PDA

View Full Version : Dm alignment decisions.



Svethnika
2008-02-18, 04:56 PM
Hey guys,

I'm new to DMing (I just did my second session last night in fact) and I'm trying to decide if I should change the alignment of one of my player's characters. He is supposed to be neutral good but his character is becoming quite a scoundrel. First some background, in my story the PCs all met in a mercenary guild and got a contract to retrieve a relic from a monastery. The place was being attacked by hobgoblins and varags who wanted loot and the relic for their home village which could use the agricultural benefits the relic bestows.

There are three events are making me think that this fighter's alignment might need to change from neutral good. Not so much because they are evil acts but because perhaps they are not really good.

1) While going though one of the buildings the monks sleep in he destroyed a locked chess and took some potions that belonged to the monks.

2) The hobgoblins had held up some children and an elder for questioning and because they didn't fight back. The PCs charge into the room, smashing through the church part of the monastery's windows. The hobgoblins told them not to come closer and told them to get lost or they'd kill the kids(I had wanted to see if they would try to negotiate and see how they reacted) His character told the hobgoblins he'd actually like to join them in torturing the kids (the hobgoblins weren't torturing the kids) This is the real point of contention. That one of the kids got his neck slashed because the guy kept moving forward even though the hobgoblins warned him to back off three times, is a lesser issue.

3) When he knocked out one of the hobgoblins and questioned him he learnt that he was attacking the monastery because his captain had led him there. The hobgoblin begged to have his life sparred but he slashed its neck after he was done with it instead of tying him up.

Like I said. I am not sure if I'd label these acts as evil (except the stealing monk property) but I found the claiming to want to torment children and the slashing of the prisoners neck rather savage. What do you guys think? Does this warrant a shift? I definitely think its borderline.

BRC
2008-02-18, 05:01 PM
I would say that would definetally Warrant a Shift, either to TN or CN or, if he can justify that he was doing all that for the greater good, maybe CG, but I would say CN personally.
However, everytime you start an alginment thread, EE bludgeons a puppy to death with the Book of Exaulted Deeds, please, think of the puppies.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-18, 05:02 PM
1) While going though one of the buildings the monks sleep in he destroyed a locked chess and took some potions that belonged to the monks.

Were the monks still there or had they fled? If the place was deserted it's pretty much standard 'the PC's get the loot' stuff. If not then it's more questionable.


2) The hobgoblins had held up some children and an elder for questioning and because they didn't fight back. The PCs charge into the room, smashing through the church part of the monastery's windows. The hobgoblins told them not to come closer and told them to get lost or they'd kill the kids(I had wanted to see if they would try to negotiate and see how they reacted) His character told the hobgoblins he'd actually like to join them in torturing the kids (the hobgoblins weren't torturing the kids) This is the real point of contention. That one of the kids got his neck slashed because the guy kept moving forward even though the hobgoblins warned him to back off three times, is a lesser issue.

This is a lesser issue? Were diplomacy checks rolled for this? This could be a botched attempt to trick the hobbos or a serious offer. Which one it is matters.


3) When he knocked out one of the hobgoblins and questioned him he learnt that he was attacking the monastery because his captain had led him there. The hobgoblin begged to have his life sparred but he slashed its neck after he was done with it instead of tying him up.

This is an evil act. I wouldn't change his alignment in one fell swoop over it, but I'd remind him that killing an unarmed and defenseless foe that has surrendered is murder.

Altair_the_Vexed
2008-02-18, 05:07 PM
It's not up to the DM to change a character's alignment (unless she's an NPC) - you need to explain to the player why he might want to change alignment, or why he might want to stop doing the non-aligned things.

Alignments are the reflection of character actions and intentions.

1. Stealing stuff is fairly normal in D&D. Just remind the player that his 'good' character knows who owns that stolen stuff, and that it would be 'good' to give it back.
2. a. The player might have been trying to bluff..? If he did badly at bluffing, then that doesn't mean he's not 'good'.
2. b. If he was really wanting to join in with torturing children, then you're right, he's not playing this character as 'good', is he? That's a blatantly evil intent, and he ought to change his alignment to match.
3. Killing or not killing evil helpless prisoners is always tricky. Ask why he decided to do it - was it so they couldn't do more evil, or so he could hear you describe the squirting blood..?

