Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SonsOfKyuss 06-16-05, 05:35 PM	Be forewarned - I came here to vent :) In the campaign I play in the PCs are all "cops" whose purpose is to protect the kingdom and the king who's life literally holds the magical kingdom together. Long story short, the king was kidnapped and we were trying to recover him. While searching the drug lab that we were told was holding our king hostage, the sorcerer in our party uses chain lightning on a room full of slaves whose comatose bodies are being used to create some kind of drug. The sorcerer was seperated from the party when he did this, so noone was able to say anything in character, so OOC we were all like, "WTF dude?" to which he replied with a shrug saying, "Mercy killing." This wouldn't have been an issue except at character creation the DM said NO EVIL. The DM didn't seem to care but I assumed that this was due to his being a new DM. Eventually we recover the king and are transporting him back to the gateway to his kingdom when something bad happens. I'm on watch when some fog appears in the camp. Instant will save when I see it, which I fail with a result of 25. I reroll the next round since I'm a spirit shaman, and fail again. So the DM says I walk into some woods without warning anyone. Ouch. But I figure ok, lets see where this is going. "You see the hottest chick you've ever seen, make another will save" I fail this one with a 28 and a 17 or something, so I figure I'm pretty much just along for the ride. The nymph starts asking me questions, and since I have no idea what spell is cast on me I ask the dm how much I have to tell her, to which he says "everything". So I tell her everything and when she find out about the king she tells me to go back to the camp and kill him in his sleep. At this point I demanded another saving throw which I finally passed. All I did at this point was make a five foot step toward her so I would be right next to her. Here's where you need to know a little info about my character. I'm a 12th level spirit shaman and my DM made a bad ruling that Fire Seed Holly Berry bombs last until used, and the Acorn used the other (limited) duration. YES, this is ripe for exploitation. When he made the ruling, I told him he had to put some limit on it, so he said 48 hours. When the fog enticed me into the woods I had just cast energetic healing (fire) and I had 16 holly berry bombs on me, 8 of which were empowered. This means: DO NOT GET WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ME. Well here I was, within 5 feet of some mind dominating beast who has just ordered me to kill my king, the person I live to protect. But then she won init... :( She goes to cast a spell, I make an AoO and smack her for 20 some points damage with my club (I love Spikes). On my turn, I say boom and detonate myself (I had no realistic expectation of surviving). I roll the damage, it comes to something like 440 points. Nymph = slight coating of ash on the ground. I was laughing insanely while figuring how much my energetic healing healed me before it expired. Oh yeah, I also had fire resistance 10 from my armor to help me out after the immunity ran out. So I figure out that I actually have 17 hp left. The DM doesn't even bother to wait for the session to end, he immediately re-rules both fire seeds and energetic healing, but I was still alive so I didn't mind. But then he says, "And your alignment shifts to chaotic-evil." I replied something like this: "!@##$%@#$%#$%^#$%#$%, WTF do you mean I'm chaotic-evil?!?!? Chris fried that whole effin room full of innocent peasants and got away with it, and I get an alignment shift for defending myself and my king?" We then argued for a while, the highlight being me sinking so low as to say "Fine, then in MY GAME, your character........" So I left with a stern reprimand and a CN alignment... and shame for having to sink that low. Now, this post is mainly so I can vent, but... Am I evil? p.s. Chris (the true-neutral sorcerer) chain lightninged me and the rest of the party after we had taken out every opponent who might have stopped him, I had lost 2/3rds of my hp, and I had used every spell and ability that might have been useful against him. Yet I somehow escaped. My character now lives in the forest and is pretending to be a druid as part of the witness relocation program.
Andrew_980 06-16-05, 05:43 PM	slap the DM, open up a PHB and DMG to the alignment section and tell him to start reading. I will garuntee (i don't care about spelling so don't bother telling me) that nowhere in there will he find that using his own foolishness against him makes your character evil. for that matter, maybe he needs to read both books more fully before making assinine rulings that he will later regret (and hold players at fault for)
HappyDragon 06-16-05, 05:56 PM	To your first question, I see no reason for your character to be considered Evil. On a second note though, the sorcerer is not evil either. Certainly not good, but not necessarily evil.
Old French Admiral 06-16-05, 06:15 PM	Indeed. Your shaman was by no means evil. The sorcerer, on the other hand, I think, was entirely justified in killing those comatose slaves. Granted, he didn't realize that there might be another, less violent solution, but in his view it was still an act of mercy. He thought it better to be dead (and likely wandering around Elysium or whatever) than trapped in an inert body. Of course, that last point also depends on your opinion regarding assisted suicide/euthanasia -- and I fear that further discussion of THAT topic might be contrary to the CoC (at least in regards to real world cases).
