How many times...?

[Rothe]

Jersey in the house!

I can't really argue in correct terms, (I don't like cop shows) so I'll set up the scenario.

Detective is investigating the murder of authoritarian officials.
Detective leaves the crime scene and is approached by angry mob led by disheveled, dirty person with wild eyes, throwing items at the detective.
Detective says whatever he's supposed to and the leader continues to advance, throwing items and screaming obsceneties.
Detective draws his weapon, brandishes it, and says whatever he's supposed to again.
The leader continues to advance, throwing items and screaming obsceneties.

Does he wait to be surrounded and overtaken, or what is the correct reponse? (he and his partner are alone in a far-removed rural area, no backup, no support)

Talk to some people in law enforcement. I think you'll find the use of deadly force is very,very restricted. Having your authority flaunted, being covered in garbage or pelted with rocks or bottles, even being threatened with words like "I'm going to kill you" doesn't rise to the level of responding with deadly force. In short, being dissed never justifies deadly force. You must use non-deadly force first if at all possible. Your duty is to retreat in the face of such a mob you describe. In addition, a warning shot might be nice. If you must shoot, the first shot should be to a non-lethal area. This assumes the mob has no deadly weapons, an aggressive person brandishing a knife that closes to within 6 feet of you often does justify lethal force.

But that was not your original question. What we had was an old women flinging insults and garbage, both very non-lethal. Not a mob closing in with the intent to kill.

 

[Delta]

Admittedly, for years, there have been many times when I wish there was a specific points-based alignment system. So you can make several minor acts before alignment switches, and the DM knows exactly how many it takes (instead of being particularly ticked off at the player one day).

I've started to use Unearthed Arcana's "Mechanical Honor" system for the purpose, as a guideline. In that system, "Killing unarmed or helpless foes" loses -5 Honor. That is in fact the difference between a True Neutral character and one who is Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil as a starting PC(DM picks, I'd say).

Now, I'm not clear in this situation if the old woman was killed. If not, I'd assess at least -2 Honor ("Rash or improper social behavior", as evidenced by other's reactions). Maybe not enough to shift categories -- but 2 or 3 acts like this would.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

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.

Unfortunately, dogs do not possess the capacity to make complex emotional and moral/ethical descisions. Neutrality is not defined as "animalistic indifference", although it does include that. It's neither good nor evil. Neutrality also, by logic, has to also define both good and evil. Why? Because nothing else can.

By your definition of evil, what this character did was neutral. He didn't kill her because he felt like it, or because it furthered his interests and desires, he used excessive force to further a task he was assigned to do. That is almost textbook LN. "The soldier who does whatever he is told and never questions his orders".

A character who commits evil acts isn't necessarily evil, because that character may also commit good acts. What happens when next session the "evil" cleric puts his life on the line to save innocent people from rampaging ogres for no other reason than it is the right thing to do? Is he still evil? Does he switch to good? Nope, he's still neutral.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A character who commits evil acts isn't necessarily evil, because that character may also commit good acts. What happens when next session the "evil" cleric puts his life on the line to save innocent people from rampaging ogres for no other reason than it is the right thing to do? Is he still evil? Does he switch to good? Nope, he's still neutral.

Why does horrible, inconsistant and bizzare roleplaying get classified as neutral? Why would you believe that both acts were roleplaying the same character rather than a player trying to "game" the allignment system?

IMO a character who is willing to commit a non coerced evil act is in fact evil. If the same character is also committing good and selfless acts he is additionally insane, but still evil. But really its not the character at all at that point, its the player wanting to be evil and thinking if he does a few good deeds he can call his character neutral. Doesn't work for me.

 

[Dragonbait]

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??