All in all, you need to discuss alignment play with player, not impose alignment changes on them - no matter how justified they might be.

Prometheus
2008-02-18, 05:21 PM
Alignments really only matter when characters consider prestige classes or have particularly restrictive classes. I don't go around stripping clerics, paladins, and monks of their powers though, simply because players can have a hard time roleplaying, especially with regard to the Law v. Chaos alignment.

My suggestion, inform him that he probably isn't acting his alignment, but if a change would cost him, simply warn him.

A lot of players really don't examine the situation the same way you characterize it in your mind. The best remedy for a campaign that clearly defines alignment is to describe everything clearly in terms that lets them see that. Include a photograph album or a locket with the items in the monk's chest for example. Allow the player a bluff check to see whether or not the hobgoblin is legitimately surrendering or just trying to take advantage of your mercy until he can break away or turn against you. Have a moral NPC, that reminds the player that killing the hobgoblin would make him no better than it.

Svethnika
2008-02-20, 08:03 PM
Hey thanks everyone for the replies! I know I may have induced the death of a few puppies somewhere but I really would like some feedback. His character is only a fighter so alignment really doesn't matter too much. I just find his play style rather savage and bloodthirsty and would like his alignment to reflect it. There is a precedent in our group's history of the DM being able to change the alignment of the characters but I will give him some warning. I once was playing a monk and they changed his alignment t chaotic neutral because of the jokes I was making without warning too. It was quite annoying.

I realize that I really need to read up and solidify my understanding of the diplomacy, intimidate, bluff and sense motive rules. I'm new to DMing so I've still got lots to learn. Its proving rewarding but challenging. Thanks a lot again for responding guys! I appreciate it.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-20, 08:18 PM
I once was playing a monk and they changed his alignment t chaotic neutral because of the jokes I was making without warning too. It was quite annoying.

Warning or no warning, that's incredibly stupid.

Lupy
2008-02-20, 08:42 PM
Every time someone makes an alignment thread all the regulars of the forums throw splatbooks at each other, and then I make a comment and get yelled down by all of them.

BRC
2008-02-20, 08:43 PM
Every time someone makes an alignment thread all the regulars of the forums throw splatbooks at each other, and then I make a comment and get yelled down by all of them.
No, EE bludgeons a puppy to death with the BoED. I thought I made that clear already.

EvilElitest
2008-02-20, 11:18 PM
I would say that would definetally Warrant a Shift, either to TN or CN or, if he can justify that he was doing all that for the greater good, maybe CG, but I would say CN personally.
However, everytime you start an alginment thread, EE bludgeons a puppy to death with the Book of Exaulted Deeds, please, think of the puppies.

Oh stop whining, it builds characters. insulting me won't prove your point I just use the WOTC information



No, EE bludgeons a puppy to death with the BoED. I thought I made that clear already.
hey i like puppies. Kittens, oh those bastards



1) While going though one of the buildings the monks sleep in he destroyed a locked chess and took some potions that belonged to the monks.

2) The hobgoblins had held up some children and an elder for questioning and because they didn't fight back. The PCs charge into the room, smashing through the church part of the monastery's windows. The hobgoblins told them not to come closer and told them to get lost or they'd kill the kids(I had wanted to see if they would try to negotiate and see how they reacted) His character told the hobgoblins he'd actually like to join them in torturing the kids (the hobgoblins weren't torturing the kids) This is the real point of contention. That one of the kids got his neck slashed because the guy kept moving forward even though the hobgoblins warned him to back off three times, is a lesser issue.

3) When he knocked out one of the hobgoblins and questioned him he learnt that he was attacking the monastery because his captain had led him there. The hobgoblin begged to have his life sparred but he slashed its neck after he was done with it instead of tying him up.

