PDA

View Full Version : Would a Good character have alignment trouble if he abandoned his friend...



Super Evil User
2014-06-23, 06:51 PM
...for the sake of an increase in personal power?

Just some notes:


Both are nonevil.
The power increase is not necessary for a "greater good"; it's the end-goal of the character.
The Good character is capable of saving his friend or getting the power increase, but time restrains him from doing both.

kyoryu
2014-06-23, 07:14 PM
That's pretty much the definition of a Neutral act (self-interest).

That said, one Neutral (or even Evil) act usually ain't enough for an alignment switch, but depending on the fate he left his friend to, that might sway things.

TandemChelipeds
2014-06-23, 07:23 PM
Does the other character face certain death? Has the friend asked to be saved? Normally, I'd say this totally warrants an alignment shift, but the Good character could just be really confident in the friend's abilities.

Super Evil User
2014-06-23, 07:39 PM
Does the other character face certain death? Has the friend asked to be saved? Normally, I'd say this totally warrants an alignment shift, but the Good character could just be really confident in the friend's abilities.

Yes, certainly.

No, but that's because he was bound and gagged. It's fairly obvious to everyone that he'd die without outside help.

veti
2014-06-23, 08:31 PM
Abandoning another to certain death purely for your own aggrandisement?

Regardless of whether it's a friend or neutral, or what their alignment is, that's a pretty Evil act right there.

Jeff the Green
2014-06-23, 08:34 PM
I suppose the bigger question is whether the character was ever Good to begin with. The issue is consistency. Good, Neutral, or Evil, characters should have consistent (but not necessarily static) motivations. I'm having trouble imagining many Good characters that would sacrifice friends for personal power. Actually, I'm having trouble imagining many Neutral characters that would.

So, no I don't think by itself a single evil act of any magnitude short of multiple murder warrants an alignment shift. However, it does indicate that you should look at the character's past actions and character and see if they maybe were mislabeled in the first place.

Brookshw
2014-06-23, 08:51 PM
Even an evil character could feel remorse and guilt for doing this to a friend (though you're very stingy with details). Alignment isn't a straight jacket.

Kid Jake
2014-06-23, 08:59 PM
It also sort of depends on power level. I mean there's a big difference in a level 1 character abandoning his pal to certain and (most likely) permanent death and a level 18 character giving a friend an unintended vacation until he can get back to town and buy a resurrection. One is a cruel and cowardly act of desertion, the other's just kind of a **** move.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 09:24 PM
yes, he would be in alignment trouble if he were originally good. However this shouldn't be a big deal unless he is cleric of a good deity or a paladin, otherwise he should be fine, just replace the G with a N and the character will probably make much more sense from now on

Jeff the Green
2014-06-23, 09:29 PM
yes, he would be in alignment trouble if he were originally good. However this shouldn't be a big deal unless he is cleric of a good deity or a paladin, otherwise he should be fine, just replace the G with a N and the character will probably make much more sense from now on

First, a single act will almost never change alignment. Second, even a good god would probably not shun his cleric for abandoning a friend unless his portfolio included things like 'friendship', 'loyalty', or 'duty'. Only gross violations of the deity's code of conduct will make a cleric fall; merely acting against your god's alignment won't.

zinycor
2014-06-23, 09:36 PM
First, a single act will almost never change alignment. Second, even a good god would probably not shun his cleric for abandoning a friend unless his portfolio included things like 'friendship', 'loyalty', or 'duty'. Only gross violations of the deity's code of conduct will make a cleric fall; merely acting against your god's alignment won't.

I didn't say that his alignment MUST change, just that it would imply problems with it, not saying that his god would leave him, but i guess it could happens...

Anyway, my point was that if this character is willing to do this kind of things he would probably be more at place as neutral character than a good character, but, he could do this and continue to be good as long as he feels bad about having done it or having a good excuse about it.

SethoMarkus
2014-06-23, 09:50 PM
Yeah, in a situation like this, I'd actually stop a second and ask the player if they really think this is something their character would do. Abandoning a friend to (obvious) certain death simply to pursue personal gain in the form of power, especially when that power isn't even for the sake of "the greater good", is NOT an action that a Good character would take, not unless they were on the borderline of Neutral and headed towards Evil in the first place.

Though the character's motivation may have been to gain personal power, I think what makes a Good character good is that they are willing to sacrifice their own personal advancement in order to aid others. A Neutral character would rarely sacrifice their own personal advancement, but generally would if it would prevent others from coming to harm. A Neutral character still seeks a Good aligned world, for the most part, but are too concerned with their own well-being and enjoyment to go the extra mile. Even an Evil aligned character might stop short of abandoning a friend in such a way. If it was a random peasant or hostage, sure, but a friend? Those are hard to come by for an Evil character, and I'd imagine a Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil character doing whatever they could to keep that friend alive (as long as it did not put their own life at risk, and that the friend would remain useful to them in some way, even if that is just comradery).

So yeah, I'd ask the player to confirm that this is really what their character would do. If they are persistent, I would allow it but straight out tell them that this is a behavior drastically outside their moral norm. If there is a pattern of this sort of behavior, they will be bumped an alignment step. If there is not a pattern, then one more action such as this and they will be bumped an alignment step.

holywhippet
2014-06-23, 09:51 PM
I suppose one part of the question is who's fault is it his friend is in trouble? If it is the friends own fault that he is in this situation it's less of an alignment dilemma because even the bonds of friendship don't compel you to save someone from their own mistakes every time they make them. Still it is a bit of a cold hearted move though.

If it isn't the fault of either character then it is somewhat more of an alignment problem as acting indifferent to your friend being in trouble isn't really a good action but isn't really evil either.

If it is the players fault that his friend is in trouble it is clearly an alignment violation.

Angelalex242
2014-06-24, 03:53 AM
Let's ask Richard Burlew what he thinks:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

Looks pretty clear to me. I'd shift this guy's alignment to true neutral. And if he's a Paladin or good aligned divine spellcaster, he's headed for Mikoville, complete with dramatic lightning zapping his powers away.

Jeff the Green
2014-06-24, 04:16 AM
I didn't say that his alignment MUST change, just that it would imply problems with it, not saying that his god would leave him, but i guess it could happens...

Anyway, my point was that if this character is willing to do this kind of things he would probably be more at place as neutral character than a good character, but, he could do this and continue to be good as long as he feels bad about having done it or having a good excuse about it.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you, then, and we're actually in accord.


Yeah, in a situation like this, I'd actually stop a second and ask the player if they really think this is something their character would do. Abandoning a friend to (obvious) certain death simply to pursue personal gain in the form of power, especially when that power isn't even for the sake of "the greater good", is NOT an action that a Good character would take, not unless they were on the borderline of Neutral and headed towards Evil in the first place.

Though the character's motivation may have been to gain personal power, I think what makes a Good character good is that they are willing to sacrifice their own personal advancement in order to aid others. A Neutral character would rarely sacrifice their own personal advancement, but generally would if it would prevent others from coming to harm. A Neutral character still seeks a Good aligned world, for the most part, but are too concerned with their own well-being and enjoyment to go the extra mile. Even an Evil aligned character might stop short of abandoning a friend in such a way. If it was a random peasant or hostage, sure, but a friend? Those are hard to come by for an Evil character, and I'd imagine a Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil character doing whatever they could to keep that friend alive (as long as it did not put their own life at risk, and that the friend would remain useful to them in some way, even if that is just comradery).

So yeah, I'd ask the player to confirm that this is really what their character would do. If they are persistent, I would allow it but straight out tell them that this is a behavior drastically outside their moral norm. If there is a pattern of this sort of behavior, they will be bumped an alignment step. If there is not a pattern, then one more action such as this and they will be bumped an alignment step.

