[3.5] Ranger wants souls.

[BlankStare]

Ok. I hope this is in the right place and makes sense.

I just started DMing a game last Tuesday, and I just wanted to get some outside opinions before gaming again.

One of my players is playing a ranger, and in the last five minutes of the game night she spent her time trying to convince two of her comrades, while they were intoxicated, to sell her their souls. She said it in character, and I questioned her afterwards if she actually meant it and her reply was "Well, I just wanted to see if they'd actually sell me their souls."

I was informed later that she made another in character comment about how she'd burn down some trees with their bandit prisoners tied to them, to let the guards at the fort know where to find the bodies, and didn't seem to mind when it was mentioned that it'd probably take the rest of the forest they were in with it. That story has been confirmed by several of my other players.

So I'm just wondering what to do. She said that her character was a Neutral alignment, and made no mention of wanting to be evil. I'm just looking for ideas right now, do I leave it and see where it goes before taking action, try and head it off now by telling her that she's acting evil and rangers shouldn't be threatening to burn down forests, or what?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Ranger burning down forests is an issue. That's definitely not in line with nature, but I don't think Rangers can fall. Even if they could, the only things I could see her losing are the AC and the spells.

As for being Evil, eh. Most players are essentially rich violent hobos anyways, alignment just declares which color your lightsaber is.

[Starbuck_II]

So I'm just wondering what to do. She said that her character was a Neutral alignment, and made no mention of wanting to be evil. I'm just looking for ideas right now, do I leave it and see where it goes before taking action, try and head it off now by telling her that she's acting evil and rangers shouldn't be threatening to burn down forests, or what?

Actually, Rangers in version 3.5 D&D can be any alignment. And do not lose powers by not revering nature (only Druids do).

Also, Forest fires are a natural and beneficial thing: stopping forest fires is more unnatural and California learned this the hard way (last major blaze was a result of not letting old fires occur).

Some trees need fire to grow (for the seeds and such).

And did the other PCs sell their souls? What was her offer?

[Silvana]

Well I am a player in this game and her alignment is Chaotic Neutral, no one sold her their souls all though their charater where highly intoxicated. We had managed to make super wine.

And yes forest fires are natural, but those fires happen by nature and are not set by things in them, they happen when they NEED to happen not when someone thinks its a good idea. And her only protest to burning down the trees where..."It would make to much noise."

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well I am a player in this game and her alignment is Chaotic Neutral, no one sold her their souls all though their charater where highly intoxicated. We had managed to make super wine.

And yes forest fires are natural, but those fires happen by nature and are not set by things in them, they happen when they NEED to happen no when someone thinks its a good idea. And her only protest to burning down the trees where..."It would make to much noise."1: Spell check.
2: Forest fires start when certain conditions are right. Those only sometimes are the same as the conditions when they need to start. A human would at least be no worse than random chance, and might, because of her knowlege of the forest, be better able to make it useful.
3: CN /= CE!

[BlankStare]

Maybe I should respecify. My question is should I intervene on a non-evil character desiring to steal the souls of her party members with no further goal than "I want to see if they'd actually do it." And on the issue of burning the forest, she was not talking about a purging or cleansing fire, but a fire in which to consume two helpless people tied to them.

She told me she wanted to hunt demons and devils because she hates what they do and took outsider(evil) as her favored enemy to place a better emphasis on that fact. It feels to me she's not following through on the original concept.

On a related note: She fired into combat at an enemy that was being grappled and held by one of her allies(the way the grapple was done it gave her target almost complete cover), and she struck her ally in the back. Her response was "Yay! I finally hit something."

[Bogardan_Mage]

Also, Forest fires are a natural and beneficial thing: stopping forest fires is more unnatural and California learned this the hard way (last major blaze was a result of not letting old fires occur).
Forest fires are natural, arson is not. Just because natural fires are beneficial to to the health of woodlands doesn't mean that randomly setting a forest on fire because it was kind of convienient is something a nature-loving ranger should be expected to do.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Forest fires are natural, arson is not. Just because natural fires are beneficial to to the health of woodlands doesn't mean that randomly setting a forest on fire because it was kind of convienient is something a nature-loving ranger should be expected to do.Doesn't mean that arson isn't beneficial, though.

And OP, don't worry about her alignment. It rarely matters anyways, and when it does, CN has about as much a chance of being beneficial as CE.

