PDA

View Full Version : Does my character deserve an alignment change?



Nero24200
2007-12-17, 06:00 AM
Hello everyone

I wanted to ask your opinion of a situation thats cropped up in my friend's D'n'D campaign.

Heres the situation as follows, I'll try my best not to be bias in any way.
Our party is currently at a poor, run-down former trading village at a beach area. Our party knows that a large group of ships, filled with undead warriors, plans to show up and kill everyone, planning to start a rampage on the island we're on with this town being the first target.
We wait, we set up defences, the ships come. Off the ships comes several undead warriors, and several slaves. The slaves were unexpected, but during the fight, we managed to kill the immediate slavers and free most of them who retreat to the village.
Once all the undead are defeated, there are alot of casualties on our side. Most of the townsfolk were commers who shot with bows, and they're now out of ammo. This effectivly leaves us, the party, to deal with their leader, who comes out in his own giant robot (though hes a gnome, so his giant robot isn't all that big really >.>).
He rushes out, charges straight for the village, determined to destory it, and naturally, myself, our party duskblade, and the party druid (who is Iclly my character's wife) stand in front of him. He begins the fight by grappiling the druid, sqeezing her with the giant claws this robot has for hands, and then hurls her back towards the beach. The duskblade, being a bit of an idiot (and under some silly impression that if he acts heroic, that any female PC will fall for him) tries to swfit fly above the thing and fall with the blade, cutting it's arm off. After a few attempts of this (and rolling reflex saves to avoid falling prone) he fails, and ends up on the ground, ready to be stomped by the gnome in a few turns. My character starts to get really angry, he's just seen this gnome crush his wife and toss her away, and hacks furiously.
The party warmage and cleric start blasting the thing, and eventully do so much electricity damage to finally destroy the machine.
Now, the gnome slowly crawls out the machine, and my exact words to the DM was "I'm going to charge up and kill him as he crawls out"
At this point the DM begins to say that doing so would make my character evil, appearnelty, I'd be killing a neutral character now since the electricy labotomized him, and the gnome now has the mind capacity of a two-year-old.
We argued for a bit but, in the end, I ended up not being able to kill him.

Now, my points for it not being evil was
-My character was angry, characters are allowed to be angry and kill for vengence in D'n'D. In fact, Hoar, the FR god of Vengence even states in his Dogma that if somone is a threat to you or people you love, kill them, otherwise you're just inviting them to bring destruction down upon you.
-A single evil action doesn't make my alignment change. My character has been a good little boy growing up, this would litrilly be his first evil act.
-Even if killing a neutral character is evil, how does my character know hes not evil now? My character planned to kill him the moment he came out, I wouldn't get any other chance to see this radical alignment change.

To try and give an impartial veiw, I'll also put up my DM's points as well
-The gnome is no longer evil, since our group unnaniousmly agrees that anything simpleminded such as a child, would always be neutral. My character would be murdering a neutral character.
-Being angry does not make my character uncontrollable, which I guess is true. My character has gotten angry at times before but controlled himself well. Admittidly though, he's never been this angry before.

So what do you all think?

Tempest Fennac
2007-12-17, 06:08 AM
Being as you're character had no way of knowing that he had been lobotomised, I'd say it wasn't evil. I'd also agree that you had a right to get revenge. (incidentally, did your Druid in-game wife die due to her injuries?)

leperkhaun
2007-12-17, 06:12 AM
I would say. Given the fact that you are in the middle of a fight, and you have already stated that as soon as the gnome shows his head im charging and killing him...you wouldnt. Also there is no way you could know that he wasnt an evil SLAVER Undead leader anymore.

HOWEVER, your DM has already let you know the deal. I would say maybe punch him in the face and knock him out and give him to the police.

Tempest Fennac
2007-12-17, 06:17 AM
Isn't that slightly excessive? To be fair, I can't believe he'd have told you something like that considering how your characters should have had to discover the Gnome's new mentality for themselves (besides, there could have been a chance that he was bluffing in the hope that the heroes wouldn't kill him).

Nero24200
2007-12-17, 06:17 AM
incidentally, did your Druid in-game wife die due to her injuries?

No, in fact her blasting partly brought the thing down. Though this was also the first time in the entire campaign shes taken a hit, much less one as hard as that.

Tempest Fennac
2007-12-17, 06:19 AM
That's good (I still think you were entitled to retribution, though, especially since your character may not have known if she was still alive if she was thrown a long distance before losing consciousness or being thrown out of view). Does your DM do that sort of thing a lot? If he does, I wouldn't bother putting skill points into sense motive.

Ogh_the_Second
2007-12-17, 06:21 AM
Killing merely for revenge, in my book, is an evil deed - regardless of the alignment of the the one killed. Killing a helpless (not used as game term here) moron is more evil, but considering that your character is not aware of the gnome's diminished capacities that is irrelevant.

Whether it's enough to push your alignment to evil depends on other things - it might be a final fall after a slippery slope, for example. But in itself it does not seem evil enough for an alignment change per se (like the wanton murder of an imbecile, just for the sake of it, might be). Nevertheless, this is DM's territory.

