Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WailingNinja 09-10-07, 10:14 AM	I know such a question has probably been asked before, so I apologize in advance. And before the obvious answer of "It's DM's discretion and his/her final call in all situations", I just want to know the general consensus to this query - is it the act itself that makes you good/evil, or the intent? Here are my examples: I was playing a CN Rogue, and we were on a mission to infiltrate a heavily armed town, extract a prisoner, and leave, undetected. We are shown to a back entrance that leads into a secondary guard shack. I, being the Rogue, enter first, only to find a guard in the room, though he is asleep at the table, a bottle of alcohol empty beside him. Though the natural assumption is that he is passed-out drunk and would be no harm to us (especially me), I decide not to take the risk of him waking up at any point and barring our escape route, so I coup de grace him, drag his body behind some crates, and clean up the blood. While I realize that killing a sleeping man is, by no means, a good-natured thing to do, I figured that it was better to be safe than sorry and take out a potential hazard BEFORE he becomes a hazard, since I had no idea how long he'd been out, how much he'd actually had to drink, etc. However, my DM almost kicked me from CN to CE for doing that, stating that it didn't matter WHY I did it, but WHAT I did. I argued that it was not an evil thing to do, merely a smart thing to do. Another time, a man barged into a house the party was currently occupying, looking to collect the bounty that had been placed on our Fighter's head. Since we did not just hand him over, he decided to fight us with his bare hands. I fought back, naturally, with my Rapier. After killing the man, I was, once again, almost made CE for "killing an unarmed man". I, once again, argued that it didn't matter whether or not he was unarmed, it was the fact that he had chosen to fight us, knowing full well that we had weapons. Plus, for all we knew, the man could have been a Monk (or some other pure hand-to-hand combatant) that NEEDED no weapon. How were we supposed to know that beforehand? Anyway, I know it comes down to DM discretion, but I believe his interpretation of the alignments and what causes alignment shifts is a bit skewed, and I know that there are those here who have played more than he and I combined, and could possibly give a better perspective of the issue than we could. Who knows, maybe he WAS right.
TheMonk 09-10-07, 10:26 AM	If you're asking me you did nothing wrong. While the first example may be subject to debate, that one action isn't enough to make you evil just like that. The second example is no debate at all. He attacked you first - and you are entitled to defend yourself, and kill the opponent if you need to. And you did so as well. This by no means makes you evil. As far as the first example goes, this may be the DM's discretion, but that one single action can't make you evil just like that. A LOT of such actions would definitely make you evil. But one, no way! After all, every character in the game makes mistakes. Just because they do doesn't mean they're evil or anything. If you ask me, he should not brand you evil just because of this single act. A multitude of such acts would bring you close to evil though, if not make you evil.
Kamin_Majere 09-10-07, 10:32 AM	On your first example: Assuming your character isnt playing Chaotic Stupid and is indeed simply a Chaotic Neutral Character then what you did was fine. Was it evil to kill a sleeping and helpless man? Probably alittle bit, but its certainly not enough to cause an alignment shift. I dont know enough about your adventureing habits to really make the call though. It might have been the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, or it might be a case of your DM over reacting; I cant say for sure. On your second Example: What you did was fine. In a world where people can shatter mountains with their fists or fire meteor storms out of their fingers; it's not unfair to use a weapon agasint someone thats willing to attack you unarmed.
WailingNinja 09-10-07, 10:38 AM	Well, he had a system set up where we started with ten points. That represented how well-set in your alignment you were. Basically, the total would rise or lower when you did something that he considered to be to "good" or "evil" for your alignment, and when you reached either ten points higher or lower than where you started, your alignment would shift accordingly. If you acted within your alignment, your total would migrate back to the original score of 10. It's more nuanced than that, but that's it in a nutshell. For each of those examples, I was taken from 10 to about 1 or 2, which I found ridiculous. Also, funny note, the town that I killed the sleeping guard in needed up capturing us (thanks to a loud and clumsy Fighter). They found the body and ordered us all to be hanged from the central tower of the city. Everyone in the party died....except for me. I was able to slip out of the rope, evade the guards' attacks, and escape with about 3hp to my name (thanks to arrows fired form the town walls). Thank Olidimarra for Boots of Swiftness.
Another_Poet 09-10-07, 10:39 AM	Here's my take on it. I would suggest not thinking of it as the DM's rule, but as the rules of the world you live in. Sure the DM is behind the world, but when he tells you OOC that this IC action is going to make you evil, what he's really doing is telling you what the gods in his world are like. Remember, your character grew up in this world and has a good idea of what is considered good and evil by his community, his priest, and the gods of his religion. Of course, as a player you don't know all that stuff, so your DM just has to tell you. Since it sounds like he has given you a second (and third) chance to take the hint, it doesn't seem like he is power-tripping. He is playing his gods true to their character, just as you are trying to stay true to your character. The difference is, the gods outrank your character. So unless you can convince your DM to change his whole game world or you want to leave the group, you might want your character to feel a little guilt about these deeds and take more care with dubiously "helpless" NPC's in the future. ap
Majick 09-10-07, 10:39 AM	I'm with TheMonk on this one. To go from one alignment to another, such as CN to CE, in my opinion, requires either a continuous string of evil deeds (such as perhaps the one you did/did not do, depending on perspective). OR A truly, utterly, unquestionably, virilent, disgusting and horrific act of exceptional well thought out Eeeeeeeeeevil (with a capital 'E') e.g. Starting the apocalypse cause you thought things needed a 'bit of a shake up' or poisoning an entire metropolis because you needed more 'personal space' As for the second event i wouldn't keep it against your tally of evil deeds. Chaotic perhaps for killing a bounty hunter (assuming the bounty was legal and done for good enough reasons) but not evil.
Kamin_Majere 09-10-07, 10:55 AM	Well, he had a system set up where we started with ten points. That represented how well-set in your alignment you were. Basically, the total would rise or lower when you did something that he considered to be to "good" or "evil" for your alignment, and when you reached either ten points higher or lower than where you started, your alignment would shift accordingly. If you acted within your alignment, your total would migrate back to the original score of 10. It's more nuanced than that, but that's it in a nutshell. For each of those examples, I was taken from 10 to about 1 or 2, which I found ridiculous. Also, funny note, the town that I killed the sleeping guard in needed up capturing us (thanks to a loud and clumsy Fighter). They found the body and ordered us all to be hanged from the central tower of the city. Everyone in the party died....except for me. I was able to slip out of the rope, evade the guards' attacks, and escape with about 3hp to my name (thanks to arrows fired form the town walls). Thank Olidimarra for Boots of Swiftness. Ah, i've seen systems like that used in the past; they're not bad, but leave a bit to be desired. It does seem weird that a single act would drop your alignment so far. If killing a single guard is equivilant to 8 or 9 on that scale then i would think that the DM would have made a chart for each of the 9 alignments and described what each action did on a point by point basis. Thats the problem with this style of system. Its good in theory, but most DM's that use it tend to never think about what action does what point reduction/increase before hand. Each of the nine alignments would have a diffrent system basically. I mean if its 8-9 points for murder for a chaotic neutral character it would be 30ish points for a Lawful Good character as both of those alignments view the situation diffrently. I guess the Dm is wanting you to metagame a bit. Try using your sap from now on and dropping people comatose with something like -1000 hit points. Its now not evil because you didnt kill them, but more than likely they'll starve to death before they ever wake up :) On the Escape... why didnt the guards take your gear? Most tend to strip adventurers almost naked.
pres_man 09-10-07, 10:59 AM	Do intent or actions dicate the alignment of a action? Yes. It is not a simple one or another in most cases. Take the example of a person who mistaken believes that all elves are the spawn of fiends, and that their "good" behaviour is merely a disguise for their truly fiendish deeds. This person thinks he is doing good when he murders elf after elf, but he is actually doing evil, should his intent be the most important or his actions? Most would say his actions. On the other hand, a paladin sees a fiend, detects evil from hidden location, detects a strong evil aura confirming it is a fiend, and so the paladin attacks and smites and lands a crit with his vorpal weapon and kills the fiend in the first round. Later he learns that the fiend was actually converted to good, but because of its nature it would still detect as evil (creatures with the evil subtype still detect as evil and can be effected by spells that harm evil creatures even if their actual alignment is not). Should the paladin be held to the standard that he did an evil act though his intent was to kill an evil creature which he did try to confirm was in fact evil? Most would say his intent makes this a non-evil act. As for your particular situations, for the first one, I think it comes down to what your character knew about the guard. Was this a guard for some evil cultist group, or just a run of the mill guard for some legitimate organization? If it was the latter, the I would say it was probably evil of you to kill him. Neutral people have qualms about harming innocents and just a standard guard for a city or such who is asleep on his job would probably qualify. You could have tied him up, or you could have sapped him (what do you mean you don't have a sap?) or whatever. You might have even asked your DM to allow you to use "coup-de-grace" as a non-lethal attack as a houserule. As for the second, if you told the guy he wasn't going to get the fighter and he still attacked you guys, bare handed or not (spellcasters, monks, warlocks, etc don't need weapons) well he probably got what he deserved for being dumb. Now if he attempt to surrender or run after you guys pounded on him a bit, and you went ahead and killed him, and you didn't have any reason to believe he was a "evil", then that might be an issue.