Basically this.


Let's ask Richard Burlew what he thinks:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

Looks pretty clear to me. I'd shift this guy's alignment to true neutral. And if he's a Paladin or good aligned divine spellcaster, he's headed for Mikoville, complete with dramatic lightning zapping his powers away.

Your evidence disproves your claim. Note that Roy didn't fall to LN for betraying Elan. It was an evil act, but one act is not enough to shift an alignment. To paraphrase Aristotle: We are what what we repeatedly do. Evil, therefore, is not an act but a habit.

A paladin should fall immediately in this situation, but a good cleric is in no danger unless he worships a god of friendship, duty, or loyalty.

Angelalex242
2014-06-24, 04:27 AM
You missed the point.

Roy got out of that BECAUSE HE WENT BACK and changed his mind.


I'll tell you, though, if you hadn't gone back for him...then whether or not he lived or died, I'd be chucking your file in the True Neutral Bin right now.

If this guy doesn't do likewise, then screwed he is.

If the PC goes back for his friend, then it shows his conscience is in tact.

If the PC does not...True Neutral.

As for Gods who would zap you if you did that...

In FR:Torm (Especially!), Tyr, Il Mater, entire house of triad, Lathander, possibly Sune.
In Greyhawk:St. Cuthbert, Heironeus, Pelor, Bahamut. And even Kord might be giving you the hairy eyeball.
In all campaigns, racial deities like Moradin, Corellon, Garl, Yondalla will zap you hard...if and only if the abandoned friend is of the appropriate race. (Don't abandon dwarves around Moradin, or screwed is you.)

Jeff the Green
2014-06-24, 05:26 AM
You missed the point.

Roy got out of that BECAUSE HE WENT BACK and changed his mind.



If this guy doesn't do likewise, then screwed he is.

If the PC goes back for his friend, then it shows his conscience is in tact.

If the PC does not...True Neutral.

As for Gods who would zap you if you did that...

In FR:Torm (Especially!), Tyr, Il Mater, entire house of triad, Lathander, possibly Sune.
In Greyhawk:St. Cuthbert, Heironeus, Pelor, Bahamut. And even Kord might be giving you the hairy eyeball.
In all campaigns, racial deities like Moradin, Corellon, Garl, Yondalla will zap you hard...if and only if the abandoned friend is of the appropriate race. (Don't abandon dwarves around Moradin, or screwed is you.)

You also missed the point. Roy was rescued from LNdom for doing more Good than Evil—in particular, for saving Élan in an unrelated situation. It's only because he was borderline that that was a tipping point anyway. If the character was otherwise solidly Good, one evil act cannot shift alignment. (Though, as discussed, it may not be something the character would reasonably be imagined to do and deserves an OOC discussion about the decision and whether the Good label was ever appropriate.)

For deities, you have to remember that clerics only fall for grossly violating their deity's code of conduct. Torm's and Ilmater's clerics would certainly fall as they are gods of loyalty and self-sacrifice, respectively. Tyr's might, but his thing is justice, not duty or loyalty. I don't see how Lathamder's or Sune's clerics would fall.

I'm not super familiar with Greyhawk, but from what I understand St. Cuthbert is primarily concerned with Justice, but with less of a Good bent than Tyr, so I doubt his clerics would fall. Pelor's in the same boat as Lathander. Heironeus, like Torm, is big on loyalty and duty, so his clerics are screwed. Likewise Bahamut.

The racial deities are a bit tricky. While they're concerned primarily with their races, they care about the race as a whole, seeing the individuals valuable but also expendable. The more lawful ones like Moradin would hit you for abandoning your duty to your race, but the others, like Garl or Yondalla, would be unhappy but not enough to strip the cleric of their power.

Tengu_temp
2014-06-24, 07:02 AM
I suppose one part of the question is who's fault is it his friend is in trouble? If it is the friends own fault that he is in this situation it's less of an alignment dilemma because even the bonds of friendship don't compel you to save someone from their own mistakes every time they make them. Still it is a bit of a cold hearted move though.

If it isn't the fault of either character then it is somewhat more of an alignment problem as acting indifferent to your friend being in trouble isn't really a good action but isn't really evil either.

If it is the players fault that his friend is in trouble it is clearly an alignment violation.

This doesn't change a damn thing. "It's his own fault he's in trouble" is not a mitigating factor, it's an excuse. Leaving your friend to die because you'd rather grab power instead is an evil act in almost every circumstance (the only exception is when the friend is evil and did something so evil they deserve to die regardless).

Slipperychicken
2014-06-24, 08:04 AM
Per BoVD, betrayal is an evil act, and so is "sacrificing another for a boon". So yeah, this is going to give him some trouble.


The power increase is not necessary for a "greater good"; it's the end-goal of the character.

Really? Power for power's sake? How is this guy good-aligned, again?

Segev
2014-06-24, 08:20 AM
Given that acquiring this power is the prime motivation of the character in question, it sounds like the classic "temptation" scenario. A good-aligned character CAN commit neutral, even the occasional borderline-evil acts, and still be good, but it does stain them pretty quickly if it forms even the inkling of a pattern of behavior. Usually, such a choice is, in fact, a Start Of Darkness for the character.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that this character is and has always been Good in his thoughts and deeds up to this point. Perhaps not the most moralistic paragon of LG ever to impress a Paladin, but certainly not anybody with whom even the most uptight Paladin would generally find fault. He has his motives for pursuing this power - they can be good or neutral without harming his standing as a good man. Even good people can have things they want for themselves, after all. And a good person likely will have at least ancillary plans for use of things he wants for himself that will help others, particularly if this thing is something which enables the character in some fashion. Power absolutely does this.

He's been working towards this, sacrificing other desires of his for chances at advancing towards this goal, but still helping out the innocent and being generally a good person. The tricky bit here is the question of whether he's had the opportunity to make darker choices in pursuit of this power already. The more times he's had this opportunity, the more likely he'll either have begun establishing this pattern of questionable behavior or developed a mental fortitude against succumbing to these tempting choices.

In the first case, if he's somehow managed to get this far without the hard choices ever involving choosing an easy path versus a right path (but simply been "immediate gratification on something else" vs "my long-term goal"), then this would be a crisis of conscience for him. He's never confronted this choice before, and never had to consider something other than self-discipline in favor of his goal is more important than other delightful options. Now, he is faced with a choice that actually will have his instincts screaming that he must remain dedicated to his goal (as he always has before) conflicting with his very conscience. Before, it was one deferred desire pitted against an immediately-satisfiable one. Now, it's everything he HAS sacrificed for versus satisfying a desire to keep a friend. But at the same time, now, it's SOMEBODY ELSE who would join him in paying the price.

In the second case, the Good-aligned character has made this hard choice before, and always (since we've established he's not already on the path of falling) chosen to defer his opportunity to advance his personal goal in favor of doing the right thing. Now, for this to not be a simple choice of just following his established pattern of self-sacrificial behavior, something must have shifted within him. Perhaps before he's always had the ability to say, "next time, it won't be so costly a choice" or "there's a right way to do this, and I'll get there." Perhaps he's learned that he'll never have another chance at this power. Perhaps he's merely given up so many opportunities that this just...isn't...fair. Maybe he's drained, emotionally and morally, and just wants something for himself for once. But...at the same time, this is his FRIEND.

Either way, let's say he chooses to take the power and let his friend die. He has, we've established, always been a good man up until now. He certainly has a mark against that alignment here, and has a gaping doorway onto a path of darkness and sacrifice-of-others for his power. It may be the easier choice, again, because it lets him justify what he's done as "necessary" or dismiss the sacrifice as "meaningless."