To me, it sounds a bit as if the DM is using a big stick (and the wrong one at that, if it is indeed the case) to save an NPC he needs later on.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-17, 06:32 AM
A) No, this wouldn't merit an alignment change... probably. He's not really a helpless foe; sure, he's weakened, but in D&D land killing a weakened foe is entirely appropriate for a good character. Only if they were TRULY incapacitated, and you knew they were incapacitated, and that incapacitation was not the result of combat strategy (for instance, casting sleep on someone, or in this case, you destroying their robot)...

Basically, its not okay to just randomly murder people in their sleep, but if it is in the heat of combat, it is fine to do whatever so long as they did not surrender. Even if they're bleeding to death on the ground I'd allow a coup de grace because there are so many ways of healing a nearly-dead foe. Mind you, this is not a "good act", but it is not an act which will ever change your alignment, though if you consistantly slaughter downed foes it tends to indicate other things as well.

B) That being said, killing someone for the simple reason of revenge IS evil, period. Revenge is evil. However, a single act of revenge is NOT an alignment-shifting action unless it is truly terrible. If you chopped up their parents and fed them to them, then you'd probably turn quite evil, but in these circumstances, I don't think it'd even blip your alignment. That being said, a paladin or a cleric of a good god COULD get in trouble for commiting a single evil act like this, but that's unlikely.

Fundamentally, in D&D killing is not evil, but your reasons for killing may well be, and revenge is an evil action. Mind you, something like this wouldn't alter your alignment in and of itself; it is just a single evil action, and really, it isn't all that evil in the grand scale of things (little premeditation, the foe is still a threat to other people, ect.).

Also, in D&D intelligence doesn't really matter. So killing someone who had been lobotomized by lightning would be fine, especially if they seemed to be a threat or could potentially be a threat again. Indeed, even if they were lobotomized, killing them might -still- be justifiable because of restoration-style effects.

Basically, I think your DM was being silly, and moreover, he shouldn't disallow a character action because it is evil. He can warn you if you're a class that cares if you commit any evil actions whatsoever, but YOU, not the DM, should have the ultimate say in what your character does.

Elhann
2007-12-17, 06:37 AM
Does your character have any way to know that the gnome is not evil anymore, IN CHARACTER? What other options do you have to deal with the gnome slaver who likes undead? How can you know that the gnome isn't faking his lobotomisation?

I don't think the people in the town who has lost their relatives and friends will be receptiv to the idea of sparing the gnome instead of, say, burning him at a stake. If he had an undead army, and a giant robot, it is clear that he has considerable arcane power: unless there is a SAFE way to remove this power, an unstable guy that can tell the laws of pohysics to shut up and sit down, he is still a threat.

To me, that wouldn't mean an alignment change. And, if I were you, alignment change or not, the gnome would have died in that exact place. I'll atone later for killing the undead-liking, wife-beater, slaver.

Turning evil for killing a bad evil guy, especially when it would be your first "evil" act, stinks to "save the gnome as I can" from teh DM. Talk to him about that.

Zenos
2007-12-17, 06:39 AM
What is your base alignment?

Hallavast
2007-12-17, 06:57 AM
Isn't that slightly excessive? To be fair, I can't believe he'd have told you something like that considering how your characters should have had o discover the Gnome's new mentality for themselves (besides, there could have been a chance that he was bluffing in the hope that the heroes wouldn't kill him).

Is it so hard to believe? The DM obviously didn't want the gnome to die (probably because he planned to use him as a future plot device). Threatening an alignment change has long been known as a deterrent in such matters if the DM is desparate.

To the OP:

Killing him would be neutral, because he threatened your friends and loved ones, and he attacked the town that was under your charge. Also, you didn't know that he was helpless (mentally or physically). Killing him certainly wasn't evil, but I don't know if I'd call it good. It's certainly nothing to change alignment over, but your character's indecision about killing him makes for some good character development.

leperkhaun
2007-12-17, 06:58 AM
though to be perfectly honest, as a duskblade you dont have an alignment restriction. Personally i just may kill the gnome out of spite and to keep it from biting me in the butt later.

Fixer
2007-12-17, 07:52 AM
I would say that given your character would not be able to know the gnome's mental status that your actions would not constitute an alignment change. Your character still viewed the gnome as a threat. He is an enemy spellcaster, giant robot notwithstanding, and it just as dangerous, if not more so, outside of his robot than inside.

I must, however, STRONGLY disagree with what many of the others have said. Revenge, as an act, is not evil. It is chaotic. It is selfish but not necessarily cruel. If your idea of revenge is a quick death of someone who has wronged you that is chaotic, not evil. If your idea of revenge is the slow torture and eventual death of someone who has wronged you, that is both chaotic AND evil.

Enigo Montoya, for example, wished for revenge against the six-fingered man. He didn't want to torture him, just kill him. He was chaotic. When the time came for revenge he gave his opponent a relatively painless death and that was the end of it.

mostlyharmful
2007-12-17, 08:08 AM
Just so I can be straight in my head I want to sum up what happened..

