How many times...?

[Elf Witch]

Now this is a separate issue. No amount of rules or rules discussions will be able to fix piss poor DMing.

Unless of course the woman was under some kind of curse or was being controlled some how. We don't have the entire story. I do think if the DM played it like this for laughs he didn't do a good job.

But the player didn't either he had a lot of other options he could have used to control the situation.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It was my understanding that the lady continued to act as she did regardless of the die rolls. It seems the DM wanted it to happen this way.

When faced with one person's side of a story, I try not to make any value judgement on the other involved.

 

[Felix]

I try not to make any value judgement on the other involved.

If the DM had a character act in a manner that disregarded the skills of the PCs, then the DM has a purpose for doing it, which is what I suggest. I did not suggest that the DM was wrong or bad or whatever. It simply seems he had a reason for ignoring the rules set. You're reading something in my post that wasn't there.

 

[green slime]

I don't see what the problem is. This philosphy seems to tend toward evil anyway, so what's the bg deal? You probgably should have been evil from the start. That's OK, just erase what's on the sheet and go on.

Amen

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think people are way too focused on whether the act was evil or not (most people agree it is), but whether its possible to commit an evil act and remain neutral. IMO, if the person normally acts in a good way, with occasional provoked acts of violence (even if the provocationis mainly in his head), then he's probably chaotic neutral.

Tortuing someone for information (even if its just beating them up), using poison, etc are all considered evil acts under D&D's childlike definitions. Are you saying a neutral character cannot use those methods without instantly becoming evil? Even if its a one time incident? Alignment is the overall big picture, we frankly dont know enough about the character's personality, motivations and past acts to say one way or the other.

 

[Aaron L]

acts of violence that kill nonthreatening beings is evil.

throw trash back at her. call her names. throw a hissy. restrain her until the guard comes.

but once you move to cause her harm enough to maim or kill her = evil.

Thats all that needs to be said. Humans arent born evil, they fall into it by doing things like killing old ladies who throw garbage at them.

 

[hong]

Humans arent born evil, they fall into it by doing things like killing old ladies who throw garbage at them.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[rounser]

And yes, I agree that the Book of Vile Darkness is laughably simplistic. The line I'm referring to went something like this:

"In a world where good and evil are concrete things, sacrificing yourself to help someone else is a good act. Exploiting someone else for your own benefit is an evil act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is."

He then proceeds to jump through hoops for 200 pages to explain why, in this world of concrete good and evil, PCs can murder monsters for their gold and still themselves BE "good." That's only because to do otherwise treads on the genre conceits of the game.

IMO, a lot of what evil and good are is probably best not decided by the player, the DM, nor Monte Cook, but rather through the eyes of some NPCs...namely, the gods. It's their job to judge mortals, right? For the actions of a PC or NPC, judge what the deity they worship or pay lip service to would think of what they've done....in other words, ask, "what would Crom think?" It's a big ask to get NPCs to do rules-affecting stuff, but hey, they're gods.

To me, the attractive thing about this solution is that what is good to a LG god of protection and chivalric warfare is going to likely be somewhat different on the details in their view of what is good to that of a LG god of self-sacrifice and non-violence. Who gets the deciding vote on whether that act just then was evil, or merely the actions of a reasonable person in an unreasonable world? The deity closest to the worship of the character.

(A couple of caveats: If the character doesn't have a deity, or is some mindless creature, there's probably a god assigned the portfolio of judging them - like in FR where there's a plane the dead go to if they're nonbelievers. If they're some peasant who prays to the rain god for rain, the protection god for protection etc. determine the deity most relevant to the situation at hand, and ask their opinion.)

"The Walruses are coming!"

QFT

 

[Drowbane]

Your alignment is not "whatever you say it is". Your alignment is a reflection of your behavior, attitudes, and world views. If your character believes that burning someone's face off is an appropriate response to getting irritated, then your character is not "becoming evil from the one act". Your character is already evil...(snip)

Damn you! You beat me to it!
Ahem, well spoken sir!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Didn't I say that twice already?

Sometimes I feel like I'm on universal ignore

No, it is just something that needs repeating...

Werk's character would have been killed fairly swiftly after this in my game. I think that my players would have been either the ones doing the killing or at least the ones turning him over to the authorities. They would certainly go to the inevitable execution.

The Auld Grump