1) Slightly evil, stealing
2. Really Evil, basically murder of innocents
3. Murder, quite evil.
This guys seems like CE, maybe NE to me. At best you have barely CN

The first might be ok if the monks already left, the second if it was a bluff, he still moved foward and got the kid killed, the last is blatantly evil

And i listen to you Lupy

from
EE

Darkantra
2008-02-20, 11:53 PM
Well, I find that one of the main motivations for choosing alignment is how the player thinks their character will interact with NPCs and how the NPCs choose to react to them. If your player keeps on making choices like that then have the NPCs' opinion of him change drastically.

For example, the next time they come across a plot-critical NPC who knows about their encounters, you could have them mistrust the party's abilities since they did get a child killed. If the monks found about about the raiding they could point-blank refuse to help the thieving PCs outside of what their vows compel them to. Also, the hobgoblins, if they found out about the slaying, can be less than gentle if they ever capture a PC.

You can tell your player that you don't approve of their actions, but if they persist there are definitely actions that you can take that don't impact their precious alignment or xps. That fighter may have the heart of a NG person, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will see that.

Corolinth
2008-02-21, 01:15 AM
1) This is more within the purview of law/chaos than good/evil.
2) He could have been bluffing about wanting to torture the kids, but the blatant disregard for their safety certainly disqualifies him from having a good alignment.
3) I'm sure a lot of people who are about to be executed in a medieval setting will beg for their lives. That doesn't necessarily make execution evil. A neutral good character isn't bound by due process of law. These hobgoblins did just kidnap and threaten to kill children and elderly. They've committed acts that are typically deserving of the death penalty. Killing the hobgoblin was not particularly good, but it hardly represents an indelible stain on the character's soul.

Bear in mind that simply failing to live up to the ideals of the good alignment as espoused in the Book of Exalted Deeds does not necessarily even make one neutral, let alone evil. Sometimes it's impossible to measure up to all of them - that's when we have moral dilemmas. Of the three events you listed, the only one that's problematic by itself is the character's callous disregard for the safety of children and the elderly.

VanBuren
2008-02-21, 02:10 AM
1) This is more within the purview of law/chaos than good/evil.
2) He could have been bluffing about wanting to torture the kids, but the blatant disregard for their safety certainly disqualifies him from having a good alignment.
3) I'm sure a lot of people who are about to be executed in a medieval setting will beg for their lives. That doesn't necessarily make execution evil. A neutral good character isn't bound by due process of law. These hobgoblins did just kidnap and threaten to kill children and elderly. They've committed acts that are typically deserving of the death penalty. Killing the hobgoblin was not particularly good, but it hardly represents an indelible stain on the character's soul.

Bear in mind that simply failing to live up to the ideals of the good alignment as espoused in the Book of Exalted Deeds does not necessarily even make one neutral, let alone evil. Sometimes it's impossible to measure up to all of them - that's when we have moral dilemmas. Of the three events you listed, the only one that's problematic by itself is the character's callous disregard for the safety of children and the elderly.

Thing is, most of the BoED tells you how to be Exalted, not Good. Exalted is the level above Good. It makes Good look Neutral.

EE; Do you want this to come to battle twixt you and I? I mean, kittens may be bastards, but they're magnificent bastards.

Svethnika
2008-02-21, 02:18 AM
Wow, thanks for the continuous feedback. I guess I should give him a warning at the very least. I can't decide if his actions would land him in NN or NC though. If I could peg him somewhere more specific right now he'd be between the two.

PS: (As a long time lurker its very cool to have many of you people respond to my thread, I must admit. Thanks again.)

Tequila Sunrise
2008-02-21, 02:24 AM
It is completely within a DM's purview to change a character's alignment if his actions aren't reflecting what's written on his character sheet. That said, a good DM will warn his players if they start to slip toward another alignment. I'd say this is an appropriate point for you to do just that; I wouldn't change this fighter's alignment immediately but he is definitely slipping towards evil. (I wouldn't worry about the chaos-law axis, as it is less clear and generally less important.)

Superglucose
2008-02-21, 02:31 AM
From what I saw, your alignment should reflect your actions, not the other way around. I think the DMG has guidlines for this... i.e. it doesn't matter HOW LG your paladin says he is, if he's gunning down Celestial children in the streets for his amusement, he's CE, no question.

