Have you ever 'risen'?

[Snowbluff]

I've had my characters' alignments changed by my DM before. I've had a CN bard who has gone on a serial killing spree in order to uproot what he thought was a corrupt government. This prompted the GM to shift his alignment to "Chaotic Evil.''

Now, people have fallen. We hear about this constantly with the paladin threads. I wonder... have you ever been forced to be a good alignment? For example, your recently deemed CE bard has done one good deed too many and is bumped up towards good? Or your Paladin of Slaughter stops his hilarious rampage for a moment, and your DM smites him down, saying "THOU ART NOT EVIL ENOUGH!"?

[Tvtyrant]

I had an evil cleric slowly rise up to good and then bounce from good to evil over the issue of raising the dead once. I still say using Speak with Dead and getting permission to use their corpse makes Animate Dead a neutral spell >_>

[Syrinth]

I had an evil cleric slowly rise up to good and then bounce from good to evil over the issue of raising the dead once. I still say using Speak with Dead and getting permission to use their corpse makes Animate Dead a neutral spell >_>

Only problem with that is that Speak with Dead only puts you in contact with the corpse, not with the actual person so it's not actually able to give consent and really shouldn't even understand the concept of giving anything >_>

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think a lot of DMs see good as more pure than evil. If you kick a puppy and then give money to the orphanage, you're still evil. In a similar vein, even if you do good things, you can usually "tarnish" those good things by explaining your evil intentions.

That said, the Paladin of Slaughter's code is ridiculous. You don't exactly have to shift alignment to break that vow.

[karkus]

Paladin of Slaughter is different, though, because they have a specific rule that makes them remain Evil. If it were a Neutral thief who has been giving to the poor and hardly stealing at all, then the DM might make a note of that in case if a Holy Word, etc. were activated.

It always depends on your DM, though :smallwink:

[Bhaakon]

No.

I think the problem is that there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from doing good deeds. A LE politician isn't going to balk at running a soup kitchen to drum up votes. A CE arsonist might save a bunch of orphans from a burning building in order to trick the local authorities into thinking he's not the firebug they've been chasing for weeks. For the evil PC, the means are irrelevant and the ends are everything.

OTOH, there are pretty strict limits as to what even a CG character can justify for the greater good. If a dragon terrorizing a city demands an innocent sacrifice, a good PC can't solve the problem by offering up a poisoned orphan baby for dinner. For the good PC, means are just as important as ends.

[ChaoticDitz]

I think a lot of DMs see good as more pure than evil. If you kick a puppy and then give money to the orphanage, you're still evil. In a similar vein, even if you do good things, you can usually "tarnish" those good things by explaining your evil intentions.

That said, the Paladin of Slaughter's code is ridiculous. You don't exactly have to shift alignment to break that vow.

Which totally annoys me. Good is already harder and has less monetary benefits than Evil, why make that level of BS too? I mean, I can totally see being evil due to puppy-kicking and being raised up to some kind of neutral at least when you help out the orphanages.

And... Depends on the severity of the actions of course, but I as a DM almost always rate intent above the action itself. I don't think a Paladin could not-fall if he murdered an innocent to stave off a demon he had no chance of beating and would destroy the world, but likewise, I'm not auto-evil-ing you for torturing bad guys for information about where the world-destroying gate is or working with evil people for good goals.

Of course, my personal DM style is not "right" according to BoED, in which no matter the reason, performing any Evil act whatsoever is unacceptable because of some vague cosmological balance thing that nobody with any actual sense of morals should be paying attention to anyway. Likewise, evil intent doesn't mean anything if you're performing a bunch of Good acts. I mean, you can save a burning orphanage simply to raise the number of meat-slaves you'll have when you take over the world, but hey, that's still an act of Good! And "performing good acts invariably changes a character over time" too, so apparently by RAW you've just become shafted into good-guy role solely because your evil plans didn't involve JUST evil actions. And now you can't want to rule the world anymore. No, bad person, your character sheet says Good now, stop trying to be the character you want to be, it's not RAW!

[Snowbluff]

No.

I think the problem is that there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from doing good deeds. A LE politician isn't going to balk at running a soup kitchen to drum up votes. A CE arsonist might save a bunch of orphans from a burning building in order to trick the local authorities into thinking he's not the firebug they've been chasing for weeks. For the evil PC, the means are irrelevant and the ends are everything.

OTOH, there are pretty strict limits as to what even a CG character can justify for the greater good. If a dragon terrorizing a city demands an innocent sacrifice, a good PC can't solve the problem by offering up a poisoned orphan baby for dinner. For the good PC, means are just as important as ends.
I've always been under the impression that intent was meaningless. It sets up a terrible double standard if rising is impossible. Means and ends run parallel in how important each alignment would consider them between alignments.

[ChaoticDitz]

I've always been under the impression that intent was meaningless. It sets up a terrible double standard if rising is impossible. Means and ends run parallel in how important each alignment would consider them between alignments.

