PDA

View Full Version : Being "Borderline" (3.5, alignment)



AtwasAwamps
2010-06-04, 09:36 AM
So, I’m taking a little flak from my group for some recent actions. It’s not a big deal, but it had me curious as to what other people might think, as my group tends to have extremely narrow concepts of alignment.

I am playing a Lawful Good paladin5/crusader1 who tends to be more laid-back than expected, in a party of mostly LN/CN characters who have been working for the “common good” to save the world. After a long journey, we’ve arrived at a town that is basically cover for an insane asylum. The town is mostly abandoned due to the possibility of an oncoming war. All that’s left are some guards and a single noble who is “putting her affairs in order”. The party’s goal is to find out what has happened to an acolyte of the Church of St. Cuthbert.

As we talk to the gate guards, they act evasively when we ask them about someone named Rose passing through. They get more and more agitated when the questions are asked. Since our questions are getting nowhere, we move into town and search around a bit, finding nothing, until we get to the noble’s home. Chatting with her also yields us nothing.

Heading to the asylum, we encounter guards there. Guards who have a few dire wolves in cages, hoping to train them as guard dogs. If that doesn’t set off alarms, an interview with the guards tells us that yes, someone named Rose is in the asylum. In that, she showed up with mysterious people garbed like some of the villains we had previously met were garbed and checked herself into the asylum as insane. When we’re asked if we can see them or see someone in charge, we’re told “The Doctor” would have to let us talk to them, but that he was in the middle of his experiments and wouldn’t be able to talk to us immediately…as in, for another 1-3 days. Our sense motive checks indicate that he, too, is giving us the run-around.

So…we know the acolyte is in there. We know she was sane when she left. We know she has been exposed to the villains of our story. We know the asylum has had dealings with the villains of our story.

At this point, my paladin simply shakes his head, and begins walking…past the guards…to the doors of the asylum. As I’m walking, my DM allows me to prepare my maneuvers, which include Mountain Hammer…IE, can opener. It’s very clear I’m going to bust down the door. The LN Monk, who is quite reckless, comes with me. We are stopped by the LN cleric, who reasons us down. This is all fine with me…I had started the action as something my character would do, knowing that at least one other player would find a reason to stop me. It was a calculated risk to create a fun roleplaying session and in fact, it did…the LN Cleric gave an impassioned speech about how he understood my motivations but believed that reason would see us through here, not action. To be frank, the scene worked out better than I could have thought it would have and I was happy my actions led to fun RP.

The issue occurred afterwards…where the DM referred to the LN as stopping a “paladin’s evil actions”. My hackles went up. I don’t think anything I did goes against the actions a Lawful Good Character would take. He said that I had to believe in authority and couldn’t go breaking and entering and begin slaughtering people left and right. I pointed out that I wasn’t going to kill anyone, that I was planning on sticking to NL damage if it came to that, and that I was in a position to believe that whatever authority being exerted here was being abused and was incorrect. Nothing about my actions was evil, nor was any of it not in line with being lawful good as I perceived an abuse of the law.

I understand that my actions were “borderline” but I think calling them “Evil” is WAY out of line. What do you folks think?

Saph
2010-06-04, 09:41 AM
Seems fine to me. Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket: a LG character's allowed to do reckless things sometimes. It's obviously risky, since you don't know for sure what's going on, but calling it "evil" is way over the top.

Magic Myrmidon
2010-06-04, 09:41 AM
Yeah... good is not in question. You're trying to rescue someone and find out about something evil. I think it was definitely good. The only difficult part is lawful, since you were disobeying an authority. However, the fact that your paladin can see when power is being abused and all makes me think it doesn't break the line. Lawful isn't NECESSARILY all the laws everyone has. It can also be your own code. Like, you know, "I won't let an innocent lady remain in the clutches of a mad scientist."

Optimystik
2010-06-04, 09:49 AM
Sounds like your DM is looking for excuses to make you fall. Retrain to Crusader 6.

Hendel
2010-06-04, 09:51 AM
Personally, I think you were fine and well within your Paladin's code. The biggest drawback to playing a Paladin will always be what the DM considers to be an "evil" or "non-lawful" act versus what the player thinks.

Normally it is pretty obvious with players going off the deep end and you can tell they just want to play the paladin for all the cool class features. The DM should put his foot down quickly in those situations and remind the player that playing a paladin is a more mature role that takes careful consideration before playing.

In your situation, if that is all that truly happened, then I do not see your actions as "evil." I probably wouldn't have penalized you if you had broken down the door and gone inside if your hunch, ie Sense Motive, was that strong. If it had proved to be incorrect, then you might have some explaining to do and justice to be served against you. If you were correct and foiled the evil plot and saved the town, then you would be a hero. Either way you should probably pay to fix the door or do it yourself.

Taelas
2010-06-04, 10:10 AM
There is no way your actions were remotely evil in that scenario. They could be borderline Chaotic -- the solution to anyone abusing their power isn't to go in weapon swinging; it is to report them to their superiors, assuming they have one. Even that is more of a potential, though.

