am i justified in my fustration

[SirKibblesnbits]

I BESEECH THEE OH PLAYGROUND, AWNSER ME MINE INQUIRIES!
so i was playing a game where a person we were rescuing someone
we knew her to be a wizard but when we gave her a wand of magic missile to arm herself. she said she didn't know how to use it. i immediately became suspicious, i later asked about an event that was she was a part of (how she was capture but escaped but then got captured again.) she got the answer wrong and i, a neutral good magus, i immediately wanted to attack her. not to kill her mind you, but to do nonlethal damage to knock her unconscious so we could then safely transport her home over my shoulder if i was wrong. my gm then wouldnt allow me to do it because i was neutral good and a good person wouldnt attack a defenseless lady who i strongly suspected of being a doppelganger and said that if i persisted that it would be counted as a evil act and id have to change my alignment which ment id lose my improved familiar. and later surprise surprise she was a snakeman all along(not a doppelganger but still a monster), who almost killed us after being weaked by the boss of the dungeon. at the time when i wanted to attack her, it didnt have her spell components and we would have been saved alot of trouble if we had taken her out in the first place

im i justified in being frustrated at this or am i just being a baby.

[daremetoidareyo]

I BESEECH THEE OH PLAYGROUND, AWNSER ME MINE INQUIRIES!
so i was playing a game where a person we were rescuing someone
we knew her to be a wizard but when we gave her a wand of magic missile to arm herself. she said she didn't know how to use it. i immediately became suspicious, i later asked about an event that was she was a part of (how she was capture but escaped but then got captured again.) she got the answer wrong and i, a neutral good magus, i immediately wanted to attack her. not to kill her mind you, but to do nonlethal damage to knock her unconscious so we could then safely transport her home over my shoulder if i was wrong. my gm then wouldnt allow me to do it because i was neutral good and a good person wouldnt attack a defenseless lady who i strongly suspected of being a doppelganger and said that if i persisted that it would be counted as a evil act and id have to change my alignment which ment id lose my improved familiar. and later surprise surprise she was a snakeman all along(not a doppelganger but still a monster), who almost killed us after being weaked by the boss of the dungeon. at the time when i wanted to attack her, it didnt have her spell components and we would have been saved alot of trouble if we had taken her out in the first place

im i justified in being frustrated at this or am i just being a baby.

neutral good would confront her in front of people that she may be a liability to. However, NG isn't a straitjacket and a DM can't ban you from doing something just because your sheet has some letters on it. Plus, magus don't have a whole lot of alignment dependent traits.

[OldTrees1]

You wanted to bludgeon a defenseless person into unconsciousness due to suspecting them of being a shapechanger. Non lethal attacks are still attacks and one could easily imagine npcs reacting poorly to witnessing you beating up a defenseless person until they blacked out.


The DM handled the situation poorly (possibly due to rigid definitions that don't cover everything).


After you received the DM's verdict that implementing you plan would result in an alignment shift, you did none of the more reasonable alternatives. The shapechanger's reveal is due to you not pursuing your suspicions in a reasonable manner. It is not something you can fault the DM for in this circumstance.

[Segev]

Frustration is warranted, but don't go overboard with it. You feel like you were put in a position where the only option was to either "be evil" or "be stupid," and you instinctively felt that being good doesn't require you to be stupid.

The DM seemed, to you, to be trying to force you to hold the idiot ball to avoid losing your Improved Familiar.

He could have handled it better by giving you alternatives that would have let you act on your suspicions without being evil. You could have handled it better by looking for such solutions and discussing them. It's hard to tell if the DM expected you to try something else, or was just trying to railroad you, from this story.

I agree with OldTrees1; your solution set should have included confronting her publicly and warning the other characters IC of your suspicions, and why. Holding her at sword-point while doing so wouldn't be outside of "Good" alignment, either, so long as you didn't hurt her (even non-lethally) without her taking first action.

[sonofzeal]

"This person isn't being completely trustworthy? Better punch 'em in the face!"

...depending on the campaign, yeah, that's potentially an alignment hit.

[Fizban]

Non lethal attacks are still attacks and one could easily imagine npcs reacting poorly to witnessing you beating up a defenseless person until they blacked out.

so long as you didn't hurt her (even non-lethally) without her taking first action.
Non-lethal damage doesn't break Vow of Nonviolence, the Exalted feat, and wears off in minutes. In DnD, beating someone unconscious is not a big deal.

Sounds like the DM screwed up with this impostor even worse than the Red Hand of Doom with it's "elf maiden" who didn't know elvish. He then directly threatened loss of your familiar if you didn't comply, which is bogus. One well-justified non-lethal takedown does not make you "fall," and Improved Familiar has nothing to support the idea that it'd leave immediately the way an Exalted feat would. An open confrontation would be nicer but gives up your one advantage by giving them a chance to act first, and doppelganger types are not the kind of thing you want to give a chance to escape. Bottom line, dude needs to figure out how alignment works (hint: if you're saying "do this and I'll make you fall," you're doing it wrong) and accept when his clever plans aren't so clever.

[Der_DWSage]

Non-lethal damage doesn't break Vow of Nonviolence, the Exalted feat, and wears off in minutes. In DnD, beating someone unconscious is not a big deal.

Lemme punch you in the face a few times, and see if you still feel like it's not a big deal. Bruises heal, right?

(I actually agree with 100% of everything else you said-but punching a potential ally until they black out is a somewhat bigger deal than what you're implying.)

[Tohsaka Rin]

It's only a non-good act if the person being beaten doesn't turn into a snake monster while being smacked about.

Remember kids, if you're genre-savvy and right, your actions and suspicions are ay-ok.

No, seriously. This one's on the DM for threatening the player with an alignment hit, fully-knowing that the ruse was up unless he did something 'clever' to reign the player in. Had the DM warned that beating an unarmed, helpless person they should be aiding would probably be bad for their alignment, and letting the player rethink their choice, it would be another story.

Holding a hammer over your player's head and threatening to punish them if they don't do as you say is bad DMing. It doesn't make someone a bad DM, but it's paving the road there.

[Name1]

Given that alignment is objective, I can see why your DM did that. Assuming she IS lying, that's all you'd know. So if he says "If you're wrong, you'll get an alignment hit", he'd be right, because you just clobbed an innocent person. Even if she's lying, she could just have been a different humanoid, in which case beating the living fecal matter out of her is still a rather bad choice.

The key point isn't even that she betrayed you, it's that she's a monster. Given the situation, you could have hit someone with alter self or a hat of disguise instead.

So yeah, I gotta agree with the DM here: Had you acted on that and been wrong, you would have gotten an alignment hit.

[Zanos]

Bruises heal, right?
Considering how damage works in 3.5, getting nonlethaled to unconsciousness is really not a big deal for your health. Mandatory nap, really.

But yeah, this is a wizard not knowing how to work a wand. I'm a computer programmer, and if I walked into work one day and told my co-workers I couldn't remember how to program or any of their names, they'd probably get me some medical assistance, because shapeshifters don't exist in our world.

Since it's pretty common knowledge that monsters that can impersonate people exist in fantasy land, and this person can't replicate their skills or memories, they should probably be neutralized until you can discover what's wrong with them. I was playing an Evil character at the time, but I have immediately decapitated a hag pretending to be a party member in the past, because that party member had always spoken in third person and the hag didn't know that.

I will say to OP, alignment is descriptive, non prescriptive. Otherwise, nobody would ever change alignments. I don't think knocking someone out who's behaving oddly is really an Evil act myself, you aren't doing them any permanent harm and just because you're Good doesn't mean you have to believe people. Or even be nice, really. Mind control, shape-changing, and worse stuff exists, and Good characters are under no particular mandate to be less suspicious about those kinds of things. Seems to me like your DM browbeat you to make his little trick workout, which seems weird because he gave you a lot of hints it wasn't really her. You could have tried some less extreme options. I would have tied her up, at least.

[Telonius]

Beating somebody unconscious on nothing more than a suspicion is probably an Evil act (and arguably a Chaotic one). But unless it's the last in a series of Evil acts, it should not move an alignment all by itself. Changing an alignment from just one action should be something big and usually irrevocable. The usual examples (things like selling your soul, cold-blooded murder, and the like) are moving from Good to Evil. Moving from Good to Neutral (or Neutral to Evil) would still have to be dramatic, but a single fistfight isn't going to do it. If it becomes a pattern of behavior, then that justifies an alignment shift. Alignments are general descriptions, not Paladin Vows.

[Thurbane]

Holding a hammer over your player's head and threatening to punish them if they don't do as you say is bad DMing. It doesn't make someone a bad DM, but it's paving the road there.

I tend to agree with this.

Threatening an alignment shift and loss of feat/class feature over an isolated incident* (which would not have resulted in the death or permanent harm of the creature) is ham-fisted DMing, to say the least. It reeks of "Oops, the players are on to my not-so-clever ruse. Better just pull some DM fiat to get this story/encounter moving the way I want!".

*If your character has an ongoing habit of non-lethally assaulting innocent NPCs into unconsciousness, I retract the above.

Having said that, there were probably other avenues you could have explored other than pummel her unconscious or just accept the fact you have a monster in your midst. What about your party? Did they share your suspicions?

...but mostly I would put this whole thing down to poor DMing. If you are going to try and sneak a sleeper into the party, and you do a really, really bad job of having the NPC infiltrate the party, don't be a jerk when your player's call you out on it, and act in the self-preservation of their characters.

[Fizban]

Lemme punch you in the face a few times, and see if you still feel like it's not a big deal. Bruises heal, right?

(I actually agree with 100% of everything else you said-but punching a potential ally until they black out is a somewhat bigger deal than what you're implying.)
I'm not a DnD character or a trained combatant, but if I were then no I don't think it would be a big deal. Makes a pretty strong impression and will inevitably color relations from that point, but in a magical world the action is entirely justifiable. Real world compatible analogue? Guy comes around the corner (low-visibility dangerous area) and his allies whack him because he didn't give the password and they weren't taking chances.

Also, let's go ahead and tear down the use of "beating." A beating implies multiple strikes over time while the subject cowers or has their resistance squashed. A wizard won't get a beating, they'll drop in one or two hits. Does anyone complain about the standard superhero one hit KO? Not seriously. And if they don't drop on the first hit they have the opportunity to raise a dialogue as the issue is now out in the open. The use of "beating" in this context is practically a straw man, since it would have required the participation of the rest of the party and if the suspicious element didn't drop in one hit they'd have been able to surrender.

If you want to call a non-lethal knock out evil you're gonna need a helpless or surrendered target such that you're actually causing undue suffering. Even then there are plenty of abilities that you can't restrain without serious magic to worry about, which can be restrained with a forced nap. Real life does not apply, the only people who should care are complete non-combatants. A wizard is an elite trained for combat who can deal with it.

[Mordaedil]

Alignment is supposed to be descriptive of your character, not prescriptive.

That is word from word from someone who worked on 3rd edition.

Alignment should just be informative of who your character are, and if you feel it no longer describes who your character is, then it is a matter of changing it with approval from the DM. People sometimes change who they are during course of play, maybe discover that their character is more lawful or more evil than they initially thought and the idea behind changing alignment a step at the time is sort of to see if it fits better or not. It's a color shirt your wear, not a straightjacket. (Just don't change this shirt daily)

That said, you could have picked more peaceful resolutions for the outcome you chose. Was that the natural reaction that came to you naturally, or to your character naturally? What if you had been misinformed? Do you feel like you had substansive evidence to pursue the course you did? Are you the fool for not being allowed to follow through on your action or a fool for not exploring other ways to get your way? Did you even try anything else? Why did you give up trying? Was that you not wanting to speak up to the DM or your character begrudgingly putting up with the situation?

These are important questions. You need not answer them to us. Just answer them to yourself and think about the situation rationally.

