yet another alignment question...

[Quickbeam]

Interesting debate over ideas in this alignment thread...normally it's the same stuff every time, with most folks saying they don't permit CN alignments because of the inevitable party problems they bring about. Let me begin by saying that I'm not at all surprised a CN character off'ed someone who had:
a) lied to the PC repeatedly.
b) put the character in harm's way thanks to the false password.
c) didn't possess the means to help the PC (or his friends) as initially promised.
And all of this in a very short period of time!!

I think the act was more evil than neutral, but I wouldn't say that it was completely out of whack either. The character was tired of being jerked around and impulsively overreacted -- that's pretty much the "me first, don't get in the way of what I want" CN personna IMO. It was unnecessarily brutal and violent, but CN characters are capable of this type of behavior. Similarly, they are capable of wanton acts of goodness when the urge strikes them, like donating a huge treasure haul to the local orphanage. This PC may have committed an evil act, but I'd say he's got a fair distance to go before I'd shift the alignment to CE if other acts balance and mitigate this one.

If the party planned to torture and potentially kill the mage, I'd examine ALL of their alignments closely. What was their purpose in tracking down the deceitful mage? What were they hoping to accomplish if they found him?

 

[Tallow]

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.

We define evil very differently then. That's all I can say about that. I can't argue the point of whether the Fighter was performing an evil act or not when we don't even define evil in remotely the same way.

I guess even with your definition, you gotta ask these few questions:

1. Did he plan out the act?

2. Did he purposely seek to perform a cruelty?

3. Was the instant death really cruel or just homicide?

examples:

1. Paladin fights evil champion of Hexor. Paladin drops Evil champion and then performs Coup de Grace on him to keep him from somehow getting away and performing more evil. Paladin did something good and will not be punished for it. He still performed a coup de grace on a helpless foe. Was this an evil act non-the-less?

2. Paladin performs coup de grace on above Mage in a fit of anger. Paladin performed an act against his lawful good alignment and should be punished for it. Severity is up to the DM of course.

3. Chaotic Fighter performs a coup de grace on above mage in a fit of anger. The act is most certainly chaotic, but is it evil? Perhaps it has an evil tendency. He did perform a homicide on a whim, and if he continues to be extremely blood thirsty and with homicidal tendencies, then maybe he will eventually become evil. Furthermore, while an act may be evil in and of itself, it does not make the person performing the act an evil person. Intent is very much key to whether a person performing a heinous act is evil or not.

4. Samurai performs coup de grace on his buddy who is performing seppeku. Is this evil? Well according to Samurai, it is the ultimate honor to stand for your friend who is seeking honorable seppeku.

The point being, there are many reasons why one would perform a coup de grace on a helpless foe. The fighter did not torture the mage. he did not flay him and dump him in pickle brine. He did not cut off his toes and fingers first. He killed him instantly. Some would say that was mercy, as he killed him quickly.

When arguing evil, good and such, we need to stop using our modern sensibilities towards evil and good to define them in the archetypal way they are used in a fantasy setting. Even up until the times of the Old West in the mid to late 1800's, killing someone was not evil, even if you were doing so illegally. US Marshals and other "good" gunslingers killed folk for a variety of reasons. Some just, some not. Some were based on piques of passion rather than for reasons of law.

Was the fighter Chaotic in his action? Very much so. Was he evil? I'd say no. The mage lied to them, could have possibly got them killed. He stole from them, etc. In the Wild West, a lynching would not be out of the question. Shooting him without asking questions would have been matter of course. Now take us to a medieval setting, and I'd say it would happen that way even moreso.

No, the Fighter was NOT evil, and the player did not deserve to be told he had committed an evil act, and one more he'd have to become chaotic evil. Of course it is up to the DM's interpretation, I just disagree, as a fellow DM, that it was a justified decision in this case.

Andy Christian

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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

Marimmar touched on this right off the bat. He didn't say that one act would shift him to evil, nor did I. But if he establishes a pattern of doing this kind of thing, it should.

