Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1947152" data-attributes="member: 13654">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.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?"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.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.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.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 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?They weren't neutral HERE.  They were performing rather distinctly evil acts.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...</blockquote>

Verification