Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheDarkLord 10-02-03, 11:10 PM	I have a character who is playing a Rogue in our campaign. His alignment was originally set at Chaotic Good. In our past visit to the city of Parotyke the group witness him as he risked his life to save several innocent children, that night he was chasing after some town girls and a guard told him to settle down or they would imprison him for public harassment. Next thing i know this 10th level rouge kills both 1st level warriors. I asked him if that was the correct thing to do considering his alignment. He answered by saying " I risk my life to bring peace to the world and save innocent children and people, i cannot stand to be told what to do or when to do it and when someone try's to enforce their law on me i take it as a threat to my life and my way of living." I agree most everything he does in this campaign is to help the world be a better place, but he will kill people, even innocent people if something like this happens again. Is he truly chaotic good or chaotic neutral?
Fixxxer 10-02-03, 11:15 PM	To be honest, that whole "anyone trying to tell me what to do is threatening my life" line sounds like a defensive cop-out to me. Were these guards trying to manhandle him, or did they just come up and tell him to settle down? If they just told him to settle down, then killing them was probably a bad thing. If they were trying to manhandle him to a place he didn't want to go, then he probably would have been within his alignment to fight back, but killing these guards was still probably a bit of a no-no, but not enough to warrant an alignment change. Without knowing more, I'd say don't change his alignment, but watch his actions closely. If anything else like this happens again, consider a change.
TheDarkLord 10-02-03, 11:22 PM	They told him they would take him to jail i meant to put that up there, but the thing is he plays his character like he is in real life, he loves to have fun he see's the need for peace but he has a real authority problem, he hates being told what to do, he figures if he lives his life the way he wants to then nothing bad will happen but he will, i know for a fact, fight just because someone told him to do something, its the way he is, other than that he's the nicest person your likely to meet, thats why we game with him. We play our characters as extensions of ourselves, hence the reason we have no lawful good alignments, mostely chaotic and neutral good. I just thought it was odd that if he would do that in character does that really make him a bad person. I mean why risk your life for peace when you would kill someone for administering the law of the land?
itrainedyoda 10-03-03, 12:23 AM	Sounds like he suffers from oppositional defiance disorder. Have the widows of the 1st level warriors come to him and demand restitution. Have the fatherless children look at him and ask him why he killed their daddy. Have the skirts he chases hear about what he did and give him the cold shoulder. Make him realize there are consequences beyond corpral punishment and imprisonment.
Darthos the Librarian 10-03-03, 12:31 AM	ooh, itrainedyoda, that's a good one.
Inigo Carmine 10-03-03, 12:56 AM	I would say he's more on the chaotic evil side. In my book performing intentional acts of both good and evil doesn't make you neutral, it makes you evil. Killing innocent gaurds is fairly evil...Does he know about subdual damage? That probably would have been the better thing to do, and would have still fit his character just fine. Just beat the 2 gaurds into unconsciousness and go on with his merrymaking.
blackprinceofmuncie 10-03-03, 01:35 AM	Placing your own absolute freedom to act as you want above the life of other people is selfish in the extreme and at the very least a non-good act. IMC, this character would be considered evil.
Barrid 10-03-03, 02:00 AM	It was a chaotic neutral act, borderline chaotic evil. You should only change his alignment when he is more XX than YY. Basically when you feel the preponderance of his acts are no longer Chaotic Good, feel free to hit him for a shift. Because I love showing off, here's a >link< (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102405) to an article I wrote on alignment that may help you.
Leap 10-03-03, 04:00 AM	Sounds to me like CG but with a fantastically low wisdom.......reduce his wis to about 7 and take it from there............
Sweet Steph 10-03-03, 04:31 AM	My advice is to think about what he said very carefully. Originally posted by TheDarkLord "I risk my life to bring peace to the world and save innocent children and people, i cannot stand to be told what to do or when to do it and when someone try's to enforce their law on me i take it as a threat to my life and my way of living." You can disregard that garbage about saving the innocent; it looks to me like a bunch of made-up tripe. He obviously knows that he's acting out of alignment and he's trying to defend his actions. What you should pay attention to is the part I italicized, as it is the part that sums up his character's personality. "i cannot stand to be told what to do or when to do it and when someone try's to enforce their law on me i take it as a threat to my life and my way of living." This is purely a Chaotic Neutral outlook on life. It emphasizes lawlessness and complete disregard for legitimate authority. There's little doubt that this rogue is CN and not CG. Considering the way he killed those guards with no regrets, he may even be CE.