I was chased out of PnP gaming some time ago by this kind of behavior. Players who only wanted to play Neutral and CN characters, and played them distinctly evil, and then got cheesed off at me (IC and OoC) because my character and I were put off by it. But the DM was either as bad or just resigned to it. When the supposedly neutral cleric started burning down rival churches, I sat there praying for DM intervention. What kind of Neutral Good god is going to keep granting this guy spells? So I left. Been looking for people to play with ever since.

That aside, I'm not saying that all campaigns have to be Good. Neutral and Evil characters and games are viable. But the D&D cosmology and rules aren't set up for moral relativism. If your character does evil, he should be counted as evil. If he does good, he should be counted as good. If that CN character who killed the helpless mage makes a habit of killing people wantonly, he should become evil. If he balances that kind of nasty behavior with large measures of mercy and kindness, he's neutral, but he's a pretty wobbly neutral, which is probably appropriate for Chaotic Neutral. There's a reason why true neutral is described as hard to play in the PH. Neutral means keeping the books balanced, among other things. Very good or very evil acts need to be re-balanced.

 

[Tallow]

Marimmar touched on this right off the bat. He didn't say that one act would shift him to evil, nor did I. But if he establishes a pattern of doing this kind of thing, it should.

I was chased out of PnP gaming some time ago by this kind of behavior. Players who only wanted to play Neutral and CN characters, and played them distinctly evil, and then got cheesed off at me (IC and OoC) because my character and I were put off by it. But the DM was either as bad or just resigned to it. When the supposedly neutral cleric started burning down rival churches, I sat there praying for DM intervention. What kind of Neutral Good god is going to keep granting this guy spells? So I left. Been looking for people to play with ever since.

That aside, I'm not saying that all campaigns have to be Good. Neutral and Evil characters and games are viable. But the D&D cosmology and rules aren't set up for moral relativism. If your character does evil, he should be counted as evil. If he does good, he should be counted as good. If that CN character who killed the helpless mage makes a habit of killing people wantonly, he should become evil. If he balances that kind of nasty behavior with large measures of mercy and kindness, he's neutral, but he's a pretty wobbly neutral, which is probably appropriate for Chaotic Neutral. There's a reason why true neutral is described as hard to play in the PH. Neutral means keeping the books balanced, among other things. Very good or very evil acts need to be re-balanced.

Ok, seems we do agree on a few things anyways. I have no problem with a forced change if the acts are continuously brutal like this. But the GM above who started this thread indicated that the Fighter did this one act and that ONE more would be a forced change. That's not a continuous downward cycle.

Secondly, you HAVE to look at things with moral relativism. A lawful good person doing an evil act is going to have to pay MUCH more repercussions for doing so, than a Chaotic Neutral Character performing the same act. In other words, a Chaotic Neutral person should not be held to the same standards of "evil acts" as a Lawfull good one.

The only thing that is in stone about a Chaotic Neutral character, is that you can't write anything in stone about how they should or will act. They are by their very nature, impulsive, selfish, passionate, emotional, and rash. They are the loose cannon, the wild card, the one that nobody is quite sure what the hell they will do.

I've played MANY chaotic neutral characters, that have been extreme assetts to a party. Its just a matter of how you play the character. Too many people try to get away with doing whatever they want by choosing an alignment like Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral. I have a HUGE problem with someone saying, well if I commit evil today, its ok, cause tomorrow I'll do good. That's a concious decision to do evil, and that makes you evil.

If a neutral druid coup de grace's a mage who tried to burn down his forest, the killing of a helpless person may be considered a borderline evil act. But in saving the forest he saved thousands of animal lives, and therefore the act is a neutral one, because he weighed the good with the bad and chose the animals he is prescribed to protect by his deity/nature over the mage.

