PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Ailment



Draig
2011-01-12, 04:08 PM
Ok so I have a problem with one of my players misunderstanding their alignment, and I needed to ask for outside opinions on this one because i may be wrong.

The player in question is Chaotic Good.
The party were apprehended by an organization that upholds the law of the land, but with no one to really keep them in check except themselves. Kinda like a good gestapo.
The player asked if the organization was evil. (an obvious and good Q)
Now here is where you need to pay alot of attention.
DM Response "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."
PC Action: "I blast the guard captain in the face."
DM: "Wait you what?"
PC: "I blast the guard captain in the face"
-After about 3-4 minutes of the NPC guards demanding his surrender and the PC "blasting them" he becomes subdued.
PC then declares "I am devoting my life and every last ounce of my breath to bringing this organization down!"
DM: "Your alignment is Chaotic good...."
PC: "Exactly."


OK gitp did i completely MISS SOMETHING?! I mean what justification can a Chaotic good character have to bring down a Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization!? Like i would understand a corrpt member or two but he wants them ALL to be brought down and has stated to my face that as CG he can do it.

What would YOU do?

Zuljita
2011-01-12, 04:16 PM
... i can see feeling as CG that a massive organization simply curtails liberties and that this is not the best way to bring about good... that said i cant see his current actions being anything but CN or CS. thats just my point of view. Have you asked the player to explain his justification? It all may make more sense when you understand why your player feels CG means attacking this organization.

Yora
2011-01-12, 04:16 PM
If he wants to, let him.

I don't see any reason why the character should know these people are only really doing a good thing. To him, they are just some vigilantes who think they can just capture and interrogate whomever they want without any legitimation.

I can see how any character could regard that as injustice, and it fits chaotic good characters that they are a bit impulsive in their actions to preserve or restore freedom and peace. I assume if these people explain him what they are doing and can show him convincing examples that they don't abuse their power and are not simple bullies, he might quite likely agree to let them continue. But he might also still stick to his believe that they have no right to declare themselves the local police and continue his pursuit of stopping that practice.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:19 PM
I mean what justification can a Chaotic good character have to bring down a Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization!?

The phrase "lawfully sanctioned" implies that the organization is not just vigilantes- they have the force of law behind them.

"nothing to keep them in check besides themselves" doesn't make them vigilantes- it simply means that, as the law enforcers- they're the only ones who can deal with members of their own group who break the law.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:20 PM
Well long story short there was a great evil, big battle, and the land was torn afterwards and it was this organization that brought the nation back together and unified them. There is nothing vigilante about them at all. Its the individual and smaller units that enact Vigilantism and not the organization as a whole. But even then the org simply asked if the Pc's could wait where they were and answer some questions about Organization members disappearing.

And i asked the PC to explain it and all he says is that CG hates the law and they are lawful. Now idk about all of you BUT i never envisioned a CG character bringing down a Keystone organization because they arrested him AFTER he jumped the captain.

It also was explained that if it were not for this organization that the land would be roaming with brigands and thieves and all sorts of wibbly wobbly bad things.

Keinnicht
2011-01-12, 04:22 PM
And i asked the PC to explain it and all he says is that CG hates the law and they are lawful. Now idk about all of you BUT i never envisioned a CG character bringing down a Keystone organization because they arrested him AFTER he jumped the captain.


Change his alignment to either CN or CE. CG people do not hate the law just because it's the law. Heck, most CE people probably don't hate every single law on record.

Trekkin
2011-01-12, 04:23 PM
Firstly, is the organization in fact corrupt, tyrannical, or even oppressive? As CG, he'd be morally opposed to any of them. Besides, from his perspective, the organization probably seems evil--they apprehended a party of heroes, after all, and are preserving peace "by any means necessary". That phrase has justified a lot of evil in the past.

He could be said to be overplaying his alignment, but I'd hold off on admonishing the player about it. Just have the party run into sections of this group that are actively doing good things, and if that seems out of character for the organization than maybe they aren't actually all that good. If they're neutral, there really isn't that much amiss about a Chaotic Good hero trying to loosen their iron grip on the land.

EDIT: From your explanation of their origins, the case could be made that a chaotic character might come to view them as evil; if the smaller units are vigilantes, that's not going to reflect well on the organization as a whole, particularly for people already opposed to the general idea of one overarching peacekeeping force.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:23 PM
The phrase "lawfully sanctioned" implies that the organization is not just vigilantes- they have the force of law behind them.

"nothing to keep them in check besides themselves" doesn't make them vigilantes- it simply means that, as the law enforcers- they're the only ones who can deal with members of their own group who break the law.

Precisely. They are the law, and within them are different heads that watch the others. Simplified its The Religious Head (a St. Cuthbert cleric), The military branch ( A Paladin), and Information Leader (A Diplomat). So its like he didnt even pick out a branch he blatantly stated "Im bringing em down"

Raging Gene Ray
2011-01-12, 04:24 PM
The proper response would be to mark this down on his alignment, giving him "minuses" until you announce "You are now CN." And later, if he keeps it up. "You are now CE." If he doesn't do any Good acts like helping the needy and the oppressed (whether they are truly oppressed or not), tell him he was never Good in the first place.

Were these blasts lethal? Would he have been willing to raise them if they were? If he was just trying to subdue and escape from false allegations, then I'd say he still falls squarely within CG territory. If he was attempting to kill them because they dared to have AUTHORITY, then that's CN at best, but most likely CE.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:25 PM
WeAnd i asked the PC to explain it and all he says is that CG hates the law and they are lawful. Now idk about all of you BUT i never envisioned a CG character bringing down a Keystone organization because they arrested him AFTER he jumped the captain.

CG is more "likes individual rights, and distrusts the idea that morality can be enforced by law".

CG states can still have laws- and local authorities- it's just that they tend to rule with a lighter hand than LG ones- more scope for the individual.

Eladrin have a queen, in Arborea, and they are Chaotic subtype Good Outsiders- so they'll be even more Chaotic than most mortals.

A character who "hates laws" might be closer to CN or CE than CG.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:26 PM
Firstly, is the organization in fact corrupt, tyrannical, or even oppressive? As CG, he'd be morally opposed to any of them. Besides, from his perspective, the organization probably seems evil--they apprehended a party of heroes, after all, and are preserving peace "by any means necessary". That phrase has justified a lot of evil in the past.

He could be said to be overplaying his alignment, but I'd hold off on admonishing the player about it. Just have the party run into sections of this group that are actively doing good things, and if that seems out of character for the organization than maybe they aren't actually all that good. If they're neutral, there really isn't that much amiss about a Chaotic Good hero trying to loosen their iron grip on the land.

I will admit at times it gives that overpowering vibe. The only thing the heroes know that could be seen as slightly evil is that the organization censors certain information about the "Great Battle" because it is the belief that the Heroes of legend that fought in the GB were a unified force and also not to give one church or deity more power than another the heroes' deities have been withheld from the general populice.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-12, 04:28 PM
And i asked the PC to explain it and all he says is that CG hates the law and they are lawful. Now idk about all of you BUT i never envisioned a CG character bringing down a Keystone organization because they arrested him AFTER he jumped the captain.
Ah, the Chaotic Stupid.

Be sure to point out the Good portion of his Alignment

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
. . .
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Good characters don't just start "blasting" people unprovoked. Now, if the Player had something more to say than "they were Lawful" about why he decided to murder everyone, it might be good for him to explain it. If it helps, have him write out a paragraph about his motivations there - he might have some good ones you didn't notice.

Or he might be a tad bit confused about what being Chaotic Good means. In any case, if you're unsure why a Player did something, ask them to explain it. If they can't give you more than a one-line response, ask them to type out a more detailed response.

Long story short: Communication is Key.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:28 PM
The proper response would be to mark this down on his alignment, giving him "minuses" until you announce "You are now CN." And later, if he keeps it up. "You are now CE." If he doesn't do any Good acts like helping the needy and the oppressed (whether they are truly oppressed or not), tell him he was never Good in the first place.

Were these blasts lethal? Would he have been willing to raise them if they were? If he was just trying to subdue and escape from false allegations, then I'd say he still falls squarely within CG territory. If he was attempting to kill them because they dared to have AUTHORITY, then that's CN at best, but most likely CE.

He explained calmly to the party that if they had just "Killed off all the guards and ran" that no one could possibly know they had even been stopped by them. Like the PC pulled an action that screams EVIL and then hopped behind his CG alignment and claims he is doing the right thing.

Raging Gene Ray
2011-01-12, 04:31 PM
He explained calmly to the party that if they had just "Killed off all the guards and ran" that no one could possibly know they had even been stopped by them. Like the PC pulled an action that screams EVIL and then hopped behind his CG alignment and claims he is doing the right thing.

Oh...then like I said, tell him that killing people simply for being Lawful is NOT Good. Chaotic, yes. Evil, yes. It's no better than a paladin killing everyone in a Thieves' Guild for simply operating outside the Law. Tell him that if his character doesn't grow and change this sort of attitude, he is going to wind up as Evil. If he has any feats or class features that rely on alignment, strip them until he atones.