But either way, he has to live with himself. He has lost a friend, and has cost his mutual friends theirs, as well. Does he own up to it? Does he repent, atone, and feel his triumph turn to ash as he realizes that this power doesn't bring back his friend? Or does he choose to revel in this power and not let his lost friend bother him? Does his cover it up (or abandon his other friends for not understanding)?

If he's truly been a Good man up until now, how he handles this wrong choice's aftermath and where he goes from there will determine whether he shifts to Neutral or Evil or not. But a Good character will never come out of choosing personal gain over a friend and be happier for it. Not while remaining Good.



It is also worth discussing that even a Good character who has made the right choice to save his friend may come out of this broken. If this was his only/last chance at his goal, or if he's had to sacrifice so much and now is back at square one, he may lose his own drive to do...anything. He is happy his friend is alive, but unless something shifts within him to give him a new and more attainable goal, unless he can abandon his goal without deep and abiding regrets, he may later fall to bitterness or despair anyway.

Whether this leads him to making the wrong choice later and putting us in the second of the above scenarios, or it causes him to simply waste away in depression, depends on the character and the tale. However, unless something comes in to give him hope that his life's work might have meaning (or to give him a goal which superceeds the one he's abandoning), he's not going to come out of this well. He may well need his friends - especially the one he's saved - to save him from internal destruction.

Super Evil User
2014-06-24, 08:46 AM
...so basically everyone agrees that what the guy did was A Sucky Thing to do?

Jeff the Green
2014-06-24, 08:57 AM
...so basically everyone agrees that what the guy did was A Sucky Thing to do?

...uh, yeah? I think the only people who might say it wasn't are Objectivists, and let's just say their ethics and metaethics are way outside the mainstream.

hymer
2014-06-24, 09:01 AM
...so basically everyone agrees that what the guy did was A Sucky Thing to do?

Now that you have your answer, why did you ask?

Jeff the Green
2014-06-24, 09:09 AM
Now that you have your answer, why did you ask?

Whuhuh? Did you mean to quote Super Evil User?

Segev
2014-06-24, 09:26 AM
...uh, yeah? I think the only people who might say it wasn't are Objectivists, and let's just say their ethics and metaethics are way outside the mainstream.

Er, no. Speaking as an Objectivist, anybody who has done a modicum of study of the actual philosophy would find this to be a false statement.

Objectivism is about enlightened self-interest, not about selfishness and "what can you do for me tomorrow."

The closest Objectivism might come to this would be if the salvation of said friend would lead to the ruination of the person making the effort. And even then, if you really examine Objectivism at its core, its value of human life is such that it would not tolerate a calculation of "abandon your friend for your own material, short-term betterment."

Enlightened self-interest would dictate that you treat others as you'd want to be treated. In this case, helping a friend avoid certain death is nearly without equivalent price, simply because you would wish the same.

Now, the coldest-hearted objectivists would turn around and expect loyalty and aid on par with paying back such a sacrifice, but they would not hesitate to make it. Not for one they trusted - as one hopefully would a friend - to be willing to do all they could to pay them back.

I would posit, as well, that a friend so rescued who refused to give his all to attempting to help his friend and savior find either a new and better goal or to find a new way to achieve his goal is taking a neutral-to-evil course. After all, what kind of ungrateful jerk says "thanks for saving my life, sorry for your chance at everything you've worked your whole life for being lost, now buck up! Oh, you're depressed? Whiner, why should I care? What have you done for me lately?"

Tengu_temp
2014-06-24, 09:28 AM
Really? Power for power's sake? How is this guy good-aligned, again?

Good people can desire power for its own sake. Ambition is not evil. What matters is what you do on your way to obtain power, and how you use it once you achieve it.

Segev
2014-06-24, 09:36 AM
Good people can desire power for its own sake. Ambition is not evil. What matters is what you do on your way to obtain power, and how you use it once you achieve it.

Precisely this. All people who are of any use desire power. Not necessarily over others, but to actuate their desires in the world. The most kind and giving person ever desires power to help and give more to more people. If he doesn't, then his protestations of kind caring are as meaningless as the proclamation by the lazy selfish couch potato that he should be ruler of the world.

hymer
2014-06-24, 09:59 AM
Whuhuh? Did you mean to quote Super Evil User?

I did indeed, sorry. :smallsmile: Edited my post.

Segev
2014-06-24, 10:06 AM
...so basically everyone agrees that what the guy did was A Sucky Thing to do?

Oh, absolutely.

Heck, come to think of it, barring circumstances unusual to the typical adventuring party, there's an unspoken (or possibly explicitly written, depending on the party) contract to help and aid each other through the adventure. Objectivism is very big on keeping your part of any bargain; after all, you're trading value for value. Unless you and your "friend" have an understanding where you owe each other nothing, Objectivism would find betraying that agreement reprehensible as any sort of theft of value by not delivering value in return as agreed.

Angelalex242
2014-06-24, 10:18 AM
Hey it's like Palpatine said when he and Anakin had an unconscious Obi Wan.

Palpatine:Leave him
Anakin:His fate is ours.

(In retrospect, Palpatine was even right...had Anakin left him, he wouldn't have had all the rest of his limbs chopped off on Mustafar.)

Slipperychicken
2014-06-24, 04:17 PM
Good people can desire power for its own sake. Ambition is not evil. What matters is what you do on your way to obtain power, and how you use it once you achieve it.

Power alone is his endgame, not the greater good, and he's willing to kill* his buddies for personal gain. That's more or less the definition of evil in dnd.

*End his life, leaving him to die, whatever. The important thing is that he's trading his friend's life for power.

draken50
2014-06-24, 05:53 PM
The way this questions is phrased is rather leading and I feel like this is more looking for agreement rather than an opinion but I'm going to go ahead and say no.

See, leaving your dear friend from childhood who has saved your life on countless occasions to die in the pursuit of glory and power would hardly be considered a good act.

Watching your good friend get hauled off by local authorities to face execution for his crimes, while you move forward with the quest you both set out on is much rougher, but earned on his part. IF he didn't commit any crimes, could be a little rougher.

On the other hand, and how this player might have seen it.

Your good dear childhood friend captured by the minions of the Great Sorcerer Bob, while you both quested for a way to end his tyrannical rule. You watch as he is bound a gagged and taken away to a horrible fate, grieving at the choice you've had to make, unwilling to risk your seemingly inevitable defeat at Bob or his cronies hands while so close to the power you believe could be used to end his vicious and unfeeling rule. Tough choice, but I'd say its more on the good line to sadly live with sacrifice of your true friend, that you may carry on and free others from his cruelty and avarice.

So I'm going to say no.

And if all else fails I'll go on the internet to find people who agree with me.

SethoMarkus
2014-06-24, 09:37 PM
Tough choice, but I'd say its more on the good line to sadly live with sacrifice of your true friend, that you may carry on and free others from his cruelty and avarice.


You do have some valid points there. The situation and context of this conundrum does alter the outcome slightly. If, for example, his friend deserved his fate (as in, the friend is being lawfully executed for some atrocious crime the friend did commit), then yes, it is "Good" to leave his friend to that fate (if a bit rough, as you put it).

Likewise, if the Good character had no means of successfully saving his friend; if any attempt at saving one would result in the doom of both, then I agree with you. Though it might not be entirely "Good", it certainly isn't entirely "Evil" either.

However, that does not seem to be the situation. As per the information in the OP:




Both are nonevil.
The power increase is not necessary for a "greater good"; it's the end-goal of the character.
The Good character is capable of saving his friend or getting the power increase, but time restrains him from doing both.


The Good character is not abandoning his friend so that he may gain more power to eventually avenge the fallen friend; it is simply to gain more power.