If a group of fearful peasants grabs a man they are afraid is a witch and burns him at the stake (a very cruel punishment to be sure), are they evil if he's innocent? If he's not innocent? I'd say that the peasants aren't performing an evil act, as they are seeking to protect themselves. It is certainly a chaotic act though, as the law probably does not allow vigilanteism.

Andy Christian

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

We define evil very differently then. That's all I can say about that. I can't argue the point of whether the Fighter was performing an evil act or not when we don't even define evil in remotely the same way.

A planned murder is not more evil than an unplanned murder. That's the difference between lawful and chaotic, not good and evil.

Killing someone in combat is COMPLETELY different than killing a tied up prisoner who irritated you. CdG on a combatant you managed to knock out and who, if allowed to awaken, would pose a continuing threat is an entirely different matter than a greedy little mage tied to a chair who's just trying to weasel his way out of punishment.

In the Old West, a marshall killing a wanted man was one thing. Killing someone who lied to him and put him in danger was something else entirely. There's a big difference between being given license to hunt down Billy the Kid and killing someone because you don't like their haircut. That aside, just because law was played fast and loose in the Old West, doesn't mean it was that way previously.

The samurai doesn't even apply. The person on the receiving end sees it as a blessing, and the moral code of the society sees it as good.

I also wasn't aware that killing someone who doesn't want to die isn't cruel. I'm not exactly a bleeding heart. I'm in favor of the death penalty, among other things, but killing someone who's committed murder is very different from killing someone who lied to you.

Medieval settings for fantasy games are all based on heroic literature. Why this insistence on Old West moral relativism? In the literature, good is good, evil is evil, and neutral characters carried the tack if they showed up at all. In the real medieval world, evil to the class below you was ignored, but you needed to be good when it came to other nobility. But do we really want to play a D&D game where it's a good act to "selflessly" give some of your serfs to your neighbor to be cannon fodder in his border dispute? And where whipping those serfs who try to flee is not considered evil? But actually injuring a captured nobleman is evil, even if he's a nasty, brutish warlord? If we're asking for that level of "realism" we better forego dragons, magic rings, and elves while we're at it.

 

[LostSoul]

My views:

If the Neutral guy was worried about himself or his friends, it was a Neutral act.

If the Neutral guy did it "just because", it was an Evil act.

If the Neutral guy did it to "further the cause of the greater good", maybe gaining himself enemies while ridding the world of evil vermin, it may have even been a Good act!

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Tallow]

Medieval settings for fantasy games are all based on heroic literature. Why this insistence on Old West moral relativism? In the literature, good is good, evil is evil, and neutral characters carried the tack if they showed up at all. In the real medieval world, evil to the class below you was ignored, but you needed to be good when it came to other nobility. But do we really want to play a D&D game where it's a good act to "selflessly" give some of your serfs to your neighbor to be cannon fodder in his border dispute? And where whipping those serfs who try to flee is not considered evil? But actually injuring a captured nobleman is evil, even if he's a nasty, brutish warlord? If we're asking for that level of "realism" we better forego dragons, magic rings, and elves while we're at it.

1. All medieval settings do not define evil and good the way you've defined it. There are many "evilish" characters that became heroe's for the good of all. Ultimately Cyric if you want a FR example. Then you have Cain in "Heroes Die" who was the evilist bastard in the realm, but ultimately became the hero for all that was good and eventually was revered as a saint. Achmed in Elizabeth Haydon's "Rhapsody" was not a "good" man, and yet he was a hero who performed good deeds for the good of all. He just killed everyone who got in his way, innocent or not.

2. Society's definition of evil/good is not what I'm getting at. Not at all. Whether it was Old West, Medieval, or Modern times, the definition of evil has changed over the times. But ultimately there are things that have always been construed as evil, such as murder, wanton acts of cruelty, etc. In an archetypal medieval setting, there are very clear definitions of evil and good, and either you are one or the other in many cases. But some acts were considered self-defense or justified, and therefore not evil.