1. Evil Slaving Undead-commanding Psychopath arrives
2. Evil-guy tries to kill random helpless nobodies
3. succeds in hurting badly someone your PC cares deeply for and your PC as well
4. your team blows up his engine of destruction and he crawls out of it onto the sand
5. *this is the point where you lose me* - your character receives sudden insight from god that the raving lunatic infrount of you that has access to powerful magic and is now probably really pissed at you and yours isn't infact a threat :smallconfused: and what's more will never be a threat again and is no-longer responsible for his prior actions due to mental incapacity:smallconfused: .
6. Not only is he suddenly mindfried and whats more you know it, but your reaction in the heat of the moment has dire ethical consequences, such that you completely change your entire moral value??

Yeah, your DM just wants him around for the next time and is doing a really bad job of contingency planning

RandomFellow
2007-12-17, 08:13 AM
I would say that given your character would not be able to know the gnome's mental status that your actions would not constitute an alignment change. Your character still viewed the gnome as a threat. He is an enemy spellcaster, giant robot notwithstanding, and it just as dangerous, if not more so, outside of his robot than inside.
....

Enigo Montoya, for example, wished for revenge against the six-fingered man. He didn't want to torture him, just kill him. He was chaotic. When the time came for revenge he gave his opponent a relatively painless death and that was the end of it.

Revenge isn't a good act either. Revenge is a CN act.
------------------
@OP
If you weren't CN, I'd rule you moved one step closer to CN on both the Chaos-Law and Evil-Good axes. Even if you knew the gnome's mental status.

There is magic to fix that kind of thing and permanently removing a potential future threat is a pragmatic act.

So I think this is a case of a bad DMing (which happens to everyone, occasionally) and him choosing to go with the Big Stick rather than the Carrot (e.g. having you roll a knowledge: local check and realize their is a bounty for bringing him in alive. Nothing if dead.).

Nero24200
2007-12-17, 08:39 AM
Just to clear up a few things I think I made unclear

Firstly, I beleive someone mentioned my characters class, hes a Ranger/Scout (coincidently, his favoured enemy is (Arcanist) (Tha varient from Complete Mage I believe, and this gnome was an arcane caster).

And secondly, my base alignment is Neutral Good.

Thanks to everyone for their input so far.

Tormsskull
2007-12-17, 08:48 AM
OP:

I think one of the unknowns that a lot of this hinges on that we are not aware of is HOW your character obtained the information that the gnome had become a helpless invalid.

Can you give us that information?

Nero24200
2007-12-17, 09:00 AM
My character knew IC because -after- I said to the DM I planned to charge the gnome and kill him, the gnome somehow (despite being on a battlefeild) found a small carving of a horse and began playing with it.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-17, 09:05 AM
The way I see it, what matters was not what he knew...but his intentions. He had been trying to act the hero to look cool/impress/whatever and apparently failed. In his failure he became frustrated...that his wife got hurt badly just enraged him further and made his later failures push him to the point that he didn't care if the machine went down, he wanted the leader dead...no compromise, no mercy.

It was not a tactical desicion...not based off of a worry that he might come out slinging spells or whatnot...no...he just wanted to kil the man since he had hurt his wife and made him feel inferior since he couldn't hurt his creation.

That sort of blind rage is chaotic at least...evil at worst. If it mattered, or if you did this sort of thing often I would say you had definately moved towards the chaotic if not already there. Now...evil? It was vengeance...it was a bit evil...but not truely malicious...if it became a habit, or your character started to not care about the consequences of his temper or made no attempt to keep it in check...I might start nudging him towards evil...

Has this been a pattern?

Nero24200
2007-12-17, 09:13 AM
Nope, as stated earlier this would have been the first evil act this character has ever committed. In fact, in the past, he's actually kept a pretty level head, this anger from this event mostly steams from the fact that the gnomes is a slaver and that this was the first time my character has ever seen someone hurt his wife.

Oh, for the record, my character wasn't trying to be a hero. He charged in to begin with since he was the only party member capable of hurting it, since the machine somehow had an anti-magic field around it at the start of the battle.

The party consisted of a myself (ranger/scout, who was just about out of arrows due to the previous battle)
A duskblade (Who was just about unconcious at this point)
A spell-focused Cleric (Newish player, spells focused mostly on hurting undead and the like)
A druid
And a Warmage

He charged in because if he didn't, one of his allies would have to stop this thing, and the last ally that tried that was tossed aside quite easily.

Mr.Bookworm
2007-12-17, 09:42 AM
Killing simply out of a sense of revenge is either a neutral or evil act depending on the circumstances, and is definitly chaotic. If a Paladin did this, I would definitly warn him that this act would move him a bit closer to "fallen" status.

However, you're not a Paladin. Even if you were, this wouldn't be alignment-changing. Alignment changes are based on repeated, usual events, or more darker single events. If you killed several enemies in cold blood out of a sense of revenge, I would certainly make you Chaotic Neutral, maybe Evil if you enjoyed it. If you ate a baby for an offering for a dark god, guess what? You would immediatly become Evil.