Arkidisey 06-16-05, 06:17 PM	DUDE! Did he explain why you turned CE??? I see absalutly NO reason in evil there. that was complete self-defence, and it saved your king! He better have a GRAND explanation for that, such a story-based dicision, but tturning you CE is... ARG i can't explane how angry i'd be! go back to the game if its still going and tell him your playing your character still and he's the same alignment he was before he suddenly became CE. If the DM says no to you cant be the CN person, then tell him to think this through: 1) you wonder into the woods, fail two saving throws.2) you see a really hot girl and you have to make another will save. you fail.3) she TELL YOU TO KILL YOUR KING. THE ONE THE WHOLE STORY IS ABOUT. THE ONE YOUR SUPPOSED TO SAVE.(lol) 4) you demand another save and succeed this one. you take a 5-foot step and she wins inish. 5) she trys to cast spell, you make AoO and hit her for 20. then next turn you explode. (lol :D i think that was both brave, awesome, and hilarious, especially since you survived!) then you kill her with so much damage over hers and survived, and then turned CE?! doesn;t make sense. your getting jipped of your morals. :( go to him and tell him this with a face on such as: :mad: EDIT: also, couls you tell us some things that were said in the argument? it helps help if we know how this went down :D
Always-Late 06-16-05, 06:21 PM	The DM's probably just mad that you ruined his plot device. Maybe you should try talking to him again before the next game or something.
Arkidisey 06-16-05, 06:23 PM	The DM's probably just mad that you ruined his plot device. Maybe you should try talking to him again before the next game or something. Yes, but if in doing so, he is 1) a bad DM and 2) an unfair player. If he'd wish to do so, then he should have taken the OP aside and told him of such things.
Sinaz 06-16-05, 06:40 PM	Why railroading plot devices suck: They require the PC to fail all his saves because no one in thier right mind will go along with the unknown in the dangerous world of D&D. DMs need to make sure they have contingencies... or at least devices that circumvent RAW. Oh... and lamest description ever: "You see the hottest chick you've ever seen." Bill and Ted's Gnarly Campaign??? DM :embarrass: "You see the hottest chick you've ever seen." PC :confused:: "My girlfriend?" DM :embarrass: "No dude... it's like... Pamala Anderson... in a leafy nighty. Roll a Save." PC :dancin:: "48! HUZZAH!" DM :embarrass: "You failed." PC :waits:: "I said '48'... four... eight." DM :embarrass: "She has a hottness DC of like... a billion."
PlutoniumKnight 06-16-05, 06:50 PM	No i wouldn't say you were evil, you were protecting the king and thereby protecting all of the people in the kingdom. You were also blowing up someone who had dominated you (i'm guessing) and wanted you to kill the king thereby killing innocents. You were reacting to a quite obvious threat, someone who could dominate you and force you to kill innocents. Even a paladin would have gone smite evil on it's ass. In my opinion sir you were being quite good and reasonable, how could killing someone wanting you to kill innocents and proving a threat to you be evil.
ehrin 06-16-05, 07:20 PM	you are evil. You will always be evil, because the DM said so. you should immediately hand your player character sheet to your DM, and say "Here you go. Since you are going to play him, you might as well have his paper". It's isn't a game if I have no choices along the way, it's a story-telling session with you as a listener. Logic doesn't work on a DM railroad.
Lacloix 06-16-05, 07:43 PM	to which he replied with a shrug saying, "Mercy killing." This could easily be interpreted as CG. In fact, that's the first thing that came to my mind. I'm on watch when some fog appears in the camp. Instant will save when I see it, which I fail with a result of 25. I reroll the next round since I'm a spirit shaman, and fail again. "You see the hottest chick you've ever seen, make another will save" I fail this one with a 28 and a 17 or something, so I figure I'm pretty much just along for the ride. I roll the damage, it comes to something like 440 points. Nymph = slight coating of ash on the ground. But then he says, "And your alignment shifts to chaotic-evil." First, you're not Chaotic Evil. You could easily be any Good, especially Lawful Good (sacrificing yourself to save your king). Second, your DM is Chaotic Stupid. "The hottest chick you've ever seen"? And setting the DCs so high that you're pretty much set to fail...very indicative of a DM that has no clue what s/he is doing. If I were you, I'd keep fighting until that DM is set straight, and if that doesn't work, I'd leave the group. There's just no point gaming with a) an idiot of a DM and b) a control freak of a DM.
