Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Khaira 02-17-08, 09:44 PM	Hi everyone: I need some advice on changing a players' [characters] alignment. I'm currently running a game (in the FRCS [3.5]) with 6 people or so. The players are traveling as caravan vanguard and so, of course, there's a lot of fighting. The player in question plays an wood elf barbarian who is Chaotic Neutral. In my last campaign session, he engaged in some actions that seemed, to me, to venture very close to the Evil line. Slightly graphic descriptions follow He first took a belt of scalps (containing human, gnome, and a handful of savage species') from an orc, and took the orcs' scalp (as well as the belt) for a trophy. A second orc he thouroughly disemboweled (after it was dead), threw the limbs into surrounding trees, speared the head, stuck the head into the ground, and then bathed in the blood of the orc. He chopped the fingers of a third orc, and made a necklace out of the fingers. I did warn the player that he was treading very, very close to turning evil; however, the player claimed that he was Chaotic Neutral, and thus slightly half-crazed, and enjoys battles. I can perhaps slightly - on a stretch - accept the piking of the head, and even, I suppose, the scalping of the orc (although, not taking the scalps from the humans and gnomes...). And, even though it's something of a stretch, I could see a depraved character wearing a necklace of fingers. The bathing in the blood, however, I have some difficulty accepting. Do I demand that he change his alignment if he continues engaging in these types of actions? Or accept it because he's playing a violent character?
Totentanz 02-17-08, 10:05 PM	You, not the player, are the ultimate arbiter of alignment. If you say he has crossed the line, then he is evil. No "demand" about it. Just like you give out xp, the alignment line of the character sheet is your decision. They may set it to begin with, but you decide if it stays that way. When he says "Chaotic Neutral" you say "prove it." That being said, do you feel he was indulging in needlessly violent behavior? Does his tribe have a history of taking trophies? He seems to enjoy gore and desecration of the dead. That might be evil depending on the circumstances. I can see a mature person making a good barbarian who would do some of those things. While ends don't justify the means in DnD, they are informative. Is he simply trying to roleplay a barbarian? You said he took a belt of scalps, perhaps he just thinks he can do what NPC's can do. If what you really want is for him to stop turning every corpse into a playground, you can always apply consequences. The caravan pays him, but word quickly gets around that he is a bit too "messy" for polite company. Town guardsman won't let a blood-covered, body-part festooned, wild man into town. He may not be evil, but soon he attracts the attention of evil people who want to hire him. Maybe his party members don't get hired because employers know who they are bringing, and have no desire to see him indulge in his grotesque rituals.
Neo_Leviathan 02-17-08, 10:05 PM	Oh look, another player uses the "I'm Chaotic Neutral" excuse to do whatever he feels like and ignore alignment consequences. This is why so many DM ban the CN alignment :). Basically, your barbarian has just commited several evil acts. Certainly as a barbarian things like taking scalps from slain enemies, putting heads on pikes as warnings etc are well within his culture set, but things like scattering limbs into the trees and bathing in blood is just going overboard. I'd suggest keeping a little log of things, if he continues to commit such acts then swap him to CE. And dont let him use the "Well yes I slaughtered and tortured that guy, it's evil, but then I gave money to the poor, so it balances out!" argument, which is yet another argument players who want to dodge responsibility use. Either way if he keeps doing things like bathing in blood, have a random commoner spot him and run off, telling the tale of the savage evil elf slaughtering enemies, scattering their limbs and drinking their blood. Eventually a Paladin or three will step in to stop him, whether or not he's 'technicaly evil'. My apologies if this sounds a bit like a rant :) I'm just sick of players using the CN excuse to do whatever they please.
Novabomb 02-17-08, 10:34 PM	Like the previous poster has mentioned, your the dm you decide what qualifies as good and evil in your realm. Just make sure you define what is evil. Personally I would say he has done things that are distasteful, but certainly not evil. He has not caused harm to anyone by collecting his trophies. If he were dismembering them while they were helpless, that is where I would draw the line. Regardless, if you what to call this evil act, you must declare so.
MrGrass 02-17-08, 11:57 PM	I think this comes down to what you think is evil. Some cultures/people may consider it desecration of the dead and thus evil, but others may see it as simply taking trophies from the field of battle. I'd say in and of itself the act is not evil, as it doesn't immediately harm anyone. However there are a few ways it could stray into evil. If the head-on-a-pike routine continues that's delving into intimidating the locals with images/threats of death. So I guess my opinion is the trophy taking is fine so long as he only does it when they're dead. Though warn him that if he tries to use all the actions to scare people he's moving towards evil. And you could always have a Raised npc come back for their scalp.
Vaelan 02-18-08, 12:25 AM	The fact that there is confusion and/or disagreement over what Evil is leads me to believe that you have decided not to use the alignment rules in the PHB without informing your players. While you could certainly change his alignment, I would recommend either reading the alignment section and reallizing that nothing he did is really Evil or codifying your house rules to avoid further confusion.
danielinthewolvesden 02-18-08, 12:52 AM	Here's the right answer: "Steve, why are you having your PC act like that? And please don't say "It's the way my PC would act". Your PC's character is what YOU decide. I don't like this kind of gross-out evil behaviour and I won't tolerate it. So, please moderate your behaviour. Thanks."
CrimsonDeath 02-18-08, 02:45 AM	The fact that there is confusion and/or disagreement over what Evil is leads me to believe that you have decided not to use the alignment rules in the PHB without informing your players. While you could certainly change his alignment, I would recommend either reading the alignment section and reallizing that nothing he did is really Evil or codifying your house rules to avoid further confusion. I understand that, traditionally, desecrating the dead is considered "evil". Claiming small trophies like scalps, ears, or fingers is arguably neutral, as is putting a severed head on a pike as a warning. However, as Neo_Leviathan mentioned, strewing entrails through the treetops and bathing in humanoid blood is overboard. Also, I wonder if you've read the alignment section of the PHB. Evil characters are said to "have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient", and that some tend toward "killing for sport". Someone who bathes in blood is obviously comfortable with killing, and someone who likes to make garlands out of intestines certainly appears to view killing as a game. Furthermore, chaotic evil characters are described as being "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable". I think that describes much of the behavior mentioned in the OP.
AntiDjinn 02-18-08, 03:19 AM	As a DM you never actually change a PC's alignment. The character's actions do that; you just call it what it is.
MergedLoki 02-18-08, 03:33 AM	Everything's in context really. You say he's an elf barbarian, thats fine and all. But the whole fingers for a trophy, scalp collection. While maybe not necesarily evil to Human barbarian tribes or Orc barbarian tribes, these are elves. the rich upper class/social elite/snobbish of the land. Barbarian or not i'm sure other elves would look down on him and consider him outright horrific for his 'trophies' and I agree w/previous posters about the CN argument of 'I can do whatever I want' it's not a carte blanche alingment I've played CN characters and I've tried to play them correctly (as in not being batshit insane). Mostly I've tried to play them somewhat selfish as in 'I'll do thsi quest but whats in it for me?' but also (as we the pc's got to know each others characters) feel a bond of loyalty to the rest of the group etc. etc.
Illithid Tentacles 02-18-08, 03:53 AM	I never got why people are so adamant about the whole "playing with dead things is evil!!!!!!!!!" thing. Just because it's gorss doesn't make it evil. It's disrespectful to the dead, yeah, but just being a disrespectful a-hole isn't evil, it's just being a disrespectful a-hole. Yeah, I agree the player is going overboard with the whole "I scalp him and throw his entrails into the trees and make a necklace form his fingers" thing, but how much real time did it take to do that? A few minutes? Did it seriously disrupt the game? Did it upset the other people at he table beyond "are you done farting around yet?" Seriously, give me ONE good reason that playing with dead things is "evil" besides "it's icky" or "it's disrespectful towards the dead." What constitues disrepsecting the dead is a HEAVILY cultural thing- hell, for a LONG time, some cultures considered burying the dead to rot alone in the cold ground for the rest of eternity to be disrespectful.
Azezel 02-18-08, 06:19 AM	For my money, a character has to do something that harms an actual living person to earn an Evil alignement. I grant, bathing in blood is not something a nice person does - but you're a Dungeon Master, not Father Christmas, you deal in good and evil, not naughty and nice. This character is clearly chaotic neutral, and I would certainly not be surprised to see him slide nto evil - but this incident is not enough to do it.
Loftower 02-18-08, 01:15 PM	I agree with Tentacles and Azezel: abusing the dead is not evil – distasteful and insane, arguably, but not evil in game terms. Abusing the living is evil. (To even argue that scalping is Evil is a slight to real world cultures and probably a CoC violation.) If the Barbarian revels in killing for the sake of it, that’s Evil. If he sometimes commits Evil acts, but balances them with Good acts, that’s a lack of commitment and Neutral according to RAW. (I know that others disagree with this, but in every case that I have reviewed such rulings have been house rules.) I would expect this character’s reputation to become very dark, very quickly. Certainly in my world people will distrust a person wearing body parts, causing various negative reactions. He’d be unwelcome almost anywhere. Personally, I’d just have him meet other CN Barbarians to don’t act like that. If he doesn’t get any “Barbarian cred” for it, he’ll probably quit it.
Tovec 02-18-08, 01:32 PM	Okay, this elf really doesn't like orcs. I agree with Neo_Leviathan, I'm tired of CN being a justification to do whatever the hell you want. It doesn't make sense. Going strictly by the PHB definitions either Everyone would be evil or No One would be. I'd say give him some warnings but when you feel he has earned it, when he is CE, grab his character sheet and change it. Who here thinks bathing in blood isn't evil? I mean its not really hurting anyone but its freaking evil. Just like signing up someone's soul to the 9 hells doesn't "hurt" anyone, its still evil. It is taking joy at the [i]expense[i] of others.
Azezel 02-18-08, 02:20 PM	Who here thinks bathing in blood isn't evil? I mean its not really hurting anyone but its freaking evil. Just like signing up someone's soul to the 9 hells doesn't "hurt" anyone, its still evil. It is taking joy at the [i]expense[i] of others. Well - I'm not going to discus my RL beliefs, CoC or not that's none of your business. In-game, sending someone's soul to the hells is very definitely evil, and it harms them immesurably. 'Hurt' is not a concept that begins and ends with anything so pedestrian as physical pain. Once someone is dead - his sould moves on (where it goes depends on the person and the campaign setting) and the body is just so much fertiliser. It's possible to argue that messing about with the remains would bother the newlydead somewhat, but honestly, the soul has bigger fish to fry right now. Bathing in blood and wearing fingers is yucky, unsanitary and disrespectful, but honestly, it harms no-one. It's not, in and of itself, and evil act. Now - killing someone just so there is some blood and fingers to play with is evil, but I don't think that is the case here.
Roivas 02-18-08, 02:31 PM	I would just change his alignment for him if he continued to act this way. Slightly crazed? Sounds more like a major psychotic disorder of some kind, while in the real world crazy doesn't equal evil I'd certainly say someone bathing in blood would qualify for my personal definition. The player is just using CN as an excuse to do as he pleases, unless his character really really hates orcs he has no reason to be this violent or depraved and even still would most likely qualify as neutral evil at least. Much like a previous poster I too find it distasteful when players use a somewhat poorly written alignment as their excuse to do as they please. They should just play evil and be done with it, the only excuse I've ever heard form such players is that they don't want paladins or clerics coming after them, meaning they don't want consequences for their actions. Kick him to neutral evil and tell him if he wants to be chaotic neutral he'd better prove it first.
Lincoln Hills 02-18-08, 02:34 PM	I don't much enjoy alignment debates, but I do feel that in this case the character's bloodlust is not an Evil action. Desecrating the dead is definitely incompatible with a Good alignment: an unwritten corollary of 'respect for life' is to provide the dead with a modicum of respect, no matter what horrors they may have committed in life. Whereas I can easily picture an evil character doing all the mentioned things. To quote the old sahuagin saying: "Meat is meat." However, mangling a corpse doesn't actually meet any of the prerequisites for an evil deed, unless more fell purposes such as necromancy or sacrifice to an evil entity are involved. (I assume from the original post that these orcs weren't killed in order to become cadaver-toys.) Consider that every PC wearing shiny dragon-scale armor is wearing the skin of a sentient being - swaggering around in it, proud of their grotesque apparel! Should all such PCs suffer alignment degradation?
Zombie_Babies 02-18-08, 02:55 PM	IIRC, a corpse is an object by RAW. Dismantling an object is not evil. That said, this guy really does seem to want to play CE without the stigma of said alignment. What some have suggested- have an NPC kid or whatever see him bathing in the blood of his enemies- is a good way to gauge his path. If he doesn't care at all he probably will turn CE eventually. Another option would be to write in an NPC his character will be interested in. Have the party escort her somewhere and see how he behaves. If he goes back to dancing in entrails (always fun :)) have the NPC become sickened by his presence. May work. May not. Basically you just need to keep watching him because he will probably do something blatantly evil eventually. Once he does, change the sheet. You can play CN, CG or CE. Not Chaotic Stupid.
CrimsonDeath 02-18-08, 04:04 PM	Of course, desecrating a corpse does cause problems if the corpse's owner ever gets Raised (but not Resurrected). But then, if you killed him, you'd probably prefer that he not get Raised at all, so that may be a moot argument.
Azezel 02-18-08, 04:11 PM	Basically you just need to keep watching him because he will probably do something blatantly evil eventually. I agree with this. There's almost no question that this character will step over the evil line eventually, probably soon. But he has not done it yet.
Zombie_Babies 02-18-08, 04:23 PM	Of course, desecrating a corpse does cause problems if the corpse's owner ever gets Raised (but not Resurrected). But then, if you killed him, you'd probably prefer that he not get Raised at all, so that may be a moot argument. Hmm. If someone took my body apart I think I'd be even more ready to hunt them down and kill them after I was raised. Adding insult to injury, and all. Sounds like a plot hook in the making... if the guy doesn't get any crazier with his activities, of course.
