Changing your players alignment

[Deca4531]

So i have a player that committed what i see as evil act, though he says he can justify it is neutral (which is his alignment). after a battle they managed to incapacitate an enemy and interrogate him. after they had their information the player in question killed the prisoner.

now personally i see murdering a defenseless prisoner as evil, but he argues that if he got loose he might warn someone or attack them again. i am playing with the idea of bumping him alignment from NN to NE if he commits another evil act.

is this going to far, and how do you feel about forcible changing a players alignment?

[ryu]

So i have a player that committed what i see as evil act, though he says he can justify it is neutral (which is his alignment). after a battle they managed to incapacitate an enemy and interrogate him. after they had their information the player in question killed the prisoner.

now personally i see murdering a defenseless prisoner as evil, but he argues that if he got loose he might warn someone or attack them again. i am playing with the idea of bumping him alignment from NN to NE if he commits another evil act.

is this going to far, and how do you feel about forcible changing a players alignment?

Was the opponent actually a justifiable future threat either through direct possible confrontation or informing an affiliated enemy faction of the parties presence? If so you could call this not good pretty easily but not evil. Neutral people are never required to put themselves in harms way for no benefit. That would be the good guys.

[lytokk]

Did they have the means to transport him back to a local authority? If not, then its a very grey area. I'd say keep an eye on him for now. if he makes a habit of this, then yes, shift alignment. If its only one time, I wouldn't change the alignment just yet.

[Urpriest]

In general, I prefer the "based on what you've told me about your character's personality and alignment, this isn't something your character would do. Can you explain your character's motivation to me?" approach rather than the "you have performed X number of evil acts and are now evil" approach.

In terms of killing the prisoner, how immediate was the danger of a response? If they were surrounded by the enemy and trying to be as quiet as possible, then even a Good character might decide to kill a prisoner if the alternative would risk death for everyone in the party. On the other hand, if the danger is more "well, the guy might eventually get loose, and find allies a few miles away" then it seems unnecessarily ruthless.

[Eulalios]

In some cultures, the PC would fail his duty to ancestors and progeny if he failed to eat the prisoner.

Other cultures, killing a prisoner is a despicable act.

What's the mores of your game setting?

[BWR]

1. If your player has committed an evil act, report him to the authorities.
2. If you can forcibly change their alignment, report yourself to scientific examination immediately to find out how it works and possibly reproduce the effect. Be ready to be the most famous person on earth soon.

Jokes aside, if a character doesn't act like the alignment on his sheet, change the sheet. You don't need to be an absolute **** about it; one minor instance of theft or deception and a LG person is suddenly CE, but in your case I'd say talk to your player. Explain that since you are the final arbiter of morality in the game, your decision goes. Preferably explain this before they commit to the action. If this is the lesser of two evils situation (fate of a LG realm at stake and this one risk is too great to accept), I'd probably put him in danger of turning evil, but not enforce it so long as he shows regret and doesn't do it again. If this is merely cold pragmatism (they can't bother me if they're dead), I'd slap him down to NE immediately.

Really, a DM should sit down and announce beforehand in clear terms what sort of actions she defines as good/evil/lawful/chaotic before the campaign starts so everyone knows the basics. You can't cover all situations but you can get a lot of bad stuff out of the way.

IMC, I've adopted a rough alignment point system similar to what you got in Planescape: Torment or Neverwinter Nights - any time a PC does something significant, they move one or more points along one or both of the alignment axes.
Trying to game the system (I can do some evil now because I've been so good recently) will get you thrown immediately over to chaotic neutral, and probably evil.

[Flickerdart]

Neutral characters (and even Good ones) are allowed to commit Evil acts from time to time. As long as they don't make a habit of it (or for Neutral characters, balance it out with roughly the same proportion of Good acts) then they stay where they are.

[Deca4531]

Was the opponent actually a justifiable future threat either through direct possible confrontation or informing an affiliated enemy faction of the parties presence? If so you could call this not good pretty easily but not evil. Neutral people are never required to put themselves in harms way for no benefit. That would be the good guys.

the area behind them was cleared, so should he escape he would have to walk past the PCs to reach anyone. the only reason the creature attacked in the first place was due to extreme fright after seeing a ghost. the PCs could have trasported him back to town easaly, and i did explain to the player in question that "you are about to murder an unarmed, tied up, coroprating prisoner." so he knew ahead of time i considered this to be evil. even if he got loose and attacked, he only had 1 HP left and they all knew that.

[lytokk]

that actually sounds pretty evil to me. Maybe not enough for an alignment change, but pretty close to it.

[Deca4531]

that actually sounds pretty evil to me. Maybe not enough for an alignment change, but pretty close to it.

i dont want to change his alignment right away, but i have made a note of it and if this behavior continues i do plan to make hin NE. i was mostly wondering if forcibly changing a players alignment was generally frowned upon. his character is a rogue, no back story from his yet, but comes off as the "annoying charismatic" type. there is nothing in particular about his character i think what would justify nore than necessary evil personally but who knows.

[lytokk]

I've had DMs change my alignment before, and I've done it to some of my players too. If they aren't playing an alignment correctly it should be changed on the sheet.

For example, I had a player playing a LN monk, but he played anything but lawful. Since lawful is a requirement for the class, I gave him several warnings and even talked to him about it. Around the time I was going to change it, he lucked out on a deck of many things and asked if he could use 2 of the 3 wishes on the abiity to play a chaotic monk. Seeing as how that gt rid of those wishes I agreed.

Another time when my alignment was changed, it went from CE to TN. After spending years with a good aligned party, my characters mood had mellowed considerably, though he did maintain an antihero personality, just not as murderous as he had been.

[Deca4531]

Now how should i balance Act with Intent? in the their current situation they have an option to let a group of hoggoblin children die in a flood or attempt to save them. i have good players in the party as well, though i dont think they are lawful. would arguing to leaving the children to die be considered evil intent, and would not arguing to save them conflict with a good alignment?

[lytokk]

If they can save the children, a good party should. Like they're in the hallway while your players are running out of the flooding mine. If the players can't remember the children are tucked back in some nursery, I wouldn't penalize them. If they run past the kids, well, a hero would rescue them. So, I really am not sure. Arguments could be made for either case.

Now if your rogue stops to kill them, then shift him down to evil without a second thought.

[Deca4531]

If they can save the children, a good party should. Like they're in the hallway while your players are running out of the flooding mine. If the players can't remember the children are tucked back in some nursery, I wouldn't penalize them. If they run past the kids, well, a hero would rescue them. So, I really am not sure. Arguments could be made for either case.

