When Good Players go Bad

[MistStorm]

What do you do when one of your players decides to spontaneously go against their LG alignment in the middle of a session and gets caught (though not yet captured) stealing from good NPCs?

The only solutions I can come up with (jail time, kicking the PCs out of town, or withdrawing the support of their benefactor) would screw over the other PC, not to mention the current quest, and the hook for the quest after that, throwing away months of work and preparation, and possibly ending the game. Ugh.

Yet, I don’t want my players to feel they have carte blanche to do whatever they want without facing appropriate consequences.

Does anyone have a creative solution or help of any kind?

(If you need more campaign details let me know)

[Sabeta]

It would be easier to answer if I knew exactly WHY the player chose to steal.

A character is more than their alignment. A LG character may perform an Evil act if he thinks it's for the greater good. If he's just stealing gold and items from NPCs for the sake of hoarding then you could do something like this:

Have the character get arrested and put on trial. If Jail Time would hinder the party too much, then simply make the stakes be the guilty player's money. Not just what he stole, no that wouldn't be a real punishment. Make it so that he stands to lose any all material wealth; to potentially include magic items he might have accrued over time. This would be a "severe for him, not as terrible for everyone else" type of punishment.

I also had a DM who would regularly punish players who stole too often, even if they were evil. (he didn't like Evil heroes in general). This usually came in the form of cursed items. Perhaps he steals a cursed coin that causes him a variety of misfortunes related to money. Perhaps he steals a -1 sword that forcibly binds to him and he can't use other weapons now. The worst curse we've ever gotten was a piece of parchment, and attempts to read it forced a Wisdom Save. On a fail, you took damage. Other party members would occasionally have to make a Wisdom Save, and if they failed they would be compelled to forcibly take the parchment using whatever means we saw fit. (This was an entire party of murderhobos, so our DM punished everyone quite extremely. We had several players die because of that paper)

[Corran]

Well, I would try to think how the specific NPC the PC tried to steal from would react. If the matter was brought before the authorites, I would consider what action would be taken against the PC character. If there are other factors to be taken under consideration (for example, an influential NPC might need to hire the PC for sth important, so he might intervene to help the PC avoid the consequences of his actions, power of plot convinience), I would take that into consideration as well. But I would never, ever, turn a blind eye and pretend that it didnt happen, as that can lead into a nightmarish campaign where the players go nuts simply because there are no consequences. For me, the worst thing when playing (or dming) in a campaign, is to break immersion by realising that I am playing in an iconsequential world where nothing I do matters and the only important thing is to jump in the plot train and carry on with the story. It gets boring really fast. So, serve the PC with the appropriate consequences, even if that means that this PC is sent to jail for quite a long time, or even executed, or sth less (chopping off one hand). Whatever you think that these consequences would be (from something minor, a fine for example), to sth drastic as suggested above. Worst case scenario, the player creates another character, and you can all proceed hapily with the campaign.

And I repeat. Dont crap on your world by allowing the PCs to do whatever they want without suffering or enjoying the consequences of their actions (whenever that is possible ofc, it is not that every bad act gets punished or that every good act is rewarded, unless you play in a campaign where karma is a real thing). If you do that, it wont be long before it starts geting boring for the players too.

[Rusvul]

^ This.

All of this varies on the setting and context, of course. I'm speaking assuming the government and town/city in general is somewhere on the LN/LG side of the spectrum.
In my games, the world is its own entity. It is more than just a place where adventure happens, it has people, and laws, and commerce. A PC breaking the law is no different than an NPC breaking a law- Theft, depending on setting, might be anywhere between a day at the pillory, a small fee, loss of a hand, jail time, or, in darker games, perhaps even public execution. (Probably don't do that one.)
Worst case scenario, PC is tried, found guilty, imprisoned for a while, and makes a new character... Though, if the charge for theft is as of yet undefined in the area, I would recommend a day in the pillory and a fee of twice the amount stolen for the first offense. Keeps the authorities from seeming like pushovers, without derailing the campaign. If the PC gets caught again, maybe up that?

Side note: If the PC tries to evade arrest then that's pretty darn illegal and may warrant escalation of force by the authorities. Especially if they use violence to try to escape, then you're rapidly moving into bounty-land.

[Regitnui]

I had a neat excuse to show the players the consequences of lawbreaking; their first quest is to find the leader of the largest thieves' guild. Out of Context, I explained that criminals are whipped according to the severity of their crime and then hung up in the Sea Caves; a set of holes in the rocks that are between the tides. A criminal would then have salt spray on their wounds half the day and be half-submerged for the rest. Time will tell how well it has dissuaded them from breaking things unnecessarily.

[Mandragola]

Maybe consider some of the actual medieval punishments that were used. For instance, how about having the character spend a week in the stocks in the town square, soiling themselves in public and having rotten vegetables thrown at them? Or a public flogging, or maybe having "theif" branded on their hand.

And a major fine of course.

The effect of this would mainly be reputational. Everyone in town should see the PC be humiliated and remember it. The PC should continue to be reminded of it often, from random passers-by laughing at them or whispering in the pub, to important people refusing to allow them into their home to be briefed on missions. Perhaps they are barred from all the inns in town, and forced to live on the streets.

If this is a follower of a LG god then they could have bigger problems. That offer to stay at any temple doesn't apply any more. The PC should have to redeem himself in some substantial way before such privileges are restored, and the offence will probably never be forgotten.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If magical punishment is an option, consider putting a Geas on the offending character.

[Malifice]

A LG character may perform an Evil act if he thinks it's for the greater good.

After which (in games I run) his alignment gets changed to Evil. Good aligned OSR Paladins fall. Etc.

My LE Paladin does things for the greater good all the time. Genocide, pogroms, torture, tyranny.

All of it in fact. All for the safety and security of the people of Faerun.

[Mandragola]

After which (in games I run) his alignment gets changed to Evil. Good aligned OSR Paladins fall. Etc.

My LE Paladin does things for the greater good all the time. Genocide, pogroms, torture, tyranny.

All of it in fact. All for the safety and security of the people of Faerun.

