A Moral Conundrum

[Gale]

In a campaign I was playing last night my party had been given orders by a commander who hired us to go into this elven town an eliminate everyone including innocent women and children. The cleric and I both being good-aligned obviously rebelled, the other half of the party was indifferent and essentially decided to go looting the town during all the chaos.
Only one person, the sorceress, decided she was going to go through with the orders. (We were going to be payed 10,000 gold for it and I guess she just really wanted it.) I wasted turns trying to incapacitate her only to roll terribly and get nothing accomplished. The cleric did no better. (He tried casting various spells on the people to protect them; it didn't work.) She ended up effortlessly slaughtering half the town while we were powerless to stop her. Out of character she was reveling in what she was doing and berating our attempts to stop her. Finally, I got fed up with it I decided to outright kill her character but the DM refused to let me attack her.
I was done at that point and just ended up leaving in the middle of it. I've decided I'm not going to play with them anymore because this player is a constant annoyance. She always ends up making what should be a pleasant experience of playing D&D with my friends distressing; she constantly seems to be criticizing the rest of the party for some reason.
The more I think about this the more her behavior kind of sickens me. I don't believe one should be playing such a selfish chaotic character in Dungeons and Dragons. I suppose it is in fact the definition of the chaotic neutral character, which I believe she was. (I never actually figured out what her alignment was.) But it's up to the player to interpret what exactly that means and how far they're willing to go with that. In my opinion even a chaotic neutral character has some sense of morality and wouldn't necessarily kill a helpless person without a good reason. I believe no matter what your alignment you should be playing a good guy. (Unless of course you're aligned evil and really you probably shouldn't be playing an evil character in a party of good guys in most cases.)

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that even though her actions were purely fictitious the motivation behind them really kind of shook me. I'm just kind of wondering what you guys think about this. I apologize if this just comes off as me ranting.

[Callin]

Seems like ya need to take a step back from the group for a bit since it actually upset ya in real life. Once the game/party does that its time.

Other than that the DM should have allowed your character to attack the Sorcerer. Bad call on him. Even now though your character and the Cleric will no longer party with her. So you are out of the group in game and possibly out of game.

[hymer]

Looks to me like the GM is at fault here more than the player. S/he can't on the one hand throw up a situation that is bound to lead to player conflict, and then limit the PvP when it is obviously in character that you would kill the mass murderer after failing to stop her through non-lethal means.

Seems to me the group has neglected to draw up the social contract, and now find you are in disagreement about what you want to do with your game. Playing evil characters is not inherently wrong (just like playing heroic characters isn't), but it is not to just anyone's taste. And the disruption of the group is obviously intolerable.

[Red Fel]

I see several things here. In no particular order:

1: Her actions were not CN. They were clearly Evil. There is rarely anything neutral about killing innocent women and children. Players often play CN as CE, and a good DM will call them on it. But that's neither here nor there.

2: You say your DM "stopped you" from killing her. Please explain how. It sounds like your character was forced to resort to the heart-wrenching decision of protecting the innocent or sparing a friend's life, and choosing the former seems entirely in character for a heroic-good type. How did he stop you?

3: The fact is, D&D is cathartic for a lot of people. It permits the venting of much spleen, and allows people to indulge aspects of themselves they wouldn't acknowledge, or to be somebody entirely different, if only for awhile. Even decent human beings may nonetheless have fun playing a terrible monster of a villain, because it's all a game. That said, there are some people with a certain degree of unhealthy minds who take the game as an opportunity to vent a certain degree of sociopathy, which is likely not a good thing. This, too, is neither here nor there; all we know is that this show of evil conduct disturbed you, and pleased the other player, and that this further increased your disturbance.

4: I think you have a certain understanding of the game which may or may not be shared by others at your table. As I understand it, you see the game as a game of heroes, the legendary journeys of noble souls and their epic quests to do good. You're not a fan of selfish, chaotic characters, as you say. This I can understand ("chaotic selfish" is an overused and overabused trope), but even chaotic and selfish characters can make great heroes - just look at Han Solo, when he first began.

But D&D isn't just a game of heroes. It's a game of fantasy. And some fantasies involve antiheroes, or even villains. Not everyone is going to want to play a noble, shining knight. If you want to, that's fine. If you want to play in good-only campaigns, that's fine too, but it's something you need to clear with the rest of the group first. And while I agree that it can be hard (and disruptive) to play an evil character in a good party, it is nonetheless possible. What it requires is an understanding between the players. Tell me - did such an understanding exist in your game? In either direction? That is, did you make clear that you expected everyone to be playing a hero? Did this player explain her expectation that she would play a villain?