Switch this guy to CN, and tell him that much more of this will cause him to become Evil. And being Evil DOES make a difference, just ask Miko :smallwink:

Shademan
2008-02-21, 02:42 AM
you should make his actions affect him in more ways than alignement switch.
forexample: the father of the murdered child might hold the fighter responislbe and come after him to take revenge. wouldnt be a problem if the father we're a commoner... but who said he were?
or take the same plot but turn to the hobgoblin! just like the son of the kobold Belkar killed came after him, the son of the Hobgoblin can come after the fighter!
be creative! >8D

SoD
2008-02-21, 04:36 AM
The torturing bit? Definatly one of two options:

1: He wants to make a bluff check.
2: Definatly an evil act, torturing anyone at least puts him at something neuatral (probably chaotic). If this happens consistantly, evil.

With the begging for his life: hobgoblins are usually lawful evil (I think). I know that not all hobgoblins are evil, but these guys were invading a monastary, even doing it under orders, they ain't good. Anyway, I digress. From memory, killing an evil creature is considered a good act in DnD. That is why paladins can continually murder evil creatures without worrying about alignment issues.

Yami
2008-02-21, 05:30 AM
1.) Chaotic - Does not compute.

2.) Nuetral. Talk is talk, and though it can dip from one relm to another, often the PC's are just trying to worm thier way closer to stabbing and looting more things, a nuetral act. As for moving closer, what else was he to do? Roll initiative?

3.) Good. Ask any paladin. Your fighter is ridding the world of evil, surrender is irrelevant.

SoD
2008-02-21, 05:32 AM
No need for that, the hobgoblin has a prepared action: if he moves closer, I slit this guys throat.

My party learned about them last session. Only instead of hobgoblins, it was a cultist. And it wasn't a kid, it was a halfling.

Saph
2008-02-21, 05:53 AM
At the risk of endangering some puppies . . .


The hobgoblins told them not to come closer and told them to get lost or they'd kill the kids(I had wanted to see if they would try to negotiate and see how they reacted) His character told the hobgoblins he'd actually like to join them in torturing the kids (the hobgoblins weren't torturing the kids) This is the real point of contention. That one of the kids got his neck slashed...

. . . this would drop him to N pretty much instantly in my book unless there was a very good explanation (and it doesn't sound as if there was). Chaotic Neutral sounds plausible, too.

Good to Neutral alignment shifts are the most common kind in my experience, for exactly the reason you describe; a player makes a character, writes 'Good' on the character sheet, and then acts nothing like it.

The way I deal with these situations is not to call it an alignment shift at all; the character was always Neutral, the player just assessed his alignment wrong. It happens, no big deal.

- Saph

Kioran
2008-02-21, 06:31 AM
I´m pretty much with most other people here in my assessment: a stern warning is in order, if behaviour like that is consistent drop him to CN, or if it becomes more pronounced, CE. A step-by-step analysis:

1) Stealing the potions? Could be made out of necessity. If the player returns unused potions or recompensates the monks, or if the inhabitants have left the monastery, it´s neutral and has no impact on alignment. If the monks still inhabit the monastery, and there was no attempt to return the potions, it was strongly chaotic. Not evil, but C. With a big C.

2) Evil. What´s more, it´s chaotic, mindless and unnecessary evil. Unless he has a very good reason or it was a bluff, it´s Evil, and one of my characters would have gotten the boot to CN. Well, ask him what that was about and warn him off.

3) Depending on the reasons, this can be a lot of different things. At best neutral, since you´ve eliminated a potential threat (self defense is neutral, not good, which is why Paladins can do it - they do not fall for it, however, it doesn´t gain them bonus points for their club-good membership). It could be Vigilante Justice (LN if according to some consistent principle, but more likely CN). It could be vengeance or sadism (NE - CE).

All in all, I´d say the character is, realistically CN with Eebil tendencies - I´d inform the player of that assessment, and next session, I´d let him have it. Not like he´d lose class features over it....