I'm interested in this, since I play a fairly hardline vengeance paladin. He has a LG alignment, but he's not what you'd call a nice guy exactly.

Having said that, I actually don't think he's done anything you could define as "evil". He doesn't go around robbing people or anything like that and doesn't kill enemies who surrender.

The Vengeance paladin oaths are firmly into a shades of grey (as in not black and white - I'm not referring to an awful book/film here) moral viewpoint. You get oaths to "Fight the Greater Evil" and "By Any Means Necessary". That gives you a certain amount of licence.

But maybe what that means is that you could stay true to your vows as a vengeance paladin but end up neutral, or potentially evil, yourself. Indeed, your vows might require you to do non-good acts. Fun.

Anyway, I don't think that a single evil act does make a person evil and I wouldn't do that for a character if DMing. I'd have them move towards neutral first.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd do a few things in your position:


I wouldn't resolve the action. It's just not happening. No unexplained lolrandumb shenanigans at my table, especially if it has the potential to derail the game.
If I had a lapse of judgement like you did, and resolved it anyway, I would retcon the action and turn time back to before he chose to do that.
I'd pause the game and ask him OOC why he wants to do that. I'm not letting him roll any dice or resolve any action before I get an answer.
If his answer doesn't satisfy me (and I know it won't), then I'll tell him to roleplay properly, and I won't DM for this kind of nonsense.
If I feel like this player can still be saved from the abyss of That Guy-ness, I'd keep the game paused and briefly educate him in proper roleplay etiquette, especially the part where players are supposed to keep their IC actions sensible and not story-breaking lolrandumb nonsense.
If he refuses to see reason, and I feel like it would be too much work to get him back on the right track, then I'd un-invite him from the group and kick him out. Not worth the trouble.
If I feel like saving him is worth it, and he heeds my warnings about this type of shenanigan, then over subsequent sessions I'd continue educating him about roleplay etiquette, and decide what to do based on how he responds to it.


This is an OOC problem, so it's solution needs to be OOC. I wrote this out because I felt like "just talk to him" would be too vague.

[Sabeta]

snip

You're a LG Adventurer who is in a town plagued by a deadly disease. The people aren't yet symptomatic, but the evil person who gave them disease has just explained in great detail how horrifying and gross their death is going to be. No one in the village, nor you have the power to stop this disease, but you do have a single-use antidote that you stole from the evil guy's house that he had prepared to make sure he survived the plague. The people are now panicking, and have decided to more or less sprint to the nearest city to try and find a doctor, but doing so will infect that city, which may in turn infect even more cities potentially wiping out a massive amount of the population.

The riskiest course of action would be to follow the people to the city, and see if a pharmacy can't reverse engineer your antidote, but that runs the risk of the antidote taking longer to brew than the incubation period on the plague. Meaning that it may be too late even if you can make more antidotes.

The safest course of action is to kill the townspeople. They're innocent, but they pose a greater threat to society than simply letting them live. Is killing them an Evil act if you did it to save everyone?

Or, in simpler words. Is killing a few innocents to save a far greater number evil? If letting them live would cause wanton death and destruction across the realm, wouldn't you be responsible (in part) for those deaths if you could have prevented it? Alignment both in real life and in D&D is not something quite so black and white. Saying someone is now Evil because they chose a course of action that would save millions seems a bit counter-intuitive.

[MistStorm]

Thank you so much for your great ideas! This has helped me a lot.

I’ve noticed this character really doesn’t like paying for anything that costs more than 1gp and was attempting to steal some potions, despite having enough money to buy them. So I like the idea of a large fine if they get captured, along with some form of public punishment. A day in the stocks or a public whipping would be great since the PCs are on a time limit to finish their quest. And, if the PC manages to evade the NPCs they stole from, I like the idea of a bounty being put out.

By the way, this character is a cleric under a LG god. I’m thinking some divine punishment is also in order. Would it be too harsh to have none of their cleric spells work until they atone or seek patronage under a new god?

Some more details about the campaign – the town authorities lean more towards LG, as does the PCs’ well-connected benefactor, who is very likely to learn of the incident. However, one problem I keep coming back to is that the benefactor is supposed to trust the PCs with a large amount of gold to use as part of a ransom. I’m thinking send a Paladin with the PCs to guard it? I also love the idea of a geas.

[MistStorm]

I'd do a few things in your position:


I wouldn't resolve the action. It's just not happening. No unexplained lolrandumb shenanigans at my table, especially if it has the potential to derail the game.
If I had a lapse of judgement like you did, and resolved it anyway, I would retcon the action and turn time back to before he chose to do that.
I'd pause the game and ask him OOC why he wants to do that. I'm not letting him roll any dice or resolve any action before I get an answer.
If his answer doesn't satisfy me (and I know it won't), then I'll tell him to roleplay properly, and I won't DM for this kind of nonsense.
If I feel like this player can still be saved from the abyss of That Guy-ness, I'd keep the game paused and briefly educate him in proper roleplay etiquette, especially the part where players are supposed to keep their IC actions sensible and not story-breaking lolrandumb nonsense.
If he refuses to see reason, and I feel like it would be too much work to get him back on the right track, then I'd un-invite him from the group and kick him out. Not worth the trouble.
If I feel like saving him is worth it, and he heeds my warnings about this type of shenanigan, then over subsequent sessions I'd continue educating him about roleplay etiquette, and decide what to do based on how he responds to it.


This is an OOC problem, so it's solution needs to be OOC. I wrote this out because I felt like "just talk to him" would be too vague.

I see where you're coming from. I kind of wish I'd stopped the game and talked to the player OOC when they suggested attempting to steal in the first place. However, I think I'll try to solve it in-game first, and if the punishments aren't enough to stop the shenanigans then I will definitely pull this player aside and have a talk about game etiquette.

[Slipperychicken]

I see where you're coming from. I kind of wish I'd stopped the game and talked to the player OOC when they suggested attempting to steal in the first place. However, I think I'll try to solve it in-game first, and if the punishments aren't enough to stop the shenanigans then I will definitely pull this player aside and have a talk about game etiquette.