Further more, the Good character is indeed capable of saving his friend. It is not a matter of "run away or die trying", it is a matter of "I could save my friend from being hit by that car, but then I'll never catch that ice cream truck, and I really want an ice cream cone right now..."

So yes, the situation does change things. No, we don't have the full set of information for this particular situation. And yes, the question does seem to be leading. But, I feel we do have enough information to determine that this is a supposedly Good character engaging in a clearly not-Good (most would agree Evil) act. However the DM decides to handle this is up to them, but we can't pretend that it is a Good action by D&D standards given the information we have.

Super Evil User
2014-06-24, 11:49 PM
Now that you have your answer, why did you ask?

Suffice to say, one of my players kind of got himself in a snit...

Nilehus
2014-06-25, 12:12 AM
Abandoning a teammate to death for power, just power, is one of the few acts that would cause an alignment shift near-immediately from my perspective. If the character had abandoned their teammate for the greater good, i.e. choosing to save the town over their comrade, it'd be a little more debatable, but for their own selfish ends? For no greater cause than 'I like power'? Yeah, they'd have to come up with a reaaaally good justification to avoid an alignment change.

Angelalex242
2014-06-25, 12:59 AM
A Snit?

"What do you mean I can't callously disregard the lives of my friends to further my ULTIMATE SUPREME POWER! That's totally a good action! Everyone knows how kind it is, and how much it respects the dignity of sentient beings, and how it strikes down the evildoers that are doing evil things to my friend..."

elliott20
2014-06-25, 01:23 PM
I might be totally off-base here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm getting the feeling that this is incident is right now being seen by most people as a "what should I do to punish him / should I punish him?" question

I personally come at this from the perspective that his action here might not be congruent with his alignment... but that's exactly where potential character growth can come from. Instead of thinking about giving him some kind of issue with this and treat it like a punishment, I would try to use it as an opportunity to give him a chance to really explore who is character really is.

I would point out to him that what he did would probably bother him a little. Don't tell him that it is, ask him if he thinks he agrees with it. and if he takes the bait, work out a simple script with him where you basically say, "I want you to look for a chance to either 1. make amends and become better (a la Roy in the bandit forest) or 2. have a personal epiphany that irrevocably makes him a darker character. And in both cases, he should get some role playing based reward out of it

Jeff the Green
2014-06-25, 11:42 PM
I might be totally off-base here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm getting the feeling that this is incident is right now being seen by most people as a "what should I do to punish him / should I punish him?" question

I personally come at this from the perspective that his action here might not be congruent with his alignment... but that's exactly where potential character growth can come from. Instead of thinking about giving him some kind of issue with this and treat it like a punishment, I would try to use it as an opportunity to give him a chance to really explore who is character really is.

I would point out to him that what he did would probably bother him a little. Don't tell him that it is, ask him if he thinks he agrees with it. and if he takes the bait, work out a simple script with him where you basically say, "I want you to look for a chance to either 1. make amends and become better (a la Roy in the bandit forest) or 2. have a personal epiphany that irrevocably makes him a darker character. And in both cases, he should get some role playing based reward out of it

A punishment? No one has suggested this (except the code of conduct thing, and that's dictated by the rules). Changing alignment (which I still maintain this will not) isn't a punishment. Neither is asking "That sounds Evil to me; is your CG character really going to do that?"

Of course, if you're in Ravenloft and he did this the player is a moron and deserves everything he's going to get.

Angelalex242
2014-06-26, 12:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1TTN-Ev2KI

Ask him if that looks like a particularly nice guy to him. :P

hamishspence
2014-06-26, 02:17 AM
Neutral characters tend to be committed to others by personal relationships.

Using the Easydamus alignment system, mistreatment of allies tends to be considered bad by both LN characters:

http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html

and TN characters:

http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

although it's not so much an issue for CN characters:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

Good characters might be willing to place "the greater good" above "friend" - especially if that friend is Neutral or mildly Evil - but not otherwise.

Tengu_temp
2014-06-26, 02:31 AM
Power alone is his endgame, not the greater good, and he's willing to kill* his buddies for personal gain. That's more or less the definition of evil in dnd.

*End his life, leaving him to die, whatever. The important thing is that he's trading his friend's life for power.

We're not talking about this specific guy right now - nobody, except a few fringe voices, disagrees that what he did was evil.

We're talking about general terms. You said that good characters cannot desire power for power's sake. I disagreed, because they totally can. Not all good characters intentionally work towards the greater good; some of them simply do good when they get the opportunity, while still pursuing very personal goals.

Seto
2014-06-26, 08:33 AM
If, for example, his friend deserved his fate (as in, the friend is being lawfully executed for some atrocious crime the friend did commit), then yes, it is "Good" to leave his friend to that fate (if a bit rough, as you put it).

No, it's Lawful. It's Good if you know that your friend is irredeemably Evil and will continue to hurt others if given the chance ; but then, why is he your friend in the first place ? A CG person, or even a NG one, could totally help their friend bust out, because they're still attached to them, know that they are capable of doing good, and want to help them be redeemed, set them back on the right path. They should just be prepared to deal with the consequences if their friends gets out of control. (Then again, a CG guy could feel betrayed and hurt seeing what their friend has become, and just walk away. Which would be a totally valid Neutral act. Depends on the character's personality.)

Millennium
2014-06-26, 08:44 AM
We're talking about general terms. You said that good characters cannot desire power for power's sake. I disagreed, because they totally can.
I disagree for a different reason. Good characters can't desire power just for power's sake, but neither can Evil ones. Truly desiring power just for power's sake, to the point of putting one's own life at risk (for example, by taking up adventuring) is an extreme compulsion: a strong mental illness. It's almost akin to a kind of hoarding. A character who honestly desires power for power's sake is Neutral (Innocent), because he is not sane enough to understand his actions.

People sane enough to have an alignment in the first place do not desire power for power's sake, especially not to the point of taking up the adventuring life for it, because really: that's just plain dangerous. This doesn't mean they don't desire power at all, of course, but the reason is different. A sane character desires power for what can be done with it: they want to do something, and power is the key. This thing need not be a realistic goal, even within the context of a fantasy game: frankly, it's unrealistic more often than not.

A Good character, for example might use that power to protect or nurture the people around him in some way. Many mighty champions of Good got their start this way. Another Good character might try to create something that will do this after he is gone, like constructs or weapons and armor. Another popular choice, especially among the LG sorts, is to found an organization: knightly orders, schools, hospitals, and so on. The logistics of creating a lasting organization don't lend themselves as well to NG or CG founders, but some of them do manage.

A Neutral character might see himself as a sort of artist, using his power to create works of great beauty or endurance, but not be especially concerned about what their works do. Most would still prefer that their works not be used for evil, but tend toward works that can't really be used for much of anything either way, rendering the preference moot. Some -again, especially among the Lawful types- turn to founding organizations like guilds, schools of the trades or arts, or monasteries.

An Evil character is ultimately looking out for number one. That could mean himself, or it could mean some group he identifies with (a race, a religion, a social class, or almost anything else). He may seek to use his power to dominate other people, or at least people who are not in his group.He might even seek to eradicate people who are not in his group, or who are in some other group that he is not in, ostensibly to protect himself or his group. He might try to find other ways to give himself or his group an inherent, insurmountable advantage over others. Some of them found organizations, but this tends to be more of a group-oriented thing than a self-oriented one: crime families are the classic case.

The point is that people have goals. Wanting power for power's sake isn't a Good goal, but it's not an Evil one either, because either way presupposes sanity. Hoarding power isn't sane. When someone tells me their character wants power, I respond with "Power's how you're going to get what you want. What do you want?" And if it really is just power, then we can work with that, but it has implications.