Trekkin
2011-01-12, 04:33 PM
I will admit at times it gives that overpowering vibe. The only thing the heroes know that could be seen as slightly evil is that the organization censors certain information about the "Great Battle" because it is the belief that the Heroes of legend that fought in the GB were a unified force and also not to give one church or deity more power than another the heroes' deities have been withheld from the general populice.

That might be enough, though, if he's playing CG as active mistrust of the law rather than individualized disregard for it. He could well be asking himself "what do they have to hide?" and/or "what else are they not telling us"given their demonstrated willingness to withhold information from their own people.

I wouldn't change his alignment yet. (EDIT: I post slowly. Given that his motive seems to have been less than altruistic, I'd make him temporarily CN) If he pursues this crusade of his too far and starts killing Good individuals who aren't threatening him (EDIT: so, any more), the recourse is obvious, but there might be dramatic value in changing his alignment mid-crusade as a means of encouraging him to consider his actions more carefully.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:37 PM
That might be enough, though, if he's playing CG as active mistrust of the law rather than individualized disregard for it. He could well be asking himself "what do they have to hide?" and/or "what else are they not telling us"given their demonstrated willingness to withhold information from their own people.



I tried to open that door to him when i was explaining that the only reason they were being aprehended was because a few of the Organization members were investigation the Party's employer and that members were seen entering the building where the employer works and then are never seen again. Like for some reason the player finds no problem with those suspicious circumstances and would rather assume that these ppl are the next nazi party or something.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:41 PM
Like for some reason the player finds no problem with those suspicious circumstances and would rather assume that these ppl are the next nazi party or something.

This phrase:


The party were apprehended by an organization that upholds the law of the land, but with no one to really keep them in check except themselves. Kinda like a good gestapo.

does seem like the player is thinking the same way, only without the "good" part about the organization.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:47 PM
This phrase:



does seem like the player is thinking the same way, only without the "good" part about the organization.

im aware of that and im trying to disuade that line of thinking, granted while it will come up later and could have a pretty good story twist i dont believe taking them down is the right path. Even when members of the organization help the PC assumes its because they are "trying to bribe him to their side"

Stormageddon
2011-01-12, 04:47 PM
What was the party arrested for?

It seems like a lot of metagaming. The character would have no way of knowing the organizations alignment. If the party was stopped because they were actaully committing a crime, and response is to blast him in the face and go on cursade to bring the group down thats CS.

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:50 PM
What was the party arrested for?

It seems like a lot of metagaming. The character would have no way of knowing the organizations alignment. If the party was stopped because they were actaully committing a crime, and response is to blast him in the face and go on cursade to bring the group down thats CS.

While the Player knows all this his PC ALSO knows all of it because they have been in the world for a while now and have heard about the group just the first interaction with them went haywire. Its like hearing all your life that a police officer is good and then one day being pulled over cause you have a taillight out or they mistook you for someone else and instead of explaining it you shoot the officer in the face and take off into a HSP

Stephen_E
2011-01-12, 04:50 PM
Is attitude for his character is decidely CN rather than CG and I would note it as such, and then let it ride.

It isn't CE. He attacked them because they were an authoratarian organisation and that was to him "Evil" (on his personal level, not as the game measures it) and must be destroyed to free the people.

Wanting to kill all of the guards is no more evil than wanting to kill all an Orc tribes warriors. Which is generally considered ok.

He wasn't planning on doing gratutious killing, like hunting down their families. He wanted to kill the members of an authoratarian organistion that was trying to question and possibly track them. Within his beleifs of the inherent wrongness of the organisation this was entirely reasonable.
Neither was he doing it purely for personal pleasure or gain.

As explained he's nowhere near CE, unless you are confusing Lawful with Good.

Stephen E

BlackSheep
2011-01-12, 04:51 PM
Did he hear this explanation before he decided to shoot?

Trekkin
2011-01-12, 04:52 PM
I tried to open that door to him when i was explaining that the only reason they were being aprehended was because a few of the Organization members were investigation the Party's employer and that members were seen entering the building where the employer works and then are never seen again. Like for some reason the player finds no problem with those suspicious circumstances and would rather assume that these ppl are the next nazi party or something.

These circumstances are suspicious, yes, but the party has done nothing wrong in connection with this, and now they're being apprehended for the suspected actions of another. A Lawful character would be hard-pressed to just blindly go along with that (although they'd probably not seek to escape so much as seek to be legally freed) and it sounds like a very good reason for a Chaotic character to assume they're unjust oppressors of the people.

The way he approached it may have been rather harsh, and repetition of those tactics would certainly be Neutral at best, but "being arrested for something we didn't do" is not going to go over well with a Chaotic character who, being Good, is likely to wonder how many other people have had this happen to them.

Sipex
2011-01-12, 04:54 PM
I'd play off it if I were you.

The next session have the players brought forward to some sort of official of the group and have an RP session about it. The leader asks why the CG player did what he did (in character) and they talk it out.

Maybe in the end they recruit the PCs (as payment for the CG PC going nuts on their men) to investigate their own place of work.

Teddy
2011-01-12, 04:54 PM
How about sending a paladin in their way. Knowingly killing a paladin (which more or less has to be a paragon of good) without really good justification is a good way of not staying good for a very long time.

If this player wants to go on a rampage no matter what alignment it puts him in, then he should suffer the consequences for it. Make him remember that there always is a bigger fish, for example. :smallwink:

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:56 PM
Did he hear this explanation before he decided to shoot?

Yes. Like 5 times it was explained and hinted at this organization was in the same bucket with "Justice" "Goodness" and "The protection of common ppl"



These circumstances are suspicious, yes, but the party has done nothing wrong in connection with this, and now they're being apprehended for the suspected actions of another. A Lawful character would be hard-pressed to just blindly go along with that (although they'd probably not seek to escape so much as seek to be legally freed) and it sounds like a very good reason for a Chaotic character to assume they're unjust oppressors of the people.

The way he approached it may have been rather harsh, and repetition of those tactics would certainly be Neutral at best, but "being arrested for something we didn't do" is not going to go over well with a Chaotic character who, being Good, is likely to wonder how many other people have had this happen to them.

They were being apprehended because the group wanted to ask them questions about such events. What started as a simple Plot delving and RP experience turned into bench warrants and fugitives. Because the basic principle of "If they werent guilty, why did they attack us?" <- especially when the captain made it clear that he did not want to fight or use physical force. AND my always favorite "Innocent ppl dont run"

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:58 PM
How about a run-in with other famously Chaotic Good characters, that approve of the organization- and make it clear that being Chaotic Good doesn't mean you have to dislike Lawful Good factions?

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:58 PM
I'd play off it if I were you.

The next session have the players brought forward to some sort of official of the group and have an RP session about it. The leader asks why the CG player did what he did (in character) and they talk it out.

Maybe in the end they recruit the PCs (as payment for the CG PC going nuts on their men) to investigate their own place of work.

Oh there already is a trial set up for the next campaign. My only concern is that the PC will say "Im Chaotic, its in my nature" which would not fly with this group. Heck even some of them are Chaotic just working to put the world right

Draig
2011-01-12, 04:59 PM
How about a run-in with other famously Chaotic Good characters, that approve of the organization- and make it clear that being Chaotic Good doesn't mean you have to dislike Lawful Good factions?

It seems like all the good ideas to do that are turned into some weird conspiracy theory. Im hoping that by having a trial and him being brought through the history of the organization and seeing its members that he will realize he did a no-no.

Sipex
2011-01-12, 05:00 PM
Don't accept that as an IC explanation. If he goes "I'm chaotic, it's in my nature." simply state "That's not an acceptable response, could you please give an in character motivation to why you did this?"

Characters aren't self-aware of their alignments.

Unless this character is devoted to some sort of chaos thing which he could use to devote himself that way.

Asheram
2011-01-12, 05:02 PM
Is attitude for his character is decidely CN rather than CG and I would note it as such, and then let it ride.

It isn't CE. He attacked them because they were an authoratarian organisation and that was to him "Evil" (on his personal level, not as the game measures it) and must be destroyed to free the people.

Wanting to kill all of the guards is no more evil than wanting to kill all an Orc tribes warriors. Which is generally considered ok.

He wasn't planning on doing gratutious killing, like hunting down their families. He wanted to kill the members of an authoratarian organistion that was trying to question and possibly track them. Within his beleifs of the inherent wrongness of the organisation this was entirely reasonable.
Neither was he doing it purely for personal pleasure or gain.

As explained he's nowhere near CE, unless you are confusing Lawful with Good.

Stephen E

Now, there's difference between fighting a hostile invasion force and the literal purging of an organization that has a different view upon how a goverment should work than you have.

NichG
2011-01-12, 06:42 PM
I'd honestly suggest playing it lighter on the alignments. While the character's actions are probably not chaotic good, it feels to me like they stem from the player taking alignment too seriously (as in, the only defining aspect of their character) combined with a particular extreme reading of alignment. I expect that if you change the character's alignment because of their actions, rather than them seeking redemption this player will say something like 'Okay, so I'm now chaotic neutral. That means I have to go and steal things now. And be insane.'

