Your opinion on the actions of a LN PC.

[Oryan77]

I try not to be really strict about alignment issues. I think a player should do whatever he feels his character would do. Alignment is just a guideline for me. If the actions were extreme and went against his alignment on a regular basis, then we'd deal with it from there.

Our group recently discussed the actions of a particular PC and everyone seems to think that the PCs actions are justified. So I most likely won't make an issue of it. As the DM, I'm on the fence about it, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm just curious how others outside the group would see it.

We have a LN PC that has draconic blood (although he's a water mephling). He claims to respect and defend all dragons regardless of their alignment or past deeds. This PC was annoyed that the party leader rallied the group to help kill off an evil black dragon that was a reoccurring NPC before the player of the LN PC joined the game. The party leader is a LN dwarf (now king). The dwarf granted each other player a seat on his dwarven council for their help in ridding the long lost dwarven citadel of the black dragon.

During their raid, another PC broke into a crypt and stole a dwarven thigh bone which belongs to an ancestor of the dwarf PC. Many sessions later, that PC ends up giving this bone to the LN mephling because the mephling wanted it in order to secretely have it used in the crafting process of making a +1 sword, using the bone as the handle. To top it off, he also bought a "gag" item which is a tiny angry dwarf trapped in a snowglobe. When a person looks in the globe, they see this dwarf yelling at them and stomping around in anger (you don't hear anything). They saw this item in a shop long ago, and he remembered it and wanted to buy it to attach as the pommel of the sword.

This player tends to constantly do "slapstick" antics in the game because he finds it entertaining. He is also constantly annoyed by how the player of the dwarven leader plays D&D (tactically). Pretty much every single session he vocally expresses his annoyance at this player and he always gives him a hard time. When I asked him why his PC is making this sword (especially because he's a sorcerer), his response is, "the dwarf says that his dwarvencraft forged items are made by dwarves, but I think it means they are made of dwarves just like when someone makes an item out of dragons."

He won't tell the dwarven PC what the sword is made from, he goes out of his way to disguise the weapon handle, the dwarf does not know that they have his ancestors bone (he only knows out of game), but the mephling always brags to the dwarf that his weapon really is a dwarvencraft weapon.

Basically, out of game, I know this player is doing it to "get back" at the other player for being an annoyingly tactical player. He is also the type that consistently metagames and tries to use some excuse to make it legit in-game (regardless of how weak the explanation is). In this case, he says he made the sword because his PC is still angry that they killed the black dragon and this is his way of "getting back" at him, even if he isn't telling the other PC that the sword is made out of his dwarven ancestor.

All in all, it's amusing, but the guy playing the dwarf finally expressed his concerns privately with me and he didn't know if his PC would have a reason to confront the PC about the sword. He wants to inspect it and identify it (he's a Battlesmith), but he wasn't sure if his PC would know he he knows out-of-game. I also feel bad for this player. He's a really good guy, people always like him, and he is the exact opposite of a problem player. His only flaw is that he really does make terrible tactical decisions during the games and it can get frustrating as a fellow player. He doesn't do it to be annoying though, he really does try to do the right thing. I've played with him as a player before, and as a tactical player myself, it can be frustrating, but I understand not everyone excels at being that type of player. I would never do things to irritate him though as a form of payback.

So I brought up the question with the group as to whether or not the actions of the mephling go against his alignment or if his reasons for having the sword crafted are justified. He is neutral, so I suppose good/evil isn't a concern of his in regards to the black dragon. I felt his actions seem pretty chaotic though, since I know he's trying to take a jab at the dwarf. But the player claims that his PC really wants a "dwarvencraft" weapon in the same way that a person would want something like dragon hide armor.

The group as a whole decided not to pursue the matter and they talked the dwarf out of doing anything about it. So the issue is over with I guess. I'm just wondering if people feel that these actions could be the actions of a lawful neutral character that serves on a dwarven councel of the dwarven king that is related to the person belonging to the thigh bone he wields in battle now. If the dwarven clan finds out this person serving on their council has this sword, he's a dead man, no questions asked. Luckily for him, nobody else (in game) knows it is made of the bone except for him and the PC that stole it.