So, yeah. I think that if this was a repeated event, your DM would be well within his rights to change your alignment. If this is a single event, though, really, it's not alignment changing.

EDIT: Especially because it seems that up until now, you've been near Paladin-squeaky Good.

WorthingSon
2007-12-17, 09:49 AM
... Your character has no reason to not think the gnome is just playing dumb. For all you know IC he is out of spells for the day, and is trying to play on the good guys weak spot till he can rest up. I'd say you should get to roll a Sense Motive. If you "fail" you would think he is faking... as you failed to realize he was really changed. Then you would be all clear to kill him IMO.

As far as revenge being evil, that is just an opinion. If you look at classical literature, there are tons of stories of the good guy that devotes his life to seeking revenge against those that wronged him. If you are cruel, or ignore the suffering of others on your path of vengeance, that is evil; but vengeance by itself is not an evil act.

Tormsskull
2007-12-17, 09:56 AM
My character knew IC because -after- I said to the DM I planned to charge the gnome and kill him, the gnome somehow (despite being on a battlefeild) found a small carving of a horse and began playing with it.

I dunno. Seems to me like the DM pulled the classic "Cut Scene" on you. After the robot was destroyed, if you announced your intentions to kill the gnome as soon as he exited the robot, you should have been able to do so before he had time to find the carving of a horse.

Its sounding like the DM prevented you from doing actions so that he could explain what was happening in his attempt to guide you to a certain course of action. That rarely works in the long run, in my experience, and limits the players in their ability to make their own choices and then deal with the rewards/consequences.

At this point, I would probably take many steps to ensure that the gnome has no way of recapturing his mental faculties, because its looking like the DM might spring the "OMG he's back" plot line. It could be hes back to kill you, or hes back to be a good guy just to prove to you why you shouldn't have killed him.

Regardless of how it happens now though, it won't feel natural to you.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-17, 10:15 AM
Enigo Montoya, for example, wished for revenge against the six-fingered man. He didn't want to torture him, just kill him. He was chaotic. When the time came for revenge he gave his opponent a relatively painless death and that was the end of it.

He dedicated his entire adult life to the single purpose of avenging his father. How does that qualify as chaotic? Inigo's actual alignment is Neutral Awesome.

Tempest Fennac
2007-12-17, 10:33 AM
I thought that seeking revenge like that could class as Lawful (eg: Eugene in OotS wasn't able to get into Celestia due to a Blood Oath of Vengence which he had given up on).

Saph
2007-12-17, 10:44 AM
Neutral act, no alignment change.

In character: you're in mid-battle against a very dangerous opponent who's been doing his best to kill you. You've just destroyed his weapon. You've got no reason at all to believe that he's incapacitated. In a high magic world like D&D, you're not out of the fight until you're dead (and sometimes not even then). For all you know, the 'horse' is a spell trigger magical device that the gnome's going to use to attack you.

A Good character would give the gnome a chance to surrender. A Neutral character might, but probably wouldn't, and honestly wouldn't have any real reason to. Hesitating in this kind of life-or-death battle is not a good long-term survival move, and adventurers who live long enough to get to high levels tend not to do it.

I'd say the DM's railroading you, and being a bit unfair. He really ought to have considered better how things would look from the characters' perspectives.

- Saph

Dausuul
2007-12-17, 11:20 AM
First of all, there's no way you could have known the gnome had been lobotomized. As far as your character knew, this was a powerful arcane caster (since he had the giant robot, which in D&D typically requires magic to make), perhaps crippled by the loss of his machine but still quite capable of unleashing sorcerous death and/or teleporting away to wreak vengeance later. He had already shown himself deserving of no consideration at your hands. Attacking him on sight would be both morally defensible and tactically sound, and there's NO FREAKIN' WAY he could have found a toy horse and started playing with it before you smote him.

It was also good roleplaying, and that ought to earn more rather than less leniency from the DM.

Now, assuming you did somehow magically know that the gnome had been lobotomized... then yes, killing him would be an evil act. Evil enough to slam your alignment down into the Evil range? I don't think so. Neutral, conceivably, but killing on a battlefield in the heat of passion is a bit different from cold-blooded murder of an innocent.

Frankly, however, I think your DM is just screwing with you for no good reason. The electricity lobotomizing the gnome appears to have been totally random, and the bit where he magically came up with a toy horsie to play with after you declared your attack (and you were supposed to know instantly that it wasn't, say, a figurine of wondrous power) is a dead giveaway. Your DM's got a way he wants this scene to go, and anybody who messes that up is going to be punished for it regardless of sense or fairness.

(Also, when you say you "weren't able" to kill him... does that mean the DM established that it would turn you evil, and so you decided not to? Or does it mean the DM said, "Your alignment is Good, you can't do something that would make you Evil?")

sikyon
2007-12-17, 11:37 AM
It's not evil enough to cause an entire alignment change. People don't suddenly become evil through a single act, in heated rage of battle.