[weckar]

Alignment is supposed to be descriptive of your character, not prescriptive.
Old timey times would like a word with you (back when it literally meant aligning yourself with certain planar forces).

Although one thing I don't get is this about this whole topic: If anything, punching someone out of the blue would be a Chaotic act, not Evil; right?

[nyjastul69]

Your DM threatened you with an alignment change because you figured out his gig. That is way uncool as DM. There is no way that act evil or not, would swing your alignment. Your DM is a jerk.

[Thurbane]

Although one thing I don't get is this about this whole topic: If anything, punching someone out of the blue would be a Chaotic act, not Evil; right?

I'm inclined to agree. Definitely not evil when A.) you have STRONG reason to suspect the target is carrying our deception and is likely to be a threat and B.) your intention is not to kill or permanently harm the target.

[Mordaedil]

Lots of people who have never been punched here, I guess? Being punched is being harmed, even if it is nonlethal as it were. You are literally punching people until they lose consciousness and this actually can sometimes lead to death.


Old timey times would like a word with you (back when it literally meant aligning yourself with certain planar forces).

I am about as old timey as they come and I have a word of authority agreeing with me on this. Look up Matthew Colville on youtube for his take on alignment. If you wanna argue rulebooks, then that is ultimately futile, because even dating back to 1st edition, Gary and folks were struggling with formulating alignment to where people could actually understand what they wanted. It is rather clear if you watch as they drop bothering to clarify over the editions.

Admittedly, alignment is one of *those* topics and I think it's better left to be interpreted in the way that causes less conflict and mostly treat it as a game mechanic to avoid sparking up philosophy over nothing.

[Fizban]

Although one thing I don't get is this about this whole topic: If anything, punching someone out of the blue would be a Chaotic act, not Evil; right?
Yes, that is correct. Making decisions based on your own judgement without concern for social norms is the essence of chaos. Evilness depends on how much undue suffering you wish to assign a nonlethal strike, but it's unquestionably Chaotic. In order to flip it for Law you'd need to be following a specific order or plan, such as if you were ordered to give the wizard full freedom and you did so even after they mysteriously couldn't use a wand. Checking for imposters is the sort of thing that's very hard to codify into Law since it depends so much on the situation, which is why Law prefers to blast away disguises with absolute magic.

Lots of people who have never been punched here, I guess? Being punched is being harmed, even if it is nonlethal as it were. You are literally punching people until they lose consciousness and this actually can sometimes lead to death.
Dude, DnD is not real life. In DnD I could beat someone for 7 hours straight and as long as I declared it "non-lethal" they would suffer absolutely zero permanent injury from the experience. If you want to have NPCs react to it the same way you'd expect people to in real life you can, but them's the rules and anyone with any amount of combat ability in that world is going to know how that works. It is 100% fact in DnD that if you take -4 to deal non-lethal, your target cannot suffer any serious injury and the damage will wear off in minutes or hours (though not neccesarily pain, as pain is undefined and could be attached to hp or an independant fluff description). As such, anyone who knows anything about fighting should not take severe umbridge at suffering a non-lethal attack with any reasonable excuse.

[Mordaedil]

I'm not saying it is real life, but that is negligent of concern on what could be an innocent victim.

It's the dilemma of throwing flasks of acid at a monster. You could take it for what it is in the rules, 1d6 +1 acid damage, or you could take it for what it is and treat it like acid to the face.

Law, chaos, evil, good. Doesn't really matter. What matters is what it says about you as a person.

On the ruling for this scenario, I would say he wouldn't take any hit in alignment regardless, because he was ultimately right, he figured out my ploy ahead of time and I'd reward him for that, even if I feel like starting to beat up the victim to expose the monster was excessive. If it was an actual elf that was just ignorant about her own abilities and she was mercilessly beaten unconscious by a mage because he felt like she should have known a fact, then I'd probably rule him as being acting awfully desparate. I wouldn't change his alignment or anything, because ultimately, I don't see alignments as straight-jackets that our characters must conform to. I just see them as useful guidelines as best and him acting out of turn once wouldn't ultimately change his character.

He would probably repent his actions through roleplaying the consequences of beating up someone. Which in the given scenario would have played out differently.

Paladins and the like are a Different Can of Worms.

[Fizban]

Law, chaos, evil, good. Doesn't really matter. What matters is what it says about you as a person.
. . . That is literally what alignment is about. You do thing, it says something about you, you are alignment because you do thing (regularly).

It's the dilemma of throwing flasks of acid at a monster. You could take it for what it is in the rules, 1d6 +1 acid damage, or you could take it for what it is and treat it like acid to the face.
What dilemma? Acid deals 1d6 damage, monsters have lots of hit points. You seem to be implying that acid is somehow inherently worse than being cut open with a sword, but once again this is not true in DnD so it's all on you. In real life sure, chemical weapons are horrible, but that's because DnD doesn't actually use real science in it's Acid Flasks. The only thing scary about acid flasks is that they deal lethal damage the same as any other weapon.

I believe what you're looking for is what I covered with the non-combatant effect, the reason most people fear being attacked, as most people are non-combatants.
A 1st level commoner has an average of 2hp, they are not a combatant. A 1st level Fighter has 10+ hp, they are a combatant. If you throw a flask of acid at a commoner, there is a chance you will crit them for the maximum of 12 damage, dropping them to -10 and killing them instantly, and without a trained doctor on site even a non-crit will probably leave them bleeding to death. The same thing happens if you swing any lethal weapon at them, even just a dagger with some str bonus. There are no rules for permanent injury or scarring, there is no difference between the two attack vectors, anything else is DM imposed only. Any swing for lethal damage against a non-combatant can kill them. If they can't prove intent to kill then you get manslaughter instead of murder IIRC.

The Fighter, on the other hand, cannot be insta killed from a 1d6 attack. He has the grit to avoid passing out from the pain, his body is used to the strain and is less likely to go into shock somehow, and unless you tie him up for a coup de grace he will not blunder a vital organ onto your blade on the first blow. Now here's the important part: the Fighter knows how all of this works. If he fights a bunch of untrained recruits, most of them will drop in a single hit. If he fights trained warriors, they will take multiple hits unless he gets lucky. A swing for lethal damage against a trained combatant is not likely to result in manslaughter, but repeated swings can result in murder.

Furthermore, the Fighter is just as aware of the difference between lethal and non-lethal damage as anyone. Thanks to the magic of it being a game, people don't die if you aren't trying to kill them. If you throw a punch at him he does not count it as an attempt on his life, nor does he expect to drop in a single hit. He knows that a non-combatant is likely to drop in a single hit if he throws a punch or swings a sap, and that they will be in no danger as long as he doesn't use the pointy end. As for the so called beating, we know that a non-combatant is never "mercilessly beaten unconscious" because a non-combatant would drop in one or two hits, suitable for a children's movie by most people's standards.
That's the part that really bugs me by the way, the assumption that the wizard's attempt at a knock out is somehow a "merciless beating." There was also no mention of weather or not this was discussed with the party: it sounds like the player announced an action and was immediately cut off by the DM, which is bogus. If he had been allowed to make his attack as planned there would have been no argument, since one of three things would have happened: the unfortunate non-combatant would be KO'd, the confused ally would take a hit and have the choice to surrender, or the disguised foe would need to choose between surrender and fighting (with a few points of free damage from the player's good thinking). None of those is a "merciless beating," none of the actual expected results of that exchange is Evil in any way. You need to prove malice and the player clearly had none, because he specifically chose to use the standard ability given to him by the rules for subduing people without putting them at risk, hell there's a weapon enchantment that does this which is literally named Merciful.

If it was an actual elf that was just ignorant about her own abilities
Wut? No, if you ask an English teacher to read something and they can't do it, they just failed. It is impossible to have a Wizard that doesn't know how to activate wands. There is no "ignorant about her own abilities," if you are who you say you are, you can activate the wand. Unless it's from a prohibited school, but you'd need to know about magic to pull that bluff (and roll bluff).

So is it conveniently unrealistic that you can hit people in DnD without the possible unintended consequences we have in real life? Yup, that's why we have games. Unless you put on a morality show every single time someone makes a lethal attack there's no justification for making a big deal out of a non-lethal one. You clearly have a player who expects the rules to behave as rules, so if you don't want to embrace the possibilities of people being able to control their threat level then you'll need to draw up some charts for chance of permanent injury or death resulting from non-lethal damage. This will most likely come back to bite you on the butt since it adds more randomness and removes the non-lethal damage tool from your own toolkit as a DM. I would recommend at bare minimum that such effects trigger only on a critical hit that also puts you into the negatives or "negatives," and they be ignored if magical healing is administered.

[ace rooster]

So paranoia is evil now? There goes all my good characters. :smalltongue:

I would say yes that some frustration is justified, but on the other hand there were lesser options than assault. Standard tactic would be to tie their hands or otherwise disable them, in any hostage situation where you cannot verify that the person is a hostage. D and D gives other options though, such as the requirement to submit to a charm person, or even a sleep spell.

I would definitely say that it could still be good, but only if you were polite about it.

[Crake]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but improved familiar requires you to be within 1 step of your alignment on each axis. This means that had you in fact done this, and "falled" to true neutral you would have still been able to have whichever improved familiar you wanted, since you are within 1 step along each axis, note that it's not 1 step over all like I've seen many misread.

[Jay R]

Beating somebody up because you don't trust her is wrong, even if you are correct not to trust her.

Hitting somebody back after she attacks you is fine, because it's self-defense after she attacked you first.

But if her decision to attack you first is wrong, then for the same reasons, your decision to attack her first is wrong.

[Red Fel]

Jumping aboard this bandwagon, because why not? Here we go, bullet points.
Attacking someone based solely on suspicion is Not Great. Not necessarily Evil, but Not Great. Doing so non-lethally is less Not Great, definitely not Evil, but still Not Great.
Even if doing so were actually Evil, it is not, on its own, sufficiently Evil to justify an alignment change. Come back when you have a proper genocide on your hands. Amateurs.
It isn't Chaotic. Stop that. Not every daft or random action is Chaotic; sometimes it's just daft or random.
Doing nothing isn't Not Great, but it is Not Smart. Find another option.
Shame on the DM for threatening you for using the detective skills any viewer of Blue's Clues or Dora the Explorer develops. Accept defeat with dignity, DM.
Think that pretty much covers it. Call me back when we have a real alignment discussion.

[Psyren]

Does nobody in your party have Sense Motive? This is literally what it's for.

[Contrast]

So is it conveniently unrealistic that you can hit people in DnD without the possible unintended consequences we have in real life? Yup, that's why we have games. Unless you put on a morality show every single time someone makes a lethal attack there's no justification for making a big deal out of a non-lethal one. You clearly have a player who expects the rules to behave as rules, so if you don't want to embrace the possibilities of people being able to control their threat level then you'll need to draw up some charts for chance of permanent injury or death resulting from non-lethal damage. This will most likely come back to bite you on the butt since it adds more randomness and removes the non-lethal damage tool from your own toolkit as a DM. I would recommend at bare minimum that such effects trigger only on a critical hit that also puts you into the negatives or "negatives," and they be ignored if magical healing is administered.

So in your games no-one has scars because there are no rules for it? No old people using walking sticks or have trouble with arthritis? Torture is impossible because there are no rules for pain?

The rules are an abstraction to allow us to play our game. The game has a DM precisely to help cover issues where that the rules don't cover and tell you how the world reacts. If you wanna rule that everyone in your setting is AOK with getting punched unconscious thats up to you but to me such a reaction would be wildly immersion breaking.

