yet another alignment question...

[Marimmar]

In yesterday's rpg session the party needed to find out a password needed to enter a crypt. Since they managed to avoid anyone who could tell them the password they needed to have someone cast a legend lore spell for them. So they traveled to the next major city and hired a mage to cast that spell.

That mage was known to them since he helped them get rid of a polymorph other spell earlier. They had contacted him through an exceptionally good gather information check to obtain the cheapest mage around who could help them with the polymorph problem. Since the mage was indebted to the thieves guild he was quite happy to earn some easy money.

So the party should have known this mage was in no way capable of casting a legend lore spell but they still went to him and before the mage could say that he is unable to cast a legend lore spell, the party offered him 800 gp for his services. The mage immediately agreed on helping them, asking some innocent questions about their mission and the use of the password. He than retired to his rooms and made up a convincing story to tell the PCs instead of casting a spell. The party believed his words, paid him and went back to open that crypt only to find out that they were fooled. They were quite angry since the wrong password set off a nasty trap.

Intend on making the mage pay for his fraud, the party set off on a manhunt to find him. They eventially caught and bound him. The ensuing interrogation was quite grim for the mage. He was threatened with death, being delivered to the thieves guild and being turned over to the authorities. The party finally consented to delivering him to the thieves guild but when the mage failed his bluff check to make them believe that the thieves guild was no longer interested in him and that they should deliver him to the authorities he was CdG'ed by the party fighter who stated afterwards that he believes this to be proper behaviour for a chaotic neutral alignment because he no longer wanted to listen to the mage's lies.

Well, i warned him that this cold blooded killing was the first step towards chaotic evil alignment. The next time he does a similar act i intend to force an alignment change on him.

Do you have similar problems with chaotic neutral characters?

I'd really like to hear your opinion on the topic.

~Marimmar

 

[FungiMuncher]

In the campaign I'm currently DMing, I had a new player start out as Chaotic Neutral. And, yeah, he behaved in a rather evil fashion. In his very first session, he was able to isolate one of the other PCs in the back alleys of the main town, and began to torment the character (and player). The tormented player is a kid, about 15 years younger than the new player. Even though the kid had a couple of levels on him, it was probably the real-world age difference why the new player was able to get away with so much (I was thinking/hoping the kid would eventually push back). When this happened, the other players and myself just sat there with blank stares on our faces. I finally had the presence of mind to rule some additional situations to get the kid out of it. Fortunately, the other players were able to convey to the new player that this wasn't acceptable. He eventually changed his alignment to "Chaotic Good," which was actually more Chaotic Neutral as I envisioned it.

In my experience, I see players taking Chaotic Neutral only as an excuse to play evil, without labeling it as such. As I see it, a real CN alignment is like a "rebel without a cause" concept. They hate authority, but aren't cruel. I know that many GMs outlaw CN, but I haven't yet. I think, if done right, it could be pretty interesting roleplaying. So, I guess I'm still hopeful. If any players wanted to pick CN in the future, I'm going to need to talk to them about what their idea of what CN is, and decide based on that.

In your situation, Marimmar, I would agree that the fighter is moving down a path of evil. I would imagine that a truely neutral character wouldn't have killed the mage. Sure, he would have tried to get his money back. But there are options to killing him. What about marking him as a liar, or ruining his reputaiton in the mages' guild? I'm sure there are lots of others.

FM

 

[kengar]

uh oh, another CN discussion

Seriously, though. CN can be a real problem in a campaign. It is a perfectly valid alignment, but it is difficult to play well. In a different thread I had posted this description of the CN alignment:

CN= All CN characters are psychotic.
Just kidding...

...Freedom is paramount. Anything that hampers your individuality or freedom to choose is bad. Any time you choose to accept an outside authority, it irks you, even if you know it's the smart thing to do at the time. It's not that you can't go along with a group, you just hate feeling like part of the crowd. You aren't especially malicious, but you won't hestitate to lash out if threatened or offended. Generally you'll do what seems right at the time.

Needless to say, many players don't really play it this way. Even if they did, it is difficult to work someone like this into a party. If it gives you a lot of problems, just don't allow the alignment. If you don't want to forbid certain alignments, have the player explain (in a written description, preferably) why he sees his character as CN then make him roleplay that.

 

[Tallow]

uh oh, another CN discussion

Seriously, though. CN can be a real problem in a campaign. It is a perfectly valid alignment, but it is difficult to play well. In a different thread I had posted this description of the CN alignment:



Needless to say, many players don't really play it this way. Even if they did, it is difficult to work someone like this into a party. If it gives you a lot of problems, just don't allow the alignment. If you don't want to forbid certain alignments, have the player explain (in a written description, preferably) why he sees his character as CN then make him roleplay that.

Interesting discussion so far. I would not rule that the fighter did anything heinous or wrong here to be honest.