Khaira 02-18-08, 04:36 PM	Thank you to everyone who responded; I didn't expect so many responses! :D To the Naysayers who've implied I haven't read the PHB or the alignment section of the PHB: it's not always so cut and dry (thusly why I am posting here)and, secondly, that is the reason why I informed the player that he was treading close to the evil line. As for the character himself ... everytime he's been in a city or town, he has acted as a polite, social individual (albeit, a little sex-crazed ... but that's a story for another time) who is, in all respects, a gallant: does good deeds for everybody, acts according to the law (most of the time...), doesn't get himself thrown into jail (again, most of the time...). In fact, in the previous three sessions we've had, he has done nothing that could be considered extreme. As for his cultural frame of mind goes, he has not alluded to anything pointing to extreme violence, bloodbathing, or evisceration. In fact, as far as his background goes, he was raised by a good family, in the High Forest, led a good life, and decided to go and explore the world. If he had been violent every other time with his character, if being violent was in accordance with his worldview and/or cultural mindset, or if it was a constant behavioral trait, I would not likely be considering the whole 'Is this evil?' Unfortunately, his last course of actions are such a turn-around from what he normally would have done - and what he normally HAS done - that it caused me to wonder, and also caused me reason to warn him that he was drawing close to the evil line. I would like to emphasize the fact that even with his current course of actions, I have not yet stated that he has even crossed or so much as touched the Evil line
Tovec 02-18-08, 04:51 PM	To Azezel: I'll conceid him doing what he did has to depend on his motive. But harm should not be defined by the 'Soul'. Bloodletting is an orcish trait. I'm not going to get into the 'because of his background' bull. I'm just going to point out that bloodletting is an orcish trait. Orcs are CE by default, IIRC, therefore being nutso crazy for no good reason and randomly playing around with a fresh corpse is evil, IN MY GAME. Once again, I'm going to refer you back to my earlier post saying that the DM should outline why something is (or isn't) evil and then if the player continues they get their alignment changed. IIRC, a corpse is an object by RAW. Dismantling an object is not evil. No, you just lost. The alignments are poorly written and don't reflect DM's and player's and pretty much anyone's view on acts Other then the people/person who wrote the alignments. Saying its okay to play around with a dead corpse would, to me, be similar to saying its okay to create undead out of that corpse. Their soul moved on so now its okay for me to make canon fodder for the dragon. And lastly, based on Khaira's comments: If this is out of character tell the player and say that you say these acts seem CE and advise that if kept up you might change the alignment. If he reforms then no problem, he may even start working toward CG, who knows. If he doesn't then change the alignment. I'm guessing one of your main problems is not wanting to have an 'evil' in your party? Been there done that, they aren't any harder to work with then a good.
Crash_00 02-18-08, 04:54 PM	Nothing the character has done that you mentioned is evil. He's being disrespectful to the dead, which is not evil. 1. He took an enemies trophy collection and a trophy from the enemy. I see this as a fairly common practice for a brutal character, which barbarians usually are by nature. Honestly, their is an actual feat for this that doesn't mention anything about being an evil act. 2. So he had a fit with the orcs parts. What did this harm? Again, this doesn't even mean that he has a disrespect for life, just that he has a disrespect for fallen enemies. Honestly this seems about as evil as spitting on their corpse. It doesn't hurt a thing. 3. He made another trophy, end of story. If it were a beholder and he took the eye would you still think it's evil? What if he skinned a dragon to make armor from? Or what if he took the dead orcs nice shiny +1 sword as a trophy? None of these are evil. The problem here doesn't seem to be the player in my opinion but a very narrow view of good and evil. You seem determined to view every single action as either good or evil with no middle ground, but most actions in the game fall into the neutral category. Don't go all Bioware on your characters and have the only choices be jesus-like paragons of good or baby eaters.
Khaira 02-18-08, 05:07 PM	1. He took an enemies trophy collection and a trophy from the enemy. I see this as a fairly common practice for a brutal character, which barbarians usually are by nature. Honestly, their is an actual feat for this that doesn't mention anything about being an evil act. He took an enemies' trophy collection which contained human and gnome scalps. I don't care how you try to contrive or justify it, that's not every neutral to me. 2. So he had a fit with the orcs parts. What did this harm? Again, this doesn't even mean that he has a disrespect for life, just that he has a disrespect for fallen enemies. Honestly this seems about as evil as spitting on their corpse. t doesn't hurt a thing. What is necessary about it? Excessive violence is and always been a sign of depravity. Spitting or kicking the body because it got a couple hits on you... ok. Taking 10-15 extra minutes to elaborately describe precisely how you are chopping, which tendons you are cutting, which directiony ou are tossing them, and that your bleeding the body until it is bone dry so that you can bathe in it is not, by any means, actions definitive of neutrality. 3. He made another trophy, end of story. If it were a beholder and he took the eye would you still think it's evil? What if he skinned a dragon to make armor from? Or what if he took the dead orcs nice shiny +1 sword as a trophy? None of these are evil. Those are decidely different trophies. The problem here doesn't seem to be the player in my opinion but a very narrow view of good and evil. You seem determined to view every single action as either good or evil with no middle ground, but most actions in the game fall into the neutral category. Don't go all Bioware on your characters and have the only choices be jesus-like paragons of good or baby eaters. Have you ever looked at the alignments in the PHB? They ARE cut and dry. As for your claims that they are not evil: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Now, his current certainly don't seem to be following the trend of Neutrality, do they? And it certainly isn't following the trend of good ... but we already knew that. What do you see that's left? Hmm....
Zombie_Babies 02-18-08, 05:10 PM	No, you just lost. The alignments are poorly written and don't reflect DM's and player's and pretty much anyone's view on acts Other then the people/person who wrote the alignments. Saying its okay to play around with a dead corpse would, to me, be similar to saying its okay to create undead out of that corpse. Their soul moved on so now its okay for me to make canon fodder for the dragon. Wait... wha?? I lost? How, again? First off, I didn't know I was competing against anyone or anything. How can you lose by giving advice? Not to mention that none of this rambling nonsense refutes my post in any way. In fact, you tried to disprove my quoting of RAW with a theory from your own game. So the OP (and everyone else) should use your rulings on corpse abuse? What you do in your game is just that- what you do in your own world. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand. None. If all you can come up with to "defeat" my post is some idea you use in game I fail to see how I "lost". Give me a concrete, RAW example and I may change my mind. But beliefs you have exported from your own game do not apply to my post. It's nice that you play that way and there is nothing wrong with it. But I didn't put forth an opinion on your game world. I put forth an example from the RAW. Please argue in this context if you truly want to make me "lose".
AntiDjinn 02-18-08, 05:20 PM	Of course, desecrating a corpse does cause problems if the corpse's owner ever gets Raised (but not Resurrected). But then, if you killed him, you'd probably prefer that he not get Raised at all, so that may be a moot argument. From what I have seen, preventing raising and necromantic monkey business is the main reason PC's will chop up, mutilate, or incinerate bodies. Res and True Res are harder to come by than Raise Dead, so a few rounds of mayhem mean you are less likely to have to face the same later down the road. Does having a reason change the alignment implications? Probably not, it is a selfish/utilitarian reason so it is no more Good than "just because I felt like it." One BBEG my party faced a few adventured back would cut the tongues and/or lower jaws from the bodies of any members of his organization who were killed in service. At first we thought he was just trying to gross us out, or trying to show he has no respect for his own people much less anyone else, but we eventually figured out he had a reason -- to prevent the PCs from using Speak With Dead to learn his plans and the inner workings of his organization. In that case the act would be considered Lawful Evil because the BBEG was LE and acts that furthered his LE agenda would be likewise.
Loftower 02-18-08, 06:24 PM	If you feel the need to define Good and Evil differently than RAW, or if you feel that RAW does not adequately define Good and Evil, by all means house rule alignment. Please write down your house rules and present them to your players before they take effect. If I were the player in question I would be very disappointed with a DM that told me my actions were Evil, when that is not the case, or at least not clearly the case, based on RAW. Taking no more evidence than the debate on this thread, the actions are not clearly Evil. (Please don’t misread. I did not write “clearly not Evil,” which would have a different meaning.) Since the character’s actions are open to significant debate, I feel that it would be unfair to punish this character for this action. Khaira, Yes, I would say that his actions do tend toward neutrality. Has he shown a lack of respect for innocent life? Were the orcs innocent? In the paragraph following the ones that you quoted, it says, “Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other,” which is consistent with the actions of this character as you have presented them. Sometimes he does good deeds; sometimes his deeds are less good. Did you warn him when he made sacrifices for the sake of others that his alignment might slip to CG? Occasionally performing Good acts does not instantly shift an alignment to Good; occasionally performing Evil acts does not instantly shift an alignment to Evil. If my post seemed to imply that you hadn’t read the alignment section, I apologize. That was not my intent. The reason that I made (and continue to make) a strong distinction between RAW and a house-ruled alignment is because so many DMs don’t like the alignments as defined in RAW. Some who have posted on this thread openly state that they don’t follow the RAW and claim that other DMs are wrong so to do. I am simply attempting to make clear that I am interpreting RAW as I read it, not as I think it should be.
Rood_Inverse 02-18-08, 06:55 PM	Khaira -- Does this player have an account here? Might be helpful to get the other side of the story?
Khaira 02-18-08, 06:57 PM	Firstly, someone please clarify for me what 'RAW' is an acronym for? ;) I'm guessing, judging from the context, that it's something about the content of the three, core books??? Onto the issue at hand... With the exception of statistics (a la, requirements for PrC's and PC classes)and as a guideline for properly roleplaying a character, I usually don't use alignments too much, usually. I can understand both sides of what folks are saying - that engaging in overkill violence is not necessarily evil on the one side and that such overkill on violence is usually only the domain of truly depraved (read: Evil, of some type). I can see it not being because, as I've said, the alignments aren't always cut & dry. Case in point in my mind is the Gutbuster Brigade of Mithral Hall, of the Forgotten Realms Setting. Some individuals - and more specifically, the leader - go into a frenzy when they go into battle and grapple their opponents, resulting in, yes, flying limbs and blood. They are not evil ... just barbarians. On the other side, why I am/was/am still considering it leaning towards the evil side is because I've considered the facts of the character: He accomplished the flying limbs, bathing in blood, and later, the burning of the blood after he was out of rage (of course) He has not formerly shown violence, of any nature, outside of battle His upbringing and/or social profile (at least, what he has recorded on paper) does indicate a violent individual He referred to Chaotic Neutral as the "Insane" alignment [even after I and the rest of the group reminded him that was 2nd edition, and the 3rd edition Chaotic Neutral The last point there is what concerns me more, because it suggests to me two things: The player thinks or assumes or has decided that he can use his Chaotic Neutral alignment for being bloody, brutal, and outright gross. *and* That the player will use his Chaotic Neutral alignment (aka insanity) as an excuse for anything. At this point, given the present actions, reactions, and the main player's actions, I had already decided that I was not going to turn him immediately evil. A character just suddenly becoming violent - when he has not ever been so before - indicates to me a change of heart of something. Now whether that's a darker side of Neutrality (since Neutral folks aren't *supposed* to be Good or Evil, more or less),a sign of crossing to the formidable Dark Side ;), or just a player embracing his characters' Barbarian style, I can't say for sure...given all the opinions and advice so far. :) I think I might wait and see what the character does, however, and see where that goes. I might even consider staging something with a valuable NPC. One thing is for sure, though ... word's going to get around for his bloody'ness, since the caravan they're working for currently is a Harper-sponsored one. ;)
Khaira 02-18-08, 06:58 PM	Player does not have an account here, I'm afraid. :(
Loftower 02-18-08, 07:56 PM	When I use “RAW” I mean Rules As Written.
CrimsonDeath 02-18-08, 08:14 PM	From what I have seen, preventing raising and necromantic monkey business is the main reason PC's will chop up, mutilate, or incinerate bodies. Res and True Res are harder to come by than Raise Dead, so a few rounds of mayhem mean you are less likely to have to face the same later down the road. Does having a reason change the alignment implications? Probably not, it is a selfish/utilitarian reason so it is no more Good than "just because I felt like it." On the other hand, cremation is a valid funerary practice and is just as efficient a means of preventing the use of Raise Dead or Animate Dead.
Tovec 02-18-08, 08:52 PM	I can see it not being because, as I've said, the alignments aren't always cut & dry. Case in point in my mind is the Gutbuster Brigade of Mithral Hall, of the Forgotten Realms Setting. Some individuals - and more specifically, the leader - go into a frenzy when they go into battle and grapple their opponents, resulting in, yes, flying limbs and blood. They are not evil ... just barbarians. Those barbarians are removing arms as a means to an end. They are not purposely removing them from a dead body and throwing them in the woods. If they are doing so they are doing it in the rage and less accountable. If the elf does it he is quite cool and calm about it. CN is not, I repeat, IS NOT an excuse to do Whatever you want Whenever you want. It is not insanity (in recent versions). A CN is NOT as likely to jump off the bridge as cross it. As I have said and as I keep saying, talk to the player, explain your point of view. Warn what will happen if they continue with this behaviour and then move on from there. To Zombie_Babies: You lost by stating that according to the rules bodies are objects. That has no relevance on the morality of the issue. It was meant to be a half-joke. No need to take it so hard. You weren't competing but you still lost.
