One session, a ton of alignment issues...

[Arravis]

Great responses everyone . Thank you very much!

The Gneech, the doppleganger simply assumed her shape, and told him that they had met... as I understand, his character took it as an implied threat. His character felt vulnerable, helpless, and completely exposed, and that's what drove him over the edge.

 

[Cygnus]

As a reminder to some above: the rogue is CG.

That being said, the only major alignment issue that I see is the dagger. I'm not sure that a CG person would be able to use something that seems clearly Evil.

The monk: Lawfull Good: let the elected/appointed representatives dispose of the criminals in the fasion that they see fit since they (in fact) offered the information before an actuall agreement was reached (letter of the "law"). From a LG point of view, I would suggest that the final goal of an agreement in this case would be to agree to spare their lives for the information and then turn them over to the proper authorities.

Sorceress: I don't see to much here; she did as she was asked...next time, not so much. CN doesn't mean "always does reverse."

Dwarf: CN, no concern for order or consistency; good/evil: could be dangerous extremes to be avoided or just aspects of life that are intermitently visited as the individual feels that the situation warents. If the Dwarf is going to be "comdemned" to the dark side just because he does something considered evil, then he must also never be allowed to do anything considered good: that's a bit silly. So since he didn't kill the (say 3 for the sake of example) remaining 3 members of the family, that's three acts of mercy (good, for this example) versus 1 act of evil---moving him closer to the good side of the spectrum. See: silly. Admittedly there are different gradients of good/evil actions that can move one closer to one side or the other per each action, but in this case the Dwarf was finishing a job rather than just deciding to kill the creature. Had he tried to save it, would anyone be worried about his alignment shifting towards good? I doubt it. The only "true neutral" action to take would be to watch and let nature take its course and accept the creature's life or death without care one way or the other.

Rogue: Chaos, not Law: He was the vigilante metting out an (admitedly) too emotional response to what he thought was the appropriate response to the crime, and it was a crime. He was in this case the vigilante. But he's CG and the creature was unarmed you say...When was the last time the you saw them bring a criminal to the electric chair and handed him/her a loaded shotgun? Yet we still tend to think of ourselves as good, and in some form or fasion, we abide the system that keeps this practice of execution in place.

But yea, the dagger is a problem, probably courupting him over the passage of time whether he realizes it or not.

 

[swrushing]

But he's CG and the creature was unarmed you say...

Slam +5 melee (1d6+1)

thats the equivalent of holding an unsheathed shortsword.

 

[Arnwyn]

How would this affect his alignment?

I don't think any of these actions "affect" their alignments in any way.

 

[D+1]

The impostors propose that they’ll answer any questions the PC’s have if the rest of their family, which is unconscious in the basement, is released. This deal is only tacitly made; the party never actually said they would agree to it.

Then you've answered your own question there. Also, an "agreement" made by decent people with others who have already PROVEN their duplicity and can readily be expected to repeat that duplicity is not binding in the least - even IF the PC's were stupid enough to think they ought to agree with it at all.

After a bit more questioning, the dwarven fighter enters the situation, showing disdain for the doppelgangers, expressing that they are evil parasites, that at the least they should be turned to the city guard or be killed outright.

At this point the monk agrees to turn them in to the guard. As a DM, I’m not sure how I feel about this…

I don't see a whit that should concern you about this. If the PC's were willing, even committed to going along with the proposed agreement they have PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE second thoughts at this point. This was not a random event - it was a conspiratorial act of character assassination. "Gosh. Too bad we said we'd let them go before THEY stupidly confessed everything that we hadn't yet known. But we're all Lawful Stupid here I suppose so, what can we do? Guess we'll do better next time?"

but the party did ask questions and all were answered. Would that be a tacit agreement to the deal? Does it matter for a LG monk? I’m not sure… opinions on this would be welcome, but lets continue.

It is NOT tacit agreement. Another possibility is that it was clever interrogation - let them mistakenly think you're agreeing with them while they're still running off at the mouth. Even if it was, it does not matter for a LG anybody.

The lead doppelganger goes to explain that they spoke to many of their friends, and while doing so he took the shape of the rogue’s love interest in the campaign, a young noblewoman. At this the juvenile elven rogue is overwhelmed with emotion, secretly draws a rather wicked dagger (flesh-grinding, from the Book of Vile Darkness), and with a fierce cry suddenly strikes at the unarmed doppelganger. The question here is, how would this affect the alignment of the rogue? Chaotic Neutral now, or… Chaotic Evil?

Is the use of this particular weapon actually considered to be an Evil act? (We don't all own the BoVD after all, and because you mention it specifically I assume it must be relevant.) Assuming it ISN'T an evil act to simply use the item at all, this is good roleplaying isn't it? It shouldn't matter if the character is acting outside of his normal alignment-suggested pattern of behavior. He's been given MOTIVATION to deviate. It doesn't mean he's gone Darth Vader on you.