[Silvana]

We where just talking about it because we where thinking about explaining the alignment chart to the large group of players we have...we have about 10
people playing this game and we had to bring up the problems after the session was over. And we couldn't think of anything to do really...

[Shekanzhiokan]

My suggestion is to talk to the player and see if she understands the class first off. If she does, then talk to her and see what she's going for, have her explain her concept. Yes, controlled arsons, if done correctly can be beneficial. However, that is a fairly difficult thing to perform without too much of a backfire as it were. Also, if that was said case, then the player's comment aftwerwards seems to go against a rangers supposed belief system.

[Shekanzhiokan]

Here's a question. Why does it seem like most people aren't actually even trying to answer the OP and instead of complain about each other's posts? I realize that by asking this, this post is as well, and I believe that gives me just cause to ask.

[Shekanzhiokan]

So, OP, have you spoken to the player about said things prior?

[BlankStare]

I haven't talked with her since the time immediately following the session.

[Edwin]

While it is in no way relevant to the questions, interestingly enough, 2e ranger could fall by not being good. They were sort of a nature's paladin. :smallwink:

Anyway, as for the actual questions, I would say that as long as the behavior of said player doesn't break down the fun of the game, let him be as "evil" as he wants. It can work, and sometimes it makes it even more fun.

Talk to him about it though. Mainly, he needs to know that burning down a forest is hardly rangerish, and probably classified as good either. Nor is getting someone to sell their souls while drunk.

And to you guys saying that the alleged arson could have been beneficial, well, you're practically arguing the same thing that Celia was doing the trial in Oots. So in one way, kudos, in another, duude.

[Nero24200]

It sounds like your player is more interested in playing an evil character. Burning two people alive (which is considered quite a gruesume way to kill someone) isn't exactly non-evil. In fact, causing someone to burn slowly could be considered a form of torture, which quite frankly is evil. If she's going to kill them anyway, then theres little need for throwing such pain on top of it.

My advice might be to talk to your player. Normally (in my games at least), even great evil acts aren't enough to change your alignment if it's just a one-off, though if events like this are a regular occurence, I'd speak to your player about possibly changing her alignment.

If she objects, simply ask what her character would have done differently in those situations if she was evil, or better yet, compare her actions to demons/devils etc, since I can see them doing the same thing (letting someone die slowly and painfully, not caring about hitting allies in the back, attempting to steal souls).

[BobVosh]

As for being Evil, eh. Most players are essentially rich violent hobos anyways, alignment just declares which color your lightsaber is.

Btw I stole this for my sig. Plz yell at me in a PM if it bothers you.

[The White Knight]

I don't see the soul thing as an issue. "Just wanting to see if they would" seems about par for CN; "because I want dominion over their mortal husks" would a more concerning answer. And it's not like the Ranger has any mechanical use for one's soul, nor does it have any means of even acquiring one in the first place (unless I'm missing some splat content to the contrary).

If you don't like the idea of the Ranger haphazardly setting a forest ablaze, then use in-game repercussions that have nothing to do with alignment or class. Perhaps she becomes the mark of the resident elven population, or an organization of furious Druids? Maybe the displaced population of predatory animals instead turn to nearby humanoid settlements, and she must carry the blame?

[streakster]

Agreed on the souls bit. Trying to buy some ain't evil, it's stealing them that would be worrying. Also on forest bit, as rangers don't have to care about nature at all - they just live in it.

Randomly deciding to set fires and buy souls sounds like she's playing that CN alignment perfectly.

[Saph]

Maybe I should respecify. My question is should I intervene on a non-evil character desiring to steal the souls of her party members with no further goal than "I want to see if they'd actually do it." And on the issue of burning the forest, she was not talking about a purging or cleansing fire, but a fire in which to consume two helpless people tied to them.

. . .

On a related note: She fired into combat at an enemy that was being grappled and held by one of her allies(the way the grapple was done it gave her target almost complete cover), and she struck her ally in the back. Her response was "Yay! I finally hit something."

Yeah, she sounds a lot more Evil than Neutral at the moment. However, moving a PC's status to the deep or shallow end of the alignment pool generally requires actual action, not just talking.

As long as she's just making randomly destructive suggestions she's still in the CN camp. It's only once she starts following through on them that she tips over to Evil.