I will let you know, this looks like a player who isn't on the same page with you in terms of playstyle, so in-game hints may or may not come across the way you want.


Also, if you do want to chat with him, I encourage you to do so respectfully and casually, just like when you teach people game-rules like how to calculate his attack bonus. It's just a matter of teaching him one of the unwritten rules of playing dnd. I don't think you even need to pull him aside, because that can make it seem like you're scolding him, and that's not necessarily the impression you want to present. Doing it at the table can serve both to remind other players of that particular rule, and to convey that all players are expected to follow them, not just him.

[MistStorm]

I will let you know, this looks like a player who isn't on the same page with you in terms of playstyle, so in-game hints may or may not come across the way you want.


Also, if you do want to chat with him, I encourage you to do so respectfully and casually, just like when you teach people game-rules like how to calculate his attack bonus. It's just a matter of teaching him one of the unwritten rules of playing dnd. I don't think you even need to pull him aside, because that can make it seem like you're scolding him, and that's not necessarily the impression you want to present. Doing it at the table can serve both to remind other players of that particular rule, and to convey that all players are expected to follow them, not just him.

After months of playing, this is the first incident of something like this happening with the player. I'm hoping this was just a one-time thing and they will learn.

However, I'll keep your advice in mind about talking to them and informing all players of the unwritten rules.

[RickAllison]

After which (in games I run) his alignment gets changed to Evil. Good aligned OSR Paladins fall. Etc.

My LE Paladin does things for the greater good all the time. Genocide, pogroms, torture, tyranny.

All of it in fact. All for the safety and security of the people of Faerun.

To me, alignment is not based on a single action (kind of ridiculous if it did). An LG person is pulled (or pushes) toward Law and Good, but those aren't his only motivations. His flaws, his bonds, his ideals, and his traits should all decide whether a course of action is sufficient to go away from alignment-based actions. A change of alignment should only occur if Law and Good stop playing a part in that decision-making (at least in 5e).

The LG devotion paladin in 5e shouldn't fall if he steals from a rich guy (even a Good one) to feed the poor. Especially in a corrupt government, it is totally within his tenets to do so (although he would likely make amends when he was able to). Clerics should only fall out of favor if they are defying the precepts of their deity rather than just alignment.

Now this doesn't hold as well for the OP's PC. That one has stolen for purely selfish and greedy reasons. I wouldn't say it was Evil, but moving to Neutral is certainly called-for...

[Corran]

I'd do a few things in your position:


I wouldn't resolve the action. It's just not happening. No unexplained lolrandumb shenanigans at my table, especially if it has the potential to derail the game.
If I had a lapse of judgement like you did, and resolved it anyway, I would retcon the action and turn time back to before he chose to do that.
I'd pause the game and ask him OOC why he wants to do that. I'm not letting him roll any dice or resolve any action before I get an answer.
If his answer doesn't satisfy me (and I know it won't), then I'll tell him to roleplay properly, and I won't DM for this kind of nonsense.
If I feel like this player can still be saved from the abyss of That Guy-ness, I'd keep the game paused and briefly educate him in proper roleplay etiquette, especially the part where players are supposed to keep their IC actions sensible and not story-breaking lolrandumb nonsense.
If he refuses to see reason, and I feel like it would be too much work to get him back on the right track, then I'd un-invite him from the group and kick him out. Not worth the trouble.
If I feel like saving him is worth it, and he heeds my warnings about this type of shenanigan, then over subsequent sessions I'd continue educating him about roleplay etiquette, and decide what to do based on how he responds to it.


This is an OOC problem, so it's solution needs to be OOC. I wrote this out because I felt like "just talk to him" would be too vague.
I have to say I dont agree with this in general. I am not saying it is bad advice, as there will be certainly tables where this can be a really useful tool at the hands of a good DM, especially when dealing with inexperienced players, who usually tend to act chaoticly and randomly. But I would say that this should be better saved for out of game interaction. I mean, stopping the flow of the game to ask a player explain their character's actions can be problematic on so many levels. Not only because it halts play and takes everyone (especially the PC you are stopping) out of the roleplaying mood, but also because there is always the danger of going a bit too far with this. I mean, a player is always gonna understand their own PC better than the DM. And murderhobo-ism aside, in cases where the DM and the player's views about how the player's PC should behave differ, who is more fitting than the player to have the final say? Afterall, the character is a creation of the player's imagination. Even if the DM acts with the very best intentions, I would certainly not enjoy as a player, if my DM actually stopped the game to ask me why my character does something. I would expect the DM to understand that I am the most appropriate person to decide how my character acts. And I would certainly not appreciate having my rp cut off in the middle, in order to try to explain the my character's psychology and motivations during the game. However, I would usually be more than happy to do it after, or in between sessions, as I almost always I am happy to talk about my characters' motivations and it is flattering when other players or the DM is curious to know about them (means you are playing an interesting character). So if dealing with a DM who acted on that advice, even if it was a good DM who would act so having the best of intentions, I would probably play along the first couple times, but I would also probably finally say sth in the lines ''dude, let me just rp, I know why my character is doing this, lets proceed with the game and I am willing to talk about it for a whole hour after the game finishes''.

To answer more directly some of your points. I dont believe there is bad or good rp (or at least it is very subjective, is what I am trying to say, dont mean to get too philosophical about it), and certainly there is no such thing as proper roleplay etticquette or back in the right track. And there is none other than the player himself, who has the final say over what their character's proper roleplaying is. The DM cannot intervene to define something else as the proper roleplaying for a player's character. This is treading too much into a player's territory. What the DM can do is inflict consequences through the world. And also perhaps have a talk with the player out of game, so that he can maybe understand why the player is having their character act that way, or to maybe show to the player that their character's action do not make much sense. If no agreement can be found, the player has the final say ofc. Furthermore, I also dont think there is such thing as derailing the game, meaning that the DM should be always ready to improvise if the players decide to go off road. Unused dungeons and side quests can always be used down the road, so instead of triggering at town X, they trigger when the players go to town Y instead. I also explained my reasons as to why I think stopping the game is bad. Finally, uninviting a player is totally a DM's prerogative, so not much to say about that.

