How many times...?

[Ed_Laprade]

Ok, now I'm going to be Evil. The OP has explained what happened. So now the question is: What alignment is Judge Dredd!? Have fun.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Wow, I must have burned like 40 people's faces off in my D&D career... Actually, I haven't done it, but this is a pretty funny poll.

 

[werk]

Thanks for the post. I appreciate everyone's comments, and I think that the more conservative posts, like Crothian, are more in-line with our group's way of thinking than my own. That is why I posted here, I wanted to have a discussion rather than resolute statement of belief (or disbelief).

*werk DID say LN, right? I coulda sworn I saw that somewhere...
**werk's character might not have had sleep spells, but non-damaging combat spells, like stun or hold or something like that.

The character is (was?) LN, and is a teenager, so there's some leeway granted there. He's a low-level cleric, and worships no deity, domains are war and travel.

The only spell he had left was Light of Lunia, so it was burn her face off or heal her. He's an archer, so wasn't too interested in losing a grapple with a crazy old lady NPC

He considers himself the law in this situation. He was commissioned by local lords to restore order to the area and resolve whatever is causing trouble.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I will chime in on Werk's side. They are, as I understand it, in an city of anarchy. There is no government in place, no higher powers to appeal to, no civil service to perform basic functions.

So, when in a lawless region and accosted by potentially dangerous lunatics who are incapable of rational thought, how do you cope? Using potentially lethal magic on a lunatic is a definite escalation of force, probably excessively so as it could rile up the locals. I'd have gone with a hold person spell if I was going to waste magic but I might have gone straight to subdual damage and beat her down. But I tend to play LN/LE. My LG characters would probably attempt to use a rope to tie her up first but would be wiling to resort to knocking her unconscious, assuming there wasn't access to a Heal spell to make her sane again.

Medieval nobility often has a wide latitude in dealing with the masses. Many times they could kill pretty much any commoner and only have to pay a fine. I don't go that far except in the areas with "evil" governments but the fact remains that commoners were often 2nd class citizens. If someone acts dresses like a noble (masterwork clothing), has the equipment of a noble (magic doodads), and acts like a noble (expects to be obeyed), they are probably a noble and the masses will react appropriately.

If crazy Aunt Edna threw garbage and screamed at King Henry VIII, she'd probably have been given a solid cuffing and the masses would tell her family she was lucky not to be run through or have her head split open.

I find Werk's actions on the extreme end of things (and woe to him if it turns out Crazy Edna is actually Eccentric Baroness Edna) but not something that immediately categorizes you as "evil" by itself.

Had he strapped her down and then slowly burned her face off then THAT would be immediate trip to evil-town. But throwing a bolt of fire at her after she proved she was insane.....nah.

Though it would have been better to intentionally miss with the first jet of flames in the hopes of scaring her off and impressing the locals.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think werk's problem with the opinions listed so far (which probably includes mine) is that there seems to be a "good" route and an "evil" route, and alignment should offer a middle road, where people do some good deeds and some bad deeds.

But that's not exactly how alignment works.

"Good" acts involve basically, sacrificing your self-interest or desires for the sake of others.

"Evil" acts involve hurting others to promote your self-interest or desires.

"Neutral" acts are those that are perfectly normal and fit neither of the above definitions.

Killing is not intrinsically an evil act. It's a neutral act.

Stepping in the way of a rampaging monster to prevent it from killing someone else is a good act. The actual killing is still neutral.

Killing someone because you "feel like it" is an evil act.

Killing someone to take their stuff is an evil act. Yes, by this definition, going into a random monster complex and slaughtering the inhabitants for their gold is EEE-VILLL - FRU-ITS of the DE-VILL EEE-VILLL.

If the lawful rulers (or poor peasants) persuade you to take on the "dangerous monsters" or "evil oppressors," it gets complicated. The first case (doing it because the authorties asked you to) is a lawful act. In the second case, stopping the oppressors from committing acts of evil is a good act. In both cases, killing them is still a neutral act.

So, burning off a crazy old lady's face? EE-VILLL. Unless you were ordered to make sure people stop throwing garbage....but even then, it's still a non-proportional response. Your life wasn't in danger. Setting the garbage on fire would have been a middle ground. Having someone else deal with her would have been a middle ground. Basically, ask yourself this: "How would a dog react in this situation?"

That's the neutral moral ground.

 

[Numion]

I wouldn't think it would warrant an alignment change. Maybe done in anger, the character might have a guilty conscience, but nothing more than that.

 

[Mycanid]

Agent Oracle - LOLOLOLOL! ROFL!

 

[diaglo]

Diaglo-

I need a sanity check here, dude. You have had a "crazy person [throw] trash and screaming at [you]" *numerous* times? Where the heck do you live, man??

I have heard random screaming, and on one occasion even screaming invictives, but never thrown trash!

EDIT: Spelling gaffe.

i was working in inner city Baltimore at the time.

i had the mobility and dodge feats.

 

[Hussar]

How is this any different than "Stop or I'll shoot"? How many times do you have to say stop or I'll shoot before you are allowed to shoot?

However, why are you yelling "Stop or I'll shoot" when the other person is absolutely no threat to you?

There's not really much else to say. The response was totally out of line with the threat. Yes, in 18th century England it might have been appropriate. However, alignment has very little to do with historical morals unless you allow your paladins to rape villagers.

Alignment is how the universe sees you. If your character can have the response of lighting crazy people on fire, then the universe sees you as evil.

 

[Rothe]

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.

Forrest Gump may have said that stupid is as stupid does. This does not apply to alignment. You are not evil because you commit evil acts. You commit evil acts because you are evil.

Your behavior is a reflection of your alignment. The DM has the job of assigning alignment to match the behavior the character is willing to do. The character rarely undergoes an alignment change. Rather, the alignment field of the character sheet is adjusted to reflect the actual alignment of the character.

If you're willing to do evil, you are evil. You do not "become" evil.

well said