Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fellwarre 10-22-05, 09:31 PM	Okay, here's the situation. I saw a thread a while ago about George Romero type zombies, and thought I'd try a little something like that for my players. The zombies I came up with are exactly like standard DnD zombies, except that if they hit with bite, there is a series of fortitude saves or the person (even if it's a player) dies and comes back as a zombie. The part was charged to check out the strange goings on inside an abandoned temple not far from a large town (about 1300+ people in the town.) Long story short, the temple contained a vampire who was creating these zombies with a plan to unleash them on the town. Due to the three-stooges-like antics of our stalwart players, they fail to contain either the vampire or the zombies. The vampire leaves through a dimensional door, and the players walk back to town. What has happened, story-wise, is that the zombies got to town and, in a Dawn of the Dead-style story, the entire town except for about 5 people are now zombies. The party reaches the town's temple first (as it is about 30 minutes away from the edge of the town itself). The temple used to be a fort and is very defensable... The idea was to get the party to defend the fort against zombies. Come on, it would have been fun... the fort had all these old siege engines and stuff... fun fun fun. Anyway, the fort was currently being guarded by a level 5 cleric and a bunch of farmers. Since they have little or no idea about how the 'plague' spread, they only know that the zombies can't speak coherantly. So, anyone who approaches they shout, 'SPEAK! ANYTHING! SPEAK YOUR NAME!' Well... certain people in our party have an issue with being 'told' to do anything. So one of the party members doesn't do anything. Now, understanding the situation... the temple is full of people who are injured from zombie attacks, and there is a corner of the temple that is piled high from decapitated bodies, because after the cleric ran out of cure disease spells, the only way to stop them being zombies was to kill them outright. So, survey the situation, the cleric shouts, 'Speak your name,' and one of the players refuses to speak, so the cleric assumes that he's been turned into a zombie and casts an offensive spell. The players take offense to this and attack the cleric, who now has to try to kill the one player who he thinks may be a zombie while trying to convince the others that their friend is a danger to them all. The cleric is frazzled, let's face it, because due to turnings and what-not he's turned some of his best friends into dust, and had to behead people in his own 'flock.' He's not in the mood to play games. Three of the four of my players, even though I'm giving them a lot of 'outs' by having the cleric tell them to lay down arms, refuse to give up and just want to fight it out. Finally, I have the cleric back down instead, because he ends up trying to save the life of one of the injured townsmen. While the others are leaving the temple to their doom, while the cleric is trying to save the lives of the villagers, the rogue, who started the whole thing, pick's the cleric's pocket. Now here's my question. I thought that was a good point to zing the rogue with an alignment change from neutral neutral to neutral evil. The party, at that point, completely jumps my ass, and the rogue tries to justify it by throwing the cleric's purse in his face and saying, 'If we wanted to hurt you, we would have...' before walking away. My QUESTION is this: Would I have been justified in the alignment change?
ehrin 10-22-05, 09:36 PM	nope. one action does not an alignment make.
Always-Late 10-22-05, 09:43 PM	An evil act, definitely. Absolutely unjustifiable, period. You've got to be one spectacular ******* to try and steal from someone who's trying to save lives. Change his alignment if his character usually does things like this. And backing out of an action just because it's the very one that would send your alignment into evil is kinda stupid. [[EDIT]] Oh, and a bit of advice. Examine any great tragedy. Whenever somebody's too proud and stubborn, very bad stuff happens.
Millennium 10-22-05, 10:07 PM	I usually don't allow a single act to change a character's alignment, unless it is something really dramatic (things iike genocide or possibly serial murder, which are really just collective names for large numbers of Evil acts anyway). However, for something like this I'd be asking for a really good in-character explanation. If nothing else, he seems to be showing a flagrant disrespect for law and order, not just in the picking pockets but the stubborn refusal to speak when asked to just say anything he wants simply because he was told to do that. I don't know if I'd say he's acting Evil, per se, but he's definitely sliding in the Chaotic direction if nothing else, and at least during this short period he's certainly been acting consistently as far as that goes. He needs to sit down and think about things, possibly resulting in an alignment switch to CN. Talk with the player about this, possibly in-session or out-of-session. As another note: players do not tend to object to adjustments on the Law/Chaos axis nearly as much as they object to adjustments on the Good/Evil axis, unless the change makes them ineligible for a class. If you decide to change a character's alignment to teach them a lesson, it is generally a much better idea to change it with respect to Law/Chaos assuming you can justify it. You hurt fewer feelings that way, and besides, it's very rare for people to change two steps at once, so even if you think they're sliding on both axes you can threaten (or even enforce) a change in Law/Chaos as a warning that a change in Good/Evil may be coming up.
Dragonsblood 10-22-05, 10:28 PM	Let me guess. You're one of those DMs who hates killing off his PCs so you bend the rules every time your players do stupid things. You never throw challenges at the PCs that they should run from, and you keep your PCs on the higher end of the power spectrum. What you need to do is stop coddling your players and give them real consequences when they screw up. Fudging encounters because the players are rolling bad one day is OK, but you shouldn't bail them out because they always attack first and ask questions later. Yes I would change the rogue's alignment. If you back down from your decisions every time someone throws a tantrum, your players will never respect you as a DM. Tell the player that he made the decision and now he has to live with the consequences. Also tell him that he has the opportunity to redeem his PC, but if his PC keeps acting like an evil bastard, he's going to have the alignment to back it up.
