Does my character deserve an alignment change?

[Nero24200]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What is your base alignment?

[Hallavast]

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]

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]

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]

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 and what's more will never be a threat again and is no-longer responsible for his prior actions due to mental incapacity .
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I would say that...no. You don't know it was non-evil.

[ALOR]

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