Khaira 02-18-08, 09:08 PM	I also failed to mention that those barbarians wear spiked armour and use Improved Grapple. :) Also, I did explain my point of view to the player. The conversation, more or less, went as so: Me (DM): "Why are you chopping the limbs off?" Player: "Because it hit me for 3 damage." (That one actually did) *5 minutes later* Player: "I'm going to take the belt of scalps." Me (DM): "The entire belt? The human and gnome heads, too?" Player: "Yeah, why not? They're just heads" Player: "Also, I'm going to bleed the orc." Me (DM): "Just to let you know, those actions will be frowned upon. And if you continue to take it exceedingly further than you are currently, you will be facing consequences, the most likely of those being an alignment change, probably towards some type of evil." Player: "But ... I'm Chaotic Neutral." Me (DM): "And...?" Player: "...that means I'm half-insane. I have to act half-insane" Me (DM): "No. That's 2nd edition. In any case, alignments are not a Catch-22. They are meant to be a guide to play your character, not a strait jacket." Player: "Oh." Me (DM): "Do you still want to proceed with your character's previous actions?" Player: "Yes." There you have it.
LordTarmos 02-18-08, 10:03 PM	I grant, bathing in blood is not something a nice person does - but you're a Dungeon Master, not Father Christmas, you deal in good and evil, not naughty and nice. Actually this was something practiced in the dark ages by many noble families (mostly females) to lessen the aging effects to there skin. I mean just look into celtic rituals of those times after a battle they would eat brains of fallen enemy generals and drink the blood of there own fallen comrades for strength these things in barbaric cultures were actually quite normal for there people On to subject as he is a barabarian, his tribe may follow such customs and as such would not be considered evil acts. Chaotic neutral however does not mean he is necessarily half insane he must have areason for what he does like, his people believe that they gain strength from frrom fallen dead b drinking there blood. sorry, but while gross these acts may be not considered evil. Now if he was doing it to say children he had killed the killing of innocent children would be evil. On the other hand bathing in there blood to solidify an oath to avenge the children would nt be evil.
AntiDjinn 02-18-08, 10:34 PM	Actually this was something practiced in the dark ages by many noble families (mostly females) to lessen the aging effects to there skin. Specifically by Elizabeth Bathory http://hjem.get2net.dk.the_cellar/bathory.hjm a sadistic mass-murderess. Incidentally, the origin of the word "bath". It wasn't exactly a common practice among noble families; she was put on trial for this. You would be hard pressed to find examples of this practice among those who were regarded as saints, or even those who were just considered to be eccentric.
Khaira 02-18-08, 10:41 PM	Fortunately, this is not the Dark Ages. I am intrigued how one would classify Ms. Elizabeth, however, who is a more concrete point of philosophical debate. Is she Good? Neutral? Evil?
ToastedAmphibian 02-18-08, 10:54 PM	He took an enemies' trophy collection which contained human and gnome scalps. I don't care how you try to contrive or justify it, that's not every neutral to me. Ok, if this act was good or evil, frankly i dont really care. However, i dont see what this quote has to do with anything! So the scalps are from gnomes and humans? So what? Its not like they are bloody celestials, and even if they where solar scalps? Many species of dragons are nearly as potent forces of good. The only reason you seem to care that they are from humans or gnomes is because YOUR human. Thats alot like saying its more evil to scalp a german than to scalp a frenchman because your french. Its not even like the barbarian in question IS a human or gnome. Hes an ELF, so he shouldnt even have any kind of racial empathy towards humans or gnomes.
AntiDjinn 02-18-08, 11:08 PM	I am intrigued how one would classify Ms. Elizabeth, however, who is a more concrete point of philosophical debate. Is she Good? Neutral? Evil? Probably Neutral Evil, though technically, "completely loco" falls off the alignment scale. Examination of records shows she probably suffered from some type of dementia, so how responsible she was for her actions can be a subject of debate.
Khaira 02-18-08, 11:22 PM	Ok, if this act was good or evil, frankly i dont really care. However, i dont see what this quote has to do with anything! So the scalps are from gnomes and humans? So what? Its not like they are bloody celestials, and even if they where solar scalps? Many species of dragons are nearly as potent forces of good. The only reason you seem to care that they are from humans or gnomes is because YOUR human. Thats alot like saying its more evil to scalp a german than to scalp a frenchman because your french. Its not even like the barbarian in question IS a human or gnome. Hes an ELF, so he shouldnt even have any kind of racial empathy towards humans or gnomes. The barbarian also isn't passing through the Plane of Celestia with celestial scalps; he is, however, passing through human lands, carrying a significant number of human scalps. And, in fact, he should have racial empathy to the humans since he's TRAVELING WITH TWO OF THEM and also because he's been LIVING AROUND THEM FOR A LARGE MAJORITY OF HIS LIFE. Did you bother to think before writing that post?
Zombie_Babies 02-19-08, 09:39 AM	Those barbarians are removing arms as a means to an end. They are not purposely removing them from a dead body and throwing them in the woods. If they are doing so they are doing it in the rage and less accountable. If the elf does it he is quite cool and calm about it. CN is not, I repeat, IS NOT an excuse to do Whatever you want Whenever you want. It is not insanity (in recent versions). A CN is NOT as likely to jump off the bridge as cross it. As I have said and as I keep saying, talk to the player, explain your point of view. Warn what will happen if they continue with this behaviour and then move on from there. To Zombie_Babies: You lost by stating that according to the rules bodies are objects. That has no relevance on the morality of the issue. It was meant to be a half-joke. No need to take it so hard. You weren't competing but you still lost. Three points: First, to the reply not directed at me. The Gutbusters should be considered to be evil by your logic. They are removing limbs from living beings. Is that somehow less evil than chopping up a corpse? Second, to the response directed at me. I disagree. The relevance to morality should be obvious. An object cannot be good or evil. Tearing one up cannot be described as good or evil, either. Tell me, how would you feel about someone Sundering a Holy Avenger? That sword (an object) has more "good" in it from it's Holy enchantment than a corpse (also an object) does. If a CN character sunders a Holy Avenger, is it an evil act? An object is an object, by RAW. The relevance to the morality of the question is that morality has no place in the discussion. Objects are objects. Third, to the OP. It looks like you have the situation under control and are taking a rational approach to the situation. By waiting to see if the character goes over the edge, you are giving him a chance to develop. That's always the best plan. Plus, you can always change his alignment if he gets into worse actions. You know. Like ones that are actually evil. :) And, judging by your posted conversation, you will be doing this sometime in the near future. CN is not insanity, as you explained, and it seems he does not believe you. Too bad it's your world. For him, that is.
Khaira 02-19-08, 03:29 PM	The Gutbusters are doing it while in rage, while in the heat of battle. They are not doing while they are perfectly calm, after battle, just "because I'm Chaotic Neutral".
Zombie_Babies 02-19-08, 03:44 PM	The Gutbusters are doing it while in rage, while in the heat of battle. They are not doing while they are perfectly calm, after battle, just "because I'm Chaotic Neutral". So it's ok if a Paladin gets enraged and dismembers the guy he is fighting then, right? If it's ok for them, why not everyone else? And how does being enraged make violently slaughtering a living being less evil than taking a finger from a dead (and pain free) body? Stating he does it because he is CN is wrong, of course. But it doesn't make him evil. After the battle he is dismantling an object. An object has no feelings, no pain, no alignment, no soul. You cannot make an alignment assessment from what someone does to an object. Put your personal beliefs aside and consider how the D&D world works. There is no precedent here for stating trophy taking and dismemberment are evil. Though the player in question is using flawed reasoning (i.e: I am CN so I can), he is still right to assume it is not an evil act. The only time this is evil is when it is done intentionally to a living being (not a corpse and not as an incidental part of battle) or if the player kills NPCs for the sole purpose of dismantling them. He is not. I am stating this opinion from the perspective of RAW. If you feel like houseruling that it is evil, that's fine. I am just trying to show you that there is no rules based reason to do so.
CrimsonDeath 02-19-08, 05:11 PM	The only reason you seem to care that they are from humans or gnomes is because YOUR human. Thats alot like saying its more evil to scalp a german than to scalp a frenchman because your french. Its not even like the barbarian in question IS a human or gnome. Hes an ELF, so he shouldnt even have any kind of racial empathy towards humans or gnomes. It's more like saying that it's more evil to scalp a Frenchman than a French poodle, because the Frenchman is human. Elves, Gnomes, and Humans are all the same creature type-- Humanoid. Of course, by this logic, scalping a Gnome isn't any more evil than scalping an Orc. Second, to the response directed at me. I disagree. The relevance to morality should be obvious. An object cannot be good or evil. Tearing one up cannot be described as good or evil, either. Tell me, how would you feel about someone Sundering a Holy Avenger? That sword (an object) has more "good" in it from it's Holy enchantment than a corpse (also an object) does. If a CN character sunders a Holy Avenger, is it an evil act? An object is an object, by RAW. The relevance to the morality of the question is that morality has no place in the discussion. Objects are objects. Sundering a Holy weapon is an evil act, because you are removing "good" magic from the world (just as sundering an Unholy weapon is a good act, and sundering an Anarchic weapon is a lawful act). Yes, a corpse and a sword are both objects, but not all objects are morally equivalent (just as not all creatures are morally equivalent). Desecrating a corpse implies disrespect for the owner of that corpse, and, by extension, both living and dead creatures in general. (And as my sister said during her first year of medical school, if you think a corpse is "just meat", try dissecting a cadaver. And my apologies if you actually have dissected a cadaver and still feel that way.)
Zombie_Babies 02-19-08, 05:17 PM	Yes, a corpse and a sword are both objects, but not all objects are morally equivalent (just as not all creatures are morally equivalent). Desecrating a corpse implies disrespect for the owner of that corpse, and, by extension, both living and dead creatures in general. (And as my sister said during her first year of medical school, if you think a corpse is "just meat", try dissecting a cadaver. And my apologies if you actually have dissected a cadaver and still feel that way.) Ok. But isn't killing a sentient being evil in the first place then? Should all characters who wish to remain non-evil only take prisoners? I just can't see how the killing of the Orc (or whatever) was OK but chopping him into bits isn't. We have to draw the line somewhere or the PCs will not be able to adventure anymore. And killing is more "evil" than desecrating a corpse. How that is being overlooked I cannot fathom. I'm not saying he is good. Just not evil. Look at it like this. You are saying that in the context of combat it is OK to chop up a living, breathing enemy with my sword. Once he goes down and his soul departs, however, it is suddenly forbidden that I chop his lifeless body. How does that make any sense at all? Unless, of course, you are of the mind that non-evil PCs should only be doing subdual damage and should never take a life. If not, you are somehow placing a greater value on a lifeless corpse than a body with a soul in it. Nonsensical, IMHO.
Crash_00 02-19-08, 05:56 PM	He took an enemies' trophy collection which contained human and gnome scalps. I don't care how you try to contrive or justify it, that's not every neutral to me. Why? You havn't given a single reason why it's not neutral, you state it isn't then throw up the alignment rules that don't support your claim as if they do. The only reason for your claim seems to be that you think gnomes and humans are more civilized than orcs are. So is skinning good orcs ok but evil gnomes evil? You're being very inconsistent here. Orcs are humanoids too, so if scalping a humanoid is evil, scalping orcs should be just as bad as scalping orcs and humans. Also, where he is in the land does not matter to what alignment his actions are, it just determines peoples reactions to those actions. The entire thought of scalping being evil is rediculous though, does that make all those native american tribes that practiced the act baby microwavers suddenly? What is necessary about it? Excessive violence is and always been a sign of depravity. Spitting or kicking the body because it got a couple hits on you... ok. Taking 10-15 extra minutes to elaborately describe precisely how you are chopping, which tendons you are cutting, which directiony ou are tossing them, and that your bleeding the body until it is bone dry so that you can bathe in it is not, by any means, actions definitive of neutrality. Again, why? Is it hurting anyone else? It does not show a disrespect for life, it shows a disrespect for the fallen and those two things are not the same. To get that point across, a character in a book I read recently was fighting a war against another human tribe. He had no respect for their life murdering the entire tribe, but he made sure they were buried and respected properly. He respected the fallen foes, just not the living ones. The only thing I've managed to get out of your reply is that anything not necessary is inherently evil, which I surely hope is not how you play. Those are decidely different trophies. Beholders are sentient, they can be good, neutral, and evil. Gnomes are sentient, they can be good, neutral, and evil. Humans are sentient, they can be good, neutral, and evil. See a pattern here? Your problem is with taking trophies from humanoids, but you are inconsistent with why it's evil. In reality, if taking the orcs fingers or scalp is evil, then taking a beholders eye or a dragons hide to make armor from is just as evil. Now, his current certainly don't seem to be following the trend of Neutrality, do they? And it certainly isn't following the trend of good ... but we already knew that. What do you see that's left? Hmm.... They don't seem to follow evil either, at least not the actions that you've described. Mutilating bodies is not hurting, killing, or oppressing anyone. If anything they lend toward neutrality as he really can't decide to go one way or the other and is torn between good and evil. The barbarian also isn't passing through the Plane of Celestia with celestial scalps; he is, however, passing through human lands, carrying a significant number of human scalps. And, in fact, he should have racial empathy to the humans since he's TRAVELING WITH TWO OF THEM and also because he's been LIVING AROUND THEM FOR A LARGE MAJORITY OF HIS LIFE. Again, where he is determines reactions to his actions, not the morality of his actions. At least in D&D that is the case. Second, living and travelling with people doesn't mean you care what they think and as a barbarian I honestly don't see why he would care what they think. You're pressing your own reactions to his actions into morality.
Legdiwena 02-19-08, 06:45 PM	The Gutbusters are doing it while in rage, while in the heat of battle. They are not doing while they are perfectly calm, after battle, just "because I'm Chaotic Neutral". They also designed their armor specifically to have this effect. How is that any different than what the elf did?
