Alignment Question

[Pendragonx]

So.. (hopefully this is the right place for this)..

People: DM, myself, and player #2

Situation: party encounters a carriage with a nobleman.. his guards call out to warn us out of the way.. we move.. nobleman mouths off to us that we were slow to move out of the way

player #2, who had written down an alignment of 'NG', fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman. Nobleman is pissed at being attack and attacks us.

Question: Would this act by player #2 be considered 'evil', and would this affect said character's alignment? In your Opinion

[Cubey]

Attacking someone for no reason better than they mouthed you off is definately evil. A smack against the head (though it would be tricky to pull it off at a noble in a carriage) or any other non-lethal means of making them shut up, I would understand.

The player deserves an Evil alignment. Probably Stupid Evil, too.

[MeklorIlavator]

Yes, that is an evil act. Harming others without provocation is always considered evil, and just like in Kindergarten, hitting someone because they called you bad names doesn't give you proper provocation to get physical. Now, it probably doesn't warrant alignment change yet, but I would warn the player that acting out-of-character has consequences, and that they aren't beneficial.

[cody.burton]

It's definitely a Chaotic act and very possibly evil, depending on the circumstances.

As for whether it would change alignment, a single act does not have to change alignment. If this character had a long history of being good and just lost his temper, and if he regrets his random attack later, I would rule that he is still good. However, if this is the first session, I would say that he probably never was good and knock him down to NN at least, possibly CN, CE, or NE.

[ALOR]

Woo Hoo!!! alignment debate (pops a bag of popcorn and sits down on the sideline to watch)

seriously though, i'd say this is and evil act. "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" comes to mind.

[Saint George]

I would say yes. He attacked a person with lethal force with little to no reason, so yes, that was an evil act.

[Cubey]

It's definitely a Chaotic act

Why Chaotic?

[rollfrenzy]

Why Chaotic?

Really? You don't find randomly attacking someone a chaotic act? It certainly isn't lawful.

As for the OP, One act does not an alignment make. Changing alignment is either drastic (murdering children in cold blood) or a slow slide. the Dm should take note and if the acts continue or get worse, then think about an alignment shift, but till then let the guy play.

[Pendragonx]

Ok.. so if said act is considered 'evil' and say if the PC wanted to really be true Neutral, they could also perform good acts as well to stay non-evil? Basically performing both good and evil in equal amounts?

[rollfrenzy]

Yeah, however, doing a good deed in order to be allowed to do evil ones lessens the "goodness" of it. but if he was honestly on both sides of the coin, then sure. It would be an interesting roleplaying experience actually, treading that razors edge between ligth and dark, intentionally pushing the boundaries both ways.

How would you describe nuetral?

[Cubey]

Really? You don't find randomly attacking someone a chaotic act? It certainly isn't lawful.

It wasn't random. It was for a reason - the noble yelled at the party. Of course, it's a pretty petty reason - that's why the act is evil.

And even so, doing random and potentially game-breaking (as in "Screw DM's Plans" type, and not the powergaming one) isn't Chaotic. Chaotic is about being a free-minded and non-conformistic entity. Acting that way is Stupid Evil.

Oh well, I could elaborate further, but this isn't what this thread is for.

EDIT: On-topic stuff!

Doing Good deeds to "balance" Evil ones is evil. A guy who one day helps old grannies cross the street and the other one stabs them in back alleys or mugs them for savings is evil.

Neutral alignment is a selfish one - a neutral person mostly cares about themselves (and their friends and family - even Evil characters care about these, most of the time). They aren't going to harm others for personal gain, unless that gain is very big when in proportion to the harm done (but even so, continual behaviour like that will make them Evil). However, they aren't willing to go out of their way to help strangers.

[Person_Man]

I would say that it's a Chaotic act, possibly Evil depending on the context of what happened afterwards.

Lawful is defined as respect for the law, authority, truth, and general trustworthiness. Attacking someone at random (Leeerrooooy Jenkings (http://www.leeroyjenkins.net/)!!!!) is therefore clearly a chaotic act.

Being Neutral aligned, it would make sense that the player would sometimes get pissed and start fights unreasonably. You're adventurers, after all. If he did it all the time, then he'd have an alignment shift to Chaotic.

But it would only be an Evil act if he then slaughtered the nobleman for the crime of being a jerk, and/or his guards, who were just doing their job, even warning the PCs to give them a wide berth. But just slapping them around for a while wouldn't be necessarily Evil in my book.

[Pendragonx]

But it would only be an Evil act if he then slaughtered the nobleman for the crime of being a jerk, and his guards, who were just doing their job, even warning the PCs to give them a wide berth. But just slapping them around for a while wouldn't be Evil in my book.

Player #2 killed both guards and stole his carriage... probably would have killed the nobleman, had said nobleman not run away in fear after almost dying.

[Cubey]

It is an Evil act. He might not have slaughtered the noble, but he TRIED to do so. Magic Missile deals lethal damage, after all.

Just because someone failed in an evil act, it doesn't make it any less evil.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by the OP! Who also shows further proof that the character is Stupid Evil.

[Person_Man]

Player #2 killed both guards and stole his carriage... probably would have killed the nobleman, had said nobleman not run away in fear after almost dying.

Well then. He was being Chaotic Evil. If he repeats this behavior, then he should write down the alignment shift. If it was a one time thing, he should roleplay guilt and/or impulsive behavior problems as part of his character.

[SilverClawShift]

Personally, I wouldn't say that having a temper problem is EVIL. Evil is malicious, spiteful, and venomous. If someone screams in your ear and you turn and punch them in the face, you weren't being Evil. At worst you were being beastial and savage, but even that I wouldn't call specifically evil. In my own opinion, doing so waters down the word evil, and makes it seem less.... well, evil.
It's certainly not a GOOD act mind you, but if you were to shout at a lion, it might give you a good stiff slash across the face. Is the lion being evil? Nah, it's just reacting to it's environment. It's an animal.
Now, a human wizard is not an animal, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Uncivilized? very. Savage? possibly. Evil? maaaybe, but you're pushing the limit of the word.

Also bear in mind what impact intent and hindsight have on what makes you 'you'. Doing something stupid and then thinking "I know I was out of line, but he made me so mad!" is a far cry from "I don't care about the rules and laws of societies, I feel like killing". A character who opens fire everytime someone smarts off to them might be drifting a little closer to the 'evil'.

Now, in D&D, you have to quanitfy something that's a little nebulous. Morals aren't a mathematical equation, and they don't always fit into 9 perfect little categorized boxes. Since you HAVE to apply a 'number' to thigns like that, i'd put it in the "True Neutral" drifting towards chaotic and evil.
I CERTAINLY wouldn't suggest changing someones alignment over the act. Killing a baby one time? that'll shift you evil, sure. Getting ticked and taking a swing at the mayor cause he flipped you off? Certainly not lawful, but 'evil' is a bit harsh.

[Runolfr]

So.. (hopefully this is the right place for this)..

People: DM, myself, and player #2

Situation: party encounters a carriage with a nobleman.. his guards call out to warn us out of the way.. we move.. nobleman mouths off to us that we were slow to move out of the way

player #2, who had written down an alignment of 'NG', fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman. Nobleman is pissed at being attack and attacks us.

Question: Would this act by player #2 be considered 'evil', and would this affect said character's alignment? In your Opinion

I would say that a potentially deadly attack sent without warning at someone who was really no more than rude is on the evil side of the scale. If this is an isolated incident, it need not affect the character's alignment; if it's part of a pattern of behavior, then an alignment change may be indicated. Just make a note of it in case the character makes a habit of such actions.