The way I define Chaotic Neutral is "Impulsive". They tend to do things because they feel right or because they want to. Granted, if they continuously do things that are Malicious, Cruel, Mean, Diabolical, etc. then perhaps a change to Evil is warranted. Two such instances is hardly a call to force an alignment change.

The coup de grace may have been a first step towards evil, but if later he saved a young boy from death and gave him 30 gold to buy food for his family, that would counteract the evil act.

Are vigilantes evil? Are those who kill in revenge evil? Not necessarily. Misguided perhaps, but not evil.

Andy Christian

 

[VoodooGroves]

Hmmm

CdG against a helpless foe sounds evil, regardless of what variant on a neutral alignment he is.

I enjoy CN, its awfully fun to play. But there has to be a line between "impulsive or driven by current whim" and "killing because I'm pissed". Crap, in real life I tend to be impulsive at times but honestly, even if it is a fantasy game there has to be a consequence.

Did the mage threaten to hurt the party in some future way if released? Was he really a threat?

Did the mage understand the consequences of his original lie? Was his purpose simple selfishness or to truly screw the party and hopefully get a few killed off? Did he even know that serious harm would come from his lie? Does the party understand this?

 

[Tonguez]

CN = Anti-authoritarian, individualistic, tends to be self-centered but still compassionate to friends (hey - I just described myself!)

Anyway it seems that CN is a real bugbear of the alignment system (which is why I only have one alignment imc - Neutral)

In this particular case I'd get the Theives involved

The wizard had debts to the theives guild and now that he is dead he can't repay them.
As such the Guild is going to get its money how? - from the man that killed the wizard of course... (ie your CN dude just made an enemy)

 

[Tallow]

Hmmm

CdG against a helpless foe sounds evil, regardless of what variant on a neutral alignment he is.

I enjoy CN, its awfully fun to play. But there has to be a line between "impulsive or driven by current whim" and "killing because I'm pissed". Crap, in real life I tend to be impulsive at times but honestly, even if it is a fantasy game there has to be a consequence.

Did the mage threaten to hurt the party in some future way if released? Was he really a threat?

Did the mage understand the consequences of his original lie? Was his purpose simple selfishness or to truly screw the party and hopefully get a few killed off? Did he even know that serious harm would come from his lie? Does the party understand this?

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Killing an innocent foe is not necessarily an evil act. Evil is largely (especially for those who are not evil by nature like dragons and undead) a planned thing. I'm going to destroy the world because I want to be powerfull, muahahahaha! While Chaotic Neutral is Impulsive.

Acting on strong emotions is not necessarily evil. Killing an helpless foe because they pissed you off is not necessarily evil, especially if you have good reason to be pissed off. Was the fighter legally justified in killing the helpless mage? Probably not. Will the other party members want to continue to hang out with such an impulsive person who likely will get them in legal trouble for his "mistakes" of passion? Probably not.

Unless the act is ridiculously against an alignment, such as a Paladin doing the coup de grace, I usually don't pay too much attention to trying to tell someone how to roleplay their alignment. There are other ways to make someone aware that actions are not socially acceptable than trying to force a player to roleplay a certain way.

Andy Christian

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I tend to agree with Tallow. The mage betrayed them, and could've (for all he knew) killed them with such misinformation, so I really don't see how slaughtering the mage couldn't be construed as a purely chaotic (read: whimsical, random, unplanned) act.

I guess it would be considered 2nd degree homicide. He did it in a rage of temperament. If he had been planning the murder, then I guess I'd call it evil.

Just my 2 bits.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I disagree with you whole heartedly. Killing an innocent foe is not necessarily an evil act.

Unless the act is ridiculously against an alignment, such as a Paladin doing the coup de grace, I usually don't pay too much attention to trying to tell someone how to roleplay their alignment. There are other ways to make someone aware that actions are not socially acceptable than trying to force a player to roleplay a certain way.

Killing someone who is helpless is a DEFINITIVELY evil act. Killing, or even injuring, for no other reason than pique is either extremely cruel, or borderline psychotic. And D&D doesn't have rules for the temporary insanity defense.

Telling that player that he's become Chaotic Evil is not "trying to force a player to roleplay a certain way." It's shifting the slide-rule tool that is called alignment to match his style of playing. Alignment HAS to be dynamic in order to mean anything. Otherwise you get computer games like Baldur's Gate where your paladin could run around slaughtering peasants with no repercussions. If someone's character is acting evil, tell them they're evil. Or better yet, have a foe cast protection against evil or somesuch spell, and have it effect the PC. The character isn't supposed to be aware of his alignment anyway. Not unless it had an impact on his life like the above.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Well, the way I look at it is this: if a chaotic neutral can do something good, and stay chaotic neutral, then they should be able to do something evil, and remain chaotic neutral.

That goes just as much as letting an evil character 'get away with' doing 'good' deeds without an alignment change. Neutrality reflects the middle ground. Therefore, although the act may have been evil, it shouldn't necessarily make the character evil, especially a chaotic neutral character.

If CN weren't allowed to kill helpless people, what would make them any different from Chaotic Good people?