Asking a player to change his character's alignment from Neutral Good => Neutral

[Jon_Dahl]

I know that the first thing you will say that "talk to my player" and I can talk with him, but I want to lay out the options first:
1. Talk to my player and ask him to choose if his character is NG (current situation) or N. Whatever he chooses will be fine with me.
2. Tell my player that I think that the character should be N and not NG and see what happens.
3. Tell him to change the alignment from NG to N, but if he objects, I will hear him out and we can talk about it.
4. Do nothing.

He is playing an aristocratic fighter-wizard. Here's a list of things that, in my opinion, support his change from NG to N and things that support him remaining NG.

NG to N
- He doesn't actively promote good or try to make a world better place.
- He is willing to let others do all the hard work and risk their lives, and he clearly prioritizes himself and his own well-being above everything else.
- Five PCs have died when he has been around and he is quick to abandon his mates. It is widely known by the NPCs that hanging around with him will get you killed but he always survives. Usually without a scratch.
- He doesn't really concern himself with other people unless they are useful to him.
- He was okay letting other other PCs to participate in a death match in which the purpose was to bet on the winner. The stakes were very high.
- He volunteered to assassinate or capture a rival of his guild. The duke had given a secret permission that the guild could kill the man, because it would be politically the best choice. It was not an illegal assassination. More like black ops hit with official backing. He had a choice of not killing him, but he pushed him out of a window while he was unconscious and hoped that might survive. He didn't.
- He had a diplomatic mission to gather forces that could aid an invaded kingdom to retake their lands. He didn't do anything about the whole time except bossed people around and avoided doing things.
- He has been more selfish and greedy than compassionate and helpful.

Stay NG
- He once saved his buddy from a quicksand, but he was already dead, so he looted his buddy and tossed the corpse back the quicksand. But at least he tried!
- He felt that an intelligent magical item might have been evil, so he petitioned to have it removed. He was successful.
- He hasn't done anything that would be clearly evil.

Note: Changing alignment will not affect his character in any way.

[Raxxius]

Uh you described token NE really. This is a character who isn't mustache twirling evil, but will happily kill to better himself and doesn't go out of his way to help his friends.

Text book.

[Zanos]

Character is probably NE unless he had a really good reason to believe his assassination target was a bad dude. Convenience killing definitely pushes you into Evil.

Definitely not NG.

[The Kool]

I wouldn't go so far as to call the character Evil, not without playing with them to know for sure. However, they are definitely Not Good, as played. Reread the explanation of actions. Yeah, I'd go so far as to agree that they are Evil enough to ping positive on a Detect Evil. I'd almost say Chaotic, it's hard to say for sure though, but they aren't extreme enough to be CE. Here's what I suggest:

Explain to the player that their actions do not match their alignment. Explain why, and offer them time for rebuttal. Hear it out, it might influence your perception of the character, and will definitely help you give them alignment roleplaying advice. Don't let it persuade you to let them continue as is with NG alignment though. What you do next is explain that they must either change their ways to be more Good, or you will remove the Good from their alignment. Give them 2-3 sessions to show that they can do this. This goes for any change in alignment, really.

As an anecdote, my group doesn't let players declare alignment. Instead, the players can choose what to aim for, and the DM makes a note of how they play. Mr For-The-Greater-Good might be awfully surprised when he runs into a paladin, or he might sigh and grimace and make some mutter about sacrifices and what-must-be-done and people who don't understand.

[Telonius]

I'd check out the remainder of your campaign and see if you've been planning on using the Unholy Blight spell (or any other effect where the target's alignment matters). If not, go with Option 4. If nothing in his character sheet depends on a Good alignment mechanically, and he's never going to have an effect directed at him where alignment would matter, then he could put an emoji in the alignment field and it wouldn't matter to his gameplay in the slightest. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Galacktic]

Alternate option: Get rid of this stupid battle sorc who is nothing but an active hindrance to the rest of your group.