[SilverClawShift]

Player #2 killed both guards and stole his carriage... probably would have killed the nobleman, had said nobleman not run away in fear after almost dying.

Okay, that's a little more on the evil side, and is DEFINATELY chaotic.

Even in that context, you could argue that the situation having been escalated, the guards attacking with intent to kill, turned it into a life or death situation. In that case, you could view the character as being a MORON, but once you're looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, all bets are off.

"No no, I deserve to be killed" is not a sane reaction for anyone, no matter what their alignment. We have a survival instinct, after all.

[Tengu]

Personally, I wouldn't say that having a temper problem is EVIL. Evil is malicious, spiteful, and venomous. If someone screams in your ear and you turn and punch them in the face, you weren't being Evil. At worst you were being beastial and savage, but even that I wouldn't call specifically evil. In my own opinion, doing so waters down the word evil, and makes it seem less.... well, evil.
It's certainly not a GOOD act mind you, but if you were to shout at a lion, it might give you a good stiff slash across the face. Is the lion being evil? Nah, it's just reacting to it's environment. It's an animal.
Now, a human wizard is not an animal, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Uncivilized? very. Savage? possibly. Evil? maaaybe, but you're pushing the limit of the word.


Since when punching someone in the face is the same as shooting magic missiles at them? Trying to kill someone who offended you is an evil act.

[Runolfr]

Player #2 killed both guards and stole his carriage... probably would have killed the nobleman, had said nobleman not run away in fear after almost dying.

Hmmm... that's a bit worse. Did the player actually make any effort to keep the fight from turning into a death match? I.e., was there any effort to deal non-lethal damage to the guards, disarm them, or otherwise keep people from being killed over what was, at worst, a verbal insult?

Granted, the player started this fight with those magic missiles. The noble decided to escalate it by ordering his guards to attack the party. I'm assuming he ordered them killed, in which case the only sane thing for the party to do is defend themselves. Metagaming in mind, the player may have figured the noble would survive the MM attack ("Bah! He had d8 hit dice; he was in no real danger!") but not considered how his target would respond to the attack.

When it gets right down to it, you know more about your player and how he or she runs his or her character than we're likely to ever understand, so you'll have to decide whether this character's behavior is inconsistent with his/her stated alignment.

[Nevar]

I'd have to agree with most posters on this one.
Doing PHYSICAL damage to someone who at most nagged the person in question is an evil act. However this one act would not constitute an alignment change nor would defending himself after the noblemens order to attack. That would be self defense as I'm sure the nobleman was thinking in selfdefense as well. However if durring the combat the PC killed any unarmed or defensless attackers that could constitute further acts of evil. Also like other people have said Neutral is not a balancing act of evil and good deeds. It's a sentiment all of it's own. At risk of being overly simplified it's more or less a what's in it for me type of attitude.

[tainsouvra]

Personally, I wouldn't say that having a temper problem is EVIL. Evil is malicious, spiteful, and venomous. If someone screams in your ear and you turn and punch them in the face, you weren't being Evil. 1) "Wrath" is a deadly sin for a reason. Wrath may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengence are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy). Being angry is one thing, and not a good thing, but using lethal force over an insult is a pretty textbook "path to evil".

2) What if, instead, you drew a revolver and emptied it into his back? Guess which of the two Magic Missile is more like...it's not the punch in the nose, it's the bullet to the chest.

[draca]

But it would only be an Evil act if he then slaughtered the nobleman for the crime of being a jerk, and/or his guards, who were just doing their job, even warning the PCs to give them a wide berth. But just slapping them around for a while wouldn't be necessarily Evil in my book.


Evil.

Imagine if you will that someone took a taser to a co-worker who got mouthy and told them to get out of the way while they were trying to get through the crowded halls at work. Would you consider that a neutral act? Or even a good act? A magic missile is a lethal weapon, even if it “only” does 1d4 damage. It is even more excessive then tasing someone, but anyone would be appalled by that behavior in today’s world.

It’s excessive force, and it’s beyond – way beyond – doing something like throwing a punch or picking a fight. It’s like taking a knife to a bar fight. would knifing someone in a bar fight only be evil if someone got killed? If he wanted to pick a fight, or physically express his displeasure in a magical way, he could have used fairy fire to “set him on fire” or mage hand to bop him in the nose or knock his silly featherd hat off and into the mud. Those would be the way a good person lashes out. A neutral one may have lightning-bolted his horse… but a direct lethal attack on a person that poses no direct threat to you or yours? That’s evil.

[Pendragonx]

thanks for all the replies, folks. Quite enlightening.

[puppyavenger]

Chaotic means spontanios(sp), non conformist and free thinking
Evil means means cruelty and willing to harm others without a good reason

He spontaniosly engaged in an a violont action for no reason the amount of selfcontrol evident in a 8 would disregard so

CE

[horseboy]

Yeah, evil. He screwed you guys over bad. Based on this snapshot this looks like you're going to have problems with the whole "Player on a power trip" problem. Have the DM reign him in quick, let him know that he's in A LOT of trouble from all the laws he's broken there.
Typical campaign laws violated here:
Assault with esoteric force.
Assault on the body of a Nobleman.
Assault with intent to kill.
Assault with intent to kill a Nobleman.
Murder (2 counts)
Murder of an officer of the law (2 counts)
Grand Theft
Horse Theft (2 counts)
Theft of a Nobleman's property.
(Noblemen always count twice, serfs count 1/2)
Yeah, that's a NICE bounty out on you guys now. Hey, at least the DM now has a reason to put in "Random" encounters of bounty hunters.

[NerfTW]

The nobleman got away. I'd make sure the nobleman gets to the next town before the players, and has the town guard waiting to arrest them.

This isn't evil, though. It's the unofficial "sociopath" alignment. Evil for stupid people.

This would be like stabbing a person for insulting you, then shooting the cops that come to arrest you. And then STILL claiming you're the good guy.

[tainsouvra]

As long as we're into what happens next, those players really don't have a lot of options...

1) Pay off their huge debt to the nobleman they assaulted. Lifetime of servitude might be enough, but considering we're talking about multiple counts of robbery and murder and the attempted murder of nobility, it might not be enough.

2) Play evil characters and stay on the run forever.

3) Accept the lifetime imprisonment (or execution) of their current characters and roll new ones.

4) Take a mulligan...DM says that whole scene never happened, and the players agree to never do something like that again.

Honestly, if the characters enjoy that level of violence, I'd just go with #2. Sure, it's not standard D&D, but neither are they, they're too randomly violent :smalltongue:

[Diggorian]

My favorite option:

5) Turn the "NG" PC in to the authorities for a reward. :smallamused:

Better than the others, and I hate Mulligans. :smallmad:

[Nekoshodan]

I know of some circles where the tasing example would probably be little more than hilarious. No real harm done.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Chaotic Evil, also Chaotic Stupid.
This is pretty much the exact situation that the DMG says prompts the DM to whip out powerful NPCs with Scrolls of Antimagic to come and start arresting/assassinating people.

No world has any degree of realism when players can treat everyone with fewer hit die like they have a target on their back and not suffer serious consequences.

[Maltrich]

It's certainly chaotic, but as a neutral on that axis he has a lot of leeway. Whether or not it's evil depends on your definition of "innocent life (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)." A nobleman, in most campaign worlds, lives by the sweat of his serfs, who are bound to him and whom he may call upon to fulfill sometimes unreasonable obligations simply because he "owns" the land they work and has an army to back up that claim. Depending on the character's views, this could constitute a crime against humanity for which the nobleman must answer, in which case killing him is probably good (for the greater good, ya know) or, if the sheer cold-bloodedness of it disallows that, then neutral, leaning good.