CrimsonDeath 02-19-08, 08:47 PM	Ok. But isn't killing a sentient being evil in the first place then? Should all characters who wish to remain non-evil only take prisoners? I just can't see how the killing of the Orc (or whatever) was OK but chopping him into bits isn't. We have to draw the line somewhere or the PCs will not be able to adventure anymore. And killing is more "evil" than desecrating a corpse. How that is being overlooked I cannot fathom. I'm not saying he is good. Just not evil. Look at it like this. You are saying that in the context of combat it is OK to chop up a living, breathing enemy with my sword. Once he goes down and his soul departs, however, it is suddenly forbidden that I chop his lifeless body. How does that make any sense at all? Unless, of course, you are of the mind that non-evil PCs should only be doing subdual damage and should never take a life. If not, you are somehow placing a greater value on a lifeless corpse than a body with a soul in it. Nonsensical, IMHO. Self defense. Under ordinary circumstances, it's perfectly acceptable to use lethal force in response to lethal force. If it's equally easy to subdue the enemy instead (as is the case for an unarmed monk, for instance), it is arguably preferable to do so. In any case, once the aggressor surrenders or is incapacitated, the danger is past and further use of force is not necessarily justified. The entire thought of scalping being evil is rediculous though, does that make all those native american tribes that practiced the act baby microwavers suddenly? Actually, the indigenous Americans learned that behavior from the European immigrants. And since the Europeans were, at that time, engaged in a genocidal campaign of territorial expansion...
Khaira 02-20-08, 03:38 AM	Convincing arguments. So if I'm reading correctly, under the circumstances and conditions currently, he is not engaging in potentially evil acts by scalping, mutilating, or bathing in the blood of his enemies? I guess I had equated 'socially acceptable' with venturing close to evil (certainly, for the average adventurer, scalping and bathing in blood isn't a normal action. ;)). Perhaps in the regard, then, I was wrong. And, for the record, I thought/still slightly think of any scalping as rather grotesquely evil. Although I'm not sure how I'm going to handle the reactions of the townsfolk when he walks into town with a variety of scalps...
Escef 02-20-08, 06:32 AM	As a DM you never actually change a PC's alignment. The character's actions do that; you just call it what it is. As the youngsters say, QFT.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 07:09 AM	From what I have seen, preventing raising and necromantic monkey business is the main reason PC's will chop up, mutilate, or incinerate bodies. Res and True Res are harder to come by than Raise Dead, so a few rounds of mayhem mean you are less likely to have to face the same later down the road. Does having a reason change the alignment implications? Probably not, it is a selfish/utilitarian reason so it is no more Good than "just because I felt like it." It depends on how you look at it. In our local LARP setting, the prevailing cultural practice is to cremate the dead. This is specifically because necromancy exists in the world, and so leaving dead bodies lying around was a bad idea. Conversely, the reason a great many Christian cultures were actively *opposed* to cremation was because it was thought that you would need your body again come the Resurrection. Point being: what is considered an appropriate way to deal with the dead depends very much on your supernatural beliefs about death and the afterlife. You could make a strong argument that - say - dismembering a corpse to prevent it from being raised by black magic *could* be argued to be a Good act - you're trying to prevent this person being turned into an abomination.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 07:16 AM	Self defense. Under ordinary circumstances, it's perfectly acceptable to use lethal force in response to lethal force. If it's equally easy to subdue the enemy instead (as is the case for an unarmed monk, for instance), it is arguably preferable to do so. In any case, once the aggressor surrenders or is incapacitated, the danger is past and further use of force is not necessarily justified. In D&D, self defense is a crock. Firstly, it's trivially easy to subdue enemies, particularly for wizards. Secondly, you're deliberately going into a situation where you expect people to attack you. Frequently you're actually trespassing on these people's homes, and you're doing it heavily armed. If you break into somebody's house with a gun, and they try to brain you with a lamp, so you shoot them "self defense" isn't going to wash in any court in the land.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 07:29 AM	There's actually two issues here. The first one is the IC Alignment issue. Frankly it's unsupportable to say that "mutilating corpses" counts as "hurting oppressing or killing others." It doesn't qualify as "respect for life" either. There are a bunch of acts that don't fall under any particular Alignment, which we have to classify as neutral. Of course, just because something isn't "evil" that doesn't mean that everybody is totally okay with it. The second issue, though, is more important, and that's the OOC issue. If you as a GM and as players aren't comfortable with somebody's gross-out behaviour then tell them. But *don't* dress it up as an IC issue. It is vitally important that you don't mix this up. To be one-true-wayist for a second, there is a RIght Way and a Wrong Way to deal with this sort of thing. Right Way: Have people in character object to his in character actions if you think they should, or talk to him out of character if it's the OOC descriptions that you object to. Wrong Way: Declare that his character has become Evil because he describes his character's actions in a way you don't like, or because his actions aren't acceptable in an IC society to which his character does not belong.
Zombie_Babies 02-20-08, 09:29 AM	Self defense. Under ordinary circumstances, it's perfectly acceptable to use lethal force in response to lethal force. If it's equally easy to subdue the enemy instead (as is the case for an unarmed monk, for instance), it is arguably preferable to do so. In any case, once the aggressor surrenders or is incapacitated, the danger is past and further use of force is not necessarily justified. How is it self defense when you are hunting down an orc? Or an NPC murderer? Not all encounters the PCs face are random monster attacks. The majority are (or should be) planned and coordinated assaults on their enemies. The ones that can claim self defense, in most cases, are the ones the PCs are trying to hack to bits. So I can't agree with this assessment. In a previous post (and it's my fault for not mentioning this earlier) you brought up the fact that you believe that desecrating a corpse shows no respect for the living being it used to be. I can mostly agree with this. Where I disagree is this incorrect assesment that lack of respect = evil. It does not. According to the alignment descriptions posted in this thread a Neutral character, chaotic or otherwise, has no need to respect the living or dead. While it may not be a respectful practice, it is also not an evil one. The only alignment with a clause for the respect for the living is Good. The character in question is CN. He is not breaking alignment with these acts. Tact and taste are not the question. Alignment is. And he is perfectly within his chosen alignment to commit these acts.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 09:34 AM	How is it self defense when you are hunting down an orc? Or an NPC murderer? Not all encounters the PCs face are random monster attacks. The majority are (or should be) planned and coordinated assaults on their enemies. The ones that can claim self defense, in most cases, are the ones the PCs are trying to hack to bits. So I can't agree with this assessment. Well there you're clearly both defending *yourselves* against each *other*.
Zombie_Babies 02-20-08, 09:38 AM	Well there you're clearly both defending *yourselves* against each *other*. IMO, no. I attack you. You defend yourself from my attack. Even if you would have no issue with attacking me if we bumped into each other on the street I still chased you down and forced the conflict.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 09:46 AM	IMO, no. I attack you. You defend yourself from my attack. Even if you would have no issue with attacking me if we bumped into each other on the street I still chased you down and forced the conflict. Sorry, that was a joke (if you scroll up about five posts you'll see a post where I say pretty much exactly what you just said). People always, always, always play the "self defense" card, as if their characters have made every conceivable effort to avoid violence. They never actually do. As I point out earlier, it's like saying "I shot him in self-defence! He attacked me with a poker while I was robbing his house!"
Zombie_Babies 02-20-08, 10:10 AM	Sorry, that was a joke (if you scroll up about five posts you'll see a post where I say pretty much exactly what you just said). People always, always, always play the "self defense" card, as if their characters have made every conceivable effort to avoid violence. They never actually do. As I point out earlier, it's like saying "I shot him in self-defence! He attacked me with a poker while I was robbing his house!" :embarrass OMG. Sorry! Hell, I even read your post and thought it was a great explanation. I just didn't remember the name on the first one. Man. Sometimes I can be such a goober....
Crash_00 02-20-08, 10:29 AM	Actually, the indigenous Americans learned that behavior from the European immigrants. And since the Europeans were, at that time, engaged in a genocidal campaign of territorial expansion... That's one theory, but some believe that they practiced the act well before the Europeans showed up. In reality it doesn't really matter where they got the act from, the assumption that every warrior of these tribes was evil because he skinned peoples scalps doesn't hold up. I guess I had equated 'socially acceptable' with venturing close to evil (certainly, for the average adventurer, scalping and bathing in blood isn't a normal action. ). Perhaps in the regard, then, I was wrong. And, for the record, I thought/still slightly think of any scalping as rather grotesquely evil. It's just skinning the creatures head. That's it. If skinning a dragon is not evil, the skinning a human should not be evil, much less just skinning said humans head. Likewise, if taking a belt of scalps and carrying it with you as a trophy (I'm referring to the one he took off the orc) is evil, then merely wearing a suit of dragonscale armor should be evil.
CrimsonDeath 02-20-08, 12:03 PM	How is it self defense when you are hunting down an orc? Or an NPC murderer? Not all encounters the PCs face are random monster attacks. The majority are (or should be) planned and coordinated assaults on their enemies. The ones that can claim self defense, in most cases, are the ones the PCs are trying to hack to bits. So I can't agree with this assessment. Hunting down a murderer is an actively good act, because you are preventing or punishing evil. As for hunting Orcs... It depends on what they've done. If he's a peaceful Orcish farmer, then it's evil. If he's a murderous, thieving Orcish bandit, then it's good. I hadn't really considered the traditional "dungeon crawl" because my group doesn't usually do those. In a previous post (and it's my fault for not mentioning this earlier) you brought up the fact that you believe that desecrating a corpse shows no respect for the living being it used to be. I can mostly agree with this. Where I disagree is this incorrect assesment that lack of respect = evil. It does not. According to the alignment descriptions posted in this thread a Neutral character, chaotic or otherwise, has no need to respect the living or dead. While it may not be a respectful practice, it is also not an evil one. The only alignment with a clause for the respect for the living is Good. The character in question is CN. He is not breaking alignment with these acts. Tact and taste are not the question. Alignment is. And he is perfectly within his chosen alignment to commit these acts. There's a difference between a lack of respect and active disrespect. If respect is good and a lack of respect is neutral, then it follows that active disrespect is evil.
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 12:08 PM	Hunting down a murderer is an actively good act, because you are preventing or punishing evil. As for hunting Orcs... It depends on what they've done. If he's a peaceful Orcish farmer, then it's evil. If he's a murderous, thieving Orcish bandit, then it's good. But in neither case is it "self defense" which was the original argument. The point is that if you hunt somebody down with the intention of killing them, and they fight back, you can't really say that you're then killing them in "self defense". There's a difference between a lack of respect and active disrespect. If respect is good and a lack of respect is neutral, then it follows that active disrespect is evil. No, it doesn't follow. The rules say what's Good and what's Evil. Disrespect for the dead isn't on the list.
Zombie_Babies 02-20-08, 12:47 PM	Hunting down a murderer is an actively good act, because you are preventing or punishing evil. As for hunting Orcs... It depends on what they've done. If he's a peaceful Orcish farmer, then it's evil. If he's a murderous, thieving Orcish bandit, then it's good. So it's OK to commit pre meditated murder as long as the living being you are actively hunting to kill has killed, too? And what about an Evil character hunting down a murderer for a bounty? Is he now "good"? And you still have done nothing to refute the point that attacking someone/thing makes it impossible for you to claim self defense. If I attack you, I cannot say I defended myself when you respond in kind. I came after you. It was my intention to start conflict. Self defense does not apply. It doesn't matter if you were a farmer or a murderer. Once I start the conflict, I am not defending myself. I am attacking you. I hadn't really considered the traditional "dungeon crawl" because my group doesn't usually do those. I wasn't talking about dungeon crawls either. There are plenty of instances in game where the PCs actively seek conflict. There's a difference between a lack of respect and active disrespect. If respect is good and a lack of respect is neutral, then it follows that active disrespect is evil. So if I spit on a Paladin I am evil? I was actively disrespecting him, no? You can add all the qualifiers you want to the statement. This does not change what they actually say. It is your extrapolation and, again, has no bearing on the RAW. Once again you are allowing a personal belief to influence your opinion in a discussion that was started with the RAW in mind.
Legdiwena 02-20-08, 01:03 PM	And what about an Evil character hunting down a murderer for a bounty? Is he now "good"? I would say it's a neutral act. Evil opposes evil as well as good. If the scalp belt is evil, then so is the Trophy Hunter feat.
Scypio 02-20-08, 03:17 PM	While I don't think that your character performed acts worthy of changing him to evil, I think he does deserve to be punished if he continues because these acts are clearly out of character from what you describe his character normally. I think the problem is that your player made a CN character and I would say his acts in and after combat support it. The problem is that it doesn't sound like he acts particularly CN during the other actions you described. First, make it clear that he needs a reason to perform his acts. If he was raised by barbarian (he was raised in a wealthy, proper family), had a traumatic episode, or even can justify it by a certain philosophy, it would be fine. But the excuse that "I'm CN, I can act proper then act savage" shouldn't fly. On the debate about descrating bodies, I would say it is not inherently good or evil. I would say that it would depend on the character's philosophy. For example, a cleric of WeeJas (any Lawful alignment) sees nothing wrong with animating the dead for their craft. I would say for the most part, being intentionally disrespectful would be a chaotic act instead of being on the good/evil axis. And it would depend on the character to determine what is "disrespect". Again, a cleric of WeeJas wouldn't see animating a lifeless body as disrespectful. But maybe a heroic fighter would take great offense at the same act. I think the important part is that your PC should be able to explain why he does what he does. And I personally would "punish" it by making NPCs not want to interact with him, especially since he seems to want to be a smooth dude.
Khaira 02-20-08, 03:40 PM	The problem is, if I punish the character, I punish the group. Because they are traveling as part of a caravan group and so, the actions of one individual will more or less affect the entire group as well. If I adopt the plan of having other caravan masters be to hire him - even if it's just him alone - that presents the drudgery of splitting up my group ... or just screwing up my party. To-date, the reasons he has given for his sudden turn to violence (remember, he hadn't been this way in any other campaign sessions) was because he taking vengeance on an 'object' (the orc's corpse) and because "I'm Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral means your insane". There were zero IC reasons, even when I explicitly asked "Why are you doing this" (to which I got the "I'm CN" response) So, while turning him towards evil isn't the answer, neither was talking to him OOC. I think I mentioned that in a previous post, but to re-iterate... We did do that - and when I say 'we', I mean us as the group - first by telling him it was a bit over-the-top in his graphic descriptions; then by reminding him that Chaotic Neutral was not, in fact, the "Insane alignment; he decided, after all that (apparently) that he still wanted to be the "Insane"/bloody/savage one. At which point (before I posted this thread, of course) told him he was venturing close to the evil side of things. I'll concede, I may have let the OOC factors influence IC decisions. Because the "If Character is Chaotic Neutral then he can be an apathetic, bloody, murdering, scalping lunatic just because he's Chaotic Neutral" mindset does aggravate me so.