[Cygnia]

Will the player be problematic in anyway after you discuss matters with him?

[Segev]

I'll concur that your list makes him sound TN or NE, but I'm curious about some of the particulars. The comment that "people die around him and he gets away without a scratch" makes me ask: is he doing anything to cause this? Or is this genuinely unfortunate coincidence? He pushed a guy out a window and "hoped he'd survive," you say: why did he push him out the window, and why did he hope he'd survive, and how do you know he "hoped he'd survive?"

Is there a reason, other than accuracy of the label on the character sheet, you should care if he's NG or not?

Do have this conversation with him. And point out that, regardless of his inner reasoning, other characters in-setting might have a dim view of him and think he's not so NG.

[Galacktic]

I'll concur that your list makes him sound TN or NE, but I'm curious about some of the particulars. The comment that "people die around him and he gets away without a scratch" makes me ask: is he doing anything to cause this? Or is this genuinely unfortunate coincidence? He pushed a guy out a window and "hoped he'd survive," you say: why did he push him out the window, and why did he hope he'd survive, and how do you know he "hoped he'd survive?"

Is there a reason, other than accuracy of the label on the character sheet, you should care if he's NG or not?

Do have this conversation with him. And point out that, regardless of his inner reasoning, other characters in-setting might have a dim view of him and think he's not so NG.

If you look up OP's other threads, this is obviously the Battle Sorc from them. Dude as a player only cares about his own survival, and is thus, several levels higher than the rest of the party. And basically just throws them to the wolves, then runs away to get a new party. How the other players haven't booted him by majority yet, I've no idea. He wouldn't last more than a session at my table.

[Segev]

I'm surprised the other players are allowing themselves to get into situations where one PC can screw over the whole party like that. My advice would be to talk to the player about retiring his character and everybody starting a new one. Failing that, my advice to the other players would be to build a party that can handle things without that particular battle sorcerer, and then refuse to take on threats that the battle sorcerer would be needed to handle. On the basis that they can't survive them and aren't suicidal.

[Jon_Dahl]

Will the player be problematic in anyway after you discuss matters with him?

I don't think so. The player is a question mark to me. I don't know him very well, but I would like that he plays in my group.


I'll concur that your list makes him sound TN or NE, but I'm curious about some of the particulars. The comment that "people die around him and he gets away without a scratch" makes me ask: is he doing anything to cause this? Or is this genuinely unfortunate coincidence? He pushed a guy out a window and "hoped he'd survive," you say: why did he push him out the window, and why did he hope he'd survive, and how do you know he "hoped he'd survive?"

Is there a reason, other than accuracy of the label on the character sheet, you should care if he's NG or not?

Do have this conversation with him. And point out that, regardless of his inner reasoning, other characters in-setting might have a dim view of him and think he's not so NG.

1. Cause and cause... Well, he invests in spells that get HIM out of the trouble at any moment. Invisibility + fly combo is very common. I think you can imagine how it goes. It has not been once or twice that he has skipped turns while hovering somewhere.

2. That's a good question. He said things, in off-game, like "Well, let's see if he dies" with a tone that gave me the impression that he would have liked the NPC to survive. I'm just guessing, to be honest, and most likely I read him wrong atm.

3. There is no reason, but it would be nice if we could have good as good and bad as bad in my game, even though the concepts are not objective at all.

[Jon_Dahl]

I take some of the blame. I think I haven't given him enough opportunities to be a good guy.

[MrSandman]

I take some of the blame. I think I haven't given him enough opportunities to be a good guy.

Do you mean opportunities like choosing not to assassinate somebody? Or choosing to actually help people do things? Or choosing to help the rest of his party when they're in danger? Or choosing not to bet the lives of his mates?

Being good is more than just doing the right thing when it's the obvious answer and it comes at no (or little) personal cost. Being good implies caring about and protecting others even when the cost is high.