By no way do I have the intention of coming accross as offensive, I just felt like saying why I disagree with what you suggested. And I say again, what you proposed might be a very good approach of an experienced DM when dealing with inexperienced (and possibly quite young) players.

[Cybren]

Does the player just not care about alignment much in general? Like, is this a situation where they're more interested in playing a fun, not very intense beer and pretzels game? Or have they intentionally created a swerve for their character and want to explore it in a roleplaying context?

[MistStorm]

Does the player just not care about alignment much in general? Like, is this a situation where they're more interested in playing a fun, not very intense beer and pretzels game? Or have they intentionally created a swerve for their character and want to explore it in a roleplaying context?

I think it's more of the latter. They've mentioned wanting to multiclass (which I need to talk to them about). So this could be an intentional swerve in the direction of a rogue, I just don't think they fully thought through their actions. Then again, I gave fair warning that alignment could change and they decided to try it anyway.

@Corran - I'll talk to them before our next session and see if they can give me an idea of the reasoning behind their action.

@RickAllison - I agree, the character isn't necessarily evil, but they're action puts them in a neutral alignment, which I warned them could happen.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're a LG Adventurer who is in a town plagued by a deadly disease. The people aren't yet symptomatic, but the evil person who gave them disease has just explained in great detail how horrifying and gross their death is going to be. No one in the village, nor you have the power to stop this disease, but you do have a single-use antidote that you stole from the evil guy's house that he had prepared to make sure he survived the plague. The people are now panicking, and have decided to more or less sprint to the nearest city to try and find a doctor, but doing so will infect that city, which may in turn infect even more cities potentially wiping out a massive amount of the population.

The riskiest course of action would be to follow the people to the city, and see if a pharmacy can't reverse engineer your antidote, but that runs the risk of the antidote taking longer to brew than the incubation period on the plague. Meaning that it may be too late even if you can make more antidotes.

The safest course of action is to kill the townspeople. They're innocent, but they pose a greater threat to society than simply letting them live. Is killing them an Evil act if you did it to save everyone?

Or, in simpler words. Is killing a few innocents to save a far greater number evil? If letting them live would cause wanton death and destruction across the realm, wouldn't you be responsible (in part) for those deaths if you could have prevented it? Alignment both in real life and in D&D is not something quite so black and white. Saying someone is now Evil because they chose a course of action that would save millions seems a bit counter-intuitive.

The short answer is, yes, it's always evil to commit an evil act knowingly, intent is irrelevant.

That being said, theft isn't necessarily evil per se if it's not being done because of greed/self interest.

Murdering innocents would always be evil. It can never be justified.

[Malifice]

You're a LG Adventurer who is in a town plagued by a deadly disease. The people aren't yet symptomatic, but the evil person who gave them disease has just explained in great detail how horrifying and gross their death is going to be. No one in the village, nor you have the power to stop this disease, but you do have a single-use antidote that you stole from the evil guy's house that he had prepared to make sure he survived the plague. The people are now panicking, and have decided to more or less sprint to the nearest city to try and find a doctor, but doing so will infect that city, which may in turn infect even more cities potentially wiping out a massive amount of the population.

The riskiest course of action would be to follow the people to the city, and see if a pharmacy can't reverse engineer your antidote, but that runs the risk of the antidote taking longer to brew than the incubation period on the plague. Meaning that it may be too late even if you can make more antidotes.

The safest course of action is to kill the townspeople. They're innocent, but they pose a greater threat to society than simply letting them live. Is killing them an Evil act if you did it to save everyone?

Yes, it is. Its an extremely evil act.

Its irrelevant what the 'safest' course of action is. Its a false binary (these hypotheticals always are).

Good people dont choose the safest course of action. They choose the 'Goodest' one.

If the townspeople knew they were going to kill someone else (an innocent) and became clear that this was an inevitable outcome (despite protestations and warnings they kept advancing to the town) and knew that they would infect others should they do so, then you (or that other person) could use force as a last resort 9and not lethal force unless absolutey necessary) and but only in self defence or the defence of others.

In this case, killing them isnt needed. I find it impossible to argue that cutting a few down helps anyone. Talk to the towns leader. Convince him. Make up a lie that the antidote is coming to town soon, and if they leave they'll all die. Use reason (if you leave, youll die and kill others - many others) etc.

Of course, if the townspeople were good, they wouldnt risk harming others and would self quarantene. If they were neutral and desperate a few might make a run for it. If they were evil, they'd probably hunt you down for the antidote themselves.


Or, in simpler words. Is killing a few innocents to save a far greater number evil?


Yes, it is. If done intetionally, its evil. Every time.


If letting them live would cause wanton death and destruction across the realm, wouldn't you be responsible (in part) for those deaths if you could have prevented it?

No you wouldnt. They would be. Youre not responsible for the actions of others. Superman isnt evil becuase Lex Luthor keeps escaping and killing people, despite the fact Supes can snap his neck any time he feels like it. Ditto Batman and the Joker.

Now the Punisher is a different story. Luthor would be nailed to a wall by now with his entrails splattered around his knees as a warning to others. But of course, the Punisher is evil.


Alignment both in real life and in D&D is not something quite so black and white.


In real life there is no such thing as objective good and evil. Moral relativism rules the day. Postmodernism has won that argument a long time ago. Feel free to do any henious act and call yourself good, Im not going to stop you.

Go to a jail and ask the inmates if theyre evil. To a man, theyre all 'good guys who did one wrong thing', or were 'acting for the greater good' or are 'good people' or whatever. Child murderers, rapists, killers; it doesnt matter. Head to one of the warzones in the ME or elsewhere and ask them the same question. 'We commit this genocide for the Greater good'. Heck, ask Hitler (Godwin alert)- they were his reasons also. In fact every atrocity ever was committed in the name of 'the Greater Good'.

In DnD with outer planes and actual Gods, its a totally different story. You can be as morally relativistic about why you murdered those children all you want, but if its evil, its evil. No amount of subjective justification makes it less so. Just like you can disbelieve in gravity all you want, but the fall at the end still kills you.


Saying someone is now Evil because they chose a course of action that would save millions seems a bit counter-intuitive.