CrimsonDeath 02-20-08, 03:42 PM	But in neither case is it "self defense" which was the original argument. The point is that if you hunt somebody down with the intention of killing them, and they fight back, you can't really say that you're then killing them in "self defense". And you're moving the goalposts. Self defense is an example of a situation in which killing someone isn't necessarily evil. There are, presumably, other situations that also meet that criterion. Do you really want me to list them all? Because I don't have that kind of time, and neither do you. No, it doesn't follow. The rules say what's Good and what's Evil. Disrespect for the dead isn't on the list. Have you ever heard of a logical deduction? The PHB devotes one paragraph to "good" acts, one paragraph to "evil" acts, and two paragraphs to "neutral" acts. It seems obvious to me that these are examples, on the grounds that listing every possible activity and classifying it as "good", "evil", or "neutral" would require more pages than the three core books combined. So it's OK to commit pre meditated murder as long as the living being you are actively hunting to kill has killed, too? Are police officers "evil" when they actively pursue criminals with the intent of bringing them to justice? Are they "evil" if the situation requires them to use lethal force? And what about an Evil character hunting down a murderer for a bounty? Is he now "good"? He's performing a good act for evil reasons. That doesn't make him good, only that particular action. If he spends enough time bounty hunting, isn't unnecessarily cruel to the criminals he faces, and completely stops engaging in evil means of turning a profit, his alignment is likely to eventually change. And you still have done nothing to refute the point that attacking someone/thing makes it impossible for you to claim self defense. That's because the only time I can think of that it would be self-defense would be in a preemptive strike against someone who is known to intend harm to you or someone under your care. To use the example of an armed burglar introduced earlier in the thread, sneaking up on him and hitting him in the back of the head isn't evil because he intends to harm you or infringe upon your rights as a property owner. So if I spit on a Paladin I am evil? I was actively disrespecting him, no? It could be classified as an evil act, but good and neutral people occasionally perform evil acts. It would probably be sufficient to lose Exalted status, but that alone wouldn't require an immediate alignment shift. Particularly if he's a Paladin of the "lawful stupid" variety, in which case the disrespect may be directed at an action or opinion rather than exclusively at a person.
Sunic_Flames 02-20-08, 03:44 PM	Pickle and mayonnaise sandwich. Most people find it disgusting. You're probably ill at ease just hearing it. Despite the fact it is gross, it is neither good nor evil. It just is. Some may be repulsed if you eat that, wondering how you could. But all it amounts to is you have weird tastes. Contrary to what the BoVD would have you believe, gross =/= evil. A corpse is a pickle and mayonnaise sandwich. Discuss.
Zombie_Babies 02-20-08, 04:09 PM	Snip... A lot of conversation that has strayed from my original question to you. Why is it ok to kill someone (self defense or not) but it is not ok to chop up their body? I do not feel that you have answered this yet. We keep running circles around it but still have not touched upon it. Please explain the logic behind this. How is it ok for me to sever the limbs of a living, breathing being in my attempts to kill it but it becomes evil when I do this after my foe is dead? How is stabbing a living being less "evil" than chopping up a corpse? From all I've read, it seems as though you have little problem with the killing aspect (especially if one can use a self defense explanation) but find it definitely evil to desecrate a corpse. Why?
Dan Hemmens 02-20-08, 04:19 PM	And you're moving the goalposts. Self defense is an example of a situation in which killing someone isn't necessarily evil. There are, presumably, other situations that also meet that criterion. Do you really want me to list them all? Because I don't have that kind of time, and neither do you. Self defense, however, is a special case. Self defense is "I kill this guy, because if I don't this guy is going to kill me". There's a lot of other situations - in real life and in fiction - where it can be argued that it's okay to kill somebody. The big issue, though, is that I can think of very few situations where it's okay to *kill* somebody but *not* okay to dismember their corpse. If you're already hunting somebody down with the intent of killing them, I don't see how the manner in which you treat their dead body is either here or there. Have you ever heard of a logical deduction? The PHB devotes one paragraph to "good" acts, one paragraph to "evil" acts, and two paragraphs to "neutral" acts. It seems obvious to me that these are examples, on the grounds that listing every possible activity and classifying it as "good", "evil", or "neutral" would require more pages than the three core books combined. I have indeed heard of logical deduction, as well as logical induction. The PHB says that Good characters respect life. Logically, this implies that a character who does not respect life cannot be good. Nowhere does it imply that a character who shows "disrespect" is evil. Since we're talking about logic, the mistake you are making is: A implies B. Not B implies not A. C implies not A Not B. Therefore C. A good character respects life. A character who does not respect life cannot be good. An evil character cannot be good. Therefore a character who does not respect life is evil. This is incorrect logic.
UAMDB 02-20-08, 05:30 PM	I only read the first page. I care not to read the rest as it seems it is getting into to a debate about alignment. What is evil/good is something that has been debated on this board ever since the board started. The funny thing is I don't think a single person has changed their orginal opinion. The point is it is a waste of time to argue over alignment. Back on point. Your player is bathing in blood, and wearing body parts around if body. Does he have Craft/Profession (Taxidermist) ? If not those body parts are going to decompose rather quickly. Also bathing in blood and wearing decomposing body parts is extremely unhealthy. You could start having him make "random" Fort saves. Have the DC dependant on the amount of body parts around his body, and how often he baths in blood vs baths in water. Do not tell the player why he is making these checks. Also do not have him make it as he is bathing. Maybe have him make checks in battle so it would be harder to put the two together. If he fails have him catch a horrible disease from the blood and body parts. Also those parts are going to start to smell bad in a short amount of time. That will effect NPC's reactions to him. Unless he says that he baths when reaching town, assume that he is still covered in dried blood and decompsing body parts. After a while he will get the point and stop his actions.
Vaelan 02-20-08, 07:49 PM	After a while he will get the point and stop his actions. I like how in one of the rare instances that people actually bother to communicate honestly someone comes along and proposes childish, passive-aggressive behavior.
Crash_00 02-20-08, 08:08 PM	Are police officers "evil" when they actively pursue criminals with the intent of bringing them to justice? Are they "evil" if the situation requires them to use lethal force? No. If they use lethal force when it isn't required then it's evil though. In D&D there are many alternatives to lethal force. Saps, merciful weapons, nets, ect. From your arguments so far, every character in the game would be evil if they've ever killed someone rather than subduing them. Obviously killing a person is showing more disrespect for life than mutilating their body. Apparently everyone that's ever had to disect a body is likewise evil. It could be classified as an evil act, but good and neutral people occasionally perform evil acts. It would probably be sufficient to lose Exalted status, but that alone wouldn't require an immediate alignment shift. Particularly if he's a Paladin of the "lawful stupid" variety, in which case the disrespect may be directed at an action or opinion rather than exclusively at a person. No. Spitting on someone is not an evil act. It does not harm them. It does not show a lack of respect for life. It shows a lack of respect for the person. Chaotic at best, but not evil.
CrimsonDeath 02-20-08, 08:17 PM	A lot of conversation that has strayed from my original question to you. Why is it ok to kill someone (self defense or not) but it is not ok to chop up their body? I do not feel that you have answered this yet. We keep running circles around it but still have not touched upon it. Please explain the logic behind this. How is it ok for me to sever the limbs of a living, breathing being in my attempts to kill it but it becomes evil when I do this after my foe is dead? How is stabbing a living being less "evil" than chopping up a corpse? From all I've read, it seems as though you have little problem with the killing aspect (especially if one can use a self defense explanation) but find it definitely evil to desecrate a corpse. Why? Self defense, however, is a special case. Self defense is "I kill this guy, because if I don't this guy is going to kill me". There's a lot of other situations - in real life and in fiction - where it can be argued that it's okay to kill somebody. The big issue, though, is that I can think of very few situations where it's okay to *kill* somebody but *not* okay to dismember their corpse. If you're already hunting somebody down with the intent of killing them, I don't see how the manner in which you treat their dead body is either here or there. I thought I'd explained it about as well as possible. Perhaps it would help if we had a common frame of reference. What would someone accomplish by mutilating a corpse? I have indeed heard of logical deduction, as well as logical induction. The PHB says that Good characters respect life. Logically, this implies that a character who does not respect life cannot be good. Nowhere does it imply that a character who shows "disrespect" is evil. Since we're talking about logic, the mistake you are making is: A implies B. Not B implies not A. C implies not A Not B. Therefore C. A good character respects life. A character who does not respect life cannot be good. An evil character cannot be good. Therefore a character who does not respect life is evil. This is incorrect logic. And you're misrepresenting what I said. I differentiated between a lack of respect (explicitly neutral) and active disrespect (arguably evil). You're also misrepresenting the method by which I arrived at my conclusion. I don't think I ever gave any indication that I was attempting to use any sort of syllogism. Instead, I noticed that there are three degrees of morality (Good, Neutral, and Evil) and three potential degrees of respect for life (Respect, Lack of Respect, and Disrespect). Since Good people respect life, and Neutral people do not necessarily respect life, I concluded that Evil people would be likely to disrespect life.
Crash_00 02-20-08, 09:22 PM	I thought I'd explained it about as well as possible. Perhaps it would help if we had a common frame of reference. What would someone accomplish by mutilating a corpse? It doesn't matter at all whether there is anything to be accomplished, what matters is the morality of it. Does it hurt anyone? No. Does it oppress anyone? No. Does it kill anyone? No, the corpse is already dead. And you're misrepresenting what I said. I differentiated between a lack of respect (explicitly neutral) and active disrespect (arguably evil). You're also misrepresenting the method by which I arrived at my conclusion. I don't think I ever gave any indication that I was attempting to use any sort of syllogism. Instead, I noticed that there are three degrees of morality (Good, Neutral, and Evil) and three potential degrees of respect for life (Respect, Lack of Respect, and Disrespect). Since Good people respect life, and Neutral people do not necessarily respect life, I concluded that Evil people would be likely to disrespect life. By RAW there isn't a difference between active disrespect and a passive disrespect. Both are times of a lack of respect. Being neutral can be passive or active. You have not evidence for the claim that active disrespect is evil and he hasn't misrepresented what you've said at all, he's merely pointed that out.
AntiDjinn 02-20-08, 10:38 PM	Point being: what is considered an appropriate way to deal with the dead depends very much on your supernatural beliefs about death and the afterlife. You could make a strong argument that - say - dismembering a corpse to prevent it from being raised by black magic *could* be argued to be a Good act - you're trying to prevent this person being turned into an abomination. Point being: What is considered an appropriate way for PCs to deal with the dead is based largely on game mechanics and whether or not the DM is likely to have the same foe come at them again if they leave a body. When they torch the body of a troll they are not observing funeral rites, they are doing what seasoned adventurers have learned to do to avoid the thing getting up again. The average sociopathic tomb-robbing adventuring party is not looking at cultural norms; they are looking at the PHB and MM and seeing what spells might be used to mess with them and taking countermeasures. Social norms only come into play if the DM enforces them; PCs rarely worry about how to respect the dead as they desecrate yet another ancient tomb in search of loot. You average townie can't tell you how to deal with green slime, but can tell you the major local holidays, who founded the town, and how and why people get buried. A PC, walking the streets dressed like a Mad Max villain, probably can't even tell you what day of the week it is, but does know how to destroy a ghost and have it stay dead. The OP is hoping to reign in a character who feels divorced from the morality and social norms of their game world, and sometimes a DM needs to step up and say: "Dude, look at that from the perspective of everyone else in town." But unless the DM cares to make an issue of it, PCs rarely care how the townies might regard them and townies just hope never to attract the attention of an adventurer.
Vaelan 02-20-08, 11:23 PM	No. Spitting on someone is not an evil act. I don't believe that at all. I would contend that all interactions between two or more people have a moral (Good-Evil axis) component. It sure as hell isn't Good or Neutral, not even if the person was on fire.
Crash_00 02-21-08, 12:01 AM	Since when is being rude == to evil bastard? I must have missed where being disrespectful to a person became equal to cold blooded murder. Spitting on a man does not oppress that man, it does not kill that man, it does not hurt that man. Heck, it doesn't even necessarily show a disrespect for his life, just a disrespect for his actions and personality. Respect for a person (not that person's life but the person) isn't even on the good/evil axis. It's a social standard that people either obey or don't, law/chaos. Active disrespect/rebellion against the social standards can be seen as chaotic but you have yet to give any reason for it being evil. Please explain why a good character can walk into a village and kill dozens of orcs because they are evil, but spitting on Kraig the Evil Bastard Assassin is evil. Makes no sense at all, and by that standard any disrespectful action would be considered evil. Every dwarf that wondered outside his land would become evil in two days from belching in public and no one would ever eat beans for fear of passing gas and becoming just as evil as that serial killer cannibal that skins his victims alive.
Escef 02-21-08, 01:43 AM	What would someone accomplish by mutilating a corpse? Unloading hatred and depravity? I once had a player that killed an unconscious prisoner because he didn't like the loot. I had given him alignment warnings in the past for torturing a prisoner. At this point I told him to go to the alignment section of his sheet and change it to chaotic evil. A while later he complained that I made his character evil, I had to explain to him that HE made his character evil, all I did was ask him to change the sheet to reflect it. He didn't have a response to that.
CrimsonDeath 02-21-08, 05:01 AM	Unloading hatred and depravity? Under normal circumstances, that's the biggest reason I can think of as well.