Now if your rogue stops to kill them, then shift him down to evil without a second thought.

I have gotten into hours of debate with friends aver what good and evil would mean. normaly i go off the books discription (and BoED). they all know the kids are there, they were specificly pointed out as non-combatants. there was a little discussion about what should be done with them before we called it a night but nothing was decided upon.

[SethoMarkus]

Neutral characters (and even Good ones) are allowed to commit Evil acts from time to time. As long as they don't make a habit of it (or for Neutral characters, balance it out with roughly the same proportion of Good acts) then they stay where they are.

I agree with this. True Neutral can be a difficult alignment to judge, but unless he makes a habit of this behavior he shouldn't be at threat for an alignment shift. Do you threaten to shift him to Neutral Good if he commits too many "good" acts?

Don't worry about keeping track of the number of evil/good acts the character perpetrates, and instead take a look at how the character is played on average. If the character starts to act too sporadic consider shifting to Chaotic Neutral; if the character consistently goes above and beyond to help others consider shifting to Neutral Good; if the character consistently lies, cheats, steals, and murders, then shift to Lawful Neutral.

[Red Fel]

Wait, back up.

You say he's neutral... and a rogue? And you'd be making him NE? Does that mean he's currently TN? Or, more worrisome... Is he CN? (In which case, how would he get to NE? But I digress. I'll look at that anyhow.)

If TN, he's walking the hardest possible line. TN is one of the most difficult alignments to play, because Neutral in general is hard to conceive; TN is extraordinarily difficult. However, if done on the cheap, it becomes surprisingly easy; just offset every good deed with a bad one, and vice-versa. It's not perfect, it comes of dirty, but it's technically correct. In this case, had your players just done something noble or heroic? Following that up with a fairly evil murder of a defenseless prisoner is a fairly effective offset.

If he's CN... You've probably got a problem. Not all players do this, but CN is commonly described charitably as "Chaotic Selfish," and uncharitably as "CE with good PR." If he's playing a CN rogue, there's a reasonable chance that he expects to be fairly evil. Be ready with the alignment hit.

That said, I'll agree with the remarks of earlier posters. A single evil act does not an alignment hit make (unless it's, you know, genocide or making a horcrux or eating a non-Evil baby or rolling Truenamer or something major like that). It may cause people to lose class features, but fortunately rogues don't worry about that.

I'd take him aside and warn him. Tell him that he committed an evil act, and accept no argument on it - you're the DM, and if you say it's capital-E Evil, then it's evil, done and done. Let him know that if he does more like this, he can expect an alignment penalty. It's not a checklist - it's not a case of "X number of evil acts means alignment drops." It's a question of habit - if the character shows a tendency to do evil, then he's more Evil than he was.

With regard to act versus intent, I'm of the opinion that it depends on your starting point on the G-E spectrum. For a good character, acts matter more. Regardless of intention, there is little justification for a truly evil act. There may be some if you're CG, it may be acceptable to rough somebody up for information, but there is no justification for a truly evil act, even in the name of the noblest of causes. By contrast, for an evil character, intent is everything. An evil character can sponsor a charity; if it's a PR stunt to distract from his criminal enterprises, it's still evil, even if the charity ends world hunger. He can open a school for orphans and adorable waifs; if it indoctrinates them in the teachings of his evil patron and trains them to be loyal killing machines, it's still evil, even if they get three square meals a day, a solid education, and an appreciation for the works of Wagner and Mahler. And so on.

[Deca4531]

has anyone ever perfected an alternate alignment system for d20? i liked the good/evil system in fable 1. i think it might be interesting to reward people for RPing out their alignment more. maybe earning x points for Y deed and at certain points gaining rewards like +5 to intimidate (for evil) or +5 to diplomacy. perhaps if they put a lot of work into it earning a template for free like Saint or Vile.

[Deca4531]

That said, I'll agree with the remarks of earlier posters. A single evil act does not an alignment hit make (unless it's, you know, genocide or making a horcrux or eating a non-Evil baby or rolling Truenamer or something major like that). It may cause people to lose class features, but fortunately rogues don't worry about that.

Hmm, what about eating a neutral or evil baby? i might make a character around that basis. "i snuff out future evil by eating the evil babies of today."

[Red Fel]

Hmm, what about eating a neutral or evil baby? i might make a character around that basis. "i snuff out future evil by eating the evil babies of today."

Funny thing about an arbitrary alignment system. Apparently evil outsiders are so evil that killing them is always a good act.

So evil outsider infanticide is a-okay in the eyes of basically every good-aligned deity ever.

[hamishspence]

Most evil outsiders don't reproduce the standard way though, so may not have infants. Erinyes are one of the few exceptions.

I'd go with "murder's normally an evil act" not being overridden by "killing a fiend is always a good act".

So killing a fiend bartender just in order to rob his store (there are some, places like Sigil) could qualify as Evil and Good simultaneously, causing all 4 Paladin variants who commit it to Fall.

And depending on the game, I might drop "always a good act" entirely. This would allow Paladins of Tyranny and Paladins of Slaughter to participate in the Blood War without promptly falling.

[Magesmiley]

i dont want to change his alignment right away, but i have made a note of it and if this behavior continues i do plan to make hin NE. i was mostly wondering if forcibly changing a players alignment was generally frowned upon. his character is a rogue, no back story from his yet, but comes off as the "annoying charismatic" type. there is nothing in particular about his character i think what would justify nore than necessary evil personally but who knows.

I let my players put whatever label they want on their character sheet. And then I pay attention to how they are playing the character.

I generally don't announce an alignment change to a player. If, based on my observations, the player isn't playing his/her alignment for an extended period of time, things start reacting to the character as if he/she had a different alignment. For example, repeated evil acts from a character might cause the character to start detecting as evil (which could have some negative effects on NPCs). Or an intelligent item might stop cooperating. Or a cleric might wake up and not be able to recover spells.

It is up to the PCs to figure out why this is happening and change course if they wish to.

[Tulya]

If your setting empowers societies, and authorities within those societies, to render such judgments without the acts being Evil, then there's no reason individuals should be inherently incapable of doing the same on the Good-Evil axis alone. That is, whether or not someone has 'authority' to act in a certain role is a matter of the Law-Chaos axis. As long as they are ultimately being driven by the same essential reasoning and intentions as, say a Magistrate enacting a just punishment on captured Bandits, then I don't think you can dock them any worse [than the Magistrate] on the Good-Evil axis regardless of whether or not they have the lawful right to act in that role.

But I'm speaking in generalities, rather than attesting to the alignment of the specific scenario described in the OP.

