Sorry...Alignment Question

[dreaded_beast]

I apologize if this seems like I was asking the same question as before from a previous thread, it's just that I think this may become a big issue in the campaign I run (at least for me).

I'm running a 3 player group with all LG characters, including a paladin.

Anyways, IMO, the characters sometimes act more Neutral or Chaotic, than Lawful. However, the style of game they want to play, seems to be a bit different than mine, so perhaps that is why my perception of their alignment is a bit different than theirs (although I haven't really spoke to the players about this yet.)

IMO, the players like a bit of role-playing, interaction with PCs, solving mysteries, and of course lots of combat. However, while their actions are generally of "good" alignment, I believe they want to be able to do "whatever they want" in the cause of good or in some cases to reach a particular goal, for example, the paladin using his high diplomacy to enter a city that wasn't allowing anymore people to enter.

Anyways, I guess my question is that should I be more lenient in my interpretation of how alignments should be, to accomodate the fun of my players?

I was thinking that unless the players do something that is IMO "evil" (killing defenseless children, excessive torture and taking gross amounts of pleasure in it, etc.) I would basically let them do whatever they want (within reason) without worrying about alignment changes.

Another concern of mine is what I should do about Player desires and Character desires. For example, the Players themselves hate a particular NPC and would probably give let him die at first chance. However, since the Characters are good, they try and save him, but with mediocre effort.

Sometimes my Players (not Characters) do things because they have an ulterior motive (let's help "blank" not because it's the right thing to do, but because we will get "blank" ). Should I separate the Player's desires from the Character's desires? Because a Player only does something for the "treasure", but the Character says "they'll do it because it's the right thing to do", should that be separate?

Experiences, comments, suggestions?

 

[Cithindril]

I generally try to be consistent with the application of alignment changes in my campaign. I'll give the players a heads-up during character creation so they know how I view the alignment distinctions before they tell me what they've selected. I do ensure that in-game actions have an impact on alignment. Just realize that unless you're talking about a particularly evil or chaotic act, one event is usually not sufficient to make any significant shift (ie: anyone can give in to a weakness but it's consistent behavior that defines alignment - IMO).

With respect to allowing player attitudes/comments to affect the character, I don't. Just try to have everyone be clear as to when they are in (vs. out) of character.

Finally, I'm not a big fan of the alignment relativism that's built into Eberron. Myself, I think characters should be able to be classified based on whatever moral absolutes you have selected for your campaign.

PEACE!

 

[reanjr]

Anyways, I guess my question is that should I be more lenient in my interpretation of how alignments should be, to accomodate the fun of my players?

Being lenient on a Paladin kind of defeats the idea, but to each his own.

I was thinking that unless the players do something that is IMO "evil" (killing defenseless children, excessive torture and taking gross amounts of pleasure in it, etc.) I would basically let them do whatever they want (within reason) without worrying about alignment changes.

That just means you should get rid of the law-chaos axis entirely, which isn't a problem. But as long as you leave it in, then, in my opinion, you should use it.

Another concern of mine is what I should do about Player desires and Character desires. For example, the Players themselves hate a particular NPC and would probably give let him die at first chance. However, since the Characters are good, they try and save him, but with mediocre effort.

If you normally give out XP awards for good role-playing, I'd cut that down when this sort of thing happens.

Sometimes my Players (not Characters) do things because they have an ulterior motive (let's help "blank" not because it's the right thing to do, but because we will get "blank" ). Should I separate the Player's desires from the Character's desires? Because a Player only does something for the "treasure", but the Character says "they'll do it because it's the right thing to do", should that be separate?

Nah, this is normal. As long as the player is giving a good reason why their character is doing what it is they are doing, then the player's motives shouldn't really matter.

 

[Torm]

(ie: anyone can give in to a weakness but it's consistent behavior that defines alignment - IMO)

I agree in general, but...

Being lenient on a Paladin kind of defeats the idea, but to each his own.

reanjr has this absolutely right. The Paladin must be textbook LG with very little to no variation, or you spoil the flavor of the class, period. The Paladin's god didn't pick him or her to play around, the god picked them and bestowed powers upon them because the god thought they could be trusted to carry out a sacred duty - and most gods I know, including Myself, do not take kindly to having that trust betrayed.

 

[Parlan]

However, while their actions are generally of "good" alignment, I believe they want to be able to do "whatever they want" in the cause of good or in some cases to reach a particular goal, for example, the paladin using his high diplomacy to enter a city that wasn't allowing anymore people to enter.

Why is this not Lawful? The pally didn't break the law, he just used a skill to argue that they were an exception to the law, or the law didn't cover them, or something. He didn't break the law.

Now if he had snuck over the walls in the dark of night or Bluffed the guard into letting the party in, those would be Chaotic actions.

Anyways, I guess my question is that should I be more lenient in my interpretation of how alignments should be, to accomodate the fun of my players?

I was thinking that unless the players do something that is IMO "evil" (killing defenseless children, excessive torture and taking gross amounts of pleasure in it, etc.) I would basically let them do whatever they want (within reason) without worrying about alignment changes.