Wizards_White_Knight 06-16-05, 08:49 PM	Not only are you not evil, but if I were DMing, I'd reckon you would be pretty close to exalted status. That was a huge sacrifice you made. Had you of died, I would have ruled you could have returned as a deathless. I wish my DM gave me choices where I could sacrifice myself for the greater good.
SonsOfKyuss 06-16-05, 09:06 PM	On a second note though, the sorcerer is not evil either. Certainly not good, but not necessarily evil. By my standards he is still evil for his other actions. He backstabbed the party and killed some of the other party members, who were definately good characters. He killed his comrades not out of self defense, but so he could get paid, and more importantly, get our equipment. He thought it better to be dead (and likely wandering around Elysium or whatever) than trapped in an inert body Not that the sorcerer knew it when he killed them all, but when we found another room full of the comatose people, we were easily able to revive them. They were being fed cure critical wounds potions the entire time they were strapped in. Once we removed the drug manufacturing equipment they were right as rain. also, couls you tell us some things that were said in the argument? it helps help if we know how this went down :D He said I should have tried to subdue her, use the merciful magebane bow that I had so I wouldn't kill her, or use one of my spells, etc. Also, I didn't have to do the things she told me to do, "You still had free will". So I ask him what spell it was he had dominated me with.... CHARM PERSON. you are evil. You will always be evil, because the DM said so. But to clarify, my character is still chaotic-neutral. We take turns DMing (different campaigns) and I told him that I would start applying the same ambiguous alignment standards to both him and his companions, which would suck for him since his party in my game consists of two paladins, a VoP Monk, and a CG ranger, while he is a dwarven were-bison fighter who wakes up with grass in his teeth on a regular basis (aka, 3 out of 5 party members would no longer have the majority of their power). Second, your DM is Chaotic Stupid. "The hottest chick you've ever seen"? And setting the DCs so high that you're pretty much set to fail...very indicative of a DM that has no clue what s/he is doing.. This is the first game the guy has ever run as a DM, so to be honest, he is doing remarkably well. And now that I think about it, before he ran this game he had only played in three different campaigns over the last year or so, so for such a novice gamer I have a hard time holding his temporary bad judgement against him. I felt bad for him when the nymph died and my char lived. We'd had such a good streak of luck going for us that we had killed all his villains with so little effort; it was disgusting. A couple weeks before the session in question he had asked me to make an NPC monk for him since we had been taking everything out so quickly and I agreed because, well, making characters is fun. So I made a CR 14 Githzerai Monk with (at his request) 200,000 gp worth of equipment. You could make a 14th level commoner and with that much money he would be a challenge. The monk I created probably wasn't CO board worthy, but his saves and TAB were all above 20, and his AC was 38. And he had spell resistance and energy resistance. We get into combat with this guy, roll init. I go first, cast fire seeds (using my sudden empower for the day), and create an acorn. The archer in the group goes second, grabs the acorn from my hand and throws it at the monk (ranged touch attack against a flat-footed opponent). He rolls a 20 on the attack roll. He rolls a 20 on the crit confirm. I believe the monk rolled a 1 on his saving throw. The monk we were all worried sick about is dead before the fight even starts. So really, I understood why he was throwing impossibly high difficulty stuff at us. Between his bad fire seeds ruling, and our impossibly good luck, we had "ruined" just about every single encounter he had come up with. Not only are you not evil, but if I were DMing, I'd reckon you would be pretty close to exalted status. That was a huge sacrifice you made. Had you of died, I would have ruled you could have returned as a deathless. I wish my DM gave me choices where I could sacrifice myself for the greater good. Trust me, it wasn't out of the goodness of my heart. It was pride. I hate being dominated in games, I'd rather die fighting than let some mindbender take me over.
danielinthewolvesden 06-17-05, 03:37 AM	But then he says, "And your alignment shifts to chaotic-evil." I replied something like this: "!@##$%@#$%#$%^#$%#$%, WTF do you mean I'm chaotic-evil?!?!? Chris fried that whole effin room full of innocent peasants and got away with it, and I get an alignment shift for defending myself and my king?" Well, it doesn't matter what the other PC/Player did or did not do, and di dor did not get away with. You were wrong in bring that up. But one act is almost never enough to change anyones alignment that radically. And, IMnotso*HO, that act was hardly Evil. I can see Chaotic, maybe. Well, one act is I guess- not appreciating the nice view out the window of the railway car. :rolleyes: *I have likely been DMing longer than your DM has been alive, so if that means anything....