[Demented]

If a noble ever shouts at you from the side of his carriage in a less than pleasant manner, this is a quick guide on how to respond, based on your alignment.
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Good: "Right of way or not, shut your mouth like a gentleman!"

Neutral Good: "Sorry for the inconvenience, sir. Have a pleasant day!"

Chaotic Good: "All those silk robes and no money for manners! He'll get his, some day."
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Neutral: "...Huh? I did nothing wrong."

True Neutral: "Whatever, man."

Chaotic Neutral: "I don't see your name on this road, mister!"
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Evil: "Ah, such a pleasant individual. Remind me to challenge him for his estate next time we meet. I have a feeling I could put his mistress to much better use."

Neutral Evil: "Oh, that is IT! I'm going to grab that little feathered hat off his head and stuff it so far down his apricot-gilded throat that he'll crap a pigeon!"

Chaotic Evil: "No skin off my back. I already took the initiative and poisoned his horses. Ah, contact poison, how I love thee."
_ _ _ _ _

I consider it Neutral Evil, with a hint of chaos. But truly chaotic behavior wouldn't have waited for the nobleman to swear.

[Daze]

I wont regurgitate what as already been better said.. but I agree that this act falls more in line with chaotic than evil..

one thing to consider too is the nature of the nobleman... are we talking multi-slave owning, genocidal marquis de sade? or just some random noble dude? If it's the former, I'd say the act doesnt even violate the NG principles... where law or chaos is not relevant, but the spread of good is.

[Stephen_E]

OK. I'd like a bit more infomation, and it'd help if we had the players perspective. Afterall just because you saw the situation as "x" doesn't mean the player did.

I'm reminded of negotiating with a young blue dragon who proceded to use a missing PC, who unbeknownst to us was dead, as a sock puppet. I shot him in response.
A DM could accurately describe this as I attacked with lethal force a person I was negotiating with under parley. An evil act right?

The nobleman "mouthed off". Exactly how did he "mouth off"? How did the player view the mouthing off? Mortal insult, personal challenge?

The player fired a mahic missile. Was the player trying to kill him, do the equivalent of "break an arm", or did he see a magic missile as a slap in the face (remember hps are a vague concept in DnD. It's quite possible for a player to view a few hps damage as no more than a serious slap in the face.)

Did the player then just turn around and kill the guards and only fail to kill the noble because he ran, or did the noble order the guards to kill the player. As for taking the noblemans carriage. Ho hum, it's an adventuring party. Once you've killed someone there's no point in not looting.

Let me describe another situation -

The party met a nobles carriage on the road. They politely made way for the carriage at which point the noble gratuitously made a mortal insult/threat, worthy of a death duel, at one of the players. The player cast a magic missile at the noble in response as a reasonable face slap back or setup for a duel. The Noble responded by ordering his guards to murder the player and then ran when the battle went against his guards. The player then took the carriage as legitimate loot having defeated an obviously evil noble (indeed who knows whether he was even an actual noble).

A borderline good/neutral act by a NG player? Probably.

Gee, did I just give a description of the situation that everyones leaping into as "Evil", "Chaotic Evil", "Stupid Evil", "Hunt down and kill the party for abusing the game world".

Obviously from the OP the DM saw the situation in a certain light. Whether the player saw the sitaution the same would tell us a lot about the alignment of the situation.

Oh, and no. One act doesn't an alignment change (unless that act is putting on a helm of opposite alignment. :smalltongue: ).

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Demented, are your responses still appropriate if his less than pleasant manner was "Stay of the road you fatherless sons of a whore. Scum like you can walk in the ditches where they belong. If I wasn't in a hurry I'd have my men whip you for fouling the road with your feet. In fact sergeant, remember to leave instructions at the next village to have it done when they turn up (just bluffing for the fun of scaring the players).

Of course he could've just called out "move quicker peons, and bow to your superiors".

Both these are covered under "mouthing off". I'd suggest that the approriate responses by alignment would be quite different.

Stephen


If a noble ever shouts at you from the side of his carriage in a less than pleasant manner, this is a quick guide on how to respond, based on your alignment.
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Good: "Right of way or not, shut your mouth like a gentleman!"

Neutral Good: "Sorry for the inconvenience, sir. Have a pleasant day!"

Chaotic Good: "All those silk robes and no money for manners! He'll get his, some day."
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Neutral: "...Huh? I did nothing wrong."

True Neutral: "Whatever, man."

Chaotic Neutral: "I don't see your name on this road, mister!"
_ _ _ _ _

Lawful Evil: "Ah, such a pleasant individual. Remind me to challenge him for his estate next time we meet. I have a feeling I could put his mistress to much better use."

Neutral Evil: "Oh, that is IT! I'm going to grab that little feathered hat off his head and stuff it so far down his apricot-gilded throat that he'll crap a pigeon!"

Chaotic Evil: "No skin off my back. I already took the initiative and poisoned his horses. Ah, contact poison, how I love thee."
_ _ _ _ _

I consider it Neutral Evil, with a hint of chaos. But truly chaotic behavior wouldn't have waited for the nobleman to swear.

[Roderick_BR]

Okay, that's a little more on the evil side, and is DEFINATELY chaotic.

Even in that context, you could argue that the situation having been escalated, the guards attacking with intent to kill, turned it into a life or death situation. In that case, you could view the character as being a MORON, but once you're looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, all bets are off.

"No no, I deserve to be killed" is not a sane reaction for anyone, no matter what their alignment. We have a survival instinct, after all.

Well, if you are a guard hired to protect a noble, and saw a wizard casting rays of light at him, hurting him, won't you think said wizard is trying to kill the noble? Had the wizard thrown a stone at him or used a ilusion to scare their horses, the noble would get upset, mouth them off more, and maybe send a guard after them to "teach them a lesson", but being attacked by magical attacks may sound like a threat to his life. The guards are not wrong, although they were harsh in their response.

[tainsouvra]

being attacked by magical attacks may sound like a threat to his life. The guards are not wrong, although they were harsh in their response. Assuming the spell's caster is level 3 or higher, one cast of Magic Missile is about as lethal as a sword to the gut. They were neither wrong nor harsh in their response, their ward had already been struck with potentially-lethal force.

[horseboy]

Lawful Evil: "Ah, such a pleasant individual. Remind me to challenge him for his estate next time we meet. I have a feeling I could put his mistress to much better use."


This one wins, IMO!

Yeah, totally, that PC's should swing.

[Demented]

Demented, are your responses still appropriate if his less than pleasant manner was "Stay of the road you fatherless sons of a whore. Scum like you can walk in the ditches where they belong. If I wasn't in a hurry I'd have my men whip you for fouling the road with your feet. In fact sergeant, remember to leave instructions at the next village to have it done when they turn up (just bluffing for the fun of scaring the players).

Of course he could've just called out "move quicker peons, and bow to your superiors".

Both these are covered under "mouthing off". I'd suggest that the approriate responses by alignment would be quite different.

Stephen

The responses seem appropriate to me under just about any circumstance, so long as the noble is only mouthing off. Though, that may be because I know that the emphasis for each response is in the sentiment of each alignment. Only if the noble was known or expected to be evil enough to carry out his threats would anything really change. Good simply doesn't go around attacking people for their bad attitudes.

Of course, you'll always have those Paladins that simply cannot tolerate negatory comments about their mother. That doesn't mean their alignments agree with their actions, just that they're believably imperfect.

[Ulzgoroth]

Evil, but not necessarily chaotic. Though probably chaotic stupid, in light of later events.

