Post/Author/DateTime	Post
VargasWynter 02-16-07, 01:07 AM	If this is not the proper place to post this please let me know and I will post it elsewhere. Note: The actual argument is in the second half of the post as the first part is just setup for the in game scenario which caused the situation. Eberron Setting Players: Martin(me) LG knight (ex-Breland army) Marl NG fighter/rogue (ex-Breland army) D'Orian NG ranger (dragonmarked of some house) Major NPC this session: Lady T (LG or NG) inquisitor type rogue/cleric (Silver Flame) Let me set the stage a bit first. Our group works for the editor of a newspaper in Sharn. We were working on a story about a festival celebrated by the Silver Flame people. During the festival we discovered that the High Bishop of the Silver Flame of that area had gone missing. We rescued him from a pack of Lycanthropes using him and some Paladins to perform some ritual. Lady T of the SF helped us in this, during which we witnessed murder (evil act) a wererat that she had previously bribed to keep the Bishop safe till we got there. Now in this campaign setting, the DM has told us that lycanthropy is viewed by the general populace to be a fairy tale thing that the Silver Flame stamped out long ago. With us working for the paper, we want to submit a story about our experiences and how the Church of the Silver Flame is keeping lycanthropy under wraps so to speak. We believe that the general public deserves to know the truth. Lady T doesn't want us to do this, believing that it will cause riots and chaos. After returning the bishop to the church and going to our inn room for what was left of the night. Marl awoke in the night after hearing some noises outside the window. He wakes us up and we have time to get our weapons. Lady T breaks in through the window with 2 cronies to silence us permanently (evil act). In the following battle the cronies die but we are able to knock Lady T unconscious. We tie her up and leave a note with her not to follow us. Here comes the argument part. We decide it best to leave her there without informing the authorities since we are in Silver Flame territory. We get ready to leave the town after this battle since we don't want anymore surprises. After about 5-10 minutes to get our equipment and horses ready, Marl tells me and D'Orian he forgot something in the room. He murders (evil act) Lady T while she is helpless. His justification for this was we witnessed her commit murder and attempted murder. He thinks she is dangerous to leave alive because she flagrantly murders those who get in the way of her Church. The other two characters are completely unaware of this action. The DM immediately shifts his alignment to TN. The DM goes on to lecture the player that he needs to play by his alignment better and he (the DM) should not have let his character commit this evil act since Marl is NG. I immediately began to backup the player of Marl in this argument(ooc). We all agree what he did was evil. Since when did alignment become a restriction on what actions a character could perform (not counting paladins and such). I think he was justified in what he did. The DM justifies his good NPC doing evil acts. Alignment is supposed to be a guideline on how your character generally acts. Also, one evil act is enough to shift your alignment, no matter how much good you have done previously??? All of our players have been very charitable in the campaign. We do things without thought of reward. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:23 AM	Just some brief responses. First, alignment does not and can not restrict players actions. Your dm is being completely unfair if he does this. It is your character, not his. He has just as much right to make his npc's act any way he wants, they are his characters. He is within his rights to change alignment. It depends on how extreme the act is in regard to their original alignment. I think a shift to tn in this case would be justified, as murdering a helpless person is extreme. It shows that the character lack compassion towards certain people, and well take extreme steps to eliminate them. If he had killed her when he witnessed the murder, it would be a different story. It would be more in line with a good or neutral alignment, and not an extreme "out of character" act. Your alignment can change overtime as your viewpoint and actions change. If the person now continues to do mostly good, the alignment would shift more toward good. If the character starts doing more evil, then it shifts to evil. It was very logical for the dm to shift the alignment to tn. Now it is up to that character what line they want to now walk. If that character is truly good, maybe he confesses and repents, showing guilt and a compassion for life. That would go a long way towards getting back to good. Actions define alignments, so he now has to show he is good if he wants to be considered good.
Amon_WinterfallIV 02-16-07, 01:33 AM	First of all, Lady T's attack against the party changes matters considerably--she's definitely guilty of actions against the party--and she's probably using lethal force to accomplish these goals. She killed a wererat-murder?? Killing a murderer is not a great deviation of justice, and truthfully, her killing might have increased their ability of the PCs to act on their motives. Quite Frankly, if Lady T is good aligned, the party can remain good aligned. I'd offer a switch to a neutral alignment, but would not force the party to make the switch. Alignments are weakish in Ebberon anyhow, so you might just decide to soft-play it a bit and let it go. On the other hand, the DM can drop Lady T to LN, and Drop the PC to TN, but its self consistant this way.