Also, just say to your DM that you thought he wizard was trying to use a spell focus/component to summon some sort of horse, with some sort of spell. He IS a wizard, and you are not, so you have no idea what sorts of focuses he might use.

SoD
2007-12-17, 11:37 AM
I would say that...no. You don't know it was non-evil.

ALOR
2007-12-17, 11:41 AM
Our group uses a kind of point based alignment system. Basicly killing this gnome out of vengence would have given you a point or "step" toward evil but would not have made you evil persay. If you continued to do these thigns then you would eventully turn evil yes. I do agree though it seems like you DM was trying to save him

Indon
2007-12-17, 11:46 AM
No, and I agree that your DM ran that pretty badly.

Personally, I'd have let you charge, then as you were about to swing, describe for you the appearance of the gnome as to make its' non-threat evident - blank eyes, drooling, stumbling, so on. If you swung since then, I'd have considered it an evil act, but since you aren't a Paladin (or in Ravenloft), single evil acts generally don't matter.

Tengu
2007-12-17, 11:54 AM
Tell your DM that if he wants the gnome to come up later in the campaign, he should find better ways of making you not kill him than some stupid fiat. Then shove a d4 up his nose.

RandomFellow
2007-12-17, 01:14 PM
I thought that seeking revenge like that could class as Lawful (eg: Eugene in OotS wasn't able to get into Celestia due to a Blood Oath of Vengence which he had given up on).

Key word there is Oath.

If you give an Oath of X, its lawful.

If you get emotional and go avenge something, its chaotic.

MrNexx
2007-12-17, 01:24 PM
I would not have turned you evil for that. However, if you interrogated him via Speak with Dead, I would play up the fact that he was mentally incapacitated, and let you deal with the ethical implications of killing someone who was a slave.

Laurellien
2007-12-17, 01:25 PM
A word to all those saying that revenge is evil or chaotic.

Where does that leave Saint Cuthbert, LN god of vengeance who abhors evil?

Worira
2007-12-17, 01:32 PM
Slaver, MrNexx.

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-12-17, 01:39 PM
Key word there is Oath.

If you give an Oath of X, its lawful.

If you get emotional and go avenge something, its chaotic.

So if you get emotional and make a blood oath, is that neutral then:smallconfused: ?

mostlyharmful
2007-12-17, 01:46 PM
So if you get emotional and make a blood oath, is that neutral then:smallconfused: ?

When the hell else are you likely to sign up to something that ties you and your descendants to fullfilling it before they get to rest in the hereafter? You don't get it done you still need to be emotional to dedicate your life to this one thing, emotions can't be non-lawful. Maybe in their most extreme short term expression yes, but they're the basis of quite a lot of people motivation.

Fixer
2007-12-17, 02:04 PM
Ok, so maybe not all revenge is chaotic. Oath-swearing is more lawful and less spur-of-the-moment.

To me, actions performed are the moral side of alignment and methods to reach those actions are the ethical side of alignment.

In this case, the action was killing an identified threat to community, friends, and self. The idea that this menace suddenly became non-threatening during the heat of battle is DM fiat, and not logical, and therefore not considered. The action itself is neutral. A good action in this case would have been if you would have given the gnome the opportunity to surrender and readied an action to strike if the gnome did anything but surrender or act non-threatening.

The methods to reach this action is a combination of strong chaotic and strong lawful. The character in question did not have a blood oath to kill this gnome, but did so for the benefit of others making it strong lawful. By the same note, this action was very impulsive and neither planned nor deliberate, thereby making it strong chaotic. The end result is a balance in neutral.

So, basically, your DM is being a controller. He wants the gnome to live and believes that by threatening your character he can force you to behave in the manner in which he desires. Your response to this action will determine your own personal character.

Fhaolan
2007-12-17, 02:55 PM
So... In a world where flinging bat dung and fumbling with amber rods and bits of wool are dangerous, lethal, and *agressive*, you have a known enemy pull out a tiny model horse and starts fiddling with it.

My first reaction is that he's got a Figurine of Wonderous Power, or a variant Mount spell and is trying to activate/cast it and get away. He's still a valid target. You have no definitive way to determine his feeblemind condition other than the DM fiat.

Dode
2007-12-17, 04:01 PM
To try and give an impartial veiw, I'll also put up my DM's points as well
-The gnome is no longer evil, since our group unnaniousmly agrees that anything simpleminded such as a child, would always be neutral. My character would be murdering a neutral character.
-Being angry does not make my character uncontrollable, which I guess is true. My character has gotten angry at times before but controlled himself well. Admittidly though, he's never been this angry before.

So what do you all think?
I think that your group must have real trouble fighting feral animals and rampaging minotaurs and ogres, if Int determines alignment.

snoopy13a
2007-12-17, 04:30 PM
If the DM wanted the gnome to live, he should have made him try to surrender or end up unconscious. Then the "evil act" excuse would at least be justified.

It could also start a side plot where the gnome is put on trial by the townspeople and/or PCs to determine whether or not he is truly insane. I'd expect the townspeople to simply kill him before a trial though. However, if the gnome is spared, it could even lead into an adventure where you try and cure his insanity. This all could lead to the cured gnome being a future ally.