Rutee
2008-02-21, 06:43 AM
I would say that would definetally Warrant a Shift, either to TN or CN or, if he can justify that he was doing all that for the greater good, maybe CG, but I would say CN personally.
However, everytime you start an alginment thread, EE bludgeons a puppy to death with the Book of Exaulted Deeds, please, think of the puppies.

"The puppies will not have died in vein!" (http://thefreedomstone.com/index.php?s=27)

Anyway yeah, another vote for "Neutral or CN". Very possible with NE leanings, if he wasn't bluffing when he said he liked torturing kids.

Name_Here
2008-02-21, 08:01 AM
Nothing here that raises to the level of an alignment shift. Maybe a talking to about what you believe he isn't acting in a neutral good manner. But really there is nothing here that warrants even a switch to any kind of neutral.

1. Unless this was the sole supply of cure disease potions for the country it isn't any kind of act. Isn't good because well it isn't they're stuff, Isn't evil because they are denying the equipment to the Hobgoblins in taking the potions and it isn't Neutral because there is no nuetrality if there isn't also a good and evil act. If your players breaking into abandoned chests in enemy held territory bothers you greatly stop putting abandoned chests in enemy controlled territory unless you make it more obvious that you didn't put the chest there for them to open and take.

2. Come on people this is a good act. He was trying to get close enough to the hobgoblins to save the kids. He did it in a terribly ineffective way but alignment is about his actions not how effective he is in completing them. I guess to some people (idiots) it is conceivable that the fighter was willing to have to kill his party, get exiled from his country and have to live with Hobgoblins in order to torture a few kids but let's face it that's not going to be a players choice. Well unless he wants to break your campaign. At which point getting into a alignment argument is probably what he wants.

3. Oh boy he didn't tie the child killing Hobgoblin up to be taken to the nearest town to be executed. Honestly what would have happened to the hobgoblin had he taken him back to town? Would the party have had to stay around to give testimony in front of a impartial judge and jury? No the guard would have killed him on the spot! Neutral act at absolute worst.

The guy is acting well within NG guidelines based on your examples which I'm guessing are the most atrocious acts that he has done.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-21, 08:03 AM
"Can I help torturing them?"

'Nuff said. A character who says that even in jest is not good.

Miraqariftsky
2008-02-21, 08:16 AM
I'd say he's a cross between Belkar's malice and Thog's savagery...

Kioran
2008-02-21, 08:27 AM
Nothing here that raises to the level of an alignment shift. Maybe a talking to about what you believe he isn't acting in a neutral good manner. But really there is nothing here that warrants even a switch to any kind of neutral.

1. Unless this was the sole supply of cure disease potions for the country it isn't any kind of act. Isn't good because well it isn't they're stuff, Isn't evil because they are denying the equipment to the Hobgoblins in taking the potions and it isn't Neutral because there is no nuetrality if there isn't also a good and evil act. If your players breaking into abandoned chests in enemy held territory bothers you greatly stop putting abandoned chests in enemy controlled territory unless you make it more obvious that you didn't put the chest there for them to open and take.

2. Come on people this is a good act. He was trying to get close enough to the hobgoblins to save the kids. He did it in a terribly ineffective way but alignment is about his actions not how effective he is in completing them. I guess to some people (idiots) it is conceivable that the fighter was willing to have to kill his party, get exiled from his country and have to live with Hobgoblins in order to torture a few kids but let's face it that's not going to be a players choice. Well unless he wants to break your campaign. At which point getting into a alignment argument is probably what he wants.

3. Oh boy he didn't tie the child killing Hobgoblin up to be taken to the nearest town to be executed. Honestly what would have happened to the hobgoblin had he taken him back to town? Would the party have had to stay around to give testimony in front of a impartial judge and jury? No the guard would have killed him on the spot! Neutral act at absolute worst.

The guy is acting well within NG guidelines based on your examples which I'm guessing are the most atrocious acts that he has done.

Apart from number 2, which is in fact in all assessments, mainly dependent on our preconceived notions, I strongly disagree with you. For one, you disregard the Law/Chaos Axis, and I´m reasonably certain the guy is acting chaotic ("redistribution of assets" is chaotic as long as there is still a viable claim to it. Killing hte Hobgoblin without due process or immediate need is still chaotic regardless of the degree of justification).
Second, all of these actions, apart from the second, which could have been a well-intentioned act, are neutral - not well within neutral good territory, just not evil. Being good requires more than just being less than evil, it requires the occasional conscioud decision towards good.