[TheMeMan]

Definitely not good. While a NG character might not actively seek to do good works, they will certainly do so when the opportunity arises. They will absolutely help innocent folks, and particularly their party, when the situation arises.

Further, unless their assassination target is truly malevolent, they shouldn't do this, particularly if their motivation is personal gain.

Petitioning to rid the party of an evil item isn't really good either, as it could easily he self serving.

At the very best he is Neutral, but given his lack of qualms about killing, his abandonment of his group in dire situations, andself-serving nature one could easily argue for NE.

[Zanos]

Yeah, merely destroying an intelligent evil item isn't even necessarily good. My Evil characters have destroyed plenty of Evil [insert literally anything here], as many of those things are inconvenient or potential rivals.

I will note that self preservation isn't Evil, but a Good character should be willing to risk themselves to help their friends. Really the true mark of Good is putting yourself at risk to help strangers for the sake of it.

It seems like the only real question is whether the character is Neutral or Evil, and whether the player will throw a fit if you tell him.

[zlefin]

I'd say the char is neutral evil or just plain neutral.
in terms of how to approach the situation; my inclination would be to note all the problems, and ask whether he'd like to change his alignment, and if not, inform him that alignment shift will occur unless he starts doing more good.

[heavyfuel]

Just came here to share my support for him being NE. He's definitely not super evil, but he'd definitely register on a Paladin's radar

[denthor]

Uh you described token NE really. This is a character who isn't mustache twirling evil, but will happily kill to better himself and doesn't go out of his way to help his friends.

Text book.


Character is probably NE unless he had a really good reason to believe his assassination target was a bad dude. Convenience killing definitely pushes you into Evil.

Definitely not NG.

Put me squarely in the NE camp. Tell him his alignment is changing. Do not tell him to what. Have good character make an appeal to do a good deed. If he bite adventure time. Very little pay off.

If not have good people start to give him the cold shoulder. Let get the idea he is a pain in the .... (you finish).

At the same time start introduction of new NPC's who shall we say more pragmatic. True Nuetral types. If the situation continues. Have an evil NPC show up see if he bites adventure time.

Depending on what he does determines final alignment.

[2D8HP]

...Changing alignment will not affect his character in any way.


Then why bother with whatever's scribbled on that PC's character record sheet?

If there's an artifact of Good that burns the PC, or a Celestial that makes it clear which side the PC is on, of a Fiend that tells 'em "I like the cut of your jib" then they may find out.

Otherwise?

What for?

:confused:

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you for the feedback so far, everyone. It is very helpful. I'm considering my options.


Then why bother with whatever's scribbled on that PC's character record sheet?

If there's an artifact of Good that burns the PC, or a Celestial that makes it clear which side the PC is on, of a Fiend that tells 'em "I like the cut of your jib" then they may find out.

Otherwise?

What for?

:confused:

There is no reason, but it would be nice if we could have good as good and bad as bad in my game, even though the concepts are not objective at all.
Let go of your confusion, my friend.

[Crake]

Thank you for the feedback so far, everyone. It is very helpful. I'm considering my options.



There is no reason, but it would be nice if we could have good as good and bad as bad in my game, even though the concepts are not objective at all.
Let go of your confusion, my friend.

In dnd, good and evil are objective, even if they aren't in real life. As the DM, you get to be the objective moral compass for your campaign setting, so ultimately decisions on alignment fall into your hands, thus I would recommend 3, but he'd better have a damn good reason to convince you otherwise.

Though personally I would recommend 4, because, while his character may no longer be NG, his character doesn't know that. Good as good and bad as bad is all fine, but unless the character casts detect good on himself, there's no obvious signs that he's actually no longer good. For this reason I actually tell my players not to bother with alignment on their character sheets, because if, and when it comes up, I'll let them know how they interact with alignment based effects, until then, they have only their own moral compasses to follow.