Callista 02-16-07, 02:26 AM	So basically this is a matter of a character killing someone who, though helpless, had attempted to kill him? I agree that it is an evil act; but I do not think it is strongly evil; after all, Lady T has shown herself to desire the PCs' deaths. The killing has strong overtones of both self-defense and revenge. I think the NG character ought to stay NG unless this sort of ruthlessness becomes a habit.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 02:53 AM	So basically this is a matter of a character killing someone who, though helpless, had attempted to kill him? I agree that it is an evil act; but I do not think it is strongly evil; after all, Lady T has shown herself to desire the PCs' deaths. The killing has strong overtones of both self-defense and revenge. I think the NG character ought to stay NG unless this sort of ruthlessness becomes a habit. This is also another valid viewpoint. Perhaps the killing was a one time thing, and was more with the intent of protecting the group. The dm has a case to change the alignment, but the player has a case if he can argue why his character did it, and how his viewpoint/motives are still good. Either way, it's not a biggie unless alignment has to do with a class/feat/class feature/loss of class abilities/etc. Since he is a fighter, don't make such a fuss as to ruin the campaign if it isn't a truly important issue. Just have him continue to do good to show the dm he's earned the good alignment. I can relate a story of mine where my dm had me take an item that was cursed to make me do good, when my character was cn. I got rid of the item, and started to go back to my mischief making routine. I didn't mind so much being cg, as I knew I would still act as my old self once the item was gone. In such a case where an item curses you with an alignment, that is the only situation where the dm is within his rights to limit your actions to within a step of that alignment. You should still have freedom, but the item "compells" you to do it another way.
Evil DM Mk3 02-16-07, 03:53 AM	Whilst the act is evil the charcter could still be good. It is only persistant acts that ought to shift alignment, otherwise characters alignment dances around all over the place. LG fighter kills a helpless person, TN. TN Fighter gives money to an orphan, NG. NG fighter burps at the table, CN. See how crazy this could get?
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 04:04 AM	Whilst the act is evil the charcter could still be good. It is only persistant acts that ought to shift alignment, otherwise characters alignment dances around all over the place. LG fighter kills a helpless person, TN. TN Fighter gives money to an orphan, NG. NG fighter burps at the table, CN. See how crazy this could get? Actually, it is persistent or grossly different acts from that of your current alignment. The killing of a helpless person is a grossly different act from a good alignment. Maybe other things factor in so it isn't so far out. The giving money would be grossly different from the evil, not neutral, alignment. The burping would be a minor act no matter what the alignment. The dm is within his rights to change your alignment if you act in a very strong manner against it. He can also change it if you persistently act against it. Both are equally viable reasons.
Papa_duval 02-16-07, 08:52 AM	Its a strong evil act, and the reason why the DM changed the players alignment wasn't because he did something evil and so had to change, but rather because the performing of the evil act 'revealed' the characters true alignment Anyone can fake being good, its what we do deep down that matters. Lets put it to the test. If you consider yourself good, i want you to go outside and do two things. 1. Find someone's pet and kill it - in whatever way you can, just kill it. 2. Now find some random stranger and kill them too. These are both evil acts - if you couldn't do it, then you're not evil. If you can do it, then i'd argue that you are, irrespective of the false outward appearance that you give to the world Marl is in the same boat - the fact that he 'could' quite happily go and kill a defenseless person in cold blood shows that he was never neutral good, but was always neutral evil, faking NG so as to blend in well with society. Alignment is not what we do on a day to day basis, its what we do when we are stripped down to our basic motivations, its about the choices we make as a character, not the choices we make when writing up our character sheet. Writing NG and being NG can be two different things. Marl displayed quite evidently that he was NE, doing evil deeds to protect his own interests. He wasn't tainted by his one evil act to become evil, he was revealed to the world as evil by his performing the evil act.
Dunsel 02-16-07, 11:06 AM	While the DM does not have the right to stop you from comminting an act, he does have the authority to give you consequences for said act. Killing a helpless individual is not a good act even if that person tried to kill you seconds earlier. It is an evil act and one that has always been evil, unfortunately most DMs and player gloss it over. Are the police allowed to kill the perp after they have him in cuffs just b/c that person shot at them earlier? Of course not. Your DM acted appropriately. The player now must decide how his PC will be played 1) redeem himself with good acts and no more evil ones 2) continue in the current alignment.
pres_man 02-16-07, 11:22 AM	I would like to suggest that the killing was not in fact evil. If Lady T had been innocent, then it would have been evil. She was not, and thus it is not necessarily evil to put her down. On the other hand, it is definetly not a good act and something a good character would generally tend to avoid. But one non-good act does not make an otherwise good person non-good. Though I wonder why did the PCs push the issue. Most people believe lycanthropy is a fairy tale (much like we do in RL), how many would believe you if you wrote a story on it? Not many I would wager, only the crackpot conspiracy nuts would, and probably already do. Also, let us say that you were believed, would this lead to anarchy? Why would a LG and two NG characters want to try to incite that? Frankly it seems kind of dumb to me. But your DM stepped over the line, call him on it, if he isn't willing to behave in a manner that is respectful of everyone that is playing, then maybe it is time to find a new DM. Life is too short to game with morons.