Intent is meaningless? Okay, enjoy losing your Paladin/Cleric powers and spending eternity in the Lower Planes because using a scroll of (Circle of) Protection From Good to stop your Dominated friends from killing each other is technically an Evil act, not even counting that you were doing it so that you stood a better chance of protecting life as we know it? (Which is a neutral act at worst, even though saving the world that you also live on can have selfish implications)

EDIT: Some will argue this is the reason the Atonement spell exists, but I find it ridiculous.

[Divide by Zero]

No.

I think the problem is that there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from doing good deeds. A LE politician isn't going to balk at running a soup kitchen to drum up votes. A CE arsonist might save a bunch of orphans from a burning building in order to trick the local authorities into thinking he's not the firebug they've been chasing for weeks. For the evil PC, the means are irrelevant and the ends are everything.

OTOH, there are pretty strict limits as to what even a CG character can justify for the greater good. If a dragon terrorizing a city demands an innocent sacrifice, a good PC can't solve the problem by offering up a poisoned orphan baby for dinner. For the good PC, means are just as important as ends.

I'm not sure that's such a good example, since the good of working in a soup kitchen or even saving lives isn't really comparable in magnitude to the evil of sacrificing a baby.

I would say that there are acts where a DM might say, "You can't really call yourself evil if you do that," like with good characters on the other hand, but they would have to be more significant good acts. For instance, if there was a high risk of the arsonist dying to save those orphans, that would be much more a of a bump toward neutral. Or if the politician was putting so much time and/or money into his charity work that it actually affected his own personal gains. In general, probably anything involving substantial meaningful sacrifice on the character's part. Remember, Evil is selfish above all else.

[ArcturusV]

It's happened to me. But more so back in 2nd edition where Changing your Alignment effectively meant "Lose a level". I notice few people seem to care about it otherwise unless you're a Paladin, Cleric, or Druid where Alignment really matters. Even the classes where it's something like "Any Non-Lawful" or"Any Non-Chaotic" no one really seems to keep track of.

But I had a Lawful Evil Fighter/Sorcerer combo who "rose" towards Lawful Good. Because people forgot I was evil. They treated me like I was Lawful Good, even the DM had me treated as if I were lawful good. They kinda forgot that I had a long con going and evil plans that were being set up behind the scenes. They let "Honor" mix with "Good" in their minds.

I still don't think that he was "Good" in any sense of the term. He was plotting behind everyone's back, and manipulating the party and various NPCs for is own end. When he effectively overthrew several kingdoms and declared himself Emperor (In a nearly bloodless coup), I thought it was obvious that he was still Evil. Though it came as a shock to everyone else.

In 3rd edition, the only other time I can think of it happening? I was playing a human cultist dedicated to Fierna. I was told by the DM that I should be "losing" my Vile powers and such because I wasn't really evil. I asked why? He said it was because I had been helping the party kill legions of Demons and that was a lot of "Good" acts and should be moving me away from Evil.

I pointed out blood war. He said that didn't make sense. I told him evil isn't all hippies who get along.

And next session did some vile sacrifices to remind him that just because I kill demons doesn't mean I'm good.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The difference between the good guy doing bad things for good ends and the evil guy doing bad things for good ends is. The bad guy justifies his actions and moves on. The good guy feels bad about it.

Intent is meaningless? Okay, enjoy losing your Paladin/Cleric powers and spending eternity in the Lower Planes because using a scroll of (Circle of) Protection From Good to stop your Dominated friends from killing each other is technically an Evil act, not even counting that you were doing it so that you stood a better chance of protecting life as we know it? (Which is a neutral act at worst, even though saving the world that you also live on can have selfish implications)

EDIT: Some will argue this is the reason the Atonement spell exists, but I find it ridiculous.
Why not just use protection from evil? or protection from chaos, law... doesn't matter which one it is it wards domination regardless of the target or casters alignment.

[Jon_Dahl]

Now, people have fallen. We hear about this constantly with the paladin threads. I wonder... have you ever been forced to be a good alignment? ?

I once had a player who created a true neutral character, but it was obvious that the character was kind-hearted and altruistic. After some time, I promoted that character to neutral good. I was considering lawful good, but the character was somewhere between neutral good/lawful good. I really liked that character and I thought it was excellent roleplaying to start with a devil-may-care fighter and then become good.

[ChaoticDitz]

Why not just use protection from evil? or protection from chaos, law... doesn't matter which one it is it wards domination regardless of the target or casters alignment.

In the case of Protection from Law, that might still be a problem :P And that was meant to be an example for why a technically evil action should be overruled by intent for purposes of alignment. Especially since in the example, I was implying you got that scroll from dungeon-looting on the way to the BBEG or some similar circumstance; if your only option at all to stop your friends from slaughtering each other is a random scroll (and, for that matter, since your friends are Dominated in the first place) this group probably isn't optimized, and certainly doesn't carry Protection from Evil scrolls around on their person.

EDIT: To contribute something meaningful to the thread, I will point out that yes, I have in fact risen in character alignment numerous times. I've reversed the falling of a Paladin, I've gone from grade-A horrifyingly evil villain slowly to one who will give his own life selflessly for others as well as many other good acts while constantly seeking to redeem other evildoers, and I've even played a neutral character in a moral-heavy campaign with a good party and went towards good of all things even as the entire rest of the party fell to Evil around me. I think I can attribute this to a great DM, though.