[Segev]

His actions seem overall neutral on all four axes. They're certainly not Good; Good people don't get kicks out of descrating others' ancestors' bones, as a general rule. (Though he has an interesting point in that nobody seems to mind dragon-bone weapons and dragon-skin armor, even Good people.) But it also isn't Evil (he's not hurting anybody at all, really, and his annoying behavior doesn't seem to rise to the level of harassment, let alone cruelty).

It's a bit Chaotic, because messing with people just tends to edge that direction, but at the same time, he's motivated by a desire to get back, at least a little, for a violation of what he views as a rightful law regarding how to treat dragons. "Eye for an eye" in a very mild sense. Being silly is not inherently chaotic, despite the tendency for chaotic types to be silly. So the snowglobe thing is also neutral.

All in all, if the players are okay with it, leave it be. If they have OOC concerns, encourage them to work it out amongst them. Mediate, if needs be.

[Geddy2112]

Being silly is not inherently chaotic, despite the tendency for chaotic types to be silly. So the snowglobe thing is also neutral.
All in all, if the players are okay with it, leave it be. If they have OOC concerns, encourage them to work it out amongst them. Mediate, if needs be.

This. The PLAYER certainly is not LN, but their character has done nothing to break alignment.You can be eccentric or zany or whatever and still be lawful. Also, does it seriously matter if their character's alignment has shifted? When I DM, I don't care what a player puts on their sheet, I know their alignment after 1-2 sessions. If it matters for a spell like protection from X or whatever, I factor it in based on what I have seen, not on 2 letter on their sheet. Also, alignment does not equal personality for a second, and 2 LN people can be very different.

Also, if this is an OOC thing, it needs to be solved OOC. This player might want to play LN, but in such an environment they are looking for a chance to grief this other player. They should both work it out out of game.

[Bad Wolf]

Well the whole dragon aspect is alright, Io does the same. Though he is every alignment at once.

Dunno about the rest though. Seems more like True Neutral.

[jiriku]

Nothing the mephling has done seems to bear on his alignment at all. These are trivial idiosyncrasies of behavior -- alignment is concerned with weightier actions. What really stands out to me is that there's verbally expressed friction between these two players every single game session. That is a problem that will get worse if ignored. I might suggest you get the two of them together for some non-D&D events so that they have a chance to build a friendship outside the game. It's a lot easier to overlook flaws and be patient with someone who is your friend.

[Oryan77]

I might suggest you get the two of them together for some non-D&D events so that they have a chance to build a friendship outside the game. It's a lot easier to overlook flaws and be patient with someone who is your friend.

The good thing is that they are friendly enough outside of the game. They were even talking about playing WoW together. The issues are purely in-game and at the table.

Really, my only concern is about the griefing. If it is all done in-game and is justified, then I have no problem. The characters can settle it in-game. If it goes against his alignment though, I'd like to at least mention that to him before he continues so he's ok with his actions going forward. I've also already talked to the player about this issue days ago and came to the conclusion that his alignment wouldn't change. The group discussed the scenario last night and I believe the dwarf is putting it behind him now. So the situation is over and done with. I was just wondering if people would have come to the same conclusion as we did and whether or not those are the actions of a LN person.

Also, I didn't post this thread to debate anyone's opinion on alignment and how it should be used in the game. So I won't be getting into that debate with anyone. If others want to derail the thread and debate that among themselves, by all means go for it. I just don't need anyone accusing me of playing D&D wrong.

[Shackel]

Hm, I think griefing someone by desecrating the remains of their ancestors is a pretty chaotic act: it's not just disregarding use because that's how nature works, it's specifically going against the codes of the dwarf because of spite.

If, in that world, for instance, even chromatic dragons had very explicit burial codes and were appalled that people used their bodies for parts, I'd say wanting dragonscale armor just for looks or pride is pretty chaotic, too. If it was because dragon scales or hide were just plain tougher, that'd fall more under True Neutral(if anything at all).

[Segev]

Nah. It'd only be chaotic if he were flouting social mores to which he subscribed. He's obviously NOT sharing in the dwarven cultural attitude. Not subscribing to YOUR laws doesn't make ME nonlawful.

[Mindtour]

This does seem like more of an OOC issue than an in-character one. The Mephling is keeping the information to himself as a personal way of getting back at the dwarf. If he were rubbing the fact that he'd used the bone in the dwarf's face, then I'd start questioning alignment.