5: I hear the suggestion "leave the group" thrown around a lot on these forums. I think it's overused. In the instant case, I don't think it's merited. I think, based on the circumstances, you might take a break from this particular campaign. Step back, see how you feel in a few weeks. I wouldn't recommend leaving altogether (although that depends on your answer to how the DM "stopped you", see above). If this particular player - not just the character, but the player - truly offends you, you might not play in any future campaigns involving her. But that doesn't mean you have to leave the group altogether.

[Ortesk]

I'm gonna side with red on this one, and add in that perhaps DM stopped pvp for the sake of not escalating the issue further. I know some groups who wont do PvP for whatever reason, even i enjoy PvP when its merited but to each group there own. Now with that said, there are actions you could take in game to settle this. If you go to a city guard, by meaning go to the capitol and take issue with the king, and report this, the sorceror should be hunted down. If the dm fiats that as well, simply say that your out of the campaign until a future one comes


Or, and i would do this in dire situations mind you, kill your pc off and come back with a tippy inspired build and just nuke the guy who gave the group the job, the sorceror, and everyone who looks at you wierd (say you were someones brother from the village, your not happy mom was fire balled to death)

[Twilightwyrm]

First off, what she was doing there is categorized as Chaotic Evil. Slaughtering people for no greater reason than you are getting paid for it is, barring mitigating circumstances, generally evil, slaughtering innocents for such a reason is pretty much definitely evil, and reviling in doing so is moving into Vile territory. Far as general morality is concerned, even the other party members who "went along with it" should be suffering alignment shift towards evil, and the sorceress has probably moved through a moral event horizon.
Second, the DM shouldn't have prevented the two of you from attacking and killing the sorceress (or really any of the other party members, but we'll stick with her for now). Preventing unnecessary PvP (which is most PvP) is one thing, but if a character does something so morally outrageous that it would compel other players to attack that character, the offending player needs to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Third, all this being said, a person shouldn't generally be prohibited from playing a greedy, selfish, or evil character in a game, or from acting how they would like said character to act (assuming they are prepared to sufer the consequences). D&D is, after all, all about fantasy. This being said however, it is the group's, or barring that the DM's, job to decide where the "going to far" line is drawn, so YMMV. One question to ask is, if you were playing a neutral (or indeed evil) character, would the sorceress's actions still have offended you to the same extant? (And while we're here, are you more pissed that the sorceress did this in the first place, or that the DM stopped you from effectively stopping her?)
I would say definitely take a step back, cool off, reevaluate the situation, and then have a talk with your DM, and if necessary the rest of the players. Explain that the Sorceress's actions made you (and presumably the Cleric's player) uncomfortable, and that your group needs to discuss whether some boundaries need to be put in place (especially if the DM is going to prevent in game characters from doing anything about it if they are overstepped).

[Madwand99]

I'd leave that game too. Once a table starts to tolerate or encourage sociopathy, I'm out. That's just not the kind of game I want to play. I would also have been a lot more immediate and insistent with my attempts to kill the sorceress. That's just the sort of PC I tend to play, though. Even CN PCs shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior.

[Frosty]

Is this an evil campaign? If not, the party needs to re-assess its goals.

[SethoMarkus]

I see nothing wrong with the in-game actions of the Sorceress Character. It may not be the type of game that you want to be involved in, but that is your call. From the information you shared, however, I do not see any moral issues with the character's in-game behavior, especially if the character were Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil (though if she were CN she almost certainly should be bumped to CE now).

However, at the point that the Player is taking these in-game actions and using them to heckle and insult other players out-of-character, the line has been crossed. A Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Evil character can coexist within a party if the Players try to work the relationship out in meta-play; likewise, two Neutral Good characters may be incompatible if the Players cannot get along.

I do not suggest leaving the game over this incident. However, I do suggest that you speak with the DM, the "problem" player, and the rest of the group over what you each expect from the sessions, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for the Players out-of-game, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for the Characters in-game, and how you will communicate with each other if one or more of you is becoming uncomfortable with certain events, whether in-game or out.

[Epsilon Rose]

I'd like to ask a question about context, before I answer your original question.

You said the order to slaughter the town came from your commander. Presumably, this is someone who has given orders, in the past, that you have followed and is at least passingly familiar with your characters personalities. So, why did he give you guys the order? What in game justification was given, both to actually explain it and to get the more good parts of your party to go with it?

[Hamste]

I would actually argue the sorceress is acting in a LN or LE way. They are following orders from an authority figure who had hired you and had assumedly gave you orders and pay before.

[Frosty]

Not LN. Definitely LE.

[Madwand99]

It might be LE if the orders the sorceress was given was the reason for her slaughter of innocents, rather than the excuse for it. Given the description of her behavior (taunts, etc.) the latter seems more likely. Thus CE. The DM, too seems somewhat CE as well from the description of his behavior. The commander was also certainly incompetent to be giving orders he wasn't sure would be followed.