[hotrodlincoln]

In an Iron Kingdoms campaign, I played a TN Trollkin Fighter 1/Barbarian 10/Occult Slayer 4. He started off as an uncaring borderline death seeker, that would routinely throw himself into suicidal situations. Due to him wearing adamantine armor and taking a bunch of feats to beef up his barbarian DR, actually getting anywhere near dying wasn't happening very easily. He ended up repeatedly throwing himself into the middle of massive mobs and taking a bunch of AoOs on purpose while screaming insults at the enemy to get their attention, on those occasions when another player (usually the rogue) would get caught alone. Eventually the DM bumped his alignment up to NG.

Said character eventually hit it off with a female warrior that was among a group of rescued slaves, and they got married. I took the leadership feat (very suboptimal, given his charisma, but I was okay with that) so that she could pal along with the rest of the group. At one point, our gunslinger was dominated by a brain-in-a-jar, and attacked the nearest target, which was my barbarian's wife. She critted the hell out of the poor woman and gibbed her in one round. Apparently in Iron Kingdoms raises and ressurections are rare and hard to come by, so bringing her back became a big ol' quest for several sessions, whilst my barbarian started taking levels in Occult Slayer, that he might be able to prevent this horror from ever happening again.

Fun character, but after he got his wife back, I had him retire with her. That's the only character I've ever had experience a major alignment shift. Most DMs I play for don't pay much attention to alignment unless your paladin is burning down an orphanage.

[Unbalanced]

My elf took a chance and drank from a magic pool of water inadvertently switching his alignment to Lawful Evil (opposite of what it was).

... Thank **** that was the last session we played and I didn't have to rp him as that alignment, haha.

[Seffbasilisk]

Yes.

I've a Warlock who survived his village being razed by being out hunting during the attack, he returns, and finds another survivor, a small girl, and goes to extreme lengths to make sure she's safe and looked after before he tries to see about himself. During the course of this, he picked up a Holy Blade, and wielded it in the defense of her and his makeshift companions.

After the child was safe, and I was asking the DM about how the Blade's negative level feels (I was Chaotic Evil), he had my alignment bumped up to Neutral, because I was acting selflessly.

Helps with the blade and Detect spells, but yeah.

Have been 'bumped up', but it was due to some rather heroic movements, and him acting good despite his core nature differing.

[Zombulian]

Which totally annoys me. Good is already harder and has less monetary benefits than Evil, why make that level of BS too? I mean, I can totally see being evil due to puppy-kicking and being raised up to some kind of neutral at least when you help out the orphanages.

And... Depends on the severity of the actions of course, but I as a DM almost always rate intent above the action itself. I don't think a Paladin could not-fall if he murdered an innocent to stave off a demon he had no chance of beating and would destroy the world, but likewise, I'm not auto-evil-ing you for torturing bad guys for information about where the world-destroying gate is or working with evil people for good goals.

Of course, my personal DM style is not "right" according to BoED, in which no matter the reason, performing any Evil act whatsoever is unacceptable because of some vague cosmological balance thing that nobody with any actual sense of morals should be paying attention to anyway. Likewise, evil intent doesn't mean anything if you're performing a bunch of Good acts. I mean, you can save a burning orphanage simply to raise the number of meat-slaves you'll have when you take over the world, but hey, that's still an act of Good! And "performing good acts invariably changes a character over time" too, so apparently by RAW you've just become shafted into good-guy role solely because your evil plans didn't involve JUST evil actions. And now you can't want to rule the world anymore. No, bad person, your character sheet says Good now, stop trying to be the character you want to be, it's not RAW!

Blood War Veterans = the most good beings in the universe

[PersonMan]

My elf took a chance and drank from a magic pool of water inadvertently switching his alignment to Lawful Evil (opposite of what it was).

I've always thought it would be cool to have a big switch like that happen with one of my characters. The idea of a sudden shift in morality is interesting.

Especially if everyone's expecting them to suddenly do Evil things.

[Azoth]

I had a Lawful Evil assassin (archetype not class), that was pulled all the way to Lawful Good by the DM. This is inspite of him ghosting and taunting every enemy group we came across. I would scout ahead and pick off any outlying enemies or unguarded targets before disappearing again repeatedly before the main bulk of the group caught up. I would use magic to prject my voice and taunt them, intimidate them constantly while doing it after the first kill too.

My character stole whatever he wanted from NPCs if he thought it would be useful. He had no problem using other PCs as bait or leaving them behind if things went too far south. In the end he was a selfish, survivalist, murderer. The only thing that kept him Lawful was that he has a personal code and some things were off limits even to him. Namely the puppy kicking, child killing, unnecessary destruction of surroundings kind of evil were things he wouldn't touch.

DM's reason for such a cold blooded fear addicted psycho becoming Good all the way from evil...I was doing these kinds of things to the villains and my actions spread good around the areas we went. Nothing more.

I still don't aggree with or understand it.

[XmonkTad]

I DMed for a high level group in a plannar campaign. One PC was a warlock /ur -priest who was LE when the rest of the party was LN/NG. He ended up fighting devils in celestia, so I homebrewed him a Prc that didn't have the alignment restrictions of his classes. He became LN.