The magical dagger continues to burrow into the creature as the rogue attempts to make his escape from the room. The monk is torn between helping the doppelganger and stopping the fleeing rogue. He commands the sorceress to help the doppelganger as he himself attempts to subdue the rogue. The rogue escapes the grapple and runs down the hall to leave. The monk commands the dwarven fighter to “secure the room”, as the monk gives chase after the rogue.

I note your use of "the monk COMMANDS..." as significant. Why do YOU suggest that kind of authority over the party to the monk character? The monk may be the defacto leader of the party, but COMMANDS other PC's? Nothing else here. That simply struck me as significant and revealing.

The dwarven fighter grabs the dagger that’s imbedded in the doppelganger and pushes in, to finish the creature (again… not sure what to do on the alignment issue here).

You might assume that the intent was to end his misery, albeit that the dwarf perceives his fate as deserved. The dwarf is not torturing the doppleganger is he? These dopplegangers were capturing people with the intent to sell them into slavery - but not even for the sake of slavery itself - but to attempt to besmirch the reputations of the PC's. I might easily assume these dopplegangers were Evil and thus deserving of no LESS a punishment than death, regardless of whatever "deals" they thought they had made.

The monk commands the dwarf to stop, and he does so.

The old phrase, "When the cat's away, the mice will play," springs to mind. The Monk (I assume) does not really have formal command over the other PC's. The dwarf IS CN after all. What do you perceive as the alignment problem there, if any?

There were a lot of alignment issues that were unclear to me… I think part of the reason for the muddiness is that I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of doppelgangers. They are a neutral race, but they are a societal parasite.

They weren't neutral HERE. They were performing rather distinctly evil acts.

Lastly… the rogue wants to break into where the doppelganger is being held and kill him. How would this affect his alignment? My gut tells me evil, pure and simple, but others disagree (not people in the gaming group). The player has expressed that he’ll gladly take whatever judgment I deem appropriate, but I want to make sure I’m doing the right thing.

I'd say that it suggests a move to chaotic alignment rather than evil. It's a pure act of vengeance, but not without motivation, and the player has apparantly expressed the idea that he finds it VERY important that his character make this move, even if it brings consequences. Now that doesn't mean the CHARACTER is disregarding consequences - it means the PLAYER is.

TALK to your players. Even if you've told them you have problems with their actions vs. alignments let them tell YOU what they think. Ask them WHY their character did, or is doing this or that and what their characters thoughts are about it. I think that except for the rogue any alignment "violations" are only proper roleplaying, temporary deviations from their chosen alignments and established behaviors and NOTHING to be concerned about.

The player of the rogue seems to be rather willfully taking a step toward the dark side as a result of the entire affair. Let him. As long as the players motivations are not to disrupt the game, why not let a PC demonstrate that rather than MINDLESSLY obey his alignment he will instead react in an individualistic way to events. Just be sure to warn all the Jedi in the vicinity...

 

[Tonguez]

The rogue acted out of emotion regardless of consequence - reward him for good roleplaying

The dwarf did the Dwarfish thing of killing the doppleganger quickly (albeit grimly) rather than having him suffer the flesh-burrowing dagger - reward him for playing a dwarf and not a short bearded human

The others did what any rational person would do in the circumstance - give them the xp for the encounter and carry on...

 

[Dancer]

Do dopplegangers have any legal rights in your world? I'm assuming they do, since they were arrested. If so, the rogue and the dwarf should be tried for murder.

The elven rogue appears to have just wanted to kill someone. Does he make a habit out of attempting to kill someone (or something) that merely impersonated his girl? That is the act of a psychopath and he probably shouldn't be running around loose in the city.

The dwarf was just stupid. The weapon was already killing the doppleganger, why go and blatantly commit murder when he could have just stood by. The only reason I see is that the sorceress was trying to stop the murder and the dwarf wanted to make sure the creature died. Once again, the dwarf should be tried for murder.

As for the alignment issues, one or two outbursts of craziness do not make for alignment changing circumstances but if they continue in this vein then yeah, you should give them warnings and then start shifting alignments.

Also, about giving and keeping one's word. If the monk gave his word and the rest of the party seemed to go along with it then they all gave their word. Someone posted that giving one's word to a duplicitous foe means you don't have to keep it. That's true if you are without honor. Honorless players will hopefully eventually get to someone who will not accept their word because they are known to break it.

 

[Arravis]

Update...