Kouk 09-10-07, 11:05 AM	Alignment really is based on actions rather than intent. More specifically, it is based on your actions as interpreted by the DM. On page 104 of the PHB it says "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions." Alignments are never an exact science, and pretty much anyone you ask will define them slightly differently. The "core" alignments as described basically favor good over evil. True Neutral is described sort of like "He's Good, but just really lazy" Neutral, "Undecided" A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. It is a similar theme in the book for the other neutral alignments (in my view), after all the "default" assumption is that the player characters are heroes fighting for good (or at least not against it). Personally, your listed actions sound pretty darn CN to me. The killing the guard in his sleep does seem somewhat evil - there are other ways you could have dealt with that, such as a Coup de Grace with nonlethal damage (using a Sap or unarmed strike will also get Sneak Attack damage), multiple times if necessary. Maybe just carefully trying to tie him up and gag him. For sheer safety though, it was probably "correct" to kill him. If your DM believes more in the "neutral is just lazy goodness" then he will penalize you for "evil" actions. I suspect that his sliding scale needs to be a bit better defined, such as "stealing for no reason is 2 points down the chaos scale" and "killing helpless villagers is 10 points down the evil scale" or something like that so you know what you are able to do. Probably, you were just doing things he was not expecting you to do, so he overreacted a bit on his little alignment scale deally but you convinced him to not make you evil. You did apparently lead (indirectly) to a near TPK though, and that enough may lead your character to "change his ways" and just be a bit more cooperative with what the "the gods", or "fate" wants from him...
DrMorganes 09-10-07, 12:55 PM	For the record, killing a sleeping guard is a perfectly "in character" thing for a CN rogue to do. You had no idea how long he'd been out, or whether he truly WAS sleeping and not just pretending because he heard you coming. The mission was to get in and get out undetected; for CN - and particularly a CN rogue - the end frequently justifies the means. CE would have killed him just because it was fun (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/71).
Krusk 09-10-07, 01:30 PM	Well, he had a system set up where we started with ten points. That represented how well-set in your alignment you were. Basically, the total would rise or lower when you did something that he considered to be to "good" or "evil" for your alignment, and when you reached either ten points higher or lower than where you started, your alignment would shift accordingly. If you acted within your alignment, your total would migrate back to the original score of 10. It's more nuanced than that, but that's it in a nutshell. For each of those examples, I was taken from 10 to about 1 or 2, which I found ridiculous. Also, funny note, the town that I killed the sleeping guard in needed up capturing us (thanks to a loud and clumsy Fighter). They found the body and ordered us all to be hanged from the central tower of the city. Everyone in the party died....except for me. I was able to slip out of the rope, evade the guards' attacks, and escape with about 3hp to my name (thanks to arrows fired form the town walls). Thank Olidimarra for Boots of Swiftness. Not to stir the pot between you and your dm anymore, but im going to. It seems from this encounter that he is almost definatly going to start targeting your rogue more than anyone elses. When enemies attack the party the rogue will be hit first, when you go to turn off a trap the DC might just end up one higher than you rolled. Things like that. This sounds like it was supposed to be a railroaded attempt at a game ender/reroll the entire party/maybe even a you all die but continue campaign as ghosts type encounter. But because your character barely managed to get away he was unable to do that. Just something you might want to consider is saying you would like to reroll a new character alongside the rest of the party. To make things go smoothly. Also you better not ever use your rapier on a monk. No matter what, or your evil.
Zombie_Duck 09-10-07, 01:42 PM	First Killing an enemy soldier is not an evil act even if he is helpless when you do it. Killing a unarmed man dumb enough to attack an armed trained adventure in not a evil act. Second if your DM is the type that thinks that acts the border line evil then just try not killing as much. try using a sap once in a while, just to make him happy. You could alway just go CE. But I have seen Paladins kill unarmed attackers before.
Shadowhowler 09-10-07, 02:07 PM	I think your DM went a bit to far... but it depends on the other actions of your character as well. If I were the DM, I would weigh ALL of your PC's behavour, and I'd give you warnings about your alinment shifting in one direction or the other before I did it. With the sleeping guard, going stabby-Mc-stabby on him may not actualy be the best approch realisticly, tho it is mechanicly. Think about it. If he is passed out, you could get him in a sleeper hold without diffculty, which would also prevent him from screaming. Stab him in the heart, sure, he'll die, but he might get off a scream while he does, alerting other guards. However... all of this depends on what amount of realisim vs game mechanics goes on in your game. Killing a jacka$$ that attacks your buddy, weither he is armed or not, is not an EVIL act to me per say... I find no issue with that in realtion to a CN character. The problem with the alignments are, more then just about anything eles in D&D, they are SO subjective. It's easy to say 'No, look, grappling a larger opponent works this way, says so right here' and be right by the RAW, then it is to settle alignment disuptes. alignment... beh.
Nightshade 09-10-07, 02:33 PM	Seems to me that when you kill a sleeping person, whether that person is an enemy or not, it is an evil action. It is not necessarily out of the realms of possibility for a CN person to do, however, if he thought it was necessary. Another poster mentioned using a sap to knock him out. That's certainly another way to go, but it is an act further along on the Good side. As a Neutral on the Good-Evil spectrum, you walk the line doing good or evil as the situation warrants and always paramount is where Your interests lie. The question could have been made more difficult, like if you recognized the soldier as someone you met and who helped you on a previous foray into the city. And you start hearing the footsteps of his pals... On the second situation, the fist fighter could have been a monk, true. But the real question was whether the fist fighter was doing lethal or non-lethal damage. As a melee class, it goes without saying that you can tell just by looking if someone is using one type of damage or the other. If he's doing non-lethal and you strike with lethal, then it is evil. But again not necessarily out of the question for a CN. If he was doing lethal damage, then you have every right to strike back with lethal and there shouldn't be any repercussions. In the end, it comes down to the trend in your actions. If you always choose the convenient evil course of action, then the DM should turn you evil (cause frankly, you've turned your character evil). But if you're switching it up both doing good and evil (and taking more grey actions) depending on the situation and what serves your character's goals and self-interest, then you're solid.
Nephlite 09-10-07, 02:46 PM	On the second situation, the fist fighter could have been a monk, true. But the real question was whether the fist fighter was doing lethal or non-lethal damage. As a melee class, it goes without saying that you can tell just by looking if someone is using one type of damage or the other. If he's doing non-lethal and you strike with lethal, then it is evil. But again not necessarily out of the question for a CN. If he was doing lethal damage, then you have every right to strike back with lethal and there shouldn't be any repercussions. . Your opinion is one can tell how others attack: lethal/nonlethal in game? Only way, in game, is to let him hit you first. Not smart.
Hsien 09-10-07, 02:52 PM	Seems to me that when you kill a sleeping person, whether that person is an enemy or not, it is an evil action. On the second situation, the fist fighter could have been a monk, true. But the real question was whether the fist fighter was doing lethal or non-lethal damage. As a melee class, it goes without saying that you can tell just by looking if someone is using one type of damage or the other. If he's doing non-lethal and you strike with lethal, then it is evil. 1: Killing a sleeping enemy is not in itself evil. Military trains units on how to make quick and silent kills. It's a matter of efficiency and self-preservation. Is this your hometown or are you in a city ruled by an tyrant, becuase the reason behind the prisoner extraction could be a consideration. Details often make the difference. 2: Not an evil act. Telling lethal vs non-lethal should have gone without saying or being written, as because it's actually very difficult to tell when in an actual fight situation unless the opponent is trying to be obvious about it or using weapons designed for that, nets/sap etc... Trying to tell if an unarmed combatant is using lethal or non-lethal is very difficult during the middle of combat. If the opponent didn't slow up/run after the rapier was pulled then you have to consider the bounty hunter knew what they were getting into. Plus you didn't mention any to hit bonuses so it sounds like the BH was skilled in unarmed combat at the very least.
albinomonkeyking 09-10-07, 03:05 PM	In the end, it comes down to the trend in your actions. If you always choose the convenient evil course of action, then the DM should turn you evil (cause frankly, you've turned your character evil). But if you're switching it up both doing good and evil (and taking more grey actions) depending on the situation and what serves your character's goals and self-interest, then you're solid. I could not have said it better. I cannot make an accurate judgement call because I don't know all the facts. If your character has 0 'good' qualities and your general outlook is, 'he is in the way, slice' then yeah, you're evil. Your DM is trying to figure out just what you are playing, neutral or evil. If we had more insight I think we could make better judgement calls. As it is, the sleeping guy could have been evil or neutral, in no way was it even a little tiny bit good though. People often defend actions by 'he didn't know', but that is BS. Take the law, if you just happen to kill a man as you are doing a bank robbery, well, he was in the way, yeah, you are getting life. It comes down to an understanding and valuing of human life. If your character doesn't take the few seconds to determine what he is about to do then he deserves the alignment to match his actions. If a child is mind controlled and your first instinct is kill, and you do, without any thought of another way around it, I would go evil. The reason is you have no respect for human beings. You care no more about a pig than you do a human. On a side note, one single action can determine evil, and it doesn't have to be genocide. If your character is CN and walking down the street, sees a hot woman and violently rapes her - guess what? Yep, evil to the bone. If you are CN and decide to kill someone, for no other reason than to kill them, yep, that's evil too. One action. As I see it, if I was your DM I would be suspecting evil but I wouldn't have made any changes. I would wait and see how your character plays out.
Starcloud 09-10-07, 03:59 PM	I judge by actions first, then motives in the case of actions that aren't clearly evil. You did have other options to dealing with the sleeping guard rather than just killing. You could have gagged, blindfolded, and tied him up while he was sleeping, for instance. You could also have left him completely alone. Killing him is definitely questionable, and your stated reason "It was convenient and the smart thing to do" would have me looking for a trend. As for the second, no, killing some idiot who attacked your party unarmed is not a moral issue, it's an ethical issue; only those with a code of honor that says something like "don't use weapons/lethal attacks on an unarmed man" would be affected by this.