As to whether you should intervene, that's completely up to you. There's nothing stopping a CE ranger from adventuring with the rest of the party as long as she co-operates, but from what you've said so far she's sounding an awful lot like the CS alignment (aka Chaotic Stupid). If that's the case, then the rest of the party will probably gank her out of sheer frustration sooner or later, so it's just a matter of whether you want to deal with it yourself or let the PCs work it out in-character.

[Starbuck_II]

You know, she could Prc into Pyrokinecist (one of requirements is setting things on fgire just to see them burn) in the SRD.
Although, she'd have to gain power points (feat: Wild Talent or Hidden Talent; multiclassing into a psionic class works too).

[Foryn Gilnith]

1) She can burn down the forest for all it matters. Good and preservation of nature have little correlation. Rangers are not required to revere nature unless in an organization of some sort, which she isn't.
2) Burning the sentients to death would be exceedingly painful. Causing pain is generally evil. However, this may be offset by the fact that the ranger seems to be Chaotic Spastic and therefore is not entering into this realizing the pain her actions would cause.
3) She was drunk and had no way to actually collect the souls. This is too far divergent from reality to matter.

So these actions don't seem terribly evil. But CN played this way has a good chance of spiraling into evil later.

[desmond1323]

It all depends on what you, as the DM, really want....my groups tend to ban Evil characters off the get go...but we're also not afraid of changing alignment if you earn it.

As for the souls bit, her character doesn't actually have a way of doing this...so, not very evil. Now, if she were to try and find one and then go about using it gratuitously or (arguably) at least on anything but an Evil bad guy....that's a lot more Evil. In the end, that's up to you as a DM and how you view life beyond the mortal coil.

As for the fire....yeah, not a very ranger-ish thing to do, but they're not paladins. If you wanted to house rule something (such as penalities for not following a proper ranger code of nature or what have you), that wouldn't be uncalled for...The White Knight's suggestion of in-game non-class/alignment punishments is very good...though be prepared as the rest of the party is going to shout in unison, "We're not with her!", and this might cause a party split in-game.

Now, as for the bandits tied up and potential slow death by fire...I would treat that as an inherently Evil act...but depends on the character's alignment. Any Good character in the party that doesn't stop it or try to stop it just lost a lot of Good points. As for her being CN....they're helpless, and there are better ways to kill them...she still leans towards being Evil.

Killing helpless anything is something I treat as very Evil and not easily justified, but that's just me.

[Vizzerdrix]

Maybe she is trying to lure some demons out. Wants the souls for bait, or to act just eeeeeevil enough to be approached by a demon herself?

[Rogue 7]

Doesn't mean that arson isn't beneficial, though.

And OP, don't worry about her alignment. It rarely matters anyways, and when it does, CN has about as much a chance of being beneficial as CE.

My TN wizard's gotten along great with our party's CN Barbarian Centaur. Highlights included some dramatic dialogue involving a friend of the party with our other two players ruined when we, completely in character, started up a silent game of rock-paper-scissors.

[Silvana]

I don't see the soul thing as an issue. "Just wanting to see if they would" seems about par for CN; "because I want dominion over their mortal husks" would a more concerning answer. And it's not like the Ranger has any mechanical use for one's soul, nor does it have any means of even acquiring one in the first place (unless I'm missing some splat content to the contrary).

Well when we asked her about why she wanted their souls, while playing her response was, "So I can make them take care of the forest and do what I want them to do."

Meaning she wanted to take away their free will which is a definition of evil. Which is very much like the demons/devils of old.

[Silvana]

3) She was drunk and had no way to actually collect the souls. This is too far divergent from reality to matter.


She was never under the intoxification of the drink she refused to partake in it the people she was pressing for their souls were.

[Acanous]

If she hasn't actually done anything, her alignment shouldn't change.

A Paladin can Threaten to kill an unarmed foe, and make an intimidate check without losing his paladinhood or his alignment- so a C/N ranger who just brainstorms exceptionally evil ideas isn't evil- she's just more prone to becomming so.

[BlankStare]

First off, thanks for all the input so far, it's been helpful and given me something to think about. Second, I think I should clarify some points of interest.

1). There is a Druid/Dryad(cursed to be away from her tree, long story), in the party who was off in search of the proper authorities while the bandits where being held, and subsequently the comment about burning them. The bandits were left behind for "interrogation".