[ArcturusV]

I'm gonna throw up this tact, since I don't think it usually gets mentioned in these sorts of topics:

Why do you feel the need to keep track of, and legalize the player's alignment?

I think this is a valid question. Older editions had penalties for changing alignments, like XP loss, that made walking an alignment very important. However, he's a Rogue. Unless he's planning on PrCing out to something like Slayer of Domiel or Assassin, Alignment isn't really an impact on his life. Not like he loses XP for changing Alignments. Not losing out class features, etc. Considering it sounds like the rogue is playing true neutral I'd just let him take a hit on it and keep on trucking, no problem.

For a character like this, Alignment only matters in so far as you decide it matters. But even then it's not Alignment you should worry about so much as reputations and perceptions. Short of... I dunno... an encounter with Paladins, or maybe some Fiend who will go "Oh, I smell the evil on you, come, lets make a deal" at the Rogue... his alignment just isn't really going to come up.

I mean you can argue things like Detect ____ are low level spells and maybe your society uses "Detect Evil" on random people before they meet the King or something. But Alignment doesn't really define things. There are people who detect "good" who are trouble makers. There are people who detect "evil" that you can implicitly trust to do what you ask of them. It's a foolish person in DnD who depends on Alignment to decide how they relate to people. So the argument that he suddenly "Pings evil" and thus it's needed to be enforced isn't really a valid one either. Least not as I see it. So since it's not really important, you can "let it slide" until it becomes a serious pattern of behavior where any situation that he runs into, he goes for the "Evil" answer right away.

So it comes down to reputation. Which is more important. If someone saw him do this, lived to tell the story, and provided the reputation of this rogue as a cold blooded killer of helpless prisoners... THAT might have a more lasting impact (Regardless of Alignment). If no one saw it? Not like Paladins are going to come out to smite his ass for an act they had no way of knowing had even occurred. But it can make for an interesting story when... later on you're in town. And one of the party members is getting sauced and telling a story about how his buddy just executed this guy in cold blood to the random wench he's been talking to. And thus a story starts. A little reputation, you find people in that tavern avoid the Rogue a bit, are a little scared of him. If there's a bar fight and the guards intervene they're likely to finger the Rogue because he's a "Mad dog psycho" anyway... etc.

[Andezzar]

Most evil outsiders don't reproduce the standard way though, so may not have infants. Erinyes are one of the few exceptions.

I'd go with "murder's normally an evil act" not being overridden by "killing a fiend is always a good act".The offspring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfFiend.htm) of Erinyes or Succubi are outsiders and evil. they are not AFAIK fiends so the rule might not apply. Fiend is a not properly defined subset of Evil outsiders.


And depending on the game, I might drop "always a good act" entirely. This would allow Paladins of Tyranny and Paladins of Slaughter to participate in the Blood War without promptly falling.Yup, the normal paladins have it bad, but paladins of tyranny and slaughter are pretty much unplayable, if you take the good act=fall rule seriously.

[Alefiend]

Wait, back up.
If TN, he's walking the hardest possible line. TN is one of the most difficult alignments to play, because Neutral in general is hard to conceive; TN is extraordinarily difficult.

:smallsigh: Almost everybody you have ever met (and probably yourself as well) is neutral. Playing this alignment is arguably the easiest one because it is how we live our lives, with the exception of mob hitmen and full-time charity workers.

[ArcturusV]

Pretty much, but uniquely most everyone would probably say "Yeah... I'm good" when it comes down to it. Then again I think even the Player's Handbook briefly touches on that and most people being mystified about "What's your Alignment" being asked to them and generally thinking they're good people.

[Urpriest]

:smallsigh: Almost everybody you have ever met (and probably yourself as well) is neutral. Playing this alignment is arguably the easiest one because it is how we live our lives, with the exception of mob hitmen and full-time charity workers.

Yes and no. Yes, the majority of people are Neutral. However, the majority of people also don't kill people for a living. The challenge of TN isn't that it's hard to know what a TN person would do in day to day life, but that it's hard to know what they would do when faced with a life or death decision, because we generally don't run into those outside of fiction, and fictional characters are a lot less likely to be TN.

[Red Fel]

:smallsigh: Almost everybody you have ever met (and probably yourself as well) is neutral. Playing this alignment is arguably the easiest one because it is how we live our lives, with the exception of mob hitmen and full-time charity workers.

That's the thing.

Being TN is easy for normal, real human beings. TN by real standards is simply an ordinary person, who is not heroically good nor monstrously evil, who is not slavishly honorable nor defiantly self-commanding.

But the PCs are not real people. They are placed in situations where they must fight, maybe even kill. They are sent on sweeping quests with lofty goals. It's easy for a person working a 9-to-5 job to take no substantial steps on the alignment grid. It's hard to do the same thing when you're facing down a dragon who threatens an entire town.

Moreover, the players often want their PCs to be extraordinary. Not everyone wants to play a clerk, a surgeon, a cashier or an engineer. They want to play resplendent heroes or terrifying monsters, powerful figures whose actions shape the world. When your choices change the landscape around you, it's hard to keep those actions limited to the same scope as filing paperwork or fixing a carburetor.

Tl;dr version: Being TN is easy. Playing TN is hard.

[chronoreverse]

I don't think so. True neutral doesn't have to be about balancing good acts against evil acts (and also for chaotic and lawful). In fact, I'd say that the ones who are dedicated to that are the cliched ridden ones (and arguably lawful).

Most of the time True Neutral will actually look a lot like lawful good because generally looking out for oneself, it's better to be fairly good and fairly lawful.

But the True Neutral character doesn't feel strongly towards any one side.

[ddude987]

just my .02 cents but as I see it, what the player did wasn't evil. The prisoner was his enemy and even people with the good alignment can kill their enemies. Just because the prisoner was defenseless doesn't make it evil... kill the prisoner in the fight when they tried to kill you or capture them and kill them later, its still the same thing. The only way I can see the two scenarios being different is if you have a code of honor against killing someone without them able to do the same. Like a knight or a samurai would challenge them to fair combat.

[Urpriest]

just my .02 cents but as I see it, what the player did wasn't evil. The prisoner was his enemy and even people with the good alignment can kill their enemies. Just because the prisoner was defenseless doesn't make it evil... kill the prisoner in the fight when they tried to kill you or capture them and kill them later, its still the same thing. The only way I can see the two scenarios being different is if you have a code of honor against killing someone without them able to do the same. Like a knight or a samurai would challenge them to fair combat.

The prisoner wasn't an "enemy" though, just someone who was frightened and lashed out, as far as I can tell from the OP's descriptions.

