Going from Lawful Good to True Neutral for abandoning a friend?

[Squire James]

Disrespecting Elan to the extent that he left him to an unknown fate was a pattern of behavior, enough to push that alignment counter around a bit and perhaps cross a line. However, there was plenty of stuff to make up for it, including his almost immediate atonement and even taking arrows for said Elan later.

That being said, the guy who came in for a night's stay must be one of the 5 or so people who meet that the Celestial Realm's standards. No wonder they're offering "Frequent Dying Miles" and possibly other incentives... their hotels are FAR from full!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

On the whole "one deed doesn't change alignment" bit. One deed which presents a hard choice can demonstrate what your alignment really is and not what you give lip service to. As some have said, Roy says he's lawful good, but what has he done that wasn't also in the best interests of his ego, advancement as a fighter and/or family obligations? Some things yes, but not enough in my mind to see him as a solidly LG character who can be forgiven the occasional lapse. Instead, the "one deed" was a rare chance to see his convictions in action - and it took a while for them to kick in.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I voted "no". Roy's attack on the bandit camp was foolish; he's lucky the bandits were such dunces, and (of course) he rolled a series of natural 20s to rescue his friends from the nooses, etc. At the very least an alignment "infraction" shouldn't be binary; the situation has to be taken into account.

"Abandoning a friend to an unknown fate" is the crime of BETRAYAL

No it isn't. That's abandonment. To betray someone, you have to set them up.

 

[frankthedm]

No it isn't. That's abandonment. To betray someone, you have to set them up.

Then we have some disagreements on the definition, responsibilities and expectations of having / being a friend as far as Law and Good are concerned.

 

[FalcWP]

Personally, I'd say that abandoning Elan, examined in a vacuum, would be enough to shift Roy to Lawful Neutral, with his actions after that (saving everyone from the bandits, using the Belt, taking arrows for Elan) being more than enough to redeem him - I'd say he was probably redeemed after riding in to the rescue.

For everyone who says that one action isn't enough to cause an alignment shift: if someone says Judas to you, or Brutus, your thoughts are likely going to go to one action which defines them in your mind. Is that particularly fair?

Now, I'm not saying that what Roy did is on the same level, but the alignment shift in those cases would have been more severe as well (as in, automatic evil). And I'd be shocked if any DM could honestly watch a player sell out or brutally murder a friend and *not* say that that one action made them evil, with a long road to redemption.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Then we have some disagreements on the definition, responsibilities and expectations of having / being a friend as far as Law and Good are concerned.

I didn't say abandonment wasn't a bad thing to do. It's just not the same thing as betrayal.

 

[Celebrim]

I didn't say abandonment wasn't a bad thing to do. It's just not the same thing as betrayal.

What if it is your child? What if it is your spouse?

Are you telling me that betrayal and abandonment aren't the same things then?

Maybe friendship is a lesser thing. Maybe it isn't. But it's still betrayal to abandon them when they need you, or to turn your back so that you won't see that they need you.

 

[wedgeski]

I voted 'Yes' for this. I agree that one action shouldn't normally swing your alignment, it being the cumulative affect of many dodgy actions over time, but there's a scale here. Abandoning Elan to a sticky end would have been a dreadful act and Roy is simply a better man than that.

 

[billd91]

For everyone who says that one action isn't enough to cause an alignment shift: if someone says Judas to you, or Brutus, your thoughts are likely going to go to one action which defines them in your mind. Is that particularly fair?

I'm not sure I'd call either of those things a shift in moral outlook. Both are just particularly notorious events in history/mythology. And yet both may be entirely consistent with the participants' previous moral outlook. What's not fair is that they've been tarred with the sensational event rather than looking at the whole sweep of their lives.

 

[buzz]

For everyone who says that one action isn't enough to cause an alignment shift: if someone says Judas to you, or Brutus, your thoughts are likely going to go to one action which defines them in your mind. Is that particularly fair?

Judas and Brutus were not D&D characters.

Roy technically isn't a D&D character, either. He's a spoof of a D&D character, in a comic that spoofs D&D tropes toward a humorous end. The whole gist of the strip is a play upon Alignment debates.

Anyway...

Were a player to have their PC "abandon a friend to an unknown fate," would it cause their PCs alignment to shift?

Technically, no. Alignment in 3.5 doesn't shift. It is not a stick you beat the players with.

3.5 alignment is, as described in the DMG, a contract between the player and the DM regarding how the player intends to play their PC. That contract doesn't get altered unless one of the participants sees that there are grounds for doing so. These grounds could be a single event, but they are more likely going to be a series of events, i.e., a habitual disregard for the terms of the contract. Should grounds exist, the DM and player talk about making a change.

"Abandonment of a friend to an unknown fate" could possibly be the act that triggers the DM (or even the player) to say, "Hey, I think this PC is really better suited by another alignment." We can't know that for sure unless we have a context of play.

What I can say is that, were I a DM dealing with this, I'd at the very least make a mental note of it. I would not say, "BOOM! You're Neutral!"