And even the second action, even if not taken at face value but as an unsuccessful bluff, is not necessarily good if done not to protect innocents first and foremost, but instead to get a shot at killing the Hobgoblin.

I´m sorry, but this sounds to much like "justification logics" (wherein one derives most arguments from the fact that one defines oneself as the "good" side, arguing that actions to help oneself are good, and one is good because one does good acts. It´s circular, and thus flawed).

Name_Here
2008-02-21, 08:47 AM
Apart from number 2, which is in fact in all assessments, mainly dependent on our preconceived notions, I strongly disagree with you. For one, you disregard the Law/Chaos Axis, and I´m reasonably certain the guy is acting chaotic ("redistribution of assets" is chaotic as long as there is still a viable claim to it. Killing hte Hobgoblin without due process or immediate need is still chaotic regardless of the degree of justification).

I didn't go into the Law-Chaos side of the equation because we don't know anything about the monks that lived there. Were they all wiped out defending the holy relic or did some get away? Seeing as how this was a holy relic I doubt any didn't die defending it and if they did flee it was because they gave up their vows and thus don't have a claim to the potions. Besides it's also true that the Hobgoblin commander would have swept the place and grabbed the potions after his work was done so by grabbing them he kept resources away from the enemy.

and as for the killing of the hobgoblin unless it goes against some sort of code of honor that he has no it isn't. The Hobgoblin isn't entitled to any kind of defense under the law and if they took him into town t is likely to set off a riot causing massive damage.


Second, all of these actions, apart from the second, which could have been a well-intentioned act, are neutral - not well within neutral good territory, just not evil. Being good requires more than just being less than evil, it requires the occasional conscioud decision towards good.

And even the second action, even if not taken at face value but as an unsuccessful bluff, is not necessarily good if done not to protect innocents first and foremost, but instead to get a shot at killing the Hobgoblin.

If he wanted to get close enough to kill the hobgoblins he would have charged in there singing the praises of his war-god or whatever he calls out when going into battle. The only reason that he bluffed was because he was trying to keep the kids alive. The fact that it's an idiotic way of going about calming the situation is par for the course with PCs, But he did put himself in harms way trying to save the kids when he could have charged right away dooming the kid while making sure his own hide is intact.

CheshireCatAW
2008-02-21, 09:30 AM
I didn't go into the Law-Chaos side of the equation because we don't know anything about the monks that lived there. Were they all wiped out defending the holy relic or did some get away? Seeing as how this was a holy relic I doubt any didn't die defending it and if they did flee it was because they gave up their vows and thus don't have a claim to the potions. Besides it's also true that the Hobgoblin commander would have swept the place and grabbed the potions after his work was done so by grabbing them he kept resources away from the enemy.

Almost your entire argument is supposition. The truth is we don't know what or where the Monks are. They could be on a field trip to Sweden for chocolates. Meditating on the mountaintop. The options are not limited to "Died preserving the relic" or "broken their vows and ran".


If he wanted to get close enough to kill the hobgoblins he would have charged in there singing the praises of his war-god or whatever he calls out when going into battle. The only reason that he bluffed was because he was trying to keep the kids alive. The fact that it's an idiotic way of going about calming the situation is par for the course with PCs, But he did put himself in harms way trying to save the kids when he could have charged right away dooming the kid while making sure his own hide is intact.

Again, we're running on supposition here. Perhaps he is a low wisdom fighter. But shouldn't he have demured to let maybe another PC take the goblin out? Maybe... one who didn't need to do exactly what the hobgob said would kill the child? Also, we have no evidence that this was a bluff. Partially due to the DM's inexperience (no harm intended to you, we were all new DM's once ^_^) and probably partially due to the PC's, we don't have a bluff/sense motive roll.

As for my take on the ramifications...