Not all good characters intentionally work towards the greater good; some of them simply do good when they get the opportunity, while still pursuing very personal goals.
If that was all it took to be Good, then just about everyone -even most villains- would be Good. Non-neutral alignments imply a stronger commitment than that: Neutrality can too, but more often represents a state of non-commitment. That's where most characters in your example would actually fall.

Segev
2014-06-26, 08:54 AM
If that was all it took to be Good, then just about everyone -even most villains- would be Good. Non-neutral alignments imply a stronger commitment than that: Neutrality can too, but more often represents a state of non-commitment. That's where most characters in your example would actually fall.

Er, no. Evil people don't "generally do good." Evil people are selfish to the point of refusing to help others if there's nothing in it for them. Your "run of the mill" evil person who isn't constantly out doing evil for evil's sake might do a lot of neutral things, but he's not going to be "doing good" in any generic sense. If he were, he'd be neutral.

To get the kind of person who will do "the right thing" preferably to "the wrong thing" if it doesn't require too much more effort on his part, you're looking at neutral alignments. Neutral people act mostly for themselves, but it's a 50/50 shot whether any given neutral person will drop some coins in the beggar's cup or not, and it will largely depend on how convenient his coin purse is, how much he trusts that this isn't a set-up to get him robbed, and whether or not the beggar is in easy reach on his way by. (Well, and the usual consideration of whether the neutral potential donor can afford the donation.)

In matters of great need, a neutral person may still stop and help, especially if his help is of relatively minor inconvenience. A neutral person might walk by on the other side of the road if helping the man beaten by robbers would take too long, but if all it took was offering to call him an ambulance and there were no other passers-by, he would probably go ahead and do that. The Good Samaritan, who not only took care of the beaten man's wounds and helped him personally to a shelter, but paid for that shelter, himself, was definitely Good.

But a caravan of neutral people passing a man beaten on the side of the road may well pick him up and help him to the next town, as long as it's not out of their way and they can afford the resources spent without feeling the pinch. Neutral people like to THINK of themselves as decent, as a general rule, and so act decently when it doesn't cost them.

A caravan of evil people would point and laugh, at best, as they passed by.

hamishspence
2014-06-26, 09:56 AM
While there might exist "compassionate evil characters" - they'd have to be very evil.

An elf running a campaign of genocide against dwarves - who will nevertheless automatically leap to the aid of strangers in trouble who are not dwarves - I'd say could be both Evil and Altruistic.

russdm
2014-06-26, 05:23 PM
An elf running a campaign of genocide against dwarves - who will nevertheless automatically leap to the aid of strangers in trouble who are not dwarves - I'd say could be both Evil and Altruistic.

I thought this was what elves were always doing anyway and aren't evil supposed to CG according to one system (d&d or dumb & drunk)?

The bigger problem here though is that an elf doing the same as the above but targeting humans/orcs/goblins instead of dwarves will be considered both good and altruistic.

According to one set of rules' morals, wiping out orcs is considered a good thing to do, while wiping out dwarves or elves is considered evil.

In my own gaming experience, I would say that abandoning your friend might end up being the best choice out of all bad choices, but your friend should never get themselves into a situation where you have to make a choice.

Personally, my characters would usually choose power over friendship even a paladin (d&d style) because stopping the enemy/villain permanently is more important. I am willing to accept the alignment hit, because its the right thing to do.

For a jedi character I may play, it will be completely the same. I will accept taking a dark side point as the result of killing the villain or ending his existence. Its the most right thing to do in the circumstances.

By choosing to become an adventurer and make judgment calls on whether other creatures should die, then you are choosing to accept to suffer the consequences of your actions no matter what they might be. Allowing the villain to escape is the choice solely of dumb adventurers.

That said, abandoning a friend for power, doesn't sound that better to me at all, and would be interesting to pursue.

Deliberately selling your friend to a fiend of some kind in exchange for power is simply unacceptable, you have no right to offer your buddy's soul. But I can see an evil character doing it. Maybe even a neutral character.

As for surviving, I think someone could survive abandoning a friend because it really depends on circumstances. Knowing that by rescuing your friend, the villain escapes to cause more havoc, then I would suggest seriously reconsidering.

The main thing though is that whether a good character really has alignment trouble is based on much a single act affects the alignment of the character. If any one act that is evil can make the character become evil aligned, then yes there is alignment trouble. If any one act that is evil won't shift the alignment, then abandoning your friend, doesn't matter at all.

Good characters can just as selfish as evil ones, but not to the same extent so being selfish is not evil. Doing so at the expense of others maybe, but there are neutrals like that.

Evil characters can be just as compassionate or uncompassionate as good characters. The Jedi from star wars tend to be uncompassionate with exceptions like Yoda or Obiwan or Quigon. The Jedi may only think of others, but that doesn't translate instantly into compassion in my mind.

Angelalex242
2014-06-26, 05:30 PM
I don't understand why you'd choose to play a character with a code of conduct, then violate it because you think you know better then the legends and mythos of the world you're playing in.

Rather arrogant of you, really. Many a Blackguard and Sith Lord started out with such arrogance.

russdm
2014-06-26, 05:41 PM
I don't understand why you'd choose to play a character with a code of conduct, then violate it because you think you know better then the legends and mythos of the world you're playing in.

Rather arrogant of you, really. Many a Blackguard and Sith Lord started out with such arrogance.

That's way I usually never play a character with a code of conduct. Its too restricting.

veti
2014-06-26, 06:37 PM
While there might exist "compassionate evil characters" - they'd have to be very evil.

Not really. The archetype of a villain who hates the things they have to do, in order to save the world/their country/people/humanity in general/souls/whatever from themselves, is pretty well established. It may be downright typical for an Inquisitor, for instance.

Consider Ozymandias in Watchmen, or the Operative in Serenity, for examples.

russdm
2014-06-26, 06:57 PM
or the Operative in Serenity, for examples.

This was my favorite character in that movie. He was simply awesome and cool.

hamishspence
2014-06-27, 01:19 AM
Not really. The archetype of a villain who hates the things they have to do, in order to save the world/their country/people/humanity in general/souls/whatever from themselves, is pretty well established. It may be downright typical for an Inquisitor, for instance.

Consider Ozymandias in Watchmen, or the Operative in Serenity, for examples.

There's a lot of people who insist those are Neutral.

Compassion and altruism are strongly Good- though I'd say some Evil characters can have them to a degree.

The murder of many innocent people, is probably the "very evil" that counters the compassionate streak of characters like the Operative.

Jeff the Green
2014-06-27, 01:25 AM
There's a lot of people who insist those are Neutral.

Compassion and altruism are strongly Good- though I'd say some Evil characters can have them to a degree.

The murder of many innocent people, is probably the "very evil" that counters the compassionate streak of characters like the Operative.

There is a feat for this: Touch of Benevolance. It gives you a chance to not count as evil for the purpose of spells, but requires you to be somewhat deluded regarding your alignment; you think you're not Evil because you show compassion occasionally or "mercifully" let enemies flee instead of shooting them in the back.

Angelalex242
2014-06-27, 06:30 AM
Touch of Benevolence
( Champions of Ruin, p. 22)

[General]


Despite your evil alignment, you are prone to moments of benevolence and mercy.

Prerequisite

Any evil alignment,


Benefit

Although you are evil and spells such as detect evil reveal your true alignment, you have a 50% chance of ignoring any effect that specifically targets or damages evil creatures.

Special

To keep this feat, a character must demonstrate periodic acts of kindness and mercy. A DM can revoke this feat if the character fails to act in an appropriately conflicted manner.

=============================================
Wow. One of the few feats that doesn't thwart detect evil, but thwarts smite evil.

This is the kind of feat guys like Magneto have. (He does it all for mutantkind).