No, it just means they use evil methods to save millions. Nothing wrong with that trope (see the Punisher, or a cold blooded CIA agent who kills people for the security and safety of the US) but its still evil.


I'm interested in this, since I play a fairly hardline vengeance paladin. He has a LG alignment, but he's not what you'd call a nice guy exactly.

I have a feeling inmy games he might be LE. Hard to tell based on that statement.


The Vengeance paladin oaths are firmly into a shades of grey (as in not black and white - I'm not referring to an awful book/film here) moral viewpoint. You get oaths to "Fight the Greater Evil" and "By Any Means Necessary". That gives you a certain amount of licence.

Vengence Paladin oaths condone genocide, murder and torture.

'By any means necessary' and 'no mercy' are easily very evil tenents to have. Particlarly when tacked onto a militant religious fanatic. In fact I dare say you would struggle to both uphold those oaths and remain objectively good for very long.

Its possible though. 'No mercy for my foes' could mean 'accept surrender and deliver to righteous and good authorities for justice' and not = 'accept surrender and then brutally torture to death'.


But maybe what that means is that you could stay true to your vows as a vengeance paladin but end up neutral, or potentially evil, yourself. Indeed, your vows might require you to do non-good acts. Fun.

Indeed. Again' my Vengence Paladin is LE. He's a Banite Fasist monster.


Anyway, I don't think that a single evil act does make a person evil and I wouldn't do that for a character if DMing. I'd have them move towards neutral first.

Depends on the act. Some acts are so vile that I would have no hesitation to rub out a G on a PCs character sheet and go directly to E. The Player and I know, but the PC doesnt. Heck - he probably thinks he's a nice guy 'who just does what needs to be done for the greater good'.

He's in for a rude shock on death in the afterlife though.

[2D8HP]

Go to a jail and ask the inmates if theyre evil. To a man, theyre all 'good guys who did one wrong thing', or were 'acting for the greater good' or are 'good people' or whatever. Child murderers, rapists, killers; it doesnt matter..
I actually do a lot of work repairing plumbing fixtures in a jail, and since the inmates keep talking no matter how disinterested I am in what they have to say, I hear them quite a bit.
Probably the majority of the inmates insist that bad luck is why their behind bars, a sizeable minority will loudly proclaim how "bad" or "badass" they are so with (I presume) the intention that those hearing them will fear them, and a very sizeable minority are so crazy, medicated and/or stupid that concepts such as "good" and "evil" don't exist, as the deputies/guards say,"another coo-coo for coconuts".
I once asked a guard, "how much of what they do is from crazy, how much from evil, and how much from stupid", he responded, "about 70% stupid".
Really I don't know have much is from environmental lead poisoning, how much from fetal alcohol syndrome, blows to the head, or damage done "self-medicating", but I can't stress enough just how phenomenally stupid most of the inmates seem.

[RickAllison]

Yes, it is. Its an extremely evil act.

Its irrelevant what the 'safest' course of action is. Its a false binary (these hypotheticals always are).

Good people dont choose the safest course of action. They choose the 'Goodest' one.

If the townspeople knew they were going to kill someone else (an innocent) and became clear that this was an inevitable outcome (despite protestations and warnings they kept advancing to the town) and knew that they would infect others should they do so, then you (or that other person) could use force as a last resort 9and not lethal force unless absolutey necessary) and but only in self defence or the defence of others.

In this case, killing them isnt needed. I find it impossible to argue that cutting a few down helps anyone. Talk to the towns leader. Convince him. Make up a lie that the antidote is coming to town soon, and if they leave they'll all die. Use reason (if you leave, youll die and kill others - many others) etc.

Of course, if the townspeople were good, they wouldnt risk harming others and would self quarantene. If they were neutral and desperate a few might make a run for it. If they were evil, they'd probably hunt you down for the antidote themselves.

That particular example is rather bad, because there are alternative options. Worse comes to worst, knock out the infected and put them in a Wall of Stone box. It is certainly not nice, but it is a way to solve the problem non-lethally. Sticking the unconscious in a large building and barricading it in also works (won't stop them forever, but it will slow them down).


Yes, it is. If done intetionally, its evil. Every time.

And here is where you lose me. There won't be many situations where it is non-Evil (the vast majority will have alternative paths to accomplish it), but there will come a time where those alternative options don't exist. Now in many of those circumstances, you don't have to kill them by your hand. In a desert where you have no food or water and no way to get more (no clerics, druids, or wizards?), there could well come the time when an NPC falls unconscious and the party has three options: A) slow down the entire group, likely killing them, so that the fallen have a chance to live though will most likely die en route anyway; B) leave them to die slowly out in the desert; or C) put them out of their misery. None of those options are Evil (A would probably be the Stupid Good decision) because a decision where lives are lost on either side of the scale become Neutral.



No you wouldnt. They would be. Youre not responsible for the actions of others. Superman isnt evil becuase Lex Luthor keeps escaping and killing people, despite the fact Supes can snap his neck any time he feels like it. Ditto Batman and the Joker.

Now the Punisher is a different story. Luthor would be nailed to a wall by now with his entrails splattered around his knees as a warning to others. But of course, the Punisher is evil.

And what about the middle ground, people like the X-Men or the Avengers who try not to kill (especially for small-time crooks who can be safely incarcerated), but acknowledge that the opportunity cost of trying to incarcerate such a foe mean that innocents will die instead. We have an alignment for them, too, Neutral.

Batman and Superman are Good partially because of their code. The Punisher is Evil not because he is willing to kill, but because that is his solution for every crime! For every major gangster or pedophile he takes out that a Neutral hero would probably do as well, there are many more mooks and crooks who could be kept in jail and some even reformed! Punisher is Evil because death is his solution to every problem, not because he acknowledges it as a possible solution.


In real life there is no such thing as objective good and evil. Moral relativism rules the day. Postmodernism has won that argument a long time ago. Feel free to do any henious act and call yourself good, Im not going to stop you.