Instead if you downplay alignment you might at least have more luck getting the player to do things based on their character's personality rather than their alignment pick. It may still be 'I blast the guard captain!' but at least when the player explains it afterwards it won't be 'thats what a CG character would do', it'll be 'my character hates authority'.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 07:39 PM
Let him keep attacking them. Then, have your sanctioned force "accidentally" kill the player(since I'm sure one man against a whole organization means you're probably trying not to kill him), and then have them resurrect him with "humble apologies". If he's roleplaying and not being a pain in the butt, owing his life to these people should make him more willing to listen.

Occasional Sage
2011-01-12, 08:43 PM
"I swear I will dedicate every breath of my life to taking down your organization" is a perfectly CG thing to say and do. Taking down the organization by killing them all... yeah, not so much. The problem isn't his goal, it's his methodology.

I know the tongue-in-cheek response will be "No, that's an adventurer," but quite frankly a person whose first resort is to violence and death is simply a psychopath. There are other routes to achieving his goal that are actually in line with that G in his alignment.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-12, 08:52 PM
I wouldn't change the character's Alignment yet, because he sounds misinformed more than actively malicious - his actions was decidedly non-good, though.

I think he's putting his own spin on the description - because it reeks of "It's not meant to be evil, but..." He might have jumped into conclusions of it being Lawful Evil regardless, or being the sort of Lawful Neutral he'd be opposed to. Wait and see.

If he continues to act in overtly violent and deluded manner, then he can be chucked to CE bin. XD

Callista
2011-01-12, 09:11 PM
I can see that the CG guy would want to bring down the organization. That makes sense--he's chaotic, he likes freedom; maybe he's even a bit of an anarchist. (Or a whole lot of one.) It's the G part that I don't get; killing people, guard captains or not, is not the kind of strategy a Good-aligned person will use. Your basic CG will work to undermine the organization, tear it down, sow chaos--but not kill people. That's just not their style.

Does this character have a background and a personality, or is the player trying to play an alignment? That never turns out well. Make the guy write you a background and explain what his character's like, then tack on an alignment after he figures out what kind of character he wants to play.

Does the player know that things like plotting against this organization are actually possible in your game? I often see this phenomenon--I call it CRPG syndrome: The player doesn't realize that, unlike in a computer RPG, he isn't limited to the courses of action the DM has already thought of. There are no railroad tracks (or shouldn't be, anyway), and he doesn't have to follow a prearranged plot. He's free to be creative. Sometimes players don't realize that until you make it really, really obvious to them that their DM is, in fact, not a computer and can actually respond dynamically to what their PC does.

Telasi
2011-01-12, 09:28 PM
So, the character basically shot a guy working for the inquisition? Perfectly reasonable response, imo.

The OP's case is an act of self-defence, plain and simple. The guy was being told he was under arrest by a "gestapo." No matter how good they think they are (and may, in fact, be), no sane person is going to just let an organization with no oversight and unlimited power just arrest them without a fight; doubly so for a chaotic person. Regardless of intentions, an organization like that is a bad idea because it invites abuse of power. Destroying organizations like that is the sort of thing CG characters would try. Killing them all is may be on the extreme measures end, but not flat out evil. After all, the OP has said that they're deliberately suppressing free speech and enforcing certain religious views, so they're doing things that are patently infringing on human rights.

As to being told that the captain only wanted to "question" them, the PCs know that they have a history of deceit. It's not a stretch to think this groups troops would lie to the PCs.

Edit: Oh, and now they've set up a kangaroo court. Way to hold a fair and unbiased trial, there. Such an LG response. :smallannoyed:

yldenfrei
2011-01-12, 09:48 PM
So, the character basically shot a guy working for the inquisition? Perfectly reasonable response, imo.

The OP's case is an act of self-defence, plain and simple. The guy was being told he was under arrest by a "gestapo." No matter how good they think they are (and may, in fact, be), no sane person is going to just let an organization with no oversight and unlimited power just arrest them without a fight; doubly so for a chaotic person. Regardless of intentions, an organization like that is a bad idea because it invites abuse of power. Destroying organizations like that is the sort of thing CG characters would try. Killing them all is may be on the extreme measures end, but not flat out evil. After all, the OP has said that they're deliberately suppressing free speech and enforcing certain religious views, so they're doing things that are patently infringing on human rights.

As to being told that the captain only wanted to "question" them, the PCs know that they have a history of deceit. It's not a stretch to think this groups troops would lie to the PCs.

Edit: Oh, and now they've set up a kangaroo court. Way to hold a fair and unbiased trial, there. Such an LG response. :smallannoyed:

Perfect defense for the Chaotic part. As for the Good part, I'm not so sure. The main (and sometimes only) difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil is their regard, or lack thereof, for the life of others. Trying to shut down the organization to give people back their freedom may be well intentioned, but to kill each one would be very very questionable for a good person to do.

He's acting very much like the paladin who smites every person he meets just because he thinks they're evil. Good intention, bad execution.

Although, I'm inclined to agree that the CG character would view the trial as a "kangaroo court".

EDIT: Also, what did the other characters say? Did anyone LG try to play a Durkon, chiding the CG as to the hastiness of his actions?

Telasi
2011-01-12, 09:57 PM
Perfect defense for the Chaotic part. As for the Good part, I'm not so sure. The main (and sometimes only) difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil is their regard, or lack thereof, for the life of others. Trying to shut down the organization to give people back their freedom may be well intentioned, but to kill each one would be very very questionable for a good person to do.

(snip)

Although, I'm inclined to agree that the CG character would view the trial as a "kangaroo court".

Thank you. :smallsmile:

I agree (and outright said) it was questionably good, at best. Still, I wouldn't pull an instant alignment change on this one, and definitely wouldn't call the guy evil yet. Gotta see how he handles his takedown. Assuming he doesn't get summarily executed, anyway.

I do want to hear how this turns out.

Stephen_E
2011-01-12, 10:10 PM
Now, there's difference between fighting a hostile invasion force and the literal purging of an organization that has a different view upon how a goverment should work than you have.

Yep, the 1st can be anything from Good to Evil.

The 2nd is pretty much restricted to Neutral and evil.
The difference been a number of other factors based on your means, motives and beleifs.

Stephen E

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-13, 01:35 AM
Is attitude for his character is decidely CN rather than CG and I would note it as such, and then let it ride.

It isn't CE. He attacked them because they were an authoratarian organisation and that was to him "Evil" (on his personal level, not as the game measures it) and must be destroyed to free the people.

Wanting to kill all of the guards is no more evil than wanting to kill all an Orc tribes warriors. Which is generally considered ok.

He wasn't planning on doing gratutious killing, like hunting down their families. He wanted to kill the members of an authoratarian organistion that was trying to question and possibly track them. Within his beleifs of the inherent wrongness of the organisation this was entirely reasonable.
Neither was he doing it purely for personal pleasure or gain.

As explained he's nowhere near CE, unless you are confusing Lawful with Good.

Stephen E

You don't have to conflate Lawful with Good to think that this argument is completely divorced from the way people think about morality in the real world. If we were to come up with a list of real or fictional CG or CN people, how many of them can we think of who would try repeatedly to kill an officer of the law not for any heinous actions the officer had committed, but only because he was an officer of the law who had some not unreasonable questions? Insult the copper? Sure. Knock him out and make a getaway? Sounds good. But even if someone's personal take on Chaotic is "I hate pigs," that person generally has to be CE to actually act on that feeling. When we read in the paper about some guy who shoots dead the patrol officer who pulled him over for speeding or whatever (has happened locally a couple times in the last 5 years), how many of us make the jump to, "Well, he might be a really good guy who just doesn't like the law?" How many of us could believe that this is even a possibility?

I second what NichG said earlier.
While the character's actions are probably not chaotic good, it feels to me like they stem from the player taking alignment too seriously (as in, the only defining aspect of their character) combined with a particular extreme reading of alignment.

Callista
2011-01-13, 01:48 AM
That, and remember another aspect of Chaos: People who are chaotic usually believe in letting people do what they want, not just themselves but other people too. (CE just doesn't care what other people do; CG will actively fight for freedom.) And oddly enough, that includes letting Lawful people live in an orderly, disciplined, even hierarchical fashion--as long as it's voluntary, the average CG individual may roll his eyes at their traditionalism, but he won't act against it. Maybe law-and-order is what they want; Mr. CG will do his own thing. If a CG character has a natural enemy, it's tyranny, slavery, and mind-control. Petty little government bureaucracies are to be evaded or undermined--not slaughtered wholesale.

The player needs to take a long hard look at his character and re-check that alignment. The DM should remind him that correcting an alignment is NOT punitive--it's simply changing a stat to the correct one.

How about this: For one session, just leave that alignment slot blank and treat the PC, mechanically, as true neutral. During that time, the player should work to define his character's personality, basing his character's actions on that personality. Then he can tag the whole thing with an alignment after he figures out what the character is actually like.

Stephen_E
2011-01-13, 04:43 AM
You don't have to conflate Lawful with Good to think that this argument is completely divorced from the way people think about morality in the real world.



Yep, just like wiping out the males of a tribe of people primarily based on their race wouldn't be considered moraly reasonable in most of the RL world.

Nonetheless Good PCs do it all the time in DnD.

Stephen E

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-13, 05:38 AM
Yep, just like wiping out the males of a tribe of people primarily based on their race wouldn't be considered moraly reasonable in most of the RL world.

