Who doesn't like an alignment debate?

[klofft]

I have a situation of sorts that I'd like some insights on. From the outset, it should be noted that, as a DM, I really like the alignment system and I use it heavily in my game. However, I also hate to be an "alignment cop" in game, and I'm strongly averse to "forcing" a player changing their character's alignment based on their actions - I'd prefer to discuss it and come to a consensus.

Unfortunately, I'm struggling with some consensus with a player right now. He made his character CG; the character has been around for about a year. Recently, he suggested cutting the hands off a goblin prisoner before consenting to let him go free. I balked that this was CG behavior. Other characters suggested a more merciful route ultimately. Feel free to comment on this situation if you wish, but this isn't really the situation I seek opinions on.

In talking to the player later, he said that he has "always" played the character with the perspective that if you do good things, good things happen to you. If you do bad things, bad things happen to you. He carries this further to mean that if other people do bad things then bad things happen to them. Sometimes that means his character having to hurt them to give them the justice that they deserve, yet other times it would also mean that it's best to leave their justice up to others.

I guess my question is this: do you think this is a CG philosophy? I like that alignment definitions are ambiguous enough that I could make the case that it is, but really it seems much more LN with shades of LG to me.

It would be easy to say to the player, "Hey, I think your chosen philosophy is more LN or LG; why don't we agree to change to that?" However, he a) is a barbarian (requires Chaotic), b) is built around an exalted feat (requires Good) and c) is also a cleric of Sehanine Moonbow (CG) (requires CG, LG, or CN). So, mechanically, he's pretty strongly tied to CG.

I want to let my players have a good time and enjoy their characters as they concieve them, but I also want my own perspective on the rules of the game that I take the time to run to have some value as well, and I've reached an impasse with the player. Not a hostile one, mind you - most of the thoughts contained here I've actually kept to myself so far - but I don't want it to be a conflict in the game.

Thoughts? Debates? Arguments? Fist fights? Suggestions?

C

 

[mmu1]

I don't think we know enough about how this player actually runs his character to say whether he should be able to qualify as CG (one act that doesn't fit your alignment doesn't mean you need to change alignment) but the philosophy you describe sounds pretty Neutral to me. I might actually call that one way to play True Neutral.

IMO one thing's sure, though... If he was sincerely advocating cutting off the hands of a prisoner, he just forefeited his Exalted status. He didn't even have to do it, just trying to convince people to maim a prisoner should have been enough. At least if you go by the very strict standards set out in the rules for Exalted characters.

 

[klofft]

Some other broad ways he plays the character: he actively tries to do the "right" thing, he opposes evil strongly (though usually violently), he respects authority but doesn't feel beholden to it, he gives of his treasure generously to charitable causes (e.g., a town that had been afflicted by monsters). He is consistently polite to people he meets. Hope this helps a little!

 

[Voadam]

I don't see his code as lawful, and I would give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

Has he done repeated or significant evil in your opinion? If not either repeatedly or significantly evil then I would not change his alignment.

Exalted is generally more than just good alignment. The cutting off of hands thing, yeah, I don't really see maiming as a precaution/punishment as generally consistent with exalted by the book.

 

[delericho]

However, I also hate to be an "alignment cop" in game, and I'm strongly averse to "forcing" a player changing their character's alignment based on their actions - I'd prefer to discuss it and come to a consensus.

My I suggest instead that you view it as the player changing the character's alignment by his actions, and you're just updating the sheet to catch up?

Unfortunately, I'm struggling with some consensus with a player right now. He made his character CG; the character has been around for about a year. Recently, he suggested cutting the hands off a goblin prisoner before consenting to let him go free. I balked that this was CG behavior. Other characters suggested a more merciful route ultimately. Feel free to comment on this situation if you wish, but this isn't really the situation I seek opinions on.

Suggesting it as a course of action and then rejecting it isn't grounds for an alignment change. Actually cutting the hands of would most likely be an NE action... but that would depend heavily on the actions of the goblin, which would determine whether it was reasonable punishment for his actions or not. (That said, the crimes would have to be pretty major to qualify - cutting both hands off is a fate worse than simple execution, as the goblin would almost certainly proceed to live a few days in monstrous pain before succumbing to infection, predators, or starvation.)

In talking to the player later, he said that he has "always" played the character with the perspective that if you do good things, good things happen to you. If you do bad things, bad things happen to you. He carries this further to mean that if other people do bad things then bad things happen to them. Sometimes that means his character having to hurt them to give them the justice that they deserve, yet other times it would also mean that it's best to leave their justice up to others.

I guess my question is this: do you think this is a CG philosophy? I like that alignment definitions are ambiguous enough that I could make the case that it is, but really it seems much more LN with shades of LG to me.

That strikes me as pretty solidly Neutral, possibly sliding into Neutral Evil.

It would be easy to say to the player, "Hey, I think your chosen philosophy is more LN or LG; why don't we agree to change to that?" However, he a) is a barbarian (requires Chaotic), b) is built around an exalted feat (requires Good) and c) is also a cleric of Sehanine Moonbow (CG) (requires CG, LG, or CN). So, mechanically, he's pretty strongly tied to CG.

Barbarians don't have to be Chaotic, they have to be non-Lawful. Clerics of Sehanine Moonbow can be NG, CG or CN (not LG). So, a shift to Neutral Good remains permissible for the character. That said, that's not really the issue here.

What you should be doing is sitting down with your players and laying out your view of the alignments. (If you want to seek input from your players, that's also fine. By "your view" I should probably more correctly put "the view that will be used in the campaign".) Discuss this in a manner that is divorced from the particulars of the character that is being used.

Once everyone is clear on alignment, it is then for the player to have his character stick to his alignment... or not. If he violates his alignment repeatedly and consistently, then enforce an alignment shift, and apply any consequences that come from that. He knew where the boundaries were, he chose to have his character act the way it did, and so the universe reacted.

 

[moritheil]

Casual violence used to be quite common in the past. Cutting someone's hands off would not be considered out of place in real-world society 2000 years ago, or even today in some parts of the world. (I believe Sharia law still cites it as an acceptable punishment for theft.) So the question to ask yourself is, "Is violence and maiming humanoids inherently evil?" Obviously, his character is inured to violence and would say no.

It seems that you, as a DM, lean more towards "Usually, yes." This conflict seems to stem from your discomfort with casual acts of brutality.

 

[IcyCool]

I agree with mmu1. By the definition of exalted from the BoED, he'd lose his exalted status for suggesting it. I'm not a big fan of that book, but since it pretty much claims that you need to balance the power of some of the things in it with Roleplaying, you should be aware of that.

As to the character's philosophy, I can certainly see it as being good, and I don't see anything that really screams Lawful. I'd probably just leave him as Chaotic and go with that.

 

[delericho]

Casual violence used to be quite common in the past. Cutting someone's hands off would not be considered out of place in real-world society 2000 years ago, or even today in some parts of the world. (I believe Sharia law still cites it as an acceptable punishment for theft.)

One hand. With the loss of one hand, it is still possible for a person to fend for themselves. With the loss of both you're in far more significant trouble, especially in a world without modern medicine, prosthetics, and so forth.

In addition, just because something was quite common, or was (or is) considered acceptable or even Good doesn't make it Good. However, saying any more hits both religion and politics, so I'll leave it at that.