Fellwarre 10-22-05, 11:11 PM	Let me guess. You're one of those DMs who hates killing off his PCs so you bend the rules every time your players do stupid things. You never throw challenges at the PCs that they should run from, and you keep your PCs on the higher end of the power spectrum. Actually, the reason they were in the prediciment that they were in in the first place was because one of the PC's (my RL wife, in fact) had died not too long before. Having said that, I /have/ given the PC's a little more power than they deserve... I think it might be time for an all-out smackdown. The biggest problem I have is that I have four players... One who likes the story aspect (my wife) One who likes the numbers-and-cheetos-crunching aspect (my brother) And two who just like to kill stuff, and god forbid if you put them up against something they can't kill right off the bat. The problem in this encounter was that I had /story/ planned, and they just wanted to fight stuff. I think it might be a good idea to send them up against someone who isn't going to take any more of their smack-talk :-\
pres_man 10-22-05, 11:23 PM	Ask yourself this, what are the immediate consequences of a rogue becoming NE? If there are none then why even tell the rogue that you have decided that his true alignment is NE. Wait until it is a real issue. "See that paladin that was at the city gate, he's following you around town." "Why? I ain't done nothing." "Maybe he senses something about you." "I ain't evil." "Are you sure about that?"
rkr1970 10-22-05, 11:31 PM	I think the change would depend more on WHAT he stole than THAT he stole. If he took the cleric's money, then he's a bastard, but I wouldn't change his alignment. If he took the cleric's holy symbol, especially in light of the situation, then he's evil and deserves to suffer for it. It's not what act was performed, it's the foreseeable consequences of said act...
Dragonsblood 10-23-05, 12:30 AM	pres_man I like the style of your suggestion! I'm definately using that if it comes up :D However in this situation, I think the player needed to be punished more than anything. One who likes the story aspect (my wife) One who likes the numbers-and-cheetos-crunching aspect (my brother) And two who just like to kill stuff, and god forbid if you put them up against something they can't kill right off the bat. The problem in this encounter was that I had /story/ planned, and they just wanted to fight stuff. I think it might be a good idea to send them up against someone who isn't going to take any more of their smack-talk :-\ Fellwarre, have you explained to your players that you don't plan on DMing that type of game? Maybe they just don't know how to RP and need a little nudge.
Templetroll 10-23-05, 12:33 AM	Total stick and carrot time. Let them see the consequences of their actions. They refused to help deal with the situation they knew when it was small and actually made it worse. From your description they have left the temple; so have the temple fall to the zombies. Have the zombies continue their rampage through the nearby towns so that that section of the kingdom is overrun. Have the king declare all able bodied people are conscripted to battle the menace. Any who refuse are imprisioned, to be tried later. If they try to fight the town guard they die. Have there be enough guards or a high level NPC come up and take them out quickly. Let them roll up a new character. No temple will raise the body; all bodies will be destroyed to prevent the recurrance of the zombie plague. The PCs cannot sneak away due to the increased vigilance total terror brings to the sentries. Any slipping away at night is noted due to the high minus to move silently, etc. Roleplay the refugees who are terrified or anguished over losing family, or having to have slain zombie family members. When the PCs fight valiantly to help save the kingdom, to act herooically, then the zombie menace is put down - you can let them be noted for valor or something at that point, if there was something worth noting. That's the carrot after the stick. Then, at the ceremony to honor them, they are told there will be others who suffered much to save the kingdon also there; they see that cleric from the temple, with a couple of the townsfolk grievously wounded but alive, who escaped by a miracle - they had been surrounding the altar and as the undead assaulted them those backed against the altar were transported to the main temple. That was how the king knew something of what needed to be done so quickly. The cleric will be whispering in the ear of the head of his church, and they give hard looks to the PCs. Just leave it at that, the PCs need to work out what is happening, whether they have enemies or just folks who hold them in disdain.
twad 10-23-05, 01:28 AM	Total stick and carrot time. Let them see the consequences of their actions. They refused to help deal with the situation they knew when it was small and actually made it worse. From your description they have left the temple; so have the temple fall to the zombies. Have the zombies continue their rampage through the nearby towns so that that section of the kingdom is overrun. Have the king declare all able bodied people are conscripted to battle the menace. Any who refuse are imprisioned, to be tried later. If they try to fight the town guard they die. Have there be enough guards or a high level NPC come up and take them out quickly. Let them roll up a new character. No temple will raise the body; all bodies will be destroyed to prevent the recurrance of the zombie plague. The PCs cannot sneak away due to the increased vigilance total terror brings to the sentries. Any slipping away at night is noted due to the high minus to move silently, etc. Roleplay the refugees who are terrified or anguished over losing family, or having to have slain zombie family members. When the PCs fight valiantly to help save the kingdom, to act herooically, then the zombie menace is put down - you can let them be noted for valor or something at that point, if there was something worth noting. That's the carrot after the stick. Then, at the ceremony to honor them, they are told there will be others who suffered much to save the kingdon also there; they see that cleric from the temple, with a couple of the townsfolk grievously wounded but alive, who escaped by a miracle - they had been surrounding the altar and as the undead assaulted them those backed against the altar were transported to the main temple. That was how the king knew something of what needed to be done so quickly. The cleric will be whispering in the ear of the head of his church, and they give hard looks to the PCs. Just leave it at that, the PCs need to work out what is happening, whether they have enemies or just folks who hold them in disdain. I like that! Some real consequences in the end! Clever scenario there.