Reacting to an insult with immediate violence is more or less a requirement of some codes of behavior. Especially if you pick the wrong insult. Could be Lawful Evil...

[ArmorArmadillo]

It's certainly chaotic, but as a neutral on that axis he has a lot of leeway. Whether or not it's evil depends on your definition of "innocent life (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)." A nobleman, in most campaign worlds, lives by the sweat of his serfs, who are bound to him and whom he may call upon to fulfill sometimes unreasonable obligations simply because he "owns" the land they work and has an army to back up that claim. Depending on the character's views, this could constitute a crime against humanity for which the nobleman must answer, in which case killing him is probably good (for the greater good, ya know) or, if the sheer cold-bloodedness of it disallows that, then neutral, leaning good.

He didn't kill the noble because he was corrupt, or a slavemaster, or evil, he killed the noble because he insulted him.
No higher ground.

[Diggorian]

Although rather impulsive, I'd call it NE. Beside the fact that the instigator was a noble, the act doesnt seem inherently anti-authority. The act seemed to be based on the rudeness, not the carriage passenger's social class.

NG I'd imagine taking the high road of ignoring the insult, though a reply in verbal kind can be warranted. True neutral could get away with a ranged touch attack with a warm horse turd. :smallamused:

[Stephen_E]

He didn't kill the noble because he was corrupt, or a slavemaster, or evil, he killed the noble because he insulted him.
No higher ground.

Reread both the OP and follow up post.

He didn't kill the noble!

He fired a Magic Missile. In DnD hp terms that can be less than giving a bleeding nose. The DM hasn't told us how many HD the noble had, or how many HD the player thought the noble had.

And since we haven't heard from the player none of us have any idea why he fired the magic missile, or what he was trying to achieve. All we have is the DM's view of what happened. And nothing the DM said indicated he talked with the player to find out why he did what he did. The infomation we have so far is just enough that we can spin any damned story we like, from it been highway robbery & murder to a good deed to be admired (what if the noble taunted them about running them down if they'd been slower dodging like the last lot of peons, i.e. he'd recently murdered someone just because they were in his way).

I'm reminded of the recent "slightly sexist DM" thread where people were making up all sorts of stories ranging from the evil chavanistic pig DM who should be kicked out, to the nasty trouble-making female player who was simply making trouble. Turned out to simply be some thickheaded short sightedness on the DM's part exacerbated by no previous experiance playing with women.

Stephen

[horseboy]

Reread both the OP and follow up post.

He didn't kill the noble!

He fired a Magic Missile. In DnD hp terms that can be less than giving a bleeding nose. The DM hasn't told us how many HD the noble had, or how many HD the player thought the noble had.

He cast magic missile. That's the same as pulling a dagger. The DM didn't tell how many HD the noble had because that's metagaming. It doesn't matter how many HD he had.

[Stephen_E]

He cast magic missile. That's the same as pulling a dagger. The DM didn't tell how many HD the noble had because that's metagaming. It doesn't matter how many HD he had.

Actually having a rough idea of someones level isn't metagaming.
See "Sense Motive" pg 102 Comp Advent, where it makes clear that you can get a feel for someones ECL compared to you.

I would not consider punching a full grown adult of the same size as me an attempted murder. I would consider my punching a 6 month baby as attempted murder. In RL you can generally get a good feel as to the fragility of a person at glance. In DnD the DM has to tell you this.

You say it yourself - "He cast magic missile. That's the same as pulling a dagger." Pulling a dagger isn't murder. In DnD pulling a dagger isn't even assualt. It's making a threat, it's an intimidation check, and it can be the 1st move in killing someone (but that's the least likely, since there are generally easier ways to kill unless you're a dagger specalist) but without further info we can't know.

Stephen

[Inyssius Tor]

You're right, casting magic missile isn't the same as pulling a dagger. It isn't even the same as attacking someone with the dagger. It is almost the same as stabbing someone with a dagger.

[Diggorian]

I dont think casting Magic Missle is really like pulling a dagger; it's like stabbing someone with a dagger (equivalent lethal damage). With a few levels it's like slashing someone with a falchion.

Whether ya stab or two-handed slashing a baby, a sickly looking old woman, or world kickboxing champion it's all attempted murder.

EDIT- partial ninja by Master Tor

[Stephen_E]

Whether ya stab or two-handed slashing a baby, a sickly looking old woman, or world kickboxing champion it's all attempted murder.


Not in DnD!

If someone has 100 hps in DnD and you cut them for 4pts with a dagger or magic missile you have probably not even scratched them. You've basically waved it close to them and made them jump back in a hurry. Remember in DnD hps don't equal physical damage. There is a huge grey area where hp damage = strained a muscle, raised a sweat, got winded, picked up a bruise, got a nasty scratch, bloody nose or paper cut. In fact this could probably be said to represent every hp after your 1st HD+con bonus.

Stephen

[horseboy]

Not in DnD!

If someone has 100 hps in DnD and you cut them for 4pts with a dagger or magic missile you have probably not even scratched them. You've basically waved it close to them and made them jump back in a hurry. Remember in DnD hps don't equal physical damage. There is a huge grey area where hp damage = strained a muscle, raised a sweat, got winded, picked up a bruise, got a nasty scratch, bloody nose or paper cut. In fact this could probably be said to represent every hp after your 1st HD+con bonus.

Stephen
If you're playing a "kick in the door" kinda game, sure. If you're playing D&D where you do ANYTHING in town other than just buy fresh equipment then yes it does. It doesn't matter HOW many hp's someone has. It doesn't matter if you hit or not. If you start an attack that does non-stun damage, that's attempted murder.

[Diggorian]

EDIT for more clarity

Attempted murder doesnt not require murder. The Kickboxer was the high hitpoint example, he can avoid it likely but it's still an attempt on his life.Not to mention that usually magic missle cant miss.

Guards responding to the assault with violence are fully warranted. Smarter guards would've spurred the carriage faster and fired arrows back at the threat.

[Demented]

Average HP for a level 20 Aristocrat is 90, ignoring CON bonuses/penalties and whatever else. If you're a lowly level 3 Wizard, a casting of magic missile will do an average of 7 damage.

Now, if it takes 13 knife stabs on average to leave this near-legendary world-class Politician on the floor and unable to move or defend himself, how many of those knife stabs from a random passerby should he blow off as being inconsequential?

If the noble is about the same level of notoriety and skill (level 3, 13-14hp), that Wizard is more than halfway towards rendering him incapacitated.


Edit:
Just to clarify the point, magic missile, light as an attack as it may be, still constitutes a very lethal threat. Not that this changes the alignment of the act... In small or large quantity, it's still lethal damage applied unjustly, and with no regard for the value of the noble's life. That's Evil.
Prestidigitation to slap the noble in the face would be more what you're looking for. Or maybe mage hand, especially if you decide to yank out a loose tooth... Ouch!

[horseboy]

Edit:
Just to clarify the point, magic missile, light as an attack as it may be, still constitutes a very lethal threat. Not that this changes the alignment of the act... In small or large quantity, it's still lethal damage applied unjustly, and with no regard for the value of the noble's life. That's Evil.
Prestidigitation to slap the noble in the face would be more what you're looking for. Or maybe mage hand, especially if you decide to yank out a loose tooth... Ouch!

Or polymorph him into a mule. That would be really appropriate. :smallbiggrin:

[TheOOB]

Attacking someone without just cause is always an evil act, and unless what someone just said is "Oh yeah, I just killed your sister", a rude comment isn't ever just cause. No matter how much hp the target has, magic missile is always a lethal attack, it's a spell designed to kill people, you wouldn't let a criminal who shot someone go free just because the bullet only grazed their cheek.