Why do some seem to be assuming I have a hostile or negative view of the player's actions or that I'm "out to get them"? I'm simply trying to find out how their actions affect their alignments, I'm not judging their actions as negative or positive. If I had wished to decide rashly, I wouldn't have bothered posting here.

In D&D alignment is not a relative thing that can be explained away by motivation or any other relatavism. If their actions change their alignments, that's not a "punishment", it's simply the character growing and changing over time. I've noticed a bit of hostility over the idea of changing alignments, as if it were a punishment to the player. Is the player role-playing? Yes, damn well actually. Can good role-playing lead to alignment changes? Why not? Why is this a bad thing?

Personally, I'm all for characters changing over time. I can't imagine people going through what adventurers go through and not be deeply affected in their world views. I try to support and reward such things whenever possible in my campaigns, not punish them.

D+1, as far as my use of the word "commands" for the monk, I used it because that's what he did. The monk told those characters what they should do. He told the sorceress "Take care of the doppelganger.", and told the dward "Secure the room." Those are commands in my book... and does he have authority over those characters? No, the group is more or less democratic, but at this particular stage of the game the monk was asking many of the questions, and more or less "leading" the party.

As far as my decision on the events and the affected alignments, here is what I've concluded (though our game isn't until Saturday, so there is still time to change my mind on this if need be). A single action, unless extremely hineous, isn't enough to change alignment. Most of the actions taken, though not clear, aren't enough to begin an alignment "shift" (I'm using shift in the sense of leaning towards a new alignment, not actual alignment change).

Before last night's game I had made a decision. If the rogue chose to assassinate the doppelganger, his road towards evil would begin. This doesn't mean that he turns evil, or that I'll try to influence his actions. Only that the "evil" path would make itself more obvious and certain events would transpire (such as the rather nasty idea by John Morrowto have the main bad guy assassinate the rogue's of girlfriend to push him over the edge). What path the rogue takes is completely up to the player, but the path towards evil is well paved and easier to traverse then it would have otherwise been.

Well, now for an update on the events that transpired last night. I DM'd the mini solo-game with the rogue... He ran to the home of his girlfriend to find that her and her family had left the city to take a tour of some properties they owned in lands to the south (Tethyr). He used a Qual's Feather Token (Bird) to send her a warning and begun investigating the whereabouts of the doppelgangers. He finds that their leader, the one he stabbed, has been taken to a Watch precinct and is being held there for questioning in the morning. The rogue skillfully breaks into the precinct and after a tense-filled game he finds the creature asleep in it's cell. He assassinates it and flees from the site, loosing his persuers through magic.

What happens next, how will the other characters react to all this (especially the LG monk), I don't know... but this Saturday we'll find out. I'll post an update after the game.

Again, thanks to everyone for all the comments and advice, they are all welcome and keep them coming . Thanks!

-Arravis

 

[drnuncheon]

I think that the monk showed saintly patience in dealing with someone who had taken his shape, lied to his freinds, and tried to destroy his reputation. Heck, I think the entire party showed admirable restraint in knocking the dopplegangers unconscious rather than killing them outright, so I'd keep that in mind when evaluating any sort of alignment changes.

In general, I'd see killing the dopplegangers as a neutral act, not an evil one - they certainly are not innocent, so killing them is probably not evil, and while it may be the stereotypically 'good' thing to to do not kill a helpless prisoner, the self-serving thing is to eliminate them so they don't go out and do the same thing to you again.

As for parlaying with the dopples, would you trust a creature whose entire life is based on deceit to keep its word? I sure wouldn't without some kind of enforcing agent - maybe spells like geas/quest or mark of judgement.

J

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Just a few things,

The monk actions were all lawful good. In Waterdeep you have an established (reasonably non-corrupt) whose key ruler is (or used to be) a paladin. When in a city, he would have to torn over the suspects to the lawful authorities. After all, he can be realtivly assured that the suspects will get fair treatment and a complete investigation into the actions of the purported criminals. The only POTETNTIAL gaffe was in staying silent when the rest of the party made the deal to let them go or not making the "deal" more clear as to what transpired. Plus, things sort of went haywire after the rogue went bonkers, so the deal could have changed due to the new factors.

The dwarf. Ever hear "Only good goblin's a dead goblin". Dwarves tend to have a black and white, yes no attitude. So killing the doppleganger (who was weel on his way to Kelevor's doorstep anyway) fits well with a CN Dwarf. If he'd started to troture the doppelganger, then you could think about his alignment.

As fof the rogue... Say the Assassin Prestige class is pretty nice ain't it. He's already got an item from the Book of Vile Darkness, CN to begin with. Heck, I'd have voted him most likely to become a spawn of evil to begin with.

Unless changes are made, the rogues going down the slope to evil. After sneaking in to the prison, I'd say he has arrived.

Vraille Darkfang