To put forwards a counter example if you will, I was playing in a game using another RPG system a few weeks ago that has no rules for non-lethal damage. We were interrogating a suspect and I said my character punched him in the ribs as we knew the answer he'd given to the question was a lie. The DM ruled that I made a full unarmed attack even after I insisted I wasn't trying to do actual damage, just inflict some pain. I proceeded to roll incredibly well and punched him so hard his ribcage exploded due to the colourful nature of the critical hit rules. In much the same way that I would say it being impossible to punch someone without running the risk of causing their ribcage to explode is a result of poor DMing even though it followed the rules, I don't see that everyone would be fine with you punching them into unconsciousness just because the rules don't specify that they don't.

By the same rationale I would look askance at any D&D table where a character was walking around talking perfectly normal and happy while a sword was sticking directly through his torso and with a dagger in his eye socket. After all thats only 1d8 and 1d4 damage and he has hundreds of hitpoints right?

That said, it does seem there were other options open to the OP. It sounds like there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that something was up. Going to the party and outlining those issues seems like it would have enabled some resolution even if it was just everyone agreeing to the plan of knocking her out (or jumping on her and pinning her down or...basically anything except completely ignoring it).

[Mordaedil]

Snipped


I don't really want to engage in debate with you because you are kind stuck in your own way and there's nothing wrong with that, but engaging you in discussion earns me really nothing in return and it is just going to veer off topic.

As for the acid flask reference see the following:

https://youtu.be/WKgmhmEtgx4?t=57m21s

[Segev]

Think that pretty much covers it. Call me back when we have a real alignment discussion.

Well, I have a paladin buddy who keeps swerving to hit pedestrians when he gets into his monster truck. Do you suppose his alignment might be off?

[SimonMoon6]

In the real world, punching her would have been unacceptable, but should've been fine in a D&D world.

However, in future, try a few things first before reaching the point of violence, like:

1. Talk to her. Tell her the jig is up and she better admit to who she is if she wants to get out of here alive.

2. Make sure to tell the other party members about your suspicions, so they can back you up

3. Order her to submit to being tied up for everyone's safety (at the very least, to have her hands tied behind her back). Only if she refuses should combat ensue.

It's surprising to me how often "talk to the enemy" is an option that nobody considers in a D&D game (not saying this was the case here because I don't know).

[Extra Anchovies]

Damsels (and damoiseau, which doesn't seem to have a matching English cognate to damoiselle) faint at the drop of a hat. If you want to worry about concussions, go play Warhammer Fantasy and enjoy having your legs chopped off in your first combat. This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Lacerations and Lasting Brain Injuries, so we can (and bloody well should) leave any sort of combat realism at the door.


my gm then wouldnt allow me to do it because i was neutral good and a good person wouldnt attack a defenseless lady who i strongly suspected of being a doppelganger and said that if i persisted that it would be counted as a evil act and id have to change my alignment which ment id lose my improved familiar.

This person isn't even competent enough to use a wand! They'd best be knocked unconscious so so their panicked clinging doesn't get in the way of your sword-arm while you carry them to safety!

Is it evil? Evil acts without regard for others, this would serve your interests without regard for others', this would be evil.

Is it good? Good acts to benefit others, you'd be hurting someone when you didn't need to, it's not good.

Is it lawful? Lawful holds to past decisions, had you previously agreed or decided not to hurt her? Either way it's not lawful.

Is it chaotic? Chaotic acts on impulses and personal desires, you'd be acting on an impulse, it'd be chaotic.

It's one chaotic evil act - and if your DM decides that's enough to force an alignment shift, they're being pretty draconian.


and later surprise surprise she was a snakeman all along

Damned lizard-people, secretly controlling everything from behind the scenes...

It might be worth checking to make sure your DM has circular pupils :smalltongue:

[Red Fel]

Well, I have a paladin buddy who keeps swerving to hit pedestrians when he gets into his monster truck. Do you suppose his alignment might be off?

I like every part of that sentence.

And I think his alignment is exactly where it needs to be.

[Name1]

This person isn't even competent enough to use a wand! They'd best be knocked unconscious so so their panicked clinging doesn't get in the way of your sword-arm while you carry them to safety!


I think OP mentioned that she was supposed to be a mid-level wizard, making the fact that she cannot operate a wand of magic missile pretty weird.

[Psyren]

Damsels (and damoiseau, which doesn't seem to have a matching English cognate to damoiselle) faint at the drop of a hat.

"Desmoiselles"



It's one chaotic evil act - and if your DM decides that's enough to force an alignment shift, they're being pretty draconian.

It's worth noting that one act absolutely can shift your alignment, even going purely by RAW.

I don't happen to think that a single punch would be one. But brutally pummeling someone into submission/unconsciousness? That to me would be a different matter.

Put me down in the "this could have shifted your alignment, you should have tried something different, but the GM was being railroady too" camp.

[Extra Anchovies]

I think OP mentioned that she was supposed to be a mid-level wizard, making the fact that she cannot operate a wand of magic missile pretty weird.

True. All wizards can use spell-trigger items from their spell list, and all wizards know that they know this without needing ranks in UMD or whatever, so it's probably DC 10 common knowledge that learning spells from a book lets you use those spells from a wand. If she'd said "I can't use this! I banned Evocation!", however, the right course of action would've been to give her a pat on the back for making Playground™-approved optimization choices.


It's worth noting that one act absolutely can shift your alignment, even going purely by RAW.

I don't happen to think that a single punch would be one. But brutally pummeling someone into submission/unconsciousness? That to me would be a different matter.

Put me down in the "this could have shifted your alignment, you should have tried something different, but the GM was being railroady too" camp.

Fair point. I suppose it in part depends on whether it would have been a prolonged beating or something more like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5L1JYnnwGU).

[OldTrees1]

Non-lethal damage doesn't break Vow of Nonviolence, the Exalted feat, and wears off in minutes. In DnD, beating someone unconscious is not a big deal.

I was away so sorry for the late reply.

I did not mention alignment in my post and for good reason. What I did say was one could expect npcs to have negative reactions to witnessing beating a defenseless person until unconsciousness. This is not the same as witnessing someone using non lethal attacks in a fight nor is it the same as witnessing an unprovoked murder. However it is an extreme reaction that looks bad to anyone* that did not know about the character's suspicions.

*Hyperbole of a generalization used for brevity

[Psyren]

True. All wizards can use spell-trigger items from their spell list, and all wizards know that they know this without needing ranks in UMD or whatever, so it's probably DC 10 common knowledge that learning spells from a book lets you use those spells from a wand. If she'd said "I can't use this! I banned Evocation!", however, the right course of action would've been to give her a pat on the back for making Playground™-approved optimization choices.

AFTER rolling Sense Motive :smalltongue:

But I agree, a savvier DM would have made her say this instead to avoid suspicion and this thread would never have existed.


Fair point. I suppose it in part depends on whether it would have been a prolonged beating or something more like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5L1JYnnwGU).

Precisely :smallbiggrin:

Honestly though, I might have let my player fluff their full nonlethal attack sequence this way if they succeed at a strength check, or had an ability like Stunning Fist or Vital Strike.

[digiman619]

My 2 cents: Yes, you have a right to be frustrated, No, hitting the suspected infiltrator shouldn't be in-and-of-itself a reason to dock alignment; if abusing NPCa is a routine act, then maybe. Yes, your GM was being heavy handed, but...

No, knocking her out wasn't the right thing to do.

Forgive me for saying, but this was clearly a roleplay/skill encounter that you wanted to solve with punch-to-the-face. There were plenty of other ways to handle it without combat (and yes, even if she dropped with one shot, that still counts as combat): Talk it out, use Sense Motive to ferret out the lie, do the D&D equivalent of giving her an empty gun and wait for her to turn on you. Another bonus with doing it this way is that your GM doesn't get all defensive about you not falling for his trap and every feels smart for finding the traitor. I know that "getting defensive" because you saw the trap coming wasn't good/justified, but if you hadn't gone all "punch first, ask questions later", it would have been more enjoyable for everyone involved.

But that's just my opinion.

[FearlessGnome]

Your DM is in the wrong. Sure, in retrospect you should have tried something else when plan A was DM vetoed, like confronting the NPC in front of others and demand you immediately lock them up and go get a spell to reveal their true form, but when you suspect you've got a spy in the party, I think non-lethal violence is justified.

I'm probably very biased though, because I had a DM do something similar to me. We had a 'guest player' join our group for one session when we went off to find an ancient weapon nobody knew what it was or how it worked. The guest PC started walking around touching machinery and wouldn't answer questions or pause no matter how many times I tried to talk to him or even physically place myself between him and the things he was messing with. I eventually got so frustrated I said if you don't stop and talk to us I will knock you unconscious. The DM said if I use violence, it will be an Evil Action (In a Forced Good/Exalted game). It's EXTREMELY annoying when a DM goes "if you don't fall for this obvious trap, I will ****ing gut your character, **** you." In total it's my favourite campaign I ever played in, but the next few weeks after that session were pretty bad.

Also, one evil act doesn't knock you from Neutral Good to Neutral. Not if it's just beating up someone. An out of the blue murder perhaps, but alignments don't shift from one small violation. I suggest you talk to your DM about how you feel he used unreasonable OOC threats to railroad you into a trap you knew damn well was coming and should have been allowed to avoid.

[Jay R]

You suspect somebody of being an enemy. She's not at present attacking you. You can:

a. keep asking more questions, trying to get better evidence through role-play, or
b. use Sense Motive or Diplomacy or Detect Alignment or some other mechanical tool to try to learn the truth, or
c. keep her in sight, staying on guard, ready to defend against the attack you suspect is coming, or
d. beat her senseless.

One of these things is not like the others.

[Hurnn]

Yes. Pummeling a suspected bad guy is not a super evil act or even a mildly chaotic act. It is at worse unwise and maybe mildly evil "IF" you are wrong. That said you jumped to violence kinda quickly there and maybe should have gotten the party involved and voiced your suspicions. Demand to search the person in question, require them to let you bind their hands and or gag them for the parties safety, just leave them behind if they are uncooperative. If for some plot reason you absolutely can't leave the castle empty handed and they are uncooperative and you are still suspicious, then yes absolutely slap them silly and drag them out.

[Deophaun]

Spies may be shot on sight. She is lucky you only beat her senseless.

Could there have been better ways to handle it? Maybe. Not "yes," but "maybe." You are in the middle of a rescue operation and have found someone posing as the rescuee; you are under no alignment obligation to babysit (unless you took an Exalted feat, then you're supposed to be gooder than Good) and the person is an obvious threat to your mission. A greatsword to the gut would be an appropriate response for anyone save a paladin, who is probably obligated to give the imposter an opportunity to explain herself before applying said greatsword liberally to her internal organs.

But she is a spy. Discovery is death. She knew the stakes when she took the job.

[TheFurith]

Well first if doppelgangers of some sort were common in the game the suspicion was rather justified. If this was the first time and you just knew what was up because that's the sort of thing that happens in D&D, well, that's a bit too meta for my liking.

However I have always had a problem, a big problem, with people telling other people how to play their character. Especially when it comes to alignment. Which is a system I have an undying hatred for, but that's besides the point. Punching somebody in the face because you have legitimate cause to think they aren't them does not an evil person make. Sorry. I'd be more concerned about all the corpses you left on your way to get to the person.

Although, I'm sure there were other options. If you again, had legitimate reason to suspect them of not being them. Just say you're going to leave them there, because you are looking for a wizard and if they can't use the wand clearly they are not the wizard. There is nearly always a way not to fight if one tries, as anyone sensible probably would do.

[Mordaedil]

You sure learn a lot about people from threads like this, holy ****.

[Zanos]

Is it chaotic? Chaotic acts on impulses and personal desires, you'd be acting on an impulse, it'd be chaotic.
I can see some argument for it being Evil, but it definitely isn't Chaotic. Neutralizing a threat based on reasonable personal suspicion is Neutral on the L-C axis, the act isn't impulsive at all.

You sure learn a lot about people from threads like this, holy ****.
That if you live in a world where Shapechangers/Mind Controllers are real threats, you might get bashed upside your head if you start acting like you suddenly have laser guided amnesia?
Yeah.

