Going from Lawful Good to True Neutral for abandoning a friend?
- Thread starter frankthedm
- Start date
hopeless
Adventurer
Oh really?
Pardon me but what will they do when Elan's former mentors come in for a check on their status?
At least one of them was a paladin and even if he left Elan in the empty Inn, wasn't he abandoning his charge?
In Roy's case he had by that point had his ancestral sword broken, had Belkar on his back and was having difficulty coping with Elan.
Something had to give and as pointed out he isn't a paladin so why is he being treated s if he is?
If they've heard of Belkar then they'v heard of Elan admittedly not as psychotic but aggravating yes.
Next thing they're going to ask him about that time when he met Nale and told him how much he wanted to beat up someone who looks a lot like him...
frankthedm said:
Pardon me but what will they do when Elan's former mentors come in for a check on their status?
At least one of them was a paladin and even if he left Elan in the empty Inn, wasn't he abandoning his charge?
In Roy's case he had by that point had his ancestral sword broken, had Belkar on his back and was having difficulty coping with Elan.
Something had to give and as pointed out he isn't a paladin so why is he being treated s if he is?
If they've heard of Belkar then they'v heard of Elan admittedly not as psychotic but aggravating yes.
Next thing they're going to ask him about that time when he met Nale and told him how much he wanted to beat up someone who looks a lot like him...
delericho
Legend
As others have said, a single action does not an alignment change make.
Incidentally, one of the things I didn't like about that strip was the way Laful and Good alignments seemed to define themselves as being the absence of Chaos and Evil - Roy was congratulated only for a single good deed, and raked over the coals for every instance where his behaviour has been less than exemplary.
Incidentally, one of the things I didn't like about that strip was the way Laful and Good alignments seemed to define themselves as being the absence of Chaos and Evil - Roy was congratulated only for a single good deed, and raked over the coals for every instance where his behaviour has been less than exemplary.
+5 Keyboard!
First Post
billd91 said:
This is pretty much my take on it as well. Couldn't have said it any better.
Nifft said:
We don't know that. Associating with Belkar was brought up at the end of the strip, and the angel hasn't yet gotten a chance to discuss what it means.
Certainly Roy's relationship with Belkar deserves a little examination. Is he ignoring Belkar's bad deeds because Belkar is serving Roy's ends (a clearly neutral attitude) or is he acting to curb Belkar's worst excesses, even when it's inconvenient? Roy is being given an opportunity to speak on the matter.
hopeless said:
There's a difference between deciding you don't want to travel with someone and leaving them in a safe situation (what Elan's former mentor did) and abandoning someone who counted on you when they're in serious trouble.
If after rescuing Elan, Roy had told him, "That's it, you're out of the group," then that would be fine.
I'm surprised at some of the reactions on this thread. If there is ever a time when a character should be asked some difficult questions and made to reflect on questionable past actions, then the gates of the afterlife is it. If they're being tough on Roy regarding potentially unlawful and unevil deeds, maybe it's because he hasn't been doing a lot of lawful and selfless actions to counterbalance them.
Most of the time we've seen him, he's been on a very personal quest to destroy Xykon out of family obligation
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html
"News flash, Roy: Every quest we've done has been all about YOU!"
Roy's a nice guy, but he's not exactly devoted his life to helping the helpless. He doesn't have all that much "error room" to make up for any evil deeds.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I would say it would shift him towards lawful neutral. It's not a good act, but not necessarily chaotic, either. And could actually be considered lawful. "I have to finish the mission, I have no time to be delayed by idiots." The greater good and all that crap.
Aaron L
Hero
One instance of abandoning a friend should not change a characters alignment, especially not a decision that was reconsidered. One action should very rarely ever change a characters alignment, with only extreme cases being the exception.
Abandoning a friend isn't a Lawful Good thing to do (I'd say the deliberate abandonment of a friend to death is both Chaotic and Evil), and should end up in a loss of Paladinhood, but not a change in alignment for just one incident.
Now, twice, on the other hand, I'd have a very good chance of taking a character straight to True Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral.) Three times, definitely.
Abandoning a Good friend to death is a very bad thing, but one strike to and alignment change is too harsh, in my opinion. People have very bad days, get angry, and make bad decisions sometimes. But twice is enough of a trend with something of that magnitude to justify an alignment change, I think.
Remember that forgiveness is an important part of being Good. There should always be the possibility of forgiveness for all but the most absolutely heinous of crimes. (deliberately destroying a friends soul out of malice, for example, would be something of that magnitude.)
Abandoning a friend isn't a Lawful Good thing to do (I'd say the deliberate abandonment of a friend to death is both Chaotic and Evil), and should end up in a loss of Paladinhood, but not a change in alignment for just one incident.
Now, twice, on the other hand, I'd have a very good chance of taking a character straight to True Neutral (or Chaotic Neutral.) Three times, definitely.
Abandoning a Good friend to death is a very bad thing, but one strike to and alignment change is too harsh, in my opinion. People have very bad days, get angry, and make bad decisions sometimes. But twice is enough of a trend with something of that magnitude to justify an alignment change, I think.
Remember that forgiveness is an important part of being Good. There should always be the possibility of forgiveness for all but the most absolutely heinous of crimes. (deliberately destroying a friends soul out of malice, for example, would be something of that magnitude.)
Celebrim
Legend
Aaron L said:
Forgiveness is intrinsicly tied to repentence. Before you can meaningfully forgive someone, they must recipocate with repentence. (If you don't accept this as true, fine. But, it is the way 'law' sees forgiveness, as an action of a communal, interpersonal rather than personal nature.) Otherwise, the reasoning goes, your forgiveness does them no good. Roy's judge is quite explicitly forgiving Roy's transgressions because he showed evidence of repentence - he went back, he made recompense, his learned from his mistake; and, she is making it quite clear that if there had been no repentence, there could not have been forgiveness.
Similar Threads