Nonetheless Good PCs do it all the time in DnD.

Stephen E

I agree with you that many games operate on an moral plane that is far from elevated. There are probably many gamers who have not played in a game in which "usually evil" humanoids are ever anything but "always evil" and who do not realize that it is possible to have fun with a game more nuanced than "Good Guys" (us) vs. "Bad Guys" (them). I don't expect that this will soon change, either. However, that gamers are imperfect is not news. What would be news would be to discover the opposite.

True realism in a RPG is not only impractical and impossible--it is undesirable. Reality is too complicated to easily convey via language, so simplication is the order of the day. And morality is a complicated subject. However, that only makes verisimilitude (the semblance of reality) even more desirable where possible. It facilitates the suspension of disbelief. So actions such as those the OP complained of fail two separate standards. They fail just about every RL moral standard, but even more important they lack verisimilitude and thus damage the game.

The other example you gave can at least be easily imagined playing out in RL. War and/or Genocide do happen, even though we tend to base our prejudices on religion and race rather than species when picking the group to attack. And yes, it's widely disapproved. But people don't necessarily consider it insane behavior. In contrast and in general, only mentally disturbed people would act as this warlock did. That sort of behavior is not only not heroic, it's bizarre enough to yank us out of the game world as we ponder it.

When playing in a RPG, that's a pretty serious sin.

FelixG
2011-01-13, 06:07 AM
If he goes through with his plan and tries to take the organization down I would slide him to CE, he could just be all talk or bark and no bite.

One fun thing that could be done: Note down all of your players alignments, and have them erase them from the sheet, then you just track where peoples alignments stand, if they slip to CE they may not notice until they take a Smite to the face from the pissy paladin that spotted them doing something unsavory. :smallbiggrin:

In my games this had two effects:
1) Several of my players bought the item "Phylactery of faithfulness" so they could monitor their own actions more closely.
2) Players started playing their characters instead of their alignments!

Now if you do this, the player may sweat a bit about weather what he is doing is good or not, or he will just play his character. And if he continues with his little vendetta he can slide into CE and start getting Paladins hunting him! How fun!

Excession
2011-01-13, 07:24 AM
While I think the player's actions were over the top, it sounds like you might have come on a bit strong with whole apprehension thing. My suggestions are mostly hindsight, so possibly not all that useful now:

If you don't want a fight, don't have the detective turn up with an encounter-sized squad of soldiers. Have him approach them, alone or with one partner, in a tavern or other public place with an opening line something like "I'm officer X of Y, can I ask you a few questions about Mr Evildude?". If nothing else killing the cute Waitress so she can't testify is definitely evil.

Never describe something as a "good gestapo"; you're just asking for someone to get the wrong idea. Some of the other parts of your descriptions are questionable as well. The Harpers from FR for example don't come across as even slightly evil, your organisation seems fairly LE from some angles.

From experience it's very easy for the players' mental model of something to be quite different from the DM's.

Jornophelanthas
2011-01-13, 07:58 AM
The player asked if the organization was evil. (an obvious and good Q)

No, very, very bad question.

Unless the player actually has some kind of "Detect Evil" spell or power and decides to use it, he is in no position to receive any answer. And if he does, the answers only apply to the actual people in front of him, and should be limited to "Yes", "No", or "You can't tell".

The point is that, while players may know the mechanics of alignments, characters do not. And even if they do know that Good and Evil are measurable in the D&D multiverse, they have no way to measure it.

Think about it. When someone approaches you in the street and asks you a few strange questions about your groceries, there is no DM standing behind your shoulder who can tell you that this is a bad person, or a trustworthy one. So it should be for the players.

The question that should have been asked was "What do we know about this organisation?" You could have answered by saying: "They are the only authority in this land. They answer to nobody but themselves, but they are known for keeping the peace and maintaining justice." (Knowledge check optional.)
Don't use alignment words in your answer ("good", "evil", "lawful", "chaos", "neutral"). And don't use politically or morally leading words either (like "gestapo", "nazi", "communist", "holocaust", "universal declaration for the rights of man").

The players should use their own instincts. They don't need you to do their thinking for them. They might misunderstand your answers, which is what I believe happened.
DM says: "Well, they started out with no evil in mind."
PC thinks: "They didn't start out that way? That means they've turned evil now."
PC says: "I blast the guard captain in the face."

Vangor
2011-01-13, 08:07 AM
"I swear I will dedicate every breath of my life to taking down your organization" is a perfectly CG thing to say and do. Taking down the organization by killing them all... yeah, not so much. The problem isn't his goal, it's his methodology.

I know the tongue-in-cheek response will be "No, that's an adventurer," but quite frankly a person whose first resort is to violence and death is simply a psychopath. There are other routes to achieving his goal that are actually in line with that G in his alignment.

Absolutely what you are saying. Chaotic Good could dismantle an oppressive, tyrannical organization through sword and magic, but disassembling an organization which has not been shown to be evil requires subterfuge, cunning, and similar. The difference would be killing the king and having the people no longer respect the throne.

Trekkin
2011-01-13, 09:51 AM
Then again, the player could be drawing on the knowledge of the history of the world. I clearly don't know enough about the battle that apparently forms the nucleus of the campaign world, but depending on how bloody it's been described, he could be playing the foil to the new great evil he sees in this overarching organization. On a more metagame level, the campaign history is one of bloodshed, so the player may think that martial solutions are an acceptable, if not the expected solution. As much as DnD depends on objective morality for the alignment system to properly interface with magic and similar effects, expecting those alignments not to reflect the tone of the world as a whole can cause misunderstandings like this one.

On a more local level, how the PCs were apprehended could have influenced his decision. Incarceration is a tricky thing in a campaign; it has to be worded carefully to avoid the impression of unlawful arrest by an entity that will probably kill them once they're unable to fight back, against which any alignment could be expected to fight.

obliged_salmon
2011-01-13, 12:26 PM
Let me try and offer a new perspective here.

In my mind, it looks like your player is giving you a wonderful, story-rife gift. He's engaging his character with your world, building goals and motivations in how he wants his character to interact with it. "I'll devote my LIFE and BREATH to bringing this organization down!" Fantastic! Run with it!

I think you may be too connected to the well-being of this lawful organization. Have you stepped back at all and asked, "Am I using this group to try and railroad the players at all?" If so, that's a likely cause of the player's actions. He wants his chaotic alignment to MEAN something, rather than throw it away for the sake of the plot. He chose it, after all.

My suggestion is to make the organization corrupt, make them the bad guys. Why? Because that's the game your player wants to play. That's the story he wants to tell.

My two cents.

Telonius
2011-01-13, 12:41 PM
A few others have touched on this, but I'll mention it as well...

"I did x because I'm chaotic good" is not a good reason. "I'm chaotic good because I consistently and habitually do x" is the way alignment is generally supposed to work.

I do think that the way you described the group, a CG character might reasonably believe that it's an inherent threat to freedom as well as raising big red flags for respecting life. It's not totally out of the question for a character who values either life or freedom to take steps to bring that kind of organization down. How they go about doing so is another question. Blasting the captain in the face would probably be on the "Chaotic Stupid" side, but it might just be that the person isn't an experienced roleplayer.

EDIT: Also ...


O
DM Response "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

... a Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization!?

There's some disconnect here. What you've described is not a Good organization, it's a Lawful Neutral organization.

Douglas
2011-01-13, 12:53 PM
Yes, this was a bad response that I would not consider CG, but there may also be some miscommunication from the DM involved. Specifically:

DM Response "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."
Reading this, it immediately brings to mind the idea that major portions of the organization are evil and corrupt, and the DM is trying to weasel his way around by giving true but misleading statements. Qualifiers like "as a whole" and talking about how it was set up seem unnecessarily specific, and that raises the question of why this specificity is being used with the obvious answer being that the statement would be false if they were omitted - that the organization actually is evil.

If a player asks a question like "is X organization evil" and you're willing to answer it explicitly in such terms, pretty much anything other than a point-blank completely unqualified "no it is not" will make many players very suspicious.

Hawriel
2011-01-13, 01:11 PM
The character is chaotic stupid/evil. He attacked with intent to kill several peaple with no cause. They where not trying to kill him, or any one els. He flipintly desided to kill some one, then acted. He then proclamed the intent to kill every one with in this police force. This is evil.

He intents to change society by killing its law inforcment or any one accosiated with it. He is evil. It does not matter his motives. He road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

This character never tryed to change the organiztion by any other means. Public discorse, protest, potitioning the leadership. He automaticly said in essence I will kill you all. By the characters actions alone he is more evil than this bonevilent tyrant police force has been percieved of being.

Just because a person is evil does not negate the fact that killing them is also evil.

Jayabalard
2011-01-13, 01:17 PM
Characters aren't self-aware of their alignmentsCharacters who align themselves with the powers of law and evil with binding contracts are probably aware of their alignment. People who can cast discern alignment probably know too.

Sipex
2011-01-13, 01:18 PM
Oh right, sorry, 4th edition thinking again.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-13, 01:22 PM
While the Player knows all this his PC ALSO knows all of it because they have been in the world for a while now and have heard about the group just the first interaction with them went haywire. Its like hearing all your life that a police officer is good and then one day being pulled over cause you have a taillight out or they mistook you for someone else and instead of explaining it you shoot the officer in the face and take off into a HSP

Well, real life cops are corrupt often in movies/shows.
So that is a a bad example. Granted killing is a bt out there.