Maerdash 06-17-05, 04:04 AM	Shoot him in the face with a hammer, then while he's still bleeding and since he is a new dm sit him down and talk to him in a rational calm tone of voice , cite the rules on alignment shifts (they aren't THAT ambigous). If he still doesn't change his ways carry out your threat to do the same to his character, thats what finally taught me oh so many years ago. :D Good luck though, you'll need it and remember your not the only one, my group ,9th level, got into a fight with a CR 37 a couple of weeks ago :rolleyes: .
Thoronmir 06-17-05, 10:35 AM	Talk to the DM now that heads have cooled. Just because you have nonlethal alternatives at your disposal doesn't mean they always must be the first club out of the bag. The Nymph lured you, Charmed you, and asked you to slay your liege (which would also harm untold numbers of innocents). When you broke the Charm, she continued her aggressive behavior. Given her power, you had no way of knowing whether you could successfully subdue her. Trying to do so and failing would jeopardize the King, the Kingdom, and your comrades. You had ample provocation to use lethal force. Your actions lacked the degree of wantonness that would justify an Alignment shift. I encourage you to invite the DM to his Board, where he can search for threads giving advice on plotting adventures. The first and foremost rule is to never assume all will go as planned. If his campaign "depended" on the Nymph either succeeding and/or surviving, then he planned poorly. At every such potential “intersection” in his plot, he needs to account for alternative results. In other words, he needed a plan for what would happen if you made your Save and/or slew the Nymph. Finally, I’m sure you realize this, but sinking to his level is not a worthwhile solution. Your group will be better served if you can elevate him to your level instead. Do not seek retribution is your campaign. That would only leave your group with two bad DMs rather than one.
Callista 06-17-05, 10:59 AM	Whaaa?! Chaotic Evil?! What you did was an extremely Lawful act... you pretty much decided to sacrifice your life for the King... and unless the King is some baby-killing maniac, it certainly wasn't evil. Jeesh. Nymphs might be Good-aligned most of the time; but this one probably wasn't... I mean, charming you into killing someone? Hellooo! Neutral at best; for all your character knew, she was evil. I think this is just a case of a DM not wanting his plot upset... he obviously wanted you to try to kill the King. Re. the King... what alignment is he, to the best of your knowledge, anyway?
HappyDragon 06-17-05, 12:49 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by HappyDragon On a second note though, the sorcerer is not evil either. Certainly not good, but not necessarily evil. Originally Posted by SonsOfKyuss By my standards he is still evil for his other actions. He backstabbed the party and killed some of the other party members, who were definately good characters. He killed his comrades not out of self defense, but so he could get paid, and more importantly, get our equipment. Didn't know the rest of the story, I was merely going by the whole killing comatose victims thing. As for the whole bit with the Nymph, I can't say I blame you. I don't think anyone would enjoy being dominated, no matter their alignment. As for your OOG feelings on it, also, no one enjoys it. And whether or not the reason you did what you did to the Nymph was out of the goodness of your heart or not doesn't really matter in this case. You had a sworn duty to protect your charge and you were doing so in very reasonable means. The enemy had already proven itself to be on the higher end of the power scale with the failed Will saves, in combination that it was attempting to get you to do something very out of your characters preference......plus the fact you were by yourself with no backups. In my opinion you did exactly what needed to be done, you couldn't take the chance of the enemy trying the same thing or something possily worse. Take it down when you have the chance, no apologies, no regrets. It's also nice to see you understand the DM's situation in that he is relatively new to it. This whole episode may just be chalked up to the learning curve of DMing and hopefully your DM will learn from it. I can empathize with the DM with your groups good luck in rolling, but it happens sometimes. Usually it all comes around and eventually he'll be wishing you guys would roll better because he's tired of the characters dying all the time. Hope the rest of the campaign goes well. :)
Thorak 06-17-05, 01:14 PM	Alternatively, while I agree wholesale that your character acted anything but[/u] chaotically and certainly not evilly, this gives you the perfect opportunity to rub your DM's nose in it a bit more subtly. He said you're now CE. So play CE. And I mean serious CE. Baby-torturing evil. When you get back, wait till you get close to the king again, and kill him. Backstab party members, not for any personal gain, but just because you [i]can. Ensure that you cover your tracks. When the other players complain, point at the DM and remind them that he said you're now CE. If the DM complains, suggest that he reread the alignment section and tell him how you are not acting like a CE character. And as an aside; seriously, your DM needs to read a few more books and see what "description" is. Instead of "the hottest chick you've ever seen", is it that much harder to say "a jaw-droppingly gorgeous woman, so beautiful you feel as if you are disrupting her perfection with your mere presence." I just tossed that off, it's probably not all that great, and anyone should be able to come up with something similar.