Rauric 09-10-07, 04:10 PM	A simple statement:Alignment is dumb.
BW0222 09-10-07, 06:37 PM	WailingNinja, Though the natural assumption is that he is passed-out drunk and would be no harm to us (especially me), I decide not to take the risk of him waking up at any point and barring our escape route, so I coup de grace him, drag his body behind some crates, and clean up the blood. ... Well, was killing him really necessary? You could have done subdual, you could have tied him up, etc. However, it still comes down to what your character thought was reasonable. If you responably believed that an attempt to subdue, gag, or tie him up could have gotten everyone killed, then it wasn't evil -- just practical. Since we did not just hand him over, he decided to fight us with his bare hands. You didn't agree to an unarmed fight. He doesn't get to set the terms of combat. Even an idiot could figure out that you don't have to agree to fight him without weapons. You don't think the police walk into a drug den and say "Put up your dukes." do you? I suppose if you agreed to a fist fight and then pulled a weapon -- that would be dishorable, likely chaotic -- but his stupidity doesn't limit your choice of actions. Who knows, maybe he WAS right. My recommendation is for every player to write down a "code of conduct" for your players. When is it ok to kill, to hurt people, to torchure folks, to steal, to break your word, etc. Get him to review it with respect to your alignment.
evilviper77 09-10-07, 07:33 PM	Wow, the compassion in this room is so thick i had to swim in through the door... Anyway, let's take this play by play I was playing a CN Rogue OK so we got ourselves a person who wants to play evil w/o the actual label and consequences. Noted. though he is asleep at the table, a bottle of alcohol empty beside him. Though the natural assumption is that he is passed-out drunk and would be no harm to us (especially me), I decide not to take the risk of him waking up at any point and barring our escape route, so I coup de grace him, drag his body behind some crates, and clean up the blood. While I realize that killing a sleeping man is, by no means, a good-natured thing to do, I figured that it was better to be safe than sorry and take out a potential hazard BEFORE he becomes a hazard, since I had no idea how long he'd been out, how much he'd actually had to drink, etc. Well, i would agree, it's surely not a "good-natured thing to do". But you know, it still makes it an evil act regardless of what you "thought" (read excuse to kill) his hazard level was. he decided to fight us with his bare hands. I fought back, naturally, with my Rapier. After killing the man, I was, once again, almost made CE for "killing an unarmed man". Probably the one thing you did that you can get away with here. If the man initiated combat and attacked you first killing him in defense is by no means an evil act. This is probably the only time the DM was grossly wrong, and he was probably just fed up with your "I'm CN and can do what i want" routine that you seemed to be enjoying so far.
Horseshoe_Hermit 09-10-07, 09:57 PM	Enough actions like the first one would net you Evil. And by 'enough' I mean "one more." It really shows a disregard for the value of a human life. I mean, it was only his job to be sitting in that chair, at no time did he have a choice to avoid you, as you killed him in his ******* sleep. Your act was unnecessarily cruel. An evil person is someone who weights the lives of others low enough that he will kill to avoid "taking chances". That is precisely what evil is. ... I suppose I should be disturbed that you actually think you can justify this killing, but I guess I'll just sit here and be thankful that you will probably never be physically capable of killing someone. I implore you to take the preceding words seriously (including those of other posters). There is still hope for your soul. In the second case, I figure you used some pretty bad judgment. But in isolation it doesn't say anything about your alignment at all. However, it is not in isolation, as you have already told us.
Michael Silverbane 09-10-07, 10:42 PM	It sounds to me like you and the DM are having a conflict of play-styles. From what you've said, it would appear that you want to play in a "shades of gray" type of game, where the characters are not necessarily the morally upright - hero types, that occasionally do bad things for good reasons... While your DM is looking for you (the players) to me more heroic do-gooders in a very black-and-white world. If it will not completely ruin your fun, you might want to try changing up your expectations a bit with your next character (or even with your current one, assuming that he has ample opportunity to dwell on his past "mistakes"... Before taking the sorts of actions that are getting you into trouble, try thinking, "what would superman do?" (or batman or spiderman or captain america, but definitely not darth vader or wolverine or venom). Doing so, you might find that the DM focuses less on 'punishing' you for offending his delicate sensibilities and more on the action and adventure to be had, thus increasing everyone's fun... Later silver
ArcTan 09-10-07, 10:50 PM	In both situations, it would've been possible, according to the rules of D&D, to accomplish either task without killing death and with only minimal extra risk. Your Rogue character is capable of wielding a sap and/or getting a merciful enchantment placed on a weapon for not that much extra cost. You could've knocked the sleeping man unconscious rather than killing him -- same for the bare-handed man. I mean, whatever, do what you like, but *in real life* anyone -- even a soldier or a cop -- who casually shot people in the head instead of knocking them out or tying them up would be pushing my own personal definition of Evil. Valuing your own life so highly that you're willing to rip life away from other people merely to *mildly increase* your own chance of survival -- that's what Evil is.
ArcTan 09-10-07, 10:52 PM	Well, was killing him really necessary? You could have done subdual, you could have tied him up, etc. However, it still comes down to what your character thought was reasonable. If you responably believed that an attempt to subdue, gag, or tie him up could have gotten everyone killed, then it wasn't evil -- just practical. What was the mission, actually? Who ordered it? Was it something to make money, or save lives, or what? "I absolutely *had* to kill that guard to get out safely so the hostages would be saved" is one thing. "I absolutely *had* to kill that guard to get out safely while carrying the mountains of treasure we had no right to" is another thing. One of the things I don't like about moral discussions in D&D is the assumption that "the mission" is of all-importance. Would you really scrub a mission rather than take a life? Well, *yes* -- if you were a good person, you would, if human lives didn't rest on that mission.
ArcTan 09-10-07, 10:54 PM	I'm with TheMonk on this one. To go from one alignment to another, such as CN to CE, in my opinion, requires either a continuous string of evil deeds (such as perhaps the one you did/did not do, depending on perspective). OR A truly, utterly, unquestionably, virilent, disgusting and horrific act of exceptional well thought out Eeeeeeeeeevil (with a capital 'E') e.g. Starting the apocalypse cause you thought things needed a 'bit of a shake up' or poisoning an entire metropolis because you needed more 'personal space' As for the second event i wouldn't keep it against your tally of evil deeds. Chaotic perhaps for killing a bounty hunter (assuming the bounty was legal and done for good enough reasons) but not evil. Wow, man. I hope no one you know or care for works as a security guard, and that they never get their throats slit and their bodies dragged behind some crates by a thief who wasn't willing to take chances. Man, oh man. And they wonder why I call D&D a "sociopathic" game.
robertliguori 09-10-07, 11:10 PM	Your DM has the prerogative of running the world, and the world's metaphysics. If he declares that what you've done is Evil, then it is. You have the prerogative of running your character, and deciding that "If Evil means doing what I have to to accomplish my goals without dying or exposing my companions to unnecessary risk, then yeah, I'm evil. Why do you expect me to care?"
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 03:51 AM	There's actually a few issues worth discussing in this scenario, but let me address the one that seems to have everyone equally divided... Your character kills a guard in his sleep. Your DM, utilizing his whacked-out alignment tracking system, decides that is about almost as vile as anything he can think of, and knocks your character to the brink of Evil for it. You argue that it was a strategic move, and he responds by saying it doesn't matter why you did, just that you did it. Hmm... First of all, your DM doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't have to tell him that, but it's important for you to know exactly what you're dealing with here. There's a few others in this thread as well, but I'm not going to point fingers. They can keep themselves busy assuming that I'm talking about them and go about asserting themselves for all I care. Let's just look at the basics, shall we? Killing someone because they are in your way is Evil. Killing such a person while he is sleeping is no more and no less Evil than killing him in a fair fight, especially if you knew that he would fight you and continue to pose a problem in getting your goal if he were awake and aware of your presence. It's just less honorable, which might suggest an unlawful behavior more than an evil one. Another question for your DM: If the character had spared the man, would that warrant the award of an equal amount of Good points? It seems only reasonable, but then you end up with this pattern of judging every single action and getting hit one way or the other for it. Ah, but there's still another crucial element your DM seems to be overlooking... your character is Chaotic NEUTRAL. Or is he focusing on that? If it was an Evil character committing a random act of kindness, or a Good character acting in an inhumane manner, then any of this might be worth greater consideration. But a Neutral character is not guided strongly by a moral compass because he doesn't have one! What your DM should be doing is keeping quiet track of such discrepencies and only bring it up if the character seems to have a tendency to favor one aspect much more heavily than the other. But again, your DM doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. So good luck with that. Oh, and it should be noted... Motivation and intent defines the nature of the actions, not the other way around. Judging alignments based solely on actions is not only an inaccurate method, but an improper one, which is why most gamers simply avoid it. But if keeping tabs on alignments is something your group wants to do, then you need to discuss it as a group with your DM and establish some agreed upon guidelines on how it should be done. Alignments are much too subjective and open to interpretation for any two people to agree upon exact definitions, much less a group of people.