Your DM needs to learn the definition of evil.

banjo1985
2010-06-04, 10:21 AM
To me your actions were completely within the realms of a paladins rightful actions. This guard is lying to you, or at least hiding the truth. The doctor is in the asylum, and as a point of authority he'd be the obvious guy to speak to about the situation. They weren't evil actions, and not even chaotic in my opinion. Possibly a little headstrong/risky, but paladins have no rules against being either of those, especially if it fits in with you character concept.

The GM either goofed up with their words or needs to explore what being a paladin means a little better. A paladin is going to be no fun to play in an environment when every little action that isn't completely adherent to authority is scrutinised as an 'evil act.' It's not a problem with your actions, it's the GM. Bring them here and I'll clip them round the ear for being petty and small-minded. :smalltongue:

Cuaqchi
2010-06-04, 10:24 AM
Agree with everyone here that it is definatly a good action. The debate would be whether the action is lawful, non-lawful, or chaotic; however, no matter what it would count as unless it is chaotic enough to change your alignment it shouldn't effect you being a paladin.

potatocubed
2010-06-04, 10:31 AM
That's not even borderline. As a paladin you 'kick ass for the lord', to coin a phrase, and I think those actions were entirely in-character. What could be more paladin than kicking in the door and challenging evil to a steel-cage deathmatch?

Of course if you got it wrong and kicked in an innocent door, I'd expect a proper paladin to make restitution for the mistake (by making or buying a new door, at least) - getting things wrong is not a fall-worthy offence, but assuming that you can do no wrong is heading in that direction.

Tankadin
2010-06-04, 10:39 AM
For a LG paladin, where does authority come from? Ultimately, their LG deity, right?

However, part of being wise is avoiding hubris--does the paladin think they are wisest theologian or interpreter of his or her deity's precepts? Or are they a little more humble about the situation and allow for a certain amount of gray depending on the local situation? I mean, there can still be abuses of authority, or laws that are patently unjust and the paladin should probably speak up and try to actively resist, but, playing it cool as the cleric suggested isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

I agree that this wasn't remotely close to an evil act. However, it should be important to note that civil disobedience is still disobedience--there are consequences to breaking laws be they just or unjust. You might illustrate the injustice by disobeying, but the civil authorities of an area might not have the same theology as you. Thinking about the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany or the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, a lot of arguments for resisting unjust laws were based on faith and strong theological justifications. But the oppressors had their own arguments about their own theological legitimacy. There were consequences for resistance (even if it was ultimately the truer or more righteous and loving theology).

What would happen if in fact the person you were looking for wasn't in the asylum? Would you injure or kill resisting arrest, or would you submit to the authorities for violating whatever local law applied to bashing down that door? I think that's ultimately where evil acts could happen. Wisdom means a certain amount of humility. Are you prepared to admit you're wrong? To seek penance and forgiveness? My impression is yes--between this thread and another, your paladin seems to play LG in a smart and kind way--and that's good. But it is something to keep in mind.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-04, 10:42 AM
Why don't you have a Phylactery of Faithfulness? 1,100 gold, the best money ever spent for a character who can be arbitrarily depowered at the whim of a DM - with it, they'll required to warn you something goes against their arbitrary evaluation of your code before you do it.

Hat-Trick
2010-06-04, 10:46 AM
You're completely within your bounds. Even if the action was chaotic in nature, those don't make you fall, plus, if you are as sure as you were about the abuse of power, then the paladin should always be the first to break what authority there is to build a proper one.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-04, 10:51 AM
Why don't you have a Phylactery of Faithfulness? 1,100 gold, the best money ever spent for a character who can be arbitrarily depowered at the whim of a DM - with it, they'll required to warn you something goes against their arbitrary evaluation of your code before you do it.

Because I think if you feel that you need something like this to play a paladin, you shouldn't play a paladin. If you have a DM who will arbitrarily depower you without this item, you REALLY shouldn't play a paladin.

It should be noted that when I started this, I

A) expected to be stopped by other players (IE, when the cleric transposed himself and insisted we play it cool, my paladin ACCEPTED his logic).

B) if I hadn't been stopped, would have used only non-lethal damage in combat and encouraged party members to do so, and resort to combat inside as a last ditch effort, focusing mostly on diplomacy and intimidation to obtain our goals.

C) if I had been proven to be wrong, I would have submitted myself to lawful authorities while insisting that I bear the burden of guilt and that my party members were forced to accompany me.

It should be noted at the end of all this that our dragon shaman used teleportation items to sneak inside the building and open the door from the inside while I glared at the cleric who shrugged and said "Well, at least she isn't breaking the door down."

Also noted is that I had a talk with the DM afterwards and he accepted my logic, its just that the rest of the party is going to give me crap about it next session.

Coidzor
2010-06-04, 01:10 PM
You attempted to go through proper channels.

Everyone there revealed that there were no longer any proper channels and that the trustworthiness, purity, and moral standing of the asylum had been called into question and tarnished by association with your foes, who are assuredly evil and had seemed to have stashed your quarry in the asylum.

Frankly, the guards attempting to oppose you just makes them acceptable targets at this point, especially if you give them one last chance to be reasonable before eliminating them.