snowlynx 06-17-05, 01:14 PM	Let me try out a different situation, just because nobody has suggested it. Let's say the DM knows things you don't about the Dryad and the King. Let's say the king is a corrupted copy of the original king, the 'good' king has been slain, and that this Nymph is the shining light of goodness that has seen, through scrying and divination, that the 'king' was created to be a puppet who would bring destruction to the kingdom. She created this plan of you killing the king as a way of removing an evil individual from power, because she knew if she tried to step in and remove him from the group, she would be quickly killed for it. Regardless of how unlikely, you might consider that the DM has knowledge you do not, and this affects how he percives your character's actions. Even were this to be the case, I would not say killing the dryad would switch you to "chaotic evil" instantly (don't pass GO.) Your character's mindset is not chaotic evil yet; you will go right back to trying to do the right thing after she's dead, because you were unaware of the deeper plot. Still, some DMs are much harsher then me in terms of alignment. I would talk with your DM, and suggest that even if you are chaotic evil, your character is still trying to do the right thing, so a few good actions should restore the balance. Ask him if there was more to the scene then you realized! Now, if there is no deeper plot other then the DM wanting the king dead, your character was justified in your actions, and it sounds like your DM switched your alignment merely because he was ****** that you screwed up his plot. In that case, tsk the DM, and try not to feel to personally insulted; your DM just can't handle things not going the way he planned.
SonsOfKyuss 06-17-05, 01:39 PM	He said you're now CE. So play CE. If I were still playing that character, I just might take your advice. But like I said, the whole party was backstabbed and my char barely escaped with his life. He is now hiding out with some uber powerful NPC, and is an NPC himself. The only other person to escape was the leader of our party (and the king). My new character is a persistant spell abusing cleric of Boccob (errattaed version) who will help the king return to his country. This time I think I will teach my companions what alignment means; the hard way if I have to. :) Does anyone else trade off DMing with another group member? Sometimes I REALLY hate waiting for my week to play...
JStegmaier 06-17-05, 03:42 PM	Let me try out a different situation, just because nobody has suggested it. Let's say the DM knows things you don't about the Dryad and the King. Let's say the king is a corrupted copy of the original king, the 'good' king has been slain, and that this Nymph is the shining light of goodness that has seen, through scrying and divination, that the 'king' was created to be a puppet who would bring destruction to the kingdom. She created this plan of you killing the king as a way of removing an evil individual from power, because she knew if she tried to step in and remove him from the group, she would be quickly killed for it. Even if this was absolutely, 100%, without a doubt true, it still would not result in the character having his alignment changed. From his perspective, he was protecting innocents as well as his king. Meanwhile, another creature comes along and takes away his free will, and tries to force him to take an action that his abhorrent to him--and one that will result in much death, apparently. When he breaks free, she tries to make yet another offensive move (or at least it is offensive as far as he can tell) so he blows himself up, hopefully taking her with him--and by a crazy chance lives to tell the tale. He, at no time, acted with either disregard to life or tried to actively harm life--choosing the path most good people would in such a situation: killing one to save many. Likewise, he did this to save his rightful ruler, an altogether lawful act. Even if you believe his act was not lawful good--a sentiment I do not share--it's so incredibly far from Chaotic Evil (doing whatever his greed, hatred or lust for destruction drives him to) or Chaotic Neutral (following his whims, or being the very embodiment of chaos) that it might as well be, because, whatever the act itself accomplished, what he meant to do is what determines his alignment.
snowlynx 06-17-05, 04:04 PM	Even if you believe his act was not lawful good--a sentiment I do not share--it's so incredibly far from Chaotic Evil (doing whatever his greed, hatred or lust for destruction drives him to) or Chaotic Neutral (following his whims, or being the very embodiment of chaos) that it might as well be, because, whatever the act itself accomplished, what he meant to do is what determines his alignment. Whil I agree with you to some extent, my agreement only goes so far. Someone delusional enough could believe he is fighting the right fight, yet still be evil through his actions; I don't know where the balance is. (Extreme example for your viewing pleasure: A character that justifies the killing of all dragons because an dragon killed a family member of his is probably not of a 'good' alignment. Perhaps in his mind he is doing the right thing, slaying 'evil' creatures, and doesn't know that some dragons are good.) I don't think the killing of someone in these circumstances would ever be enough to push him over the edge of alignment regardless. It sounds like the DM was overreacting, though it's hard to tell, with just one player's report, if the overreaction was because of something the player didn't know about, or because the DM couldn't stand to lose control.