But, my last exps with a cop in life shows to me they are largely more LE or LN than good.




They were being apprehended because the group wanted to ask them questions about such events. What started as a simple Plot delving and RP experience turned into bench warrants and fugitives. Because the basic principle of "If they werent guilty, why did they attack us?" <- especially when the captain made it clear that he did not want to fight or use physical force. AND my always favorite "Innocent ppl dont run"
PCs attacked because you arrested them: so the organization was guilty now.

Yes, innocent people run all the time.
Why? Because likely they have been scapegoated or mistreated by authority.
If last 90 times it turned out bad: Are you really going to trust them again?
No, evade them and run.

It isn't the running, but the killing that shows he might not be innocent.

Asheram
2011-01-13, 02:09 PM
PCs attacked because you arrested them: so the organization was guilty now.

Yes, innocent people run all the time.
Why? Because likely they have been scapegoated or mistreated by authority.
If last 90 times it turned out bad: Are you really going to trust them again?
No, evade them and run.

It isn't the running, but the killing that shows he might not be innocent.

But wasn't this case less of resisting arrest and instead breaking out of a guardhouse, seriously injuring several officers of the law and attempted murder of atleast a few of them? All while only in there for questioning?

ericgrau
2011-01-13, 03:48 PM
Chaotic evil people do not go around blasting random stronger people in the face who will capture them or kill them. That would be stupid. Show the character why by throwing him in jail. He may have to play someone else until his term is over and/or his party pays or works off a hefty fine. Or tell the player not to play chaotic stupid, and explain such to him. If he'll listen you could give him another chance to take back what he did. But if he doesn't then just demonstrate it as said.

Ya the whole harming-others-is-usually-not-good-aligned thing is a lesser issue too, but one step at a time man.

Achernar
2011-01-13, 04:01 PM
Yes. Like 5 times it was explained and hinted at this organization was in the same bucket with "Justice" "Goodness" and "The protection of common ppl"

Sounds like the player doesn't understand the alignment they chose. He's an anarchist, so Chaotic Neutral. Very easy fix.

Jayngfet
2011-01-13, 04:01 PM
I think it's the difference between how the DM and players THINK.

A DM knows the information ahead of time, he's the thing the world is filtered from. Everything is boradcasted from him through his speech and the words he picks. If a player acts in a way you don't expect, don't think of him as being some kind of crazy troll because a player DOESN'T know how good or evil everything else is.

Players don't know what's going on, but come in with expectations on certain things that'll affect how they interpret things, and pick up and change those as they get familiar with the game itself. He hears "group that answers to no one enacting THEIR view of Justice, which differs from my own, that can never be punished." He may have HEARD them being good from another source, but if he's immersed he won't think thats the absolute truth so much as opinion. The organization could easily be attacking anyone who speaks against them, and probably has in the past. They could simply have Good PR, like lots of bad people in real life and fiction.

He may be thinking on a Meta level too: "I'm supposed to be the hero here, no way I'm dealing with the DM's stupid faction!" "The DM is supposed to set us up with antagonists, and here's a questionable sounding group trying to detain us, perfect opprotunity!" "We haven't fought in forever, I bet the DM is trying to give us a fight with added moral complexity!"

Generally intent factors into alignment, and none of those intents are self centered beyond Standard PC logic. I wouldn't charge him for this incident, but if he attacks them in the middle of fighting off demons trying to eat nearby babies or something it'd warrant concern.





Remember, just because you think something is good doesn't make it good, and even if it is, it's not just evil that fights amongst itself.

Gamer Girl
2011-01-13, 04:12 PM
O
The player asked if the organization was evil. (an obvious and good Q)
Now here is where you need to pay alot of attention.
DM Response "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

I mean what justification can a Chaotic good character have to bring down a Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization!? Like i would understand a corrpt member or two but he wants them ALL to be brought down and has stated to my face that as CG he can do it.


I see a bit of a disconnect. When the player asked if the organization was evil, you gave a roundabout answer. Your answer did not say and include the words Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD.

Such as:
PC asks:Is this group evil?
Dm answers: The Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."


See the difference?

Jayabalard
2011-01-13, 04:14 PM
Yep, just like wiping out the males of a tribe of people primarily based on their race wouldn't be considered moraly reasonable in most of the RL world.

Nonetheless Good PCs do it all the time in DnD.That's not really correct; "Nonetheless Good PCs who have been mislabeled as Good do it all the time in DnD." would be closer.

Asheram
2011-01-13, 04:16 PM
That's not really correct; "Nonetheless Good PCs who have been mislabeled as Good do it all the time in DnD." would be closer.

Anyone been reading Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.com/)? I keep thinking about Kore.

EagleWiz
2011-01-13, 05:24 PM
My take on it.

You said: "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

Player heard: "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

Player thinks: Aha! The BBEG is in charge! I can kill him and win D&D!

Jornophelanthas
2011-01-14, 11:25 AM
I'll repeat the point of my previous post in this thread, since I think it has been missed in the discussion.

The player's question ("Is this organisation evil?") was wrong.

Basically, this player was asking the DM to reveal an element of his story, instead of roleplaying his character.

Unless the player character has a class feature / spell that allows him to discern somebody's alignment, could he actually get an answer to this. And only regarding the alignments of the members of the organisation that are actually in front of him (i.e. the patrol and their captain).

If I were DM here, I would probably disallow the question, telling the player that his character has no way of determining an organisation's alignment. And then I would tell him what his character knows of the organisation's reputation. And let the player draw his own conclusions.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-14, 12:16 PM
That pretty much sums up the entire argument. Since the character can't possibly know the organization's supposed or actual alignment on the individual or over-all level, is initial reaction and reasoning are flawed. The player in question is playing Chaotic Stupid. Or Stupid Good. Or just plain Stupid.
But if he continues to struggle against this organization, simply play it through. Remind him that one man's lone and unorganized struggle is usually futile in the face of an organized mass.
Have the organization slap him down, deal with him in their own way and maybe he'll wise up.

Sipex
2011-01-14, 01:02 PM
That pretty much sums up the entire argument. Since the character can't possibly know the organization's supposed or actual alignment on the individual or over-all level, is initial reaction and reasoning are flawed. The player in question is playing Chaotic Stupid. Or Stupid Good. Or just plain Stupid.
But if he continues to struggle against this organization, simply play it through. Remind him that one man's lone and unorganized struggle is usually futile in the face of an organized mass.
Have the organization slap him down, deal with him in their own way and maybe he'll wise up.

I would try to get him to like the organisation though or get him to understand that they are not his enemy or else he'll just forever go against them or feel railroaded (ie: The DM doesn't want me ruining his precious organisation so he gave them uber powers).

That said, if he forever has a blood feud with them and you don't mind some humour it could turn out to be an interesting campaign.

Callista
2011-01-14, 01:05 PM
Whatever you do, make sure that the player hasn't misunderstood what you were trying to communicate. Explaining that, "I messed up; I wasn't as clear as I should've been," may be a little embarrassing, but it's nowhere near what'll happen if you refuse to try to correct the error until things start to snowball and your game is a mess!

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-14, 04:45 PM
My take on it.

You said: "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

Player heard: "The organization as a whole is not evil, nor was it set up with evil in mind. It is to preserve the peace of the land by any means needed."

Player thinks: Aha! The BBEG is in charge! I can kill him and win D&D!

This is what I got also. Quite possibly a case of misreading between the lines, perhaps?

Stephen_E
2011-01-15, 01:28 AM
I'll repeat the point of my previous post in this thread, since I think it has been missed in the discussion.

The player's question ("Is this organisation evil?") was wrong.

Basically, this player was asking the DM to reveal an element of his story, instead of roleplaying his character.

Unless the player character has a class feature / spell that allows him to discern somebody's alignment, could he actually get an answer to this. And only regarding the alignments of the members of the organisation that are actually in front of him (i.e. the patrol and their captain).

If I were DM here, I would probably disallow the question, telling the player that his character has no way of determining an organisation's alignment. And then I would tell him what his character knows of the organisation's reputation. And let the player draw his own conclusions.

WTF.
I have no class feature for detecting evil but I can make decisions about whether an organisation is "evil" and I've noticed in media and forums that plenty of other people have no problem with that either.

So the question "is an organisation evil" (as the character is likely to perceive) is entirely reasonable.
The GM then makes a judgement based on what the PC is likely to know about the organsiation, and the characters view, and answers the question.

The answer may not be correct, but the player is entitled to an answer. Even if the answer is "you know nothing about the organisation".

RL Humans have gone many millenium with the concept of good/evil despite not having the "detect Alignment/Good/Evil" spell.

Stephen E

Starbuck_II
2011-01-15, 09:42 AM
If I were DM here, I would probably disallow the question, telling the player that his character has no way of determining an organisation's alignment. And then I would tell him what his character knows of the organisation's reputation. And let the player draw his own conclusions.

That was exactly what the DM did. He told him reputation wise: they are not wholefully evil, but not known as innocent of evil. They also believes in ends justify means meaning not good.