2). There is a warlock in the party so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for her to find out what she needed if she so desired to go through proper channels for soul gathering.

3). I have no problem with evil characters in my games, it's just this instance I'm worried about in game repercussions from the other players if things continue. I like to allow a high level of freedom in my games, but once it turns into party killing, well, that's not much in the way of fun for everyone.

I've been kind of between if I should be doing something in game, or out of game to head off as what could potentially turn problematic, or if the best idea is to simply let it run it's course at least until I have a better idea of what she plans to do.

[erikun]

Maybe I should respecify. My question is should I intervene on a non-evil character desiring to steal the souls of her party members with no further goal than "I want to see if they'd actually do it."
Was there really a question about if she could steal someone's soul? I mean, most people can't exactly accomplish soul theft even with permission.


On a related note: She fired into combat at an enemy that was being grappled and held by one of her allies(the way the grapple was done it gave her target almost complete cover), and she struck her ally in the back. Her response was "Yay! I finally hit something."

How serious is this? I mean, I had one gaming session where afterwards, the druid proclaimed that she, too, had killed something. It turned out that her death was thanks to a failed Heal check. >_> It was, of course, made in jest, which is why I'm asking.


Overall, it doesn't sound like your ranger is evil at the moment. Evil-curious, sure, but alignment is generally determined by actions. If the other PCs are wary of him her at the moment, it would certainly make sense in-game. I would keep an eye on her actions, but it doesn't sound like she's done anything that would really qualify as being evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Funny how fighting creatures of evil can lead to behaving like them, or in this case at least considering it. Suggesting that the party leave the prisoners bound and on fire isn't evil, actually doing it definitely is. So far she almost sounds bi-polar though. "I'm not worried about burning the forest down, but I want dominion over my traveling companions so I can make them work toward preserving nature." Mixed signals anyone? Does this ranger care about nature or not? If it's fairly early in the campaign, give it a while. She may still be working out her character's personality and motivations. If she's been consistently behaving like this for several adventures, you might want to have an OOG talk with her about the character so you can better gauge how she's going to interact with the party and if it will cause problems.

If you have trouble making a decision, it's usually a good idea to gather more information :smallbiggrin:

[Ruinix]

totally agree with the opinions about burn someone to death IT IS an evil act, even with an favored enemy. favored enemy is a mechanic of the ranger wich is NOT a way to be careless, torturer, or even mercyless, is just a mechanic wich make u a better combatant against that tipe of creature just that.

my ranger is neutral good, and have dragons and goblins as favored enemy. a few times a goblin surrender to me and i don't take his life, cause he SURRENDER to me and depose his weapons. take his life just because IT IS AN EVIL ACT same as this player u say, burn some bandits just because is an evil act.
wonder about someone sell his soul to her is evil curius, nothing more. but burn someone ?!

one question. what her party fellows do when she torture to death those bandits?

[Jayabalard]

Forest fires are natural, arson is not.I don't see why it's not.

In any case, the important thing to consider is that fire is not necessarily bad. Even intentionally set fires. Sometimes it's necessary.

[dsmiles]

Maybe, it's just me, but I see a distinct difference between stealing souls, and taking advantage of the situation to buy souls.:smallbiggrin:

[Riffington]

Maybe, it's just me, but I see a distinct difference between stealing souls, and taking advantage of the situation to buy souls.:smallbiggrin:

Absolutely if you start with the premise that your soul belongs to you as opposed to just being lent to you

[Vizzerdrix]

totally agree with the opinions about burn someone to death IT IS an evil act,

How about a fireball spell?

[jiriku]

Alignment is a pretty useless concept, as D&D rules go.

That being said, if you're worried that the game may devolve into PvP, simply forbid it. In a current game I am running, I have declared that the entire campaign is PvE. Players cannot roll dice against one another, and any conflict between players must be resolved purely through mutual agreement. If the players can't mutually agree how a conflict would turn out, then the conflict cannot occur.

A lot of DMs seem to believe that the rules require you to let players do things, even if it ruins the game for everyone. Rule Zero explicitly allows you to forbid any in-game action you please, so if something is going to crash the game, you're well within your rights to squelch it, for the good of all concerned.

[Starbuck_II]

She was never under the intoxification of the drink she refused to partake in it the people she was pressing for their souls were.