...Come to think of it, this is very powerful for a feat. Every bad guy who has reason to fear paladins and clerics should take this. Blocking Smite Evil and Holy Based Magic and Holy Weapons and Bless Weapon and...wow.

I think this feat is now a must have for any villains I make.

SethoMarkus
2014-06-27, 08:13 AM
Wow. One of the few feats that doesn't thwart detect evil, but thwarts smite evil.

This is the kind of feat guys like Magneto have. (He does it all for mutantkind).

...Come to think of it, this is very powerful for a feat. Every bad guy who has reason to fear paladins and clerics should take this. Blocking Smite Evil and Holy Based Magic and Holy Weapons and Bless Weapon and...wow.

I think this feat is now a must have for any villains I make.

Just remember that it won't work for EVERY villain, just the villains that can be sympathized with because, hey, they aren't really evil, they just need to do this to make the world a better place*!

*Except for the ones who are dead.

Angelalex242
2014-06-27, 09:56 AM
Well, yeah.

It's 'well intentioned extremist' in a nutshell.

Makes me wonder if there's a corresponding 'touch of malevolence' for good characters...

Sure, he's a nice friendly guy...except when he hears about orcs, he murders them all, and even tortures a few to death. But other then that nice guy, really!

For the sake of my sanity, however, I'd rule it cannot be taken by any character with a Code of Conduct.

Segev
2014-06-27, 12:50 PM
Consider Ozymandias in Watchmen.

Sorry, I consider him nothing but villainous, and not particularly conflicted nor anti-heroic in his villainy. He is wrong on so many levels about how things will work. The only way he could be right is with the author on board, as for him to be right, millennia of human history and the evidence of how people behave in that very comic have to be ignored.

He made a play for power and won, and he tries to justify it by claiming that everybody but him is too stupid and inferior to see the wisdom of his actions.

Ozymandius of Watchmen is a villain, not an anti-villain nor a conflicted hero. There is no moral ambiguity about it. There is no redeeming characteristic in his "good intentions." Just arrogance and ruthlessness to get what HE wants, and screw anybody who gets in the way.

Jeff the Green
2014-06-27, 12:54 PM
Makes me wonder if there's a corresponding 'touch of malevolence' for good characters...

No, because a Good character who periodically does evil things is likely actually Neutral.

Even though it's not all that strong, I do love that feat, especially combined with Veil of Cyric, which foils detect evil. I've got a character I want to play at some point who's a cleric of Ilmater who is convinced that, since suffering improves people's spiritual well-being, it's his duty to spread suffering to those who have none in addition to alleviating the suffering of those who have too much. He uses Heretic of the Faith to be LE and get a domain he couldn't otherwise get (probably Deathbound for blade of pain and fear, wither limb,avasculate, and avascular mass).

Kalmageddon
2014-06-27, 01:32 PM
The way this questions is phrased is rather leading and I feel like this is more looking for agreement rather than an opinion but I'm going to go ahead and say no.

.

Exactly. It's like someone asking "would killing a sentient being that didn't attack you be evil?" only to find out that the sentient being was a CE red dragon that was sleeping after eating a village full of puppies.

I swear, a lot of people only come to this section of the forum to get confirmation for their own bias and gripes.

Millennium
2014-06-27, 03:28 PM
Er, no. Evil people don't "generally do good."
I'm still not with you on this. Evil characters often do good things, sometimes even altruistically. Someone who does Evil all the time, with no regard for the people around him, is a dead man. Sooner or later, someone is going to get tired of his BS and make sure that someone (of whatever alignment) puts a stop to it. Even Evil people understand the need for good public relations -they might even understand it more keenly than the rest of us- and evil acts are not known for being good PR.

My favorite example of this would be the villain Nakago, from the anime and manga Fushigi Yuugi (the anime was brought to the US as Mysterious Play). This character is, to be blunt, one of the most vile characters in fiction. He is a kingslayer and a war criminal. He murders innocents and children to get what he wants, and has attempted genocide despite being a survivor of genocide himself. We do not see him commit rape, but this is not for lack of trying, and he still manipulates the situation so that his intended victim believes that he did. Speaking of manipulation, we also see him manipulate his own allies, having been in similar situations, into thinking the same. He will order minions to do these things if the current situation does not permit him to do it himself, but he is by no means averse to handling the dirty work personally. We don't hear much about a commitment to evil for evil's sake, but there can be no doubt that this man is evil to the core.

Yet he has minions, and not just of the paid or insane variety (though he has his share of these too; he did murder an emperor and take over his empire, after all). He has genuine followers. He has friends, even loved ones, and not just among people he has decieved: his inner circle are all perfectly aware that he will betray them if the need arises, but accept this because they love him.

How, you ask? Who could love someone like that? As the series begins to enter its later phases, you start finding out. He has taken in deformed outcasts and treated them like people. He has rescued victims of human trafficking and child prostitution. He has freed slaves, stopped genocides (even though he has gone on to attempt some of his own), and given hope to people who genuinely had no reason for it. All this, while being neither fallen nor redeemed: this is not someone who vacillates between heroism and villainy. He is rotten to the core, yet he has done the work of heroes, and continues to do so in some contexts.

Good and Evil do not work the same way. They are not "balanced" in any game-wise sense; they are not equal and opposite. The paladin's code is a far stricter standard than other Good characters are held to, but even without it, Good is still less tolerant of its opposite than Evil is. This is, in fact, one of Evil's biggest selling points: not all Good characters are paladins, it's true, but Good is still inherently more judgmental than Evil ever will be.

Think about it. It's a standard trope: ask the wise Good mentor why people will turn to Evil, and they'll always tell you the same thing, from Albus Dumbledore to Yoda: Evil is the easy path. The people who actually turn will tell you very different stories about why they did, of course; according to them, the mentors are just dismissing their opposition as lazy or cowardly or otherwise gripped by vice. But even those on the Evil path will not dispute the idea that it is easier.

Why? What is it that makes Evil easier? The answer is that Evil will accept paths that Good characters find abhorrent. We can argue back and forth about why Good characters would do so: sometimes we'd probably find ourselves in agreement, and other times we wouldn't. Either way, it gets back to this core difference: Evil accepts, and Good rejects. This is what makes Good the harder path, and is a large part of why there's even a debate between them in the first place. No one would be Evil if it really fit Good's stereotypes of it.

russdm
2014-06-27, 03:36 PM
Why? What is it that makes Evil easier? The answer is that Evil will accept paths that Good characters find abhorrent. We can argue back and forth about why Good characters would do so: sometimes we'd probably find ourselves in agreement, and other times we wouldn't. Either way, it gets back to this core difference: Evil accepts, and Good rejects. This is what makes Good the harder path, and is a large part of why there's even a debate between them in the first place. No one would be Evil if it really fit Good's stereotypes of it.

Don't forget that Evil usually has cookies while Good makes you give away your cookies.

Super Evil User
2014-06-29, 04:51 AM
Okay, I think I owe you all an elaboration.

We were playing Urban Arcana. One of my players was a Lawful Good guy who was running for mayor. Of course, he was also secretly a half-elf. The other player was a lizardfolk who masqueraded as a semi-famous singer and was a public friend of the mayor.

Now the lizardfolk was kidnapped by some demons and tortured to death. The LG guy had every opportunity to save him, but the mayoral elections were going on and he wanted his friend's death to generate sympathy for his cause.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-29, 05:07 AM
Okay, I think I owe you all an elaboration.

We were playing Urban Arcana. One of my players was a Lawful Good guy who was running for mayor. Of course, he was also secretly a half-elf. The other player was a lizardfolk who masqueraded as a semi-famous singer and was a public friend of the mayor.