Illithid Tentacles 02-21-08, 07:30 AM	To-date, the reasons he has given for his sudden turn to violence (remember, he hadn't been this way in any other campaign sessions) was because he taking vengeance on an 'object' (the orc's corpse) and because "I'm Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral means your insane". He's thinking of 2nd edition's CN. THAT is the problem. Sit down with him outside the game and explain to him that insane characters are very disruptive and detrimental to the enjoyment of the game to everyone who isn't playing the insane character. If he refuses to change the way he acts or to change to a different character altogether... well, madmen are generally contained somewhere they can't hurt others, and he shouldn't be terribly surprised if that happens to him. Alignment is a yardstick, not a straightjacket- it doesn't MAKE you act in a certain way, it's how you act that determines your alignment. See the difference?
UAMDB 02-21-08, 07:56 AM	I like how in one of the rare instances that people actually bother to communicate honestly someone comes along and proposes childish, passive-aggressive behavior. Is this passive-aggressive? Yes. Is it childish? No so. How is it childish to to show someone that their actions has consequences? Now, I hate it when people impose rules to make the game reflect real world issues, however, I feel this is an ok situation. If you walk into any business and you are covered in blood, and wearing body parts like jewery, most people will not sell to you. Also their is a reason we bury/burn/dispose of our dead. Bodies smell, and there are health hazards with having body parts laying around. Sorry, but having him make Fort saves for doing this all the time, is not childish. Also the OP did not ask "How do I talk to this player?" The question was "Do I demand that he change his alignment if he continues engaging in these types of actions? Or accept it because he's playing a violent character?" Nothing against the OP, but that is not communicating honestly with a player. Yes he did warn the player, but it did not work. How about you please watch the name calling.
Zombie_Babies 02-21-08, 09:38 AM	I thought I'd explained it about as well as possible. Perhaps it would help if we had a common frame of reference. What would someone accomplish by mutilating a corpse? Ahem: Ok. But isn't killing a sentient being evil in the first place then? Ok. But isn't killing a sentient being evil in the first place then? Should all characters who wish to remain non-evil only take prisoners? I just can't see how the killing of the Orc (or whatever) was OK but chopping him into bits isn't. We have to draw the line somewhere or the PCs will not be able to adventure anymore. And killing is more "evil" than desecrating a corpse. How that is being overlooked I cannot fathom. I'm not saying he is good. Just not evil. Look at it like this. You are saying that in the context of combat it is OK to chop up a living, breathing enemy with my sword. Once he goes down and his soul departs, however, it is suddenly forbidden that I chop his lifeless body. How does that make any sense at all? Unless, of course, you are of the mind that non-evil PCs should only be doing subdual damage and should never take a life. If not, you are somehow placing a greater value on a lifeless corpse than a body with a soul in it. Nonsensical, IMHO. Self defense. Under ordinary circumstances, it's perfectly acceptable to use lethal force in response to lethal force. If it's equally easy to subdue the enemy instead (as is the case for an unarmed monk, for instance), it is arguably preferable to do so. In any case, once the aggressor surrenders or is incapacitated, the danger is past and further use of force is not necessarily justified. Which is a special case. As in one option of the many a PC may encounter. You have not satisfied the question. It also could be argued that the PC using self defense who mutilates his enemy's body is still not performing an evil act. It seems that you place a high value on the body of an enemy but not nearly as high of a value on the living enemy. The questions, again: But isn't killing a sentient being evil in the first place then? Should all characters who wish to remain non-evil only take prisoners? How does it make sense that I can kill a living being and remain Neutral, but desecrating it's corpse is evil? Do you place more value on a corpse than the being it once was? If not, how do you justify the opinion that killing is ok, but desecration is not? Why is it ok to stab/dismember a body that still contains life but it becomes evil when the body is an empty vessel (an object)? These are the questions that I do not feel you have answered. Please forgive me if they were not implied well enough in their original form or if I have failed to see an answer somewhere. Please refrain from citing special cases as the solution to these questions. The answers should be able to encompass most possible scenarios. Thank you. *** In response to the question you posed to me: The question has no bearing on the argument. It doesn't matter what is accomplished. We are arguing that it is not an evil act . So now to remain non-evil we must be sure that every action we take accomplishes something? That just doesn't make sense. If you have a notion of what the act accomplishes and why you think this makes it evil, please state it. But the question itself cannot help us answer the "evilness" of the act. He does not need to accomplish something with his actions to remain CN. The fact remains that he is mutilating an object, as well. Since he is taking action against an object he is also not harming anything. He is not causing the corpse pain or fear. It may be repugnant to some bystanders, but this has no impact on his alignment. If the feelings of others can change a person's alignment what of those that are Evil? If an evil person sees a good person helping an old man cross the street and is sickened by the sight, does the good person have an alignment issue because he is causing pain to another living being? Of course not. Once again: Disgusting != evil. Disrespectful != evil. Odd != evil. Smelly != evil. I don't like it != evil. In poor taste != evil. And a CN character has no need to not be disgusting, odd, smelly, do only things others like or worry about his actions being in good taste to keep his alignment.
UAMDB 02-21-08, 10:21 AM	Ahem: The fact remains that he is mutilating an object, as well. Since he is taking action against an object he is also not harming anything. He is not causing the corpse pain or fear. It may be repugnant to some bystanders, but this has no impact on his alignment. If the feelings of others can change a person's alignment what of those that are Evil? If an evil person sees a good person helping an old man cross the street and is sickened by the sight, does the good person have an alignment issue because he is causing pain to another living being? Of course not. Once again: Disgusting != evil. Disrespectful != evil. Odd != evil. Smelly != evil. I don't like it != evil. In poor taste != evil. And a CN character has no need to not be disgusting, odd, smelly, do only things others like or worry about his actions being in good taste to keep his alignment. I agree for the most part with what you say here. The problem with alignment, is there are two major camps on the subject. The first is "We go strickly by what Player Hand Book says" The second is "We use our own morals/beleives to determine alignment." Almost every arguement/discussion on alignment breaks down because neither side was come to an agreement on a basis of arguement. I am tring to think of a really good example of how this effects a discussion, and this is the best I can come up with. To accountants are looking at a set of Financials and tring to determine what adjustments need to be made. Accountant C is looking at in from the Cash Basis, and Account A is looking at it from the Accrual Basis of accounting. Both are prefectly legal ways of accounting. However, since they handle issues differently, they can never agree on the correct adjusting entries to make. The same applies to this situation. If one person is looking at it from his own moral perspective, and another is looking at it from a strickly D&D book difinition, then the two will most most never agree. Remember some cultures place high importance on a decesed body. Some religions (I wont name any because I don't want to mix/offend any up) believe that a person reaches their heaven in the same condition as their body when they died. So it is of great disrespect and considered a get evil to defile a dead body. This is why there has never been a formal end to an alignment question. What happens normally is one side will get tired of the discussion and get. The other side will then declare victory. Kind of like the clash of the ironsides durning the American Civil War. Both sides declared it a vistory for themselves.
Zombie_Babies 02-21-08, 10:36 AM	Snip... I both understand and agree with your assessment. The reason I continue to voice dissent is that I offered the OP RAW reasons for my opinion on this particular situation. My RAW reasons were then argued against with personal beliefs that are being explained as RAW impacting. I know that the two sides look at this from the two camps you mention, but some if the dissenting opinions I have seen are attempting to use personal opinion to refute my argument and pass these off as part of the RAW. An example is this respect/disrespect debate that's happening. Purely a personal opinion but it keeps getting attached to the RAW somehow. Personal extrapolation from the RAW is not the RAW. It's a guess. That's why I keep opening my big "mouth". And it's sorta fun, too. :D That said, thank you for stating what a lot of us have probably been ignoring. And to the OP: UAMDB makes a lot of sense. It's entirely up to you how you wish to look at alignment for your game. If, however, you decide to use your personal beliefs over the RAW make sure you advise your players that you do. It will avoid future situations like this.
Dan Hemmens 02-21-08, 12:12 PM	I thought I'd explained it about as well as possible. Perhaps it would help if we had a common frame of reference. What would someone accomplish by mutilating a corpse? Let's see: 1) Funerary customs. You say "mutilating a corpse" I say "cremation". 2) Pragmatism. They could come back as a zombie, or be raised by their Evil shaman. 3) A warning to others. (1) is fairly clearly neutral: there's no disrespect in disposing of a fallen enemy the way you dispose of a fallen friend. (2) is similarly neutral: if it's okay to kill somebody so they don't hurt you or others, it's okay to hack the limbs off a corpse so it doesn't hurt you or others. (3) is the point where it starts to get sticky. Why are your players killing Orcs? Is it because the Orcs are doing something they shouldn't? If so, then I would argue that part of the *reason* they are killing the Orcs in the *first* place is to send a signal - they want to say to the Orcs "if you raid the village of Hamlet, you will die". In this context sticking the heads of the orcs on pikes is actually just a logical extension of the process that lead to the killing in the first place. And you're misrepresenting what I said. I differentiated between a lack of respect (explicitly neutral) and active disrespect (arguably evil). You're also misrepresenting the method by which I arrived at my conclusion. I don't think I ever gave any indication that I was attempting to use any sort of syllogism. Instead, I noticed that there are three degrees of morality (Good, Neutral, and Evil) and three potential degrees of respect for life (Respect, Lack of Respect, and Disrespect). Since Good people respect life, and Neutral people do not necessarily respect life, I concluded that Evil people would be likely to disrespect life. Except that you're using a syllogism there as well. 1. There are three potential degrees of respect for life. 2. There are three alignments. 3. Therefore one of each of the possible degrees of respect for life must correspond to one of the three alignments. Again, your logic is faulty. Also, I would suggest that "respect for life" and "respect for the dead bodies of your fallen enemies" are two very different things, and the idea that *killing a man* can show respect for life but *putting his head on a pike* doesn't is completely ludicrous.
CrimsonDeath 02-21-08, 02:01 PM	Which is a special case. And since I was saying that killing is not always evil, not that it's never evil, all I need to do is find a special case. It also could be argued that the PC using self defense who mutilates his enemy's body is still not performing an evil act. Really? How is the character defending himself from a corpse? What threat does it pose to him? In response to the question you posed to me: The question has no bearing on the argument. It doesn't matter what is accomplished. And that, I believe, is where we disagree. I believe that intent is an important factor in deciding the moral and ethical implications of an act. If you disagree with that, then the two of us will probably never come to an agreement on this particular subject. (And in case it matters, I don't think I ever claimed that "odd", "smelly", or tasteless things were evil.) Let's see: 1) Funerary customs. You say "mutilating a corpse" I say "cremation". 2) Pragmatism. They could come back as a zombie, or be raised by their Evil shaman. 3) A warning to others. I already mentioned that cremation, as a valid funerary custom, would be generally acceptable. I believe I also mentioned that mutilating a corpse in order to prevent it from rising as an undead (or even simply Raised) would also be acceptable (although cremation would be the preferred method). (3) is the point where it starts to get sticky. Why are your players killing Orcs? Is it because the Orcs are doing something they shouldn't? If so, then I would argue that part of the *reason* they are killing the Orcs in the *first* place is to send a signal - they want to say to the Orcs "if you raid the village of Hamlet, you will die". In this context sticking the heads of the orcs on pikes is actually just a logical extension of the process that lead to the killing in the first place. I agree that this one's probably arguable, depending on the characters' goals and authority. Except that you're using a syllogism there as well. 1. There are three potential degrees of respect for life. 2. There are three alignments. 3. Therefore one of each of the possible degrees of respect for life must correspond to one of the three alignments. Again, your logic is faulty. Good point. So I'm not necessarily right about this one. (Although I'm not necessarily wrong either-- it's possible to arrive at a valid conclusion by faulty logic-- I'll drop the point.) Also, I would suggest that "respect for life" and "respect for the dead bodies of your fallen enemies" are two very different things, and the idea that *killing a man* can show respect for life but *putting his head on a pike* doesn't is completely ludicrous. I don't think I said that killing someone shows respect for life, only that there are occasions when it doesn't necessarily show a disrespect for life.
Scypio 02-21-08, 02:04 PM	The problem is, if I punish the character, I punish the group. Because they are traveling as part of a caravan group and so, the actions of one individual will more or less affect the entire group as well. In my opinion, that's not a problem, but the solution. If the whole play group is affected, then there'll be more reason for the CN character to change his behavior. Other players may decide to not help him or cause hardship for his character. Remember even if its not evil, he has to know that its not acceptable behavior. Like I said, I would not change his alignment, unless he does more extreme or classically evil acts. I do think he is acting Chaotic. I would make NPCs, especially these caravan people, behave differently around him. Maybe he'll get charged more for the precious items that he wanted. Maybe shop owners will straight up refuse to deal with such a "crazy" individual. Maybe their group will miss a chance at a nice quest since the quest giver isn't comfortable around Mr. Crazy CN. I also think I get annoyed by people who use CN as a shield for bad roleplaying.
Zombie_Babies 02-21-08, 02:45 PM	Really? How is the character defending himself from a corpse? What threat does it pose to him? I never implied the character was using self defense against a corpse. He used self defense and then created a corpse. He then dismembers it. The corpse, of course, poses no threat. It also has no soul, feelings or relevance other than occupying space. It's an object. And that, I believe, is where we disagree. I believe that intent is an important factor in deciding the moral and ethical implications of an act. If you disagree with that, then the two of us will probably never come to an agreement on this particular subject. (And in case it matters, I don't think I ever claimed that "odd", "smelly", or tasteless things were evil.) Fair enough (though I did state that it does not apply in this particular argument as personal sentiment has no place in a discussion of the RAW). But what of my other questions? I still have not heard any response as to why you find a corpse to have more moral value than the living being it once was. Is there a reason you refuse to answer? Why is it ok (sometimes, if you must) to kill but never ok to show disrespect for a corpse? Still waiting... As for the parenthetical response, it doesn't matter. I took a smattering of similar issues and threw them in. Admittedly a little heavy handed, but oh well. You may not have stated those were evil, but, IIRC, you did state that being disrespecful to an object somehow was. No response to queries as to why there, either. Am I seeing a pattern?
