Self-Preservation vs. Acts of Evil

[Remus Lupin]

Yes, I'd say evil. Had he abandoned them, I'd probably say "chaotic neutral." If he had done it inadvertently, it may have been dumb but not evil. But the use of spells to target the enemy with no real concern expressed for those caught in the cross fire? Evil.

The circumstance sort of reminds me of the moment in "We Were Soldiers" where Mel Gibson's character calls down a napalm strike on his own location, knowing that some of his men are going to be killed in the process. That is portrayed in the movie, correctly I think, as tragedy. But Gibson's character is clearly morally anguished by the act, and part of what makes it tragic, I think, is that it would qualify as an unavoidable evil.

I would see this as a role-play opportunity. Give him the chance to process it in character. If he continues to say "What do I care about these peasants," I'd definitely chalk it up as an evil act.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

The first thing I would wonder is "could he have sidestepped slightly to one side and blasted her without hitting the friendly NPC?"

I'd call what was done morally dubious, more tending towards the neutral than either good or evil. I'd think a "good" PC would be more likely to help the friendly NPCs to flee, and then possibly attempt to do the same themselves.

 

[Squire James]

It's a bit south of Chaotic Neutral, in my mind. Good thing he's a wizard, because if he were a paladin his role-playing restrictions would have started impeding his game-mechanic advantages! Certainly not something that cannot be made up for with enough other good deeds.

However, I should note that whenever I run NPC's in a party with a wizard, and they KNOW he's a wizard, they don't forget that fact in the middle of combat!

 

[DonTadow]

I was thinking that this was going to be a kill the babies kinda question. However, your situation is cut and dry.

1. Don't get attached to NPCs. As a player, I hate DM pet NPCs.
2. If they did this with malace, it is evil, but if they did this for the greater good, there's no problem whatsoever.

 

[enrious]

There are no "rules of alignment" - alignment is a description, not a stat.

If a player wrote on the character sheet, "enjoys cooking" but when an opportunity arose for the character to cook, but the character was fatigued, would you make the player make the character cook because it's written on the character sheet that the character likes to cook?

Alignment is not a straight-jacket. It merely tracks the cumulative nature of decisions that a character makes.

In the case above, I'd say the act was whatever irrelevant unless it is part of an overall pattern. And even then, it just means the player changes a few letters on a character sheet, suffers any class-related effects, and play continues.


Also, welcome to ENWorld! Enjoy your stay and don't mind the footprints on the ceiling.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I dunno. Alignment discussions are difficult precisely because there are these differing understandings of how alignment is intended to function, and the degree to which a character's alignment is intended to convey something important about the character.

If my DM says "no evil characters in my game," he's doing more than objecting to a combination of letters on a characters sheet. He's saying that he expects the characters in the campaign to uphold a level of moral and/or heroic behavior that is indicated by the lack of an "E" at the end of their alignment abbreviation.

This means (perhaps unfortunately), that when you write CN on your sheet, you're not just tracking the cumulative nature of the character's decisions, you're making a declaration that the character can be expected to act in particular ways. Minimally, you're saying that, whatever else the character does, he/she is not going to act in a way that can reasonably be described as "evil." And this means that at some point you may need to have a conversation about whether an act is in fact evil.

All that said, I agree with you that an individual evil act doesn't really tell us very much about the character's overall disposition, and won't necessarily have an effect on play unless the character has alignment restrictions. That said, one way that it can have a POSITIVE effect on play is if the character reflects on the morality of his/her actions and role plays the effects and outcomes of that decision.

Thus, when as above the character fireballs into a crowd of allies, and then says, "why should I care about those lowly NPCs," that could be a great opportunity for role playing. And then it could result in some real alignment shift on the character's part. And if the party has a paladin or a cleric of a good God, it may affect their role playing as well (as in PALADIN: "You fiend, they were our allies! My religion forbids me from associating with villains such as yourself, and my code requires me to take my leave of you!")

 

[enrious]

The DM is not objecting to a combination of letters on a character sheet (ok, they may be but only because they don't understand what they really want) - they're really objecting to evil acts in the campaign.

Write the big E on the character sheet. Spend the entirety of the campaign having the character do good deeds and nary an evil one.

Write the big non-E on the character sheet. Spend the entirety of the campaign having the character do non-good deeds and nary an evil one.

See which one starts a fight first.

Minimally, you're saying that, whatever else the character does, he/she is not going to act in a way that can reasonably be described as "evil."

It means that the vast majority of the time, your character is going to act in a way that can be reasonably described as "x" - it doesn't declare that your character will never commit an act that can be described as "y", nor does it prohibit your character from changing into "y".

I get the sense that we're in agreement that alignment issues should be thought of as opportunities.

That's why I reject treating alignment as a straight-jacket.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Yes, I think we are in basic agreement.