Now the lizardfolk was kidnapped by some demons and tortured to death. The LG guy had every opportunity to save him, but the mayoral elections were going on and he wanted his friend's death to generate sympathy for his cause.

I would say this is outright evil, so yes, an alignment shift is in order.

Angelalex242
2014-06-29, 06:57 AM
...that's it? To win a MAYOR ELECTION? Man, politicians these days...no wonder nobody in their right mind trusts one.

...Neutral Evil? Chaotic Evil?

...I'm a little torn. Definitely not Lawful, though.

SethoMarkus
2014-06-29, 09:34 AM
...that's it? To win a MAYOR ELECTION? Man, politicians these days...no wonder nobody in their right mind trusts one.

...Neutral Evil? Chaotic Evil?

...I'm a little torn. Definitely not Lawful, though.

Yeah, I agree. If I were running this game, I would definitely shift to Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis just from this one action (unless that would seriously affect class restrictions, but there better be a darn good history of Lawful behavior then). It would most likely change to Neutral on the Good/Evil axis as well, if there were any prior behaviors that were anything less than Paragon of Righteousness.

This sounds like something a Neutral Evil character would do, personally. They are only out for their own well being and advancement, they have no compulsion to alleviate the suffering of others and even use that suffering to further their own goals, they use the established laws and government for their own gain but disregard those same laws when they are not beneficial... This actually sounds like a good villain for a campaign. Definitely not the behavior of a Lawful Good character, even if they aren't a Paladin.

kathrynguzman
2014-06-29, 11:17 AM
The Mod Wonder; Sneaky, sneaky spammer.

FidgetySquirrel
2014-06-29, 11:38 AM
Sure, he's a nice friendly guy...except when he hears about orcs, he murders them all, and even tortures a few to death. But other then that nice guy, really!I had a CN character who pretty much did this, minus the torture. His initial goal was orc genocide, so he basically acted CE when dealing with orcs. Character development led to him realizing he actually hated himself for his failures, then he got better and shifted to CG. He still didn't trust orcs, but he didn't try to murder them on sight anymore, either.

Nilehus
2014-06-29, 12:27 PM
Wow. Yeah, chuck his file in the True Neutral bin. No way he's still Good after that.

Dornith
2014-06-29, 12:31 PM
I basically say that a good character would do what's best for others, the details of that get a bit more murky.

We have a Chaotic Good Sorcerer, and a good example of his less-than-perfect-goodness is he ounce stole money from a teammate to get new equipment, but payed her back a few days later.

Angelalex242
2014-06-29, 01:27 PM
I could see a CG ROGUE doing that, (with the pay her back part attached), but why on earth would a sorcerer bother? Sorcerers have high charisma, they can just ASK.

TandemChelipeds
2014-06-29, 02:07 PM
I would argue that the conditions set by the OP are disingenuous. The mayoral candidate could rescue his friend and spin it as positive propaganda, securing both objectives simultaneously. After all, the kind of guy that would risk his life to save someone from demons is surely the kind of guy that could be counted on to selflessly serve a city. Given that this character could have done the right thing and still achieved his personal goal, this definitely earns him an alignment shift.

Sith_Happens
2014-06-29, 02:44 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3dpNHiSfyeM/TcilvPk4QdI/AAAAAAAAAM4/ObTx0hFeqGE/s1600/Obito-statement-by-yuhaya.jpg

(I don't actually have anything useful to say that hasn't been said already.)

Super Evil User
2014-06-30, 09:15 AM
...that's it? To win a MAYOR ELECTION? Man, politicians these days...no wonder nobody in their right mind trusts one.

...Neutral Evil? Chaotic Evil?

...I'm a little torn. Definitely not Lawful, though.

He really really really wanted to become mayor. He wasn't the most powerful to start with and the position itself symbolized a lot that he didn't have.

Segev
2014-06-30, 10:20 AM
Definitely an evil action. I don't think it's necessarily unlawful, unless he had a legal "duty to rescue" or had an ethical code such as "no lizardfolk left behind" or the like.


Regarding the last post on the previous page, you're engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. The point I was disagreeing with is that evil people "predominantly do good." There is a large gulf between "predominantly do good" and "does nothing but evil." Much of that gulf is occupied by evil people.

Nakago's good is public-facing or designed to manipulate and control those he "cares" for. He would turn around and sacrifice each and every one of them on the altar of his ambition without a qualm, and he'll emotionally abuse and manipulate them into being glad to do it. If any of his rescuees were to find themselves support from another source other than Nakago, Nakago would undermine or eliminate that support.

Nakago's "good works" are those of the soft tyrant, creating and exploiting dependency on him in order to make losing his support worse than anything he might demand of those he "helps."

I wouldn't call that "predominantly doing good." You can argue that some have better lives than they would, otherwise, but even those are corrupted to do further evil on Nakago's behalf.

Sith_Happens
2014-06-30, 03:17 PM
Definitely an evil action. I don't think it's necessarily unlawful, unless he had a legal "duty to rescue" or had an ethical code such as "no lizardfolk left behind" or the like.

Betraying the trust of a close friend is definitely Chaotic.

Segev
2014-06-30, 03:30 PM
Betraying the trust of a close friend is definitely Chaotic.

Depends on whether it was all part of the plan. LE types can betray friends and such, as long as there's no agreement or rule that says otherwise.

Slipperychicken
2014-06-30, 04:23 PM
Now the lizardfolk was kidnapped by some demons and tortured to death. The LG guy had every opportunity to save him, but the mayoral elections were going on and he wanted his friend's death to generate sympathy for his cause.

You'd think the lizardman's testimony about being tortured half to death would be enough to get sympathy.

veti
2014-06-30, 04:29 PM
Depends on whether it was all part of the plan. LE types can betray friends and such, as long as there's no agreement or rule that says otherwise.

I completely agree. The action could easily be LE, and could even plausibly be spun as LN (putting his duty to the larger community ahead of his personal duty to his friend - an Evil action in a Good cause, assuming of course he plans to be a Good mayor).

There may also be a mitigating circumstance if his rival candidate is Richard Wilkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wilkins_%28Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer%29)...

Angelalex242
2014-06-30, 09:34 PM
Heh.

I think I'd rather have Wilkins over this wacko. At least Wilkins is relatively honest about eating a box of spiders and ascending as a True Tanar'ri. This guy's going to become a demon without even knowing it. :P

Jeff the Green
2014-07-01, 12:57 AM
every opportunity to save him

Okay, this makes me tentatively change my mind. If the guy had a week to save him and ignored it, this isn't the same as a one-off decision; it's conscious, not spur-of-the-moment, and indicative of something in his character. While it might not necessarily make him slide all the way to neutral, he's definitely on the verge of it.

I'd still have a talk with the player about whether this is in-character and whether his originally-assigned alignment was actually appropriate to begin with.

Super Evil User
2014-07-01, 08:01 PM
I would argue that the conditions set by the OP are disingenuous. The mayoral candidate could rescue his friend and spin it as positive propaganda, securing both objectives simultaneously. After all, the kind of guy that would risk his life to save someone from demons is surely the kind of guy that could be counted on to selflessly serve a city. Given that this character could have done the right thing and still achieved his personal goal, this definitely earns him an alignment shift.

It's been established that my player's not the sharpest tool in the shed at this point.

LimSindull
2014-07-01, 09:49 PM
According to the thread title, the good character would be in game trouble. Originally I was thinking of something along the effect of losing the trust of NPCs around him or facing insanity penalties for going strongly against his alignment. However, after the latest explanation of the events I wholly believe that the character has had an alignment change.

What I mean by that must be described by using alignment as the way that a character perceives the world and not as a limiting restriction on what a character can and can not do.