His epiphany came in the form of "evil is just as dumb as good" which put him squarely in neutral territory.

[lsfreak]

-snip-

I had a similar situation. Evil campaign, I was playing a Neutral Evil assassin. He had no problems killing those in his way, stealing from those he could, cheating or bribing his way to success, enjoyed bloodshed, and had no problem leaving friends (including the rest of the party) to die when things turned south. But the DM was convinced I was playing neutral because unlike the rest of the party, my character was very careful about not screwing over people unless there was a long-term gain, without the risk of making enemies of someone he couldn't deal with personally. There were times where he tried to talk the party out of killing because it could cause too much trouble down the road. Meanwhile the rest of the party were borderline Stupid Evil (and in one case full-blown Chaotic Stupid as well), which was his standard for what "evil" meant.

It was around that point I realized trying to heavily roleplay with a group that's used to murderhobos-on-rails may not be the best way to go.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

In Pathfinder Society, I have a tiefling magus who drifted from LN to N, who then started worshipping Sarenrae (NG goddess of light/healing/redemption), who then shifted to NG because he failed to act in time to save a fellow pathfinder NPC. Then he multiclassed to Cleric.

[MukkTB]

I'm playing a T/N character right now who uses a lot of positive energy magic. I've been thinking about what I imagine his ultimate path to be. He's operating in an evil area. There are two general possibilities. #1 He eventually runs afoul of the authorities and has to hoof it, essentially leaving the newbie zone to go out on a life of adventure. The running afoul of the authorities will come as a part of not being as evil as everyone else and represent part of his character arc. Or #2 he stays T/N and gets along within the system. I hope to make it one more level to 5 before leaving the newbie zone.

But this is all my own planning. I've never actually had a positive alignment change forced on me by the DM. I've never actually been hit with magic forcing an alignment change either. It helps that I don't normally play classes with strict alignment restrictions.

[Steward]

Huh, so it sounds like most respondents so far don't intentionally rise from evil to good. That is, it sounds like their DMs basically just decided to reinterpret their characters' actions as good even though the reinterpretation didn't fit the player's understanding of the alignment.

I feel like this is a good case of someone rising from evil to good:


I've reversed the falling of a Paladin, I've gone from grade-A horrifyingly evil villain slowly to one who will give his own life selflessly for others as well as many other good acts while constantly seeking to redeem other evildoers,

and this really, really isn't:


But I had a Lawful Evil Fighter/Sorcerer combo who "rose" towards Lawful Good. Because people forgot I was evil. They treated me like I was Lawful Good, even the DM had me treated as if I were lawful good. They kinda forgot that I had a long con going and evil plans that were being set up behind the scenes. They let "Honor" mix with "Good" in their minds.


I mean, I can understand the characters getting confused here, but the DM really should talk to the player and think logically about the character arc before just willynilly changing the alignment of that.

The Fiendish Codex books use a point-based system of alignment that is useful in some respects for NPCs. Basically, there's a list of sample acts in FC2, each one given a certain point value in obeisance (lawfulness) or corruption (evil). If you commit a certain number of these acts and rack up a set number of points, your alignment shifts one step closer towards lawful or towards evil, with the end goal of damning you to the Nine Hells. This works for NPCs and as a good abstraction of how a DM can run devilish corruption but it doesn't make sense to apply it to PCs too; simply counting up the number of evil, good, lawful, and chaotic acts someone has committed shouldn't be enough to change their alignment.

[Slipperychicken]

In some groups I've played in, we've had Evil characters who acted compassionate and simply didn't display evil characteristics, so we bumped them up to Neutral.

[ArcturusV]

Steward: To be fair? It made a little sense, as it was a very long (2 years) campaign. During which I wasn't really being "Evil" in the overt sense. My character SEEMED to be a nice guy. He was helpful, team oriented, he was working to bring peace to the land. If it was anyone else? Would have seem a typical Lawful Good hero type. Except for the fact that I was also actively plotting coups. I was getting the alliegeances of Second in Commands and such with the idea to kill off the mostly incompetent leaders. I set up my teammate as a pariah that I could rally factions around (Which didn't trip Evil-dar so much because said teammate was more blatantly evil).

So near the end this guy who had been working for Peace, making friends, etc. Made his bid for power, killing off a bunch of high ranking NPCs and installing his thralls in their place, having himself crowned the first Emperor of a new Empire, etc. It came as a shock to everyone because "I was such a nice guy" before that.

And in the end he did accomplish a lot of "Good"... but he did it by assassinating worthless, moronic leaders. Using people to get in positions of power, and uniting various kingdoms against a threat that he effectively helped create by teaming up with that PC.

But still, it's a good lesson that DMs should always be long viewed on Alignment and ask "Why" someone is doing something rather than look at the surface.

[Fyermind]

Yes. I played an evil character in a game with a neutral character and a good character in it with the intent of having the character become good through a true change of self. It was a challenge for everyone trying to set it up because I was also plotting to have them killed for a large reward. All in all it was a great campaign.