CrimsonDeath 02-21-08, 04:44 PM	I never implied the character was using self defense against a corpse. He used self defense and then created a corpse. He then dismembers it. The corpse, of course, poses no threat. It also has no soul, feelings or relevance other than occupying space. It's an object. So why do it? There's a plausible explanation for why it's necessary to kill the person. Why desecrate the corpse? Fair enough (though I did state that it does not apply in this particular argument as personal sentiment has no place in a discussion of the RAW). But what of my other questions? I still have not heard any response as to why you find a corpse to have more moral value than the living being it once was. Is there a reason you refuse to answer? Why is it ok (sometimes, if you must) to kill but never ok to show disrespect for a corpse? Still waiting... I never said that a corpse has more value than a living creature. However, most of the mitigating factors that would make killing an intelligent creature acceptable simply don't apply to a corpse.
Legdiwena 02-21-08, 04:56 PM	So why do it? There's a plausible explanation for why it's necessary to kill the person. Why desecrate the corpse? You removed a threat, would you make it easy for that threat to return, or would you do everything possible to keep the foe in the ground?
Zombie_Babies 02-21-08, 05:01 PM	So why do it? There's a plausible explanation for why it's necessary to kill the person. Why desecrate the corpse? So why not do it? There's no plausible explanation for why it's necessary not to. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to point out that this reasoning works both ways. I never said that a corpse has more value than a living creature. However, most of the mitigating factors that would make killing an intelligent creature acceptable simply don't apply to a corpse. You never said that specifically, no. But your arguments imply that you feel this way. The mitigating factors involved in killing the person do not apply to the corpse. That's correct. The corpse is an object. You do not need to justify the actions you take against a corpse.
Legdiwena 02-21-08, 05:17 PM	Just be glad he's not a necrophiliac going for the Lich loved feat.
serpentcross 02-21-08, 05:26 PM	I think that he can qualify for Chaotic neutral. In fact being evil or good is more about intentions than actual actions. He could even be a chaotic good and stick with that sort of things... Sure it would be unortodox (and thus Chaotic) but not Evil... Anyway I would say it's pretty common for some players to do these sort of things to Force a Evil alignment shift... To me sounds pointless, stupid ... but not evil. Evil needs a malicious intention to me. Slaying an innocent for profit for example. Anyway the fact that the character is still neutral doesn't mean that good characters doesn't react to his gruesome habits. and also... you have to make sure that the player do not act with evil intentions ... and for my experience that's hardly the case with that kind of players
Vaelan 02-21-08, 06:19 PM	Since when is being rude == to evil bastard? Did I say that being rude makes you an Evil bastard? No, I didn't. I said that being rude is Evil. I'm aware that it is a banal form of Evil that does not warrant an alignment shift on its own merit, but it is Evil nonetheless. Spitting on a man does not oppress that man, it does not kill that man, it does not hurt that man. Does it hurt that man? It very well could and I certainly don't see any possible motivation for spitting on him than to cause the aforementioned theoretical harm. Definition of harm: physical injury or mental damage; hurt. Even ignoring the fact that you could inflict some terrible disease upon the person by spitting on them, there exists the possibility of mental harm. Respect for a person (not that person's life but the person) isn't even on the good/evil axis. But the manner in which you choose to express that lack of respect is very much a moral issue. Active disrespect/rebellion against the social standards can be seen as chaotic but you have yet to give any reason for it being evil. I feel no need to because that is not even in the slightest my point. We really need a strawman-burning smiley on this board... Please explain why a good character can walk into a village and kill dozens of orcs because they are evil, but spitting on Kraig the Evil Bastard Assassin is evil. Because the act of spitting on Kraig the Evil Bastard could not possibly have any non-Evil intent behind it. If one's intent were to simply express disgust, there would be no need for spittle. Words would suffice. Makes no sense at all, and by that standard any disrespectful action would be considered evil. It depends upon the intent behind the disrespectful action. Every dwarf that wondered outside his land would become evil in two days from belching in public and no one would ever eat beans for fear of passing gas and becoming just as evil as that serial killer cannibal that skins his victims alive. I've already addressed the fact that you're attempting to construct a strawman by exaggerating the magnitude of the Evil embodied by such an act and I do believe I have already addressed your ignorance of my actual point by explaining that intent matters, so I don't think this actually merits a response. I just wanted to mention your ignorance again. ;) Is this passive-aggressive? Yes. Is it childish? No so. How is it childish to to show someone that their actions has consequences? I happen to be of the belief that passive-aggressiveness is always childish because the mature course of action would be an honest discussion. Sorry, but having him make Fort saves for doing this all the time, is not childish. This is rather the same point as I was making in regards to Crash's comments. It is a matter of intent. If your intent were to maintain versilimitude, I wouldn't be calling it childish. However, since your intent is extraordinarily childish, the acts themselves are childish regardless of the fact that there are perfectly valid reasons for doing it. Nothing against the OP, but that is not communicating honestly with a player. Not keeping up with the OP's follow-up posts, are we? How about you please watch the name calling. I didn't call you childish. I didn't call you passive-aggressive. I said that the advice you gave was childish and passive-aggressive. I was discussing what you posted, not who posted it, in accordance with the Code of Conduct agreed to upon registering. I will continue to do so and if you have a problem with it, please feel free to follow the proper procedure for such a situation rather than attempting to call someone out in the middle of a discussion. I doubt they'll take any action, though, since the problem is with how you have perceived what I have posted rather than the words themselves. With this (hopefully) out of the way... The problem with alignment, is there are two major camps on the subject. The first is "We go strickly by what Player Hand Book says" The second is "We use our own morals/beleives to determine alignment." I do not believe that this is an accurate assessment. The rules do not tell you everything that you need to adjudicate alignment. In truth, the conflict is between many minor camps, each of which use their own moral leanings to fill in the blanks and do not realize that they are doing so. For example, the rules don't say that killing someone for no reason is more Evil than, say, minorly injuring someone for no reason. We interject the severity of these acts just as we interject many other things that the rules don't even begin to address.
Legdiwena 02-21-08, 06:35 PM	Spitting on someone would not be a good act, but I see no cause for it to be evil either. It is a neutral act.
smacintush 02-21-08, 07:10 PM	This thread is a great example why trying to apply "rules" to define good and evil behavior sucks. Here's how I see it: 1. Trying to determine if these actions fit with the PHB, the definition there doesn't cover this adequately. As I read it I see nothing that contradicts what was done here. 2. Being crazy was the 2nd edition rules? lemme ask you then, you say being crazy isn't a part of being CN but IF you happen to be crazy then what alignment are you? I don't mean serial killer crazy, I mean the kind if crazy that makes someone bathe in the blood of a dead Orc. Being CN may not equal "crazy" but being crazy may just equal CN. 3. A few actions does not determine whether someone is "evil" IMO. 4. I don't think this character is evil, I think his player is a crappy role-player. 5. I think that a common mistake is adjudicating alignment based upon modern American morality. Here's how I would handle these things. Alignment that is tied to class requirements is adjudicated per the rules, though somewhat leniently and taking into account circumstances and intent. Besides that I don't really care if their actions match their alignment. Changing it would be just dumb. I let my players behave pretty much how they want and if I think it is detracting from the game or they are abusing their freedom I introduce in-game consequences. In the case of the dismembered Orc, there may be a scout who witnesses it and goes and gets others for instance. Lastly, like it or not morals are relative. If people in the party are characters whose background and alignment dictate that his behavior is evil then they should be playing that out in game. If there are local consequences then those should be played out. I guess I don't really understand the point of forcing a character to change an arbitrary label of alignment and trying to make that character behave how you want. I also don't understand the point of "discussing it with them". I mean, make sure they understand how YOU THE DM view alignment and that's it. Handle it via role-playing.
Vaelan 02-21-08, 07:25 PM	Spitting on someone would not be a good act, but I see no cause for it to be evil either. It is a neutral act. I'm pretty much just posting this to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. My replies to Crash cover this argument. Please refer to them if you care. I still contend that spitting on people has no other motivation than to harm them in some way, be it ever so minor. I am open to hearing about a non-Evil motivation even though I severely doubt the existence of one.
Legdiwena 02-21-08, 07:51 PM	I'm pretty much just posting this to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. My replies to Crash cover this argument. Please refer to them if you care. I still contend that spitting on people has no other motivation than to harm them in some way, be it ever so minor. I am open to hearing about a non-Evil motivation even though I severely doubt the existence of one. Spitting on someone will almost always offend, but I see no way it does harm (mental or otherwise). Are you contending that if someone came and spit on you that you would be emotionally scarred?
smacintush 02-21-08, 11:20 PM	Spitting on someone will almost always offend, but I see no way it does harm (mental or otherwise). Are you contending that if someone came and spit on you that you would be emotionally scarred? If we must classify the act of spitting on someone, In most societies I'd say it would have to lean ever so slightly toward the evil…but mostly neutral. It's not evil enough to call it evil just like I don't have enough Cherokee blood in me to be called a Native American. For the purposes of gaming I'd call it chaotic since it violates most any cultural rules of etiquette.
Vaelan 02-22-08, 01:30 AM	Spitting on someone will almost always offend, but I see no way it does harm (mental or otherwise). Diseases can be transmitted through saliva, so there does exist the possibility for real physical harm. As for mental harm, some people are overly fragile. I have yet to hear of a motivation for spitting on someone that has nothing to do with a desire to inflict some form of harm upon them. Are you contending that if someone came and spit on you that you would be emotionally scarred? I love how people on this forum just can't stop themselves from exaggerating matters of magnitude. The fact is that the tiniest bit of harm is quite enough to shove this and every other little act of rudeness squarely into the Evil category from a logical perspective. Obviously it is an extraordinarily petty Evil, but it is still Evil. To put it in terms of the rules, I would say that spitting on someone is very much disregarding their dignity as a sentient being. It's not evil enough to call it evil just like I don't have enough Cherokee blood in me to be called a Native American. I think you're looking at this from a perspective of adjudication whereas I am looking at this as a matter of classification. Just because spitting on people isn't going to make you change a character's alignment doesn't mean that it doesn't have any moral value at all. What would you think if an Exalted person went around spitting on those less holy than him out of spite?
Crash_00 02-22-08, 03:23 AM	Does it hurt that man? It very well could and I certainly don't see any possible motivation for spitting on him than to cause the aforementioned theoretical harm. What harm? Spitting can be used to convey a message of disrespect to the man. Disrespect is not said to be evil anywhere in the PHB. All it shows is a lack of commitment to social standards of respect, which would be lawful, therefore the act chaotic. But the manner in which you choose to express that lack of respect is very much a moral issue. Agreed, and if that manner kills, harms, or oppresses said person, then it's evil. You have not shown that spitting does any of these to enough of a degree to warrant it being evil. Because the act of spitting on Kraig the Evil Bastard could not possibly have any non-Evil intent behind it. If one's intent were to simply express disgust, there would be no need for spittle. Words would suffice. To show disgust with him. Yes would could say he disgusts them, but if you're talking about emotional harm, then words become just as bad as the spitting. And not all characters could tell him that. Speaking requires a common language for communication and the actual ability to speak. On the same note, is flipping Kraig off evil, how about calling him a "big bully". I've already addressed the fact that you're attempting to construct a strawman by exaggerating the magnitude of the Evil embodied by such an act and I do believe I have already addressed your ignorance of my actual point by explaining that intent matters, so I don't think this actually merits a response. I just wanted to mention your ignorance again. I'm not exaggerating the point at all. Dwarves are often at ends with elves, a dwarf belching and farting in an elven inn as an active disrespect is not an evil act. You have yet to prove that. Yet it's just as "evil" as spitting on a man, it shows a disgust with elves society and the frail elves themselves. Alignments must be consistent, you say intent matters, but I don't believe that it possibly can in D&D to the extent you're trying to make it. If intent was the main focus, the there wouldn't be evil societies. Everyone trying to fit into the standards of their society would merely be intending to be a good citizen. A slave trading baby killer from a society that believed in such would be just as good as a Paladin from a society that believes in complete law and justice. Both are merely intending to be good citizens in their respective societies. Therefore it must be seen that actions have cut and dry alignment descriptors to them. It's where the phrase the end justifies the means comes from. Just because a person intends to save the world doesn't mean it's right or not evil for him to slaughter a dozen innocents to do it. Diseases can be transmitted through saliva, so there does exist the possibility for real physical harm. As for mental harm, some people are overly fragile. Diseases can be airborn too. So yelling at someone might pass one on. As for mental harm, that would make most adventuring actions evil. Saving the princess would be evil if you had to kill a man in front of her. An action's alignment should not be judged by it's victims flaws, but what it does to it's victims. Likewise the intimidate skill would be marked as evil. I have yet to hear of a motivation for spitting on someone that has nothing to do with a desire to inflict some form of harm upon them. Communication The fact is that the tiniest bit of harm is quite enough to shove this and every other little act of rudeness squarely into the Evil category from a logical perspective. Obviously it is an extraordinarily petty Evil, but it is still Evil. What harm? You havn't shown that there is any. You've shown that there is as much chance of there being harm from spitting on a man as kissing a bar wench after a fight with a diseased demon.
serpentcross 02-22-08, 06:43 AM	Diseases can be transmitted through saliva, so there does exist the possibility for real physical harm. As for mental harm, some people are overly fragile. I have yet to hear of a motivation for spitting on someone that has nothing to do with a desire to inflict some form of harm upon them. I love how people on this forum just can't stop themselves from exaggerating matters of magnitude. The fact is that the tiniest bit of harm is quite enough to shove this and every other little act of rudeness squarely into the Evil category from a logical perspective. Obviously it is an extraordinarily petty Evil, but it is still Evil. To put it in terms of the rules, I would say that spitting on someone is very much disregarding their dignity as a sentient being. I think you're looking at this from a perspective of adjudication whereas I am looking at this as a matter of classification. Just because spitting on people isn't going to make you change a character's alignment doesn't mean that it doesn't have any moral value at all. What would you think if an Exalted person went around spitting on those less holy than him out of spite? he would not be exalted but only because of his motivation behind his spittings. An Exalted Chaotic good character who spit in the face of someone who greatly wronged him or a loved one out of rage is still Exalted to me, as long as his heart is in the right place when needed and he is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good when needed... As a DM I used an Exalted Barbarian2/fighter2/rogue2/holy liberator4 He was Harsh and Mean, he break Enchantment with a slap in the face. He never spitted in the face of anyone during the campaign but It wold be appropriate. I think he would go as far as spitting in the face of any ally who doesn't follow in one of his revolutions... But there is no doubt about his goodness .. he always done everything to save the innocents and at the end he died trying to take down a tyrant. At the very moment of his death he gave up his sword and asked his allies to flee so they can fight another day.