Red_Decker 10-03-03, 04:53 AM	I've had a character's alignment changed from lawful neutral to true neutral because he withheld treasure from the party twice. He would have been changed to Lawful Evil but the DM didn't want evil in his campaign so he changed him to TN so I could attone. I'd say change him to Chaotic neutral, if he keeps it up he becomes evil. Because you risk life and limb to save people gives you now right to kill with abondon. In effect he's trying to play God chooseing who lives and who dies, and that's not a good thing. http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/drowmonk.TXT In the Red :r:
AncientHugeRedFacedDM 10-03-03, 07:53 AM	Another vote for Chaotic Evil. My brother-in-law had a lot of trouble this way both in the game and in Life. He simply cannot or will not take orders from anyone else under any circumstances and it has made his life miserable and the lives of many around him the same. It is one thing when a bully orders you to give him your lunch money and another thing all together when your boss or some other legitimate authority figure asks you to do something reasonable. A couple of guards asking some one to ....tone it down a little... is no excuse to commit murder in game or out. It would be perfectly exceptable in my campaign of course, because I am running an EVIL campaign. If this is the way he wants to play fine, but he is not Chaotic Good. -Hal
Whaledawg 10-03-03, 10:53 AM	Is he truly chaotic good or chaotic neutral Chaotic evil. He killed good men doing their jobs. Indefenceable. And unspellable even ;) The mantra of chaotic good is not 'do good when I feel like it'. It is everyone has fundamental rights, the main one of which is the right to live. By killing those men he didn't respect that right at all. I would bring the fury of the locals down on him, hard. Hell, even a chaotic evil guy would have thought twice about killing them just bc of the attention it would bring.
Bacon and Eggs 10-03-03, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by Whaledawg Hell, even a chaotic evil guy would have thought twice about killing them just bc of the attention it would bring. That's what I was going to get at, but there it is above me, so I'll jsut quote it. It was more of a Chaotic Stupid act in my view. You could go anyway you want on this but I'd jomp to the more evil side as the character in question has just killed a couple of innoncent folks himself. You know, the guards were only doing their job.
Kenohki 10-03-03, 11:27 AM	I would shift him down to Chaotic Neutral. He believes in helping children but that officers trying to keep the peace deserve death. Have him meet one of those children he saved. Have the children thank him. Then have one of the children beg him to avenge his murdered father. The child makes him promise to make the murderer pay. When the promise is made the child explains the circumstances of his death... he was killed by a wild hoodlum he was trying to claim down. Or have him meet some an ally about to do something "wrong" like hitting a kid. When the PC tells him to stop have him say that no one can tell him what to do and attack him.
DrMorganes 10-03-03, 11:31 AM	A single out-of-alignment act is almost NEVER enough to warrant a change in alignment! Keep in mind that alignments are a behavioral guideline, not a hard and fast set of required actions. People make mistakes, do stupid things. A single poor decision isn't going to instantly turn a (basically) good person into an evil monster unless there is magic involved (Helm of Opposite Alignment comes to mind). Alignment changes due to changes in outlook and behavior are slow and gradual, shifting through a continuum as the character continues to commit acts more appropriate to another alignment. So, the question here is not, "Was what he did out of alignment?" or even "How far into another alignment was the act?" The question here is, "Is this behavior indicative of a new trend?" As Fixxxer suggested, leave this character's alignment intact, and WATCH HIM CLOSELY. Play up the social consequences for having killed two of the city watch. The rest of the watch - like all regular police - will be hunting high and low for the slimebag who murdered two of their own. Certain factions in the city will like what happened, and may approach the PC with offers of similar work. Other factions won't like it and will lean on him to clean up his act or else. (After all, the Watch's increased activity is making it difficult for the local smuggling ring to meet its quota this month!) If he continues his slide toward the Dark Side, then change his alignment incrementally to Chaotic Neutral. If he still doesn't come to his senses, he'll probably move into Neutral Evil long before he hits Chaotic Evil.