Go to a jail and ask the inmates if theyre evil. To a man, theyre all 'good guys who did one wrong thing', or were 'acting for the greater good' or are 'good people' or whatever. Child murderers, rapists, killers; it doesnt matter. Head to one of the warzones in the ME or elsewhere and ask them the same question. 'We commit this genocide for the Greater good'. Heck, ask Hitler (Godwin alert)- they were his reasons also. In fact every atrocity ever was committed in the name of 'the Greater Good'.

In DnD with outer planes and actual Gods, its a totally different story. You can be as morally relativistic about why you murdered those children all you want, but if its evil, its evil. No amount of subjective justification makes it less so. Just like you can disbelieve in gravity all you want, but the fall at the end still kills you.

Here is where your arguments lose credibility. Firstly, they default to sensationalism, setting up the straw-man where horrible crimes that were not previously in play are used to bolster your point because (like straw-men are) they are easy to knock down. Additionally, "Good" gods have so many different definitions of what is Good that moral relativism is definitely in play. Corellon Larethian considers it Good to eradicate orcs and followers of Lolth. To him, someone who rounded up a bunch of orc or drow children, stuck them in a barricaded hut, and then burned it to the ground would be a Good action! Eldath, by contrast, would be throwing up (or whatever the godly equivalent is) and condemning such an act as hideously Evil.

So there you go. We have at least one example of a (CG) god who considers genocide to not only be acceptable, but Good. Still think moral relativism doesn't exist in D&D?


No, it just means they use evil methods to save millions. Nothing wrong with that trope (see the Punisher, or a cold blooded CIA agent who kills people for the security and safety of the US) but its still evil.

Per the forum rules, I'm not touching this with my ten-foot-pole...


I have a feeling inmy games he might be LE. Hard to tell based on that statement.

Can't make any decisions based on the quoted statement. A hardline vengeance paladin...


Vengence Paladin oaths condone genocide, murder and torture.

'By any means necessary' and 'no mercy' are easily very evil tenents to have. Particlarly when tacked onto a militant religious fanatic. In fact I dare say you would struggle to both uphold those oaths and remain objectively good for very long.

Its possible though. 'No mercy for my foes' could mean 'accept surrender and deliver to righteous and good authorities for justice' and not = 'accept surrender and then brutally torture to death'.

Like was mentioned above, an elven vengeance paladin who genocided orcs and Lolth-worshipping drow would actually be considered Good by Corellon Larethian. Thus, it is rather hard to make sweeping judgements.


Indeed. Again' my Vengence Paladin is LE. He's a Banite Fasist monster.

Oh yeah. Regardless of whether vengeance paladins' methods must be evil, they certainly tend toward it...


Depends on the act. Some acts are so vile that I would have no hesitation to rub out a G on a PCs character sheet and go directly to E. The Player and I know, but the PC doesnt. Heck - he probably thinks he's a nice guy 'who just does what needs to be done for the greater good'.

He's in for a rude shock on death in the afterlife though.

Depending on the act. Some Good gods will personally pick up the person who the others condemn to live in his/her sphere. Gods in D&D are not perfect, they are all-powerful beings whose flaws are similar to humans and increased by their own power.

[Addaran]

Thank you so much for your great ideas! This has helped me a lot.

I’ve noticed this character really doesn’t like paying for anything that costs more than 1gp and was attempting to steal some potions, despite having enough money to buy them. So I like the idea of a large fine if they get captured, along with some form of public punishment. A day in the stocks or a public whipping would be great since the PCs are on a time limit to finish their quest. And, if the PC manages to evade the NPCs they stole from, I like the idea of a bounty being put out.

By the way, this character is a cleric under a LG god. I’m thinking some divine punishment is also in order. Would it be too harsh to have none of their cleric spells work until they atone or seek patronage under a new god?

Some more details about the campaign – the town authorities lean more towards LG, as does the PCs’ well-connected benefactor, who is very likely to learn of the incident. However, one problem I keep coming back to is that the benefactor is supposed to trust the PCs with a large amount of gold to use as part of a ransom. I’m thinking send a Paladin with the PCs to guard it? I also love the idea of a geas.

Maybe the player is just playing a flawed character. You could have someone lawful and good but he's still very greedy and could succumb to the temptation sometimes. Especially now in 5ed, aligments aren't 100% black and white.

Knowing which god it is would also help a lot. Tyr/heironus probably have very different values then Moradin.

[RickAllison]

Maybe the player is just playing a flawed character. You could have someone lawful and good but he's still very greedy and could succumb to the temptation sometimes. Especially now in 5ed, aligments aren't 100% black and white.

Knowing which god it is would also help a lot. Tyr/heironus probably have very different values then Moradin.

Personality Flaw: Extremely tempted to grab shiny things.

I had two PCs with that (Aarakocra, so racial flaw). When the party ended up inheriting the supplies of the two (brothers), they found an abundance of gold and copper valuables raided from a tomb, a good amount of gold coins, and quite a few potions that no one ever saw them buy... Ended up more than doubling the group funds.

[Sigreid]

Good people dont choose the safest course of action. They choose the 'Goodest' one.

If the townspeople knew they were going to kill someone else (an innocent) and became clear that this was an inevitable outcome (despite protestations and warnings they kept advancing to the town) and knew that they would infect others should they do so, then you (or that other person) could use force as a last resort 9and not lethal force unless absolutey necessary) and but only in self defence or the defence of others.



You and I have gone round and round on this a enough times that I'm not going to get too far into the debate, but I feel the need to point out that even genuinely good, kind hearted, salt of the earth people can get really scared, panic and put others at risk trying to save themselves or their loved ones. In the situation described I could even see several of the towns folk who would sit tight to spare others if it weren't for their daughter, etc.

[Malifice]

You and I have gone round and round on this a enough times that I'm not going to get too far into the debate, but I feel the need to point out that even genuinely good, kind hearted, salt of the earth people can get really scared, panic and put others at risk trying to save themselves or their loved ones. In the situation described I could even see several of the towns folk who would sit tight to spare others if it weren't for their daughter, etc.

I agree ordinarily kind and good people can do all kinds of henious actions. Im a lawyer; I hear it in mititation all the time for people accused of the most vile of acts.