WailingNinja 09-11-07, 08:36 AM	Okay, sorry not to point out specifics at first, when I should have, but I'll try to answer as many questions as I can: First off: OK so we got ourselves a person who wants to play evil w/o the actual label and consequences. Noted. No. I can and have played every alignment in the book, and I know the differences between any evil and CN. When I play a Cleric, I go LG, for a Fighter, CG, and my Rogues are always CN. I like having the gray area to play around in (seduction, a bit of theft, telling a bit of untruth here and there to get the information that the party might need), and have learned the boundaries that separate me from an evil character. So thanks for the attempted label, but no. Anyway, the mission we were on was, as I said, a rescue mission. The prisoner we were extracting was a Sorceress we had met before in our travels, and the request came from her father. We were told the city was evil and, upon approaching, noticed that the walls were topped with impaled bodies and the like, and that it more closely resembled a large fortress than a city. Obviously, we assumed that we were dealing with some bad mamma-jammas here. The father didn't have much info over the town, as he had only followed the pursuers to the outside, and any villager we asked was very tight-lipped about the subject. It wasn't until we had been captured that we found out that the city was run by a large number of over-zealous followers of Pelor that had sworn to rid the world of the growing number of followers of Erythnul, and that the Sorceress we had been sent to extract had been arrested and sentenced to execution under the belief that she was a follower of Erythnul, though she was not (as were many of the people they captured and executed). The reason I kept my boots is that the guards did not recognize them for what they were, mostly thanks to some quick lies on my part, and decided to let me keep them so my feet would be warm, because they wouldn't have me catching cold and dying before they had a chance to execute me. I guess I'll just sit here and be thankful that you will probably never be physically capable of killing someone. I implore you to take the preceding words seriously (including those of other posters). There is still hope for your soul. Ummm....can I get a WTF, anyone? I didn't see the guards' life as being of no value, or of little value. My Rogue isn't the type to kill someone on a whim, and prefers to avoid most conflict if he can manage to talk his way out of it (or bribe his way out), but we were on a tight schedule, as her execution was to be at daybreak and her father did not find us until the middle of the night. I saw him asleep, didn't have sap with me, knew that my rope might be more useful on the escape, and simply decided to quickest way to incapacitate him would be to kill him, as it is also the only way to make sure that he STAYS incapacitated. Anyway, hope that sheds some light on the issue and so on and so forth. Go 4.0!
Ace_of_time 09-11-07, 08:43 AM	For the whole it just sounds like the DM want to get you to understand that keep doing these type of actions will cause the change. I mean you say he told you it would but that he didn't in the end which makes me think that it is not the first time this has happened and he was letting you know that if it keeps up he'll have to change your Align. Now for the 2nd Ex on you post. That is his stupidity. If I start a non lethal fight and then some one draw a weapon then I draw my weapon. Doesn't make much sense to keep fighting non lethal unless he was grappling with the fighter and you came up and stab him for it. I could see a DM thinking that was evil act but You are still CN. If you think the way you think why not just make the move to CE?
Ace_of_time 09-11-07, 08:53 AM	THE NINE ALIGNMENTS Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful–chaotic axis with the good–evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts. The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains. Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit. Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal. Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil. Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation. Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend. Don't know if this would help but here they are. He doesn't really sound like a free spirit. To me he sounds more NE.
Ace_of_time 09-11-07, 09:02 AM	Okay, sorry not to point out specifics at first, when I should have, but I'll try to answer as many questions as I can: First off: OK so we got ourselves a person who wants to play evil w/o the actual label and consequences. Noted. No. I can and have played every alignment in the book, and I know the differences between any evil and CN. When I play a Cleric, I go LG, for a Fighter, CG, and my Rogues are always CN. I like having the gray area to play around in (seduction, a bit of theft, telling a bit of untruth here and there to get the information that the party might need), and have learned the boundaries that separate me from an evil character. So thanks for the attempted label, but no. Anyway, the mission we were on was, as I said, a rescue mission. The prisoner we were extracting was a Sorceress we had met before in our travels, and the request came from her father. We were told the city was evil and, upon approaching, noticed that the walls were topped with impaled bodies and the like, and that it more closely resembled a large fortress than a city. Obviously, we assumed that we were dealing with some bad mamma-jammas here. The father didn't have much info over the town, as he had only followed the pursuers to the outside, and any villager we asked was very tight-lipped about the subject. It wasn't until we had been captured that we found out that the city was run by a large number of over-zealous followers of Pelor that had sworn to rid the world of the growing number of followers of Erythnul, and that the Sorceress we had been sent to extract had been arrested and sentenced to execution under the belief that she was a follower of Erythnul, though she was not (as were many of the people they captured and executed). The reason I kept my boots is that the guards did not recognize them for what they were, mostly thanks to some quick lies on my part, and decided to let me keep them so my feet would be warm, because they wouldn't have me catching cold and dying before they had a chance to execute me. I guess I'll just sit here and be thankful that you will probably never be physically capable of killing someone. I implore you to take the preceding words seriously (including those of other posters). There is still hope for your soul. Ummm....can I get a WTF, anyone? I didn't see the guards' life as being of no value, or of little value. My Rogue isn't the type to kill someone on a whim, and prefers to avoid most conflict if he can manage to talk his way out of it (or bribe his way out), but we were on a tight schedule, as her execution was to be at daybreak and her father did not find us until the middle of the night. I saw him asleep, didn't have sap with me, knew that my rope might be more useful on the escape, and simply decided to quickest way to incapacitate him would be to kill him, as it is also the only way to make sure that he STAYS incapacitated. Anyway, hope that sheds some light on the issue and so on and so forth. Go 4.0!You could have taken -4 to your attack and dealt NON lethal damage to him. Assuming he is counted as prone you got +4 for that so it would have costed anything. Then tied him up. It is the fact that you thoughts went to kill him first. To me CN would have seen him there and keep going because he wasn't bothering you at the time. It was more NE act to kill someone to keep them from dealing with them in the future. Besides the could have switched guards after you left and you would still of had to deal with them.
Shadowhowler 09-11-07, 10:40 AM	I still think ya coulda choked him out or something, and to me it would have been less risky. When you killed him, he coulda made some noise... and assuming you slit his throat to prevent this, you end up making an aweful mess, which it takes time (time you say your character took... time you should not have had due to your 'tight scedual'... the reason you list for killing him in the first place) to clean up the blood. Also... he is a man, a human... presumably like yourself... not a monster. This *DOES* matter... or at least, I belive it should matter. We tend to value life like our own more... we don't eat other humans (well, most of us don't) and we tend to find the killing of a human more 'moraly wrong' then the killing of an animal... look at hunters, for instance. In D&D, this translates, to me, to a higher respect for human and human like life then that of monsters and other creatures. In your instance... the guy was a gaurd in the services of the followers of a GOODLY god. Highly misguided followers, to be sure... but still. The pure callousness with which you regarded his life... especialy when you consider that death probably was NOT the most efficant way to remove him as an obsticale in the first place... suggests a tend twords evil. That dosn't mean your character should be instantly turned evil, however... just that it was, in my viwe, an evil act... and if your character contenued on that path, eventualy I would change your alienment. I also find it odd that you say 'My Clerics are LG, my fighters CG, my rogues are ALWAYS CN' this suggests to me you are not making characters, but mearling playing 'roles'. Your not creating unique, actualy characters... just filling up space with abilities. This makes it even harder to pin down something as subjective as alignment to your character... since it would seem your character is not really a person... with thoughts, feelings and true motivations... but rather just a collection of options.
evilviper77 09-11-07, 11:46 AM	I like having the gray area to play around in (seduction, a bit of theft, telling a bit of untruth here and there to get the information that the party might need), and have learned the boundaries that separate me from an evil character. So thanks for the attempted label, but no. Actually, with the exception of seduction (not sure what to label that) the rest are purely chaotic acts. There is no reason for you to play neutral other than you want to be able to commit evil acts w/o actually having that label, otherwise you can play your rogue CG and be just fine. Anyway, the mission we were on was, as I said, a rescue mission. The prisoner we were extracting was a Sorceress we had met before in our travels, and the request came from her father. We were told the city was evil and, upon approaching, noticed that the walls were topped with impaled bodies and the like, and that it more closely resembled a large fortress than a city. Obviously, we assumed that we were dealing with some bad mamma-jammas here. Regardless of if you were told the city was evil, that does not make everyone in it evil. Still makes your act an evil one. Ummm....can I get a WTF, anyone? I didn't see the guards' life as being of no value, or of little value. My Rogue isn't the type to kill someone on a whim, and prefers to avoid most conflict if he can manage to talk his way out of it (or bribe his way out), but we were on a tight schedule, as her execution was to be at daybreak and her father did not find us until the middle of the night. I saw him asleep, didn't have sap with me, knew that my rope might be more useful on the escape, and simply decided to quickest way to incapacitate him would be to kill him, as it is also the only way to make sure that he STAYS incapacitated. Anyway, hope that sheds some light on the issue and so on and so forth. Go 4.0! Not to repeat things but as it has been told there are many more options to take the man alive than you think, just taking the easy way and killing him then trying to make excuses about it doesn't make it a neutral act. It is still an evil one.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 12:13 PM	First off: OK so we got ourselves a person who wants to play evil w/o the actual label and consequences. Noted. No. I can and have played every alignment in the book, and I know the differences between any evil and CN. When I play a Cleric, I go LG, for a Fighter, CG, and my Rogues are always CN. I like having the gray area to play around in (seduction, a bit of theft, telling a bit of untruth here and there to get the information that the party might need), and have learned the boundaries that separate me from an evil character. So thanks for the attempted label, but no. Chaotic Neutral is still a playable alignment IF done properly. You don't strike me as the kind of player that takes the CN path just to avoid dealing with alignments, so the person who made that comment also has no clue what he's talking about. Maybe you should introduce him to your DM and see if they can buy a clue together. Kudos for not taking his remarks lying down. Anyway, the mission we were on was, as I said, a rescue mission. The prisoner we were extracting was a Sorceress we had met before in our travels, and the request came from her father. We were told the city was evil and, upon approaching, noticed that the walls were topped with impaled bodies and the like, and that it more closely resembled a large fortress than a city. Obviously, we assumed that we were dealing with some bad mamma-jammas here. The father didn't have much info over the town, as he had only followed the pursuers to the outside, and any villager we asked was very tight-lipped about the subject. It wasn't until we had been captured that we found out that the city was run by a large number of over-zealous followers of Pelor that had sworn to rid the world of the growing number of followers of Erythnul, and that the Sorceress we had been sent to extract had been arrested and sentenced to execution under the belief that she was a follower of Erythnul, though she was not (as were many of the people they captured and executed). Ah, now this paints a clearer picture for me. Despite whether they worship Pelor or the Lucky Charms Leprchaun, I would think that impaling bodies for your personal decor is a pretty vile practice. I highly doubt Pelor would approve. If I were entering a place that prided itself on mutilating corpses and displaying them openly, I wouldn't be hesitant about taking lives knowing that they would be willing (and seemingly eager) to do the same to me, or worse. Out of curiosity, did your DM hit the zealots with Evil points, too? Doubtful. But what he has done is baited you with some very large signs that say "Bad Guys Here!". He deliberately drew you in to believe these enemies were hostile and potentially evil, then tried to play the morality card because a) one of them was killed in his sleep, and b) they were human. So what?! If they were Pelor-worshipping orcs bent on hunting down Erythnul worshippers using the same methods, would that somehow be more acceptable? I think not. I guess I'll just sit here and be thankful that you will probably never be physically capable of killing someone. I implore you to take the preceding words seriously (including those of other posters). There is still hope for your soul. Ummm....can I get a WTF, anyone? Yes. WTF, indeed. Your DM can now have an ignorant threesome.
