Post/Author/DateTime	Post
feartheinvinceblehamster 10-05-05, 09:38 PM	I have a CN fighter(roguy type) who used diplomacy to convince a couple of hostile minotaurs(don't ask, several critical succeses) to join our party. he took watch and slaughtered the minotaurs, took there stuff, and lied to the party about how much he got(though he gave them 1/2 the coins) I'm thinking drifting towards NE, but I want your opinions
TheChilliGod 10-05-05, 09:53 PM	I don't think this would warrant any sort of alignment change. The minotaurs were hostile at first, and the fighter may have planned all along to diplomat them over then slit them. When looking at the big picture, it counts as a tactic, not a change in behavior. (I'll admit it requires a complete disregard of the word 'trust' though) It's like casting sleep and killing them while they're asleep. Or charming them and telling them to lie on the ground, then sneak-attacking them. Lying to the party about the loot is also perfectly within alignment. At least you got some of the cut, instead of none at all. Of course, if the party finds out, they will naturally dislike the rogue a bit.
20goingon1232 10-05-05, 10:09 PM	Very Chaotic, definitely. As for Good or Evil, that would depend on the Minotaurs themselves. If the Minotaurs were minding their own business (which they were not), then it is cause of shift towards Evil. But since the Minos were hostile, I'd say it was a neutral act. Again, it would depend on the circumstance. If the Minos were angry because the party killed their babies.... why is the fighter still Neutral?? :D Oh, and you do realise there is no such thing as a critical success or fumble in skill checks, right?
wyvern_55 10-05-05, 11:41 PM	I disagree, although the minotaurs began as hostile, they were talked into joining the group, and while they slept, the one in charge of making sure that nothing killed them in their sleep, killed them in their sleep. This is an evil act, I recommend that if this is normal for that character, then change his alignment from neutral to evil, and since he is not obeying more laws, keep the chaotic alignment where it is. It may be harsh, but that’s my opinion, I’m tired of so many people being chaotic evil and writing chaotic neutral on their sheets.
Zurgarghk 10-06-05, 12:53 AM	Chaotic Neutral has always been very difficult to define for me...until I saw a character in a movie I believed to be a perfect example of this: Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribbean. He wasn't good, but he wasn't evil either. He was definitely chaotic. He was a perfect example of the definition in the PHB of CN. Now, whenever I wonder if a CN character would do something, I think, would Capt. Sparrow do something like that? I don't think he'd murder people/minotaurs he lulled into his confidence. I think he'd tie them up while they slept, loot them and let them wake up in the middle of nowhere with no money looking like the stupid minotaurs they were. Your character exhibited CE behavior. Sure you used your diplomacy skills to great effect, sure the minotaurs were evil, but they trusted you with their lives. Anyone who kills someone who trusts them with their lives has commited an evil act. You don't, however, have to change your alignment because of it. Perhaps your character could become wracked with guilt about what he's done, and try to atone for it one day. In that case he doesn't have to change the alignment and you can have some good character development. On the other hand, maybe he relished what he did and wants to do other things like it because it was so easy the first time. In that case...time for an alignement change. CE most likely. Cheers, Zurgarghk
KJW 10-06-05, 11:52 AM	I think Captain Jack Sparrow is an excellent example of CG, but I do see how you could see him as CN. Probably the closest example to CN for a movie hero I could think of. As for the situation posted. The PC is now CE. Lying is one thing, convincing someone to join your party and then killing them in their sleep is clearly, and unquestionably, an evil act. True one act is usually not enough to shift alignment, but this was clearly murder, and premeditated. I agree with Wyvern, some players put CN on their character sheets, but are really shooting for CE. Yes, there are no crit fumbles or successes with skill checks, but I bet a lot of DM's house rule that for added excitement, I know I do. It makes sense, especially with skills used in opposition, such as bluff and sense motive. I always think of the Han Solo conversation through the intercom in the prison block in Episode IV, clearly he rolled a 1 on his bluff check. :)
DragonDeadite 10-06-05, 12:38 PM	Jack Sparrow... that's perfect for CN. Sorry, don't see someone who steals a ship as being Good. :cool: But very cool! Anyways.... I just recently finished playing a CN rogue... and yeah, CN would do something like that. (By finished I mean he's dead, just FYI) IF he made a habbit of it then he's have to lean towards Evil, yes, but I don't see one event pushing him over the edge though, especialy since it was all a Tactic to start with! ;) Just keep telling yourself that... it was all a part of the plan... all a part of the plan... or is that the devil on your shoulder whispering that?? No, really, I don't think you're alignment should change at all. If you keep making a habbit of it, then yeah, that's evil.