[Jon_Dahl]

In dnd, good and evil are objective, even if they aren't in real life. As the DM, you get to be the objective moral compass for your campaign setting, so ultimately decisions on alignment fall into your hands, thus I would recommend 3, but he'd better have a damn good reason to convince you otherwise.

Come to think of it, I agree with you. I stand corrected.


Though personally I would recommend 4, because, while his character may no longer be NG, his character doesn't know that. Good as good and bad as bad is all fine, but unless the character casts detect good on himself, there's no obvious signs that he's actually no longer good. For this reason I actually tell my players not to bother with alignment on their character sheets, because if, and when it comes up, I'll let them know how they interact with alignment based effects, until then, they have only their own moral compasses to follow.

Hmmm, I would like to keep the player informed, though, but thank you for the advice. Perhaps we have different approaches.

[Crake]

Come to think of it, I agree with you. I stand corrected.



Hmmm, I would like to keep the player informed, though, but thank you for the advice. Perhaps we have different approaches.

Yeah, all good, I personally like to keep my players on their toes a bit, have them guessing and thinking about the consequences of their actions, rather than just outright telling them, unless of course it has a direct impact on their character, like if say, they were playing a neutral cleric of a good deity, and they were straying into evil grounds and so on, but I understand that others might want to be a bit more light hearted with their games, glad I could help you come to a decision though! :smallbiggrin:

[Bavarian itP]

I'm a little confused.

Asking a player to change their character's alignment is like asking them not to let their character starve.

The player decides what the character does. The DM decides wether this actions are sufficent to not let the character starve.

[Jon_Dahl]

glad I could help you come to a decision though! :smallbiggrin:

Thank you, but I haven't decided if I choose option 1, 2, 3 or 4. I'm only mentioning this if someone got the impression that I have made a final decision. The thing is that I would like to keep the player informed IF I make a decision. For instance, #4 is staying passive, a non-decision of a sort, and does not require that I inform the player.

[Remuko]

sounds very clearly NE or very close to NE to me. Absolutely not NG. I also like Crakes idea but I'd let players write down their starting alignment and treat them as the chosen alignment until they start taking actions/roleplay in game to decide how/why theyve changed based on that.

[Crake]

sounds very clearly NE or very close to NE to me. Absolutely not NG. I also like Crakes idea but I'd let players write down their starting alignment and treat them as the chosen alignment until they start taking actions/roleplay in game to decide how/why theyve changed based on that.

Yeah, that's generally how I have it, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for their backstory, and let them start as whatever alignment they choose, I just say not to write their alignment down, because it gets them out of the mindset of "what do I do to be good" and instead have them think "what would my character do"

[The Kool]

I'm a little confused.

Asking a player to change their character's alignment is like asking them not to let their character starve.

The player decides what the character does. The DM decides wether this actions are sufficent to not let the character starve.

Except that the player HAS decided what the character does, and the player is playing a certain alignment. That alignment is NOT the one written on the character sheet, and the DM is contemplating whether to ask the player to update the sheet or not.


Yeah, that's generally how I have it, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for their backstory, and let them start as whatever alignment they choose, I just say not to write their alignment down, because it gets them out of the mindset of "what do I do to be good" and instead have them think "what would my character do"

Yeah that's a lot like how my group runs it. Don't bother writing down alignment. The DM will decide based on how you play.

[Mordaedil]

I'd say sit down with him and ask him if he'd agree that his character has been sort of acting a tad evil and if he'd agree to bump him down to neutral for now with a potential knock down to evil if his behavior continues. Usually it isn't like players mind this when their characters aren't depending on it, but it might allow him to offer his own point of view on what has been happening.

Good luck.

[Gallowglass]

Neutral Evil is the default alignment of all adventurers.

Going around and killing stuff to get stronger and taking their loot is inherently NE. Looting your friend's corpse when he dies for better stuff is inherently NE. Raising that friend, not out of loyalty but our of self-interest? NE.