Everyone, including the DM was on board the whole time, but knew that my PC wasn't. things got tense when his plans starting coming into being faster than his transformation. Good times when you're spellthief has managed to steal a Bestow Greater Curse...

[LordBlades]

I've always been under the impression that intent was meaningless. It sets up a terrible double standard if rising is impossible. Means and ends run parallel in how important each alignment would consider them between alignments.

If intent is meaningless then most powerful people would be whatever alignment benefits them most because 'doing random Good deeds of no consequence to my evil plot just to not ping on Detect Evil' is now a valid strategy.

[Snowbluff]

If intent is meaningless then most powerful people would be whatever alignment benefits them most because 'doing random Good deeds of no consequence to my evil plot just to not ping on Detect Evil' is now a valid strategy.

Well, just like becoming evil from good, you'd have to do a lot of good. Even if it's for publicity, saving your town another evil jerk poisoned is still a good deed. :smalltongue:

[Bhaakon]

Well, just like becoming evil from good, you'd have to do a lot of good. Even if it's for publicity, saving your town another evil jerk poisoned is still a good deed. :smalltongue:


Not if you charge them for the antidote!

[Snowbluff]

Not if you charge them for the antidote!

What if you are doing it at-cost? :smalltongue:

[LordBlades]

Well, just like becoming evil from good, you'd have to do a lot of good. Even if it's for publicity, saving your town another evil jerk poisoned is still a good deed. :smalltongue:

What about let's say a xenophobic elf king who wants elf supremacy over all other races?

He can mercilessly exterminate non-elves at every turn and as long as he does enough Good deeds toward his people (thing which fits his elven supremacy plan like a glove) he'd still register as LG.

So a human paladin could walk into a land ruled by a LG king where he'd get his head chopped off for not being an elf

[Snowbluff]

What about let's say a xenophobic elf king who wants elf supremacy over all other races?

He can mercilessly exterminate non-elves at every turn and as long as he does enough Good deeds toward his people (thing which fits his elven supremacy plan like a glove) he'd still register as LG.

So a human paladin could walk into a land ruled by a LG king where he'd get his head chopped off for not being an elf

Did you ignore the text of my post? You'd have to do a lot of good, and it would also mean not doing to much evil, since that would put you back at square one. The fact evil makes you Evil is already the premise of the thread.

Your making a pointless alignment argument where there is not one.

[Bhaakon]

What if you are doing it at-cost? :smalltongue:

One of those slimy neutrals, I see.

[ArcturusV]

Well... I don't think it's quite a numerical balance myself.

I mean Evil, RAI at least, seems to be defined by Intention. The motives are what matters. Doing something good "So people think you're good" is not a good act, it's still pretty evil as it involve deception and betrayal.

But Good, RAI at least, seems to be defined by Actions. Thus why it's so easy to "Fall", because in the end Good doesn't care WHY you did something that was black flagged, only that you did something which was black flagged. You can do the most heinous acts in the name of the most pure good, and they'd still blackball you out of Celestia.

So in order to "rise" properly, I'd think it wouldn't have to do with some point balance of Good Guy Points vs Puppy Kicking credits. It'd have to be a deeper commitment to change at the intent level. Books seem to support that this was the intention. That redeeming a villain wasn't "Go yonder and build 5 orphanages and work in a soup kitchen every Thursday for 2 years".

But that's probably why it's so hard to properly "rise".

[LordBlades]

Did you ignore the text of my post? You'd have to do a lot of good, and it would also mean not doing to much evil, since that would put you back at square one. The fact evil makes you Evil is already the premise of the thread.

Your making a pointless alignment argument where there is not one.

The point I was trying to make is that with an 'intent doesn't matter' approach you can pursue certain Evil goals without becoming Evil alignment-wise through gambling the system and as such I feel the approach doesn't work. Nothing more.

[DeathGodKyo]

Blood War Veterans = the most good beings in the universe

I think it'd even out to Neutral, actually, since eventually it would come down to Good characters murdering other Good characters along with the Evil.

Or, again using BoED logic, sure, if you're one of the Demons or Devils (most likely a Devil) who has decided to abstain from tricking/performing evil upon humans (which totally affects alignment) to dedicate their entire existence solely to working against and killing other unarguably Evil beings, sure, you are in fact an exemplar of good of the highest moral standards, obviously, so take an Exalted feat. Or two, but there's really only one good one.

[LordChaos13]

I think it'd even out to Neutral, actually, since eventually it would come down to Good characters murdering other Good characters along with the Evil.

Or, again using BoED logic, sure, if you're one of the Demons or Devils (most likely a Devil) who has decided to abstain from tricking/performing evil upon humans (which totally affects alignment) to dedicate their entire existence solely to working against and killing other unarguably Evil beings, sure, you are in fact an exemplar of good of the highest moral standards, obviously, so take an Exalted feat. Or two, but there's really only one good one.

Is it wrong that I want to play that?
A decidedly Evil Demon with Exalted feats and a Neutral Good alignment technically

[bekeleven]

I've seen, and heard of, druids that have lost their powers from doing "evil" acts and dropping alignment.

