Cleric alignment change?

[SapereAude1490]

So I have a PC that's a Drow Cleric of Eilistraee, Chaotic Good.

The party consists of 5 people:
NE Warlock
LE Rogue/Assassin
CN Warmage/Spellthief
NN Fighter (with leadership)
CG Cleric.

So, the PC's were to attack this small fort, and the Warlock invoked Fly and Invisibility and scouted around. He went in at night, and managed to get into the barracks. He went back, used a Teleport Scroll (being a Warlock, he has really high UMD) and brought with him the Cleric and the Assassin.

Assassin just murdered 8 of the soldiers in their sleep, and the Cleric did nothing. Absolutely nothing. Total and utter apathy. Should she change her alignment to Chaotic Neutral?

[Matticussama]

I'd say it depends upon who the soldiers were and, more importantly, what they were tasked with doing. Chaotic Good encompasses the rebel with a cause stereotype, and if these soldiers were threatening death and destruction upon good people then killing them can be seen as a necessary evil. If by stopping these soldiers they somehow averted or delayed harm to more numerous innocents, then I wouldn't punish the cleric.

If, however, there are no mitigating circumstances regarding the soldiers (no impending doom, no track record of brutality and tyranny, etc) then I'd definitely suggest that the player consider CN if that is the morality of their character. If they don't willingly change, then alignment shift the next time the character does something similar (i.e. by establishing a pattern of apathy in the face of wanton murder).

[ArcturusV]

Well, I've always been of the thought that your alignment should depend on YOUR actions, not the actions of others. Some characters specifically have "others" codes, like Paladins. And that's a reason why people tend to hate having one in the party. So why emulate that if you don't have to?

As a Chaotic type you don't have to recognize "rules of war" or anything. As long as you can justify the deaths, or the lack of interference on your part as "Good" in some way, you're clear.

Even if that justification was merely "I am not going to betray those who have fought by my side in good conscious".

Betraying your allies, or working cross purposes isn't very Chaotic Good.

[SapereAude1490]

The soldiers were just regular NN LvL 1 Warriors, and the PCs knew this. The Warlock has +18 Diplomacy and the Figher +16 Diplomacy. And they know this very well, as they often use these social skills to their advantage. They could have very easily turned the soldiers or even bribed them - they had the gold.

So I'm unsure if should punish someone for their inaction.

[ArcturusV]

It depends on more context than that. And the thing is, as soldiers? Legitimate targets. if they posed any threat, even "They might alert someone who is actually a threat to our presence", it shouldn't even register as a blip on the scale.

[SapereAude1490]

Yeah, you're probably right. Still, if these "blips" add up, I'll have to do something about it. I mean, she didn't even say a word...

[Matticussama]

How vocal is the player? If the player is more timid, then she may not have spoken up in order not to provoke the other players into an argument. I've had this situation happen several times in the past, where one of my more introverted players didn't speak out against a party member's actions because they didn't want to cause contention or spark confrontation. If that is the case, you may want to go a little easier on her.

[SapereAude1490]

She speaks when she thinks she has something to say, and that's what's concerning me the most; the fact that she just stood there, and did nothing. Whenever there's something about religion going on, she can't seem to shut up. :smallbiggrin: She is a very good roleplayer.

[eryrwyn]

She is a drow however and even though Eilistraee is a good deity, many of her priestesses (and now priests) are good with a question mark - at least, that's the way I see it. Many of her clergy are drow trying to turn away from their evil background, but the drow mentality is strong. Of course, they turn away from the evil practices and all the 'pure evil' of their race, but some thought patterns are strongly imposed in their minds. Like the casualties of war. I'd say the Eilistraeens, or at least the majority of them, doesn't consider killing in war any act they'd have to repent for. (Unless you're either an exalted servant of Eilistraee, or a Silverhair Knight, who have sworn not to kill other drow and avoid killing others at all costs.)

So it all depends on the backstory of the cleric too, in my opinion. (Personally, I love to roleplay the CN part of Eilistraee's clergy :smallbiggrin: )

[morkendi]

I always played CG until recently. My view is they will do the the surest way to end evil. If there was even the slightest chance the soldiers would reviel them, that chance was eliminated as long as the end means are good. For example, some guy grows up to cause a great war that kills thousands and the party finds a way to go back in time to stop them. A LG character would try to influence the child away from evil where a CG character might go back and assassinate the child's innocent mother while she carried the child because that death would prevent the war and the thousands of people dying. A CG character can do anything if they can justify it. Even if it was simply not wanting to confront the party becauseshe needed them all to be at the top of the game to compleat their mission.

[Susano-wo]

Gonna say that there is nothing necessarily evil about commando/stealth operations. Sounds like they were on such a mission and eliminated the soldiers in the line of it. Nothing in the description says evil act(and of course even if it were, it does not necessarily mean alignment change)

The alignments are broad categories, not discrete settings where you are X/Y, so you should act like Z

[TuggyNE]

I always played CG until recently. My view is they will do the the surest way to end evil. If there was even the slightest chance the soldiers would reviel them, that chance was eliminated as long as the end means are good. For example, some guy grows up to cause a great war that kills thousands and the party finds a way to go back in time to stop them. A LG character would try to influence the child away from evil where a CG character might go back and assassinate the child's innocent mother while she carried the child because that death would prevent the war and the thousands of people dying. A CG character can do anything if they can justify it. Even if it was simply not wanting to confront the party becauseshe needed them all to be at the top of the game to compleat their mission.

Ironically, you also just described the classic LE.