There's a video game with a joke book it in called "Face it, you are Neutral Evil: On Alignment and the Adventurer"* A true statement.

So he's playing "Adventurer" alignment.

Put me down for "Hey guys, just so you know, your alignment shifts depending on your actions and I wont' always tell you when so don't be surprised if some spell interactions appear wonky on you."

Then scribble down NE for your own records (or N(NE)) if you want to give him some time to downshift further. And move on.

*or something like that

[TheMeMan]

Neutral Evil is the default alignment of all adventurers.

Going around and killing stuff to get stronger and taking their loot is inherently NE. Looting your friend's corpse when he dies for better stuff is inherently NE. Raising that friend, not out of loyalty but our of self-interest? NE.

There's a video game with a joke book it in called "Face it, you are Neutral Evil: On Alignment and the Adventurer"* A true statement.

So he's playing "Adventurer" alignment.

Put me down for "Hey guys, just so you know, your alignment shifts depending on your actions and I wont' always tell you when so don't be surprised if some spell interactions appear wonky on you."

Then scribble down NE for your own records (or N(NE)) if you want to give him some time to downshift further. And move on.

*or something like that

I don't think looting a dead friend's body is inherently evil. Uncouthe for the most part, but not evil. Letting your friend die so you can loot their body is quite evil, however.

[The Kool]

So he's playing "Adventurer" alignment.

I've met plenty of players who can play Good characters, and do. While I get your argument, that lines up a shot for a whole messy debate about relative vs absolute morality.

[Liquor Box]

I'm going to swim against the tide and say that there's nothing on your list to displace your instinct that he's neutral (on the good/evil scale). Not going out of your way to do good things seems largely neutral to me, and that is what most of your list is about. The only thing in your list that may tip him into evil is the killing of the rival guild member - I think we would need a lot more context around that to give informed advice as to whether that is sufficient to make him evil.

I recommend 3 on your list. 4 is also an option for the reasons that others have given, but if alignment is part of your game (even if it has no mechanical effects) you may prefer it to be accurate (although remember that it is also largely subjective).

[Clistenes]

I don't think looting a dead friend's body is inherently evil. Uncouthe for the most part, but not evil. Letting your friend die so you can loot their body is quite evil, however.

But he discarded the body afterwards... and Raise Dead is a 5th level spell... He could have his mate resurrected, but he choose to keep the bling instead...

[Liquor Box]

But he discarded the body afterwards... and Raise Dead is a 5th level spell... He could have his mate resurrected, but he choose to keep the bling instead...

It might be a bit of a slippery slope if it we consider it evil to not resurrect someone. You are already suggesting the obligation to resurrect goes beyond party members to mates, does it also extend to other acquaintances (eg people in the caravan the party was travelling with) or those killed by the big bad the party is chasing, or just an innocent bystander who asks the party for help? Sure it might not be good to neglect to raise a friend, but I'm not sure it is evil in the context of the setting.

On a related note, I always thought it consistent with the availability of raise dead, that the setting would have a sort of insurance for adventurers who die. You pay your monthly due and in the event of your death you get raised, or perhaps resurrected depending on the package. The premium package might even have the insurer contracting an adventuring party to recover your corpse and equipment to facilitate the raising.

[The Kool]

On a related note, I always thought it consistent with the availability of raise dead, that the setting would have a sort of insurance for adventurers who die. You pay your monthly due and in the event of your death you get raised, or perhaps resurrected depending on the package. The premium package might even have the insurer contracting an adventuring party to recover your corpse and equipment to facilitate the raising.

"Thank you for contacting Mannheim Financial. I regret to inform you that Mr Mannheim is out of the country right now, so all Life Insurance policies are on hold until he returns. Rest assured that if you have an outstanding policy and should die in his absence, he will perform his contractual obligation upon his return. In the meantime, are you interested in short-term adventuring insurance, or long-term life insurance? The long-term plan comes with a much more favorable rate, I might add."