Cainin 02-16-07, 11:22 AM	1) All alignment is subjective. The guidelines set forth in the PH have always been vague at best. Does alignment matter more about a character's physical actions or their intent behind these actions? This question is often the main issue of dispute in alignment arguements since it is rarely addressed at the beginning of the campaign. Without knowing the DM's own philosophies on alignment, this often leads to conflicts with their player base. Further more, there are no set rules for the shifting of alignments. Again they are vague at best. Does a single act or a pattern of behavior change a character's alignment? Yet again another issue that needs to be discussed up front between the DM and player base. 2) Does your GM alignment restrict the campaigns? This is another key question in any campaign. Some DM's allow the players any alignment of their choice. Others limit them to "non-evil" or only "good". Whatever ground rule the DM has set, it says a lot about their views of DnD. On some level, it also dips into their life philosophy and just why they game in the first place. Assuming that the GM is a "non-evil" style of DM, then his objection to the character's actions is very predictable. The DM has a black and white sense of morality when is comes to the game. So when a player action occurs that is not "white", the DM has an automatic negative reaction. Often these style of DM interpret "gray" category actions as "black". ----- Long and short of it, this is not an issue that can ever truly be discussed away. Alignment philosophies aren't something that can be compromised on. If there are such noticeable differences between the players and/or DM, then they will continue in campaign after campaign over the years. In short, these things will only change if a person re-assesses their own life philosophy on a noticeable level. And these things don't happen very often. Honestly, I wouldn't switch the PC's alignment given this one isolated incedent. It is defintely a gray act, which infers neutral or evil alignments. When held against the character's other behavior patterns, this would normally not cause for an immediate change. (Exception being some kind of inflexible code like a Paladin's.) But I would carefully watch the player to observe whether this isolated incedent grows into a pattern of behavior. If it does, then the alignment will slowly be shifted step by step towards evil. Personally, it sounds like you disagree with your DM's alignment philosophies. Assuming that to be true, I would suggest looking for another DM with more similar beliefs. There is no shame in agreeing to disagree and just walking away.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:12 PM	I would like to suggest that the killing was not in fact evil. It was evil because she was helpless. Had he gone back and fought her to the death, it would be a different story. He killed a defenseless person, which is always evil. If you kill goblin babies, it is evil. If you drop a kitty who isn't hurting you from a rooftop, it is evil. Killikng someone who's helpless is always always evil. Coup de grace, evil. Yup, I said it. Unless that person has just become helpless while fighting you a second earlier. If you use it on a character who has been dying for a few rounds, it's evil. I disagree with the person who's said he's always been ne, as the op has stated that the person has committed many good acts(I think). That would make him tn, as he does what he wants when he wants. He has no compunction to commit good or evil at will. He does both as he feels, at least based on the fact that he just murdered a helpless person. If he wants to acheive goodness, show it. Acts, and their intentions, determine alignment.
Witch 02-16-07, 01:15 PM	It was evil because she was helpless. Had he gone back and fought her to the death, it would be a different story. He killed a defenseless person, which is always evil. So the coup-de-grâce action is always evil? So hold person, then coup-de-grâce is more evil than just hitting her anyway? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?