Personally, I think the alignment restrictions can be a fun aspect of the game. Just separate the Good/Evil axis from the Law/Chaos axis. Usually the latter doesn't matter too much, but just in case they find a Chaotic sword or something..

 

[Terwox]

Using diplomacy to get into a city is Lawful Good. If he was using it with threats or something, that would be intimidate, etc. Diplomacy is trying to lawfully talk your way in. (My interpretation, at least.)

As for players doing things for rewards, just because your players have chaotic neutral motives, does not mean that their characters do.

Further, Lawful Good people can let people die... but, they would have to have a good reason for it, etc. Saving your loved ones over saving Billy the Jackass is not evil, it's not even neutral. My opinion, of course.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

In response to using Diplomacy to enter a city, I apologize for not providing enough info.

Basically, the paladin told the city guard that since he had healing abilties, he should be let in the city so that he could help out. However, once inside the city, the paladin made no effort to go and help anyone or offer his services for healing.

I guess I should add that it was getting pretty late at night and I guess a lot of us were getting a bit tired.

They had escaped from another city infested with Slaad. However, after they had killed 1 Red Slaad (CR 7), the 2 10th level PCs (with help from an 8th level Cohort and a 4th level follower), they received alot of experience. Their characters, IMO, are a bit tougher than your standard 10th level characters so they took care of the Red Slaad, no sweat. They wanted to stick around and "milk the exp" from fighting single Slaads. However, I tired of this and had 6 Red Slaads, 6 Blue, and 1 Green chase them out, which almost resulted in a TPK, heh

 

[Fauxargent]

Basically, the paladin told the city guard that since he had healing abilties, he should be let in the city so that he could help out. However, once inside the city, the paladin made no effort to go and help anyone or offer his services for healing.

Regarding the paladin's behaviour, this is much more serious and not really a matter of alignment.

Using Diplomacy to gain entry to the closed city seems perfectly reasonable. However lying to the guards to do this certainly goes against the paladin's code.

And if the city was closed because people needed help (I assume something like plague or such like) then the paladin should have helped whether he'd used this as a reason to enter the city or not, unless there was a good reason not to - such as a need to stay incognito. (I'm not advocating detailed roleplaying of the healing of every beggar but certainly a declaration that he helped at least some).

IMO. Paladins are great fun to play or DM, certainly one of the most rewarding and their code is part of the appeal and not a limitation.

In this instance, I'd punish the paladin by not granting him any spells or ability to heal hmself until he had done what he told the guards he would do - and maybe for a week afterwards or until he had re-earned his god's trust.

 

[DMScott]

However, while their actions are generally of "good" alignment, I believe they want to be able to do "whatever they want" in the cause of good or in some cases to reach a particular goal, for example, the paladin using his high diplomacy to enter a city that wasn't allowing anymore people to enter.

Do they do whatever they want, or what they feel needs to be done when following a higher calling? Having Paladins meekly kowtow to any law a society thinks to pass kind of eviscerates their righteousness, IMHO - the law a Paladin follows is the True Law, handed down by whatever deity is responsible for their paladinhood, and clearly trumps any mortal government's law. A Paladin who's not in conflict with the sort of shifting ambiguous laws a typical human government sets up isn't really trying hard enough . Of course, that True Law will likely mandate behaviour that a Paladin's player might want to avoid at least as often as it allows the PC to play a little loose with government regulations.

Anyways, I guess my question is that should I be more lenient in my interpretation of how alignments should be, to accomodate the fun of my players?

I was thinking that unless the players do something that is IMO "evil" (killing defenseless children, excessive torture and taking gross amounts of pleasure in it, etc.) I would basically let them do whatever they want (within reason) without worrying about alignment changes.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think it's a good idea to sit down with your players and work out what the truly good/evil/lawful/chaotic acts are. I'm a fan of having only a few actions that are definitively and objectively of a particular alignment. Everything else is judged subjectively, in an ends-justify-the-means sort of way. So PCs can't just do anything they want, but so long as their ultimate goals are appropriate and they're not crossing any of the major lines, other transgressions can be overlooked.

I also think it's a good idea to let players know up front what all the objective alignment-changing actions are - in a typical D&D world where the gods talk to their clerics on a regular basis, gray areas are unlikely. Moral quandaries are more likely to be of the "can I steel myself to perform the will of my god even when it goes against my own best interest" variety than of the "I have to choose carefully or my alignment will change" variety.

Sometimes my Players (not Characters) do things because they have an ulterior motive (let's help "blank" not because it's the right thing to do, but because we will get "blank" ). Should I separate the Player's desires from the Character's desires? Because a Player only does something for the "treasure", but the Character says "they'll do it because it's the right thing to do", should that be separate?

The justification should be separate, but so long as it can be justified by the character I'd let it go. Players are supposed to have fun running their characters, not have the DM run their characters for them. If the justification is weak and they end up changing alignments, then c'est la vie. Changing alignment isn't usually a huge punishment (nor even a particularly big deal) in 3E, and for the classes that are exceptions the player should have plenty of warning when their pattern of behaviour threatens their status.