Eric888 09-11-07, 12:19 PM	Intent does not matter. Acts in themselves are either evil or good, both to simplify gameplay, and too make it less subjective. Were intent important then CN charecters could never change alignment since they are never willfull one way or the other. While many players seem to thing that CN is a loophole to get away with playing evil charecters, it's not. Is a sleeping man a threat to you? No. Do you have other means of subduing him without killing him? Yes. Do you have any reason to beleive he has commited any unforgivable crimes for which death is a service of justice? No (from what you described.) So yes, it was an evil act and your DM was justified.
Hsien 09-11-07, 12:29 PM	I guess I'll just sit here and be thankful that you will probably never be physically capable of killing someone. I implore you to take the preceding words seriously (including those of other posters). There is still hope for your soul. Ummm....can I get a WTF, anyone? I'll give you the WTF although I'd suspect that they are simply trying to bait responses. Given the additional info, not an evil act. As always there is a distinction between actual alignment and percieved alignment. Those Pelor may have been very "LG" in their own minds but to an outside observerer it seems that their actions/alignment are evil. Think the Spanish Inquisition or for a fantasy reference the Kingpriest of Ishtar (?) from Dragonlance. I'm surprised some paladins haven't showed up to stop them yet.
goawayugh 09-11-07, 01:07 PM	(I've only read the OP) Both (the act and intent) would determine is something is evil. As far as what you did, it wasn't evil, but it certainly wasn't good. I'd say it was acting exactly in line with your alignment, CN. As far as the other thing you did (killing an unarmed guy). He attacked you. A paladin could get away with what you did. It was simply self defense. I think your DM has a little warped view of alignments.
pres_man 09-11-07, 02:13 PM	Actually I would say the alignment of the act of killing the drunken passed out guard was Stupid Evil. Why? Because coup-de-grace is not a guaranteed kill, you do double (or more) damage, as a rogue you also get your sneak attack damage (this is not doubled), then if that does not outright kill them, they get to make a fort save (a natural 20 always saves). If this guy had been extremely tough (lot of hps, really good fort save), you could have made the situation alot worse. Also as others have pointed out, another guard could have came along after you killed them, and thus you would not have saved yourself from the raised alarm. If it was possible to sneak past without interacting with the guard at all, that would have actually been the non-stupid thing to do. Seems your guy was just a little too bloodthirsty and wasn't willing to let sleeping dogs (or guards) lie.
evilviper77 09-11-07, 02:55 PM	Chaotic Neutral is still a playable alignment IF done properly. That's a big if, and from all the threads started about trouble players that are CN rogues i have a really bad opinion of the CN alignment, not to mention the CN aligned rogues i've had to deal with in my own parties over the years. f I were entering a place that prided itself on mutilating corpses and displaying them openly, I wouldn't be hesitant about taking lives knowing that they would be willing (and seemingly eager) to do the same to me, or worse. If the assumption of evil was all that was needed to kill someone and it be an evil act the threads wouldn't be near as undecisive as they are. There was once a thread about if killing an evil priestess in her sleep was an evil act. The boards were split but most stated if the killer did not detect evil or know for certain she was evil it was in fact an evil act. My point (also read as my personal opinion), killing a person you KNOW is evil is a neutral act at worst. Killing a person you assume is evil is an EVIL act. The way he is acting for all you know the fort could be filled with CN guards and people only led by a few real evil people. You don't know for sure, and since you don't you shouldn't be going around killing everyone you find asleep.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 03:17 PM	Intent does not matter. Acts in themselves are either evil or good, both to simplify gameplay, and too make it less subjective. BUZZ! Wrong! Sorry, thanks for playing. I'll say it again since not everyone likes read the entire discussion. Motivation and intent defines the nature of actions, not the other way around. Alignments are never a simplified matter, and the process of judging them is highly subjective. If you want to keep your game simple, then just remove them. Otherwise, you're just looking for short cuts that don't exist.
Ace_of_time 09-11-07, 03:25 PM	Why does it matter what the Alignment is? Killing without cause is evil! We don't know what happened in the bar. The guy could have come in and start the grapple with the fighter to arrest him after already saying who he was after and the rogue came up and killed him from behide. The guy could have said what he was here for and then the group attacked first start combat round after the statement "I draw my rapier." They could have found out what it was the fighter was supposed to have done. The guy could have come to bring him to Justice after he killed someone. There really isn't enough info on the 2nd EX to tell whether it was evil or not. But again his first thought was to kill first then see what it was about.
BW0222 09-11-07, 03:37 PM	ArcTan What was the mission, actually? Who ordered it? Was it something to make money, or save lives, or what? ... Good points. However, I'm assuming that in some way the mission was necessary. It was certainly worth risking the PCs lives. If it was totally senseless that they break into the place, then killing certainly wasn't necessary and we are likely taking CN. However, it still comes down to the character's perception of whether the mission was worth killing for. A CN druid might kill the guard if the mission was to prevent some lunatic from developing a poison which kills treants. A CN character might think that keeping money out of the hands of an evil lord -- likely to use that money to raise an army -- might be worth dropping the guard. pres_man, Actually I would say the alignment of the act of killing the drunken passed out guard was Stupid Evil. Why? Because coup-de-grace is not a guaranteed kill, you do double (or more) damage, as a rogue you also get your sneak attack damage (this is not doubled), then if that does not outright kill them, they get to make a fort save (a natural 20 always saves). Sorry, that is beyond metagaming. Folks base decisions on realistic probabilities based on what they know. The chance of not being able to coup-de-grace someone is far less than any of the other possibilies -- being able to sneak past him, him not waking up during the mission, being able to subdue him, etc. You base decisions on what is likely, not what is remotely possible. It is a lowly guard. If you assumed that 15th-level guards were in this place, you likely won't enter it. It could be an illusion, a polymorphed dragon, a disguised vampire, the table would be an animated object, etc. The simple fact is that there is no reason to think that you couldn't coup a lowly guard. Unless it is an ambush (in which case you are likely dead anyway), then high level folks (or polymorphed dragons) aren't likely assigned guard duty or likely to be asleep. Considering the possibility that another guard might come along and notice that the first isn't there is certainly valid. However, no one could adventure if they considered that every 1 in 1000 outcome (not being able to coup a random sleeping guard) as equally likely as 1 in 10 possibilities, you might as well stay in the inn.