[ryu]

I don't think so. True neutral doesn't have to be about balancing good acts against evil acts (and also for chaotic and lawful). In fact, I'd say that the ones who are dedicated to that are the cliched ridden ones (and arguably lawful).

Most of the time True Neutral will actually look a lot like lawful good because generally looking out for oneself, it's better to be fairly good and fairly lawful.

But the True Neutral character doesn't feel strongly towards any one side.

Here here. As a matter of fact a common character type I follow is true neutral. Those characters help their friends with legitimate loyalty, protect the weak, even go out of their way to help the poor on occasion. How could such a character still be neutral? It's all about motive. The character wants to live in a society where people won't stab them to death in their sleep, steal their stuff, or harm them for no real reason. They view what they do for people as a job they've given themselves for personal enrichment regardless of any moral code. There also tends to be one part of their job they do fully admit to enjoying. At the end of the day they like fighting. They enjoy the sport of fighting to the death. The only reason they're on the side of the fight that they're on is that they prefer the company of ''good'' people. That's why they're neutral rather than good. On some level many of those same characters of mine suspect large numbers of people on their side in this conflict are the same way.

[hamishspence]

The offspring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfFiend.htm) of Erinyes or Succubi are outsiders and evil. they are not AFAIK fiends so the rule might not apply. Fiend is a not properly defined subset of Evil outsiders.

I'm talking about when male erinyes (they exist- we see one in Exemplars of Evil) and female erinyes pair up. Fiendish Codex 2 does mention that they live in communities in the Hells.

[Alberic Strein]

I don't see alignment shifting as a punishment.

I never had my alignment shifted... Though the Cleric I play is a prime exemple of a character which, by the loose definitions of the alignment system, would constantly shift.

To give context, he is a cleric of Anubis, the god revealed himself to him when my cleric's wife died. In exchange for making sure that her rest is never interrupted, my cleric (Rey) will serve Anubis through death and beyond.

So, his job is "Making sure the dead aren't bothered" and whatever mission Anubis gives him. The goal, the end, takes precedence over anything (bar one peculiar situation). If he can achieve maximum efficiency by behaving like a LG, then he will. He will respect his word, follow the law and authority, listen to his elders, yada yada. If, however, he needs to behave like a CN to have the best results, he WILL. He WILL cheat, he WILL lie, he WILL break his word, castles WILL burn, good outsiders WILL be defeated and banished the hell away and helpless prisoners of war WILL be tortured without the single afterthought.

His only redeeming feature is that he's got a soft spot for the widow and the orphan, the Helpless. With a capital H. Those defined by their inability to protect themselves and whom have by definition noone to protect them. He will protect those people with his life and, if push comes to shove, will choose them over Anubis. Not because he is a nice guy, but because the trauma from his wife's death is still fresh in his mind and he would rather die than have to bear anymore guilt.

Helpless before him excepted ? Anything but his dead wife is fair game. Anything.

Now, this character... What alignment is he under ? He will hold stubbornly onto his word then gain someone's trust to stab that person in the back at the most opportune moment. He will be a MAJOR PAIN IN THE BUTT of his group to have them save a bunch of imprisoned (and soon to be sacrified) villagers, and fly into deadly rage when he finds out just how many were sacrified, but he will voice the idea of killing a harmless prisoner so he can torture answers out of his dead spirit.

He holds no love for order, chaos, good or evil. If you count act after act where he his on the balance of LCGE, then depending on the day he could end up anywhere on the scale. If I play him well he should average at TN.

But at the end of the day, each and every single one of his act serve to maintain order between the world of living and the dead. To keep his word to his god and to his dead wife.

So I put him in LN.

But he can act like a LN would never on a dayly basis.

Characters can be created outside of the scope of the alignment system. And a backstory can make all the difference.

If your player gives you a backstory and a detailed description of the character's morals and conduct, then yeah, play with him with the alignment system, have him shift little by little to his true alignment, he wants to start somewhere, but not per se to end there. Talk to him about what he wants to do with his character.

If he doesn't give a flying f*ck about the alignment system, then let it go and don't bother with his alignment.

An average alignment for an adventurer is CN, with a dash of CE anyway.

If he starts derailing and becoming That Guy, then it's another problem entirely.

[hamishspence]

:smallsigh: Almost everybody you have ever met (and probably yourself as well) is neutral.

According to PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral" - though it is at least the typical alignment for them.

Eberron supports this interpretation:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer.

[khachaturian]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

[hamishspence]

A person who hurts and oppresses others (on a small scale), has no compassion, and is (almost) never altruistic, could qualify by Eberron standards- and not stretch the core definition all that much.

[Alberic Strein]

My post is just going to be ignored, eh xD

Does the responsabilities a character shoulders impact on his alignment ?

For example, we had some definitions of evil. What about a character that never has any compassion for his neighbours, never does something altruistic (he can do good, but always with a plan in mind), he will hurt his neighbours, steal their food, kill and do horrible things to their wives and daughters (not necessarily in that order)... But is a king.

He does nothing out of cruelty, he simply does his job and aims to do it well. He finds no pleasure in starting wars, but will start them so his people get more food, more land, more wealth, more prestige. Because their well-being is his main consideration and the well-being of his neighbours is NOT his job. They have a king. Let him protect them. It's not his problem.

Would that character be evil ?

To do evil does not mean you are evil. Isn't there some notion that to be evil you need to enjoy it ? To believe that it's your right to do what you do ?

[hamishspence]

To do evil does not mean you are evil. Isn't there some notion that to be evil you need to enjoy it ? To believe that it's your right to do what you do ?

Not really- at least, not going by Champions of Ruin. That has plenty of Evil archetypes- one of which is Driven to Evil - a character resorting to evil methods to keep worse evils at bay.

Another is Evil as A Choice: which can be a "sociopath capable of acts of extreme good or evil, neither of which move them in any way spiritually."

So an Evil character does not need to enjoy Evil deeds.

[Tysis]

My post is just going to be ignored, eh xD

Does the responsabilities a character shoulders impact on his alignment ?

For example, we had some definitions of evil. What about a character that never has any compassion for his neighbours, never does something altruistic (he can do good, but always with a plan in mind), he will hurt his neighbours, steal their food, kill and do horrible things to their wives and daughters (not necessarily in that order)... But is a king.

He does nothing out of cruelty, he simply does his job and aims to do it well. He finds no pleasure in starting wars, but will start them so his people get more food, more land, more wealth, more prestige. Because their well-being is his main consideration and the well-being of his neighbours is NOT his job. They have a king. Let him protect them. It's not his problem.

Would that character be evil ?

To do evil does not mean you are evil. Isn't there some notion that to be evil you need to enjoy it ? To believe that it's your right to do what you do ?