[Chronikoce]

Little column A, little column B.

As others have mentioned your DM seemed upset you saw through his scenario and was acting railroady. That being said your character choose a rather poor course of action to resolve the situation (stats depending).

Now if you're playing a barbarian with low Int and Wis who manages to piece this together then I would full expect the reaction of "Oh noooo! This is no nice lady! This is fake nice lady! Fake nice lady need nap!" Followed by pummeling. This would in fact be perfectly in character and excellent roleplaying.

If your character is a high Int and Wis character then I would expect your first course of action to be to discretely notify your party of your actions. The obvious reason is that if this is an impostor then tactically speaking having the mage try and punch them to unconsciousness without party back-up seems like an excellent way for your party to think you've gone mad and restrain you while the "poor innocent rescuee" cries in fear over the assault she just sustained.

[TheFurith]

That if you live in a world where Shapechangers/Mind Controllers are real threats, you might get bashed upside your head if you start acting like you suddenly have laser guided amnesia?
Yeah.

As much as I really hate bringing other games, or movies or whatever into RPG discussions. Anyone play Fallout 4 and remember the "Synth" in Diamond City? If people were taking other people's place, things like that would happen. All the time.

But as usual people want to judge RPGs with magic and demons by their cushy 21st century sensibilities where they don't have to deal with that. I don't get it....

[dascarletm]

In the real world, punching her would have been unacceptable, but should've been fine in a D&D world.

However, in future, try a few things first before reaching the point of violence, like:

1. Talk to her. Tell her the jig is up and she better admit to who she is if she wants to get out of here alive.

2. Make sure to tell the other party members about your suspicions, so they can back you up

3. Order her to submit to being tied up for everyone's safety (at the very least, to have her hands tied behind her back). Only if she refuses should combat ensue.

It's surprising to me how often "talk to the enemy" is an option that nobody considers in a D&D game (not saying this was the case here because I don't know).

I want to second this.
My opinion on some of the options you had:
Good:
Investigate or voice your concerns. Confront her if necessary and ask if she would restrain herself because of this.
Neutral:
Attempt to restrain her immediately, she may attack if we talk it out. Better to be safe than sorry.
Evil:
Kill her on the spot. She's a risk, a quantifiable risk. I'm not risking my life or my allies lives for this woman. (assuming of course she isn't integral to the plot etc. etc.). If she's a doppelganger then good, if not, better her than me.

Remember, the chaos/law axis is best understood as a methodology.

Lawful:
Whatever action I choose to take, I'll weigh the options and come to a concise decision based on the evidence, or vote by the party.
Chaotic:
Whatever action I choose to take, I'll do it because it feels right to me. No need or time to come to a conscious.

No matter what you choose the DM shouldn't stop you from doing it. If he thinks it is worth an alignment change then he may change your alignment.

[Thurbane]

Lots of people who have never been punched here, I guess? Being punched is being harmed, even if it is nonlethal as it were. You are literally punching people until they lose consciousness and this actually can
Equating someone being punched IRL to someone dealing "subdual" damage in a game where monsters and shapechangers are real serves little practical purpose.

And for the record, yes I've been punched a few times in my life - not pleasant. I'm also not a fantasy adventurer through, so apples and oranges.

Dude, DnD is not real life. In DnD I could beat someone for 7 hours straight and as long as I declared it "non-lethal" they would suffer absolutely zero permanent injury from the experience. If you want to have NPCs react to it the same way you'd expect people to in real life you can, but them's the rules and anyone with any amount of combat ability in that world is going to know how that works. It is 100% fact in DnD that if you take -4 to deal non-lethal, your target cannot suffer any serious injury and the damage will wear off in minutes or hours (though not neccesarily pain, as pain is undefined and could be attached to hp or an independant fluff description). As such, anyone who knows anything about fighting should not take severe umbridge at suffering a non-lethal attack with any reasonable excuse.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.pnghttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.pnghttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but improved familiar requires you to be within 1 step of your alignment on each axis. This means that had you in fact done this, and "falled" to true neutral you would have still been able to have whichever improved familiar you wanted, since you are within 1 step along each axis, note that it's not 1 step over all like I've seen many misread.
It sounds like the DM was implying if OP beat up the suspected shapechanger, he would fly straight from NG to NE, which is patently ridiculous IMHO.

Beating somebody up because you don't trust her is wrong, even if you are correct not to trust her.

Hitting somebody back after she attacks you is fine, because it's self-defense after she attacked you first.

But if her decision to attack you first is wrong, then for the same reasons, your decision to attack her first is wrong.
"Wrong" is open to interpretation, I'll grant you. I would've probably handled the situation differently myself. But there's "wrong" and there's "I'll hit you with the same alignment change as if you'd slipped into an orphanage at night and slaughtered the occupants".

If it looks ans smells like DM railroading...


Does nobody in your party have Sense Motive? This is literally what it's for.

Agreed - we need to know more about the rest of the party and their actions and reactions.

[Fizban]

So in your games no-one has scars because there are no rules for it? No old people using walking sticks or have trouble with arthritis? Torture is impossible because there are no rules for pain?

The rules are an abstraction to allow us to play our game. The game has a DM precisely to help cover issues where that the rules don't cover and tell you how the world reacts. If you wanna rule that everyone in your setting is AOK with getting punched unconscious thats up to you but to me such a reaction would be wildly immersion breaking.
Scars are a a fluff description given by the DM or player to make a character more interesting. The absolute most I would ever impose as a consequence of game mechanics is a light cosmetic effect, as a result of sustaining serious injury (a nasty crit or dropping to negatives) and not receiving magical healing. Pain is another fluff descriptor, one person might decide a single punch leaves their wizard hurting for days, while the fighter's player declares that he literally does not feel it. There are in fact rules for torture in the Book of Vile Darkness, and they all involve mandatory lethal damage.

directly through his torso and with a dagger in his eye socket. After all thats only 1d8 and 1d4 damage and he has hundreds of hitpoints right?
Standard failure to comprehend how hp works. If the sword is through your torso, it was not "only 1d8 damage." In order to claim the character should be down, the character has to run out of hp. If you want to complain about unrealistic wounds take a look at spells that explicitly impale their targets even if the damage isn't near enough to be lethal, not swords.

As for the acid flask reference see the following:

https://youtu.be/WKgmhmEtgx4?t=57m21s
Ah yes, that story. A perfect example of the DM running away with whatever they want. Just because you can make a big deal out of it doesn't mean you should: that player would have been fully within their rights to complain about Spoony's making a mountain out of a molehill if they didn't like the way it shifted the campaign. And it's still not a suitable comparison, you are trying to conflate a critical hit with an acid flask to a punch from a scrawny wizard, not even the same planet of potential complications.

You sure learn a lot about people from threads like this, holy ****.
You seem to be under the impression that people's actions in game are the same as they would be in real-life, which is laughable to say the least. In DnD we play highly competent superhuman people with many luxuries afforded by the mechanics of the world, which itself is a far harsher place than our own. One of those luxuries is the ability to make detached decisions based on mission goals without social norms getting the way. If you want to run the game like it's real life you're gonna need to cut out all the magic, monsters, and leveling mechanics, and it won't matter because it's still a game and the decision making is still detached.

[Thurbane]

Your DM is in the wrong. Sure, in retrospect you should have tried something else when plan A was DM vetoed, like confronting the NPC in front of others and demand you immediately lock them up and go get a spell to reveal their true form, but when you suspect you've got a spy in the party, I think non-lethal violence is justified.

I'm probably very biased though, because I had a DM do something similar to me. We had a 'guest player' join our group for one session when we went off to find an ancient weapon nobody knew what it was or how it worked. The guest PC started walking around touching machinery and wouldn't answer questions or pause no matter how many times I tried to talk to him or even physically place myself between him and the things he was messing with. I eventually got so frustrated I said if you don't stop and talk to us I will knock you unconscious. The DM said if I use violence, it will be an Evil Action (In a Forced Good/Exalted game). It's EXTREMELY annoying when a DM goes "if you don't fall for this obvious trap, I will ****ing gut your character, **** you." In total it's my favourite campaign I ever played in, but the next few weeks after that session were pretty bad.

Also, one evil act doesn't knock you from Neutral Good to Neutral. Not if it's just beating up someone. An out of the blue murder perhaps, but alignments don't shift from one small violation. I suggest you talk to your DM about how you feel he used unreasonable OOC threats to railroad you into a trap you knew damn well was coming and should have been allowed to avoid.

Agreed on pretty much all points.

A DM using threat of alignment shift over a one-off threat of nonlethal damage to someone who is ACTING IN A SUSPICIOUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS MANNER is not being a great DM, in my eyes.

Heavy handed use of "Oh, your character is good, so therefore my must stumble headlong like an Int 3 n00b into my obvious trap! Muahahaha!" is poor DMing, plain and simple.

As a DM, I generally request (or enforce) my PCs to be good aligned, but I don't ask them to take it as a straight jacket or force them to play like dimwits because of two letters on their character sheets in the alignment section.

You suspect somebody of being an enemy. She's not at present attacking you. You can:

a. keep asking more questions, trying to get better evidence through role-play, or
b. use Sense Motive or Diplomacy or Detect Alignment or some other mechanical tool to try to learn the truth, or
c. keep her in sight, staying on guard, ready to defend against the attack you suspect is coming, or
d. beat her senseless.

One of these things is not like the others.

Yes. Pummeling a suspected bad guy is not a super evil act or even a mildly chaotic act. It is at worse unwise and maybe mildly evil "IF" you are wrong. That said you jumped to violence kinda quickly there and maybe should have gotten the party involved and voiced your suspicions. Demand to search the person in question, require them to let you bind their hands and or gag them for the parties safety, just leave them behind if they are uncooperative. If for some plot reason you absolutely can't leave the castle empty handed and they are uncooperative and you are still suspicious, then yes absolutely slap them silly and drag them out.

No disagreement that the OP could have come up with other, better options. But in the end, while his actions may have been a bit un-creative and extreme, he was trying to act in the interests of preserving the safety of himself and his party.

Spies may be shot on sight. She is lucky you only beat her senseless.

Could there have been better ways to handle it? Maybe. Not "yes," but "maybe." You are in the middle of a rescue operation and have found someone posing as the rescuee; you are under no alignment obligation to babysit (unless you took an Exalted feat, then you're supposed to be gooder than Good) and the person is an obvious threat to your mission. A greatsword to the gut would be an appropriate response for anyone save a paladin, who is probably obligated to give the imposter an opportunity to explain herself before applying said greatsword liberally to her internal organs.

But she is a spy. Discovery is death. She knew the stakes when she took the job.
That is a good analogy. Far better than the "pummeling some poor maiden into a bloody state" analogy that some people are espousing.

Imagine during war time, someone was trying to infiltrate an elite military unit, and was acting in an extremely suspicious manner. They could be jeopardizing a highly sensitive mission, or even the whole war effort.

I think this is a far better analogy to a D&D adventure than some of the previous comparisons.

[Mordaedil]

Equating someone being punched IRL to someone dealing "subdual" damage in a game where monsters and shapechangers are real serves little practical purpose.

And for the record, yes I've been punched a few times in my life - not pleasant. I'm also not a fantasy adventurer through, so apples and oranges.


What, no, I mean what they consider acceptable and tolerable at the table.


You seem to be under the impression that people's actions in game are the same as they would be in real-life, which is laughable to say the least. In DnD we play highly competent superhuman people with many luxuries afforded by the mechanics of the world, which itself is a far harsher place than our own. One of those luxuries is the ability to make detached decisions based on mission goals without social norms getting the way. If you want to run the game like it's real life you're gonna need to cut out all the magic, monsters, and leveling mechanics, and it won't matter because it's still a game and the decision making is still detached.

