Neutral/Evil alignment

[kyoryu]

More generally, bad play is not always equal to toxic play. Shooting someone recklessly is bad both in the sense of being immoral and in the sense of being a tactical error, but it's not something a game of D&D is incapable of handling. It is, in fact, easy to get more game out of the situation by passing the ball to the other players and asking what they want to about Mr. Shooter.

Generally, no.

It crosses the line when it starts to abuse what I generally call the implicit social contract of cooperative RPGs - the one that's basically "we'll work together as a group because that's the group and the game, and in return, you'll try to keep to actions that are mostly compatible with the group and not push those boundaries too far".

You can fix this in one of two ways - either by the character reigning themselves in, or by just declaring that social contract null. It's tricky, because the first usually doesn't happen and the second can lead to additional conflict.

IOW, it becomes toxic when the character does things repeatedly that would cause them to be... dealt with... were it not for that social contract, and relying on it. "It's what my character would do" is almost always a sign that this is occurring. Nobody has to defend actions that the group is okay with using that statement. (It's also amazing just how many people in the world are actually capable of moderating their urges to a great extent).

[Vahnavoi]

Implicit social contract is strictly worse than explicit "either you co-operate in the game or we'll punish you for not co-operating in the game".

This is recursive: small group dynamics between characters are homologous to small group dynamics between players. Characters should be able to remove a character from their group for violating group rules, for the same reason players should be able to remove a player from the game for violating game rules. The explicit threat of removal is what signals that there's a boundary and actual removal is what enforces the boundary.

Avoiding threats and retaliation on the character level does not avoid or solve the conflict, it causes the problem to recur and moves its solution on the player level. Preventing threats and retaliation on the character level forces threats and retaliation on on the player level. A lot of people partially get this, which is why they chant "this is not an IC problem, it's an OOC problem", but fail to get that it's because of their own inability to roleplay making a stand. The first response to "this is what my character would do" should always be "then this is what my character would do in response", since doing things your characters would do is what roleplaying is all about. This goes double for any game like D&D that already is largely about conflict and has a conflict resolution system built into its core.

Ironically, AD&D first edition outright explained both halves of this - both how & why Neutral or Evil characters could co-operate (at least short term) and on the other hand how & why a Good character might fail to co-operate. This included suggestions on proper retaliation. What people missed is that this was under "player advice", specifically telling new players how to make these kind of decisions. Because it is a matter of player strategy, not hard rules that need to be enforced by the dungeon master. It's doubly important because all the players skills required to settle these matters between player characters are then also required to settle matters between player characters and the dungeon master's (non-player) characters WITHOUT devolving into complaining about the referee when things don't go exactly like a player wants.

[gbaji]

What other creatures were in the building/spa/whatever? Did they only talk to the hags, and then immediately go to the room with the elemental and kill it without checking?

What I'm trying to get a handle on here is the consistency of actions/decisions and how that relates to alignment. Were there other creatures in other rooms that they encountered in this adventure, which they also attacked in a similar manner, but which were actually "evil monsters", so there was no alignment effect?

If it had actually been an elemental in the water instead of a naiad, would you have applied an alignment effect?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that what the ranger did *wasn't* chaotic evil (certainly seems like a loose cannon). I'm just pointing out that it should have been so long before this one situation. If this is just "standard operating proceedure", then this one encounter should not have been any more or less siginficant than any other. Flipped around, if the Ranger (well, the entire party perhaps), had just been roaming around, killing anything that's not clearly identified to them as a "good person", and there have been no consequences from you for that behavior this entire time, then you established the "standard" for behavior leading up to this point.

And sure. Maybe there were more minor hints at this earlier (you mentioned firing at some crows previously), and this was more or less the straw that broke the camel's back maybe. Which is fine. And if that's the case, then by all means, let the player happily play his evil character, since that's how he's playing it. Maybe I'm just old school and I'm still a bit confused as to how there are four paladins in the group, but apparently none of them are at all responsible in any way for this crazy ranger guy they are hanging out with. I get that paladin restrictions have become less stringent over time, but still...

[JusticeZero]

By the Four Misfortunes, I hate these threads. Nonetheless, I shall register my position.

I am of the school that alignment is functionally a material property, an approximation that infuses an individual based on utterly arbitrary and gameable factors. As such:

Is such "shoot first without checking" an evil deed?

What is your local/relevant pantheon's position on this? Ethical discussion is ultimately irrelevant, and the alignment functionally has zero effect on the majority of characters. It certainly doesn't affect their roleplay.

Examine the history of the god that decided on the alignment system. Or the function of the alignment system. What purpose does it serve? With those in mind, adjudicate based on those factors alone.

[crimson_witch]

Evil is what the GM decides to be it is in a game. If you clearly communicate this decision to your players, they'll know what to expect. If you don't, they won't know what to expect.

Did you make sure before the game that your players know what is evil in this particular game?