Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samothdm" data-source="post: 2143800" data-attributes="member: 5473">And that's why I don't like the Chaotic Neutral alignment as written.&nbsp; IME, people use the CN alignment as an excuse to basically have their characters just act like crazy psychopaths, and then defend their actions by saying, &quot;Who cares?&nbsp; I'm chaotic neutral.&nbsp; I can do what I want.&quot;Chaotic aside, for a second, consider this character's neutral viewpoint on the good-versus-evil axis (quoted from the SRD):They have compunctions against killing the innocent.&nbsp; Now, granted, guards aren't innocent babies.&nbsp; But, in this instance, they were magically put to sleep and presented no clear danger to the party.&nbsp; Tying them up and gagging them to deliver to the authorities (the character were in an urban city-based adventure) was an extremely viable alternative.&nbsp; I can see instances where slitting the guards' throats would have been the only choice.&nbsp; In this case it wasn't.&nbsp; The fact that the character did it in a later session, creating a pattern, is what caused me to warn him that his character was drifting toward evil (defined below, per the SRD):The character's actions, to me, indicated that he was &quot;killing without qualms&quot; because &quot;doing so [was] convenient.&quot;&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; Again, there are instances where this would be perhaps a necessary, and even acceptable, course of action.&nbsp; &nbsp; Doing it just because there are no consequences (meaning that his character wasn't afraid he would get hurt because the guards were asleep and therefore couldn't attack him) was definitely not a &quot;good&quot; act, but wasn't even, in my mind, a &quot;neutrall&quot; act.&nbsp; It showed a pattern of killing that did not seem consistent with the &quot;Whee!&nbsp; I'm a free spirit!&quot; type of Chaotic Neutral character, but rather the systematic killing of any opponents that the sorcerer character magically put to sleep.&nbsp; &nbsp; I didn't bind his character at all.&nbsp; I simply pointed out that, by my understanding of the alignment system as written, his character was developing a pattern of going out of his way to kill any enemies the party encountered, even after said enemies had been effectively neutralized.&nbsp; In my way of thinking, such actions were making his character cross the line and drift from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil.&nbsp; I told him what I thought, and let him know the consequences of his continued actions.&nbsp; In the end, rather than deciding to play the character as he wanted and accept my ruling of an alignment change to chaotic evil, he decided to give up the character altogether and start a new one with a different moral outlook.&nbsp; Basically, the way I see it, a character's actions dictate their alignment, not the other way around.&nbsp; When I see inconsistencies between what someone tells me their alignment is and their actions, I point out said inconsistencies and try to come to some sort of resolution with the player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samothdm, post: 2143800, member: 5473"] And that's why I don't like the Chaotic Neutral alignment as written. IME, people use the CN alignment as an excuse to basically have their characters just act like crazy psychopaths, and then defend their actions by saying, "Who cares? I'm chaotic neutral. I can do what I want." Chaotic aside, for a second, consider this character's neutral viewpoint on the good-versus-evil axis (quoted from the SRD): They have compunctions against killing the innocent. Now, granted, guards aren't innocent babies. But, in this instance, they were magically put to sleep and presented no clear danger to the party. Tying them up and gagging them to deliver to the authorities (the character were in an urban city-based adventure) was an extremely viable alternative. I can see instances where slitting the guards' throats would have been the only choice. In this case it wasn't. The fact that the character did it in a later session, creating a pattern, is what caused me to warn him that his character was drifting toward evil (defined below, per the SRD): The character's actions, to me, indicated that he was "killing without qualms" because "doing so [was] convenient." I disagree. Again, there are instances where this would be perhaps a necessary, and even acceptable, course of action. Doing it just because there are no consequences (meaning that his character wasn't afraid he would get hurt because the guards were asleep and therefore couldn't attack him) was definitely not a "good" act, but wasn't even, in my mind, a "neutrall" act. It showed a pattern of killing that did not seem consistent with the "Whee! I'm a free spirit!" type of Chaotic Neutral character, but rather the systematic killing of any opponents that the sorcerer character magically put to sleep. I didn't bind his character at all. I simply pointed out that, by my understanding of the alignment system as written, his character was developing a pattern of going out of his way to kill [i]any[/i] enemies the party encountered, even after said enemies had been effectively neutralized. In my way of thinking, such actions were making his character cross the line and drift from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil. I told him what I thought, and let him know the consequences of his continued actions. In the end, rather than deciding to play the character as he wanted and accept my ruling of an alignment change to chaotic evil, he decided to give up the character altogether and start a new one with a different moral outlook. Basically, the way I see it, a character's actions dictate their alignment, not the other way around. When I see inconsistencies between what someone tells me their alignment is and their actions, I point out said inconsistencies and try to come to some sort of resolution with the player. [/QUOTE]

Verification