I applaud you for being a mind-reader or something, but I guess you just have no problem with these things at the table. I consider it a bit of a traumatic event, so I don't allow that at my table. I allow the players to act as heroes and fight monsters, sure, but I would be a bit shocked if they started wanting to beat up my NPC's without any warning.

And while I don't consider peoples actions in game the same as in real-life (how do you even reach that conclusion?) I think it speaks volumes to how people would act with no restrictions place on them. These games might not be meant as it, but they are playing on a part of the psychology of the people playing and you do learn a lot about them from how they play.

Just don't misunderstand me, I don't think you'll go off and be a serial killer or anything, it's nowhere near that complex. In fact, I'd commend you on your ability to create a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. For some, where the fantasy is their escapism, it isn't quite that easy.

[Psyren]

Here's a suggestion to this guy's DM - clearly the OP (the player) cares about his familiar, and just as clearly, his familiar is Neutral Good too (since an alignment shift would lose it.). Being NG and intelligent, shouldn't the familiar itself have an opinion here too, particularly given that its job is on the line? Even without an ultimatum like "I'll up and leave if you go through with this," the familiar could have swayed events too. Something as small as "I'm not really comfortable with this" could have gotten the OP to consider another course of action; the familiar could even be the one to suggest it. "How about we tie her hands instead?" This lets the DM preserve their plot twist without robbing the players of their agency - maybe the bad guy or one of its minions has to waste a round or two stealthing over to her and cutting her bonds before she can try a surprise attack on the party, all of which your backliners (including the familiar itself) have a chance of noticing.

"Morality Pet" is definitely part of an aligned familiar's job description, and an Improved Familiar even moreso, since the Good-aligned ones tend to be celestials hoping to climb the corporate ladder.

[Deophaun]

I applaud you for being a mind-reader or something, but I guess you just have no problem with these things at the table. I consider it a bit of a traumatic event, so I don't allow that at my table. I allow the players to act as heroes and fight monsters, sure, but I would be a bit shocked if they started wanting to beat up my NPC's without any warning.
What's this "without warning" business? This was a trap. One of the PCs discovered the trap. You need to be warned that the PC will then try to disable the trap?

[Mordaedil]

What's this "without warning" business? This was a trap. One of the PCs discovered the trap. You need to be warned that the PC will then try to disable the trap?
It was very clever of the PC to figure out it was a trap, but he didn't need to destroy the hallway to disable the trap.

EDIT: You know what, I'm out. This topic is making me literally queezy.

[Crake]

Since OP is playing a magus, I'm assuming he's playing pathfinder. For the record, pathfinder did actually ammend the nonlethal damage rule to say that any nonlethal damage in excess of a character's maximum hit points is converted into lethal damage. This means a 21 damage nonlethal hit would in fact drop a character with 10 hit points to -1 hp, so you cannot use the reasoning that "I can pummel someone for 7 hours with nonlethal damage and there would be no permanent harm". In pathfinder, if you were to do that, the person you are pummeling would likely be dead unless they had some sort of fast healing or regeneration.

[Thurbane]

What, no, I mean what they consider acceptable and tolerable at the table.

I may have misunderstood your point - apologies.


Here's a suggestion to this guy's DM - clearly the OP (the player) cares about his familiar, and just as clearly, his familiar is Neutral Good too (since an alignment shift would lose it.). Being NG and intelligent, shouldn't the familiar itself have an opinion here too, particularly given that its job is on the line? Even without an ultimatum like "I'll up and leave if you go through with this," the familiar could have swayed events too. Something as small as "I'm not really comfortable with this" could have gotten the OP to consider another course of action; the familiar could even be the one to suggest it. "How about we tie her hands instead?" This lets the DM preserve their plot twist without robbing the players of their agency - maybe the bad guy or one of its minions has to waste a round or two stealthing over to her and cutting her bonds before she can try a surprise attack on the party, all of which your backliners (including the familiar itself) have a chance of noticing.

"Morality Pet" is definitely part of an aligned familiar's job description, and an Improved Familiar even moreso, since the Good-aligned ones tend to be celestials hoping to climb the corporate ladder.

That's an excellent point to raise.


Since OP is playing a magus, I'm assuming he's playing pathfinder. For the record, pathfinder did actually ammend the nonlethal damage rule to say that any nonlethal damage in excess of a character's maximum hit points is converted into lethal damage. This means a 21 damage nonlethal hit would in fact drop a character with 10 hit points to -1 hp, so you cannot use the reasoning that "I can pummel someone for 7 hours with nonlethal damage and there would be no permanent harm". In pathfinder, if you were to do that, the person you are pummeling would likely be dead unless they had some sort of fast healing or regeneration.

OK, I was unaware of how PF handles nonlethal damage. Good to know. Sidenote: does this mean in PF, you can kill trolls and other regenerating creatures without fire of acid, sheerly by application of enough damage to convert it to lethal damage?

Still, all things considered, I gather from the tone of the OPs original post he had no intention of beating the NPC into a coma or death, but enough so that the potential threat was rendered unconscious. If he's actually wanted to kill the NPC, there would have been far more efficient means at his disposal.

[Crake]

OK, I was unaware of how PF handles nonlethal damage. Good to know. Sidenote: does this mean in PF, you can kill trolls and other regenerating creatures without fire of acid, sheerly by application of enough damage to convert it to lethal damage?

Nah, pathfinder does specify that creatures with regeneration are exempt from this rule.


Still, all things considered, I gather from the tone of the OPs original post he had no intention of beating the NPC into a coma or death, but enough so that the potential threat was rendered unconscious. If he's actually wanted to kill the NPC, there would have been far more efficient means at his disposal.

Yeah, I got that sense as well, but I thought it would be pertinent to point out that the disconnect between game and reality was somewhat removed with the inclusion of that rule, no longer can you just endlessly beat someone for "nonlethal" damage without any issue, and it does most certainly mean that a high level character could quite easily put a typical commoner into dying from what they would consider a light hit. Hell, even a 14 strength commoner punching another for 1d3+2 damage could potentially put them halfway to dead with a well landed critical (max damage 10, average commoner only has 1-4 hit points), so attacking someone, even "nonlethally" would still be cause for concern in a dnd world.

[Fizban]

I applaud you for being a mind-reader or something, but I guess you just have no problem with these things at the table. I consider it a bit of a traumatic event, so I don't allow that at my table. I allow the players to act as heroes and fight monsters, sure, but I would be a bit shocked if they started wanting to beat up my NPC's without any warning.
I did have a player declare they were going to rape the prisoner once, which was rather unwelcome. I shut him down hard and we moved on. If violence against people who aren't attacking first makes you uncomfortable that's okay (I'm given to believe that in other countries violent media is not nearly so commonplace as in the United States), but it needs to be stated up front so that people don't run into it by accident as happened here. It was partially my mistake for letting my player run an evil character in the first place and I should have specified the limits beforehand.

And while I don't consider peoples actions in game the same as in real-life (how do you even reach that conclusion?) I think it speaks volumes to how people would act with no restrictions place on them. These games might not be meant as it, but they are playing on a part of the psychology of the people playing and you do learn a lot about them from how they play.
Everyone is capable of horrible things if pushed far enough, I tend to point out that anyone who says they wouldn't is either lying or simply hasn't realized what would push them over the edge. On the other hand, it takes powerful drugs or prolonged brainwashing in order to suppress the normalcy that is ingrained in most people from birth. And knowledge is always better, having an idea what someone might do in an exceptional situation is better than being in the dark.

For some, where the fantasy is their escapism, it isn't quite that easy.
As above, if you're not comfortable with it that's fine as long as you make it clear so everyone knows you're playing a game where even violence that has no mechanical lethality is still frowned upon. For some people the escapist fantasy is exactly opposite of what you're looking for, a world where not all violence is dangerous and it can be a viable solution to social encounters, allowing heroes to revel in their prowess rather than holding themselves back at all times.
Edit:

Since OP is playing a magus, I'm assuming he's playing pathfinder. For the record, pathfinder did actually ammend the nonlethal damage rule to say that any nonlethal damage in excess of a character's maximum hit points is converted into lethal damage. This means a 21 damage nonlethal hit would in fact drop a character with 10 hit points to -1 hp, so you cannot use the reasoning that "I can pummel someone for 7 hours with nonlethal damage and there would be no permanent harm". In pathfinder, if you were to do that, the person you are pummeling would likely be dead unless they had some sort of fast healing or regeneration.
Oh dear, well don't I just look silly now.

[Zanos]

I don't understand how nonlethal violence against a disguised monster could possibly upset someone who enjoys D&D in the first place. The entire game is based on a group of people enacting lethal violence on creatures they don't want alive, for a variety of reasons. I can only imagine the vomit inducing trauma of a PC surprise round.

And Fizban, I would probably kick that player if he was at my table. That's pretty disgusting.

[Darth Ultron]

im i justified in being frustrated at this or am i just being a baby.

A little frustrated.

But first you should take a step back: you were not doing a good act. And if you think ''knocking out people that are suspicious'' is OK, then don't play a good character. That is not the sort of thing a good character would do.

Second, did you even try any other ways to incapacitate her?

Third, well, you know you should never trust any NPC right? Even more so one you meet in the wilderness? A couple of targeted questions, before you take a single step anywhere could have at least raised some red flags. And even then, you don't need to treat all npcs like a long lost best friend.

Fourth, did you use a skill or spell or ability on her? If she detected as evil, for example, you could have just killed her.

Of course there is a lot of metagaming going on here by both the player and the DM. The DM is just sitting back in excitement and can't wait to do his little surprise monster! So, of course, the DM will metagame to keep her with the group. He can't do his surprise unless she is with the group. And you, as the player, know the old wolf in sheep clothing trick too. So you know, outside the game, what is going on too.

Now this is a tricky line to walk. But first of all: never tell the DM that you know. You should always appear to be a helpless lost sheep.

Second, you should always look for ways to ''beat the DM at his own game''. So take the premise of ''have maybe monster person with group, but DM won't let my good character attack her without consequences''. Whatever, fine, DM is whatever...move past that part. Ok, you still do a lot. Like how about ''We should take this poor npc back to town'' or ''really anywhere other then with our group on an adventure, as it is dangerous''. Maybe have your familiar ride on her shoulder to ''keep her safe''. Maybe have her wear a suit of armor.

And for double sneaky metagame evil bonus points: insist on being her body guard and do your best to fail at your job. This works best with non intelligent hungry monsters. You'd want to do something like ''accidentally'' leave her side and leave her exposed to a monster. And watch the poor DM squirm as he won't want to attack his surprise...but it would be dumb to say ''the hungry alligator monster walks 30 feet past npc girl to attack Dorn on the other side of the swamp''.

Or just stay behind her and watch her, no matter what, even to the point of staying out of other fights. So, if she tries the old ''I will shapechange and attack while they are fighting monster x'' trick, you will be ready.

[Fizban]

And Fizban, I would probably kick that player if he was at my table. That's pretty disgusting.
I'm fairly certain he apologized for it later. He'd been doing lots of the the immature "lol evil" stuff like executing people by stabbing them in the crotch (people I would have agreed on executing mind you), so in hindsight it wasn't too surprising that would happen after fighting a female foe. Which is why I made a note for future games that if I even allow evil characters despite the other problems, there will be a group discussion on how much evil is acceptable. I actually don't have a problem with that in theory, say for an all evil game where you rape and pillage your way across the land, but I'd have to be very comfortable with the group to even consider such a request.

[Thurbane]

If she detected as evil, for example, you could have just killed her.

Now THAT would not be being Good. It's like those horror stories of allegedly LG Paladins who wander through a town slaughtering everyone they detect as evil. Not everyone who is evil is a mass murderer or demonspawn - some are just greedy merchants who rip off their customers and cheat on their wives.


I can only imagine the vomit inducing trauma of a PC surprise round.