Has anybody every seen the opposite? Played a lawful neutral druid, saved the world, then had your GM say "You are now lawful good! I hope you weren't depending on those class abilities."

[ArcturusV]

Only when I played 2nd edition. But that was also in part due to alignments being even more silly in their definitions back then. Where Lawful Neutral was really "The world can burn as long as all my contracts are fulfilled" being pretty much the literal definition of it. Neutrality was defined less as "Not giving a ****" like it is in 3rd, and more about a total commitment to some ideal of neutrality and cosmic balance.

... which is a narrow line to walk, and adventuring naturally pushes you to one extreme or another. You rarely found characters who honestly would go "Well... currently in the world Evil is holding sway, so I'll choose good today. And tomorrow when Good is dominating I'll pick evil" and such to maintain such a neutrality.

[DeathGodKyo]

I've seen, and heard of, druids that have lost their powers from doing "evil" acts and dropping alignment.

Has anybody every seen the opposite? Played a lawful neutral druid, saved the world, then had your GM say "You are now lawful good! I hope you weren't depending on those class abilities."

"You saved the world! You are now Lawful Good!" "Why?" "Because... You saved the world?" "You mean that's considered a Good act?" "Yeah, of course! How could it be anything other than selfless Goodness?" "Gee, I dunno, maybe because I kinda live on this world and would be in a bit of a tight spot if it ended?" "... Oh yeah... Lawful Evil!" "Ugh..."

[Zaq]

I've never had a character start Evil and intentionally go to Neutral, or start Neutral and intentionally go Good. I have realized that a character that I called Neutral was honestly a hell of a lot closer to Good than to Evil, which was partially me realizing what the original character concept meant and partially me realizing what some in-character decisions meant. If anyone had asked, I probably would have eventually called him NG, despite TN being written on the sheet. That didn't come up, though, and I didn't make any fuss about it. (When I ported the character over to 4e, I think I wrote NG on the sheet, but I may not even have bothered. We don't make a big deal of stated alignment more often than not.)

[Baron Malkar]

I dont think a DM should just make a character good due to the simple fact that you have to *try* to be good. It takes work to be a good person. It is easier to fall off of a high place than it is to climb up to that place.

[LordChaos13]

I dont think a DM should just make a character good due to the simple fact that you have to *try* to be good. It takes work to be a good person. It is easier to fall off of a high place than it is to climb up to that place.

See I never liked that whole thing.
For one that philosophy is basically saying Evil is the baseline and only through hard work can one be Good (which says a lot about your impression of Humanity)
For another Good vs Evil is a legit battle in D&D between the concepts. if one was easier than the other then clearly they would win. The Blood War is younger than Good vs Evil after all.

Unless 1 Good guy and 1 Evil guy of equal training and natural talent provides inequal amounts of power (in which case Good should have a mechanical benefit over Evil which it very resolutely does NOT) then either a) Evil is not easier to achieve than Good or b) the world is broken with a gaping plothole regarding extraplanar entities.

[supervillan]

I refer you to Kant's Categorical Imperative.

To (over) simplify: Good and Evil are absolutes. Intent does not trump or invalidate Action - if you do Evil to fight Evil, you are also Evil. The murder of an evildoer is still murder.

In the words of another philosopher: "whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster himself."

To translate to D&D: if you cast animate dead to battle a bunch of marauding Orcs, say, you have committed an evil act and it does not matter that you have done so in order to defeat an evil opponent.

By all means fight the marauding Orcs. Act in self defence. But if your "self defence" involves creating undead servants or dealing with devils for power, you are just as evil as those Orcs, perhaps more so.

To rise from Evil to Good would require the forsaking of such methods or powers, repentance, and attempting to make good what you have despoiled.

[Snowbluff]

Then it stands to reason the opposite is true. To become evil also requires that you stop using Good methods.

[LordChaos13]

Then it stands to reason the opposite is true. To become evil also requires that you stop using Good methods.

This, so much this.
So long as you use any fiendish actions that are Evil and Vile you cannot be Good
So long as you use any paragon actions that are Good and Exalted you cannot be Evil

While that may be more extreme it is at least Equal. Prove one wrong and you prove the other

[Lord Haart]

See I never liked that whole thing.
For one that philosophy is basically saying Evil is the baseline and only through hard work can one be Good (which says a lot about your impression of Humanity)

*a lot of other things said in this thread
Ah, the wonders of forgetting that there is also Morally Neutral (which is, indeed, supposed to be a baseline).

[Berenger]

Then it stands to reason the opposite is true. To become evil also requires that you stop using Good methods.

I don't want to nit-pick, but what would be examples of "good methods"? Maybe I'm just a terrible person, but I can't think of any method unusable for evil agendas. :smalleek:




Nevertheless, I once played a half-elf that went from CN thief to NG thief/mage. Terrible series of accidents. One mistake lead to the next. Started with with solid CN stuff, tried to organize uprising against opressive regime. Worked together with that dashing paladin in shining armor. Fell in love with said paladin. Overthrew the evil duke. Became involved with the new government via aristocratic party member. Stopped to be an impoverished street rat. Got rewarded with own fief. Married paladin. Learned that my new fief was an island full of piss-poor fishermen, shipwreckers, scavengers and monster-infested swamps. Invested whole loot of previous adventures in infrastructure, schools, militia and docks to participate in sea trade. Got crit-backstabbed with own magical dagger and resurrected by husbands cleric buddies of LG god. Founded temple for said god. Helped GMs other, epic-level group a bit to save world from evil god of mass destruction. It's hard to tell where the lines blurred...