The fighter killing the mage did so because he was angry. This was not a Lawful Act. It was certainly chaotic. But the Mage committed a crime against the PC's. Fraud, Theft, Endangerment, etc. All of these crimes were usually punishable by death in Medieval times. It was not lawful for the fighter to take the judge/jury/executioner role upon himself, but it was not evil to do so. What if one of the PC's had died when the trap was sprung? Would the fighter then be justified in killing the mage?

Andy Christian

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

My views:

If the Neutral guy was worried about himself or his friends, it was a Neutral act.

If the Neutral guy did it "just because", it was an Evil act.

If the Neutral guy did it to "further the cause of the greater good", maybe gaining himself enemies while ridding the world of evil vermin, it may have even been a Good act!

Feel free to disagree.

More or less agreed. In the specific case under discussion, it sounded like the second, as the character had NO reason to be worried about himself or his friends. The third is a tough one to prove without massive evidence. I'd hate to be called before the Celestial Court and be unable to prove that the helpless tied up guy was big enough a danger to warrant cold-blooded killing.

btw- Tallow, sorry about the tone of the last post. I don't think we disagree completely. It's just that I lean in a black or white direction with my world view in general. Shades of gray irk me.

 

[Tallow]

btw- Tallow, sorry about the tone of the last post. I don't think we disagree completely. It's just that I lean in a black or white direction with my world view in general. Shades of gray irk me.

No problem. I guess that's why I feel we have a fundamental difference in how we define evil. I love shades of grey, and I can't play in a black and white world. It bothers me to think I must act a certain archetypal way or else. There are millions upon millions of motivations for why someone would do something, and often its the intent and circumstances that determines whether it is evil or good. That's not including any societal influences (such as for the samurai example I gave above).

Your example of the nobles and serfs and everything made me think a bit and I think you were labeling good/evil wrongly for law/chaos. It was lawful for the nobles to whip the peasants, and against the law to injure a noble, no matter how nasty he was. The brutish noble, however, could very well have been evil, as the society itself could have been, despite the law being on their side. Its not uncommon for many institutions to become lawful evil.

But if you just blanket say, killing a helpless foe is evil, then you discount all the reasons why someone may have that are legit neutral or good reasons for killing a helpless foe. I don't care if it is on the battlefield or not, or if the paladin honestly thinks a danger is still present if the blackguard were to live. The interrogation of the mage above was a kind of battlefield, it was just done with words and lies, bluffs and greed.

I'm betting, by the original description, that the fighter did it, just cause, cause he was angry. To me, that's a very chaotic neutral act. He did it cause he wanted to.

I also disagree that a planned evil act isn't more evil than a whimsical one. Would you say that Hannible Lector is more evil, or that the mother who drowned her child in a fit of insanity was? There are degree's of evil. Generally they are Neutral, Chaotic, and Lawful, if you want to use D&D's alignments.

If the fighter were to continue killing folks on whims and not doing anything to counterbalance this (give to an orphanage, and not just to conciously counterbalance his evil act, I hate that). then sure, change his alignment. But his one act I don't feel was evil, considering the circumstances. Borderline, yes. Evil at its core, no.

Andy Christian

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The fighter killing the mage did so because he was angry. This was not a Lawful Act. It was certainly chaotic. But the Mage committed a crime against the PC's. Fraud, Theft, Endangerment, etc. All of these crimes were usually punishable by death in Medieval times. It was not lawful for the fighter to take the judge/jury/executioner role upon himself, but it was not evil to do so. What if one of the PC's had died when the trap was sprung? Would the fighter then be justified in killing the mage?

I can see your point, but that wasn't the fighter's motivation anyway. If he was motivated by avenging the death of a friend who was killed because of the mage's fraud, that's somewhat mitigating, and even lawful authorities might decide to look the other way. After all, justice was done. However, he killed the guy "because he no longer wanted to listen to the mage's lies." Clearly, his motivations were much less than pure. I don't care how "good" an act appears. If it was done for the wrong reasons, it's evil.