Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FinisofLife 01-29-06, 02:21 AM	We had an adventuring party, in the forest. I was a wild elf ranger (focus melee), another elf ranger (focus ranged) a halfing druid, and a human rogue. We had captured a drow elf who was supposed to be leading us to a monster that had recently been causing trouble in nearby cities. And so we were following it, and my character has a bit of anger issues(I multiclassed him into barbarian to get the rage ability to make this more realistic) and especially when it comes to drow. (they are his hated foe). And this drow was leading us towards a lake and he approaches it, away from us, turns and then casts some spell like ice storm or hail storm and hurts all of us. I go into a rage and charge him without question for betraying us, and kill him with mutliple criticals basically turning him into deli meat. So my DM says that this was not good because I didnt give him a chance to give a reason or try to deal nonleathal damage or anything. I argued for a while but eventually the DM won as they have ultimate power and last say so. So now I am no longer CG, but NG, because of killing a drow who attacked me. And I just wanted to know if it seems that I am totally unjustified in my little bit of anger or if I was right to argue.
kraegor 01-29-06, 02:33 AM	Your DM has it wrong. If anything your alignment should have shifted to CN instead of NG but thats besides the point. The fact is that he turned on you, and tried to kill you. You HAD been reasoning with him, you had him as a prisoner and he ran, and tried to kill you. Now if he just ran away and you shot him in the back? Thats something else. But the fact remains you where totally within your alignment strictures. Its what I would have done. Now if you where Nuetral Good and did that, I might see pushing towards a Chaotic Good alignment change, because you where acting more CG than anything. So that tells me that if you where CG in the first place your DM is full of crap. He is just being vindictive probably. You probably killed a major NPC that had a trap laid out for you, or where going to get you deeper into a storyline. But you killed him. If you DM decides to argue, take out all your dice, lay them on the table, and gather everyone elses too. When he asks what you are doing, you tell him that you want him to explain to you why your alignment changed, while you hurl dice at him by the handfuls as hard as you can and see if he is able to do it. When he says "thats just being silly". Then you say "so how the hell is my character supposed to talk and deal with a guy who is casting icestorm on me, and hailstones are pelting my face?" Of course, thats the left wing reaction.. but still you get the point. What you did was not considered evil in anyway, in fact, you where just defending yourself, period.
FinisofLife 01-29-06, 02:36 AM	haha wow, that sounds like a wonderful idea. Maybe I will use it.... but actually the NG was a typo. It was supposed to be CN but eh, I still think it was wrong.
Cymraegmorgan 01-29-06, 03:31 AM	One act does not warrant an alignment change, especially when tht act is exuberant self-defense. It might behoove your DM to read up on alignment issues.
nastynate 01-29-06, 05:20 AM	One act does not warrant an alignment change, especially when tht act is exuberant self-defense. It might behoove your DM to read up on alignment issues. I've gone down this road before on the boards, and it wasn't pretty. Personally I agree with you; a person is not defined by a single act, but by their actions over-all. However there are many who view alignment as very black and white, and much more restricted than this. I don't think a single evil act, particularly under duress, can be used as justification for an over-all change in philosophy. Things like guilt, and regret come into play. If you realize your actions were evil, and you regret them, chances are you have not become evil. But I know very many people disagree with this line of thought; I don't really understand why, but I guess I'll just have to accept it.
Cymraegmorgan 01-29-06, 05:59 AM	I don't think a single evil act, particularly under duress, can be used as justification for an over-all change in philosophy. Yes, but what makes this situation even more ludicrous is that it was a single act of self-defense.
HappyDragon 01-29-06, 10:06 AM	Can't see why there was an alignment shift at all really. Your character seemed to be simply defending himself. Not only that, but your group had already tried reasoning with him and it was him that attacked......Sorry, that's it buddy! You're going down now! Do not pass go! Do not collect $200! Game over man. Game over! So, yes, as others have already posted, you were certainly justified in questioning your DM's decision. Heck your character could of been LG and shouldn't have any problems with alignment. Just my opinion of course. :) BTW. Not that I would ever condone this type of behaviour but I like Kraegor's idea of the dice. Wholly immature and silly, yet oddly suiting.....and it made me chuckle. :)
Black Kitten 01-29-06, 10:27 AM	Trying to survive has little to do with alignment. If you are being attacked, you can respond in force. If you feel you are being attacked by something or someone that you cannot easily take out, taking a -4 to your attack is just not smart. Even LG Paladins would have been justified to knock the guy deep into the negative HP (though perhaps preventing killing the bastard).
bhosp 01-29-06, 12:52 PM	Trying to survive has little to do with alignment. If you are being attacked, you can respond in force. If you feel you are being attacked by something or someone that you cannot easily take out, taking a -4 to your attack is just not smart. Even LG Paladins would have been justified to knock the guy deep into the negative HP (though perhaps preventing killing the bastard). LG Paladin should have either refused to take prisoners or left the party to avoid associating with him.