[Rover]

To quote a man of great power and evil.

"Labels like good and evil are just words. Words with many possible capitalizations."

Though I did play an evil cleric once. He was eventually bumped up to neutral because my DM thought he was "healing too much for an evil character."

[LordChaos13]

I don't want to nit-pick, but what would be examples of "good methods"? Maybe I'm just a terrible person, but I can't think of any method unusable for evil agendas. :smalleek:

Since we are discarding Intentions because Good is:
Raising orphans in a non-abusive environment
Promoting multiracial unity
Giving morale-boosting speeches about freedom and honour (kind of iffy depending on exact phrasing)
Purposefully signing a bad deal granting more power to the other guys than yourself, knowing it isn't the best deal you could get

[Pickford]

No.

I think the problem is that there's nothing about being evil that prevents you from doing good deeds. A LE politician isn't going to balk at running a soup kitchen to drum up votes. A CE arsonist might save a bunch of orphans from a burning building in order to trick the local authorities into thinking he's not the firebug they've been chasing for weeks. For the evil PC, the means are irrelevant and the ends are everything.

OTOH, there are pretty strict limits as to what even a CG character can justify for the greater good. If a dragon terrorizing a city demands an innocent sacrifice, a good PC can't solve the problem by offering up a poisoned orphan baby for dinner. For the good PC, means are just as important as ends.

Well...if the orphan baby was 'already' dead and then the PC just poisoned the corpse, that wouldn't be inherently evil.

Incidentally, the dividing line between good/evil in D&D is a compassion/selflessness divide. Good characters have compassion for all living things and evil characters do not care about others and are selfish.

[Segev]

To me, the way an evil character "falls" - in he sense that he turns neutral or good without meaning to - is rooted in how honest he is to himself about his motives. This is detectable in action: he an say he's maintaining appearances all he wants, but when his actions are too often selfless, too often only going to "keep up appearances" because he saved the life that will believe his appearance (especially if there was far greater risk in TRYING to "keep up appearances" than in not doing so and claiming you tried)... he may be more good than he's admitting.

The more the character is having to "justify" his actions, the more suspicious his alignment claims ultimately are. Regardless of what they are.

I find, personally, examining what a class's alignment restrictions are meant to represent helps inform how "falling" happens, when it comes to pursuing adherence to these alignments. The Druid, for example, is neutral because nature is impartial: its cruelty is that of what-is; its kindness is what you take from it. A lawful neutral Druid respects the laws of nature, the order within its mysteries and it's balance of life and death. Saving the world isn't generally enough to be "good." But a Druid who acts too often to save life, who sacrifices of himself for others, is Good. If he is already Lawful, the shift to Good means he is not balanced at all. Order of man and reason clearly rules him, as the laws he values are those of civilization for the sake of sentient beings. He has lost his divine perspective on Nature.

He could recover it by returning to his old LN alignment, re allot that the Order of Nature is the law of tooth and fang, of the circle of life. Protection of the self wining that law can only be suppressed when the laws of nature are served, such as a mother protecting her offspring and thus preserving her genome.

Alternatively, he can regain his divine connection to Nature while retaining his merciful outlook by embracing that Nature's life-giving mercies have little to do with the laws of sentient beings. Nature works in it's own way, and the mysteries of life are so complex that no law can contain the whole. As Nature gives indiscriminately of her bounty, so too must the Good Druid. The laws of civilization, the judgements of ownership and sentient rulers are only meaningful to the extent that they serve to help understand Nature's gifts. The Good Druid is not wholly disrespectful of the idea of Law; neither is he going to let it stop him from helping all who do not violate some very sime tenets.

So yes, a Druid who becomes too much a fanatic for the mix of alinements is too much a being of civilization or despoiling foolishness to remain a Druid.

[morkendi]

I got a perfect example of an evil character doing good. I played a gnome shadow craft mage. He went to a town where a little boy tried to steal from me. I caught the kid and charmed him to find out where he lived. I talked to the mother and found out they needed to steal to survive because the local thugs guild charged people for protection. The problem was that if anyone showed they could pay for protection, the guild would rob and beat them. People were starving because of this. I gave her money to buy food, but she was seen. The guild came that night. I hid inviso while they beat and robbed the family. I followed the thugs to the guild house. I followed them to the leader. I shadow welled myself. In the shadow well, I summoned a bunch of allips who I put in my bag. When well dropped, I pollymorphed the leader into a chicken and ordered the allips to kill any armed opponent in the house. I grabbed the chicken and left. I went to the family and told them I heard what happened, but I think things will be better now. By the way, I heard they took everything, so I picked up this chicken on the way over.

Things I did where utterly evil, but they were for a good purpose. My DM insist I am LE.