1. Taking the items from a locked chest in the Monastery is not something I'd worry about too much. It's easily justifiable as "if it comes down to me and the big bad, and this potion could mean the differance between winning and losing, the monks would want me to have it". I would make the monks have mixed feelings about it though. "Well, you pilliaged our stores of healing salves... but you did manage to save the relic, so we're even, I suppose"

In the end, no alignment change.

2. Two possible explanations: The fighter is truely stupid and didn't think the hobgoblin would kill the kid (I'm talking IC here, I'm thinking low wis fighter). Or the fighter willingly chose to ignore what the hobgoblin said and put the child's life in jeapordy because he ran on a gut instinct. That screams chaotic to me, running on feelings and not on logic. It might warrent an alignment shift to True Neutral, but it's all in intent. Ask the fighter if he meant to bluff the hobgoblin or if he just "chose to disbelieve"

3. I'd actually consider this a neutral act. Evil Humanoids who have been running amok in a setting where you can't just call 911, have the cops take them to the station and have the state figure out a way to try them, it seems reasonable to dispatch them yourself.

Corolinth
2008-02-21, 12:33 PM
Thing is, most of the BoED tells you how to be Exalted, not Good. Exalted is the level above Good. It makes Good look Neutral.Hence my assertion that failing to measure up to those expectations does not cause one to become neutral.

TempusCCK
2008-02-21, 12:51 PM
We do a different thing with our sessions.

The thing is, alignment can be a serious benefit when dealing with spells that are based on alignment. So, one character might want to put "Neutral Good" on his sheet, but act "Chaotic Evil" just so he can ignore the enemy clerics Protection from Evil.

So, in our games (not that we try and break the rules all the time) players don't choose their alignment, whenever an alignment question comes into play, the Dm decides effects accordingly based on the characters previous actions. I mean, alignment is little more than a guideline for people as they go about their characters day, except when it comes into play with certain spells, it's not that much harder for DM's to say "Well, you're being pretty evil lately, so that +2 to Armor Class does effect you." If he doesn't like that, he can clean up his act.

Name_Here
2008-02-21, 09:47 PM
Almost your entire argument is supposition. The truth is we don't know what or where the Monks are. They could be on a field trip to Sweden for chocolates. Meditating on the mountaintop. The options are not limited to "Died preserving the relic" or "broken their vows and ran".

It is all supposition but I think it holds up pretty well.

Course I don't think that the players ever even thought of it as some kind of moral decision. Probably more along the lines of "The DM wouldn't have mentioned the locked chest if we weren't supposed to raid it." There are certain PC behaviors that always go that way.


Again, we're running on supposition here. Perhaps he is a low wisdom fighter. But shouldn't he have demured to let maybe another PC take the goblin out?

Not argueing that he shouldn't have done so. "I want to torture the human children with you" isn't the most convincing bluff in the world. But it probaly seemed like a good idea at the time.


Maybe... one who didn't need to do exactly what the hobgob said would kill the child? Also, we have no evidence that this was a bluff. Partially due to the DM's inexperience (no harm intended to you, we were all new DM's once ^_^) and probably partially due to the PC's, we don't have a bluff/sense motive roll.

If it wasn't a bluff and the player was actually going to join in the wanton torture of the prisoners it wouldn't be because he really thought that was what the character would do it was because he wanted to burn the campaign to the ground and relieve himself on the still warm ashes all the while laughing like some sort of evil genius. Because there is no way out of a defection like that without the player fighting his former allies. And if that's true the DM has much much bigger problems on his hand then an alignment issue. It's possible that he really did want his NG fighter to join the Hobgoblin warband to torture a few kids, It's also possible that my dog talks but only when I'm not around.

But don't pretend that the dog talking theory needs absolute proof to be discarded.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 09:53 PM
Thing is, most of the BoED tells you how to be Exalted, not Good. Exalted is the level above Good. It makes Good look Neutral.

EE; Do you want this to come to battle twixt you and I? I mean, kittens may be bastards, but they're magnificent bastards.

The BoED tells you have to be good, Exalted is just good that never commits evil (like paladins)

Kittens are more like Smug Snakes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SmugSnake)
from
EE