The act was also quite chaotic, due to the incredible lack of foresight the character showed, note that not all chaotic people are this...impulsive, but that is a trait of chaos.

Normally trying to figure out the alignment of a single act doesn't matter unless your talking paladins, but in this case the act is telling enough that the character is CE, period, such of blatant display of unprovoked violence can only come from someone overly chaotic evil at heart.

If I where DMing, I'd kick the character out of the group and force the player to make a new one. I have no problem with evil characters, but someone who attacks a random person because they made some nasty remarks and strong armed the right of way is incapable of functioning in polite society.

[Stephen_E]

Attempted murder doesnt not require murder. The Kickboxer was the high hitpoint example, he can avoid it likely but it's still an attempt on his life.Not to mention that usually magic missle cant miss

In western law generally attempted murder requires that the person intended to kill you or that the actions they took could reasonably be taken as likely to kill you. So no, the attack on the kickboxer isn't attempted murder unless you can show that he can reasonaly expect the attack to kill him.


Attacking someone without just cause is always an evil act, and unless what someone just said is "Oh yeah, I just killed your sister", a rude comment isn't ever just cause. No matter how much hp the target has, magic missile is always a lethal attack, it's a spell designed to kill people, you wouldn't let a criminal who shot someone go free just because the bullet only grazed their cheek.

In many cultures in the past rude comments were just cause to kill someone. So yes, a rude comment can be just cause for attacking someone. Depending on the circumstances shooting at someone can be anything from "discharging a gun in a reckless manner" to "murder" and everything inbetween, and the low side may well get you released with a warning, suspended sentance or even discharged without conviction, depending on assailent, judge, victim, lawyer and circumstances. I can remember a few years back in the US a man fatally shot a student for knocking on his door at night (he was looking for directions IIRC). The man certainly wasn't convicted for murder, and I'm not sure if anything happened to him beyond a reprimand.


If you're playing a "kick in the door" kinda game, sure. If you're playing D&D where you do ANYTHING in town other than just buy fresh equipment then yes it does. It doesn't matter HOW many hp's someone has. It doesn't matter if you hit or not. If you start an attack that does non-stun damage, that's attempted murder.

And you know what sort of game they were playing.....HOW?
The DM certainly hasn't given any infomation that I'm aware of.

In general response:-
It's all very well for people to say "Magic Missile is attempted murder" but if the player concerned didn't think so then what is required is the DM and player getting together and discussing what is "reasonable" in his world. It doesn't require a "kick him out of the game" or "execute his character" without having any idea of what the player thought he was doing. Christ, talk about a "hangum high" judge and jury. As DM's do you kick out players or kill PC's when ever they do anything you think was wrong without letting them get a word in?

I think what the DM reported sounded like dubious behaviour, but the crucial point here is "seems" . Further infomation is required for a through useful response, rather than the lynch mob response that seems to be popular.

Stephen

[Inyssius Tor]

In western law generally attempted murder requires that the person intended to kill you or that the actions they took could reasonably be taken as likely to kill you. So no, the attack on the kickboxer isn't attempted murder unless you can show that he can reasonaly expect the attack to kill him.

If you shoot a man with a broken gun and you don't know it's broken, is that attempted murder? Yes.


I think what the DM reported sounded like dubious behaviour, but the crucial point here is "seems" . Further infomation is required for a through useful response, rather than the lynch mob response that seems to be popular.

Erm... not to contaminate your RAW alignment discussion, but he followed through by killing his guards and taking their horses.

[Behold_the_Void]

The abstraction involved in hit points is essentially that they represent a person's ability to turn aside an otherwise lethal blow (one could also argue at higher levels they indicate an unnaturally high toughness that exceeds the capacity of most "normal" humans).

Attacking with a single magic missile is indeed the equivalent of trying to stab someone with a knife. Just because someone happens to be able to avoid it being a lethal blow doesn't mean it couldn't be considered attempted murder. If you insult me and I stab you but you manage to avoid dying by it, does that suddenly mean the action I took isn't as bad on my part?

Anyway, this guy's actions as a whole were way out of line. Definitely evil. A neutral good person wouldn't even THINK of doing such things.

[Stephen_E]

If you shoot a man with a broken gun and you don't know it's broken, is that attempted murder? Yes.

Maybe. If it can be shown that I was aiming to fatally wound him.
If it can be shown I wasn't acting in self defense.


Erm... not to contaminate your RAW alignment discussion, but he followed through by killing his guards and taking their horses.

Except we don't know why he killed them. Did they attack him, or did he just say "well I've attacked the noble I might as well kill the lot".
PendragonX didn't tell us.

The simple truth is that a baldfaced statement of most adventuring parties action can be read as throughly evil if you want to when there is no context.

PendragonX, can you provide some detail of the "mouthing off" the nobleman did. Can you provide details of how it went from "shoot noble with magic missile" to "kill guards and take carriage".

Have you talked to the player and asked him why he did what he did. If you want some useful advice it would help a lot. Otherwise all we can give you is generic advice, what if advice "if he did this then this is the appropriate response" and a display of various posters prejudices and views on alignment in general (prejudices = prejudgements, commonally detrimental).

Stephen

[Roderick_BR]

(...)
In many cultures in the past rude comments were just cause to kill someone. So yes, a rude comment can be just cause for attacking someone. Depending on the circumstances shooting at someone can be anything from "discharging a gun in a reckless manner" to "murder" and everything inbetween, and the low side may well get you released with a warning, suspended sentance or even discharged without conviction, depending on assailent, judge, victim, lawyer and circumstances. I can remember a few years back in the US a man fatally shot a student for knocking on his door at night (he was looking for directions IIRC). The man certainly wasn't convicted for murder, and I'm not sure if anything happened to him beyond a reprimand.
(...)

Not in DnD!(...)
It doesn't matter if the noble had enough HP to resist an attack from a dagger or the tarrasque himself. He was attacked with a spell designed to kill people. Killing people just because you didn't like him, is a common traits of villains in many games in classic literature.
About the guards: Even if you could use subdual damage (we still say subdual?) the guards just saw a wizard casting a magic and hurting his boss. In character, they thought the wizard was going to kill him. Wouldn't you?
So, it's VERY likely that they attacked him, and he defended himself, but that was after he already attacked the noble.

In short: It's like you called a guy an idiot in the transit, and instead of the guy call you back names, or "just" punching you in the face, he pulls a gun and shoots your leg, because he knows it won't kill you. He'll be arrested the same way.

It sounds like you are trying to defend the attacker, instead of the victim.
As for the DM asking the player to make other character, that's a personal preference. Myself, I'd make the rest of the group reprimand him, and maybe take him to justice. Maybe sign a contract to work for the king for a while, to pay for his crime (and making lots of story hooks).

[Murderous Hobo]

Had this been a proud CG barbarian it wouldn't even be a debate as the Noble was obviously a pompous ass who does not respect other, lesser, people.
Especially considering there still is allot of room between drawing a dagger and sticking it in somebody's gut. Depending on the damage done it could be a slash across the face.

Clearly chaotic but good-evil depending on the motivation.

So it's best to ask the player. The mechanics might say that any damage is equal to a dagger in the gut, if they player does not realize this or thinks of it differently it changes the whole intent of the action.

edit:

Ought to keep in mind that we're talking about Adventurers here. Considering they haven't yet chased him down, raped his wife and sold his children into slavery in front of him, leaving him behind locked in his own burning manor, it's hardly chaotic evil.