Yes that character would be evil, in D&D the ends do not justify the means.

To the op,while the act certainly wasn't good I think whether or not it was an evil act by BoED and BoVD depends on the alignment of the now dead creature.

[hamishspence]

May depend on if the character can convincingly argue to the DM that it was an "execution" and not a "murder". BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2 paint Murder as evil in general (though BoVD argues the possibility that killing a "creature of consummate, irredeemable evil" is never murder, even if done purely for selfish reasons)

BoED paints "killing a helpless prisoner" as inappropriate behaviour for Good characters- but also allows that execution for serious crimes does not qualify as evil.

Older editions (1978 Basic D&D, for example) also cited "killing a prisoner" as inappropriate for Good characters.

So alignment of victim may matter less than context does. A Neutral prisoner guilty of serious crimes might be executed and this not be evil. An Evil prisoner executed for jaywalking- this might qualify as evil if the DM is feeling harsh and calls that kind of execution Murder.

[Oko and Qailee]

Two cents real quick.

On issues of changing layer alignment, always try to be conservative in not changing alignment, as sometimes this sparks big issues. I think what he did (from what I read) is clearly an evil act, but I wouldn't change him just yet. If alignment is a big issue in your campaign and stuff, let him know repeated evil acts makes him evil, regardless of what it says on his sheet.

[hamishspence]

The example given in 2nd ed of behaviour appropriate for causing instant shift from Good to Evil, was burning down a village full of people (in order to contain a disease outbreak).

I don't think this is quite on that level.

[ryu]

The example given in 2nd ed of behaviour appropriate for causing instant shift from Good to Evil, was burning down a village full of people (in order to contain a disease outbreak).

I don't think this is quite on that level.

That's entirely neutral at worst! It is an act taken with no self gain for the specific purpose making sure the fewest number of people possible die horrible, painful, and slow deaths. The means are entirely horrifying, but it isn't done from cruelty, greed, sadism, or any real malice at all. It's a direct attempt at making the world a safer and less hurtful place.

[Alberic Strein]

While on the subject, what about evil acts done because of the Lawful/Chaotic ax ?

Example, a lawful character took an oath, and following it forces him to do evil acts, are the acts considered evil for him ? Is following his oath out of pure Lawfulness going to give him evil points ? If he is in a country where if you see a thief you HAVE to chase him/her down and cut off his/her hands ? Would following a foreign land's laws be considered evil ? What about sadistic choices ? What if a fiend holds in his hands the life of 100 innocents on one hand and 10 innocents on the other and orders the paladin to choose which lives he crushes ? Would choosing to kill 10 to save 100 be evil ? Would refusing to play the fiend's game, attack him and causing the death of 110 people good ?

What about the times when the alignment system classifies an action as good/evil and you do not agree with it ? What about it when you're a player ? A DM ?

Edit : If the end never justifies the means, if the taking of a life to save two is never justified, then how do you justify anything adventurers ever do ? And what of mercy killing ?

"Well, I COULD put you out of misery, but you see, I serve the forces of Good. And the powers that be decided that the act of "killing you" is not justified by "sparing you 20 minutes of agony"."

"I COULD prevent the outbreak of the flesh eating plague (and soon to be pandemy) but you see, to do that, I would need to kill the infested, ending their suffering, but it does nothing to justify torching a village, and saving unnumerable innocents, doesn't it ?"

[hamishspence]

In the case of a DM, if they object, they can change it- and the player may be able to convince the DM to accept some of their suggestions about changing it as well.

Some acts are more context-sensitive than others, of course.

And being "driven to evil acts from time to time" may be different from committing them more routinely and repeatedly.

Ultimately a lot of alignment rules are in the hands of the DM and the players- they don't have to follow the rulebooks word for word.


That's entirely neutral at worst! It is an act taken with no self gain for the specific purpose making sure the fewest number of people possible die horrible, painful, and slow deaths. The means are entirely horrifying, but it isn't done from cruelty, greed, sadism, or any real malice at all. It's a direct attempt at making the world a safer and less hurtful place.

The disease in question may not have been especially deadly in this context. It's an odd choice- but that's what the 2nd ed PHB had as an example of "Thing that might cause instant alignment change"- maybe because they character is instantly leaping to killing as a solution to their problems, rather than containment alone.

[Alberic Strein]

Because containment, with the unavoidable malnutrition and rationing, and the suffering caused by the plague, the slow acting death is better than outright killing them ?!

[ryu]

Because containment, with the unavoidable malnutrition and rationing, and the suffering caused by the plague, the slow acting death is better than outright killing them ?!

Yeah... Containment in this scenario isn't just risky. It's inhumane on a basic level. Both ways of dying are horrible things I wouldn't wish on anyone. At least the fire has the decency to END quickly.

[hamishspence]

Given that the sample character is a paladin- with some ability to Cure Disease- it makes sense that they would be expected to do some curing themselves, and to get other healers to the spot, rather than just burn it down.

I've checked and it was at least in the 2e DMG, page 41:

"If the paladin burns the village to prevent the disease from spreading, he commits a seriously evil act.

In this case, the DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change to lawful evil or even chaotic evil."

Alignment rules could be pretty harsh back then.

[ryu]

Given that the sample character is a paladin- with some ability to Cure Disease- it makes sense that they would be expected to do some curing themselves, and to get other healers to the spot, rather than just burn it down.

I've checked and it was at least in the 2e DMG, page 41:

"If the paladin burns the village to prevent the disease from spreading, he commits a seriously evil act.

In this case, the DM is justified in instituting an immediate alignment change to lawful evil or even chaotic evil."

Alignment rules could be pretty harsh back then.

ONE paladin? How much curing of such disease could they do in a day back then? Were the cured people immune to relapsing the disease? How freaking big is the village involved and in the village how much is taken up by the infected area? Ability to understand the basic logistics of a problem isn't evil dang it!

[Alberic Strein]

Wait, evil I can wrap my head around it, but in which way is that Chaotic ?!

[hamishspence]

Committing act that the in-universe laws define as mass-murder, maybe?

[ryu]

Committing act that the in-universe laws define as mass-murder, maybe?

Such triage wasn't all that uncommon back in the actual medieval period where analogous diseases were a thing. Further disobeying local laws isn't necessarily a chaotic act if the in question is actively causing misery.

[Alberic Strein]

Is it, really ?

Killing is not always murder. The thing with evil outsiders come to mind.

Edit : I can see a paladin of tyranny torching a village without having to worry about his alignment. Killing people is what he does, the in-universe laws don't make him blink one bit. It's his laws, his code of conduct, maybe his boss's laws that matter, not the general consensus.