[XmonkTad]

It has been said enough but: your DM should have allowed the PvP. You need to talk to your group about this. What will probably happen is you will ask your DM to allow for more "organic" player interaction, and you will have to forgive the DM and the sorceress for this incident. If PvP:off was a houserule, you should have been made aware of that from the start.

[Xuldarinar]

The sorceress is clearly CE, period. I see no excuse as to her actions, or why you couldn't attack her. Furthermore, within the game itself, you could refuse to adventure with one willing to do such an act. I'd say you could make it your charge to avenge their deaths but the DM (for no apparent reason) will not allow you to do so.

[Spore]

Even my LN sorcerer would've tried to kill her.

[Threadnaught]

Is the Sorceress the DM's girlfriend or child?

If either is the case I understand why the DM would take their side, if it's the latter than I understand why they'd be so willing to whinge and moan about any (rather obvious) negative consequences to their actions.

If however, the player is an adult of no relation to the DM, then WTF!? Take the Cleric player and anyone who thought the DM was wrong not to allow you and the Cleric to hand the Sorceress her ass, and leave the group with them to form a new group.

If the player is either the DM's child or gf, have a talk to your DM about their favouritism. If it doesn't work/they have no intention of changing, walk.

[jedipotter]

I'd like to ask a question about context, before I answer your original question.

You said the order to slaughter the town came from your commander. Presumably, this is someone who has given orders, in the past, that you have followed and is at least passingly familiar with your characters personalities. So, why did he give you guys the order? What in game justification was given, both to actually explain it and to get the more good parts of your party to go with it?

There have been a couple post like this and I just need to say: What?! Your acting like the commander must have had a good reason. As if the commander was a real person. By the commander is not real. The commander is just the DM. And the DM here is just a jerk. The DM needs no ''game justification'', he can just say whatever.


2: You say your DM "stopped you" from killing her. Please explain how. It sounds like your character was forced to resort to the heart-wrenching decision of protecting the innocent or sparing a friend's life, and choosing the former seems entirely in character for a heroic-good type. How did he stop you?

I'd guess the DM just said ''you can't do that''. And as the DM controls the game, nothing happens. Unless your talking about some weird communal game where a player can out rule a DM and do whatever they want in the game...and even 'force' the DM to adjudicate it.

[ArcturusV]

Well, maybe Jedipotter. But it's also something where I'm willing to give a DM a break on that most often. He might have had something that he thought was a good idea behind it. Maybe he wanted to play up the angle of characters conflicted between their morality, and their loyalty to something they otherwise see as a good force. Choose Good or Choose Country. It might have been something planned to lead into a "resistance" move, where he expected that either the party would say hell no and join the resistance, or that the party would go along with it, and end up fighting against the resistance. There's a lot of ways that could have gone RIGHT, that I'm not necessarily going to sit here, without benefit of knowing the whole story, what he had planned, etc, and just declare he was being a prick.

And honestly stopping PvP isn't a bad thing. Generally you don't want it to happen. Because at the point where one person kills another's character you get people who get sore about it, they plot revenge, and start derailing the campaign more, making it about petty intraparty squabbles than it is about the quest and the storyline.

He might have wanted to, if he was more savvy, use this as something to illustrate that it isn't working out. That having the Faux Chaotic Evil "Neutral" in the party, along with more traditional heroic figures, just isn't going to play. Maybe an excuse to NPC the sorceress, having your characters walk away and form a new nucleus to the party while the Sorceress rolls up a more appropriate character. Or the other way around if he wanted to tell an Evil Campaign story. Who knows.

But options. It's not immediately "He's being a jerk". Usually more complex than that.

[KillianHawkeye]

It has been said enough but: your DM should have allowed the PvP. You need to talk to your group about this. What will probably happen is you will ask your DM to allow for more "organic" player interaction, and you will have to forgive the DM and the sorceress for this incident. If PvP:off was a houserule, you should have been made aware of that from the start.

More accurately, if the DM wanted to disallow PvP play, he should have done so at the beginning when the two characters were trying nonlethal attempts to stop the slaughter. Nonlethal attacks against other player characters are still PvP. If those were okay, and switching to lethal attacks wasn't, then the issue is not really a ban against PvP but rather a situation where the DM was forcibly protecting the offending character from any consequences or retribution for their immoral actions.

[ddude987]

I will say even though her actions in that were chaotic evil, that doesn't mean the player was not role playing the sorceress properly. Neutral characters can bend either direction, and if they bend one way to often then they are not being neutral. The way I see it a neutral character doesn't care either way. Save a town for 10kgp or slaughter a town for 10kgp it doesn't make a difference.