[Stephen_E]

To put things in perspective, adventuring parties routinely destroy and loot entire villages that have never done anything to them simply due to the race of the villagers. Other reasons for doing such acts are "we were paid to" or "the old wanderer told us they were evil and deserved it", or even simply "the adventuere sent us to this place so I guess we had to kill everyone who looked funny at us and take their loot". These parties often even include Paladins.

Yet here we have a situation that 2 PC's on the road.
An approaching nobleman in carriage.
Guards call out to clear the way.
PC's clear the way.
Nobleman verbally assaults PC's.
One PC retaliates with Magic Missiles.
Noble and Guards physically attack.
Guards die and Noble runs off.
PC takes carriage as loot.

What's abnormal for an adventuirng party. Hell if it'd been Orcs or some wanderer had told them a criminal evil noble was in the carriage I doubt they would've had to say a thing before they were attacked and many people would've probably been wonder why the question was even been asked.

I will note that I've just realised it's the other player and not the DM complaining. So I can only suggest that if PendragonX doesn't think it was appropriate behaviour for the other player he should mention that it didn't seem exactly NG to him and ask if he could explain why he thought it appropriate, given that your PC has been dragged into it. If you don't want to approach the other player you could always talk to your DM and see what he thinks about it.

Let's face it, unless you're a Paladin, the other players alignment isn't really your concern as a player. Your PC can be concerned with his partners actions getting him into trouble, and he is fully entitled to say as a PC "I don't want to hang around with this sort of dude", but what his actual alignment is, is completely irrelevant.

If the question you really want to ask us is "how should my character respond to this?" then you need to tell us how you see your character.

Stephen

PS. I had a somewhat similiar situation recently when another player complained that I wasn't playing my NE PC "evil" enough in terms of how he saw "evil". I pointed out why I thought his judgement was wrong, but later it occurred to me that it wasn't really any of his concern. If the GM had a problem (he didn't) it was up to him to raise it. Unless you've been casting alignment detection spells at your party members then as a general rule the PC's alignment is metagame knowledge and not the place of other players to critisize how it's played.

[Diggorian]

Pendragon wanted our opinions on the morality of the action of another player in his group, why is irrelevant.

Player #2 did an evil act, based on the description of Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) in D&D. Whether this shifts his alignment is up to the DM. Myself, I wouldnt change the alignment until such actions become regular.

[ArmorArmadillo]

To put things in perspective, adventuring parties routinely destroy and loot entire villages that have never done anything to them simply due to the race of the villagers. Other reasons for doing such acts are "we were paid to" or "the old wanderer told us they were evil and deserved it", or even simply "the adventuere sent us to this place so I guess we had to kill everyone who looked funny at us and take their loot". These parties often even include Paladins.

Yet here we have a situation that 2 PC's on the road.
An approaching nobleman in carriage.
Guards call out to clear the way.
PC's clear the way.
Nobleman verbally assaults PC's.
One PC retaliates with Magic Missiles.
Noble and Guards physically attack.
Guards die and Noble runs off.
PC takes carriage as loot.

Okay, if players are routinely slaughtering and looting villages just because of their race and considering themselves good because of the MM entry of the creatures; they are roleplaying very badly and the DM has designed his adventure very badly.

If magic missle, which at level 5 is more than enough to kill a level 1 noble, is no more than a "punch in the face", why is "verbally assaulting" an adventuring party significant enough to warrant retaliation? Shooting someone in the shoulder isn't likely to kill them, but it's still assault with a deadly weapon. Even if one casting of MM doesn't kill someone, the fact that ENOUGH castings would kill them makes it a lethal attack.

Furthermore, even if we accepted that doing lethal damage was just a punch in the face; on what planet is punching someone in the face because they insulted you in passing any more than the overreaction of someone who is selfish and violent? Both evil traits. Now how about if someone shot someone else in the shoulder because they were insulted in passing? They're not likely to die, but now we're in the realm of torturing someone with lethal pain because you were insulted.


What's abnormal for an adventuirng party. Hell if it'd been Orcs or some wanderer had told them a criminal evil noble was in the carriage I doubt they would've had to say a thing before they were attacked and many people would've probably been wonder why the question was even been asked. But that's not the situation; there was no warning, no threat, no reason to believe that they were evil; they were insulted. That's it. You can't just have that happen and try to justify it because "yeah, well we could have had a reason."

[horseboy]

In many cultures in the past rude comments were just cause to kill someone. So yes, a rude comment can be just cause for attacking someone.

No. It's cause to challenge him to an honour duel. It's not cause to sneak attack with a lethal attack. "Fighting words" is the same as throwing a punch. You are allowed to respond in like NONLETHAL force. You are NOT authorized to respond with a weapon.


Depending on the circumstances shooting at someone can be anything from "discharging a gun in a reckless manner" to "murder" and everything inbetween, and the low side may well get you released with a warning, suspended sentance or even discharged without conviction, depending on assailent, judge, victim, lawyer and circumstances. I can remember a few years back in the US a man fatally shot a student for knocking on his door at night (he was looking for directions IIRC). The man certainly wasn't convicted for murder, and I'm not sure if anything happened to him beyond a reprimand.

And when you've shot at the Mayor (modern day equivalent to "Nobleman") They're going to go at you with the highest thing they can get. Especially since the guy you attacked is also going to be your judge.



And you know what sort of game they were playing.....HOW?
The DM certainly hasn't given any information that I'm aware of.

If all you're playing is hack-n-slash then yes, you can get away with this. If there's any pretext to a story being told actions have to have consequences.


In general response:-
It's all very well for people to say "Magic Missile is attempted murder" but if the player concerned didn't think so then what is required is the DM and player getting together and discussing what is "reasonable" in his world. It doesn't require a "kick him out of the game" or "execute his character" without having any idea of what the player thought he was doing. Christ, talk about a "hangum high" judge and jury. As DM's do you kick out players or kill PC's when ever they do anything you think was wrong without letting them get a word in?
He got several words in: "I cast magic missile at the noble." There was probably a "I finish off the guards." or he didn't say "I stabilize the guards". And yes, I've killed PC's for far less stupid actions. This chowder head just screwed over the entire party. Odds are high I'd pass around the official TFFV head spanking rubber chicken around the table and we'd take turns slapping him for doing something so stupid.

[tainsouvra]

Stephen_E,

If you wish to argue that the PC in question was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, on a noble instead of attempted murder of a noble, you probably would have a case...it wouldn't help with the charges of robbery of a noble and the two counts of (at least) manslaughter, though. Either way, this was no minor thing. If there aren't some major in-game repercussions, all suspension of disbelief is pretty much out the window, as this is a textbook case of what the DMG considers "PC's out of control".

The murder of Orcs by a Human in a D&D world is nothing like the murder of a random nobleman. Consider the real-world equivalent...I could say "a soldier killed five enemy combatants, getting five medals, then came home and killed someone for jaywalking, getting a 25-year prison sentence"...and it's unlikely that a reasonable case could be made that the last five times he killed someone, it was a good thing, so this shouldn't be any different--it patently is different.

Also, you could describe the case as "a man killed six people, getting five medals and a 25-year prison sentence"...but the descriptive grouping obscures the truth rather than pointing out a real legal dilemma, much as with your description.

[PaladinBoy]

To put things in perspective, adventuring parties routinely destroy and loot entire villages that have never done anything to them simply due to the race of the villagers. Other reasons for doing such acts are "we were paid to" or "the old wanderer told us they were evil and deserved it", or even simply "the adventuere sent us to this place so I guess we had to kill everyone who looked funny at us and take their loot". These parties often even include Paladins.

The thing is, though, I don't consider random slaughter of entire villages any better then this situation. Worse, actually, since destroying an entire village would include killing noncombatants.