SmiloDan 10-03-03, 11:44 AM	In my campaign, the players have recently drifted to the dark side. They were trying to collect a bounty on a shapechanging swindler, so they were gonna set up a sting to catch her. For that, they needed bait--such as a lot of a valuable commodity. They found out that a shipment of expensive wine was coming in that night, so they waylaid the wagon and KILLED 2 innocent commoners, and drove off with the loot. And pretty much got away with murder. Then they sold their loot at the next town, and went back looking for the swindler (they didn't really set up the sting very well, did they?). They got harrassed from some toughs and killed one. Not so bad. Then they acted guilty and dragged the body into the woods. They were caught and arrested by guards, but then fought back, killing 2 guards, and wounding 2 more. They are a Neutral halforc wizard 2/barbarian 1 and a Chaotic Neutral human rogue 3. The halforc tries to act like a druid, alignment-wise. The rogue is fairly happy go lucky. Now they're murderers. I'm gonna put them on a quest to redeem themselves, probably. And send bounty hunters after them. What's funny is, in the past, they captured Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil villains and brought them in to the Law. And those guys didn't even have bounties on their heads!
Mike the DM 10-03-03, 12:34 PM	Originally posted by DrMorganes A single out-of-alignment act is almost NEVER enough to warrant a change in alignment! I tend to agree - alignments drift rather than make dramatic changes (without magical influence). However, while resisting authority is indeed a chaotic virtue, murder is anathema to good. Had the character disabled the guards or used his rogue's skills to escape from them without killing them, then that's good roleplay, from both a class and alignment standpoint. Using good deeds to justfy homicide is not the action of a good-aligned character, however. If this is the character's first significant alignment breach (and I'm guessing that it's probably not, from the description of the player...), then I'd leave the alignment alone and go forward with all of the social consequences mentioned above. If this is the most extreme example of an on-going series of behaviors, then an alignment shift to chaotic neutral is warranted.
xect 10-03-03, 01:33 PM	I'd say he is on the line between neutral and good. What side of the line he's on depends on the exact behavior of the guards. Where they threatening him (are we talking knives on the throat, "follow us", or nice and polite city guards). Even if he's on the neutral side, I'd say call this a one-timer. Never change anyones alignment based on one event, unless we're talking at least the doom of a land. Evil is not even a consideration, he saved the girl. He never hit anyone who never did him anything (after all, they WERE there to take him to jail). The chaotic alignment still has to mean something IMO. Also, his wis and int should have a say. If they are high, his actions must be considered more well-thought-trough (and thus more defining for his alignment than rash actions).
Red_Decker 10-03-03, 01:42 PM	High Int does not mean his actions were thought through and therefore are acurate for the situation. The city guard, from my understanding was trying to get him to settle down or they would take him to jail. http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/drowmonk.TXT In the Red :r:
Sweet Steph 10-03-03, 05:12 PM	Originally posted by DrMorganes A single out-of-alignment act is almost NEVER enough to warrant a change in alignment! *snip* His behavior isn't the reason his alignment should be changed. As I said earlier, his alignment should be changed because of his attitude, which seems to favor total anarchy over good. If he has been this way since the beginning of the game, his alignment should never have been CG in the first place.
Barrid 10-03-03, 05:28 PM	But your argument for changing his alignment doesn't follow. You want to change him from CG to CN or CE because he is anarchic? He's already Chaotic. He comitted a questionable act, but one act, even with "attitude" doesn't change alignment. If he has always been like this, it's not just one act is it?
DrMorganes 10-04-03, 02:05 AM	His behavior isn't the reason his alignment should be changed. As I said earlier, his alignment should be changed because of his attitude, which seems to favor total anarchy over good. If he has been this way since the beginning of the game, his alignment should never have been CG in the first place. I have to agree with Barrid here, Steph. The Chaotic component of this rogue's alignment already indicates he has a blatant disregard for authority. Disregarding authority is neither good nor evil (though a Lawful person - like a magistrate - may argue otherwise). It is, however, one of the definitions of Chaotic behavior. I think the debate is over whether or how much his alignment needs to change on the Good/Evil axis based on this isolated evil act. I don't feel one act of this magnitude is sufficient to force an alignment change. If he keeps on killing watchmen for telling him to cool his jets, then we have a solid argument.
Shar Baenre 10-04-03, 02:43 AM	*stands perputually amazed at people's freedom to pull the "Chaotic Evil" card* I think we all lose sight of just how untamed that alignment is... its reserved for those that would actively seek out a guard to kill him, not somebody that actually feared the guard's actions... (besides subdual damage isn't something that a scared rogue would really favor if ARMED guards were in his mind posing a threat)... maybe his actions weren't good, but they were "chaotic" which is simply a fluctuation of predictability (thusly being the good intent or bad intent). But its not like he went out actively looking for blood... He didn't syphon somebody's brain mindflayer style, or slaughter a bunch of moon elves like a drow maurauder... he was playing CG and the guards made him feel threatened... he defended himself...