I didn't realize anyone else thought of this... I always figured it was my little contribution to breaking our local game world.

[TheMeMan]

But he discarded the body afterwards... and Raise Dead is a 5th level spell... He could have his mate resurrected, but he choose to keep the bling instead...

Inaction isn't necessarily evil. Evil requires a bit more active participation. A good character will certainly do what they can to resurrect their party member. Now, if there was a cleric standing there literally saying "Guys, its no problem, I can res him easy-peazy, no problemo", you might have a point. Barring this, he really isn't morally obligated to res a party member or do anything to res him. It's amoral to do so, but not really immoral.

[Mike Miller]

The entire time I read the original post, I was thinking NE. I definitely agree with the majority above who have said NE. As for dealing with it... I arrived late to the discussion. Seems like a non issue if it won't affect the character. In my games, alignment is almost ignored. It definitely doesn't play much of a role beyond spell descriptors.

[The Kool]

Inaction isn't necessarily evil.

Not always, but sometimes yes. You see, when you are presented with a choice of Help vs Don't Help, inaction is a choice. Trusting that they can handle it, or that you'll be no help, or that you'll just get yourself killed, these are some non-evil reasons for not helping. However, if the person is a good person and your companion, and you are (as we've been told) stronger than they are and entirely capable of helping effectively, choosing to remove yourself from the encounter (this person doesn't simply hang back, they actively avoid it via things like invisibility) and continuing to uphold this choice as you just watch your companion die, that's pretty Evil.

[zergling.exe]

Not always, but sometimes yes. You see, when you are presented with a choice of Help vs Don't Help, inaction is a choice. Trusting that they can handle it, or that you'll be no help, or that you'll just get yourself killed, these are some non-evil reasons for not helping. However, if the person is a good person and your companion, and you are (as we've been told) stronger than they are and entirely capable of helping effectively, choosing to remove yourself from the encounter (this person doesn't simply hang back, they actively avoid it via things like invisibility) and continuing to uphold this choice as you just watch your companion die, that's pretty Evil.

Agreed. It seems to be a consistent pattern that they recruit party members, dump all responsibility on them, and reap rewards when they succeed or cut and run when they don't. If that's not evil I'm not sure what is.

I mean really, they spend multiple turns flying invisibly where they won't get hurt and just WATCH. That's not Good. That's Neutral at best, and Evil when they are responsible for having put them in that position in the first place.

[Crake]

Not always, but sometimes yes. You see, when you are presented with a choice of Help vs Don't Help, inaction is a choice. Trusting that they can handle it, or that you'll be no help, or that you'll just get yourself killed, these are some non-evil reasons for not helping. However, if the person is a good person and your companion, and you are (as we've been told) stronger than they are and entirely capable of helping effectively, choosing to remove yourself from the encounter (this person doesn't simply hang back, they actively avoid it via things like invisibility) and continuing to uphold this choice as you just watch your companion die, that's pretty Evil.

That honestly strikes me as more chaotic than evil. There's an unspoken contract there, that party members will help each other, and he's breaking that contract.

[Particle_Man]

"The Demon casts Blashphemy. Everyone make a save. Oh, not you, don't worry about it you are fine."

[Raxxius]

"the demon casts blashphemy. Everyone make a save. Oh, not you, don't worry about it you are fine."

*non subtle wink*

[ericgrau]

I know that the first thing you will say that "talk to my player" and I can talk with him, but I want to lay out the options first:
1. Talk to my player and ask him to choose if his character is NG (current situation) or N. Whatever he chooses will be fine with me.
2. Tell my player that I think that the character should be N and not NG and see what happens.
3. Tell him to change the alignment from NG to N, but if he objects, I will hear him out and we can talk about it.
4. Do nothing.

He is playing an aristocratic fighter-wizard. Here's a list of things that, in my opinion, support his change from NG to N and things that support him remaining NG.