The abandonment of his dear friend was a symptom of something that was taking place within the character. It appears that instead of following through with cultural stigmas about helping friends, or any possible agreement the two may have had, or reacting towards any emotion that he would have after having a friend kidnapped in front of him (is that how it happened) to be tortured and murdered, the character pushed all of these things inside and ignored or refused to act upon any feelings for the friend whatsoever and instead waited until this death would benefit him.

Before this incident, the character was lawful good. He probably honored understood agreements, wanted to get into the political offices to help a group of people, believing that he could run things better than those that were in office. The most that he broke his morals was probably along the lines of allying himself with someone that he knows is corrupt.

Now, he has not only abandoned his friend to gain a possible sympathy bump in the election, but he has refused to even report a kidnapping to police officials.

Why? This is the question. To become Mayor. That is the answer.

Would this not reflect the mindset of a neutral evil character. He didn't set up the kidnapping, or murder anyone for his position (such as a chaotic character would do) and he broke from the idea of respecting this long time public friend (Unlike a lawful character would). If his character reflects an alignment in his mindset, wouldn't it make more sense for him to adopt the reflected alignment rather than shift from alignment to alignment.

Last, as a DM, I often want my players more scared of betraying each other rather than death itself. (lots of Pking going on before I started DMing this group) One strategy I implement is the old ADnD penalty for alignment change of making the character earn double the amount of xp required to level until they role play sufficiently enough that I see a change in how their character looks at the world.

A side note to the OP, now would be the perfect time to end these two characters story lines, have them re roll in the same setting and now have the mayor as an antagonist.

Anyways, a lot of people make good points on this thread. I hope this helps.

zinycor
2014-07-01, 11:32 PM
Okay, I think I owe you all an elaboration.

We were playing Urban Arcana. One of my players was a Lawful Good guy who was running for mayor. Of course, he was also secretly a half-elf. The other player was a lizardfolk who masqueraded as a semi-famous singer and was a public friend of the mayor.

Now the lizardfolk was kidnapped by some demons and tortured to death. The LG guy had every opportunity to save him, but the mayoral elections were going on and he wanted his friend's death to generate sympathy for his cause.

am sure that's the very definition of a lawful evil act, and may change his alignment, because letting your friend die is a thing that may or not mbe evil... letting your friend die in order to use it to your advantage is a veeeery evil thing to do.

zinycor
2014-07-01, 11:36 PM
According to the thread title, the good character would be in game trouble. Originally I was thinking of something along the effect of losing the trust of NPCs around him or facing insanity penalties for going strongly against his alignment. However, after the latest explanation of the events I wholly believe that the character has had an alignment change.

What I mean by that must be described by using alignment as the way that a character perceives the world and not as a limiting restriction on what a character can and can not do.

The abandonment of his dear friend was a symptom of something that was taking place within the character. It appears that instead of following through with cultural stigmas about helping friends, or any possible agreement the two may have had, or reacting towards any emotion that he would have after having a friend kidnapped in front of him (is that how it happened) to be tortured and murdered, the character pushed all of these things inside and ignored or refused to act upon any feelings for the friend whatsoever and instead waited until this death would benefit him.

Before this incident, the character was lawful good. He probably honored understood agreements, wanted to get into the political offices to help a group of people, believing that he could run things better than those that were in office. The most that he broke his morals was probably along the lines of allying himself with someone that he knows is corrupt.

Now, he has not only abandoned his friend to gain a possible sympathy bump in the election, but he has refused to even report a kidnapping to police officials.

Why? This is the question. To become Mayor. That is the answer.

Would this not reflect the mindset of a neutral evil character. He didn't set up the kidnapping, or murder anyone for his position (such as a chaotic character would do) and he broke from the idea of respecting this long time public friend (Unlike a lawful character would). If his character reflects an alignment in his mindset, wouldn't it make more sense for him to adopt the reflected alignment rather than shift from alignment to alignment.

Last, as a DM, I often want my players more scared of betraying each other rather than death itself. (lots of Pking going on before I started DMing this group) One strategy I implement is the old ADnD penalty for alignment change of making the character earn double the amount of xp required to level until they role play sufficiently enough that I see a change in how their character looks at the world.

A side note to the OP, now would be the perfect time to end these two characters story lines, have them re roll in the same setting and now have the mayor as an antagonist.

Anyways, a lot of people make good points on this thread. I hope this helps.


and not letting the player play his now evil mayor?!?!!!! that would be terrible, if i sacrificed my friend in order to win an election i would want to rule that town with an iron fist myself!!!

LokiRagnarok
2014-07-02, 01:26 AM
I believe that is the point.

Super Evil User
2014-08-13, 10:26 PM
OK, thanks everyone. So we ended up taking your advice and ended up rerolling.

His decision to win the election was motivated by backstory; his dad ran years back, lost because of a scandal and his family's been a laughingstock ever since. He decided it was a good idea to have his friend killed because he was tired of waiting around for another opportunity.

Here's my new problem. Now that he's under my control, I want to make it abundantly clear that he's lost more than he's won - how do I do this?

Sith_Happens
2014-08-14, 12:13 AM
Here's my new problem. Now that he's under my control, I want to make it abundantly clear that he's lost more than he's won - how do I do this?

Two words: Nosy reporters. "Mr. Mayor, is it true that you received personal notification of [singer]'s kidnapping on [date]? We have a reliable source claiming that [method of his finding out]." His betrayal was already growing on his conscience by this point, but the sudden, constant reminders only make it worse. Like many people, he ends up turning to alcohol for comfort. While he keeps this newfound drinking habit secret for a while, eventually the DUI happens. Headlines. Falling approval ratings. Meanwhile, the local demon problem has been getting worse, and a few notable pundits have started pointing to his failure to save the singer as evidence that he can't handle it. Before long, most of the public has lost confidence in his leadership.

That clear enough for you?:smallamused:

Socksy
2014-08-15, 06:00 PM
I think he'd be in more trouble if he was Lawful rather than good.

Sartharina
2014-08-16, 01:10 AM
Betraying the trust of a close friend is definitely Chaotic.No it's not. Betrayal is Evil, not Chaotic. Breaking a promise is one thing. But outright betraying someone is Evil, not Chaotic.

Zrak
2014-08-16, 02:28 PM
I think the level of the characters really is important. If you're at the point where death is basically just a minor financial setback, abandoning an ally to death is a lot less serious. I don't think it makes sense to bring the perspective of a world where death is very, very final to a question about a world where that isn't the case.

hamishspence
2014-08-16, 02:41 PM
It might also be a very painful experience as well as a "minor setback".

And some afterlives don't let go easily once you're in there.

Mr Beer
2014-08-16, 09:32 PM
Here's my new problem. Now that he's under my control, I want to make it abundantly clear that he's lost more than he's won - how do I do this?

Immediate challenge to his mayoral authority: the lizardmen know that they can kidnap and torture citizens with impunity. If they know the guy was his friend, that can come up.

Alignment shifts can cause problems with the character's diety as well.

AMFV
2014-08-17, 08:05 AM
It's worth noting that there are no real "alignment troubles" in d20 systems, there are no rules for forced alignment changes. For me personally if a character's alignment has no mechanical bearing on the situation I don't care what's written on their sheet. It very rarely comes up to be absolutely honest. I don't like forcing an alignment change, simply because that is outside the scope of the rules, if there are alignment related mechanical issues then I generally treat them as whatever alignment I think most fits.

Ettina
2014-08-24, 09:35 PM
Well, I can tell you that my character Snowball would consider that a despicable thing to do, and she's either Neutral or Evil, depending on who you ask. She may not make friends easily, and she's a very scary person to cross (mind control you indefinitely or turn you into a zombie kind of scary), but she is loyal to her friends.