Gopher 01-29-06, 04:33 PM	LG Paladin should have either refused to take prisoners or left the party to avoid associating with him. Umm...taking prisoners is right up the Paladin's alley. You're saying that the Pally should kill the Drow instead of taking it prisoner? I'm assuming the Drow was hostile when it was captured. If they simply snuck into its home, grabbed it out of bed, and commanded that it lead them some place, I can see where this might violate LG. Taking enemy prisoners, however, is much more LG than killing them as they run. And simply letting them run is hardly an option, since they are likely to return with reinforcements. In short, I'm not sure where you're coming from witht his comment.
Yak of Darkness 01-29-06, 04:50 PM	You know, I'm pretty sure that I will one day see someone on these boards tell this story: I'm playing a LG elf paladin in a Greyhawk campaign. The party and I are going through this big city, and I see a beggar. I decide to give the beggar a few silver, and my DM says that my alignment becomes CN and I fall as a paladin. Was this right?And not only will I see this story in a thread, I will see at least one poster agree that it was the right thing to do. For the topic, I agree that of course you were well within your right to do what you did. A NG person would be right to do what you did. A LG person would be right to do what you did. The drow attacked you, after already being taken prisoner (i.e., shown mercy and given a chance to live). This is about as clear a cut alignment situation I think I've seen on the boards. The DM's decision is laughable, and wholly devoid of sense. Of course, even if he was right, the whole "one questionable act should not prompt an alignment shift" argument should come into play, but I almost feel like bringing that up somewhat validates the DM's actions (by saying to him, "Well, you could have been right, but only if he does this all the time."). The DM is wrong, and his view of alignment is stupid. Throw a brick at him.
Fox Lee 01-29-06, 05:33 PM	Your DM has it wrong. The fact is that he turned on you, and tried to kill you. You HAD been reasoning with him, you had him as a prisoner and he ran, and tried to kill you. He is just being vindictive probably. You probably killed a major NPC that had a trap laid out for you, or where going to get you deeper into a storyline. But you killed him. My thoughts exactly. If your GM gets uppity about you killing an evil foe in hot blood, when (s)he started it rather than you, I'll lay you odds that it's only a problem because the GM just buggered up something that was supposed to be a plot hook, and is taking it out on you. An alignment change based on this action would be utterly unjustified - I certainly wouldn't stand for it. The DM is wrong, and his view of alignment is stupid. Throw a brick at him. And you are so sigged :D
jpat93 01-29-06, 05:45 PM	Besides being a pretty clearly wrong DM decision, it also punishes pretty decent roleplay. I mean, if *any* class is going to get some slack cut for, um, raging and hot-headedness, shouldn't it be the barbarian?
Dag 01-29-06, 07:09 PM	He attacked you lethally and therefore your DM should have no problem with your and your party killing him. I had a somewhat similar situation occur to a character of mine: Also an elven Ranger. Our party was making a trek underground to supposedly rescue some villagers who had been abducted by some underground race. We encountered a drow wizard of very high level and eventually subdued him and took him alive as a prisoner in hopes he could lead us to the human captives. Instead he told us of a nearby drow community that was weakly defended and laden with magic. Through enchantments we learned he was telling the truth but my Chaotic Good character still told the group we need to kill this fellow and continue on with our task of freeing the captives, this side quest would delay us and would prolong the suffering of the humans. It seemed decided by the rest of the party (who were all good and neutral in alignment) that we would follow this captive drow and seek the treasures he could lead us to. As we were already ready to rest when we encountered the drow we proceeded to set up camp. I got the drow wizard alone for a moment and weakened his bonds, telling him to flee us during the night or I would kill him. When I woke for my watch he was still with us sound asleep. With everyone else asleep I stood over the drow with my bow and performed a coup de gras, slaying him as he slept. The DM was astonished and upset, the players were furious with me, but we carried on with our mission and rescued most of the abducted humans and my character left the party as soon as we reached the surface (They returned the humans to their village and received all the acolades and rewards of course). My DM changed me to Chaotic Neutral and I did not argue with that. It is an acceptable DM response to what I did even though my motives were good. Your DM needs to consider all the ways you did not kill off this drow who you hated, and only took leathal measures when he attacked you. Very good restraint on your part and totally in line with your alignment.
Yak of Darkness 01-29-06, 08:04 PM	And you are so sigged :DWhy, thankee. :D My first time, I think. I feel so proud. :)
FinisofLife 01-29-06, 11:32 PM	Wow, I didnt expect all this agreement but thanks. I think I will argue again in our next session. Though right after I killed the drow we had to fight a leviathan... which needless to say was way over our capable level and nearly killed us all. But we managed to escape and he seemed a bit angry at that. But thats beside the point, thanks for all the good ideas, especially the brick one :devil:
High Octane 01-30-06, 12:39 PM	Im going to try to understand this. So you were escorting a prisoner of a race that is your ancestral enemy and your favored enemy, he attempts to escape by turning and using a lethal ice spell on you and your DM basically punished you for not stopping and attempting your diplomacy skill which is probably well into the negative seeing as you are a ranger/barbarian wood elf dealing with a DROW?
Vaelan 01-30-06, 06:55 PM	It would probably be more effective to direct him to this thread, for a number of reasons. We're more likely to give an unbiased opinion, if we have all of the information. We're also addressing him outside of the confines of the game, while he seems to think that he is playing against the players and is thus not particularly inclined to listen to you.