This line made me laugh. A lot! :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

I don't understand how nonlethal violence against a disguised monster could possible upset someone who enjoys D&D in the first place.

You're putting the sentence before the trial. The actual situation is violence against a woman suspected of being a disguised monster. That's not the same thing at all.


The entire game is based on a group of people enacting lethal violence on creatures they don't want alive, for a variety of reasons. I can only imagine the vomit inducing trauma of a PC surprise round.

We're talking about a surprise round, of course. Specifically, a surprise round against somebody not currently threatening anybody, and only suspected of being an enemy. That's not "vomit inducing trauma"; it's violent crime. Even if you turn out to be correct about her, that action is not acceptable in any civilized society. The people doing it are violent criminals.

I don't think the DM handled it well. But as a player, I have no interest in playing with that kind of allies. I don't play D&D to pretend to be a villain. I play to pretend to be a hero.

[dascarletm]

I think we are also forgetting the fact that this imposter could very well mean the party no harm.

[ComaVision]

Now THAT would not be being Good. It's like those horror stories of allegedly LG Paladins who wander through a town slaughtering everyone they detect as evil. Not everyone who is evil is a mass murderer or demonspawn - some are just greedy merchants who rip off their customers and cheat on their wives.

Eh, I really think this depends on the game/DM. I've played a CG Paladin that killed anyone that pinged E. Only the baddies were evil, it was a very black and white game.

[Zanos]

You're putting the sentence before the trial. The actual situation is violence against a woman suspected of being a disguised monster. That's not the same thing at all.
No, it's actually violence against a monster disguised as a woman suspected of being a disguised monster. I understand what you mean, though. If the party had concrete evidence that the "woman" was not who she says she is, is nonlethal damage acceptable in that scenario?



We're talking about a surprise round, of course. Specifically, a surprise round against somebody not currently threatening anybody, and only suspected of being an enemy. That's not "vomit inducing trauma"; it's violent crime. Even if you turn out to be correct about her, that action is not acceptable in any civilized society. The people doing it are violent criminals.

I was mostly commenting on the quoted posters extremely weak stomach.

In any case, you have a tremendously narrow view of what a hero is and is not. The "woman" in question is threatening the group by sheer virtue of being with them and not being who she says she is, and the suspicions are based on very strong evidence, that is, a "wizard" who cannot use wands and has no recollection of events she was present for.

Your argument that their actions aren't acceptable in a civilized society are absolutely ridiculous. I don't go down to the local police station, ask where the nearest den of drug dealers is and gear up with my buddies and go to arrest everyone and kill anyone who resists. In D&D world, that's a perfectly legitimate quest, yet gearing up with your friends to bust up the local drug ring is completely unacceptable in a civilized society, because that's what the Rule of Law is for. That situation is obviously more clear cut, but you seem to labor under the impression that heroes aren't capable of taking actions based on reasonable suspicions. Knocking someone you suspect of being a shapechanger unconscious based on concrete evidence is not un-heroic. In fact, it's a pretty common scene in fantasy series for a shapechanger to slip up impersonating someone, and receive a bullet, arrow, or otherwise lethal violence for their trouble immediately from a heroic character.

I think we are also forgetting the fact that this imposter could very well mean the party no harm.
I don't think very many characters would go through the trouble of disguising themselves as a kidnap victim because they want to hang out.

[Deophaun]

You're putting the sentence before the trial.
Oh. Yes. We forgot about the courthouse nextdoor to the cell in the complex the party was infiltrating.

The actual situation is violence against a woman suspected of being a disguised monster.
Actually, the situation is violence against a spy. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman, a halfling or an illithid. Spies are subject to summary execution.

I think we are also forgetting the fact that this imposter could very well mean the party no harm.
The imposter was posing as the very person the party was there to rescue; that is committing harm.

[dascarletm]

The imposter was posing as the very person the party was there to rescue; that is committing harm.

Not necessarily.

I'll invent a hypothetical

Shapeshifter (Becca) and the woman they are rescuing (Jill) are both locked away by the baddies. During their incarceration Becca and Jill get to know one another and become friends, and they make a pact that if only one of them escapes they will tell the other's respective families that the others last wishes. Jill is executed. Becca sees the adventurers coming to rescue Jill. She has had adventure types treat her poorly in the past <insert tragic backstory>, so she doesn't trust them. She shifts into Jill's form to escape, not knowing if they would leave her to rot, kill her, or worse... expelled. She really needs to sort out her priorities. A Harry Potter joke how hilarious of me har har har.
Etc. Etc.

[Deophaun]

Not necessarily.

I'll invent a hypothetical

Shapeshifter (Becca) and the woman they are rescuing (Jill) are both locked away by the baddies. During their incarceration Becca and Jill get to know one another and become friends, and they make a pact that if only one of them escapes they will tell the other's respective families that the others last wishes. Jill is executed. Becca sees the adventurers coming to rescue Jill. She has had adventure types treat her poorly in the past <insert tragic backstory>, so she doesn't trust them. She shifts into Jill's form to escape, not knowing if they would leave her to rot, kill her, or worse... expelled. She really needs to sort out her priorities. A Harry Potter joke how hilarious of me har har har.
Etc. Etc.
So you're saying she's a parasite: using the party's resources for her own survival while making them believe--falsely--that they are accomplishing their goal by freeing her. Knife to the gut still justified. Becca chose poorly. (Stupidly, actually, by impersonating someone she didn't have the knowledge to impersonate)

This is not a decision being made in the comfort of civilization, or when the party has control. The party is in enemy territory and subject to their own summary execution if caught. It doesn't matter if the impersonator is Hailey Mills who wandered out of a Disney movie; she is only entitled to exactly the amount of time it takes for the blade to reach her to make her case.

[dascarletm]

So you're saying she's a parasite: using the party's resources for her own survival while making them believe--falsely--that they are accomplishing their goal by freeing her. Knife to the gut still justified. Becca chose poorly. (Stupidly, actually, by impersonating someone she didn't have the knowledge to impersonate)

This is not a decision being made in the comfort of civilization, or when the party has control. The party is in enemy territory and subject to their own summary execution if caught. It doesn't matter if the impersonator is Hailey Mills who wandered out of a Disney movie; she is only entitled to exactly the amount of time it takes for the blade to reach her to make her case.

Yeah yeah... ends justify the means, no honor in the field, what happens in enemy territory stays in enemy territory etc. etc.

Tagging that mentality as Good wouldn't fly at my table, and would definitely send you towards the lower alignment. Maybe I missed the section in the BoED that says when you are outside of civilization feel free to abandon your civility.

[lord_khaine]

Yeah.. kinda agree on that part. its not even like there were rock solid evidence on her being a imposter. Things could have gone from her having barred the relevant school, to actually having been a psion and not a wizard like believed.

[Deophaun]

Yeah yeah... ends justify the means, no honor in the field, what happens in enemy territory stays in enemy territory etc. etc.
Apparently there is no honor in the field, because you have someone acting dishonorably, and then expecting the decency of others to be her shield when found out. (That would be your Brecca)

But yes, killing her dishonorably would be a problem. For someone with levels in Knight.

Tagging that mentality as Good wouldn't fly at my table, and would definitely send you towards the lower alignment.
No one tagged it as Good. Giving people only what they are entitled to--no more--is not the definition of Good. It's neutral. Do you drop people's alignment for performing neutral actions? Characters have to brush their teeth with Holy Water lest they turn to a life of neutrality?

Yeah.. kinda agree on that part. its not even like there were rock solid evidence on her being a imposter. Things could have gone from her having barred the relevant school, to actually having been a psion and not a wizard like believed.
You mean not knowing basic facts about her own life was not solid evidence?

It's important to read the whole thing. The inability to use a wand was not the proof the OP acted on. It was merely the thing that roused his suspicion. He then, in the classic trope of fiction, subtlety tested her knowledge to make sure she was who she claimed to be. When she failed, that is when the OP acted. His crime, apparently, was omitting the witty "gotcha" remark before acting.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'll invent a hypothetical

So you're saying she's a parasite

I think you both are going a bit off topic here. Cause now you're not only getting into said shape-shifter being murdered, but them simply being desperate and wanting to get out.

While in the OP's situation they only wanted to knock her unconcious, and the shape-shifter did actually attempt to kill the party later on. Different mentalities, intentions and motivations on both sides.

[Name1]

No one tagged it as Good. Giving people only what they are entitled to--no more--is not the definition of Good. It's neutral. Do you drop people's alignment for performing neutral actions? Characters have to brush their teeth with Holy Water lest they turn to a life of neutrality?


Actually, why don't people do this? I mean, if you want to maintain your "Holier tha thou"-attitude, you might as well work for it. The again, that is my table, where good character basically can't exist, so there is that...

[Gwazi Magnum]

The again, that is my table, where good character basically can't exist, so there is that...

Personally for me I just drop alignment entirely. You want to be good? Good is in the eye of the individual.
One town might love you, another won't care, a third may hate you.

You only good because you think you are? Good, share a drink with that big bad over there. You two seem to be a lot alike.

[Name1]

Personally for me I just drop alignment entirely. You want to be good? Good is in the eye of the individual.
One town might love you, another won't care, a third may hate you.

You only good because you think you are? Good, share a drink with that big bad over there. You two seem to be a lot alike.

I've been thinking about dropping G and E actually. G is just far too high-maintance (you didn't jump in front of that dragon to grant the next best peasant a few seconds of his life? Guess who just got an alignment-hit) and the objective nature of evil results in G characters slaughtering everything that pings.

L and C... I guess L is keeping promises and sticking to certain traditions where C is not doing that, which I can get more behind.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I've been thinking about dropping G and E actually. G is just far too high-maintance (you didn't jump in front of that dragon to grant the next best peasant a few seconds of his life? Guess who just got an alignment-hit) and the objective nature of evil results in G characters slaughtering everything that pings.

L and C... I guess L is keeping promises and sticking to certain traditions where C is not doing that, which I can get more behind.

That's a system I could get behind, since the vast majority of alignment issue's I've ran into have been Good-Evil based. In fact, I don't think I've once seen an argument on the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum. o_o

And in my own experience the whole "It dinged evil, kill it" mentality get's a bit extreme. Just a month or so ago I had a group who would constantly yell at me for acting 'evil'. When the worst I've ever done was yell at someone in a bar, and shoot fireballs at a creature that was trying to scam us (apparently there anger was it possibly hurting a tree). Yet when they hit a group of adventurers who were pinged evil? A group I should add not only spared us after we initially attacked them but also left behind some loot for us? There immediate response was "We should rob them, and then kill them. Because they pinged evil therefore they can't be trusted".

...

Someone trying to actively scam/harm the group*? Killing is bad, don't do that.
Group goes out of their way to be decent? They dinged, better kill em.

I swear the Alignment system just stops people's ability to think. >.<

*Happened a second time with different people last week too, same reaction.

I really do just want to say to keep Alignment as it is, just have a good DM and players handle it. But... If you're doing that then why do you even need the system, they can still grasp morality without it, sometimes better given the above example plus countless others from other players and DMs.

[Darth Ultron]

Now THAT would not be being Good. It's like those horror stories of allegedly LG Paladins who wander through a town slaughtering everyone they detect as evil. Not everyone who is evil is a mass murderer or demonspawn - some are just greedy merchants who rip off their customers and cheat on their wives.

This is mixing ''the 21st century one sided way of thinking'' vs classic good and evil. Your going down the road of ''A good person can never ever attack anyone, unless they are attacked first .'' Your way, you can't even play a good character. Ask yourself: ther then ''self defense'', when can a good person attack and kill? What hoops must they jump though for it to be ''right''?

[Name1]

Your way, you can't even play a good character.