In my view, they're probably evil. As soon as you stray from the high road, you're no longer good.

When faced with the lesser of two evil, a good person chooses neither. A Neutral person might do the lesser, but only if he had to. An evil person doesnt care either way.

[Reaper34]

Might also want to explore the thieves guild option. most guilds don't appreciate amateurs coming in and stealing from their marks or messing up their rackets. even if they get away clean the tguild won't like the competition. this could be anything from sticky fingered street urchins to elite assassins after the party or just the individual. though thieves care less about getting the right and only guy and more about sending a message to others. just a thought.

[Malifice]

As to the OPs question, theft isnt evil.

In DnD evil is killing and harming others. Torture, rape, murder, assault etc.

Property crimes dont really fit into that description.

Its not an alignment issue, its a murderhobism issue. If he keeps randomly stealing stuff for no real reason or for self intrest, change his alignment to CN. Ensure he suffers consequences to his actions. Good actions should draw good consequences. Evil ones should draw bad ones.

[RickAllison]

As to the OPs question, theft isnt evil.

In DnD evil is killing and harming others. Torture, rape, murder, assault etc.

Property crimes dont really fit into that description.

Actually, those definitions of Evil don't universally apply. Corellon Larethian and Mielikki endorse doing quite awful things including torture and murder for their particular favorite things and endorse them as Good, whereas gods like Eldath and Bahamut would look at the so-called Good followers of those and condemn those actions as Evil.

Aumaunator, for example, might absolutely crack down on property crimes and condemn the Paladin as Evil, depending on his particular oaths. This is because he has not only broken the laws of the land he is in, but also potentially of the oaths he has sworn. Aumanator's absolute vehemence to the law means that he views it as far worse to break a sworn oath than to commit an atrocity that breaks no contracts. Hooray, moral dissonance on the parts of powerful deities!!!


Its not an alignment issue, its a murderhobism issue. If he keeps randomly stealing stuff for no real reason or for self intrest, change his alignment to CN. Ensure he suffers consequences to his actions. Good actions should draw good consequences. Evil ones should draw bad ones.

Totally agree that this could be a sign of a budding murderhobo, but we should give him the benefit of the doubt until then. Does he acknowledge his transgression as bad and feels guilt for it? If yes, no alignment change is likely necessary. Thievery may be an addiction for him, a compulsion that he tries to overcome but sometimes falls back into.

As for consequences, it should depend on evidence. In this case, he becomes a wanted criminal because he is a known thief. Guess in hindsight he should have planned it out better.

[Malifice]

Actually, those definitions of Evil don't universally apply.

Yes they do.


Corellon Larethian and Mielikki endorse doing quite awful things including torture and murder for their particular favorite things and endorse them as Good

Find me a single published or respectable quote (starting at 3rd edition) where Corellion or Mielikki expressly condone murder, genocide and torture?

[RickAllison]

Yes they do.



Find me a single published or respectable quote (starting at 3rd edition) where Corellion or Mielikki expressly condone murder, genocide and torture?

I never said torture. Corellon endorses killing orcs and worshippers of Lolth, but I would think even he wouldn't condone actually torturing them before killing them.

[Malifice]

I never said torture. Corellon endorses killing orcs and worshippers of Lolth, but I would think even he wouldn't condone actually torturing them before killing them.

You did say torture.

And killing is one thing. In self defence from invading Orcs. You said genocide and murder.

Can you find me anything where he condones either?

[RickAllison]

You did say torture.

And killing is one thing. In self defence from invading Orcs. You said genocide and murder.

Can you find me anything where he condones either?

You are right, I completely forgot that line.

I am still searching. Not exactly easy to track down when you don't have those books.

[Malifice]

You are right, I completely forgot that line.

I am still searching. Not exactly easy to track down when you don't have those books.

I found the following as his Dogma:

Corellon desires to protect and preserve the elven race, return to his people their lost artistic heritage, and to thwart the schemes of the drow and the orcs. This also means guarding against the corruption within that resulted in the creation of the drow. Corellon advises his faithful to guard against stagnation as well, continually seeking out new experiences. They seek to bring out beauty through art, craft, and magic.

The elves are sculptors and wardens of magic's endless mysteries. Bring forth the beauty that envelops and lets the spirit gambol unfettered. Seek out new experiences and new ways. Ward against those that would destroy what they cannot create. Commune with the natural and mystical world. Be ever vigilant against the return of the banished darkness, and be strong in heart against the corruption of the Spider Queen.

Sounds very 'defend, protect and preserve elves from her attackers, in particular Drow and Orcs' akin to a police force or self defence force. Not: Seek them out and murder them. Invade their lands and wage a war of genocide on them.

Im sure he has followers who intepret 'protect Elves from the evil plans and predation of Orcs and Drow' to mean 'Genocide is the only solution for Orcs and Drow' or 'hunt them down and kill them where they stand' but those followers either get walled into the Wall of the Faithless on death, or get snatched up by fiends and wind up in Hell. Thats not what Corellion is saying here at all. His daughter is a Dark Elf remember. Protecting the Elves expressly condones only self defence, and Corellions own actions clearly show that redemtion of the Dark elves is to be preferred over slaughter in any event.

By contrast the only non Good member of the Seldarine (Shevarash) has this to say as his Dogma:

The greatest enemy of the Seldarine is Lolth, who sought the corruption of Arvandor and the overthrow of the Creator of the Elves. The greatest enemy of the Fair Folk is the drow, the debased followers of the Spider Queen who long ago were enmeshed in her dark web. Redemption and revenge may be achieved through the utter destruction of the drow and the dark deities they serve. Only then may the joy of life begin anew. Hunt fearlessly!

As a CN deity, Im sure he has some followers (CE) that take the above quite literally and to the nth degree and all too happily toss Drow children on the pyre without blinking. His CG faithful however, recoil from the atrocities of the churchs darker adherents, and seek to 'destroy' the Drow by means of redemption and conversion, and not flat out genocide. The CN majority sit in the middle of these extremes.

[Sigreid]

I agree ordinarily kind and good people can do all kinds of henious actions. Im a lawyer; I hear it in mititation all the time for people accused of the most vile of acts.

