Was this non-Chaotic Good?

[reveal]

Eberron Campaign

Last session, the players opened a locked door and two Earth Elementals (Medium sized) came Bull Rushing out the door. Combat ensued but the EE's just kept running down the stairs towards the entrance to the building. They never attacked anyone. One PC, with an alignment of Chaotic Good, was the only character to actively chase the creatures. The cleric stood in front of the PC after she surmised the EE's were not going to harm them. The cleric asked the PC "Why are you chasing after them?" to which the PC replied "Because I want to kill them."

Later, I wrote to the player and explained to him that he is CG. I know that in Eberron the alignments are more shades of gray then black and white. If he had answered with something like "They may come back to attack/ambush us" or "They were locked up for a reason..." I wouldn't have thought anything about it. But to say "Because I want to kill them" seems like a VERY non-good thing to say, no matter which setting you're using. I warned him that if he did something like this again, there would be an alignment shift. He told me he understood.

So here's my question: Was this a Chaotic Good act to you? Was I right in warning of a possible alignment shift if a similar scenario played out in the future?

 

[Trickstergod]

"Because I want to kill them" isn't good by any means. It's downright evil, if that's pretty much the crux of things. Sure, I'll grant it was probably chaotic; it seemed to come down to an emotional, impulsive response. But wanton murder is by no means good.

How many sessions have you been playing, though, by the by? And how often has the fellow essentially followed a more or less good path? If this is just one flaw in the character, he could still be good, if there's enough other things to outweigh it. Good characters, outside of paladins or an exalted, can do evil acts. They just do significantly more good ones to edge them past neutrality.

 

[smetzger]

So here's my question: Was this a Chaotic Good act to you? Was I right in warning of a possible alignment shift if a similar scenario played out in the future?

You are the DM, you set the definition of what is and what is not CG.

But, whats the diff? If he changes alignment how will that change anything? It will probably have very little in game effect. So why worry about it.

 

[Tom Cashel]

So it doesn't matter what he does...it's just the reason for doing it that's important? Plus being able to come up with the correct reason (i.e. the one the DM is fishing for)?

Don't you think it's kind of chaotic to go running off after some elementals when the rest of the party isn't coming along for the fight? Isn't it good to want to wipe out a pair of possibly dangerous elementals? And what could the player's desires ("to kill them") possibly have to do with the character's in-game rationale?

I would save forced alignment shifts for situations where the PC's actions affect something more than a neutral-aligned, low-intelligence force of nature that's happier to get back to their elemental plane than they are to rampage in the prime material.

"Why are you chasing those elementals?"
"Because I want to kill them."
True, it's not the paragon of chaotic good, but it's not necessarily anything else.

"Why are you chasing those schoolchildren?"
"Because they said hello to me, and I want to kill them."
NOT chaotic good, or any kind of good.

 

[reveal]

How many sessions have you been playing, though, by the by? And how often has the fellow essentially followed a more or less good path? If this is just one flaw in the character, he could still be good, if there's enough other things to outweigh it. Good characters, outside of paladins or an exalted, can do evil acts. They just do significantly more good ones to edge them past neutrality.

We've been playing for the last 3 months, so about 8-10 sessions. He's never done anything like this before, which is why I warned him. It probably was just a poor choice of words on the players part but I thought it best to let him know that, even if the player didn't mean it, he didn't indicate the PC did not so I had to take it as the PC meaning he just wanted to kill them.

 

[Angcuru]

Well, if the elementals were servants/simliar thingie to a bad dude, then killing them would be a good idea.

My question is: How does killing an Elemental qualify as murder?

 

[smetzger]

Oh, yeah. How the heck were the EE's trapped in a building?

 

[Tom Cashel]

"Because I want to kill them" isn't good by any means. It's downright evil, if that's pretty much the crux of things. Sure, I'll grant it was probably chaotic; it seemed to come down to an emotional, impulsive response. But wanton murder is by no means good.

But again, what's more important: the act or the reason for that act?

Player characters kill things all the time, every game. Maybe not in your campaign, but I'd wager that's not representative of most D&D groups. Kill, slaughter, critical hit, coup de grace, get them before they get us.

It seems like you're saying "emotional, impulsive" killing is evil, while premeditated, scrupulously planned murders are okay. Just be sure it's not wanton!

 

[reveal]

So it doesn't matter what he does...it's just the reason for doing it that's important? Plus being able to come up with the correct reason (i.e. the one the DM is fishing for)?

Don't you think it's kind of chaotic to go running off after some elementals when the rest of the party isn't coming along for the fight? Isn't it good to want to wipe out a pair of possibly dangerous elementals? And what could the player's desires ("to kill them") possibly have to do with the character's in-game rationale?

I would save forced alignment shifts for situations where the PC's actions affect something more than a neutral-aligned, low-intelligence force of nature that's happier to get back to their elemental plane than they are to rampage in the prime material.

"Why are you chasing those elementals?"
"Because I want to kill them."
True, it's not the paragon of chaotic good, but it's not necessarily anything else.

"Why are you chasing those schoolchildren?"
"Because they said hello to me, and I want to kill them."
NOT chaotic good, or any kind of good.

Okkkkk... Perhaps I was a little harsh in your eyes. (i.e. I'm not fishing for anything, I'm asking for opinions.)

My main concern was that the character said "I want to kill them." The player said it in his "in-character voice" so I had to assume his character said it.

I DO think it's chaotic that he ran after the elementals when no one else did. I'm not saying it wasn't and I have no problem with that. But I don't think it was good to want to kill something just for the sake of killing, regardless of how intelligent that something is. True, it's all circumstancial, but in this case, I don't care if it's an Elemental or schoolchildren, I think that both of your examples should end in "NOT chaotic good, or any kind of good."

 

[Tom Cashel]

It probably was just a poor choice of words on the players part but I thought it best to let him know that, even if the player didn't mean it, he didn't indicate the PC did not so I had to take it as the PC meaning he just wanted to kill them.

"You didn't say 'Mother May I,' so you were still speaking in-character."

Gimme a break.