[Berenger]

Since we are discarding Intentions because Good is:
Raising orphans in a non-abusive environment
Promoting multiracial unity
Giving morale-boosting speeches about freedom and honour (kind of iffy depending on exact phrasing)
Purposefully signing a bad deal granting more power to the other guys than yourself, knowing it isn't the best deal you could get



My next plot will totally revolve around the ruthless dictator benevolent king of Atesh that voluntarily signs an incredibly disadvantageous commercial treaty to stir up resentment against the trade federation of Beshea is intimidated into signing an insufferable "agreement" by the dreaded beshean navy and their unscupulous mercenaries.

"In these times of hardship and threatening war, it is of paramount importance that all citizens of Atesh, whether human or elf or halfling, stand side by side as brothers in arms to defend their country, their freedom and their honor against the beshean aggressor!"

Six months of preemptive warfare against Beshea. Orphans and crippled veterans starving in the streets weaken popular support for the war.

"Our struggle for peace demands sacrifices, but rest assured that the royal house of Atesh will take care of the poor souls battered by the unspeakable atrocities comitted by our enemies. Our heroes fallen in battle shall find comfort in the fact that their surviving dependens shall not endure destitution..."

The party won't see it coming when they sign up on their heroic quest to strike against the beshean warmongers...

:smallamused:

[LordChaos13]

if you ever do run it, PM me I want in :smallbiggrin:


And really what is the difference between that and this:
The Benevolent ruler Terror-fueling despot King Jarkariss of the Kingdom of Netaru Claims the crown of Umenti in a bloody conquest, carving swathes of land and countless lives before decapitating the True King of Umenti in a cowardly act, after accepting his surrender
With the newly combined kingdoms he institutes vast sweeping reforms making the practice of Arcane magic and the former culture of the Umenti illegal, instituting a variant based on the praise of Gods rather than meditation on Humanoids and finding their true place in the cosmos.
Within a decade the famous mages of Umenti where no more. Many dying suspicious deaths after their cooks quit and were replaced by Netaru chef, others imprisoned for crimes made up almost on the spot, laws never on record in Umenti before now.
The adventurers of the nation wiped out, the monsters held at bay burgeoning in population becoming a threat to Umenti once more, several bands of orcs seen gathering near cities

The truth:
The Umenti were power-mad sorcerers with a God Complex, believing in the inherent superiority of Humanoids, Humans in particular. Their culture and religion involving torture and sacrifice of non-humanoids brought to an end, with laws instituted to make the killing of self-aware Non-Humanoids a crime, as well as numerous other sapient rights violations
The Wizards of Umenti taken out with fast-acting low-pain poisons because of the high risk of rebellion
The monster populations, from orcs to medusa, finally recovering after centuries of hunting

[Bhaakon]

Raising orphans in a non-abusive environment

To gain their undying loyalty as servants in your secret police force.


Promoting multiracial unity

To more easily extend your iron-fisted rule over a multi-racial empire.


Giving morale-boosting speeches about freedom and honour (kind of iffy depending on exact phrasing)

As you say, rhetoric is a double-edged sword.


Purposefully signing a bad deal granting more power to the other guys than yourself, knowing it isn't the best deal you could get

Letting some poor sap serve as the figurehead/assassin bait while you pull the strings from the shadows.


Like I said, the problem with unintentionally "rising" and evil character is that they don't really care about the means as long as the ends are met. If anything, corrupting "good" means to achieve evil ends is even more perverse (and effective, since they can hide behind the shield of their public good acts).

[ArcturusV]

Actually short of the Orphanage, just to drive it home, my totally Lawful Evil Fighter/Sorcerer did the exact same thing.

He promoted unity and peace between the various races and nations, drawing them together in an Alliance he brokered in order to defend themselves against marauding evils like Demons, Orcs, Dragons, other Party Member.

He was almost "bardic" in his oratory and would give speeches about unity, honor, the strength of duty, and how all must chip in to secure the freedom of the land.

And originally he used his bardic like qualities as a speaker and storyteller to pass on the party's deeds as those of his NPC traveling companions/thralls that he was using to gain positions of legitimate power. Thus instead of telling about how HE broke the siege of the sacred cathedral of Tristram, he told about how the Princess of Celez he was traveling with rallied the defense, took up arms, murdered dozens of Orcs personally, slayed ogres, etc. So that she became this legendary figure in her homeland, not only the legitimate heir but seen as a WORTHY heir who proved herself a hero. Ignore the strange foreigner who she seems infatuated with and wants to take as a husband, surely he had nothing to do with it. He's not even from around here.

[Subaru Kujo]

Had one that was on the way. A Lawful Neutral fighter of St. Cuthbert (archer, by the way). She wasn't quite as stick in the butt as a paladin, but she was quite ruthless to those that broke the law (executing a charmed (professed) slaver was among the most clean things she did).

(Un?)Fortunately, contact with the party's wizard helped her loosen up a bit. Would have loved to see where she would go (had a talk with the GM about her leading the secret corps of St. Cuthbert's church on his world (a prestige class known as the Arrows of Retribution (Order of the Bow Initiate reskin and then some. Wanted her to be somewhat roguelike without taking the class)).