That said, I do agree with you leaving early that session if the game bothered you in real life. Some people let the game blend from in character to out of character and that is a definite no-no. If what happens in game affects (effects?) people out of game then something needs to be toned down.

About the PvP, I as a player and as a DM think there is nothing wrong with PvP. Then again, my group is about having fun so we don't worry about a character meaninglessly slaughtering the other players because they can.

[Epsilon Rose]

There have been a couple post like this and I just need to say: What?! Your acting like the commander must have had a good reason. As if the commander was a real person. By the commander is not real. The commander is just the DM. And the DM here is just a jerk. The DM needs no ''game justification'', he can just say whatever.

As has been pointed out, the dm could have had plenty of justifications we don't know about on either side of the morality spectrum. For all we know, the town was suspected of having the Plague and there's an international treaty stating all plague towns get burned to prevent an outbreak.

Beyond that, the DM having an NPC give an odious order does not automatically make him a jerk and his in game justification along with whether or not he lets the party decide to follow the order are a big part of that. From what we've been told, we don't know the justification, but we do know that he let them go against the order. The only jerky thing we've heard the DM doing is ham-handedly preventing lethal PvP, and jerkyness of that is debatable.

[Hamste]

It might be LE if the orders the sorceress was given was the reason for her slaughter of innocents, rather than the excuse for it. Given the description of her behavior (taunts, etc.) the latter seems more likely. Thus CE. The DM, too seems somewhat CE as well from the description of his behavior. The commander was also certainly incompetent to be giving orders he wasn't sure would be followed.

The problem is if you need an excuse from an authority figure to do something then you're still being LE. They didn't do it randomly did they and they didn't do it until they had permission from the Authority figure. Sure, they would enjoy the murder if they were LE but they would also know they would get punished for it (IC at least). A smart CE character would have said no as it would get them punished, a particularly lawful character would follow through out of loyalty to whatever law they believed in. This particular act was either LE or really chaotic stupid. That does not mean the character was CE as a whole just that this particular act was not CE.

Naturally it being LE or CE does not change the fact it was not right and not conducive to the party at all. The DM could have handled it better...of course we don’t know the gaming group enough. It is possible that they thought no one would take the job and that there would be a good plot that goes off of it as the commander tries to deal with the treason. I can just imagine the DM freaking out as it spiraled out of control (Praying that one of your non-lethal attempts worked) to the point that one of the party could die and there would be harsh feelings all around. Of course there is still harsh feelings from the judgement but in the heat of the moment when they were making the decision they didn't realize that is what would happen

[SassyQuatch]

Unfortunately not much can be done here. What can be said is that the OP is sore with both the game style and with his gaming group as individuals. As such I believe that taking the story at face value is not entirely wise. There are a lot of omissions of details that would be relevant, and often when this is the case the omitted facts often crucial to an accurate understanding of what really happened.

[Captnq]

I think what you need to do is contact the cleric and say, "Hey. I think we should have some fun." Then both make up a tag team of Pure Evil. I mean Horrible, Horrible, Horrible people. Brothers. Loyal to one another and nobody else. Will murder and slaughter innocents for the fun of it.

Your Battlecry: "Children Aren't Worth Experience Points Alive!"

Then return to the game. Announce that since the game is clearly going to the Darkside and your Good Aligned characters won't fit in, you both made up some new PCs. The General everyone is taking orders from had the old PCs court marshalled.

Make sure your Old PCs die in a horrible Fashion. Ripped apart by horses. No. Set on FIRE then ripped apart by horses.

Then the two of you show this girl what evil is about. Steal her equipment when she's sleeping. Anyone she talks to, murder them while she's talking to them. Summon demons and bind them into Innocent NPCs. Murder Kittens and make them into undead. Leave the zombie kittens in Cribs to eat babies.

That sort of thing.

I have no doubt this girl is just revealing in the mass murder. She doesn't ACTUALLY want to be evil. She wants to be Faux-Evil. She wants to show off and doesn't actually think about the NPCs as real. She doesn't take the game seriously.

So raise the stakes.
Go from wish fufillment to Placing Mental Images In Her Head She Will Wish She Could Forget.

Either everyone else will run with it, or it will destroy the campaign. Then you can sit back and say, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

More importantly, FLAUNT that no PvP. Insult everyone horribly in character then say, "hey, it's just my PC." Look at her and say, "You know, the sticky side of the liner goes AGAINST your panties. Just saying." Make horrible sexist remarks. Discuss cannibalism in a conversational tone, "I prefer the rich taste of half-elf, myself." "Yes yes... Still. I want her tongue. AND her liver." "You shall have it. You know I could never deny you anything, brother."