UAMDB 02-22-08, 09:46 AM	I happen to be of the belief that passive-aggressiveness is always childish because the mature course of action would be an honest discussion. This is rather the same point as I was making in regards to Crash's comments. It is a matter of intent. If your intent were to maintain versilimitude, I wouldn't be calling it childish. However, since your intent is extraordinarily childish, the acts themselves are childish regardless of the fact that there are perfectly valid reasons for doing it. Not keeping up with the OP's follow-up posts, are we? I didn't call you childish. I didn't call you passive-aggressive. I said that the advice you gave was childish and passive-aggressive. I was discussing what you posted, not who posted it, in accordance with the Code of Conduct agreed to upon registering. I will continue to do so and if you have a problem with it, please feel free to follow the proper procedure for such a situation rather than attempting to call someone out in the middle of a discussion. I doubt they'll take any action, though, since the problem is with how you have perceived what I have posted rather than the words themselves. . You can believe that passive-agressive behavior is childish all you want. I don't have a problem with that. I did not ask you to stop calling me names. I asked that you stop with the name calling. Calling an idea that someone has childish is name calling. I feel the proper procedure would be to ask the person to stop doing the action you want them to stop. In this case I want you to stop with the name calling. I see no need to bother wizards with this, when a simple "please watch the name calling" would have been enough. A simple "I'm sorry but... " would have sovled the problem provided you stopped with the name calling. I also stated that I did not read all 3 pages because most of it was endless debate on alignment and what is evil/not evil.
Escef 02-22-08, 10:32 AM	Calling an idea that someone has childish is name calling. So is calling it Fancis. Calling an idea childish is an evaluation. When you "call names" the intent is to hurt the feelings of the one being called the name. Calling an idea childish does not hurt its feelings. It is an evaluation of the idea itself. For example, when someone criticizes your idea and you try to tell them they are name calling because of it, that is an example of passive-aggressive behavior. Does it mean the person being PA is a PA person? No, it just means that is how they're acting AT THAT TIME. If they do so on a regular basis, however, it is a different story. Good day. :tiphat:
UAMDB 02-22-08, 11:24 AM	So is calling it Fancis. Calling an idea childish is an evaluation. When you "call names" the intent is to hurt the feelings of the one being called the name. Calling an idea childish does not hurt its feelings. It is an evaluation of the idea itself. For example, when someone criticizes your idea and you try to tell them they are name calling because of it, that is an example of passive-aggressive behavior. Does it mean the person being PA is a PA person? No, it just means that is how they're acting AT THAT TIME. If they do so on a regular basis, however, it is a different story. Good day. :tiphat: How is saying someone is name calling passive-agressive? I do not follow your logic on that one. Evaluating an idea is one thing. Name calling is another. If you don't agree with an idea, state so. However, you should do so in a constructive manner. Saying something is stupid or childish or what ever is not a constructive way of critizing something. He could have said i don't like that idea. I think it is a bad idea and is passive-agressive. I also feel that passive-agressive behavior is very childish. Compare that with Thats a childish idea. Do you see the diference? Also most times when someone critizies an idea in such an manner it is a passive-agressive attack on the person who had the idea.
Legdiwena 02-22-08, 01:11 PM	In some cultures, spitting at/on someone is a measure of respect.
Escef 02-22-08, 02:04 PM	He could have said i don't like that idea. I think it is a bad idea and is passive-agressive. I also feel that passive-agressive behavior is very childish. Compare that with Thats a childish idea. Do you see the diference? Yes, one is tactful, the other isn't. So what? What I find painfully passive-aggressive is instead of taking the criticism for what it is, you decided to accuse the critic of name calling. You failed to take anything useful from the critcism. You failed to agree to disagree. Put bluntly, when you pull crap like that it is pure, unadulterated fail. If you need tact to be able to take criticism I recommend you stay away from the internet.
Dan Hemmens 02-22-08, 02:41 PM	I never said that a corpse has more value than a living creature. However, most of the mitigating factors that would make killing an intelligent creature acceptable simply don't apply to a corpse. I'd disagree with that actually. I think there may not necessarily between a 1:1 correlation between "reasons to kill a man" and "reasons to dismember a corpse" but I actually think that most reasons that can apply to one apply to the other (with the usual caveats that we're talking about a violent fantasy world, not about Kensington High Street). Broadly speaking, all the reasons to kill a person boil down to two broad categories: 1) Self Defense/The Defense of Others: Some guy attacks you with a knife, so you fry him with a fireball. The Orcs are attacking the village of Hamlet, so you blast them to save the villagers. 2) The Varmint Jus' Needs Killin': There is a guy who goes around attacking people with knives. You kill him to stop him attacking anybody else. Orcs, in general, tend to attack the village of Hamlet, you kill them to stop them attacking the village. Self Defense doesn't generally require you to cut up the corpse, but the "Just Needs Killin'" line of justifications arguably does. If Orcs regularly raid your lands, hanging some dismembered Orc corpses by the road might be a sensible way to make them stop. If a man's crimes are so terrible that he deserves death, why should he not also deserve to have his corpse dismembered? Now yes in *practice* not every corpse you dismember is going to actively serve some greater good, but in *practice* not every person you kill is going to actively serve some greater good either.
CrimsonDeath 02-22-08, 05:48 PM	You removed a threat, would you make it easy for that threat to return, or would you do everything possible to keep the foe in the ground? Like I said, that's a plausible reason. So why not do it? There's no plausible explanation for why it's necessary not to. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to point out that this reasoning works both ways. Why not do it? It's unpleasant (for most people). It's a waste of time. It's a waste of energy. It's (arguably) disrespectful. There's a chance of chipping your weapons on the creature's bones. Not that I believe the argument holds much merit going the other way. I'm of the opinion that action more often requires justification than inaction. When's the last time someone asked you to explain why you didn't do something difficult, unpleasant, unrewarding, and pointless? (Chores don't count; those aren't pointless.) You never said that specifically, no. But your arguments imply that you feel this way. The mitigating factors involved in killing the person do not apply to the corpse. That's correct. The corpse is an object. You do not need to justify the actions you take against a corpse. Sure you do. It's not permissible to destroy or steal objects that belong to other people, or to destroy community property. It is permissible but irrational to destroy your own property for no reason. I also don't agree with your opinion that a corpse is morally indistinguishable from other objects. If it were, there wouldn't be any appreciable difference between an undead and a construct. (Your position is somewhat justified by the fact that a Flesh Golem is non-evil. However, its construction does require a spell with the [evil] descriptor.)
Minesril 02-23-08, 03:50 AM	Fascinating discussion on spitting. I'd say it's a neutral act, not particularly pleasant but not evil either. However, there's a wonderful feat in Drow of the Underdark called 'Vow of the spider queen' where a feature is that you spit at someone and they take strength damage. It is described as a vile feat so in this case, spitting at someone is indeed evil. :D Back to the subject in hand, I wouldn't say that desecration of dead bodies is evil in the way this player is doing so. A barbarian would collect trophies of battles he's won, although I am a little surprised that he's doing it as an elf. A wild elf perhaps might...but I would expect it more from a half orc. One thing I liked about Book of Vile Darkness (and Book of Exalted Deeds) is the descriptions of the nature of evil (and good). The PHB is not very good at describing alignment, so these books offer a little more information on what it is acceptable for a character to do within alignment. (actually, the Book of Erotic Fantasy is also good for this.)
Vaelan 02-23-08, 04:04 PM	Stuff. When you post something that isn't contradictory to previous statements and hasn't already been addressed, I will bother to quote it and respond to it. he would not be exalted but only because of his motivation behind his spittings. An Exalted Chaotic good character who spit in the face of someone who greatly wronged him or a loved one out of rage is still Exalted to me, as long as his heart is in the right place when needed and he is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good when needed... So it isn't okay to express your disgust with people because they aren't holy enough, but it is okay to express your disgust with people because... of something that has nothing to do with a higher purpose? I can't say as how I understand this line of reasoning. You're Exalted. If it isn't okay in one situation, then it really isn't okay in any situation that isn't "to stop a person from committing an Evil act", according to the rules. Stuff. Escef addressed it. I have one thing to add: I cannot express in words how little I care about what you would like me to stop posting. If you don't like what I'm posting, either mark it for moderation or ignore it. If you find the standards that posters on these forums are held to so unacceptable that you feel the need to make up your own rules and attempt to derail threads in order to get others to follow them, then I would appreciate it if you would go make your own messageboard. In some cultures, spitting at/on someone is a measure of respect. True, but that isn't the cultural context in which the act was initially mentioned. I also don't agree with your opinion that a corpse is morally indistinguishable from other objects. If it were, there wouldn't be any appreciable difference between an undead and a construct. Undead are labelled Evil because they run on negative energy. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of corpses. To further demonstrate this point, here is an excerpt from the Flesh Golem entry... A flesh golem is a ghoulish collection of stolen humanoid body parts, stitched together into a single composite form. If it were a matter of the sanctity of corpses, Flesh Golems and undead would be morally equivalent.
Khaira 02-23-08, 08:35 PM	Oh my. Such a fervent debate on something as trivial as spitting. I don't think I would label spitting any alignment ... it just is. Just like I wouldn't call a character evil who eats meat because they're disrespecting that poor, made-to-suffer for your delectible enjoyment animal. If it were a matter of the sanctity of corpses, Flesh Golems and undead would be morally equivalent. Which begs the question: What ARE Flesh Golems powered by. As far as I know, just enchantments - and, er, lots of fleshy, sinewy muscle. Back to the subject in hand, I wouldn't say that desecration of dead bodies is evil in the way this player is doing so. A barbarian would collect trophies of battles he's won, although I am a little surprised that he's doing it as an elf. A wild elf perhaps might...but I would expect it more from a half orc. Racial assumptions and stereotypes, that. An orc can be a high intellectual and an elf can be a violent savage. Similar to how everyone assumes that all gold/sun elves are universally arrogant and hot-headed - perhaps the latter is universal, but not the former. ;) One reason why it's enjoyable to play something like that - an intelligent orc or a savage elf - because it throws some people on their [metaphorical] heads. Although, this player is merely a min/max'er
CrimsonDeath 02-24-08, 02:27 AM	Undead are labelled Evil because they run on negative energy. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of corpses. If that's the case, why doesn't the Negative Energy Plane have the Evil alignment trait? Why aren't Slay Living and the Inflict spells [evil]? Positive and Negative Energy are just forces of nature, much like fire and air. They're morally neutral.
Minesril 02-24-08, 04:06 AM	Racial assumptions and stereotypes, that. An orc can be a high intellectual and an elf can be a violent savage. Similar to how everyone assumes that all gold/sun elves are universally arrogant and hot-headed - perhaps the latter is universal, but not the former. ;) One reason why it's enjoyable to play something like that - an intelligent orc or a savage elf - because it throws some people on their [metaphorical] heads. I'd say that D&D is made with racial stereotypes in mind. All dwarves take a minus 2 to charisma, all half orcs, to both charisma and intelligence. It seems that nature will always win over nurture, at least in this game. A good player might play a character who overcomes what is expected of him (I am playing a dwarven sorcerer at the moment) but I think this is probably quite rare...and not expected in orc, dwarf etcetera society.
Legdiwena 02-24-08, 02:51 PM	Creating undead has been evil due to RL cultural mores and the need for DnD to be socially acceptable in the mass market.
Khaira 02-24-08, 10:36 PM	I'd say that D&D is made with racial stereotypes in mind. All dwarves take a minus 2 to charisma, all half orcs, to both charisma and intelligence. It seems that nature will always win over nurture, at least in this game. A good player might play a character who overcomes what is expected of him (I am playing a dwarven sorcerer at the moment) but I think this is probably quite rare...and not expected in orc, dwarf etcetera society. That may be true, but why bother continuing to reinforce that nature? Also, for a bit of serious fun, check out: http://www.goblindefensefund.org/
gigantor22 03-24-08, 10:53 PM	Ok. Well I have a character in my game that has the ability to Rebuke and control undead which is typically an evil act as per the rules. This person also has the ability to cause disease with the Dread Necromancer/Dread Witch prestige classes. This person has also taken the Celestial Bloodline to offset such evil acts as such bloodlined folk cannot cast any evil spells...Spells being the hinge. Do Rebuke/Control Undead or Evil abilities such as causing disease as the prestige class ability and not a spell considered evil? How many evil acts constitue becoming evil? Five? Ten? I would imagine the spell Atonement to be the only way to switch back to a non evil alignment. What do you all think?
Sunic_Flames 03-25-08, 09:24 AM	Either the above post is ironic humor or is being deliberately made for the laugh factor.
Legdiwena 03-25-08, 03:16 PM	Atonement is not required to become non-evil it works same way you became evil in first place, by your actions. I would say there is no inherent alignment for rebuke/command undead, it is normally province of evil but is not itself evil.