In my view, they're probably evil. As soon as you stray from the high road, you're no longer good.

When faced with the lesser of two evil, a good person chooses neither. A Neutral person might do the lesser, but only if he had to. An evil person doesnt care either way.

I wasn't going to do this, but here I go. It is not evil to attempt to survive by whatever means necessary. It may not be good, but the drive to survive is not in any way evil. It is simply the natural compulsion of nearly all living things. Knowingly causing unnecessary harm to others to make survival a bit easier is different.

[Malifice]

I wasn't going to do this, but here I go. It is not evil to attempt to survive by whatever means necessary.

Not for an animal. Theyre not evil when they kill and eat children to survive.

It is when we do it.

Its actually a survivial situation when alignments come to the fore.

Imagine a situation where you have a dozen commoners and 1 PC stuck in a desert, with water running out fast. Among the survivors you have sick, elderly and children. There is one PC anong them. A 10th level fighter. Most likely responses to the crisis:


A LG person will ration out the water in an orderly system, first among the weak and the children. He'll refuse any water himself.
A CG person will allow those most in need of the water to draw straws to see who drinks first, refusing any themselves. Once rationed out, it'll be up the individual how fast they drink it.
A LN person will ration out the water in an orderly system with no fear or favor for themselves or others.
A N person will demand water for themselves, and not feel too strongly about the others.
A CN person will demand everyone draw straws. They might try to cheat to ensure they get the longest one. From there, its up to the individual how they ration their own water.
A LE person will seek to ration the water out in an orderly system among the strong (themselves being the strongest, so they get the most and drink first naturally). The children, infirm and weak will be denied water as its a waste of a valuable resource (they're going to die anyway, and as distateful as it is, everyone is going to be hungry soon...).
A CE person will seek to steal the water and flee at the first opportunity, leaving the others to their own fate.

[Regitnui]

Not for an animal. Theyre not evil when they kill and eat children to survive.

It is when we do it.

Its actually a survivial situation when alignments come to the fore.

Imagine a situation where you have a dozen commoners and 1 PC stuck in a desert, with water running out fast. Among the survivors you have sick, elderly and children. There is one PC anong them. A 10th level fighter. Most likely responses to the crisis:


A LG person will ration out the water in an orderly system, first among the weak and the children. He'll refuse any water himself.
A CG person will allow those most in need of the water to draw straws to see who drinks first, refusing any themselves. Once rationed out, it'll be up the individual how fast they drink it.
A LN person will ration out the water in an orderly system with no fear or favor for themselves or others.
A N person will demand water for themselves, and not feel too strongly about the others.
A CN person will demand everyone draw straws. They might try to cheat to ensure they get the longest one. From there, its up to the individual how they ration their own water.
A LE person will seek to ration the water out in an orderly system among the strong (themselves being the strongest, so they get the most and drink first naturally). The children, infirm and weak will be denied water as its a waste of a valuable resource (they're going to die anyway, and as distateful as it is, everyone is going to be hungry soon...).
A CE person will seek to steal the water and flee at the first opportunity, leaving the others to their own fate.


Are we absolutely sure that a LE person won't establish themselves as a "benevolent leader", attempting to keep everyone alive to maximize their own power base. The LEader then finds an oasis, dig wells, etc., turning a ragged band of refugees into a bandit camp or cult who survive by preying on travellers. Or, when they're rescued, the LEader is seen favourably by everyone he's managed to save, creating a power base that they can build upon later for larger goals?

People can behave however they like; Good people can act Evil, and Evil people can act Good for greater goals. But then again, Moral Absolutes rule D&D, where one Evil act can condemn the Good and the Evil can act however they like. It's a wonder anyone makes it to the Good afterlives if the gods are that unforgiving.

[Malifice]

Are we absolutely sure that a LE person won't establish themselves as a "benevolent leader", attempting to keep everyone alive to maximize their own power base. The LEader then finds an oasis, dig wells, etc., turning a ragged band of refugees into a bandit camp or cult who survive by preying on travellers. Or, when they're rescued, the LEader is seen favourably by everyone he's managed to save, creating a power base that they can build upon later for larger goals?

People can behave however they like; Good people can act Evil, and Evil people can act Good for greater goals. But then again, Moral Absolutes rule D&D, where one Evil act can condemn the Good and the Evil can act however they like. It's a wonder anyone makes it to the Good afterlives if the gods are that unforgiving.

Im not saying the solutions to the moral dillema were absolutes. Just an example of how decisions informs alignment.

If a PC elected to kill everyone and take the water for themselves, then I have no hesitation in plonking an 'E' on his character sheet. If he selflessly gives the water to the sick and needy, and refuses any for himself its a 'G' instead.

[Regitnui]

Im not saying the solutions to the moral dillema were absolutes. Just an example of how decisions informs alignment.

If a PC elected to kill everyone and take the water for themselves, then I have no hesitation in plonking an 'E' on his character sheet. If he selflessly gives the water to the sick and needy, and refuses any for himself its a 'G' instead.

A G takes water for himself and prioritizes giving to the sick and elderly because he's their best defence and the sick and elderly need it more.

An E takes water for himself and then prioritizes giving water to the sick and elderly because he values himself and the giving to the sick and elderly gives him a good image.

The worlds of D&D are no more morally absolute than ours, even with the Great Wheel and Gods. Two people of opposite alignment can do the same thing for completely different reasons. If you prefer black-&-white heroes good enemies bad games, go ahead. But alignment, taken seriously, is no more determining of behaviour than eye colour.

[Malifice]

The worlds of D&D are no more morally absolute than ours, even with the Great Wheel and Gods.

But they are. Good and Evil objectively exist. They're actual cosmic forces with corresponding outer planes. Good has a meaning (as does evil). That meaning isnt determined subjectively person by person. Its objective.

You might think youre good. You might be convinced you are. You might genuinely believe it.

But if youre evil, you dont go to Mount Celestia on death.

[BoXOwl]

You could try sending bounty hunters after the PC, this could be used for an adventure hook later. You may want to lull them into a false sence of security and then punish them for being a ****.