So he knows they are either evil or neutral: the player decided they are likely evil. He drew his conclusions.

readsaboutd&d
2011-01-15, 12:27 PM
It sounds like the character is rather stupid and needlessly violent.
He attacked a presumably innocent man of an at least mostly benevolent lawful force with the intent of murder despite strong forces being around and starts holding a petty grudge afterwards due to a disagreement in methodology.
A good character should have tried peacefully dissolving the force or something else if he could not accept it, not murdering innocents. He sounds rather Chaotic Fanatic more than anything else.

Jornophelanthas
2011-01-15, 05:54 PM
WTF.
I have no class feature for detecting evil but I can make decisions about whether an organisation is "evil" and I've noticed in media and forums that plenty of other people have no problem with that either.

So the question "is an organisation evil" (as the character is likely to perceive) is entirely reasonable.
The GM then makes a judgement based on what the PC is likely to know about the organsiation, and the characters view, and answers the question.

The answer may not be correct, but the player is entitled to an answer. Even if the answer is "you know nothing about the organisation".

RL Humans have gone many millenium with the concept of good/evil despite not having the "detect Alignment/Good/Evil" spell.

Stephen E

In D&D, alignment is an Absolute Facts about creatures and organisations. However, just like in the real world, people cannot see these Absolute Facts (magical abilities excepted). Your knowledge of a creature's or organization's behaviour can give you a pretty good impression of what its alignment could be, but it is never 100% certain.

I agree with you that the player is entitled to check with the DM what common knowledge about the organisation is available to his character, in order to get an impression of its alignment. Questions like this should ideally start with: "What do I know about...?"
The DM's answer to this should ideally start with: "As far as you know..."

However, my perception of the OP is that the player flatly asked the DM: "Is this organisation evil?" This player was not asking for an impression, but for the Absolute Facts. Basically, he expected the DM to tell him if these were the good guys or the bad guys, and treated the answer he got (and his own conclusions) as The Ultimate Truth(TM), rather than as limited information.

It could well be that I am wrong in interpreting what actually happened, but please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

Stephen_E
2011-01-15, 07:00 PM
I would point out that while alignment is an absolute fact, detection spelss that trigger on alignment aren't absolute.

Basically all detection spells can be muffled or tricked and Good/Evil and Law/Chaos detection spells are wildly deceptive because alignment is the waekest of triggers for them.
There are a range of things that trigger them that have nothing to do with the actual alignment of the target.

People to often see the alignment spells as absolute on the issue when they aren't.

As for organsiations, they don;t have alignments as such.

I am curious as to the Int and Wis scores of the PC involved.
If they are low then it's not inappropriate to paly Chaotic-stupid. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

Tarmikos
2011-01-17, 06:54 PM
Figured I'd chime in here, now that I finally have a day off. I'm another player in this campaign, playing a paladin. The apprehension didn't even come across so much as an arrest type deal as being told "I have to ask you to wait here, so I can ask you some questions about your employer"
.....
CG player: I blast him in the face

As Draig said, he's hiding behind his alignment for what may have been a chaotic act, but decidely not good. The guard he blasted didn't even have a weapon drawn, it was more of a relaxed setting.

Part of the problem, I think, is he has preconcieved notions of his class, a warlock, and doesn't see the difference between a traditional evil warlock, and a CG one. Case in point, after being apprehended, to test if he could use magic, he blew a hole through a carriage, rather than something much less smaller, less damaging, and less noticeable.

To be honest, I think a refresher reading over alignments, with examples, might help him out some, to prevent this happening again

Jornophelanthas
2011-01-18, 08:53 AM
I'm another player in this campaign, playing a paladin.

[...]

To be honest, I think a refresher reading over alignments, with examples, might help him out some, to prevent this happening again
Reading this, I would have to second the opinion voiced by many before that his own views on his alignment are closer to CN than CG.

If during such an alignment overview as you propose, the player comes to this same conclusion, I would suggest the DM allow him to change his alignment to CN. After all, if it's what he's been playing the whole time, the change will only be to his character sheet.

BayardSPSR
2011-01-18, 09:26 AM
I don't want to be a hater, but this is the big reason I don't like alignments. I'm sure dozens of people have said this before, but it's still true. In this case, leaving out alignments completely (while maintaining a good but free character and a dubious but well-intentioned police force) might have removed the problem entirely. It would certainly have prevented the question "are they evil", and EVEN IF it had been asked given the DM/GM a chance to say "not evil; maybe a little bad at worst but well-thought-of and generally good" instead of being forced to describe their goodness based on a trinary set of absolute descriptors.

But allowing for alignments, attacking an unarmed man without provocation sounds solidly evil to me, and I'd move him to neutral, and then evil if he keeps it up (as most people here seem to recommend too).

Myth
2011-01-18, 09:51 AM
Sounds to me like we have a bad case of Hollywood tropes mixed with the need to be a cool rebel and sprinkled with copious Chaotic Stupid.

The flaw is with the player. Therefore talking OOC with him is the best solution.

Draig
2011-02-01, 01:28 AM
Alright ive read all the posts since i was last on here and u guys voiced your views alot so forgive me if i forget one or two points. First i will run over the entire scenario that happened.

When the pc's returned to the library (where the battle and incident in question happened) There was one man standing in front shouting that by order of the keepers of justice Dei'loo (the NPC boss to the PCs) was to be questioned by the Keepers. Upon the PC's arrival he told them that they too needed to be questioned concerning matters with Dei'loo. One of the party was a paladin. the first thing he did WAS detect evil on the man standing in front of them. He showed NO EVIL alignment. the Keeper who was standing there told them that he did not wish to fight and wanted no violence to befall them. He also explained that he was a special division of the Keepers in that he had the power to be Judge, Jury, and Execution should anyone break the PEACE of the land. It was then that the warlock (The CG who did a NO-NO) attempted to stroll into the library Via a window on the second floor (spider climbing) When he got to the roof he founded 2 keepers sitting up there in hoods and cloaks as back up to the one on the ground. They told him to please return to the ground and just answer their captains questions. He began walking back down and when he hit the grounded Blasted the captain with a blast. As soon as this occurred 2 things happened. A, The captain drew his sword and said "By order of the keepers you are to be detained for attacking a child of justice" and B. the paladin stepped back and told the warlock "I cannot intervene in this as they have done nothing wrong" The fight happened and the warlock (cg guy) was detained.

After that is when i first posted on here for what to do. HERE is what i did.
The pc's were taken to the Keeper court. Along the way to warlock, to test his powers, blew the side off of the transport carriage. They restrained him further and set up an anti magic field. When they reached the Fortress of Justice the captain who they originally attacked told the Warlock that it was in his power and legal for him to end his life at anytime since the blindside, YET he would not because he was not vengeful nor bloodthirsty and would only kill actual criminals. They then faced the Council of 5 where they were addressed and told the charges against them. It was explained that they were only charged with Aiding an enemy of the keepers and an enemy of the people BECAUSE they found numerous bodies slain and hidden beneath the library. The paladin pleaded guilty through ignorance in that he was unaware of the events that took place. The warlock however fought that charge AS well as he tried to mention that attacking the captain was self defense. They were told that they could prove their innocence through a "Trial by light" where they would fight in the arena and if they lived they were free men. Not to be unjust they were outfitted with quite a few magical items. HOWEVER the warlock STILL is saying that the keepers are evil and that he will take them all down.

SO i need to figure out what would be a good course of action because the keepers are a main story point and resource for the PC's (kind of like how a cleric would seek out the church of his deity for help) however because the warlock feels slighted by them he will do anything to bring them down and by doing so will not only remove a MAJOR plot hook in the campaign but also shoot him straight into the realm of helping the BBEGs. Normally i would play that n let him discover he had gone evil however as soon as he hears that he will go straight to the "Pillage, plunder, and loot" mindset and turn it from an in depth campaign with hooks and a story to a hack slash homicide.


So what now GITP forum? What should i do with this? keep it on hold, start a new campaign, blantantly tell the PC he is acting WAY outside his believed alignment, etc?


Also when i told him about the Cg and CE alignments he told me that his alignment in being chaotic OUTWEIGHED his GOOD alignment. As in he would do something chaotic over doing something good. What the Cracker jack?

Any more questions or clarification i can give you all please feel free to ask.

Hawkfrost000
2011-02-01, 01:52 AM
"I swear I will dedicate every breath of my life to taking down your organization" is a perfectly CG thing to say and do. Taking down the organization by killing them all... yeah, not so much. The problem isn't his goal, it's his methodology.

I know the tongue-in-cheek response will be "No, that's an adventurer," but quite frankly a person whose first resort is to violence and death is simply a psychopath. There are other routes to achieving his goal that are actually in line with that G in his alignment.

+1 :smallsmile:

killing anyone who isnt evil (most goblins, orcs, trolls, ogres and chromatic dragons) or isnt trying to kill you is not a good action.

and killing just about anyone is not lawful



PCs attacked because you arrested them: so the organization was guilty now.

Yes, innocent people run all the time.
Why? Because likely they have been scapegoated or mistreated by authority.
If last 90 times it turned out bad: Are you really going to trust them again?
No, evade them and run.