Clearly, he must be spouting off his beliefs about the various editions of D&D in his home town too. How many people on here wanted to throw trash and scream insanely at him?
"Just quoting someone and saying QFT is NOT worthy of a post in itself! Even if you add 'mang' after it! Many of the people that play D&D now were not even born yet to play the original version of Dungeons and Dragons that you play! The Walruses are coming!" *throws an old banana peel at Diaglo*

 

[Dragonbait]

IMO a character who is willing to commit a non coerced evil act is in fact evil. If the same character is also committing good and selfless acts he is additionally insane, but still evil. But really its not the character at all at that point, its the player wanting to be evil and thinking if he does a few good deeds he can call his character neutral. Doesn't work for me.

QFT

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

And what if the character goes around helping people otherwise? What if he's heroic and would give his life to save the town? What if he routeinely gives to the poor and needy?

Alignment doesnt promote realistic characters, it promotes charicatures and stereotypes, and its a holdover from a bad era of gaming where everything had to be black and white. Hell, in OD&D, there was only lawful, chaotic and neutral, which is, IMO, a better way to go about alignment, since fewer people have trouble with their character being labeled methodical or disorderly than good or evil. Alignment was only cramemd into D&D because people needed a guilt free way to kill all orcs they met.

Pick any remotely complex character, their alignment is hard to define. Thats because they have room for a diverse range of reactions, rather than their straight jacket approach. Whats Mal's alignment in Firefly/Serenety? How about the characters on the Sopranos. Is Carmilla evil because she knows her husband murders people and doesnt go to the police or do anything to stop him?

Ditching alignment lets you create a character concept thats free of labels, as well as create individuals from societies whose values dont reflect our own. It lets you have a character who is extremely predjudiced, but still a good guy at heart, or a killer who loves his family.

As far as the punishment not fitting the crime... while I hate to use real world history as an example, take a look at crime and punishment throughout the ages. "Fair" isnt a word I'd use to describe it by any stretch, when stealing bread or taking rotten apples off the ground in the lord's forest was punishable by death. Throwing garbage on anyone important is a good way to get killed... I'm frankly surprised the old lady lived that long.

Moreover, look at how older socieities view violence. For seduction purposes, Cassanova rented a room overlooking a square where prisoners were being eviscerated and tortured... It was considered romantic. Jeremy Bentham was basically run out of England for daring to propose the ludicrous notion that perhaps orphans SHOULDNT be forced to fight dogs for people's amusement. Was every roman who went to see bloodsport shows evil?

Now apply that same kind of notion to a world where death isnt nearly as big a deal (since there is 100% assurance of an afterlife, not to mention raise dead spells), and where violence is much much more easily "repairable" than in our world.

 

[green slime]

Another reason why alignment is a dated concept that should be removed from future editions. Play your character how you think they would react.

Note that alignment just means how your character acts OVERALL. A single evil act hardly justifies an alignment change. Neither does a single noble act.

Balderdash. It is the simple facts that people should:

1) act as they think their character would.
2) let the DM worry about what alignment their character is.

Slaughtering little old ladies because they litter is definitely indicative of some deeper unbalance of the soul, and shows a callous, cavalier approach to other people's lives.

Such a person is likely deeply disturbed, and while they may seem "such a nice person" they are definitely having el-sicko thoughts rattling around in their head. An intelligent pyschopath is dangerous because he understands how to act in society, and does so to blend in, not because he feels any real empathy for those he may help.

 

[Storm Raven]

Such a person is likely deeply disturbed, and while they may seem "such a nice person" they are definitely having el-sicko thoughts rattling around in their head. An intelligent pyschopath is dangerous because he understands how to act in society, and does so to blend in, not because he feels any real empathy for those he may help.

Most adventurers would best be described as deeply disturbed, as would the bulk of figures from history. You aren't really scoring any points for your argument when you cite being "deeply disturbed" as a problem for someone living in a quasi-midaevil fantasy world.

 

[green slime]

Most adventurers would best be described as deeply disturbed, as would the bulk of figures from history. You aren't really scoring any points for your argument when you cite being "deeply disturbed" as a problem for someone living in a quasi-midaevil fantasy world.

No? But if I come round to your house and burn your face off, then? Do I score points then?

My post was in the context of "But he donates money and helps people otherwise, mostly, when everyone is looking..."