Overall though, the DM messed up.

Yami
2007-12-17, 05:07 PM
Alot of people so far seem to beleive that vengance is a chaotic, or an evil act. I would like to refute this.

St. Cuthbert, God of Vengance and Retribution, happens to be Lawful Nuetral. The enemy did something Evil and hurtful towards you, Lawful Neutral god dictates that he deserves his fate. I fail to see how one could get Evil or Chaotic out of that.

Now, as for the whole 'crawls out of the wreck and prestidigitations up a horsie to play with' I think you just lost your sense motive check. In character I would assume the same, that I am being played for a fool. Honestly, who would beleive that he suddenly lost all cognitive thought the moment he was no longer an unstoppable killing machine. Just doesn't fly.

Mayhaps he was just dominated by a greater evil, or perhaps he was just vying for his life, who knows? I myself wouldn't consider it an evil act to ensure your safety, but then were I in a game run by this DM, I'd no doubt become CE within a few sessions.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-17, 06:12 PM
This is ridiculous, if you were attacked by a feral animal (which is less smart then the gnome "is" now) and it nearly killed your wife, would you spare it the moment you cut its claws off?

The Exalted Solution: Spare him and nurse him back to health
The Good Solution: End his misery or drop him in a prison
The Neutral Solution: kill him
The Evil Solution: Kill him, find his family, and kill them
The Vile Solution: Keep him in this state and make him eat his family, then cure and spare him

MrNexx
2007-12-17, 09:28 PM
So... In a world where flinging bat dung and fumbling with amber rods and bits of wool are dangerous, lethal, and *agressive*, you have a known enemy pull out a tiny model horse and starts fiddling with it.

My first reaction is that he's got a Figurine of Wonderous Power, or a variant Mount spell and is trying to activate/cast it and get away. He's still a valid target. You have no definitive way to determine his feeblemind condition other than the DM fiat.

You do, but only by hesitating (you could use detect magic to determine if the item is magic, and spellcraft to see if he's casting a spell), but I agree... there's no way to tell this guy isn't a threat.

Worira
2007-12-17, 09:50 PM
Most Rangers don't take much Spellcraft.

EvilElitest
2007-12-17, 10:01 PM
Really, unless you somehow knew he had lost his mind or if he surrender, your good. Not a good action, but certainly not an evil one




I must, however, STRONGLY disagree with what many of the others have said. Revenge, as an act, is not evil. It is chaotic. It is selfish but not necessarily cruel. If your idea of revenge is a quick death of someone who has wronged you that is chaotic, not evil. If your idea of revenge is the slow torture and eventual death of someone who has wronged you, that is both chaotic AND evil.

Enigo Montoya, for example, wished for revenge against the six-fingered man. He didn't want to torture him, just kill him. He was chaotic. When the time came for revenge he gave his opponent a relatively painless death and that was the end of it.
1. Revenge is never good, but not necessarily evil. However it is when you kill innocents who get in your way that it turns evil
2. Actually, in the book the Count Rubin dies of a heart attack before being stabbed ironically
3. If he had stabbed him after he surrendered (aka a second sooner) it would have been an evil, if not aligment changing action
from,
EE

Prometheus
2007-12-17, 10:09 PM
A previous enemy no longer having any interest in killing you and suddenly playing with a statue does not necessarily should not immediately single to the player that something changed in the gnome's mental state. In a hasty glance it could be an enemy using bizarre distraction tactics in order to have his life spared or it could be an enemy trying to activate a magic item to escape or harm you. In fact I had a villain who used a similar tactic (he acted like Archimedes, busy studying rather than address the threat of the PCs) and they almost decided not to kill him. If your player didn't truly believe the gnome was harmless, which is sounds like was the case, than you are not evil. Even then, you would only be chaotic, for not being able to control your emotions.

It sounds like your DM wanted the NPC to live and was bad at procuring a way to do that.

Draco Ignifer
2007-12-17, 10:14 PM
Something I'm not sure the rest of y'all are considering... one heal spell (or possibly greater restoration), and he's going to be back to his previous nefarious ways, probably wanting vengeance. Your DM may be banking on this.

Kill him. That way, at the very least (not sure about in-game policies on resurrection), it'll cost a bunch of diamonds and maybe a level to bring him back.

Worira
2007-12-17, 10:21 PM
http://www.macsoftgames.com/products/RRT3/images/rrt3_keystone.jpg

Idea Man
2007-12-17, 11:07 PM
Very nice! :smallbiggrin:

I've never cared one whit whether the party killed a boss. If he comes back, that's great; it makes for a more fulfilling campaign to thwart and stomp flat a bad guy more than once (since he always comes back better). If they kill him, oh well, more where he came from.