Work HARD to get her to try and kill you then say, "Oops! I'm sorry. If I'm not allowed to kill YOUR PC, you aren't allowed to kill MINE." Then laugh and start up some friendly banter with your partner. Dead baby jokes, for instance. "What's better then ten dead babies in a trashcan, brother?" "One dead baby in ten trashcans." "You know me too well, brother." "That joke never gets old. It just keeps getting funnier, every time you say it." "Thank you brother." "No No No, thank you."

Think of a pair of really polite chipmunks who happen to be sociopathic mass murderers.

[dascarletm]

I think what you need to do is contact the cleric and say, "Hey. I think we should have some fun." Then both make up a tag team of Pure Evil. I mean Horrible, Horrible, Horrible people. Brothers. Loyal to one another and nobody else. Will murder and slaughter innocents for the fun of it.

Your Battlecry: "Children Aren't Worth Experience Points Alive!"

Then return to the game. Announce that since the game is clearly going to the Darkside and your Good Aligned characters won't fit in, you both made up some new PCs. The General everyone is taking orders from had the old PCs court marshalled.

Make sure your Old PCs die in a horrible Fashion. Ripped apart by horses. No. Set on FIRE then ripped apart by horses.

Then the two of you show this girl what evil is about. Steal her equipment when she's sleeping. Anyone she talks to, murder them while she's talking to them. Summon demons and bind them into Innocent NPCs. Murder Kittens and make them into undead. Leave the zombie kittens in Cribs to eat babies.

That sort of thing.

I have no doubt this girl is just revealing in the mass murder. She doesn't ACTUALLY want to be evil. She wants to be Faux-Evil. She wants to show off and doesn't actually think about the NPCs as real. She doesn't take the game seriously.

So raise the stakes.
Go from wish fufillment to Placing Mental Images In Her Head She Will Wish She Could Forget.

Either everyone else will run with it, or it will destroy the campaign. Then you can sit back and say, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

More importantly, FLAUNT that no PvP. Insult everyone horribly in character then say, "hey, it's just my PC." Look at her and say, "You know, the sticky side of the liner goes AGAINST your panties. Just saying." Make horrible sexist remarks. Discuss cannibalism in a conversational tone, "I prefer the rich taste of half-elf, myself." "Yes yes... Still. I want her tongue. AND her liver." "You shall have it. You know I could never deny you anything, brother."

Work HARD to get her to try and kill you then say, "Oops! I'm sorry. If I'm not allowed to kill YOUR PC, you aren't allowed to kill MINE." Then laugh and start up some friendly banter with your partner. Dead baby jokes, for instance. "What's better then ten dead babies in a trashcan, brother?" "One dead baby in ten trashcans." "You know me too well, brother." "That joke never gets old. It just keeps getting funnier, every time you say it." "Thank you brother." "No No No, thank you."

Think of a pair of really polite chipmunks who happen to be sociopathic mass murderers.

Or you could not be a jerk...

that works too.:smallwink:

[Ortesk]

I think what you need to do is contact the cleric and say, "Hey. I think we should have some fun." Then both make up a tag team of Pure Evil. I mean Horrible, Horrible, Horrible people. Brothers. Loyal to one another and nobody else. Will murder and slaughter innocents for the fun of it.

Your Battlecry: "Children Aren't Worth Experience Points Alive!"

Then return to the game. Announce that since the game is clearly going to the Darkside and your Good Aligned characters won't fit in, you both made up some new PCs. The General everyone is taking orders from had the old PCs court marshalled.

Make sure your Old PCs die in a horrible Fashion. Ripped apart by horses. No. Set on FIRE then ripped apart by horses.

Then the two of you show this girl what evil is about. Steal her equipment when she's sleeping. Anyone she talks to, murder them while she's talking to them. Summon demons and bind them into Innocent NPCs. Murder Kittens and make them into undead. Leave the zombie kittens in Cribs to eat babies.

That sort of thing.

I have no doubt this girl is just revealing in the mass murder. She doesn't ACTUALLY want to be evil. She wants to be Faux-Evil. She wants to show off and doesn't actually think about the NPCs as real. She doesn't take the game seriously.

So raise the stakes.
Go from wish fufillment to Placing Mental Images In Her Head She Will Wish She Could Forget.

Either everyone else will run with it, or it will destroy the campaign. Then you can sit back and say, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

More importantly, FLAUNT that no PvP. Insult everyone horribly in character then say, "hey, it's just my PC." Look at her and say, "You know, the sticky side of the liner goes AGAINST your panties. Just saying." Make horrible sexist remarks. Discuss cannibalism in a conversational tone, "I prefer the rich taste of half-elf, myself." "Yes yes... Still. I want her tongue. AND her liver." "You shall have it. You know I could never deny you anything, brother."

