchant isn't treating with them. Is he part of the evil you are trying to defeat? Is this item a priceless part of a collection of his? Is he a generally powerless person who is enjoying this little bit of strength he has found by denying the group what they need? A good GM, if the player is taking appropriate precautions to do the right thing, isn't going to screw a player over. There should be reasons he is denying them what they seek. An Exalted player in my game would be expected to try to find out those reasons and then deal with it in the best possible way.

In cahoots with the evil bad guys? Expose him, turn him into the authorities/take him out/whatever the campaign has designed to deal with evil and then take the needed item (perhaps paying the inheritor of the estate for it later if time is of the essence).

Part of a collection? Find another item that would appeal to the collector and make a deal he can't refuse. If he is a merchant, find his motivations and use them. Money is easy, contacts? Is there a deed he needs to have done that a group of true hero's could undertake as part of a bargain? There are many approaches.

Power mad? If he is refusing the item to be spiteful and is just a mean person, I'd allow an Exalted character to take the item anyway, pay fair market value for it and use it to defeat the mean evil baddies. Spite is petty, if not exactly evil, and you have to weigh your actions for the greater good.

All of this is, of course, the take that would work in MY game.

 

[Darkness]

IMO, yes and no Crothian. Being Exalted doesn't take a Neutral Good player and turn him into a Lawful Good player in disguise.

One, a character and a player are two different things. Confusing the two is merely annoying on message boards, but in practice it is not recommended.

Two, agreed, a Neutral (Good) Exalted character and a Lawful Good character aren't the same.

An exalted character is the epitome of his alignments "Good" aspects. The morality of his alignment is stressed over the ethics of his alignment (as defined in D&D terms). If this Merchant knows of the pervading evil and denies the item in fair exchange to the party anyhow, then other actions to obtain the item to safeguard the greater good isn't (in my game) going to remove his status.

Yeah. It's not an evil act. True Neutral, more like. Assuming you don't, like, torture or kill the merchant (or his employees/family) to get it.

 

[twofalls]

One, a character and a player are two different things. Confusing the two is merely annoying on message boards, but in practice it is not recommended.

Picky Pikcy You obviously knew what I meant to print... and I doubt anyone here woud believe that I think a player IS their character. Though it would be an interesting line of psychological babble to pursue that line of thought and argue that they are in fact the same... not going there.

 

[Thanee]

Under the right circumstances, I could see burglary and stealing as a good act.

Blackmail probably not, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

I doubt anyone here woud believe that I think a player IS their character. Though it would be an interesting line of psychological babble to pursue that line of thought and argue that they are in fact the same... not going there.

Coincidentally, there's a recent thread about this topic.

 

[Falkus]

But are any of these things actually evil

If you have to ask...

I think I'll contradict the "YES" crowd here and say: it depends. I would say that in general, killing is a greater travesty than blackmail, but the game seems to let good characters do it with no repercusions.

In self-defense, or in the defense of others.

 

[shilsen]

I'll cut to the chase - ask your DM. His conception of what's appropriate or not for exalted characters in general and your PC in particular is the only thing that really impacts your character.

 

[dungeon blaster]

This is EXACTLY why I don't play with exalted feats/status. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Psion]

In self-defense, or in the defense of others.

Precisely. Is blackmailing in self-defense or defense of others evil if killing is not?

 

[Falkus]

Precisely. Is blackmailing in self-defense or defense of others evil if killing is not?

There's a difference between killing somebody actively trying to kill you, and blackmailing somebody to get something you could easily get via other methods.