Also, war.

[Alberic Strein]

War never changes.


Killing people ? Murder ! Chaotic !

Burning a village ? Murder ! Chaotic !

Dance number 6 ? Special kind of evil ! Even more chaotic than chaotic ! Even devils don't !

King called for war ? Religious leader for crusade ? Ok, forget anything I said, you're following orders (actual, legit, orders, not a mob boss order, but an actual royal edict), it's perfectly lawful ! It's a-ok ! Go you !

[Helcack]

I'd say killing the guy was overkill(literally), warning him not to attack again or else and then leaving him with a knife to cut himself free would have been neutral in my eyes. I use a different system to judge by in my game that I can understand better. Posted below:

Selfless: Focused on the needs and wants of others over their own needs and wants(Replaces Good)
Selfish: Focused on the needs and wants of themselves over others(Replaces Neutral)
Sadist: Focused on causing needs and wants in others over their own needs and wants(Replaces Evil)
Orderly: Allows limitations given to them by outside sources
Mild-Mannered: Allows enough limitations by outside sources to not split any hairs
Rebellious: Only allows limitations given by themselves

[hamishspence]

King called for war ? Religious leader for crusade ? Ok, forget anything I said, you're following orders (actual, legit, orders, not a mob boss order, but an actual royal edict), it's perfectly lawful ! It's a-ok ! Go you !

Actually, going by BoED, it's not. Launching a war of unprovoked aggression can certainly qualify as evil- and the people doing it, could qualify as committing Murder.

And in Fiendish Codex 2, people whose evil acts were "just following orders" become a special kind of devil - the narguzon.

As to whether acts purely motivated by "survival" or "protecting from illness" can ever qualify as villainous - Heroes of Horror suggests that they can.

So it may not just be 2nd ed that does it.

Has anyone read the 1st ed DMG or PHB, to see if the example I gave for changing alignment, is in those books as well?

[Fitz10019]

History: I once had a DM who said, I have no problem with the way Fitz is playing his character, but he is not TN, regardless of what his sheet says. I asked him to define TN in his world, suggesting that maybe my character could develop into his TN idea over time, but the DM refused.

Idea: If a player decides to do something out of their alignment, I suggest that you require them to be really visually descriptive of their action. If they aren't very descriptive, you should add something visual to it. If the rogue slit the throat of that prisoner, you have the imagry of a bloody throat or a fountain of blood. If he simply stabbed the prisoner, the shirt or tunic bloomed red like roses. Now you can allude to their questionable choices later in the story by bringing in this imagry, either in the setting for everyone to see, or as hallucinations for that character.


...or maybe some Fiend who will go "Oh, I smell the evil on you, come, lets make a deal" at the Rogue...
Yes to this. Give him more chances to choose between good and evil, and that will either smooth over the rough patches or build the case for an alignment shift.

[Deca4531]

I actualy dont agree that the majority of normal people are TN. personaly i consider myself more CG, and i have many friends who i could consider NE. but one must remember that there is no "good and evil" in the real world, just many shades of gray.

In D&D evil is fairly well defined. good go out of their way to do good, neutral dont go out of their way for anything, and evil go out of their way for themselves or evil cause.

and given in most games, with the exception of a couple classes and feats, alignment is pretty much ignored all together. with almost all the characters i play i enjoy playing my alignment and often go LG or CE because it defines my character more. i know many say TN is easy to be but hard to play, but i fine Neutral anything to be the lazy mans alignment.

[Alberic Strein]

-Completely right point about the acts still being evil-

But they're not chaotic. My point was not that those acts were anything but evil, but that they are not chaotic. You are commiting acts that would be chaotic if you did it at a small scale within a town whose law defines them as infringements, but not in the case I developed.

Is there Evil in that ? Yup. Chaos ? Not for the soldiers.

[hamishspence]

But they're not chaotic. My point was not that those acts were anything but evil, but that they are not chaotic. You are commiting acts that would be chaotic if you did it at a small scale within a town whose law defines them as infringements, but not in the case I developed.

Is there Evil in that ? Yup. Chaos ? Not for the soldiers.
There's an interesting bit from The Giant on Lawfulness - as "personal code" vs "obeys superiors"


In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

In this context, the reason the paladin's act was deemed potentially very Chaotic in that 2e DMG example, may have been that it was something drastically against the laws of the society that paladin is sworn to uphold.

[Andezzar]

Allowing a personal code for a lawful character makes it terribly hard for the DM to judge lawfulness, unless the player of that character has submitted a code that offers rules for nearly any possible situation beforehand. If the player does not the character's behavior is nearly indistinguishable from one that makes up the rules as he goes along, which is typical of chaotic characters.

[Red Fel]

Allowing a personal code for a lawful character makes it terribly hard for the DM to judge lawfulness, unless the player of that character has submitted a code that offers rules for nearly any possible situation beforehand. If the player does not the character's behavior is nearly indistinguishable from one that makes up the rules as he goes along, which is typical of chaotic characters.

I respectfully disagree, to a certain extent. I acknowledge that a "personal code" Lawful character, as opposed to a "laws of society" Lawful character, has a more personal, and thus more subjective, perspective, which can be more difficult for a DM to quantify.

But consider the classic scenario: the Samurai. Even if we go with a Ronin (a samurai who no longer serves a lord), he still has a profound sense of personal honor, to the extent that he should be willing to take his own life for a substantial violation of that code. This honor, to repeat, applies whether the laws of society are binding upon him or not. (And if we are going by historically accurate information, in many ways the Samurai class were considered above the law, beyond the touch of the rules which applied to most citizens.)

It is possible to hold a character to a personal Lawful code, as opposed to a societal one. Harder for the DM to enforce, yes; but as the Giant points out, that also means that the player must enforce it upon himself far more strictly. A smart DM will have the ability to question the player's actions, expecting the player to be able to justify such conduct. A player who too often says "my personal code allows it" or remarks that his personal code allows "any means necessary" is simply not Lawful anymore.

A Lawful code, by its definition, limits what a person can do; they are sacrificing personal freedom for order, structure, and so forth. When your code no longer acts as a boundary on your actions, it's less a set of "rules," and more "guidelines." When that happens, you're Neutral at best, if not Chaotic. A smart DM can see this, and will advise the player appropriately.

Note that I qualify: a smart DM. An inexperienced DM may have difficulty with this, as may an experienced but foolish DM; I would advise them to adhere to more traditional understandings of a Lawful code. But a smart, experienced, savvy DM should be willing to let his players define their own code (define being an operative term - lay it out in advance), as this enriches gameplay and enjoyment. It's harder, yes, but hardly an overwhelming task.