When I want my players to go and kill evil orcs, I provide proof that the orcs are evil. As a player, I dislike using lethal force under any circumstances.


Yet here we have a situation that 2 PC's on the road.
An approaching nobleman in carriage.
Guards call out to clear the way.
PC's clear the way.
Nobleman verbally assaults PC's.
One PC retaliates with Magic Missiles.
Noble and Guards physically attack.
Guards die and Noble runs off.
PC takes carriage as loot.

What's abnormal for an adventuirng party. Hell if it'd been Orcs or some wanderer had told them a criminal evil noble was in the carriage I doubt they would've had to say a thing before they were attacked and many people would've probably been wonder why the question was even been asked.

Nothing Good about an unprovoked attack. My main problem here is one of proportion; launching a lethal assault on a person for a couple insults seems excessive. I'll grant that it's possible the noble could have threatened to kill them or used some very foul insults, but why is it acceptable to attack with lethal force? The next step I see for a good or neutral character would be drawing a weapon and saying something like "Do you really want to mess with me?" And that seems more Neutral than Good. The Good response, IMHO, would be to shrug it off. Assuming that the noble was evil from a few insults seems like a stretch to me.

[Stephen_E]

Rather than rely individually to everyone I mostly make general responses, given that many of you cover the same ground.

Legality: From a legal perspective, given the data we have, we can reasonably conclude that assault with a deadly weapon would indeed be a fair charge.

Alignment: I have no problem with saying that, given the info we have, Player 2's response seems excessive. It may well be foolish/stupid, depending on the world. Both these things are more a sign of Low Wisdom and/or Int rather than any specific alignment. Overreacting and been foolish is a long way from been clearly Chaotic/Evil or Stupid/Evil. I will agree that it's not entirely unreasonable to claim Chaotic/Stupid.


Pendragon wanted our opinions on the morality of the action of another player in his group, why is irrelevant.

Unfortunately he didn't give enough infomation since intent has significant involvement in alignment questions and he didn't give us any infomation on intent. I'd also note that many (most?) responses, including my own, were aimed at the DM rather than another player (suggesting that many others also misread the OP). I also suspect we don't know what he actually wants. I used to work at a research institute and one of the features of my boss's job was when people came asking for infomation he had to find out what they really wanted to know, rather than what they thought they wanted to know. Is PendragonX asking from intelectual curiosity, was he asking for the purpose of casting detect alignment spells, or was he wondering how to deal with a situation he's unhappy with. As I have fairly consistently been saying, there is a infomation vacumn here and more data is needed if he wants useful debate/suggestions.


Player #2 did an evil act, based on the description of Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) in D&D. Whether this shifts his alignment is up to the DM. Myself, I wouldnt change the alignment until such actions become regular.

Can you please quote the part of the description that makes Player 2's act "evil" by RAW.

Stephen

[Demented]

On that last sentence, that depends on certain issues of contention that should be laid out.
Firstly and maybe even only: Would you consider the noble an innocent?

(Depending on the definition you use, slaughtering whole villages of normal humans is perfectly Good, so consider carefully.)

[Stephen_E]

On that last sentence, that depends on certain issues of contention that should be laid out.
Firstly and maybe even only: Would you consider the noble an innocent?

(Depending on the definition you use, slaughtering whole villages of normal humans is perfectly Good, so consider carefully.)

I'm assuming you're asking about this specific noble. Insufficient infomation for a definitive opinion, but with what we have I'm dubious.

Depending on your definition of innocence slaughtering entire villages of humans MAY be non-evil. I didn't see anywhere in the RAW definition that killing non-innocents is a "good" act. Saying something is not clearly evil is quite different from saying it's clearly good.

Stephen

[Diggorian]

Given the situation he described, and later elaborated on, Pendragonx asked:



Question: Would this act by player #2 be considered 'evil', and would this affect said character's alignment? In your Opinion

Seems pretty clear to me.

I agree with Demented that innocence lies at the heart of defining evil. I say the Noble was innocent given the what Pendragonx describes. The nobles guards, whom did nothing but their rightful duty, definately were.

The act falls between the lack of remorse implied by Neutral Evil: "She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience." and the random violence of Chaotic Evil: "He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable."

[Stephen_E]

Given the situation he described, and later elaborated on, Pendragonx asked:

Quote:Originally Posted by Pendragonx
Question: Would this act by player #2 be considered 'evil', and would this affect said character's alignment? In your Opinion

Seems pretty clear to me.

I agree with Demented that innocence lies at the heart of defining evil. I say the Noble was innocent given the what Pendragonx describes. The nobles guards, whom did nothing but their rightful duty, definately were.

The act falls between the lack of remorse implied by Neutral Evil: "She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience." and the random violence of Chaotic Evil: "He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable."

An opinion based on limited infomation that doesn't take into account that limited infomation is of limited use IMO. I hope I'm never relying on you as a juror.:smalleek:

So anyone who doesn't cry for those they kill is evil, probably NE. Right......
So 99+% of PC's that have ever existed are "evil" i your opinion. I guess that clarifies matters.

Re: The Noble. You can view him as innocent, i have my doubts, but neither of us have any infomation beyond that he was unecessasarily arrogant and rude.

Re: The Guards. There is a christian saying "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". The guards had chosen to make a living by the sword. I find their innocence extremely dubious, especially given the little we know about who they served. They have chosen to serve with their swords an arrogant mouthy noble. This is historically rarely bodes well for any claim of "innocence".

Re: Arbitary violence. Did player 2 shoot the noble as he approached? No! He fires directly at the noble (more on this particular phrase in a moment) after the noble verbally abused him. The violence wasn't arbitary.

Another assumption weve been making is that Player 2 actually damaged the Noble. "fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman" is a slightly odd terminolgy. I, like everyone else, have assumed that he hit the nobleman with magic missiles (given that magic missiles can't generally miss) but that isn't what the OP actually said. Was this simply an odd wording on the part of the poster, or did something else happen.

I really wish Player 2 could do a post. I think it would clarify a lot.

Stephen

[Demented]

I didn't see anywhere in the RAW definition that killing non-innocents is a "good" act.
True, the RAW has always implied that Good abhors killing, period.

[Diggorian]

An opinion based on limited infomation that doesn't take into account that limited infomation is of limited use IMO. I hope I'm never relying on you as a juror.:smalleek:

Dont commit crimes you'll be fine. :smallamused:


So anyone who doesn't cry for those they kill is evil, probably NE. Right......
So 99+% of PC's that have ever existed are "evil" i your opinion. I guess that clarifies matters.

Strawman. I never said that.


Re: The Noble. You can view him as innocent, i have my doubts, but neither of us have any infomation beyond that he was unecessasarily arrogant and rude.

Argument from ignorance. If the noble did anything that warranted player 2's attack the question wouldnt have been brought up.


Re: The Guards. There is a christian saying "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". The guards had chosen to make a living by the sword. I find their innocence extremely dubious, especially given the little we know about who they served. They have chosen to serve with their swords an arrogant mouthy noble. This is historically rarely bodes well for any claim of "innocence".

Argument from ignorance again. The guards acted to protect their charge's life and died for it.


Re: Arbitary violence. Did player 2 shoot the noble as he approached? No! He fires directly at the noble (more on this particular phrase in a moment) after the noble verbally abused him. The violence wasn't arbitary.

True, the violence was arbitrary though, i.e. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported.


Another assumption weve been making is that Player 2 actually damaged the Noble. "fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman" is a slightly odd terminolgy. I, like everyone else, have assumed that he hit the nobleman with magic missiles (given that magic missiles can't generally miss) but that isn't what the OP actually said. Was this simply an odd wording on the part of the poster, or did something else happen.