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-04-03, 03:02 AM	Is it possible at all that he just didn't realise he could do subdual damage? I do it some times and Vaal has a merciful weapon. Although, admittedly, he's smart enough to run and hide from the Watch instead of getting into a battle.
Shar Baenre 10-04-03, 03:09 AM	but the question isn't could he or couldn't he subdue... he didn't... now does it mean that he was outside of the bounds of character and alignment?
MinusInnocence 10-04-03, 03:33 AM	I don't like how that idea sits: cutting someone off at the knees as far as alignment goes for one false move is a little too much like something an FM would do (Fascist Master!).. I feel that Fixxxer's advice is reasonable.. just keep an idea on how things go in the next session or two. In the meantime, you have to show him that he can't just go around killing everyone willy-nilly if they look at him the wrong way. Another great idea is to remind the PC (player AND character, this is a valuable learning exercise for the actual person sitting at the table with you, since you claim his character is so much like him) of the ramifications of cold-blooded murder. I particularly like the one about the kids asking him why he killed their daddy... another spin you can place on it is one of the eldest being of appropriate fighting-age, and striking out in a stint of vigilantism against our rogue. He may very well be forced to kill the child, or perhaps he can show a bit of restraint for once and try to rectify the situation with her (and with himself). Anyway, more importantly even than Fixxxer's recommendation is to take a look at how the character has been played so far. Maybe Chaotic Neutral isn't such a bad idea after all... while it's unreasonable to shift the alignment for one stupid mistake, what if the alignment was actually at that level all along?
blackprinceofmuncie 10-04-03, 05:33 AM	Originally posted by Sweet Steph His behavior isn't the reason his alignment should be changed. As I said earlier, his alignment should be changed because of his attitude, which seems to favor total anarchy over good. If he has been this way since the beginning of the game, his alignment should never have been CG in the first place. I agree with Steph's general assertion here that it's the character's attitude, rather than his actions that indicate that he shouldn't be CG. However, I think Steph focuses on the wrong aspect. It's not his preference for "total anarchy" that makes him CN or CE its his complete lack of remorse over his killing of the guards. It's one thing to make a "mistake" in a heated moment. It's a completely different thing to justify your actions after the fact and fail to see the error of your ways. If a character commits an evil act and repents, he's not necessarily evil. If he commits an evil act and it doesn't bother him...well...that pretty much fits my definition of evil to a T.
Red_Decker 10-04-03, 09:54 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie I agree with Steph's general assertion here that it's the character's attitude, rather than his actions that indicate that he shouldn't be CG. However, I think Steph focuses on the wrong aspect. It's not his preference for "total anarchy" that makes him CN or CE its his complete lack of remorse over his killing of the guards. It's one thing to make a "mistake" in a heated moment. It's a completely different thing to justify your actions after the fact and fail to see the error of your ways. If a character commits an evil act and repents, he's not necessarily evil. If he commits an evil act and it doesn't bother him...well...that pretty much fits my definition of evil to a T. I'm going to agree with this. Remorse is a factor of good his alignment says he is generally good, he just has a free spirit but, if he didn't have remorse over the killing then he's at the very least neutral. Take it from here Dark Lord, I think you have enough aruguements both for and against the change; so, you make the call. http://www.geocities.com/leaves_or/reddecker.txt In the Red :r:
Nephet 10-04-03, 12:05 PM	That was an evil act through and through. Rather or not it represents a pattern of behavior waits to be seen. If the city is well-developed with a strong government, I would expect a vigorous investigation by the local authorities.
abysslin 10-04-03, 01:39 PM	This about sums it up... http://www.andycollins.net/Theories/alignment.htm
blackprinceofmuncie 10-04-03, 03:15 PM	Originally posted by abysslin This about sums it up... http://www.andycollins.net/Theories/alignment.htm Not only is that one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen by a "professional" writer (I stopped counting at 36 spelling and grammatical errors) this statement... If your DM thinks that your character’s alignment sets up restrictions on her behavior and actions, point him to Chapter 6 for a refresher: it may be that he’s relying on attitudes formed by older versions of the game. ...is a glaring example of one of the biggest problems with the current crop of game designers for the D&D system. My response to Mr. Collins would be that if one of my players pointed me to Chapter 6, I would point my player to step 0 of character creation. Mr. Collin's interpretation of the alignment system is NOT the only valid one.