[Andezzar]

But consider the classic scenario: the Samurai. Even if we go with a Ronin (a samurai who no longer serves a lord), he still has a profound sense of personal honor, to the extent that he should be willing to take his own life for a substantial violation of that code. This honor, to repeat, applies whether the laws of society are binding upon him or not. (And if we are going by historically accurate information, in many ways the Samurai class were considered above the law, beyond the touch of the rules which applied to most citizens.)Yeah if the character follows a previously established code like bushido this is just as easy as a character following a society's laws (those of his lord). It gets more complicated if neither player nor DM have an existing code to fall back on.


A player who too often says "my personal code allows it" or remarks that his personal code allows "any means necessary" is simply not Lawful anymore.That is the crux of the problem. No rule actually forbids a code that basically is "any means necessary".


A Lawful code, by its definition, limits what a person can do; they are sacrificing personal freedom for order, structure, and so forth. When your code no longer acts as a boundary on your actions, it's less a set of "rules," and more "guidelines." When that happens, you're Neutral at best, if not Chaotic. A smart DM can see this, and will advise the player appropriately.There can only be lawful codes. Having a code is part of the lawful alignment component, not having one s part of the chaotic. A code need not only restrict behavior, it may also require certain behavior. If the accepted behavior patterns are established beforehand it qualifies as a code and thus lawful alignment, if they are not it is chaotic.

If for example part of a person's code is to always (try to) trick a certain group of people (e.g. merchants or for the suicidal devils), strictly following that code would be lawful behavior, even if the acts themselves would be considered chaotic by society.


But a smart, experienced, savvy DM should be willing to let his players define their own code (define being an operative term - lay it out in advance), as this enriches gameplay and enjoyment. It's harder, yes, but hardly an overwhelming task.That is what I mainly wanted to say. If the player wants a code that is not based around societal laws, he must divulge it beforehand in as much detail as possible. Otherwise any repercussions from the DM will seem arbitrary or on the other hand the DM will feel cheated if the player finds too many loop holes.

[Blackjackg]

Like any other player of the Great Game, I have my own ideas about what alignment does and doesn't mean. When I DM, this sometimes comes in conflict with my players' ideas, and when I play it sometimes comes into conflict with the DM's ideas, or with the ideas of the other players. Having everyone on the same page regarding what alignments mean is important in most D&D games, so I always recommend sitting down and talking about it even before the game starts. In cases of irreconcilable conflict, the DM gets veto, but generally agreements can be made without resorting to that.

That being said, outside of a few outdated magical artifacts which change a character's alignment in a flash of black moral lightning, I would never change a PC's alignment against the player's wishes. If their actions are consistently out of step with what I think their chosen alignment means, I would ask for an aside and suggest that they either change their actions or change their alignment. In my experience, that's always been enough to address the problem. If it didn't work, I guess I would start imposing an XP penalty for "moral and ethical strain," in the same way that the PHB penalizes "skill strain" from reckless multiclassing. Either the character would get the message and make the required changes, or quit, or just advance a little slower than their colleagues-- in any case, game justice will be served.

[Fitz10019]

Well, in defying the sheriff and Prince John, Robin Hood was actually being loyal to King Richard. He was destabilizing a usurper's illegitimate rule.

What it does exemplify is that lawfulness can have a specific scope or level of operation, and even chaotic methods, imo.

[Deca4531]

When it comes to lawful, and most of all lawful evil, like to look at the classic R.A Salvitor character Artemis Entreri from the drizzt books. he was a Lawful Evil assassin, but not bound by a guilds law or a kings, but his own. one i remember him pointing out specifically was that he would avoid killing women or children unless he had to. now some may say that is simply a guideline and not a rule since its a "had to" and not a never. but look at police, they avoid killing someone if they dont have to, but are still lawful if the situation forces them to.

[hamishspence]

As to the specific DMG example, it wouldn't surprise me if it sprang from a bad player/DM interaction.

Something along the lines of:

DM: "This village is suffering a disease outbreak- what do you want to do about it?"
Player: "Burn it to the ground to stop it from spreading."
DM: "Don't you wish to investigate what kind of disease it is first?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Don't you wish to consult with the king whose domain it's in first?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Why do you think burning it down's the right thing to do?"
Player: "Because it's the appropriate response in a medieval world- anything else is too risky to everyone around the village."
DM: "Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"
Player: "Yes."
DM: "Some time later the village is aflame and everyone is dead. You have contained an outbreak of The Sniffles. And are now Chaotic Evil."

[Deca4531]

As to the specific DMG example, it wouldn't surprise me if it sprang from a bad player/DM interaction.

Something along the lines of:

DM: "This village is suffering a disease outbreak- what do you want to do about it?"
Player: "Burn it to the ground to stop it from spreading."
DM: "Don't you wish to investigate what kind of disease it is first?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Don't you wish to consult with the king whose domain it's in first?"
Player: "No."
DM: "Why do you think burning it down's the right thing to do?"
Player: "Because it's the appropriate response in a medieval world- anything else is too risky to everyone around the village."
DM: "Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"
Player: "Yes."
DM: "Some time later the village is aflame and everyone is dead. You have contained an outbreak of The Sniffles. And are now Chaotic Evil."


I wouldnt call that evil, if anything an act of mercy.

[hamishspence]

An "act of mercy" that was in this example, completely pointless and unnecessary, since the disease in question was not especially dangerous.

There's plenty of other ways in which "burn to the ground" can be a massive overreaction- if the disease is coming from a contaminated water supply, or requires much more close contact to spread, and so forth.

Also- if it's highly contagious and with a long incubation period, it may have spread out of the village long ago.

"Evil" isn't just about malice - plain "lack of respect for life" can manifest itself in many forms.

[Deca4531]

ok, yeah i can see your point on that.

one thing that always confused me though was lawful Evil. like the Drow for instance. they follow the law of their house, when it suits them, and break it when it benefits them. i have a problem seeing an evil person lawful when evil by nature tends to be centered around selfisfness.

[Gamgee]

An "act of mercy" that was in this example, completely pointless and unnecessary, since the disease in question was not especially dangerous.

There's plenty of other ways in which "burn to the ground" can be a massive overreaction- if the disease is coming from a contaminated water supply, or requires much more close contact to spread, and so forth.

Also- if it's highly contagious and with a long incubation period, it may have spread out of the village long ago.

"Evil" isn't just about malice - plain "lack of respect for life" can manifest itself in many forms.
I would say that was more neutral than anything. But if they keep it up, evil. Now if they were aware of the fact that it was curable and burned it down anyway? Probably pretty crazy. Evil for sure.