Merryadocc 06-22-05, 06:45 AM	On the subject of Baby Killing Paladins is that thread still around and can I get a link for it please? :)
High King Tigernmas 06-22-05, 06:59 AM	[QUOTE=snowlynx]Whil I agree with you to some extent, my agreement only goes so far. Someone delusional enough could believe he is fighting the right fight, yet still be evil through his actions; I don't know where the balance is. [QUOTE] But if you go by the 'evil through their actions thing, all Paladins are evil, as they pass judgment as they see fit-More evil than an undead that can't think really, as they have put themselves in that state-of-mind... And no, you are not evil.
High Octane 06-22-05, 08:39 AM	Take away your DM's screen, DMG, and monster manual and inform him that he has just lost all rights to DM. EVER. Your act was Good. It was both lawful and chaotic on differing levels depending on why you did it. If it was to protect the king, it was lawful, if it was because you hated being mind controlled, it was chaotic to a point. But above all, you SACRIFICED yourself to save others! You may have lived, but you didnt know if you would. You did it so whatever it was that forced you into doing this (which if it wasnt evil SHOULD HAVE BEEN) wouldnt take you over again. For the record, charm person wouldnt cause you to spill your guts, but while under it you wouldnt attack her.
JaredMecham 06-22-05, 12:46 PM	Is it possible that the DM was just reacting poorly to his frustration at not knowing how to deal with the situation? You were charmed. You won't kill someone who has you under a charm spell unless there are some crazy extreme circumstances (divine intervention for example). Maybe what he really should have done was say; "No, you *don't* blow her to tiny bits. As a matter of fact, when you are this close to her you feel your knees go kinna weak, and you feel as if you want nothing more in the world than to kiss her." If your character is under a charm effect, you no longer have free will (and therefore can't just decide to up and kill your charmer). Maybe I'm missing something, but I think he just didn't realize he could 'CTRL-Z' your nuke, and tell you what really happened.
Cadfan 06-22-05, 11:08 PM	Maybe your DM is yet another one of those "THE GAME HAS ABSOLUTE RULES OF MORALITY THAT FOR SOME INEXPLICABLE REASON ONLY I TRULY UNDERSTAND" people, and he thinks that those absolute rules of morality rule out suicide bombers. It wouldn't explain the chaotic, I don't think. But if he thinks a suicide bomber is automatically evil, he'd have an explanation for the evil part. I don't think its good DMing practice, but there's a ton of people out there who believe that acts in D&D can be judged good or evil based purely on what the act is, not the intentions or the expected results, and I could see them making an absolute prohibition against suicide bombers as nonevil characters. I think its a bad understanding of the D&D alignment system, because I doubt a formalist interpretation of D&D alignment is a good idea, and because I think that DM ethics require them to err on the side of the players views when the player hasn't been warned in advance on these issues, but at least that would explain the why of the matter, even if it doesn't provide a justification.
Andrew_980 06-22-05, 11:16 PM	I don't think its good DMing practice, but there's a ton of people out there who believe that acts in D&D can be judged good or evil based purely on what the act is, not the intentions or the expected results, and I could see them making an absolute prohibition against suicide bombers as nonevil characters If an act is always good or always evil we should go ahead and label ever act as evil sense they can all be abused I think its a bad understanding of the D&D alignment system, because I doubt a formalist interpretation of D&D alignment is a good idea, and because I think that DM ethics require them to err on the side of the players views when the player hasn't been warned in advance on these issues, but at least that would explain the why of the matter, even if it doesn't provide a justification good piont, DMs really should define what they see as good/evil
Veton 06-23-05, 01:46 AM	If your character is under a charm effect, you no longer have free will (and therefore can't just decide to up and kill your charmer). First, Charm Person does not make the target surrender all free will. It just makes them think of you as a friend. If I were really good friends with you, would you kill your mother just because I asked you to? Also, he succeded on an additional saving throw when he was asked to do something against his nature (kill the king.) So he was free from the effects when the Nymph started casting a spell. So it looks like to me like a case of the DM getting a bit mad at how easily the villan was defeated and slapping the Evil alignment on the character.
King Bulba 06-23-05, 02:23 AM	And I mean serious CE. Baby-torturing evil. When you get back, wait till you get close to the king again, and kill him. Backstab party members, not for any personal gain, but just because you can. Ensure that you cover your tracks. When the other players complain, point at the DM and remind them that he said you're now CE. If the DM complains, suggest that he reread the alignment section and tell him how you are not acting like a CE character. I love it! :plotting: I would do it. I always look for an opertunity to do somthing new and I have never gone CE.