Also, I'll ask in this thread instead of cluttering up the Playground. (and I apologize if you feel this is a thread derailment, OP. I can edit my question out if you'd like)

I'm running a WotR campaign (Pathfinder) and have a LN Human Paladin of Angradd. Warrior of the Light archetype if that makes a difference. He recently had a mini-boss surrender to him completely, although when being questioned he was lying by omission, which the Paladin picked up on via Sense Motive. The Paladin got 2 questions in, then decided to decapitate his kneeling, unarmed prisoner. Should this be an act that would affect his alignment? Not a complete shift, but weight on the scales that would help shift in the future? I'm normally lax on alignment stuff, but killing a prisoner in cold blood like that seemed iffy even to me. Thoughts?

[jiriku]

I'm running a WotR campaign (Pathfinder) and have a LN Human Paladin of Angradd. Warrior of the Light archetype if that makes a difference. He recently had a mini-boss surrender to him completely, although when being questioned he was lying by omission, which the Paladin picked up on via Sense Motive. The Paladin got 2 questions in, then decided to decapitate his kneeling, unarmed prisoner. Should this be an act that would affect his alignment? Not a complete shift, but weight on the scales that would help shift in the future? I'm normally lax on alignment stuff, but killing a prisoner in cold blood like that seemed iffy even to me. Thoughts?

The code is vague; to determine whether killing prisoners violates it, you need to consider context. Is killing the prisoner a crime under local laws? Was an alternative form of punishment available, and more appropriate? Does the paladin belong to an organization that has issued specific guidance on how to act in this situation? Did the paladin believe that prisoner possessed abilities that would have made it dangerous to try to keep him prisoner on an ongoing basis? Did the paladin have cause to believe that the boss's surrender was a "false surrender", intended only to buy time and another opportunity to perform evil? Did the villain have a known past history of dishonorable acts, breaking his word, and exploiting the codes of lawful individuals?

Two important things I consider as DM are "is the code getting in the way of having a good time?" and "do the player and I have a disagreement about how the code should be interpreted?" If you can say yes to either of these questions, you don't want to punish the player for the in-character action. Instead, you want to sit down with him and hammer out the details of how the code should work so that it makes a more useful and interesting contribution to the game.

[Keltest]

I don't know if I would call him lawful (I assume he does other things to justify the alignment) however it really sounds like there are out of character issues that need to be resolved. If nothing else, one character "secretly" doing something that he knows would provoke another character in game if he was found out is a bad thing to let happen unless players fighting each other in game is something that is pre-established as allowed.

Zany actions are usually fine as long as they aren't disruptive, but I see nothing good coming about from this sword.

On an unrelated note, in order to be able to see anything in it at all, that pommel would have to be freaking huge (for a pommel, not necessarily a snowglobe).

[Oryan77]

(and I apologize if you feel this is a thread derailment, OP. I can edit my question out if you'd like)

I don't mind at all, but thanks for asking!

I personally don't see a problem with your Paladin's actions as long as that fits his personality. In Planescape, there is a faction called the Mercykillers who think of themselves as like a version of Judge Dredd. If a person is causing serious trouble, they'll judge and execute him if necessary. Kind of taking the law into their own hands. Sounds like that is all the Paladin did. He may have thought that the BBEG was going to be of no use and could have just made matters worse if kept alive and allowed to talk. After already defeating him, the BBEG's actions after that could have determined what his final punishment was going to be. Being deceptive even in the predicament he was in could have been the final straw that determined that he should die for his actions rather than given mercy. That sounds reasonable to me for a LN Paladin. The Paladin may not have executed him like that if he was LG though.

[Oryan77]

Hm, I think griefing someone by desecrating the remains of their ancestors is a pretty chaotic act: it's not just disregarding use because that's how nature works, it's specifically going against the codes of the dwarf because of spite.

That's pretty much what I was wondering myself. The dwarf didn't even kill the dragon to use its remains for forging purposes. The rest of the world has no problem making/selling dragon armor, but this dwarf is the focus of attention in this case.

Another PC not mentioned yet did take a dragon bone (from another corpse) and as a gift, had a standard made from it for the dwarven king to give to his people. That was another excuse the mephling used to defend his reasons for making his sword. Although, he never ever puts any blame on any other PC, even when it was pointed out that the Kender had the standard made for the dwarf. Which is another reason why I know he's just trying to grief this one player.