Jaxgaret 10-23-05, 01:52 AM	Ask yourself this, what are the immediate consequences of a rogue becoming NE? If there are none then why even tell the rogue that you have decided that his true alignment is NE. Wait until it is a real issue. "See that paladin that was at the city gate, he's following you around town." "Why? I ain't done nothing." "Maybe he senses something about you." "I ain't evil." "Are you sure about that?" That is absolutely beautiful. Hats off to you my friend! p.s. quote from Belkar (such an awesome character) "Stop oppressing my culture, you ethnocentric *****!"
BadCatMan 10-23-05, 02:04 AM	Is there a Jerk alignment to go along with Stupid? I think this Rogue is Neutral Jerk, or Chaotic Jerk, or even Stupid Jerk. No amount of 'Don't do anything anyone tells me to do.' explains not replying to a simple request. He's being a Jerk. :D
FriendoftheDork 10-23-05, 08:39 AM	Being a jerk has nothing to do with alignment. Obviously the rogue's act was chaotic in the extreme, and if he's not chaotic to begin with I'd consider changing his aligment if this stubborn refusal to do obey anything was the norm. As for evil... no stealing isn't evil in D&D, at least not according to RAW unless the theft results in harming innocents (such as stealing his holy symbol) or such malicious intent. The rogue was being an ******* with ab attitude problem, but is actions were not evil.
Cantankerous 10-23-05, 12:41 PM	Really, what alignment could you change him too, even if a single action was enough to do it? IM (Idiotic Moronic)? What he did doesn't in and if itself qualify really anywhere on the Alignment scale but Neutral. Picking the guys pocket, refusing to answer his questions, defending himself when he's been attacked... none of these acts are a real problem in themselves. It was the meta-conceptualization that these bozos are using that kills things. You set a scene and they really did Three Stooge it, but not from stupidity, but from irascible meta-concepting. I'd talk with my Players about it if I were you. This was brain damaged behavior. Isshia
Adraedan 10-23-05, 12:42 PM	I come from a long line of bullheaded players. I was taught to play by a bullheaded player turned DM, I played bullheaded characters alongside other bullheaded characters...and I don't think ANY of us, in my roughly 10 years of playing D&D, has played a LG character. Hell, you could count the Good characters on 1 hand. What was his motivation for pick-pocketing the priest? What does it really matter if he is NE anyway? Is it really that bad that he refused to answer the question? I'm sick of how people assume your adventuring group has to be good, has to obey laws, has to play the hero else the DM kill/alignment change/punish the players. Try, for one night, making a group of evil characters...believe me, it's EXTREMELY fun and feels good to vent the darker side of ones psyche. Of course, I'm extremely off topic at this point....to answer the post, it was a chaotic move, not an evil move, and I still don't think it was a big enough deal to shift his alignment.
Always-Late 10-23-05, 02:19 PM	It's not that the DM cares. It's that when the DM said it changed, the players started complaining. So apparently it's just the players that don't want to be evil.
Griogre 10-23-05, 03:12 PM	Some good points made already, but I think the key is you need to make sure the PC's realize their actions have consequences - for good or ill. It will make your world seem more alive. I would suggest you talk things over with your players first. Not that I am cynical, but you problem child will likely ignore you. However, in D&D especially at their level there is always meaner, tougher and more indifferent NPC's. IE if you ended the scenario right after the purse throwing... Lord Ramrod LN F10, Knight Defender of the Realm, walks in with his henchmen right on the heels of the purse throwing episode in answer to a desperate message from the cleric to the crown. He doesn't have a sense of humor, he's tired from riding all night, and just had to kill several of the realm's citizens he is sworn to defend to make it to the temple... Let the situation play out as it will. The PCs better hope no one knows who's responsible for letting the vampire escape and the town zombied. As far as the alignment change, I don't believe being a jerk changes alignment unless, of course being a jerk runs counter to the rogue's current alignment i.e. the rouge is LG. If you want to make a statement - shift him one step toward CN if he isn't already CN. One action doesn't normally shift alignment but there does seem to be a pattern of behavior from what you have said.
wrecan 10-23-05, 04:50 PM	I agre with those who say his actions were Chaotic, not evil. He was trying to thumb his nose at authority, not hurt the guy. I would hope that if the guy had reached into a pocket and pulled out a holy symbol, he would have returned it, but would have kept anything the cleric didn't need to survive. That's CN, and I think you would have been completely justified in imposing that change.