JaredMecham 06-23-05, 10:55 AM	OK. I'm a little confused. Why would someone get another save when asked to do something against their will? I admit I'm no DM, but I like to think I'm fairly familiar with the rules. Here's the spell description for Charm Person: **************************************** ********* This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming. **************************************** ********** Is there some sort of errata that I'm not aware of that allows you a second saving throw? As far as I can tell, the spell doesn't specify any set of circumstances that would allow a second save. Clearly he might not do something against his nature, but that would not change the fact that the Nymph would be considered his "its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)". This druid had *no choice* but to treat the Nymph as a friend and ally for the duration of the spell... even if he is asked to do something against his nature and he manages to not do it. By the way, where I come from, if you are magically forced to act in a specific manner (as in this case, when you MUST treat the Nymph as your friend and ally, even if it's against your will) we call that a loss of your 'free will'. Of course, that leads me to another question. What was this save against: "At this point I demanded another saving throw which I finally passed." Maybe he meant that he made a charisma check as specified in the spell description? Is there a power that a Spirit Shaman has that allowed him a second save against the Charm? Maybe there is errata I'm unaware of for Charm Person? Maybe I'm just confused? Any way you slice it, the DM is new and obviously inexperienced. He needs to just slow down and let people help him out a little until he gets the hang of it. And if he can't control his temper until he does a little learning than the group should retire him as the DM until he's had a little more experience gaming. ********************************** OK. I just think I figured something out. I suspect that Veton, the DM in question, and several people posting may have confused Charm Person with Dominate Person. Dominate Person grants another save at +2 if the target is forced to "take actions against its nature". Is that what people are talking about with that second save? Note that unless there is some sort of new rule I'm not familiar with, Charm Person doesn't allow a second save like Dominate Person does.
Need_A_Life 06-23-05, 11:35 AM	A new DM who hasn't got a firm grip on the rules...
High Octane 06-23-05, 12:11 PM	You do NOT lose free will under Charm Person!! You would not lose free will to a first level spell! If you did, there would be no point to the spell "Dominate person". In fact, as a DM, I would not have the player do anything he doesnt have his player do. Under charm person, in my opinion, you as the DM say "You have an inexplicable liking of this person. Something about him seems friendly and trustworthy." and that would be the full effect of charm person. Of course if the player started acting hostile anyway, I would make with the DM cheap shots. (Suddenly she knows dominate person and has 10 levels in Mindbender). Charm person, under the spell description, changes the player's attitude to "Friendly", which is not even "Helpful" (If I remember right). Its the players decision on how to play that.
JaredMecham 06-28-05, 12:42 AM	High Octane, now you are just making me laugh! :D Quote: "You do NOT lose free will under Charm Person!!" "Charm person, under the spell description, changes the player's attitude to 'Friendly'" You just contradicted yourself! Does the player get to choose if his/her attitude changes to friendly? Uh, no. That choice (and thus, a portion of the players free will) is magically taken from the player. If the player chooses to not act the part, the DM will correct the player. I'm not saying the character doesn't get to make his own choices in most cases, but it's a no-brainer that *some* of the characters free will has been taken away. Two weeks ago my character used this spell to convince an enemy *during combat* that he was my trusted friend. Did he have any choice in the matter? No. Since the spell is a "Charm - Mind Effecting" spell, it changes the target's feelings about the caster against the target's will. Anyway, the important question still hasn't been answered. What was that last save for?
Maerdash 06-28-05, 12:54 AM	OMG charm person again. Opposed charisma check written into the spell, not a new save. Yeah a portion of your free will is taken, but you wont do anything that you normally wouldn't do, or anything that doesn't seem rational to you unless the caster can beat you on an opposed charisma check. Edit: On the I used charm to blah blah blah gaurd, yeah and if you are attacking his friends/ allies, or trying to get into an area he gaurds he will try to stop you depending on the character/ situation despite seeing you as a trusted friend. Unless that is you win an opposed charisma check. I mean seriously if you charm a paladin and then try to steal the crown jewels he's gaurding he's still going to knock you over the head and take you to the authorities.
Ekranoplan 06-28-05, 01:20 AM	Not that the sorcerer knew it when he killed them all, but when we found another room full of the comatose people, we were easily able to revive them. They were being fed cure critical wounds potions the entire time they were strapped in. Once we removed the drug manufacturing equipment they were right as rain. I will assume the sorceror did not kill them when it was discovered how to awaken them. Therefor the sorceror is not evil.