Ace_of_time 09-11-07, 03:44 PM	From what he has said so far the fighter was in jail and they went in to get him out and then they sent someone to get the fighter back so they killed him to. This was a back (secert) entry to town it is likely that it would be guarded by a more then average person.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 03:57 PM	That's a big if, and from all the threads started about trouble players that are CN rogues i have a really bad opinion of the CN alignment, not to mention the CN aligned rogues i've had to deal with in my own parties over the years. By definition, most stereotypical 'rogues' are precisely Chaotic Neutral until the individual stands out otherwise. And yes, most people don't really play a CN character well beyond using the label as a shield to mask their disregard for roleplaying alignments. (Check out the first link in my sig where I openly point out how CN is a troublesome spot for most gamers.) But the OP never once defended that his actions were justified by his alignment, or used that as his defense. He simply stated it as a matter of fact to give a point of reference because you know, if he didn't tell us the alignment of his character, then we would ask. It does have significant bearing. But in this case, because he is CN, most people just want to immediately dismiss it as someone taking the usual advantage of that label. If the assumption of evil was all that was needed to kill someone and it be an evil act the threads wouldn't be near as undecisive as they are. There was once a thread about if killing an evil priestess in her sleep was an evil act. The boards were split but most stated if the killer did not detect evil or know for certain she was evil it was in fact an evil act. My point (also read as my personal opinion), killing a person you KNOW is evil is a neutral act at worst. Evil is irrelevant in this case, and you've just demonstrated my real point. If killing is an evil act, why doesn't it apply equally no matter what the circumstances? First, it's wrong it the person is asleep, but acceptable if he's alert and fighting back. Now it's not so bad if you're just killing somebody who is evil or deserves it, at least by their perceptions. Who made them the authority to play God? It doesn't matter. If you're going into a hostile environment with the understanding that everyone inside (at least within the official capacity and right to do so) will treat you as a hostile intruder (which you are, actually), then it is at one's own personal discretion to do what is needed to accomplish their goal. Personal discretion should reflect the alignments of the person. A Good character might want to look for more humane ways to deal with the enemy, but good Intelligence and Wisdom might tell them that the risks are too high for them and the price for failure may be even higher. Remember, they are attempting to save someone's life for being (assumingly) wrongly persecuted as an Evil worshipper by a group of dangerous zealots, not just randomly storming someone's castle for looking diabolical. Sleeping guards are still a threat. If alerted, they could raise an alarm that brings the whole plan to a halt. It was an Intelligence check weighed by a morality check that guided the rogue's actions. He chose the surest method to insure the guard wouldn't be a problem later. Unfortunate for the guard, but that's the risk you take with the job. If they had run into him while he was awake, the group would likely have killed him in a confrontation anyway. Would anyone have cried 'Foul!' about that? No. It's not about killing the guard. It's just the skewed perception that, by being asleep, he is somehow innocent, helpless, and not an immediate threat. The rogue was merely an opportunist who wanted to play it both safe and smart for his team and their mission, which is to save the innocent girl. Remember that. So even if it is considered an evil thing to do (which it is), there is still the good rescue he is ultimately trying to achieve. A Good character might have risked looking for a more merciful method to keep the guard from being trouble later, but we're not talking about a Good character here. Nor is he an Evil character. A neutral character isn't about balancing moral dilemas. It just doesn't matter to them because they simply believe more in reason and logic. One day they do something that might be Evil, and another day they do something Good. But on neither of those days did they consult their conscious because it wasn't their main concern. Evil perpetrates Evil because it wants to. Good perptrates Good because it believes it is right for everyone. Neutral doesn't care either way because it knows everyone is capable of doing both if they choose.
Khadmus 09-11-07, 04:14 PM	[bla bla] OK so we got ourselves a person who wants to play evil w/o the actual label and consequences. Noted. [stuff which may or may not be logical]. Boo! Boo, again. There is CN and Chaotic Stupid. The OP seems to be CN.
odinsmightytoad 09-11-07, 04:22 PM	By definition, most stereotypical 'rogues' are precisely Chaotic Neutral until the individual stands out otherwise. And yes, most people don't really play a CN character well beyond using the label as a shield to mask their disregard for roleplaying alignments. (Check out the first link in my sig where I openly point out how CN is a troublesome spot for most gamers.) But the OP never once defended that his actions were justified by his alignment, or used that as his defense. He simply stated it as a matter of fact to give a point of reference because you know, if he didn't tell us the alignment of his character, then we would ask. It does have significant bearing. But in this case, because he is CN, most people just want to immediately dismiss it as someone taking the usual advantage of that label. Evil is irrelevant in this case, and you've just demonstrated my real point. If killing is an evil act, why doesn't it apply equally no matter what the circumstances? First, it's wrong it the person is asleep, but acceptable if he's alert and fighting back. Now it's not so bad if you're just killing somebody who is evil or deserves it, at least by their perceptions. Who made them the authority to play God? It doesn't matter. If you're going into a hostile environment with the understanding that everyone inside (at least within the official capacity and right to do so) will treat you as a hostile intruder (which you are, actually), then it is at one's own personal discretion to do what is needed to accomplish their goal. Personal discretion should reflect the alignments of the person. A Good character might want to look for more humane ways to deal with the enemy, but good Intelligence and Wisdom might tell them that the risks are too high for them and the price for failure may be even higher. Remember, they are attempting to save someone's life for being (assumingly) wrongly persecuted as an Evil worshipper by a group of dangerous zealots, not just randomly storming someone's castle for looking diabolical. Sleeping guards are still a threat. If alerted, they could raise an alarm that brings the whole plan to a halt. It was an Intelligence check weighed by a morality check that guided the rogue's actions. He chose the surest method to insure the guard wouldn't be a problem later. Unfortunate for the guard, but that's the risk you take with the job. If they had run into him while he was awake, the group would likely have killed him in a confrontation anyway. Would anyone have cried 'Foul!' about that? No. It's not about killing the guard. It's just the skewed perception that, by being asleep, he is somehow innocent, helpless, and not an immediate threat. The rogue was merely an opportunist who wanted to play it both safe and smart for his team and their mission, which is to save the innocent girl. Remember that. So even if it is considered an evil thing to do (which it is), there is still the good rescue he is ultimately trying to achieve. A Good character might have risked looking for a more merciful method to keep the guard from being trouble later, but we're not talking about a Good character here. Nor is he an Evil character. A neutral character isn't about balancing moral dilemas. It just doesn't matter to them because they simply believe more in reason and logic. One day they do something that might be Evil, and another day they do something Good. But on neither of those days did they consult their conscious because it wasn't their main concern. Evil perpetrates Evil because it wants to. Good perptrates Good because it believes it is right for everyone. Neutral doesn't care either way because it knows everyone is capable of doing both if they choose. Bravo!
pres_man 09-11-07, 06:03 PM	If someone can't see the moral difference between killing some guy who is just working a job while he is sleeping and killing some guy who is just doing his job and using lethal force to do it, well I can't help them. They got bigger problems then I could possible correct in a thread such as this. Sorry, that is beyond metagaming. Discussing how things work in game is "metagaming"? Huh? That is stupid. The characters exist in the game, they are effected by the mechanics of the game, therefore they should be able to realize that coup-de-grace is not a guaranteed kill especially if the person has no other injuries. A rogue could roll all ones (in game translation: not cut too deeply), that might be an easy fort save to make (in game translation: easy chance of surviving), especially if the rogue has a low str score (in game translation: rogue is a girly-man). every 1 in 1000 outcome (not being able to coup a random sleeping guard) Well with misunderstandings of probabilities like that, no wonder you think it is unreasonable. At the very worst the guard has a 5% chance (1 in 20) of survival (a natural 20 on a fort save is an auto success) and if the rogue rolls bad and the guard has a good fort save the chance could be much better. But let's look at another of your statements: The chance of not being able to coup-de-grace someone is far less than any of the other possibilies -- being able to sneak past him, In order to coup-de-grace the guard you have to sneak up on them. The closer you get to them the more likely it is that they will hear you (in game and out of game description), thus you are taking a bigger risk trying to sneak up on them than just trying to sneak around them.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 08:18 PM	If someone can't see the moral difference between killing some guy who is just working a job while he is sleeping and killing some guy who is just doing his job and using lethal force to do it, well I can't help them. Wow. There's just so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin. But I will say that you are not the one who should be offering anyone else advice if you can't even see what's wrong with that kind of thinking. Seriously. Discussing how things work in game is "metagaming"? Huh? That is stupid. Actually, that's a textbook definition of metagaming right there. I can't believe you fail to miss your own words. I might try to explain it to you, but since you can't even see the answer right in front of you as you type it... uhm... well, let's just admit it. You're hopeless. No one can tell you otherwise because you're convinced that you already know the answers. Game over. Get help. Roll up a new character, please. Have a nice day.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 08:19 PM	Bravo! :bravo:
evilviper77 09-11-07, 09:22 PM	Evil is irrelevant in this case, and you've just demonstrated my real point. If killing is an evil act, why doesn't it apply equally no matter what the circumstances? First, it's wrong it the person is asleep, but acceptable if he's alert and fighting back. Now it's not so bad if you're just killing somebody who is evil or deserves it, at least by their perceptions. Who made them the authority to play God? It doesn't matter. These are good questions, and taking the very very little the raw gives us we get. "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." and ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." So is killing evil? Well by what this says that is not always so. It's evil when it's for: Fun, Profit, W/O Qualms, Sport, Convenience, Duty to a deity or master. Of course this isn't the full range, but it does state a few things we can use. For one, is killing a person in their sleep evil? I'd like to think if it's a KNOWN evil person then no it's not evil, some would disagree but that's my take on it. Killing an UNKNOWN person in their sleep however, is ALWAYS evil IMO. It goes under the "convenient" and "innocent"(as in not know to be evil) clause. If they are asleep then it's convenient to just CdG and not worry about sapping or tying up, and unless you can detect evil, or have some other concrete proof (talking about humans only, don't bring in any demon converters, that goes under the 12th clause 5th paragraph "Demon's and Devil's turned Drizzt") it's an evil act. If someone attacks you and you kill him defending yourself it's not an evil act, otherwise all adventurers would have to be evil in alignment. If you're going into a hostile environment with the understanding that everyone inside (at least within the official capacity and right to do so) will treat you as a hostile intruder (which you are, actually), then it is at one's own personal discretion to do what is needed to accomplish their goal. Personal discretion should reflect the alignments of the person. A Good character might want to look for more humane ways to deal with the enemy, but good Intelligence and Wisdom might tell them that the risks are too high for them and the price for failure may be even higher. Remember, they are attempting to save someone's life for being (assumingly) wrongly persecuted as an Evil worshipper by a group of dangerous zealots, not just randomly storming someone's castle for looking diabolical. They can make their own discretion and do what they feel is "right" but that doesn't make it a non-evil act all of a sudden just because they are CN or trying to do something good. Sleeping guards are still a threat. If alerted, they could raise an alarm that brings the whole plan to a halt. It was an Intelligence check weighed by a morality check that guided the rogue's actions. He chose the surest method to insure the guard wouldn't be a problem later. Unfortunate for the guard, but that's the risk you take with the job. If they had run into him while he was awake, the group would likely have killed him in a confrontation anyway. Would anyone have cried 'Foul!' about that? No. It's not about killing the guard. It's just the skewed perception that, by being asleep, he is somehow innocent, helpless, and not an immediate threat. The rogue was merely an opportunist who wanted to play it both safe and smart for his team and their mission, which is to save the innocent girl. Remember that. You're right, it's not about killing the guard per se, it's about how he did it that makes people cry 'Foul!'. By being asleep he is in fact helpless and not an immediate threat, [as i see] innocent he was; since they hadn't proven he was in fact evil. No matter how you wanna play it off, the act was still EVIL. Maybe not drop you to CE or drop you down a step of the alignments but it was still an evil act. So even if it is considered an evil thing to do (which it is), there is still the good rescue he is ultimately trying to achieve. A Good character might have risked looking for a more merciful method to keep the guard from being trouble later, but we're not talking about a Good character here. Nor is he an Evil character. A neutral character isn't about balancing moral dilemas. It just doesn't matter to them because they simply believe more in reason and logic. One day they do something that might be Evil, and another day they do something Good. But on neither of those days did they consult their conscious because it wasn't their main concern. Evil perpetrates Evil because it wants to. Good perptrates Good because it believes it is right for everyone. Neutral doesn't care either way because it knows everyone is capable of doing both if they choose. I agree, a good character probably would have risked a more merciful method, while a neutral or evil could have done what he did, but it's still an evil act no matter of the alignment of the person doing the killing. Since he wasn't already evil in alignment he should have got some points toward that, i wouldn't agree with a shift or a half shift, but he would get a push in the direction of CE for that.