As far as alignment... what they said. Everybody agrees you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't have any kind of alignment shift as presented. Friendly warning at best. Shame your DM has to resort to threats, but I suppose he could just be panicking over losing his thought out plot. Or not. :smalltongue:

Kompera
2007-12-18, 02:08 AM
Now, the gnome slowly crawls out the machine, and my exact words to the DM was "I'm going to charge up and kill him as he crawls out"
At this point the DM begins to say that doing so would make my character evil, appearnelty, I'd be killing a neutral character now since the electricy labotomized him, and the gnome now has the mind capacity of a two-year-old.
We argued for a bit but, in the end, I ended up not being able to kill him.

Now, my points for it not being evil was
-My character was angry, characters are allowed to be angry and kill for vengence in D'n'D. In fact, Hoar, the FR god of Vengence even states in his Dogma that if somone is a threat to you or people you love, kill them, otherwise you're just inviting them to bring destruction down upon you.

Your GM is using metagaming to prevent your character from taking an action. Your character has just been in a pitched battle, your character doesn't know of the brain damage caused by the electricity, your character don't know that the Gnome is no longer a threat, or that his alignment has recently changed. For all your character knows as soon as the Gnome stands up he'll unleash some other fiendish device upon you, your friends, and the hapless villagers. Killing him is a perfectly reasonable reaction to take in the midst of a battle. Giving you information your character has no way to be aware of in game is metagaming, and holding your character responsible for actions taken in the context of what the character knows as opposed to what you the player know is well out of line as a GM. Usually it's the other way around: The player needs to be told to not use metagaming information to guide the characters actions and decisions.

Kill the Gnome, keep your alignment. Tell your GM that he needs a few lessons in story crafting if he's unable to come up with a means to let your character know things he obviously considers key to his story arc without simply telling you the player deaux ex machina style and expecting that to influence your character's actions.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-18, 02:48 AM
Tell your DM that if he wants the gnome to come up later in the campaign, he should find better ways of making you not kill him than some stupid fiat. Then shove a d4 up his nose.
Scary avatar has the right of it (and Kompera, but Tengu's post was funnier). This is forcing metagame information on you and acting unduly harshly as a GM in an attempt to railroad you. Finishing off the bad guy who was just trying to kill you and your loved ones is not enough to shift a generally good person into an Evil alignment, no matter what other injuries he's sustained. Especially if you have absolutely no IC way of knowing that he's not still a threat. This isn't about revenge, although anger might cause you to act in haste; it's about not getting your ass killed.

Long story short, your DM either a) hates you or b) is trying his hand at hamfisted railroading. Or c) I'm missing some crucial bit of information, that's always a possibility in thirdhand opinions.

Azukius
2007-12-18, 04:00 AM
an action has to be evil or good in intent to qualify as a good or evil action, otherwise its just confused.

new1965
2007-12-18, 08:22 AM
Only if the DM gave you a in-character way to know that he was no longer threat.

For instance, as you are charging you notice that hes drooling, one eye has gone white and the other eye is drifting in a weird direction...

Dausuul
2007-12-18, 08:34 AM
Only if the DM gave you a in-character way to know that he was no longer threat.

For instance, as you are charging you notice that hes drooling, one eye has gone white and the other eye is drifting in a weird direction...

...and you somehow know he's not going to snap out of it in three seconds and annihilate you...

Falrin
2007-12-18, 10:23 AM
" the Gnome starts crawling out of the heap of melted iron that once was his mighty robot"

A) I charge and kill him.

"the Gnome stumbles out and falls prone before you. He lifts his head when your (inserts pointy weapon) cleaves his head of."

B) I don't charge him because the leader of the undead army trying to destroy the village might have turned neutral.

"the Gnome stumbles out and falls prone before you. He lifts his head and starts an evil incantation."

Fail Will Save.
Go kill your wife while the gnome finnishes of the Duskblade.

Craig1f
2007-12-18, 11:49 AM
It's clear that the DM was just desperately trying to prevent you from killing the gnome, because he needs the gnome kept alive for the plot. The alignment-change theory was just how he rationalized keeping the gnome alive.

If he were smart, he'd have the gnome beg for mercy as you ran toward him. He'd say "no, please" and then collapse to the ground, unconscious. At THAT point, if you'd killed him, it would be an evil act. He'd begged for mercy, and is clearly incapacitated.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-18, 11:52 AM
Or he could have just ruled that the electricity rendered the gnome completely unconscious altogether. Seriously, why didn't he just do that?

Citizen Joe
2007-12-18, 12:04 PM
I charge the "Yet another alignment thread" and stab it mercilessly.

DIE YAAT! DIE!

Heliomance
2007-12-18, 12:07 PM
If that had happened to me, here's how it would have gone:

Me: I charge the gnome and kill him.
DM: You do that, I'm changing your alignment to evil.
Me: I charge the gnome and kill him.

Then I would have simply not changed how I played the character, until the DM was forced to admit that actually, he's not evil.

Segial
2007-12-18, 12:10 PM
It's an interesting question. Despite the fact that your DM handled this rather clumsily, I do think he has a point. The real question here is:

After a tremendous battle with an evil villain, due to the injuries caused the villain, he is returned to the mindset of a child, unable to defend himself, do anymore evil and it's unlikely he will be able to do so anytime soon, would/should a good character still kill him?