That's actually my view on things.
Good characters - just say "NO!"
http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/nes/images/wallytit.gif

[Quertus]

IMO, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. Let's remove alignment from the question, and reevaluate it:

Player: my character is going to act on the information he has, and subdue the (potentially dangerous) imposter.
DM: do that, and I'll punish you.
Player: fine, I'll metagame, and not do that.

That's horrible. That's not at all the way we want RPGs to flow. Metagaming is evil*, so you should inform your DM that his and your alignments have shifted to evil for performing such an evil act.

Putting alignment back into the equation... just what alignment is this action indicative of? Answer: lawful neutral, leaning towards lawful good.

Reason: throwing everything that doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of how the universe should be under the bus (or, in this case, into the wheels of The Great Machine) is the duty of the paragons of Lawful Neutral, the Modrons. The imposter's behavior is not returning the expected value, and so you desire to remove them. Since you are being kind and considerate compared to a modron, and not just straight up killing them, this behavior is lawful neutral (good). If you later interrogate the imposter, to find out what happened to the real Princess Peach, then I'd vote Lawful Good.

Hmmm... one could also argue that the herd cuts members that do not conform, and do so less violently than the Ln guys, so perhaps this action is True Neutral.

* except when it isn't, like when you see that a player isn't enjoying something, and metagame to change the game accordingly.


You suspect somebody of being an enemy. She's not at present attacking you. You can:

a. keep asking more questions, trying to get better evidence through role-play, or
b. use Sense Motive or Diplomacy or Detect Alignment or some other mechanical tool to try to learn the truth, or
c. keep her in sight, staying on guard, ready to defend against the attack you suspect is coming, or
d. beat her senseless.

One of these things is not like the others.

Correct. One of them works, the rest give the monster the opportunity to kill the good people you've sworn to protect. Any choice other than "d" is grounds for an immediate alignment change to chaotic evil.


Spies may be shot on sight. She is lucky you only beat her senseless.

But she is a spy. Discovery is death. She knew the stakes when she took the job.

With one of my favorite characters, Armus, I refused to write an alignment on his character sheet. I explained to my DM (DMs, actually - we had a rotating DM-ship) that I was going to play my character's personality. They were welcome to put whatever lable they wanted to on that. I would simply ignore it, and continue role-playing his personality.

If Armus had encountered this scenario, if other party members caught on, we would have ganked her then and there. That's not really a question.

Assuming the rest of the party were clueless, Armus would have waited just long enough to allay the imposter's concerns, then claimed he saw danger, which would (should) have gotten the party to form up and "protect" the imposter. Then, once they had her surrounded, weapons drawn, he would have let them know she was the danger. Armus would have attacked for subdual damage, but wouldn't impose his values on the rest of the party.

Now, had the scenario been... slightly more morally dubious than portrayed, Armus' response would have been different. Most likely, he would have found a way to get an ally to help him, and would have subdued the wizard for her own protection. Because someone with phenomenal cosmic power... who can't even remember how to do apprentice-level tasks... is a significant danger to themselves. That this also protects from doppelgangers and imposters is an added benefit - one Armus doubtless would have pointed out in his explanation when the party asked "WTF?!". Coupled, of course, with an inquiry as to whether anyone knew a better way to test what was going on than using Speak with Dead. Because, honestly, the most likely way to successfully get the NPC home in this scenario is to kill her, use her body for trail rations, and use Speak with Dead to find out way was really going on, so as to avoid complications on the way home... then, if this was the real NPC, resurrect her when those who can cure her "condition" are present.


Well first if doppelgangers of some sort were common in the game the suspicion was rather justified. If this was the first time and you just knew what was up because that's the sort of thing that happens in D&D, well, that's a bit too meta for my liking.

However I have always had a problem, a big problem, with people telling other people how to play their character. Especially when it comes to alignment. Which is a system I have an undying hatred for, but that's besides the point. Punching somebody in the face because you have legitimate cause to think they aren't them does not an evil person make. Sorry. I'd be more concerned about all the corpses you left on your way to get to the person.

Although, I'm sure there were other options. If you again, had legitimate reason to suspect them of not being them. Just say you're going to leave them there, because you are looking for a wizard and if they can't use the wand clearly they are not the wizard. There is nearly always a way not to fight if one tries, as anyone sensible probably would do.

Share your hatred for alignment. Share your dislike of meta. Don't believe "acts like they live in a world where strange things happen, and were trained by people who have seen strange things happen" is in any way meta. :smallconfused:


You sure learn a lot about people from threads like this, holy ****.


What, no, I mean what they consider acceptable and tolerable at the table.

And while I don't consider peoples actions in game the same as in real-life (how do you even reach that conclusion?) I think it speaks volumes to how people would act with no restrictions place on them. These games might not be meant as it, but they are playing on a part of the psychology of the people playing and you do learn a lot about them from how they play.

Just don't misunderstand me, I don't think you'll go off and be a serial killer or anything, it's nowhere near that complex. In fact, I'd commend you on your ability to create a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. For some, where the fantasy is their escapism, it isn't quite that easy.

The range of characters we are capable of playing says a great deal about what we could be like without restraints, what we could be like as gods.


Here's a suggestion to this guy's DM - clearly the OP (the player) cares about his familiar, and just as clearly, his familiar is Neutral Good too (since an alignment shift would lose it.). Being NG and intelligent, shouldn't the familiar itself have an opinion here too, particularly given that its job is on the line? Even without an ultimatum like "I'll up and leave if you go through with this," the familiar could have swayed events too. Something as small as "I'm not really comfortable with this" could have gotten the OP to consider another course of action; the familiar could even be the one to suggest it. "How about we tie her hands instead?" This lets the DM preserve their plot twist without robbing the players of their agency - maybe the bad guy or one of its minions has to waste a round or two stealthing over to her and cutting her bonds before she can try a surprise attack on the party, all of which your backliners (including the familiar itself) have a chance of noticing.

"Morality Pet" is definitely part of an aligned familiar's job description, and an Improved Familiar even moreso, since the Good-aligned ones tend to be celestials hoping to climb the corporate ladder.

So, clearly, the familiar's alignment needs to change to reflect its lack of intervention in this issue. Wow, we're up to 4 alignment shifts for one action!


I don't understand how nonlethal violence against a disguised monster could possible upset someone who enjoys D&D in the first place. The entire game is based on a group of people enacting lethal violence on creatures they don't want alive, for a variety of reasons. I can only imagine the vomit inducing trauma of a PC surprise round.

I know, right?


I'm fairly certain he apologized for it later. He'd been doing lots of the the immature "lol evil" stuff like executing people by stabbing them in the crotch (people I would have agreed on executing mind you), so in hindsight it wasn't too surprising that would happen after fighting a female foe. Which is why I made a note for future games that if I even allow evil characters despite the other problems, there will be a group discussion on how much evil is acceptable. I actually don't have a problem with that in theory, say for an all evil game where you rape and pillage your way across the land, but I'd have to be very comfortable with the group to even consider such a request.

Kudos on not performing a reactionary kick.


Now THAT would not be being Good. It's like those horror stories of allegedly LG Paladins who wander through a town slaughtering everyone they detect as evil. Not everyone who is evil is a mass murderer or demonspawn - some are just greedy merchants who rip off their customers and cheat on their wives.

True horror stories. A Real Paladin would act like this:

A Real Paladin enters town. The Real Paladin uses Detect Magic. Round 1: ding. The Real Paladin slaughters the whole town. Reason? They were willingly harboring evil. Sense motive isn't trained only, and they could take a 20 (and even aid another to reach higher DCs). They have no excuse for allowing the evil in their midst.

[Thurbane]

This is mixing ''the 21st century one sided way of thinking'' vs classic good and evil. Your going down the road of ''A good person can never ever attack anyone, unless they are attacked first .'' Your way, you can't even play a good character. Ask yourself: ther then ''self defense'', when can a good person attack and kill? What hoops must they jump though for it to be ''right''?

Can't quote a source right now (AFB), but I'm pretty sure one of the 3.X rulebooks actually addresses the issue of a evil not always being "Eeeeevil!", and discourages paladins from slaughtering townsfolk on the basis of a detect evil. It spells out that an evil person may not always be worthy of being put to the sword on the spot.

The paladin's detect evil has the potential to be one of the most problematic at will abilities in the game, in my personal experience. I much preferred how it was n 2E (?) (and generally house-rule it in my 3.5 games) that only detects strong evil (undead, demons etc.) or individuals with active evil intent at the time of detection. If an evil NPC i currently thinking about gutting you in your sleep to steal your stuff *ping* evil. If the same NPC is thinking "Man, I could really go for an ale right about now!" at time of detection, then no ping.

I find my good aligned PCs have no problem with being justified to use violence when required, and I don't make them jump through hoops about it.

[Gwazi Magnum]

IMO, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. Let's remove alignment from the question, and reevaluate it:

Player: my character is going to act on the information he has, and subdue the (potentially dangerous) imposter.
DM: do that, and I'll punish you.
Player: fine, I'll metagame, and not do that.

That's horrible. That's not at all the way we want RPGs to flow. Metagaming is evil*, so you should inform your DM that his and your alignments have shifted to evil for performing such an evil act.

[2]

The only thing the system contributes is conflict among players with each other and with the DM.


Since you are being kind and considerate compared to a modron, and not just straight up killing them, this behavior is lawful neutral (good). If you later interrogate the imposter, to find out what happened to the real Princess Peach, then I'd vote Lawful Good.

And I personally don't agree with this interpretation. And say you and I were fellow players, how would this then play out?

With Alignment: At best ignore it, feeling like mechanics are being abused or ignored. At worst, we get into an argument about morality at the table.
Without Alignment: Accept there's a difference of opinion between characters and players. Just like actual morality is (which is far more interesting because of it anyways).

[Quertus]

I forgot several things in my first post. Yes, the OP is justified in feeling frustrated. No, the DM didn't handle things well, at all. Yes, they should have found a way to handle the situation rather than handing their character the idiot ball.


We're talking about a surprise round, of course. Specifically, a surprise round against somebody not currently threatening anybody, and only suspected of being an enemy. That's not "vomit inducing trauma"; it's violent crime. Even if you turn out to be correct about her, that action is not acceptable in any civilized society. The people doing it are violent criminals.

But as a player, I have no interest in playing with that kind of allies. I don't play D&D to pretend to be a villain. I play to pretend to be a hero.


No, it's actually violence against a monster disguised as a woman suspected of being a disguised monster. I understand what you mean, though. If the party had concrete evidence that the "woman" was not who she says she is, is nonlethal damage acceptable in that scenario?

In any case, you have a tremendously narrow view of what a hero is and is not. The "woman" in question is threatening the group by sheer virtue of being with them and not being who she says she is, and the suspicions are based on very strong evidence, that is, a "wizard" who cannot use wands and has no recollection of events she was present for.

Knocking someone you suspect of being a shapechanger unconscious based on concrete evidence is not un-heroic. In fact, it's a pretty common scene in fantasy series for a shapechanger to slip up impersonating someone, and receive a bullet, arrow, or otherwise lethal violence for their trouble immediately from a heroic character.

If violence against (monsters pretending to be) powerful wizards suspected of being disguised monsters is wrong, I don't want to be right. :smalltongue:

I play to be heroic, or cowardly, or any number of things - and, preferably, not with a dozen modrons all running exactly the same program I am. Because that would be boring.

But, honestly, the hero who kills the shapeshifter is stupid (they should have interrogated them - especially since, in this case, by having the form of someone they were looking for, probably had information about their whereabouts), but makes for a much better story than any other brand of hero.


I think we are also forgetting the fact that this imposter could very well mean the party no harm.


I don't think very many characters would go through the trouble of disguising themselves as a kidnap victim because they want to hang out.

No, they could just want the real Princess Peach to remain kidnapped long enough for the BBEG to complete his evil scheme.


Actually, the situation is violence against a spy. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman, a halfling or an illithid. Spies are subject to summary execution.