She was teaching them the dangers of over drinking. Someday they might their souls: if she has them: they can't lose them!

[KellKheraptis]

As usual, I'm probably going against the grain on this one...the CN ranger was acting well within alignment debating with a couple drunkards for their souls, especialy if it was "just to see if they'll do it." There is no explicit violation of free will, and indeed they are in a liberated state of mind. A devout drunkard would at this point turn belligerent, while a devout atheist drunkard would most likely readily agree, and promptly laugh at the idiot believer. It would most likely all be done in jest, and has no real bearing on the ranger's moral convictions. If anything, the fact that the player managed to not only avoid a major forest fire (aka a divisive party action) in character while staying in character, but also barter the souls (useless to a ranger btw) of two more, should be testament to the skill of the player involved. He or she kept to the spirit of CN perfectly, by both being unpredictable and a little unhinged, without being stupid or stark raving mad. Kudos.

[Baron Corm]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Belkar yet. He basically wants to play a character like Belkar, so look there for what to do.

[Ruinix]

How about a fireball spell?

fireball is an attack. she burn 2 unarmed and tied ppl. that looks like torture to me.

the evil act is the torture, not the death resultant. any adventurer kill but 99% of time is IN combat.


any evil act should be punished. as for any good act should be rewarded. is not because i see or want a good party/game/campaing/what ever, is because is the way it is. heck even in a drow community a "bad" aplication of evil act is punished! some times with death.


BlankStare my advice would be. make an example with her, imprision her, or what ever, it can be a good side quest, for her or/and the rest of the party. try to make her understand the diference between chaotic stupid evil and CE like belkar learn from hinjo.


allow her be evil, but teach her to be a good evil character ;)

moral. stupid evil should be very punished. intelligent evil is so much fun, for her and the rest of the players and dm. beside, an evil character is so easyly tempted and use HER in ur plots ^^

[Ormagoden]

1: Spell check.


1: Isn't that kind of rude?
2: OP if you are worried about it de-evolving into a player V player fest just ask the player aside what their goal is. Simply finding out what is up is an easy way to alleviate your anxiety.
3: Advise the player appropriately.
4: ????
5: Profit!

[Foryn Gilnith]

Alignment is a pretty useless concept, as D&D rules go.
This. So maybe the ranger is evil, maybe she isn't. Who cares? You can decide the issue when you run into a paladin, or somebody decides to cast Holy Smite. Before that you can just react to her actions rather than an arbitrarily declared category.

Killing in cold blood or out of it is a law/chaos issue. Fireball isn't any more painful just because your target happens to be not acting on his desire to kill you.

[Starbuck_II]

Ranber should have stolen the two prisoners souls. I mean, they are just going to lose them when they die anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[dsmiles]

I thought we already discussed this: The ranger in question was trying to legally purchase their souls. Taking advantage of a drunk (to buy/sell something) is not generally a criminal offense, while theft (large or small) is.

[Finwaell]

Well she is definitely acting chaotic. And as long as she does also "good" deeds, she would pass as neutral to me as well. If you have troubles deciding whether to let her do what she does, you might want to consider several things.

1., Rangers do not (thanks to gods for that) have to, since edition 3.0, act like some valiant nature protectors. The possibility to play evil ranger as well, leaves place also for all the roleplaying that falls in between.
Besides rangers can be (and I think should be) viewed also as the embodiment of a pioneer/conquistador/explorer type who does not really care about nature at all, he just knows how to get around in it and use it to his purpose. Sure there are definitely some Legolas types, protecting all the nature stuff but not willing to abandon the ties with civilization altogether (like druids usually do), but unless the player specifically states that he/she wants to play such a character, he/she shouldn't be punished in any way for not behaving as one.

2. About the non-ranger "issues" of soul stealing and having fun of hiting allies.. The first sounds more like an innocent tavern fun to me, exploiting drunk companions while herself being sober. I mean.. who didn't make fun of his drunk friends while he was ok in the real life as well? Do you consider yourself evil because of that? Just because in RPG there usually exists a way for powerful beings to actually steal one's soul, just mentioning it in this way (not speaking of the fact that the character mentioning it clearly has no way of actually doing it) makes no one evil. Like mentioning that you would kill some politician that makes you go nuts whenrever you hear of him/her, doesn't make you evil either, neither does it if you asked two of your drunken friends if they would kill her for you if you pay them.