Player #2 killed both guards and stole his carriage... probably would have killed the nobleman, had said nobleman not run away in fear after almost dying.

Emphasis mine.

[horseboy]

An opinion based on limited infomation that doesn't take into account that limited infomation is of limited use IMO. I hope I'm never relying on you as a juror.:smalleek:
Well, given that your whole defense argument is summed up by the statement: "Your Honour, he needed killin'!" No, you probably don't want me on your jury. You've been watching too many Samuel L Jackson movies. "The absent of evidence is not the evidence of absents." or how ever he put it.


Re: The Noble. You can view him as innocent, i have my doubts, but neither of us have any infomation beyond that he was unecessasarily arrogant and rude.

The noble's innocence has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Even if it did, the noble didn't attack PC#2, PC#2 attacked the noble.


Re: The Guards. There is a christian saying "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". The guards had chosen to make a living by the sword. I find their innocence extremely dubious, especially given the little we know about who they served. They have chosen to serve with their swords an arrogant mouthy noble. This is historically rarely bodes well for any claim of "innocence".
Their innocence doesn't matter. As the embodiment of Law and Order coming to the defense of an unwarranted lethal attack of a citizen, much less the citizen in question. There is NO "good" excuse for their deaths.


Re: Arbitary violence. Did player 2 shoot the noble as he approached? No! He fires directly at the noble (more on this particular phrase in a moment) after the noble verbally abused him. The violence wasn't arbitary.
It's completely arbitrary. It's pretty much the definition of arbitrary. I'm guessing you're from one of those places where road rage is common. Since you're having such trouble understanding why taking random pot shots at people for flipping you off isn't arbitrary.


Another assumption weve been making is that Player 2 actually damaged the Noble. "fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman" is a slightly odd terminolgy. I, like everyone else, have assumed that he hit the nobleman with magic missiles (given that magic missiles can't generally miss) but that isn't what the OP actually said. Was this simply an odd wording on the part of the poster, or did something else happen.

Eh, I just marked it up to the likely hood of the OP either not having English as a first language or having gone through the American public school system.


I used to work at a research institute and one of the features of my boss's job was when people came asking for infomation he had to find out what they really wanted to know, rather than what they thought they wanted to know.
So he worked retail. :smallcool:

I'd also note that many (most?) responses, including my own, were aimed at the DM rather than another player (suggesting that many others also misread the OP).
I didn't misread, pretty sure I told him that his DM needed to do things. But even as a player, given how badly this other player has boned the party, he needs to take action. Whether it's OOC or IC I'd have a conversation with the other. If they didn't fix the problem he caused I'd fix the problem myself. Most likely involving a coup-de-grace on my next watch shift, decapitation and presenting said head on a plater to the offend noble so I can go back into civilization.

[Arbitrarity]

An arbitrary decision is the result of when a decision must be made, and all choices are of equal merit. An arbitrary action is one where all actions are of equal merit, and one is chose randomnly. This doesn't sound arbitrary to me.

It's a random choice, but there is a reason for the choice. Lining people up in alphabetical order? Arbitrary. Turning left instead of right when not travelling anywhere in particular? Arbitrary.

Shooting someone because they annoyed you, without thought to consequences? Stupid.

Arbitrary violence is more: Randomnly directed violence. There must be violence, but target? Eh.

[Nero24200]

How corrupt the noblemen is doesn't matter
He attacked the noblemen, not carring whether or not the noblemen was kind and just or some corrupt git who took pleasure in the suffering of innocents, he attacked him simply because he threw an insult.

Attacking with little to no provocation IS EVIL. And what about the two guards? Their families are going to recieve news of their death, and why did they die exactly? Protecting their employer from a rampaging lunatic who throws spells the moment he hears somthing he doesn't like. What if they had families that relied on thier income? Thats more potentially hurt due to this character's attack.

The character is evil, no question. I'd shift his alignment then deduct XP for Bad RP, as well as throw bounty hunters on him.

[ArmorArmadillo]

An opinion based on limited infomation that doesn't take into account that limited infomation is of limited use IMO. I hope I'm never relying on you as a juror.:smalleek:

So anyone who doesn't cry for those they kill is evil, probably NE. Right......
So 99+% of PC's that have ever existed are "evil" i your opinion. I guess that clarifies matters.

Re: The Noble. You can view him as innocent, i have my doubts, but neither of us have any infomation beyond that he was unecessasarily arrogant and rude.

Re: The Guards. There is a christian saying "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". The guards had chosen to make a living by the sword. I find their innocence extremely dubious, especially given the little we know about who they served. They have chosen to serve with their swords an arrogant mouthy noble. This is historically rarely bodes well for any claim of "innocence".

Re: Arbitary violence. Did player 2 shoot the noble as he approached? No! He fires directly at the noble (more on this particular phrase in a moment) after the noble verbally abused him. The violence wasn't arbitary.

Another assumption weve been making is that Player 2 actually damaged the Noble. "fires off magic missles directly at the nobleman" is a slightly odd terminolgy. I, like everyone else, have assumed that he hit the nobleman with magic missiles (given that magic missiles can't generally miss) but that isn't what the OP actually said. Was this simply an odd wording on the part of the poster, or did something else happen.

I really wish Player 2 could do a post. I think it would clarify a lot.

Stephen
It is not relying on insufficient information to call him evil; we're relying on the information given-
P2 was insulted, and reacted by firing a lethal spell (yes, he hit. Firing magic missles directly at the nobleman is not odd terminology; Magic missles have a specific target and always hit) and in the ensuing fight, the guards were killed.

That is COMPLETE information; this is the situation we are given to judge-
If there are some external factors: The nobleman was really evil, he was under mind control, the nobleman was actually a Balor, those are not given to us and we should not consider them as possibilities.

If I was on trial, I wouldn't want a juror to say "hmm...the evidence exonerates him, but it's possible that he was working for the mob as a hit man and the prosecution just didn't mention it to us...I can't declare him innocent without all the information."

If things are exactly and ONLY as Pendragon described to us, it is entirely a Chaotic Evil action, because reacting with lethal force to being insulted is a violent overreaction to a situation which is EVIL. Not "just chaotic and low wisdom" but extremely and entirely EVIL, because murder based on ego and rage is completely unjustifiable murder; and unjustifiable murder is evil. And again, if Pendragon had said "P2 has Int and Wisdom of 4 and isn't responsible for his actions" that would be different...but he didn't say that."


And it isn't a matter of "crying" for those you kill, it's a matter of having a reason for it.
And no, being listed as "usually NE" in the MM is not a reason, and anyone using that reason would be playing badly.

If my players murdered an Orc Village just because it was there, they'd all be looking at downward alignment shifts.


P.S. Considering that we do know that P2 listed himself as "NG" than he obviously didn't have a "chaotic" reason for doing this; he clearly was failing to play his listed alignment.

[lord_khaine]

and you cant have a "chaotic" reason for doing this either, the act was either chaotic stupid or stupid evil, though i cant quite deside wich of them is most fitting.

though 1 potential excuse could be, that the player did not know or understand this was a leathal attack.

[Arbitrarity]

:thog: Hur-hur. I is sorceror. Me no know what spells do. Me think spells not hurty people, look shiny. Why I make people close their eyes and fall over? Shiny is dizzy.

[Tokiko Mima]

Attempting to kill someone because they insult you is an Evil act. There is a massive difference between rudeness and homicide. It's the player that made that jump in this case.

You have to remember that D&D is not Real Life. Real Life morality doesn't even enter into the equation. Good slays Evil, and Evil slays Good in the D&D world.