A big reason for why I focused on this matter with the group was because I'm 100% sure that the player did this to grief the other player and he is justifying his actions in-game to get away with it. The other player finally expressed concerns over this privately and he was fully prepared to attack and kill the mephling if it came to it, which is extremely out of character for this player. He is a very friendly guy and tries to be a team player even if his tactical gameplay completely sucks. In all the years I've gamed with him, I've never heard him talk about attacking another PC. So I knew this scenario was bothering him and he wanted his character to roleplay it properly. So if I could avoid a fight by convincing the other player that his actions may not really be appropriate for his alignment, then maybe he would be persuaded and avoid a confrontation.

I try to keep things in-game at first. Then if needed, we'll discuss it out of character. In this case, I was able to keep it all in-game by using a cohort NPC as a mediator and then got the rest of the party to throw in their 2 cents. Basically, the other PCs convinced the dwarf to forget about it and assured him that this mephling character is just plain crazy. The dwarf seemed ok with that logic and I don't think he is going to investigate this "mysterious" sword any further. The player knows what the sword is made out of out of game, his character is only suspicious of it but does not know that it is made out of a dwarf bone.

[Mindtour]

I don't mind at all, but thanks for asking!

I personally don't see a problem with your Paladin's actions as long as that fits his personality. In Planescape, there is a faction called the Mercykillers who think of themselves as like a version of Judge Dredd. If a person is causing serious trouble, they'll judge and execute him if necessary. Kind of taking the law into their own hands. Sounds like that is all the Paladin did. He may have thought that the BBEG was going to be of no use and could have just made matters worse if kept alive and allowed to talk. After already defeating him, the BBEG's actions after that could have determined what his final punishment was going to be. Being deceptive even in the predicament he was in could have been the final straw that determined that he should die for his actions rather than given mercy. That sounds reasonable to me for a LN Paladin. The Paladin may not have executed him like that if he was LG though.

To lay out the scenario, it began with a short combat. The PCs (NG Oracle, LG Ranger, N Sorc, CG Barb, LN Pal) made short work of the lesser enemies, then brought this "mini-boss" to single digit HP. The only part that jars me is that this was their first attempt at taking a prisoner and the Paladin asked literally 2 short questions that resulted in perhaps 3 sentences before decapitating the guy. Wrath of the Righteous seems like it encourages players to redeem NPCs, so I'm wondering if this is a red flag to have a discussion with him and suggest alternatives to LN Paladin.

[Mindtour]

Although, he never ever puts any blame on any other PC, even when it was pointed out that the Kender had the standard made for the dwarf. Which is another reason why I know he's just trying to grief this one player.

A big reason for why I focused on this matter with the group was because I'm 100% sure that the player did this to grief the other player and he is justifying his actions in-game to get away with it. The other player finally expressed concerns over this privately and he was fully prepared to attack and kill the mephling if it came to it, which is extremely out of character for this player. He is a very friendly guy and tries to be a team player even if his tactical gameplay completely sucks. In all the years I've gamed with him, I've never heard him talk about attacking another PC. So I knew this scenario was bothering him and he wanted his character to roleplay it properly. So if I could avoid a fight by convincing the other player that his actions may not really be appropriate for his alignment, then maybe he would be persuaded and avoid a confrontation.



You may have a troll/that guy in your group. By your claims, he's fooling around on other media instead of following what's going on in-game unless the focus is on himself, and now he's picking on another player just to do it. The more I read this thread and think about it, the more I think that he's just a problem player. (without knowing the intimate dynamics of the group)

[KingSmitty]

If one player is making an effort to ruin the fun for another player, they wouldn't have a space at my table. This not only ruins the fun for them, but it also ruins it for you too.

[Deadline]

No matter what your alignment is, you can still be an A-hole. It doesn't really have any bearing on your alignment whatsoever. Some of the biggest jerks I've ever dealt with in character were Paladins, and some of the most polite were fiends.

And even if you felt this was a chaotic act, it's such a painfully minor one that I can't see there being any alignment fallout from it.

If it's causing OOC issues, let the player know he needs to stop being a jerk and move on.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Deal with out of character problems out of character and in-character problems in character.