Player Dilemma

[Haradim]

You're starting to drive of the road here. I don't recall in DND (or at least the 3 corebooks) anything regarding this ephemeral / transitory period between the changing from one alignment to another.

I'm not personally sure if there is anything in the books or not, but having a transition period between alignments is probably the only believable way to portray such a change in a character's manner, philosophy, and impact on the world, unless you bring magic into the scenario (which can be jarring enough despite its power).

I get the feeling that you're throwing examples in front of me that would never, ever be encountered in an actual DND game to support your arguments (and if one was the handling would be left up to the DM since dedicating rules to such a rare occurence would be a waste of space).

Alignment may be meant to be reasonably objective, but that doesn't mean it is static. PCs generally stick within a narrow band of alignments, but that is often due to the fact that players often have very specific personalities in mind, which are generally based on some strong archetype (noble knight, etc). NPCs - Good, Bad, and Indifferent - certainly change, though, in many games.

Or does a sudden change in alignment mean that all is forgiven and everyone's now best of buddies.

Of course not.

Which is what makes the situation so interesting

The change would also not be sudden.

 

[Shining Dragon]

I used the think that Paladin's shouldn't be played as if they're infallible. That they should care for the children, of the foes they slay even if they registered as evil on the Paladinometer.

In short, I believed as quite a few appear to with regards to alignment.




Then one day I realized that life was too short to worry about such inane things and wasting game time arguing about it meant less fun for me and everyone else.

 

[genshou]

But if goblin children are outlawed, then only outlaws will have goblin children.

That's not funny... :\

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's not funny... :\

Yes, it is.

 

[genshou]

I am a firm believer that players should have no decision as to what alignment their character is (other than at character creation where they specify what alignment they wish their character to be). Unfortunately most of the time such a belief causes aggravation as Players usually have other thoughts on the matter.



Its been a while since I picked up my 3E DMG (and I don't have DND 3.5) so obviously I'll need to refresh myself on such rules. But as I mentioned previously, a DM changing the alignments of the characters usually is meet with the Player's protests as such decisions are usually based on the DM's interpretation of how a particular aligned character should act and the Player's interpretation can be very different.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the alignment system really needs to be dropped from DND - but there are a lot of alignment specific things in DND (spells, items, etc) that are familiar friends and their absence would make the game less "DND'ish".

So you haven't been corrupted by the 3.5 dogs yet? Excellent! Check out page 144 of your DMG. There's a section of the text labled Alignment Change Is Gradual there which should prove informative. Hope that is of help to you!

If you want to look at alignment-less systems, look at the way Oriental Adventures uses an honor attribute instead for some guidance, then finish your tour with the sidebar on page 7 of Arcana Evolved. While I don't agree with Monte Cook's views on strong-sense moral relativism and its "necessity" in my games, I find the lack of alignment and alignment-based effects to be a refreshing change. Now, when something truly [Evil] comes into the world (an outsider with the Evil subtype), it sticks out like a sore thumb... on a fish.

 

[genshou]

Yes, it is.

Shush! You're making me look silly for not getting the joke

 

[Shining Dragon]

While I don't agree with Monte Cook's views on strong-sense moral relativism and its "necessity" in my games, I find the lack of alignment and alignment-based effects to be a refreshing change. Now, when something truly [Evil] comes into the world (an outsider with the Evil subtype), it sticks out like a sore thumb... on a fish.

Ahh yes. I'd be all for dropping "Good" and "Evil" labels for everything except Outsiders and Undead (and perhaps those that traffick in negative energy such as necromancers...).

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

Here's a slightly different point of view:

In this situation, I believe the paladin should immediately challenge the dwarf to a duel.

The reason has nothing to do with the killing of the goblin children.

No, the problem lies in the comments the dwarf made afterwards. Now, I don't know how paladins work it the campain, but virtually every paladin I have ever seen follows some sort of code of chivalry and honor. Most are similar to medieval knights (at least, our romanticized visions of them). Their honor and reputation are very important to them. The comments the dwarf made are direct challenges to both the paladin's honor and his courage. Such challenges CANNOT go unanswered, by the rules of any code of chivalry I have ever heard of.

At least, that is what I would do, if I were playing the paladin.

Just something to think about.

 

[Vexed]

Does this come to mean that you can play a Neutral or Evil character in your game, but on their sheet (and in terms of game mechanics) it says "Good"?

If you're not going to enforce their behaviour, you can't really put alignment restrictions in your game.

I think that you need to define what is Good and what is Evil (and what is Neutral), tell the players, discuss with them, and come up with something that works. Well, maybe not in your situation, but in general.

---

hmm I never understood dm's who restricted alignment. (I can see CE, because in game, they don't have to justify anything. Unless you have an intelligent player who is willing to do it). In a meta game sense its like "ok, you are evil. But a lot of people in the party are not. You have to get a long with them for us to have a gaming session that isn't filled with internal squabbling and doesn't degenerate into out of game arguments. Come up with a reason your charter will keep a handle on "evil" acts around the PCs. If they can't grasp that concept, then maybe they are not mature enough to be in the group."

In any event. If this new players started the game and there was an established PC that has a Paladin they should know "moral dilemmas" are going to arise. They shouldn't be playing a character that is going to be at odds with him, knowing what most Paladins are going to have issues with...
(my thoughts for the DM)

In this instance, if the Paladin doesn't detect evil on the goblin children, and he assumes responsibility for them. And the dwarf still wants to kill them on the grounds they are inherently evil creatures, and are irredeemable.
I would have to side with the Paladin for the fact he 1)took responsibly of the situation, what to do with them now isn't an issue... and 2)He should be the de facto person to go to on who can be "saved". Insisting on killing the children in spite of this is unreasonable in my opinion to a group of "good" PC's in the above scenario.
(My thoughts for the Player Characters)

 

[boredgremlin]

Sounds like Clint Eastwood's character in 'Unforgiven'...

So, if we can use an example, how would a pali detect him (his rep was that he killed for as little as looking at him funny) during his previous gunslinger career? How about after he met his wife? How about during the movie? And last, when he 'gained revenge' in the last scene?

This isn't an attack. I thought this debat could use a focus.

I would say that clint would have registered as a nuetral good, or maybe chaotic nuetral.

To me evil is about lack of empathy and intent. Sure some actions are inexcusable, others it depends on the situation and why the character is taking said actions.

From your example, Clint was certainly chaotic evil before, but changed for his wife. Here is the question. Did he simply change his actions or his did his desires truly change? A man who fantasizes and legitimally desires evil things is evil. Whether he does them or not.

But we dont know that about Clint, we know he needed money and took a job assassinating a total stranger to get it (evil). But he thought that person had it coming (either lawful evil or chaotic good, depends on whether he is right or not). But then he did it for his kids (neutral good).

So while he did some evil things, he likely had good motivations and he totally disregarded the law. So i would say it balances down to either neutral good or chaotic neutral. I would lean to chaotic nuetral but its close.