Alignment Question

[Pendragonx]

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

People: DM, myself, and player #2

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

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

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

[Cubey]

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

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

[MeklorIlavator]

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

[cody.burton]

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

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

[ALOR]

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

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

[Saint George]

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

[Cubey]

It's definitely a Chaotic act

Why Chaotic?

[rollfrenzy]

Why Chaotic?

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

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

[Pendragonx]

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

[rollfrenzy]

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

How would you describe nuetral?

[Cubey]

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

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

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

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

EDIT: On-topic stuff!

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

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

[Person_Man]

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

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

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

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

[Pendragonx]

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

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

[Cubey]

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

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

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

[Person_Man]

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

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

[SilverClawShift]

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

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

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

[Runolfr]

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

People: DM, myself, and player #2

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

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

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

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

[SilverClawShift]

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

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

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

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

[Tengu]

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

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

[Runolfr]

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

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

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

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

[Nevar]

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

[tainsouvra]

Personally, I wouldn't say that having a temper problem is EVIL. Evil is malicious, spiteful, and venomous. If someone screams in your ear and you turn and punch them in the face, you weren't being Evil.

1) "Wrath" is a deadly sin for a reason.

Spoiler

Show

Wrath may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengence are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy).

Being angry is one thing, and not a good thing, but using lethal force over an insult is a pretty textbook "path to evil".

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

[draca]

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

Evil.

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

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

[Pendragonx]

thanks for all the replies, folks. Quite enlightening.

[puppyavenger]

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

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

CE

[horseboy]

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

[NerfTW]

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

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

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

[tainsouvra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Diggorian]

My favorite option:

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

Better than the others, and I hate Mulligans.

[Nekoshodan]

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