pres_man 09-11-07, 09:27 PM	Actually, that's a textbook definition of metagaming right there. I can't believe you fail to miss your own words. I might try to explain it to you, but since you can't even see the answer right in front of you as you type it... uhm... well, let's just admit it. You're hopeless. No one can tell you otherwise because you're convinced that you already know the answers. Game over. Get help. Roll up a new character, please. Have a nice day. Considering you can't differentient between "in game" and "metagame" (or in other words "out of game"), I guess you appear not to know what it is you are talking about. Nice try though. Wow. There's just so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin. But I will say that you are not the one who should be offering anyone else advice if you can't even see what's wrong with that kind of thinking. Seriously. The problem is you assume if he had been awake he would have tried to kill the rogue, yet there is no evidence for that. He could have thrown down any weapons, squealed "Holy crap, it is adventures, please don't deactivate kill me sir!" and groveled for his life." Or maybe he might have actual aided the party being disgusted with how the city is being run (that is why he gets drunk). Or he might have just surrendered saying, "Look I'm just doing my job, but it ain't worth getting killed over. Do your thing." There were alot of other possibilities besides just trying to kill the rogue (which he might have). The fact was, he was at the point of being unconscious, innocent in the mind of the rogue, the rogue had no idea if the person was vile or anything, and so didn't know if killing him was appropriate or not. As for the argument, "He might have became a problem eventually." Using that logic then some who steals is justified in hunting down and killing all of the city guards in their sleep, heck they might become a hinderence somewhere along the line, take care of them now. That is classic evil thinking. Non-evil beings tend to judge others on their actions, not affiliations.
Archon of Light 09-12-07, 01:27 AM	These are good questions, and taking the very very little the raw gives us we get. <snip> Hold it, right there. RAW?! No, no! We do not go to RAW for alignment debates. RAW gives us nothing useful for this. RAW does not provide any hard rules or facts about alignments; only a subpar guideline for what they mean and how we're supposed to approach it. But there's no RAW for alignments! If there was, we'd probably see a lot less of these discussions. Good grief. Alignments are meant to define very general outlooks on ethics and morality. There are many different kinds of Good and Evil, as there are many levels or degrees of them. Some people are wholly evil while others just skirt the line by giving in to the occassional tendencies. RAW (as you want to call it... it's a stupid term, IMO) does not provide any substantial rulesets to accomodate these varying degrees, simply lumping them into a cumbersome catch-all blanket that weighs people's perceptions down to the point of crippling their ability to think beyond 'black and white'. There are no hard and fast rules for alignment because it is not an easily defined aspect and it relies too heavily on subjective perceptions and personal discretions. You cannot simply say that 'killing these people is an evil act, but killing these guys is a good one'. Likewise, you can't suggest that 'killing people in this manner is good, but doing it this way is wrong'. It just doesn't work that way. If someone attacks you and you kill him defending yourself it's not an evil act, otherwise all adventurers would have to be evil in alignment. That is true, and what you have done is established motive and intent to define the alignment of this particular action. But you're still looking at it as a 'Good is right, Evil is wrong' point of view. That's actually not how things work in most fantasy settings. Good and Evil both have a place in the world and neither is allowed to dominate the other. You must learn to look at it from outside your own familiar human perspective and replace your own personal influences with more objectivity. You place too many assumptions in your observations, particularly when it comes to the moral nature of the typical adventurer. They can make their own discretion and do what they feel is "right" but that doesn't make it a non-evil act all of a sudden just because they are CN or trying to do something good. Again, you have to look at the larger picture. Define the motive. That will reveal more about the actions of the character then simply looking at the act itself. Remember, we're looking to describe the actions of the character, not the actions themselves. Actions don't happen on their own. You're right, it's not about killing the guard per se, it's about how he did it that makes people cry 'Foul!'. Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you? By being asleep he is in fact helpless and not an immediate threat, [as i see] innocent he was; since they hadn't proven he was in fact evil. No matter how you wanna play it off, the act was still EVIL. Maybe not drop you to CE or drop you down a step of the alignments but it was still an evil act. And this is even MORE ridiculous. How does falling asleep make someone innocent?? Regardless, we're not going around testing alignments to make sure we have a green light to kill mercilessly. The alignment of your victims has little to do with the alignment of your actions. Why did you kill him? Because you sensed he was Evil?! Maybe he was just a depraved and greedy man, but never really harmed anyone in his life. You don't have a meter to automatically detect HOW evil because the rules don't provide for that level of detail. This is why most actions are not scrutinized so heavily, and when they are it just tears the game apart. I agree, a good character probably would have risked a more merciful method, while a neutral or evil could have done what he did, but it's still an evil act no matter of the alignment of the person doing the killing. Since he wasn't already evil in alignment he should have got some points toward that, i wouldn't agree with a shift or a half shift, but he would get a push in the direction of CE for that. Absolutely, and this brings up a critical point that I believe is at the heart of this thread. The act was undeniably evil. Even the OP admitted to this. But the DM gave too much weight simply because the guard was asleep. If the character was a Good natured person, he might not have been so callous and such an action would seem out-of-character for him to do. However, that was obviously not the case. The rogue's motive was based on a decision made more on logic than morality, and a small nudge towards Evil would have been appropriate for doing so. And for the sake of completion, if the rogue had been truly Evil, he would've done it for his own personal pleasure... even if it meant sneaking back behind the party after they tied him up and finishing the job they were too uptight to do themselves. :devil:
Archon of Light 09-12-07, 01:54 AM	Considering you can't differentient between "in game" and "metagame" (or in other words "out of game"), I guess you appear not to know what it is you are talking about. Nice try though. Oh, I wish you had a clue about what you're saying because I have no idea what you're talking about now. But keep prancing behind that protective shield of ignorance you like to use as a smoke screen, if that's what works for you. In the meantime, let me see if there's a nugget of comprehension worth responding to. :detect: Ok, not really, but this is about as close as I could find... The problem is you assume if he had been awake he would have tried to kill the rogue, yet there is no evidence for that. <snip> I assumed?? I wasn't even in the game, let alone at the game table with them. See, here's where you're getting confused again with the whole "In-game/Out-of-game/Meta-game" perspectives... do you need someone to explain it to you? For the record, let's just put this one to rest. The rogue character (in-game) made the decision to kill the guard in his sleep. Being Chaotic Neutral, this was well within the alignment concept of his character (in-game), but still smacks of an evil taint. The DM, for some reason, decided it was a far more evil thing to do than it actually was and wanted to award the player a greater amount of Evil points for his character's actions (out-of-game). I, on the other hand, was never there to assume anything on behalf of the characters (in-game) or the players (out-of-game), and thus did not influence their actions or the outcome by presenting mechanics and rules to influence the decision of the players for their characters (metagame). But given the DMs determination to pick apart every instance where the characters are not acting Good by his own standards, indicates to me that he is a very poor DM (out-of-game). Good characters are the only ones who should obsess with moral dilemas (in-game). Neutrals might struggle with it on occassion, but for the most part, it just doesn't concern them (in-game). There's no need for DMs to needlessly punish others to get them to conform to their ideas of how characters should behave (out-of-game), but too often players take advantage of the Neutral alignment to get out of being Good without having to be Evil (metagame). I suggest people learn to identify the difference in these players from ones who can genuinely play a Neutral character, like the OP appears to do (out-of-game). Any questions? (out-of-game)
albinomonkeyking 09-12-07, 02:16 AM	Anyway, the mission we were on was, as I said, a rescue mission. The prisoner we were extracting was a Sorceress we had met before in our travels, and the request came from her father. We were told the city was evil and, upon approaching, noticed that the walls were topped with impaled bodies and the like, and that it more closely resembled a large fortress than a city. I for one thank you for the clarification. As I said before, knowing more helps. Told it was evil... see impaled bodies... Really guys? You are gonna argue that guard was just 'trying to earn a few bucks'? Even if you got a wife and kids to feed you have got to look at the morality of being a guard who does that to people or who stands by and watchs it. All part of the machine. It wasn't until we had been captured that we found out that the city was run by a large number of over-zealous followers of Pelor that had sworn to rid the world of the growing number of followers of Erythnul, and that the Sorceress we had been sent to extract had been arrested and sentenced to execution under the belief that she was a follower of Erythnul, though she was not (as were many of the people they captured and executed). Ding! Genocide! So you were off to save a woman who was trying to save people who were being systematically murdered? Okay, much clearer understanding of who you are up against. My Rogue isn't the type to kill someone on a whim, and prefers to avoid most conflict if he can manage to talk his way out of it (or bribe his way out), but we were on a tight schedule, as her execution was to be at daybreak and her father did not find us until the middle of the night. I saw him asleep, didn't have sap with me, knew that my rope might be more useful on the escape, and simply decided to quickest way to incapacitate him would be to kill him, as it is also the only way to make sure that he STAYS incapacitated. So you made a judgement call in a dangerous situation surrounded by psychopaths (remember, impaled bodies). In addition, you were on a rescue mission to save a good person, in fact, a great person. She was putting her life on the line so you ventured off to save her. In addition, you were on a time limit and if said time limit should run up your own lives would be forsaken as well as that of the clearly noble person you are rescuing. Okay, I will give my opinion now. Unless I hear otherwise from your DM (dissenting statements) here is my judgement call: Not evil. When a policeman on duty has to shoot someone I wouldn't call it evil. Maybe sometimes it is, but when he shoots down a lunatic or a madman trying to hurt other people I wouldn't call him 'evil'. Therefore, in D&D terms, a world far less moral than our own, I wouldn't call it evil. Paladins kill. Paladins kill evil. In fact, there is a paladin class which massacres evil and is still completely 100% good aligned by mechanics. If said sleeping guard was a reknown murderer when you found him no one would question you killing him in his sleep, or at least they shouldn't. You are playing CN from the sounds of it, I hope it works out with your DM, I'll even discuss the issue with him if he pleases. Good luck.