Ah, right, I forgot this PoV. From this perspective, you are ignoring the law (spies are executed) in favor of mercy. So... clearly, attempting to subdue the spy is Chaotic Good.

I hate alignment.

EDIT:


And I personally don't agree with this interpretation. And say you and I were fellow players, how would this then play out?

With Alignment: At best ignore it, feeling like mechanics are being abused or ignored. At worst, we get into an argument about morality at the table.
Without Alignment: Accept there's a difference of opinion between characters and players. Just like actual morality is (which is far more interesting because of it anyways).

I ignore alignment whenever possible - Armus being the first of my "exists across the whole spectrum" and "adamant about ignoring any useless labels" characters doubtless contributes to how much I enjoyed playing him.

But you forgot the "at best" for "without alignment": we might actually discuss the tactical and moral implications in character. :smallwink:

EDIT the second:

And, I forgot a big one: kudos to the DM for making his imposter so obvious! So many DMs railroad their clever plans by not leaving any clues for the PCs to spot. This DM has gotten a lot of flak for how he handled things after the PC detected the ruse - and rightly so! - but credit where credit is due, they set things up to where the PC could detect the ruse in the first place.

[SangoProduction]

Lemme punch you in the face a few times, and see if you still feel like it's not a big deal. Bruises heal, right?

(I actually agree with 100% of everything else you said-but punching a potential ally until they black out is a somewhat bigger deal than what you're implying.)

Pain sucks regardless, but when you can heal everything they do in the matter of minutes, no matter how hard the beat you down, even without magic or medicine...yeah, sensitivity to nonlethal pain probably would have evolved away. But even if it didn't, beatings would probably be seen as a lot less...meaningful than it is today.

Still not-nice if it's not something they willingly got in to, but still.

[Thurbane]

Yeah.. kinda agree on that part. its not even like there were rock solid evidence on her being a imposter. Things could have gone from her having barred the relevant school, to actually having been a psion and not a wizard like believed.
That in and of it's own..maybe. I'd still like to think any caster with an Int where they could actually not be a knuckle dragging primitive would be able to explain it, though. Not just "Umm...I can't use that?". More along the lines of "The mighty Wizella does not trifle with the inferior school of evocation! Hmmph!". Not to mention that the NPC in question wasn't even able to answer basic questions about her past.


Actually, the situation is violence against a spy. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman, a halfling or an illithid. Spies are subject to summary execution.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.pnghttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.pnghttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


...the main thing that bother me about the OPs post and a lot of replies in this thread is a blanket assumption that a good character must be played as either dumb, or willing to accept possible death and failure of mission, when presented with a an extremely suspicious encounter. Yes, I freely acknowledge the OP could have handled it better [sadly, he hasn't replied with any info on how the rest of the party reacted or what other resources he had to get to the bottom of the matter].

Secondly, at least IMHO, there is a difference between neural good, and neutral GOOD [exalted]. As far as I can tell, OP's character is just your average ng adventurer, and not exalted or bound by some kind of paladin's code (again, I'm not overly familiar with PF, feel free to correct me if PF handles these things differently than 3.X).

Third, I HATE alignment being enforced as a straight-jacket on PCs by a DM. I'm a firm believer in behavior determines alignment, and not vice versa. Saying to a PC "No, you can't do that because of what's written on your character sheet" is bad DMing, and it'll take a lot to persuade me otherwise. The DM in the OP example could have simply said "Are you sure you want to do that? It seems a little incongruous with the way you have presented your character's alignment up to this point.." rather than "Ha! You can't touch my obvious monster or I'll take away your familiar! Muahahahaha!".

I've played under these kind of DMs before, and I've never enjoyed it. This DM style is pretty much begging for everyone to play evil or CN characters simply so their character can act how the player wants in a given situation, instead of following a DM approved script.

[/rant]

[weckar]

neural good
I'm sorry, this just made me giggle. This is exactly the kind of good the OP played. :smallbiggrin:

[Gwazi Magnum]

I've played under these kind of DMs before, and I've never enjoyed it. This DM style is pretty much begging for everyone to play evil or CN characters simply so their character can act how the player wants in a given situation, instead of following a DM approved script.

Sometimes this isn't even an exaggeration. :P
I once had a DM give my character the Eye of Vecna.

And then once I was CE I was given encounters like "You see a hut and a lantern. What SHOULD you do?". Basically expecting me to be Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid and then say I wasn't playing them right when I wasn't slaying every small thing in my path... Apparently despite this though attacking the nearby City also wasn't what I 'should' of done. :/

[Segev]

Let's not get ourselves lost in the weeds of the alignment grid, here. Assuming the OP's account is complete and accurate (always a risky assumption when you only have one side of the story), it's pretty clear that the DM would have found an excuse to penalize the player in some fashion for acting on his suspicions even without an alignment system in place. "Your fancy, goody-two-shoes familiar would take offense at such an action and leave you" is on the table even without explicit alignment rules, for instance.

The OP could have come up with alternatives that were better than "K.O. the (highly suspected) spy." But let's be fair to him, too: at the level at which he appears to have thought this through, he was just looking at a means of preventing the spy from acting that would cause no permanent harm, according to the rules as he knows them. So, because his thought process stopped there, he read into the DM's "if you beat her unconscious, your alignment will shift and your familiar will leave" as an implied "you're not allowed to prevent her inevitable betrayal."

While many of us would have probably recognized on some level that the DM might well be implying that without openly saying so (which is why a preponderance of posts were rolling their eyes at the DM's ham-fisted railroading), many of us on these boards are also the sorts to keep arguing with the DM about calls we think are nonsense. Especially if he's hiding them in implication. Okay, we can't punch her into unconsciousness. So instead, I call her out and demand she be bound in ropes or manacles so that she can't stab us in the back. And, if the DM did, in fact, keep coming up with reasons we couldn't, we'd get to the point where we call HIM out for railroading. Look, we KNOW she's not who she says she is. You're not going to surprise us with your "clever" ruse. Preventing us from acting on it doesn't make her plot clever, merely contrived.

[Psyren]

That in and of it's own..maybe. I'd still like to think any caster with an Int where they could actually not be a knuckle dragging primitive would be able to explain it, though. Not just "Umm...I can't use that?". More along the lines of "The mighty Wizella does not trifle with the inferior school of evocation! Hmmph!". Not to mention that the NPC in question wasn't even able to answer basic questions about her past.

You can be quite intelligent and still not good at conversation; many autistic people deal with that. That would be low Cha, not Int. Or she may not have realized she needed to explain herself in more detail to avoid trouble; that would be low Wis, not Int. She could be shy, or a snob, or easily distracted, none of which would conflict with her being a wizard.

Hindsight is 20/20; while suspicious, none of her actions in the OP came close to warranting an instant beatdown.

[Gwazi Magnum]

You can be quite intelligent and still not good at conversation; many autistic people deal with that. That would be low Cha, not Int. Or she may not have realized she needed to explain herself in more detail to avoid trouble; that would be low Wis, not Int. She could be shy, or a snob, or easily distracted, none of which would conflict with her being a wizard.

Hindsight is 20/20; while suspicious, none of her actions in the OP came close to warranting an instant beatdown.

"Everyone's a General after the battle".

I feel this saying honestly applies both ways.
We can critique the Player for responding in such a violent manner, but it's not like he had the time to think it all through for a while or ask a forum for help.
And likewise, we can critique the DM for not having a better excuse. But you're improvising on the fly and this stuff won't always dawn on you. Especially if say the DM is suffering from Autism in that way.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Quick question; Does anybody remember in Star Trek 6, when Kirk punched the shape-shifter in the face?

Think he took an alignment hit for that?

Or am I the only one that thinks that's an appropriate reference?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Quick question; Does anybody remember in Star Trek 6, when Kirk punched the shape-shifter in the face?

Think he took an alignment hit for that?

Or am I the only one that thinks that's an appropriate reference?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/oh-my-takei.gif

[Psyren]

"Everyone's a General after the battle".

I feel this saying honestly applies both ways.
We can critique the Player for responding in such a violent manner, but it's not like he had the time to think it all through for a while or ask a forum for help.
And likewise, we can critique the DM for not having a better excuse. But you're improvising on the fly and this stuff won't always dawn on you. Especially if say the DM is suffering from Autism in that way.

The OP specifically asked for critique though, hence this thread.

I agree, it's improvising - but like all skills, improv is something that can be learned and improved. Shouldn't that be the goal here, to help the player get better at improvising? GM says "don't do this or you'll fall," and you know going along with the situation instead will cause pain down the road, there's usually a third option.


Quick question; Does anybody remember in Star Trek 6, when Kirk punched the shape-shifter in the face?

Think he took an alignment hit for that?

All this does is open the door to a debate of Kirk's alignment, which... let's not.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The OP specifically asked for critique though, hence this thread.

I agree, it's improvising - but like all skills, improv is something that can be learned and improved. Shouldn't that be the goal here, to help the player get better at improvising? GM says "don't do this or you'll fall," and you know going along with the situation instead will cause pain down the road, there's usually a third option.

... Well ****. When I went to type "Critique" I meant "Criticise". Derp. :/

Anyways, I do agree with that critique so that we can learn from it is good. I'd just rather this thread stay on that, and not take a "Bash the OP for being evil" route that some of the people here seem to be taking.


All this does is open the door to a debate of Kirk's alignment, which... let's not.

Kirk is Alignment Kirk.

[Quertus]

Anyways, I do agree with that critique so that we can learn from it is good. I'd just rather this thread stay on that, and not take a "Bash the OP for being evil" route that some of the people here seem to be taking.

Agreed. Note what was done right, suggest what could be done better.

Of course, the best way to respond to a DM threatening an alignment shift to evil is to a) get giddy, giggle a lot, and start singing "I get to play eeeeevil"; b) ask the DM, "are you sure?"; and/or c) show the DM what evil really means. Some people would suggest having a mature conversation with the DM, but talking to a bully never helps.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Agreed. Note what was done right, suggest what could be done better.

Of course, the best way to respond to a DM threatening an alignment shift to evil is to a) get giddy, giggle a lot, and start singing "I get to play eeeeevil"; b) ask the DM, "are you sure?"; and/or c) show the DM what evil really means. Some people would suggest having a mature conversation with the DM, but talking to a bully never helps.

Don't forget the theme song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oq6LE1OE)

[Thurbane]

You can be quite intelligent and still not good at conversation; many autistic people deal with that. That would be low Cha, not Int. Or she may not have realized she needed to explain herself in more detail to avoid trouble; that would be low Wis, not Int. She could be shy, or a snob, or easily distracted, none of which would conflict with her being a wizard.

I can agree with that somewhat, in regards to stats. Instant and convenient amnesia about recent events though? I think the OP was perfectly entitled to suspect a spy/doppelganger/trap. I can't say I would have handled exactly as OP did, but I wouldn't come down on his reaction as harshly as some are judging it.

Ability array arguments can be applied to the PC as well - maybe the PC has low Wis, and thought that pummeling the NPC was a logical and well thought out response to a perceived threat?

Instantly lopping off the NPCs head would be an evil and unwarranted act, of that there is little doubt. Using subdual damage? IMHO, not so much.


Hindsight is 20/20; while suspicious, none of her actions in the OP came close to warranting an instant beatdown.

In your opnion - some here have said that they think OPs actions were quite reasonable.

I don't think there is a blanket right or wrong on OPs decision that nonlethal damage would be the best course of action. There is a multitude of factors at play that OP hasn't shared with us.

The perceived DM railroading/heavy handed use of alignment as a tool to control his PCs is what has rubbed me up the wrong way.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Using subdual damage? IMHO, not so much.

I think it's also important to point that that it's a common TV Trope (especially in fantasy) for the "Thunk!" type of nonlethal damage. Where the person is suffering little harm at all, if anything it's seen more as a Martial Characters Sleep spell.