I would say: NO. Despite the fact that your DM described the situation rather poorly/unrealistically, if that is the situation, and you kill him, it's not a good thing to do. If you were lawfull, I would also accept that it was what the law demanded, but for a good character, mercy and compassion are just as important to being good as is fighting evil. Still, that doesn't mean that it would have been bad rolepay by your character to kill him anyway, because you what he did really pissed you off. If I had been your DM, i would not have accepted the other arguments like "he could become sane again one day and come back to kill me" or "he is just faking it" as they look very much like poor excuses for getting revenge anyway, and would have based whether your character becomes neutral due to this incident on whether or not your character shows remorse for killing someone helpless out of revenge or not.

Tengu
2007-12-18, 12:46 PM
After a tremendous battle with an evil villain, due to the injuries caused the villain, he is returned to the mindset of a child, unable to defend himself, do anymore evil and it's unlikely he will be able to do so anytime soon, would/should a good character still kill him?


It depends on where the world and the character are on the Sliding Scale Of Idealism Versus Realism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusRealism). If it's not a very idealistic example, then there's nothing bad in the hero killing the villain anyway - especially if the villain has done something the hero despises him for. After all:

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
*stab* Guess I'm just a good man.
*stab* Well, I'm alright.

I realize it's not a 100% fitting example, but a day without a Firefly reference is a day wasted.

Cristo Meyers
2007-12-18, 01:19 PM
My view, depending on alignment:

Lawful Good: Sorry Anakin, he must stand trial. You take a bit of an alignment hit for killing an apparently incapacitated opponent, but retain Lawful Good.

Chaotic Good: no alignment change at all. The gnome is clearly a threat and must be dealt with. It's a dirty job, but it's got to be done.

Neutral Good (your character): admittedly, I understand Neutral Good the least. One the one hand, the gnome is incapacitated, on the other he's a clear threat to everyone around you. I think I'd call for a rationalization and judge from there.

However, using alignment change to stop your character from taking an action is wrong and the justification for the gnome turning Neutral is flimsy at best. Especially since there's no possible way, IC, you can know what's happened to him in the 2 rounds between him crawling out of the wreckage and you killing him (it's what in game time, 14 seconds?)

DeathQuaker
2007-12-18, 01:54 PM
1. Your GM needs to be shown the following:

First, from the SRD (emphasis mine):


Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Then, from the DMG, look at the section on alignment and how to handle it as a GM. I suggest xeroxing and increasing the size of the passage which explicitly notes that GMs should not enforce alignment changes due to a single action. Perhaps also highlight it in bright yellow.

Maybe even offer to pay for it for the relevant passages to be tatooed on your GM's arm so he won't forget it next time. :smallwink:

2. Whether your act was evil or not is debatable and dependent on a few circumstances--but ultimately, it doesn't matter. If you felt that's what your character would do under those circumstances, that's what your character would do, alignment-shift threats be damned. Even if you later came to the agreement with your GM that it was an evil act, it would still not change your alignment, unless you had already been doing a lot of evil acts lately (see 1).

3. (Optional) Tell your GM to stop pulling railroading, control freak bullcrap or find a better GM.

Tallis
2007-12-18, 02:08 PM
Only if the DM gave you a in-character way to know that he was no longer threat.

For instance, as you are charging you notice that hes drooling, one eye has gone white and the other eye is drifting in a weird direction...

Of course he may have already looked like that...

The question isn't whether he was evil or neutral. The question is was he guilty (clearly) and did he pose a continuing threat to innocents (probably). Even if you had a way of establishing his mental capacity in those few seconds the fact is that in a typical D&D world he could be without too much trouble. That constitutes an ongoing threat, assuming his condition was even permanent to begin with.
Killing him was the tactically sound decision. Killing someone who attacked you in the heat of battle isn't murder, it's self defense. Barring psychic powers on your part you had no way of establishing that he wasn't a threat anymore that quickly. Giving him the time to gather his wits and attack again would have risked further harm to the village and your friends. It would have been irresponsible. Yes, you could have just knocked him out instead, but you were under no obligation to.

As far as I can see you did nothing evil. Even if you'd gone through with it it certainly would not have warranted an alignment shift. I would have done it anyway if it were me. I'm playing a character, his actions dictate alignment, not vice versa. If this was enough to switch my alignment to evil then clearly next time I do something vaguely good it should switch right back, problem solved.

Addendum 1: I have a character who has little statuettes he plays with....
then he transforms them into worgs and has them kill people. In a magical world an arcanist playing with statues is not an indication of innocence.

Addendum 2: Since you just knew he had been lobotomized within seconds without even examining him you must have psychic powers. You should use these in the game. Whenever you meet an NPC ask your DM what they are thinking. Remind him that he has already established that you have these powers. Then use their thoughts to gain advantage in combat, negotiations, or to investigate mysteries. If you can't read their minds then they must be using some kind of mind shielding power and are probably hiding something. You should follow them until you find out what it is.
Obviously this is meant to teach the DM a lesson and might put a strain on your relationship, use your best judgement.