It isn't the running, but the killing that shows he might not be innocent.

BS pure BS

you cannot Cannot justify that in any way. if you are approached by an officer of the law and arrested by him then you comply. if you are being framed and then are convicted of a crime that you did not commit then you can resist. then you have a good reason. being arrested is not a good reason to resist it is however a good reason to get killed.

my advice to you Draig is get that guy arrested, beat up pretty badly because after all he is a dangerous criminal. then try him for resisting arrest, then convict him and have him serve jail time.

have him face the consequences of his actions.:smallannoyed:

DM

Edit: awww, Ninjaed!

well, its obvious to anyone that these guys are good, the Warlock is just doing this for the hell of it. he is probably not serious about the game.

in which case you either

a) railroad the plot so that it works out as planned

b) have a good heart to heart with the Warlock in RL and sort this mess out

c) kill the warlocks character

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 02:54 AM
a) Alignment isn't a behavioral disorder. "Insane" is not an alignment. No alignment is immediate cause to go and murder people, not even CE - even CE characters, in general, do things for motivations, and are smart enough to not kill people in public where it will get them hunted and killed.

b) "by any means necessary" is usually something an relatively evil group would say. It basically states that any means are acceptable, so long as the end is a "good" one - and that's pretty much pure evil.

Tharkie
2011-02-01, 03:31 AM
He also explained that he was a special division of the Keepers in that he had the power to be Judge, Jury, and Execution should anyone break the PEACE of the land.
If anyone told me something like that I would probably get pretty blast-happy too.

No authority I would consider legitimate would ever allow something like that. As such, the guy trying to restrain me is not backed by a legitimate authority.

They were told that they could prove their innocence through a "Trial by light" where they would fight in the arena and if they lived they were free men.
That doesn't sound remotely good or fair to me, regardless of the odds.


if you are being framed and then are convicted of a crime that you did not commit then you can resist.
Assuming you are talking about violent resistance, by the time they've taken your weapons and locked you up it will be far too late to resist.

SiuiS
2011-02-01, 07:08 AM
I mean what justification can a Chaotic good character have to bring down a Lawfully sanctioned and GOOD organization!?

Found the justification.
Do I agree? Not really. But I can see why this is happening based on your explanation.

BayardSPSR
2011-02-01, 08:51 AM
My instinct is: let it play out.

It has been established that this organization is ridiculously powerful and will punish wrongdoers, right?

Let the warlock do what he wants. If he keeps pressing the issue, the Keepers have a fair chance of catching him. This will lead to a trial. If you play the trial fairly, odds are that it could lead to his execution or life imprisonment (I don't know what the punitive tastes of these people are). The player could know this; letting him know might be a fair means of discouraging him.

Also, if he attempts to recruit followers to this cause, it is likely that many of them will be evil. If he cares about goodness at all, this might dissuade him.


One last thing, though - gladiatorial combat as a form of trial? That doesn't sound so good to me... Maybe this fellow accidentally has a point.


Wait! I lied. One LAST last thing. He insists that the Keepers are evil? As in, capital E Alignment Evil? You can, in fact, remind him that they are not (beyond all doubt). Point to the Paladin's non-detection as evidence.



WAIT! I lied again. One LAST LAST last thing: in fact, I rather like this idea. Keep the Keepers, as a whole, good, but perhaps there is an element within them that is not... That way, his anger at the evil can remain; you just have to redirect it to an acceptable target. He spends his time trying to root out the darkness, rather than massacring them. If he'll let you, of course.

obliged_salmon
2011-02-01, 11:11 AM
Could it be you feel like the character attacking your organization is the same as the player attacking you as a DM? Give it a thought before asserting heavy handedness and railroading. If I set up a good organization that would be there to help to PC's (which none of the players had any input on it being there), and a PC decided he would bring it down at all cost, I would say "cool beans, dude," and change the game to suit the character's goals.

Your BBEG? Scrap him, or make him a high ranking member of the "good" organization.

There's an arena in this place? Arena's are barbaric, horrifying places full of evil and depravity. The existence of one indicates that the society might not be as bright and shiny as your organization likes to think. Use it.

The player is telling you what he wants from this game. I implore you not to ignore him, or believe that his desiring to leave the railroad is bad roleplaying. And yes, if you force him to stay on the tracks, he'll rebel even more, because he'll be playing a game he doesn't want to play.

My two cents.

umbrapolaris
2011-02-01, 11:32 AM
he is definitly CN stupid (the ad&d CN ^^):

1- chaotic: he dont like law, it is clear in his actions.
2- Neutral: he dont care if the guy talking to him is good or not, he attacked him without let him explain.
3- stupid: only a fool will attack a organization without gaining some intel first.

kyoryu
2011-02-01, 12:40 PM
he is definitly CN stupid (the ad&d CN ^^):

1- chaotic: he dont like law, it is clear in his actions.
2- Neutral: he dont care if the guy talking to him is good or not, he attacked him without let him explain.
3- stupid: only a fool will attack a organization without gaining some intel first.

Attacking people without provocation isn't neutral. It's evil.

sonofzeal
2011-02-01, 12:44 PM
Attacking people without provocation isn't neutral. It's evil.
One evil act does not make that person evil.

Knaight
2011-02-01, 01:26 PM
Let this play out. From what I've seen, the character heard someone break in, explain that they had the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner, went to investigate, and saw the lot of them standing over a figure interrogating them. As such, the action taken by his character is well within reason for some people, which suggests that the player isn't trying to be disruptive, and is playing a character who jumps to conclusions.

NichG
2011-02-01, 01:30 PM
Could it be you feel like the character attacking your organization is the same as the player attacking you as a DM? Give it a thought before asserting heavy handedness and railroading. If I set up a good organization that would be there to help to PC's (which none of the players had any input on it being there), and a PC decided he would bring it down at all cost, I would say "cool beans, dude," and change the game to suit the character's goals.


The problem is, it doesn't look like the rest of the party is on board with this. They seem to be disavowing the Warlock, which suggests that if the DM changes the game to satisfy the Warlock's player, the other players will have their enjoyment reduced.

This road can also lead to encouraging bad behavior, e.g., if the player just does whatever they feel like with no rhyme or reason and it always leads to success, the internal consistency of the game will quickly break down. I think it can also devalue the contributions of other players who have engaged with the game world and have built an understanding of how things work within it - whatever reason they apply to their understanding will evaporate into meaninglessness when the game world changes to suit this one player's arbitrary decision.

While I think the Warlock jumped the gun, I do agree that there are iffy bits to this organization that raise warning flags. Most PCs I'd play would be leery of later working with an organization that accused them of something and then used arena combat to test innocence or guilt rather than some more rational method - that smacks of a lack of understanding of guilt or innocence that will make the organization intolerable.

In this situation I'd play it straight: the organization is whatever it is.

However, I'd make it so that if the PCs don't want to work with these people, the plot doesn't require that they do. They might take penalties for that - less access to resources, always running into Keeper patrols that are investigating the same leads and tell them to go away, etc. That way if the Warlock wants to pursue his vendetta, and the other party members don't kill him for being stupid, it at least doesn't destroy the campaign.

I would also bring it up out of game at the table, to make sure the other players don't feel like they just have to go along with the Warlock's plan because he's a PC and not doing it would split the party.

Tarmikos
2011-02-01, 03:02 PM
Let this play out. From what I've seen, the character heard someone break in, explain that they had the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner, went to investigate, and saw the lot of them standing over a figure interrogating them. As such, the action taken by his character is well within reason for some people, which suggests that the player isn't trying to be disruptive, and is playing a character who jumps to conclusions.

Paladin, chiming in again. Actually, no one broke in, as it was a library, during the day. The Keeper of Justice was standing in front, saying we couldn't go in. The warlock tried climbing the building, to get in at an upper level, so he was the one trying to break in, and when he saw it was guarded, came back down and attacked. We never actually found out if they even found Dei'loo, or what they did with him, if they did, so that motivation is out.

obliged_salmon
2011-02-01, 03:16 PM
The problem is, it doesn't look like the rest of the party is on board with this. They seem to be disavowing the Warlock, which suggests that if the DM changes the game to satisfy the Warlock's player, the other players will have their enjoyment reduced.

I would also bring it up out of game at the table, to make sure the other players don't feel like they just have to go along with the Warlock's plan because he's a PC and not doing it would split the party.

Ah yes, I see. Tarmikos is also chiming in about his negative reaction to the warlock's actions, as a player.

I still say that the player's behavior is less bad playing and more different playing. That being said, there seem to be mismatched expectations for the game, and that's something the group should discuss together, outside of the game. Punishing the character's actions in game will seem very constricting to him, unless he understands the point of what the group is trying to accomplish.

Wardog
2011-02-01, 03:16 PM
Characters aren't self-aware of their alignments
Characters who align themselves with the powers of law and evil with binding contracts are probably aware of their alignment. People who can cast discern alignment probably know too.

Although even then, "I shot the sherrif, because I'm Chaotic" is no better an excuse than "I shot the sherrif, because I'm Evil".




He also explained that he was a special division of the Keepers in that he had the power to be Judge, Jury, and Execution should anyone break the PEACE of the land.
If anyone told me something like that I would probably get pretty blast-happy too.