About the hitting, its up to you to decide if it was meant in earnest or if it was just a typical game joke:) You were present there and seen it firsthand I presume. But even if she meant it, and said it seriously in character as well, that doesn't make her evil as well. I do not think any deus ex machina solution would be in place here.

3. About the "burning of helpless people". You all keep saying how that is definitely oh so evil and whatnot. It is, in our society, but the setting is NOT our society, so it may differ. Also, keep in mind that burning someone alive was popular thing with the Church not so long ago and definitely it was seen as a good act to punish him so. Those bandits sure weren't precisely the most innocent people. If you were playing in a historical setting it would be even ok for a paladin to burn alive some "evildoer". I am sure aware that our dear fantasy settings are just pseudohistorical, but at least in my games, I don't use them to enforce on characters our todays view of morality. After all we play to live through something different, not just the same everyday thing + some flashy spells.

And that leads me to the fact that the best way to punish someone who really deserves it as a DM, is simply leting the world work its inner logic. You wouldn't get away today (unless you are pretty cunning) with randomly slaughtering people. So let the angry crowd lynch them, or some fey creatures take their revenge, or the bandit leader catching them and burn them in turn, or whatever works for you (putting price on their heads by local authorities if they go out of control..) if that is the way they want to play, let them :) If it is not the way you want to play , let them know, if they don't agree, find another group, if it is just the matter of a single character like this ranger, it will solve itself sooner or later. The other characters sure will grow tired of her doings and give her up for justice, or take care of her herself.

Now I see some people don't like it when PvP occurs in their party, but that is just childish imho.. it just takes the depth out of the game, this things just happen. They shouldn't happen all the time of course, but if some player is so urged to constantly harass the others, they can simply refuse to play with her/him.

Anyway, there are just two conclusions regarding this ranger. She is either a good roleplayer, who got missunderstood, or played it so well that it worries you even OOG, or it is a total beginner and/or unexperienced player who just acts playinly stupid and/or reckless just because she can. I experienced this few times myself. Some people just relish in the oportunity to let their worse side out in the game and kill and burn everything in their path, because it has no real consequences... there is nothing you can do about those usually, so if you want a serious game, not just a one night "roll-stats-and-have-fun" type of game, you should leave them out next time... after all, with that many players, it would be more for the good :)

(on a side note it happened more than once to me that characters like this ended facing the gallows they earned through their actions - and they really thought twice about such behavior in their subsequent gaming incarnations :smallwink: )

P.S.:
I am sorry I let myself loose on this subject, but I guess its a rather complex issue :)

[Frosty]

I thought we already discussed this: The ranger in question was trying to legally purchase their souls. Taking advantage of a drunk (to buy/sell something) is not generally a criminal offense, while theft (large or small) is.

Being in financial services and insurance, I'd have to disagree. Trying to take advantage of others while they are not in full controlof their faculties and do not fully understand the transactions involved is not only unethical, but in many cases criminal as well.

[Silvana]

She is either a good roleplayer, who got missunderstood, or played it so well that it worries you even OOG, or it is a total beginner and/or unexperienced player who just acts playinly stupid and/or reckless just because she can. I experienced this few times myself.



As for being a GOOD RPer, she didn't even know what meta-gaming was(Had no intention to ask either.)...and does it VERY often, I as a DM of another of our games have a constent issue with her bring information she shouldn't know into game. Tonight we went over alignment...so I was hoping this would help, but so far nothing has changed she is still making fire and death threats towards anything that moves NPC's and party memebers...Blank is worried about PKing which there is someone else in the party that is also borderling on that subject.

Thank you all for your help its been really good for us with our discussion.

And for everyone that thinks alignment doesn't matter we use alignment and we think it matters thats why we asked yes sometimes it is nothing, but color your lightsaber is but to us it isn't. Just to let everyone know.

I am not sure how the rest of this night is going to go so there might still be more question for all those willing to help.

[Foryn Gilnith]

You say alignment is important, which implies you want a heroic game. Just talk to the ranger more, or maybe just wait for the phase to pass. Metagaming and breaking character are things many "grow out of" as RP skill increases. Keep a level head, if you have the patience, and try to take pleasure in teaching this fellow how to characterize well.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

And for everyone that thinks alignment doesn't matter we use alignment and we think it matters thats why we asked yes sometimes it is nothing, but color your lightsaber is but to us it isn't. Just to let everyone know.In what way? Alignment is a poorly-defined game effect, nothing more. It matters when facing Paladins etc, in a couple of rare roleplaying encounters, and that's it.