Veton 06-28-05, 02:09 AM	OK. I just think I figured something out. I suspect that Veton, the DM in question, and several people posting may have confused Charm Person with Dominate Person. Dominate Person grants another save at +2 if the target is forced to "take actions against its nature". Is that what people are talking about with that second save? Note that unless there is some sort of new rule I'm not familiar with, Charm Person doesn't allow a second save like Dominate Person does. Actually, I was responding to JaredMecham, who posted that "If your character is under a charm effect, you no longer have free will (and therefore can't just decide to up and kill your charmer)." I told him that the character in question had succeeded on a second saving throw (allowed by the DM) and broke free of the enchantment, and that the spell was Charm Person which makes the target Friendly. From what SonsOfKyuss posted, his DM didn't inform him what the spell was, so he must have assumed it was Dominate Person, and requested another saving throw for being asked to do something that violates his character's beliefs (as per the rules). What the DM should have done in this case was tell the player the spell that had been cast on him, so that he knows just how to act towards the Nymph.
JaredMecham 06-28-05, 11:01 AM	I think Veton hit the nail on the head. Part of the problem was an inexperienced DM. A bigger problem (IMHO) was the lack of communication between the player and the DM.
Keenath 06-28-05, 03:54 PM	Well, the nymph acted terribly, considering that SHE knew she'd only charmed him. I agree that the DM was right when he said "you have to tell her everything" -- if your best friend asked "hey, what's up?" it isn't unreasonable that you'd divulge everything. It IS unreasonable to say "Go kill that guy," and because she made that request (or rather, command!), the DM made it seem entirely as if the player were under the effect of Dominate. If he weren't dominated, it was the DM's job to inform the player that he's not compelled to go do as he's told, or (better yet) just tell the him that he's charmed.
the dmg 06-28-05, 06:03 PM	go to him and tell him this with a face on such as: :mad: Haha... What you did isn't even remotely evil. She wanted you to kill your king, and you finally make the save. She goes to probably cast Charm or Dominate on you, and you try to take her and yourself out so this could not happen. I say that you role played that very well.
High Octane 06-29-05, 12:53 PM	High Octane, now you are just making me laugh! :D Quote: "You do NOT lose free will under Charm Person!!" "Charm person, under the spell description, changes the player's attitude to 'Friendly'" You just contradicted yourself! Does the player get to choose if his/her attitude changes to friendly? Uh, no. That choice (and thus, a portion of the players free will) is magically taken from the player. If the player chooses to not act the part, the DM will correct the player. I'm not saying the character doesn't get to make his own choices in most cases, but it's a no-brainer that *some* of the characters free will has been taken away. Two weeks ago my character used this spell to convince an enemy *during combat* that he was my trusted friend. Did he have any choice in the matter? No. Since the spell is a "Charm - Mind Effecting" spell, it changes the target's feelings about the caster against the target's will. Anyway, the important question still hasn't been answered. What was that last save for? Now who is self contradicting? :P I should have been more clear, you dont lose MOST of your free will to charm person. The only thing you lose your will over is your decision on whether you like someone or not. The person becomes a decent friend. How people treat their friends however is up to the PLAYER. You would agree a buddy from your D&D group would be considered friendly right? Well if you were a federal agent protecting the president and your friend came up and asked you what you were doing, you would tell him "Sorry, can't tell you." Unless you are a class A moron.
SonsOfKyuss 06-29-05, 03:23 PM	Wow, I'm surprised this thread is still around. Anyways, Veton hit the nail pretty much on the head. Not knowing exactly what spell had been cast on me, I assumed it was something more potent than Charm Person and acted accordingly. Dominate person does allow another save if forced to do something against the person's nature, which wouldn't have been needed with Charm Person, since charm just makes you act like the caster is your friend. I can just imagine "Hey buddy, go kill the guy you have not only devoted the last few years of your life to serving, but have just spent the last week fighting to rescue." "I can't believe you would want me to do that, we are SO not friends anymore dude!" I still believe the "mercy killing" by the sorcerer was an evil act. He made absolutely no attempt to revive them before he wasted them. He could have at least just left them there for me to attempt to save them. If there hadn't been a healer in the group, and if there were no one with any ranks in heal, sure, I concede that the mercy killing might have been justified. The worst part about the mercy killing was that it set a precedent in the group. Last week we encountered a guy in the woods who had been dominated or something by the nymph mindbender who I had killed with my previous character. We tried to break the enchantment but were unable, so one of the guys in the group calls out "Mercy Killing" and coup de graces the poor bloke. This could almost be a thread of its own. According to the RAW, is "Mercy Killing" justification for ending the life of an innocent person?
Andrew_980 07-01-05, 10:37 AM	is "Mercy Killing" justification for ending the life of an innocent person VERY situational, if they are braindead and dying then sure it's ok but not if they are just charmed!