NG to N
- He doesn't actively promote good or try to make a world better place.
- He is willing to let others do all the hard work and risk their lives, and he clearly prioritizes himself and his own well-being above everything else.
- Five PCs have died when he has been around and he is quick to abandon his mates. It is widely known by the NPCs that hanging around with him will get you killed but he always survives. Usually without a scratch.
- He doesn't really concern himself with other people unless they are useful to him.
- He was okay letting other other PCs to participate in a death match in which the purpose was to bet on the winner. The stakes were very high.
- He volunteered to assassinate or capture a rival of his guild. The duke had given a secret permission that the guild could kill the man, because it would be politically the best choice. It was not an illegal assassination. More like black ops hit with official backing. He had a choice of not killing him, but he pushed him out of a window while he was unconscious and hoped that might survive. He didn't.
- He had a diplomatic mission to gather forces that could aid an invaded kingdom to retake their lands. He didn't do anything about the whole time except bossed people around and avoided doing things.
- He has been more selfish and greedy than compassionate and helpful.

Stay NG
- He once saved his buddy from a quicksand, but he was already dead, so he looted his buddy and tossed the corpse back the quicksand. But at least he tried!
- He felt that an intelligent magical item might have been evil, so he petitioned to have it removed. He was successful.
- He hasn't done anything that would be clearly evil.

Note: Changing alignment will not affect his character in any way.

The killing of the guild rival was the most evil and yet easy to overlook for your typical murderhobo PC. That's something where you probably should have brought up his alignment before that particular action and asked him "are you sure?" Everything else is minor. I can how people are saying NE but it's a weak NE. Like a total jerk you might know rather than a villain or criminal. Regardless of what you decide make sure you tell him not to play into stereotypes, and if he wants he can keep playing exactly how he's been playing. I mean tell him that explicitly in addition to saying the shift won't affect him, to make sure he doesn't become even more of a mean PC.

At least it's not 1e where breaking and shifting your alignment causes xp loss.

[Clistenes]

Inaction isn't necessarily evil. Evil requires a bit more active participation. A good character will certainly do what they can to resurrect their party member. Now, if there was a cleric standing there literally saying "Guys, its no problem, I can res him easy-peazy, no problemo", you might have a point. Barring this, he really isn't morally obligated to res a party member or do anything to res him. It's amoral to do so, but not really immoral.

He made the body impossible to recover, making sure his "friend" couldn't be resurrected... He could have taken the body to their family or friends... Hell, he could have buried the body in a normal tomb so anybody interested could find resurrect it...

[Liquor Box]

He made the body impossible to recover, making sure his "friend" couldn't be resurrected... He could have taken the body to their family or friends... Hell, he could have buried the body in a normal tomb so anybody interested could find resurrect it...

He could have, and it would have been 'good' if he did. He did not, and that was not good.

[ben-zayb]

"The Demon casts Blashphemy. Everyone make a save. Oh, not you, don't worry about it you are fine."
Blasphemy, of all spells, may not be the one that you want to use to make that point

[noob]

Blasphemy, of all spells, may not be the one that you want to use to make that point

Why not?
Facing angels and good clerics is only stuff that happens to really bad people.
While everybody fights evil outsiders including evil outsiders.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you for the feedback so far. It has been useful. I think I should ask more questions and present more scenarios on this board just because I get a lot of food for thought here.

[ben-zayb]

Why not?
Facing angels and good clerics is only stuff that happens to really bad people.
While everybody fights evil outsiders including evil outsiders.

Because unless you are an extraplanar, you won't have to make a save for Blasphemy at all regardless of your alignment.

[noob]

Because unless you are an extraplanar, you won't have to make a save for Blasphemy at all regardless of your alignment.

Being an extraplanar happens all the time while travelling through dimensions.
I mean who does not go in hell or abyss to stab innocent evil outsiders for maximizing evil?