Work HARD to get her to try and kill you then say, "Oops! I'm sorry. If I'm not allowed to kill YOUR PC, you aren't allowed to kill MINE." Then laugh and start up some friendly banter with your partner. Dead baby jokes, for instance. "What's better then ten dead babies in a trashcan, brother?" "One dead baby in ten trashcans." "You know me too well, brother." "That joke never gets old. It just keeps getting funnier, every time you say it." "Thank you brother." "No No No, thank you."

Think of a pair of really polite chipmunks who happen to be sociopathic mass murderers.

All joking aside i would do this. Play a druid/planar shephard and beef your effective HD up so by level 12 you can be a pitfiend with pitfiend abilities, your spells, and still have an animal companion. Your brother is a DMM nightstick stacking persisting freak, and when she gets huffy about no pvp say fine i'll indulge you. then make her your perma sex slave, shes a blaster sorceror so you two will pown hammer her and everyone else in the way

[Scumbaggery]

Don't get me wrong, I've partaken in my fairshare of mayhem in D&D, but what kind of commander is going to give a mission to a group of people who are quite clearly Good people to go slaughter an entire village? Sans the sorceress. She was, quite clearly, acting CE or LE, but Evil nonetheless. Killing a bunch of people for cash is standard, neutral Murder-hoboism, but clearly enjoying it for more than that is a pretty evil quality. She wasn't really playing in character, but you were.

Which brings me to my next point...


Finally, I got fed up with it I decided to outright kill her character but the DM refused to let me attack her.

Uh, what. PC's aren't always going to agree. I find some PvP here and there to be very freeing, especially in evil campaigns. I have had to tear multiple Paladin's of Slaughter new ones because their code dictated they be a jerk unless I can beat them. It happens. Your DM loses cool points for obvious fiat, despite your character being in the right about it. Had an NPC witnessed this, he would be able to attack. Why not you? As far as keeping table drama down to a minimum, her character would have been asking for this to begin with.

Also, I understand getting emotionally invested in a game. Take a breather and see if things get better. There has been many a time where another PC blatantly meta-games against mine (again, evil campaigns I ply in usually have a lot of backstabbing.) Best just to forgive and forget

[SassyQuatch]

Think of a pair of really polite chipmunks who happen to be sociopathic mass murderers.
1) that's not an appropriate description for sociopathic serial killers. Details.

2) I got more of a vibe from this sentence that they should be barbarians. I was thinking Chip and Dale Raptoran Ragers.

3) and then you find out that the town was completely possessed by demons and was a foothold for an invasion, the sorceress was being set up to be the BBEG, and your actions have pulled away enough resources to stop your terror spree that now the invasion is 100% sure to happen. Way to doom the world for petty retribution.

[Ortesk]

1) that's not an appropriate description for sociopathic serial killers. Details.

2) I got more of a vibe from this sentence that they should be barbarians. I was thinking Chip and Dale Raptoran Ragers.

3) and then you find out that the town was completely possessed by demons and was a foothold for an invasion, the sorceress was being set up to be the BBEG, and your actions have pulled away enough resources to stop your terror spree that now the invasion is 100% sure to happen. Way to doom the world for petty retribution.

I then bump fists with the commander of the invasion, say you know how OP a planar shephard is? Well, want one on your side? All i ask is she is my sex slave and i get to kill 100 commoners a week in any fashion i see fit. Also i wanna eat some babies

[Raezeman]

What i would like to know, is how (story-wise) 2 good-aligned characters ended up in the employment of a commander that would order the annihilation of innocent people?
Also, in one of the campaigns i'm playing, my good sorcerer made clear to the neutral characters that if they were ever to go evil, they would have a battle to the death. (well, his goal is to destroy all evil in the world...)

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Gods, what? This rings heavily of ludicrous... Your DM, regardless of the part of the story we're not getting (I know it's there somewhere, but oh well) set the party in a situation with the OPTION to turn against each other and then said "nu pvp". He had no more right or obligation to ban you from acting in-character than he would've had to ban her from making the decision, or hurting NPCs; this is straight-up bias. If he's going to give the option for decorative difference, he has to allow people to react in conflict. What, did he think using lethal methods to fight off evil and save innocents (read: every heroic adventuring party's method) was somehow evil simply because your characters are on the same team?

I would recommend taking the Cleric and finding another group, but I know from experience that finding IRL 3.5 players can be pretty difficult. Due to this, you simply need to be firm with your DM, and not to be rude, but either correct his silly methods, or make sure that the laws are laid down for you NOW and, if necessary to make the DM see what has come of the game due to his lack of understanding of cause-to-effect and, y'know, ACTUAL ROLEPLAYING, then yes, abuse the hell out of his rules.