No authority I would consider legitimate would ever allow something like that. As such, the guy trying to restrain me is not backed by a legitimate authority.

That doesn't sound remotely good or fair to me, regardless of the odds.


Assuming you are talking about violent resistance, by the time they've taken your weapons and locked you up it will be far too late to resist.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the fantasy equivilent of Judge Dredd.

If I was a CG character and Dredd and/or a squad of Judges showed up and asked to question me, I'd probably be thinking "... bunch of unacountable pigs ... only a few situation choices away from LE ... I'd tear down the whole stinking organization if I had the chance ..."

But if they were not threatening violence, and specificaly stated they only wanted to ask some questions, then I'd have to be a complete idiot to try shooting Judge Dredd in the face, especially if he had back up with him.

(And the fact that this Keeper has refrained from acting in his right of judge, jury and executioner, despite multiple assaults and escape attempts, shows he is in fact far, far more Good than Dredd).

Draig
2011-02-01, 10:54 PM
b) "by any means necessary" is usually something an relatively evil group would say. It basically states that any means are acceptable, so long as the end is a "good" one - and that's pretty much pure evil. Lets put it this way, if u told one of the keepers "Kill this small puppy or i will release the great evil on the land" they will kill the puppy. Likewise if they are trying to stop the BBEG from gaining freedom or some weapon or the like and as a requirement to stop that they will do a little evil to do ALOT of good.


If anyone told me something like that I would probably get pretty blast-happy too.

No authority I would consider legitimate would ever allow something like that. As such, the guy trying to restrain me is not backed by a legitimate authority.

That doesn't sound remotely good or fair to me, regardless of the odds.


Assuming you are talking about violent resistance, by the time they've taken your weapons and locked you up it will be far too late to resist.
The Judges are an organization that is kept in check daily and as such the nearest RUMOR of corruption is met with swift end. This also could have been revealed to the players had they just asked...instead of blast meets face. ALSO the players were never stripped of their weapons nor were they asked to surrender them. The warlock is the only player that became restrained and that was after he went blasty blasty bang bang on the Captain.




It has been established that this organization is ridiculously powerful and will punish wrongdoers, right?

Wait! I lied. One LAST last thing. He insists that the Keepers are evil? As in, capital E Alignment Evil? You can, in fact, remind him that they are not (beyond all doubt). Point to the Paladin's non-detection as evidence.

One last thing, though - gladiatorial combat as a form of trial? That doesn't sound so good to me... Maybe this fellow accidentally has a point.



WAIT! I lied again. One LAST LAST last thing: in fact, I rather like this idea. Keep the Keepers, as a whole, good, but perhaps there is an element within them that is not... That way, his anger at the evil can remain; you just have to redirect it to an acceptable target. He spends his time trying to root out the darkness, rather than massacring them. If he'll let you, of course.
As to your first point. (i moved your post around so the relative parts were all together, my bad, dont hate.) YES it has been painstakingly obvious that this group is good with a capitol G.... the warlock thought they were lying.

Second point. The gladitorial combat was more than just a trial and is normally reserved for those facing death (i.e. the warlock for attempted murder on a Judge) The very same judge the warlock tried to kill was the one who requested they be given "Stronger" weapons and armor. The arena was also a test to the party (and some cheap and easy XP for the pcs)

Third point. YES! haha. After the arena the party was approached by the leader of the keepers (at least the eldest) and were given rank in an elite group of the keepers to help "Root out" the possible corruption within the very ranks of the keepers. Because even the keepers will admit to a trusted member that not all is right with the world and as such some evil may worm its way into even the most devoted organizations.

BayardSPSR
2011-02-02, 03:26 AM
After the arena the party was approached by the leader of the keepers (at least the eldest) and were given rank in an elite group of the keepers to help "Root out" the possible corruption within the very ranks of the keepers. Because even the keepers will admit to a trusted member that not all is right with the world and as such some evil may worm its way into even the most devoted organizations.

Make sure you let us know how it works. :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2011-02-02, 03:59 AM
Lets put it this way, if u told one of the keepers "Kill this small puppy or i will release the great evil on the land" they will kill the puppy. Likewise if they are trying to stop the BBEG from gaining freedom or some weapon or the like and as a requirement to stop that they will do a little evil to do ALOT of good.


It's a slippery slope. You start with "one puppy for the kingdom." And, really, what's the difference between one puppy and one person? And what's the difference between 1 person and 10? Or 100? Or 1000? Or more? Or what if the people to die are the "bad people" - even if they haven't harmed anyone directly? And who makes that choice?

Once you start saying things like "by any means necessary", there's a high chance that you're gonna cross a line. Even if that's not how you're going to run the group, that's how *players* are going to hear it.

Gnoman
2011-02-02, 04:29 AM
Read the last section of Lord of The Rings. Specifically, the Scouring of the Shire. See how much damage was done through an organization that started out as pure Chaotic Good. now look at the Keeper organization, their unlimited power, and their unlimited willingness to interfere, from that point of view. Think how much damage an organization like that could do by ACCIDENT, not even by malice. That's the point of view that a CG character might well take, that this organization MUST be destroyed before it destroys everything.

Most of my CG characters would have declared vendetta on it for that reason. I suspect your player may have been thinking that way, but not very able to express it.

Tarmikos
2011-02-02, 09:50 PM
Even if that's not how you're going to run the group, that's how *players* are going to hear it.

Erm, actually, as a player, in said campaign. I don't have that problem. By any means necessary is actually quite vague on the means, so we must assume some obvious restraint to be used. Case in point, if I had a way to destroy the world, and I wanted to stop a murderer, I could destroy the world, and it would stop him. That could be taken under any means necessary, but really, there are much easier ways, that would also fit under by any means necessary. It should be taken, that for most rational beings, real or in game, a modicum of restraint is used, and the balance of an action is considered. Yes, any means necessary leaves us open for plot hooks in game, and being tricked outside of it, but should we assume the worst automatically, just because we have seen instances of it? I think not, in my own opinion, at least not without further investigation and observation of an individual or group that uses that saying.


Read the last section of Lord of The Rings. Specifically, the Scouring of the Shire. See how much damage was done through an organization that started out as pure Chaotic Good.

It's been a while since I read LOTR, and as I don't have my books where I can get to them, would you mind enlightening me on that one? I remember a good bit of the general goings on, detail, etc etc, but the specific part you mention eludes me.

Draig
2011-02-02, 10:32 PM
Make sure you let us know how it works. :smallsmile:
Oh most definately

It's a slippery slope. You start with "one puppy for the kingdom." And, really, what's the difference between one puppy and one person? And what's the difference between 1 person and 10? Or 100? Or 1000? Or more? Or what if the people to die are the "bad people" - even if they haven't harmed anyone directly? And who makes that choice?

Once you start saying things like "by any means necessary", there's a high chance that you're gonna cross a line. Even if that's not how you're going to run the group, that's how *players* are going to hear it. Heres some history in this world to help you better grasp this. There was a tyrant wizard who commanded massive armies of the most vile and evil creatures known to the world. When heroes of the land finally worked up the courage and power to slay him the keepers became formed out of the ashes of that battle. The first keeper was a hero who fought this BBEG. Seeing and knowing what the world was like before the last battle he swore to uphold peace and prevent the wizard from ever rising again. The keepers swear that by any means necessary they will keep the peace. So it could be that they have to seal off an entire town and let the people within die to prevent the BBEG from coming back, yes an evil but a necessary evil because if the wizard comes back every man woman and child in the realm will be at risk. YET also if it is required that hundreds of the keepers sacrifice their own lives to stop the BBEG they will do that as well. As long as the outcome is not a real world version of some demonic domain they will do what ever is needed to prevent THAT. They are not some self appointed group of lunatics that pillage and take advantage of the land and its people.


See how much damage was done through an organization that started out as pure Chaotic Good. now look at the Keeper organization, their unlimited power, and their unlimited willingness to interfere, from that point of view. Think how much damage an organization like that could do by ACCIDENT, not even by malice. That's the point of view that a CG character might well take, that this organization MUST be destroyed before it destroys everything.

Most of my CG characters would have declared vendetta on it for that reason. I suspect your player may have been thinking that way, but not very able to express it.

1A. Yes look at the damage a CHAOTIC GOOD character got his whole group in because he decided talking was not in their best interest.

1B. The group is not pure chaotic good nor did i ever say it was. It is made up of individuals who are CG, LG, CN, N, and LN.

2A. The keepers have as much power as is given to them by the people whom they protect and the Laws of the land that they uphold.

2B. They do not have unlimited willingness to interfere. They always give the benefit of the doubt and wish to find peaceful resolution to problems. Getting irked at them is like pitying the bad guys from Scooby Doo. Yes if it wasnt for those meddling keepers you would have gotten away with your evil and unchecked killings.

aart lover
2011-02-03, 01:38 AM
He might be thinking that because chaos is the opposite of law that he immediately must oppose everything lawful. that kind of thinking is Chaotic Stupid. if it were me, i would change his alignment to CE. they tend to favor wanton killing for killing's sake and destruction and such. or, my favorite, apply " Hand of God Intervention" ( i.e. killing his character on the spot, regardless of in-game circumstances).