[hamishspence]

If part of the motive is to save oneself, it's generally evil:

BOVD:

"Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself to save others is a good act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is."

"Sacrificing others to save more others" - may be more context-sensitive- but when the character leaps to that decision based on the scantiest of information, it may qualify as Evil.

[lytokk]

if I'm correct the Drow are typically chaotic evil.

[hamishspence]

if I'm correct the Drow are typically chaotic evil.
The MM says "Usually Neutral Evil" for them- which may be the combination of organization, with following a CE deity.

I would say that was more neutral than anything. But if they keep it up, evil.

Fits well with the Eberron "most common type of corrupted ex-Good Guy in the LG church"

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

only replace "win the battle against evil" with "win the battle against Disease".

[Deca4531]

The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

only replace "win the battle against evil" with "win the battle against Disease".

there should be an alignment for "Insane" cause really can you call an Insane person good or evil?

[hamishspence]

there should be an alignment for "Insane" cause really can you call an Insane person good or evil?

Depends on the type. Insane gods tend to be CE rather than CN, for example- usually because it drives them to do horrific things (that, or they were always Evil and the insanity hasn't much changed them).

[Deca4531]

Depends on the type. Insane gods tend to be CE rather than CN, for example- usually because it drives them to do horrific things (that, or they were always Evil and the insanity hasn't much changed them).

i think it would be fun playing a down right insane person. some days you walk into a bar and start violently hurling gold coins at people. another time you get into a shouting match with your beer mug. one day a chair insults you and so you kick its ass.

nothing really good or evil, since at that point your cant comprehend the difforence between right and wrong.

[hamishspence]

Acts can be Evil regardless of the motivation (or lack of) for doing them- soul-destruction, in particular.

Champions of Ruin has two examples of the sort of character you mention- when describing common evil tropes:

Mad, I tell you

Because of some psychosis, obsession, or overpowering phobia, the character is driven to perform acts of incomprehensible evil. Even characters dedicated to the philosophy of evil or to evil gods often find this character's actions beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. Depending on the nature of the madness, the character could feel remorse for the things he does, but he cannot stop himself from repeating them. Another character might delight in the things he does, or he might not even be aware of what he is doing.

Evil Choice

For some reason, the character has chosen to act in an evil manner, one that he admits is evil and for which he feels no remorse. His reasons might be selfish, he might be bent on revenge by any means possible, or he might be driven to complete a task or achieve a goal, and will let nothing stand in his way. On the other hand, he could simply be a sociopath equally capable of acts of extreme good or extreme evil, neither of which move him emotionally or spiritually, and in which he is incapable of seeing any contradiction.

[Alberic Strein]

The problem of the alignment system, I feel is the discrepancy between the definitions of evil in the books.

On one hand, you have one set of pointers which should tell you whom is, or is not, evil.

Hamisphence posted it a bit earlier in the thread.

Also, you have the classes with an alignment component, which will explain (sometimes) why you have to be of a certain alignment and how this alignment behaves.

For example, the paladin of tyranny is described as a total villain, cruel and merciless, which aims to oppress the innocent to get more power. But will stay true to his word and still has his honor.

Ok, that's LE.

Now, a king, just and fair with his citizen, but is a warmonger and conqueror (described in fuller in one of my previous posts), well the end do not justify the means (and follows the necessary evil thing), so he is LE too.

Except that the Paladin of Tyranny as shown is, at the VERY BEST, a noble demon, and the rest of the time a complete monster, a total and utter villain, while the king of the second example is more of an anti-villain, he has a point and in more cynical scenarii, might even not be an enemy at all.

Yet, they are exactly the same alignment wise. Each compartment is too large.

Also, usually, characters don't squarely belong in one alignment, they have some lawful bits, some chaotic bits, some good bits, and some evil bits.

An example would be a mercenary whom never EVER breaks his word, follows the laws, etc, but holds no respect for his elders or civilization at large.

So yeah, OP, if your player is interested with alignments shenanigans then speak to him about his long-term plans for his character, if not, then just drop the issue.

[Maginomicon]

Now how should i balance Act with Intent?
One way could be by you looking into Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341).

[hamishspence]

The problem of the alignment system, I feel is the discrepancy between the definitions of evil in the books.

On one hand, you have one set of pointers which should tell you whom is, or is not, evil.

Hamisphence posted it a bit earlier in the thread.

Also, you have the classes with an alignment component, which will explain (sometimes) why you have to be of a certain alignment and how this alignment behaves.

For example, the paladin of tyranny is described as a total villain, cruel and merciless, which aims to oppress the innocent to get more power. But will stay true to his word and still has his honor.

Ok, that's LE.

Now, a king, just and fair with his citizen, but is a warmonger and conqueror (described in fuller in one of my previous posts), well the end do not justify the means (and follows the necessary evil thing), so he is LE too.

Except that the Paladin of Tyranny as shown is, at the VERY BEST, a noble demon, and the rest of the time a complete monster, a total and utter villain, while the king of the second example is more of an anti-villain, he has a point and in more cynical scenarii, might even not be an enemy at all.

Yet, they are exactly the same alignment wise. Each compartment is too large.

I like large categories, in this case.

It helps if DMs and players are on the same page as to "How Evil does someone need to be, to have an Evil alignment" - does it require fairly extreme evilness, with only a tiny percentage of the population qualifying- or are there a number of ways to qualify, with nearly a third of the population being evil?

When a character doesn't fit squarely- just identify which facets are strongest, and use those. Thus you could have Evil characters with some Good traits, Lawful characters with some Chaotic traits, and so on. If the opposing facets are close to balance- character is Neutral on that axis.

[Alberic Strein]

I actually dislike having neutral as the middle ground.

One thing (ONE SINGLE THING) the 4e alignment system did good, was putting the "unaligned" category.

I Identify neutral more as unaligned than as a compromise. He is not a little bit good and a little bit bad, he is wholly unconcerned with the whole "moral axis" thing.


Edit : I am aware that it IS the middle ground and is supposed to be seen and used as such, I just don't like it.

Edit2 : One good thing about the categories being big however, is that it gives those damn "detect evil" spammers a run for their money.

[Raven777]

There is no RAW for changing a character's alignment according to his actions. Any forced alignment shift is therefore conducted through rule zero GM fiat. Worse, it is subjective GM fiat.

[Alberic Strein]

Wait... Objective DM fiat is a thing ?!

[Raven777]

Wait... Objective DM fiat is a thing ?!

RAI, mayhap? But I was referring more to the cause of the fiat (what defines alignments, which is subjective) than to the fiat - the decision - itself.