[Winds of Nagual]

Interesting thread... Is it poor DMing, poor role-playing, or poor story-telling by the originator of this discussion. I play goodey-two-shoes almost exclusively. BUT the idea of having to destroy a plague town and having the sorcerer losing control in blood fury tells a GREAT story. Seeking redeption, continuing the path towards new PC villain - lots of possibility. But I also play in a group that wants to constantly make the story better. Sacrificing for the party, attacking a PC from jealousy (in order to make that PC an arch-nemesis). But always cordial. I assume your fellow PC was just being a turd though. :smallfrown:

[Epsilon Rose]

What i would like to know, is how (story-wise) 2 good-aligned characters ended up in the employment of a commander that would order the annihilation of innocent people?
Also, in one of the campaigns i'm playing, my good sorcerer made clear to the neutral characters that if they were ever to go evil, they would have a battle to the death. (well, his goal is to destroy all evil in the world...)

How does a neutral character have a the goal of destroying all evil? That strikes me as distinctly nonnuetral.


Unfortunately not much can be done here. What can be said is that the OP is sore with both the game style and with his gaming group as individuals. As such I believe that taking the story at face value is not entirely wise. There are a lot of omissions of details that would be relevant, and often when this is the case the omitted facts often crucial to an accurate understanding of what really happened.

Given the lack of response from the op, I'm inclined to agree.

[Raezeman]

How does a neutral character have a the goal of destroying all evil? That strikes me as distinctly nonnuetral.


Sorry, made this unclear, it's my good sorcerer that has the goal of destroying all evil.

[hamishspence]

Sorry, made this unclear, it's my good sorcerer that has the goal of destroying all evil.

It's quite easy though for a Good character with the goal of "destroy all evil" to slide to Neutral or even Evil themselves- all they need to be, is a little blind to their own nature and to the nature of some of their actions.

[Juntao112]

I would actually argue the sorceress is acting in a LN or LE way. They are following orders from an authority figure who had hired you and had assumedly gave you orders and pay before.

I've heard that one before...

[Zanos]

This DM sounds horrendously bad. I'm less concerned about the actions of the sorceress than those of the DM, honestly. I've played more than one character that had crossed enough lines to be geometry homework, but if a Good or Neutral, or, hell, just someone Evil who isn't mental wanted to stop the character from wholesale slaughter, no respectable DM should say "you can't."

I'd leave this group, but not because of the sorceress. I'd leave because of the DM.

[dascarletm]

This DM sounds horrendously bad. I'm less concerned about the actions of the sorceress than those of the DM, honestly. I've played more than one characters that had crossed enough lines to be geometry homework, but if a Good or Neutral, or, hell, just someone Evil who isn't mental wanted to stop the character from wholesale slaughter, no respectable DM should say "you can't."

I'd leave this group, but not because of the sorceress. I'd leave because of the DM.

I only disallow PvP if it is derived from OOC issues.

[Randomocity132]

I believe no matter what your alignment you should be playing a good guy. (Unless of course you're aligned evil and really you probably shouldn't be playing an evil character in a party of good guys in most cases.)

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that even though her actions were purely fictitious the motivation behind them really kind of shook me. I'm just kind of wondering what you guys think about this. I apologize if this just comes off as me ranting.

That sounds like you have your personal beliefs about good and evil mixed in with the character's motivations. Understand that people in D&D are going to do things that are not always good, especially if it's not a pure good campaign, and the DM is alright with a mixed alignment party. I personally feel that killing your teammate is never the answer. Incapacitation (even if it means beating them into -2 then letting them lie there) is always a better option. That being said, the DM should have allowed you to fight her. What was it you tried to do to kill her? A save-or-die spell?


First off, what she was doing there is categorized as Chaotic Evil. Slaughtering people for no greater reason than you are getting paid for it is, barring mitigating circumstances, generally evil, slaughtering innocents for such a reason is pretty much definitely evil, and reviling in doing so is moving into Vile territory. Far as general morality is concerned, even the other party members who "went along with it" should be suffering alignment shift towards evil, and the sorceress has probably moved through a moral event horizon.

Neutral characters have the freedom to commit evil acts and good acts. As long as she's not ALWAYS doing stuff like this, she can continue to be neutral, especially if it's chaotic neutral.

Killing everything because you're paid to is Lawful Evil or, more likely, Neutral Evil. Chaotic evil would have killed them regardless of payment. While the act is definitely evil, it's not random. It's entirely motivated. Additionally, a single act of slaughter is not enough to move a chaotic neutral/true neutral character to evil. It takes repeated actions.