Conshey 10-06-05, 01:02 PM	the overall alignment change cannot be determined by a single action, if i were DMing this i would count this a a point in the CE sector but i wouldn't change his alignment until he got three continuous strikes in the evil line, or has a blatently evil personallity from day one. Remember, being CE means you don't have to apologize, or feel bad for that matter
KJW 10-06-05, 01:05 PM	I have changed my mind. I agree with you guys, Jack Sparrow is CN. Stealing a boat may not be good, but it's not evil, it really depends upon the situation. Though from the movie one boat theft was maybe evil and the other maybe good. Considering how erratic he was in the movie, he is CN. He was also a pretty peaceful guy considering, that's why I thought CG. That whole 'sacking a port without a shot' line and how he stole the Interceptor, made me think he really strove to avoid bloodshed, thus CG. In reality its probably because it's easier to do piracy with less bloodshed and more cunning. I think it's also the taint of so many CE characters posing as CN, that I have such a low opinion of CN on the moral scale of things. So yes, Captain Jack Sparrow will now be my campaign's paradigm of CN. :)
Thorak 10-06-05, 01:36 PM	I have changed my mind. I agree with you guys, Jack Sparrow is CN. Stealing a boat may not be good, but it's not evil, it really depends upon the situation. Though from the movie one boat theft was maybe evil and the other maybe good. Considering how erratic he was in the movie, he is CN. He was also a pretty peaceful guy considering, that's why I thought CG. That whole 'sacking a port without a shot' line and how he stole the Interceptor, made me think he really strove to avoid bloodshed, thus CG. In reality its probably because it's easier to do piracy with less bloodshed and more cunning. I think it's also the taint of so many CE characters posing as CN, that I have such a low opinion of CN on the moral scale of things. So yes, Captain Jack Sparrow will now be my campaign's paradigm of CN. :) Another thought on Cap'n Jack, neutrals on the good-evil axis aren't free to do whatever they like. They have compunctions. Those compunctions just typically extend to people they're friends with, and that they'll try and reduce how much damage they do to others if needed, rather than avoid it entirely. Take Jack's duel in the barn. He was willing to kill Will (I think that was Bloom's character's name) to escape. He didn't want to have to, but he would have. Note the look on Jack's face just before the drunk blacksmith clobbers him. It's not a "damn, he won't move, now what?" look. It's a "damn, now I'll have to kill him. Ah well..." look. Also Jack's general unwillingness to help anyone unless they're A> friends of his or B> it benefits him in some way. Jack Sparrow is perhaps the best truly CN character I have ever seen presented as a protagonist by Hollywood. Another good example I'll cite, though, is Marv from Sin City. Sure, he's outrageously violent. To people who've hurt his friends. Like he said when he arrives at his parole officer's apartment; he hurt a lot of cops, but he didn't think he killed any. As we saw later in the movie, he would have been easily capable of killing them if he liked. He didn't because he had compunctions against it. And anyone who crosses him or his few friends gets punished. Evil involves hurting for selfish reasons; because you enjoy it or they're in the way. If they've earned it, and you otherwise generally have compunctions against killing, you're probably Neutral.
Reinsuoknera 10-06-05, 04:09 PM	I think the since Jack Sparrow is a character from a disney movie that he is a complicated example. I mean, if it weren't a disney movie maybe he would have done some killing to get his way. Neutrality is, as stated in the PHB where most people sit as far as alignment goes. It can sway from good to evil in certain situations. I think that the best way to describe neutral is to say that you mostly function on a natural survival instinct. You do what you must to get by. As for the stealing of ships in the Sparrow example, that is totally not evil. That would be chaotic. He is breaking a law and taking a ship. It's not like he's going to use the cannons on all the other ships in the harbor and belt out an evil laugh as he sails off into the distance. Based on the description abouve I would say that the character in question for this thread is probably still CN. If he keeps killing in situations where he doesn't need to then he could easily become evil.
pwatson1974 10-07-05, 12:57 PM	Sorry, but premeditated murder of helpless creatures who trust the party should almost definitely result in an alignment shift. You can't get a lot more evil than that. Ok, so he could have tortured them to death after eating their babiesin front of them, but killing them in their sleep after lulling them into a false sense of security and getting them to trust you is so evil it deserves a shift. If he'd attacked them when they trusted him, that too would be evil too, but not (un)worthy of an alignment shift (unless it happened a lot).
Dragonsblood 10-07-05, 01:06 PM	I think this is borderline evil, but not enough to warrent a change in alignment. It's definately chaotic, so if any change should occur, it should be to CE, not NE. If this is a common tactic of your PC, perhaps this pushed him over to CE. If this is the first time, no change is necessary.
LCD2YOU 10-07-05, 02:19 PM	They minotaurs became friendly and you slaughtered them in their sleep. For me, that is both chaotic and evil act. Now, if there wre other circumstances such as the minotaurs were going about killing other people for the fun of it or they needed to be overcome for some greater purpose, that could be very different in what I'd rule. Like the poster who also seems to have a problem with people saying their character is CN while they are going about and acting like a CE madman, I take a dim view of "CN" charactres going around killing things. To me, a CN will rob you blind and tie you up. A CE person will take your things, tie you up and kill you. As for movie/tv characters and their alignments, for those who've watched the new "Battlestar Galatica", I submit the following: Cpt. Lee Adama, Apollo: LG. If this boy gets anymore agnsty with "what is the best thing to do to uphold ideals" schtick even paladins will think him ****. Lt. Trace, Starbuck: CG. Wants to do the right thing but never how those in command may want ot deal with it. Tom Zarwick: CE. He wants things his way and he will kill to get what he wants. Col. Tigh: LN. Or should I say Lawful Stoopid. He has a plan of action based on how things are done in a specific military fashion. Has no clue that others may have different, but no less valid, ideas. Mrs. Tigh: LE. She works the system and uses "class" and "social standing" to get what she wants. She doesn't want to replace the existing power structure, unlike Zarick, she wants to usurp it. Dr. Baltar: NE. selfish and self-serving to the core. This guy is everything I think of when I design a NE NPC. Being in charge is a means to and end, not an end to itself. Lt. Boomer: Hot. If all robots looked like her, I'd petition the Supreme Court to allow human/machine marriages. (Which is strange since I am generally attracted to red-headed Irish ladies). Any comments?