If you're talking about good/evil mattering, that's not alignment. That's personality,actions, how good they are at hiding things, teamwork, motivations, goals, and abilities, all figuring out if the party is a group of people more likely to work together than to slit each other's throats. Alignment doesn't enter into it.

[Heliomance]

http://i40.tinypic.com/2l94pb6.png

I'm Chaotic Neutral!

[dsmiles]

Being in financial services and insurance, I'd have to disagree. Trying to take advantage of others while they are not in full controlof their faculties and do not fully understand the transactions involved is not only unethical, but in many cases criminal as well.

I don't think those laws applied in midieval and renaissance societies. Many of the laws we have now didn't, and that's why we have them.

But in all seriousness...why'd you have to go and ruin my fun?
:smallfrown:

Edit: @Sstoopidtallkid: DnD has an alignment system for a reason. The entire concept of the game is based around the conflict generated by objective definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos. Without objective definitions of these terms, things like holy weapons, unholy weapons, holy smite, detect good/evil/law/chaos, and other alignment based effects would simply not exist. Alignment can be based on personality, but it is based on actions.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Whee, two relatively inconsequential weapon enhancements, spells that are either mediocre blasting spells or easily OP, and extremely vague and rather unhelpful divinations are gone. No great loss. Still a loss, which means I'd prefer to have alignment, but really no great loss.

[Tyndmyr]

Not evil.

An offer to buy souls, while questionable, is not itself an evil act. Especially given that she didn't have the actual means to take possession of them at the time. It's just a discussion.

Joking about it after ACCIDENTALLY shooting an ally in melee is not evil. This is just goofing around and the usual jesting about luck that happens at many games. If she made a habit of doing it intentionally, then yes, you have issues, but this ones safe.

Killing prisoners. Much dodgier. Nowadays, yes, evil except in specific cases(punishment of guilty, ironically enough). In D&Dland, or historical times, not nearly so evil, given that they were in fact criminals. This could in fact be a socially condoned act, and generally considered good or just a fact of life.


Now, for PvP, just caution your players that PvP tends to lead to less effective parties, thanks to the lack of trust, meaning it's more likely that their character will die, even if not from the PvP itself.

[BlankStare]

Again, thanks for the input.

I hope it was clear that I did not start this thread as a "Help me punish my players." thread, I just wanted ideas bounced off of me. I've decided to let her develop as she see's fit, since the game is new and she's still getting used to the game in general.

Extra thanks to those who debated in favor of her choices, because chaotic is the one side of the alignment spectrum that gives me trouble, and I enjoy the extra perspective.

As for the importance of alignment, yes, mechanically it's uses are limited, but I like the extra bits of flavor it lets you add to your characters, and the amazing dynamics that can be created by having characters of opposed alignments working toward the same goal. It can add layers of epic to a story, especially while they're both trying to convert each other to their cause. It adds ease to motivating certain characters, and allows you to push players to their limits. Otherwise everyone is more or less a Generic Hero/Villain.

[Myrmex]

Killing prisoners. Much dodgier. Nowadays, yes, evil except in specific cases(punishment of guilty, ironically enough). In D&Dland, or historical times, not nearly so evil, given that they were in fact criminals. This could in fact be a socially condoned act, and generally considered good or just a fact of life.

The attitude that killing transgressors for the act of transgression, while extremely lawful, isn't particularly good. In D&D alignment, that's what LE villains are all about.

With that said, death to thieves is viewed as an extreme punishment in modern times, given our abundance of stuff. Who knows how much stuff someone has and if theft isn't more evil in D&Dland.

[Silvana]

Joking about it after ACCIDENTALLY shooting an ally in melee is not evil. This is just goofing around and the usual jesting about luck that happens at many games. If she made a habit of doing it intentionally, then yes, you have issues, but this ones safe.



It really wasn't an accident unless you think its an accident that she let go of the bow string (Which we DID inform her of the fact that JR. was in the way before she let go.)with a negative dex mod. on a friends back while said friend was grappling the person she was firing at providing said target with 95% cover.