[ArcturusV]

The repeated or singular is entirely up to a DM Judgement call though. It's not really in the rules. In fact the rules have at times pointed to acts that are so vile, so tainted, that doing it is pretty much an autofall to Evil. And really that's what it depends on. Fiction itself is filled with characters who are generally considered "Evil" without a doubt, who do lots of Good Actions, motivated over some sense of guilt/shame over one horrible, truly vile action that they did, and don't really want to fess up to or atone for directly, thinking that somehow good and evil are some barter system where they can leverage so many donations to a children's hospital or helping old ladies cross the street make up for actions like being complicit accomplices in a genocide, etc.

So there is a basis, both in rules, and in fiction, about how you might do the singular act is a fall to Evil. Of course part of the key to that singular act is not only is it really, truly vile. The character themselves also defends and justifies that action in their mind. They say things like "Oh, it was going to happen anyway... I might as well have profited from it because someone was going to", etc. There's a case that you might make for such mitigating factors being "Neutral". Though DnD is much more black and white with it's ethics than life is. The rules, references, adventures, etc, they don't really recognize things like mitigating factors (Except perhaps ignorance, and sometimes not even that). If you sell your soul to a demon in order to... save a village and make it prosperous, every person who lives there well cared for, etc, it's still selling your soul to a demon, you still end up evil, regardless.

Neutrality is a harder line to walk than most people think. It's not about cosmically balancing the scales of good and evil in your soul (That and remember DnD seems to go on the philosophy that it's a miles high stairway to Good, and a bullet train to Evil), or just not making a choice (Note even the rules themselves say most people don't consciously make an alignment choice, but they still have it), or only "occasionally" doing something. It's either a line about being philosophically balancing yourself on purpose, avoiding great acts of good or evil, because you think Excess in either direction isn't healthy for a person or the world. Or it's about being effectively unaware as we think of it, being motivated by primal, simple desires (Food, sex, shelter, staying alive) without the capability to think and act morally (e.g: Why Animals and such are Neutral). Or being completely unwilling to make a moral choice in life (e.g.: The usual example of a Lawful Neutral type is someone who is so enslaved to the idea of Rules that they don't think for themselves and just follow the Rules, or the James Deanish Chaotic Neutral, Rebel without a Cause, who doesn't really care about good or evil but just lashes out at any authority that tries to tell him what to do).

At least this seems to be the general thoughts and guidelines that come up when the books talk about Alignment, characters, and how they act within it. Granted I know it's something where each table, each player and DM tends to walk away with their own houserules and logic on it. But it really isn't quite as clear cut as saying "Well you can do an evil thing 5 times before you fall to evil" or something. It avoids having "points" like Star Wars did for Light Side/Dark Side just for that reason, so people couldn't try to game their alignment, and never be sure just which act was going to be one that was so dark, so repugnant that they are changed. Or just how many times they can rely on Vile Spells before they start to become a pawn of darkness.

Yeah, you can houserule it a lot. In fact you kind of have to. But there's a sort of basis in the rules that someone who nukes a village, laughing gleefully at the death and destruction, reveling in it, probably got a ride on that bullet train straight to evil.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, you can houserule it a lot. In fact you kind of have to. But there's a sort of basis in the rules that someone who nukes a village, laughing gleefully at the death and destruction, reveling in it, probably got a ride on that bullet train straight to evil.

That's a pretty fair summary.

[Frosty]

I believe no matter what your alignment you should be playing a good guy.I completely disagree. You should play your *character*, whomever that may be, to its fullest and richest. That said, the players and DM should talk it out beforehand to make sure that nobody is too uncomfortable with a particular character concept.

[Randomocity132]

But it really isn't quite as clear cut as saying "Well you can do an evil thing 5 times before you fall to evil" or something. It avoids having "points" like Star Wars did for Light Side/Dark Side just for that reason, so people couldn't try to game their alignment, and never be sure just which act was going to be one that was so dark, so repugnant that they are changed. Or just how many times they can rely on Vile Spells before they start to become a pawn of darkness.

Yeah, you can houserule it a lot. In fact you kind of have to. But there's a sort of basis in the rules that someone who nukes a village, laughing gleefully at the death and destruction, reveling in it, probably got a ride on that bullet train straight to evil.

Perhaps. It is quite possible. But it's not a guaranteed thing. A lot of people seem to assume this person automatically is/becomes chaotic evil because of this one event. It's also not as straightforward as "You ever do a particular act, regardless of motivation, become evil."

[Coidzor]

I completely disagree. You should play your *character*, whomever that may be, to its fullest and richest. That said, the players and DM should talk it out beforehand to make sure that nobody is too uncomfortable with a particular character concept.

And your character should be in line with the tone of the game. No characters that like to make nice in PVP, stab each other in the back constantly games, no characters that suffer from chronic backstabbing, footshooting syndrome in a game of unlikely heroes in search of adventure.