Wyvern76 10-06-03, 03:55 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Not only is that one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen by a "professional" writer (I stopped counting at 36 spelling and grammatical errors)I'm rather skeptical of that statement, since I can only find one. Would you care to give an some examples of these errors you found? Wyvern
Thyrwyn 10-06-03, 06:07 AM	blackprinceomuncie - the DM in this case is not trying to restrict the players actions, but label the character with the alignment that best describes the actions the character has taken. That is as it should be. The character is CE. He is the equivalent of a gangster. So he will save innocent kids - he will also kill anyone who gets in his face. He has no respect for life, just some life he chooses to respect. He could very easily have gotten out of the situation with the guards (who were no threat to him) without bloodshed - he chose not do so. He chose to take life when there were other (easy) options. CE The problem here is the mindset that sees alignment change as a 'penalty' - it isn't, unless you are playing a class which requires you to adhere to a certain alignment. Even in that case, it is the class which is imposing the restriction, not the alignment.
abysslin 10-07-03, 11:09 AM	if one of my players pointed me to Chapter 6, I would point my player to step 0 of character creation LOL Abysslin
Hazzurath 10-07-03, 06:08 PM	Stupid Evil is how I would define this act of murder. Evil because killing a couple of Guards who were merely doing their job and apparently not threatening the character is a fairly evil act (Were these Guards threatening others? Had they drawn weapons?). Good people respect all life and I see no respect here for the life of the two Guards. Stupid because all the character had to do was shrug and say "OK" to the Guards and off they'd go and no-one would have been killed. Adhering strictly to the laws is one thing, appearing to adhere to the laws is another and all the character had to do was appear to obey the Guards (if the Player acted in such a manner in real life what do you think would happen to him and what do you think people would think of him? No-one would consider him a freedom fighter, cold-hearted murderer good for only the electric chair would be closer to popular opinion - same should happen in your campaign). It appears to me that the character's Chaotic Good alignment may have been the wrong alignment for the Player to take if this is how the character feels about authority. The Player made a statement justifying the act and that statement reveals what the character's alignment should have been (I believe Chaotic Neutral at the very least). I suggest at least to have the character become wanted in the city (and the country) for murder with a fairly hefty price on his head. Have witnesses come forward so a fairly good likeness is circulated and a rough picture posted around the city streets. Also you may want to discuss the character's alignment with the Player and suggest that he change it to one more suitable to such actions.
The Gray 10-07-03, 06:59 PM	This character, to me at least, sounds like a "mostly good guy with a few pretty bad mortal foibles." Unless this is a stupid excuse to kill someone in-game, this character should be shown the error of his actions and that killing for such a reason as "they told me to do something" won't be tolerated by nearly ANYONE in the campaign world. However, an alignment shift is unadvised as all well-played good characters should have flaws; however, this one is pretty glaring and should be handled with care. Show the PC/Player the problem with this killing and it should all be fixed up. An involuntary alignment shift on the first offense is never a good thing and should only be left to extreme circumstances (a NG character sacrificing babies to Demogorgon is an immediate shift if not magically coerced, obviously).
Tahl-Ali 10-07-03, 07:11 PM	First of all: killing someone, an innocent someone, because of a "percieved" threat to your way of life (and yes his definition is a huge stretch) is a morally dubious act. Now if he was a Hebrew fighting against the Nazi's that would be a whole different issue. He's killing because he has a problem with authority, those actions are very very clearly evil. I would say neutrally so. You as the DM should take those actions into account with his character's alignment. And even if you don't change his alignment you really really should have some sort of consequences come down on him. Personally i'd throw his character into a dungeon by the Lawful Evil Baron after a nice and severe beating. But that's just me, i'm a little vindictive. Lastly, consequences consequences consequences, what makes games realistic is that your actions effect the world. That's how you feel like your characters have worth. So give his character some, if he doesn't like the city guard coming after him and being banished from towns where the rest of the party has free reign then maybe he should arbitrarily kill people!!!!! Sadly i think I'm Lawful good in alignment, and oh how fun it is to play NE.....
Raist27m 10-07-03, 07:35 PM	Sounds chaotic evil to me. He wasn't being asked to do anything unreasonable for a cha/gd char. Respecting others is almost hand-in-hand with good. I'd peg him down to cha/neu.