xNarrowSoulx 09-12-07, 02:36 AM	Well, example one, I would have warned you probably. A lot more sensible than my fighter that I DM over who says "This is taking too long. I stab him in the #$%@ing throat already, let's be on with it!", but still, maybe unnecessary. But on the second one... You were provoked. He should have known better. But this isn't a rules discussion, it's a philosophy discussion. When I run my games, I pretty much try to avoid the good/evil classification, and I use good/evil as an indicator to NPC's, as I don't really believe good or evil exist. It's basically lawful/chaotic, except on a common level, rather than governmental level. Nothing wrong with either really, just one way will get you in trouble with some, and the other way will get you in trouble with others. Just my $.02. -Hank (I just read the entire post through and saw your details. Now I say both were perfectly fine, but still again, continued behavior like that would get you knocked to CE... Although you say you don't normally behave as such, so it's not a problem. I wanted to keep my philosophical ideas up though. =] )
Shadowhowler 09-12-07, 03:21 AM	When a policeman on duty has to shoot someone I wouldn't call it evil. Maybe sometimes it is, but when he shoots down a lunatic or a madman trying to hurt other people I wouldn't call him 'evil'. Uh... ok. What if the same Policeman was walking a beat in downtown New York... he is in a dangerous area of central park, and he sees a guy, waring gang colors, asleep on a park bench. So he whips out his service revolver and shoots him... figuring if he wakes the guy to question him, the guy will be a threat to him... he IS wareing gang colors after all. Would THAT be evil? Cuz thats a much closer aproximation to what the OP's character did by offing the sleeping guard then your 'shoots down a lunatic or madman' example.
Hsien 09-12-07, 08:38 AM	Uh... ok. What if the same Policeman was walking a beat in downtown New York... he is in a dangerous area of central park, and he sees a guy, waring gang colors, asleep on a park bench. So he whips out his service revolver and shoots him... figuring if he wakes the guy to question him, the guy will be a threat to him... he IS wareing gang colors after all. Would THAT be evil? Cuz thats a much closer aproximation to what the OP's character did by offing the sleeping guard then your 'shoots down a lunatic or madman' example. Actually that's a terrible example, imo, as it does not reflect what happened by any means. I'm staying away from rl examples because it's never as simple when trying to make alignment determinations and compare real life to fantasy life; then there is the additional real life modern ethics/morals to the more medieval style ethics/morals of D&D. Therefore reviewing fantasy world actions should rarely/cautiously be compared to modern examples as there is a big difference in perspective, knowledge and morals. Again, with the info we have ( as that's all we can judge upon ) those are not evil acts in any fantasy setting I've been in. ~ nuff said
albinomonkeyking 09-12-07, 01:23 PM	Uh... ok. What if the same Policeman was walking a beat in downtown New York... he is in a dangerous area of central park, and he sees a guy, waring gang colors, asleep on a park bench. So he whips out his service revolver and shoots him... figuring if he wakes the guy to question him, the guy will be a threat to him... he IS wareing gang colors after all. Would THAT be evil? Cuz thats a much closer aproximation to what the OP's character did by offing the sleeping guard then your 'shoots down a lunatic or madman' example. The thing about RL is it doesn't come close to d&d, being that RL is so much different lets just adapt the situation to the now unbelievable real life equivalent. The national guard are sent to raid a warehouse where a group of several dozen cultists have been systematically killing anyone of a certain race. Outside of the warehouse are impaled bodies of several of a the victims. I dunno, I'm not going to be too kind to someone who wants to commit genocide and is in the process of doing so. Modern days focuses much more around 'you cannot take the law into your own hands' because there are too many people out their that the government things are untrustworthy to exhibit proper restraint. Therefore, no one is to be killed unless they are attacking you. Let's not get into our judicial system now, but in D&D - a place where you sentenced to death quite quickly for breaking certain laws - this is not the way. As I stated, in D&D even a paladin can go kill craz and still be good aligned. And, because it is very relevant, do not discount the fact that they are on a rescue mission and time is ticking away. Impaled bodies + guard who works in fortress run by zealots commiting genocide = Probable reasoning that he is a bad person. P.S. I agree completely Hsien, that was what I was trying to explain, thank you.
Doodle 09-12-07, 02:10 PM	To the OP: The thing about these debates is you invariably end up with a large number of posters taking their personal view of good and evil (or law and chaos) and trying to apply it to the game. Personal viewpoints mean crap, it is the rules that matter. If you are playing a game where "puppy killing" is the special domain of a lawful good deity, then killing puppies is a lawful good act. Of course, the problem exists that alignments and alignment rules are not well defined in DnD (look at the plethora of Paladin threads). So, at the end of the day you have to determine your DMs alignment rules. It is possible that what you view as CN is actually NE in your DMs ruleset. It is possible that a N character killing a puppy moves 4 points to good, but an evil character doing the same thing moves 8 points. From your particular example, I got the sense that your DM was trying to send the message of: "You've done some acts that I consider evil, and I haven't seen corresponding good acts. If you want to stay neutral, balance your character". Me.
Khadmus 09-12-07, 05:53 PM	There seems to be quite a bit of hostility at the moment, particularily between pres_man and the archon fellow.
Ace_of_time 09-13-07, 07:17 AM	Here is what it boils down to. If his PC was a PAL in the 2nd EX and he killed the bounty hunter would that make things different?
remoray 09-13-07, 07:55 AM	Your opinion is one can tell how others attack: lethal/nonlethal in game? Only way, in game, is to let him hit you first. Not smart. What, are you afraid of being killed outright by a single attack? There are several advantages to allowing the opponent strike first. 1) as already mentioned, it can be a method of gathering information. knowledge is power, etc. 2) you gain the moral high ground. You can legitimately argue that your opponent struck first. This can be helpful if you are trying to maintain a lawful or good alignment 3) Your opponent has used up an attack action, and has thus wasted an opportunity to directly oppose any other action you choose to take in the same round (I am assuming you have delayed your action in the initiative order). You can use your action for a huge variety of things, depending upon the immediate context and environment, and your opponent can't stop you.
Hsien 09-13-07, 09:00 AM	What, are you afraid of being killed outright by a single attack? There are several advantages to allowing the opponent strike first. 1) as already mentioned, it can be a method of gathering information. knowledge is power, etc. 2) you gain the moral high ground. You can legitimately argue that your opponent struck first. This can be helpful if you are trying to maintain a lawful or good alignment 3) Your opponent has used up an attack action, and has thus wasted an opportunity to directly oppose any other action you choose to take in the same round (I am assuming you have delayed your action in the initiative order). You can use your action for a huge variety of things, depending upon the immediate context and environment, and your opponent can't stop you. Best reason to let them try to hit first if your not using ranged weapons. If they have to move more then 5 feet to do so. They move and get one attack...now you can take a full attack action, but thats a game mechanic issue, not an alignment debate.