Bob Loblaw 02-16-07, 01:29 PM	I haven't really played in Eberron yet but I thought alignment was even more gray in that setting than in others. Also, I used to believe that a single act of evil could change your alignment if it was bad enough. However, the reverse doesn't hold true so my opinion was flawed. If this character went to the orphanage and donated his time and money to help those children, would his alignment automatically shift again? Unlikely. From my experience DMs only seem to care about alignment shifts when it's from good to non-good. Any other shift is ignored. I think that your DM made a bad call. I would have made a note of it and watched to see if there was a consistent pattern showing up. I might even tell the player that this was a non-good act and I expect him to keep that in mind. I wouldn't change his alignment with this single act. And Papa_duval: Lets put it to the test. If you consider yourself good, i want you to go outside and do two things. 1. Find someone's pet and kill it - in whatever way you can, just kill it. 2. Now find some random stranger and kill them too. These are both evil acts - if you couldn't do it, then you're not evil. If you can do it, then i'd argue that you are, irrespective of the false outward appearance that you give to the world So what if I worked as a veternarian who has put little fluffy to sleep because her cancer has taken over too much of her body? What if I also worked security and I had to shoot a suspect while performing my duties? These both meet your criteria, but may not be evil acts. What if I see a man hit by a car while I walk by and just stand over him while he cries for help? Let's say I don't do anything other than watch. Did I murder him? Was I evil? What if I don't murder people, but instead I force them to perform acts against their will? Are child molestors evil? What about those steal from others, not out of necessity, but out of greed? Evil is a very broad term.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:30 PM	So the coup-de-grâce action is always evil? So hold person, then coup-de-grâce is more evil than just hitting her anyway? Isn't that sort of hypocritical? No, as I rule those as evil if you don't make the killing blow within a reasonble time. If you are good aligned, you don't go around killing people who can't defend themselves. If you are neutral, no biggie. You could care less their situation. So no, it isn't hypocritical of me because I rule it by the book on this one. If you are good, you are there to protect and help people, not to kill everything you see because you call yourself hero.
Witch 02-16-07, 01:32 PM	So no, it isn't hypocritical of me because I rule it by the book on this one. If you are good, you are there to protect and help people, not to kill everything you see because you call yourself hero. The book says the following: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Who they killed wasn't innocent.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:38 PM	Also, I used to believe that a single act of evil could change your alignment if it was bad enough. However, the reverse doesn't hold true so my opinion was flawed. If this character went to the orphanage and donated his time and money to help those children, would his alignment automatically shift again? Unlikely. From my experience DMs only seem to care about alignment shifts when it's from good to non-good. Any other shift is ignored. I would rule that a donantion a community service towards an orphanage would shift your alignment one step towards good. Same as killing a helpless person shifts it one step towards evil. That is what neutral is for. If a character consistently(or grossly) commits both good and evil, or law and chaos, they become neutral on that axis. If the character in question went on to commit mostly good and some neutral acts, I would shift him back to good. However, if he commited more(maybe three) acts of obvious evil, then he would remain neutral or become evil, depending on how much good he's done. You don't have to change it during the session, unless alignment is pertinent to that character. After the session, you should talk to the player and tell them that their pc has display a such and such attitude as to have them earn such and such an alignment shift. Now the must think of their actions if they want to play a truly good, evil, lawful, or chaotic character. If they continue to walk the line after that, boom they are neutral on that axis.
Thubby 02-16-07, 01:40 PM	am I the only one who thinks that lady T should no longer be any kind of good? she tried to kill good characters, with no legal reason, and with full knowledge of their good alignment. "to preserve the peace" in this case would be LN at best. the dm cant stop anyone from doing anything on the basis of their alignment, ever, as alignment is effected by action, not the other way round. im not going to touch the coup de grace issue with a 10 foot poll
Doodle 02-16-07, 01:41 PM	I would re-read the alignment section of the ECS as it is totally different from that in the PHB. Me.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:42 PM	The book says the following: Who they killed wasn't innocent. It also says: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. No where in that does it say that if the character is evil, they can kill it.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:44 PM	Evil says: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. It goes on to say more, but nothing pertinent to the situation. So how is killing a helpless person ever not evil?(or neutral at best)
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:48 PM	im not going to touch the coup de grace issue with a 10 foot poll I have and will touch it. View it this way: People in the heat of battle are trying to kill each other. One person downs their opponent and immediately kills them to prevent them from rising and killing someone. Now say that someone downs another, leaves them to fight someone else, and comes back and kills the downed foe. They were helpless and obviously not a threat. If you use common sense and the context of the situation, you can easily see whether the act is good, neutral, or evil.
Bob Loblaw 02-16-07, 05:04 PM	Evil says: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. It goes on to say more, but nothing pertinent to the situation. So how is killing a helpless person ever not evil?(or neutral at best) You can kill helpless people and not be evil. It all depends on how and why. In this case, he definately killed someone in an evil way, it was an execution. However, I don't think a single act should shift his alignment. Alignment shouldn't be that fluid.
pres_man 02-16-07, 06:13 PM	In this case, he definately killed someone in an evil way, it was an execution. So the death penalty is evil? I would be careful of treading into potential political mindfields with statements such as that.
ZypherX 02-16-07, 06:28 PM	Non-good? Yes. Evil? I wouldn't say so. Lady T has shown herself to be a threat to the PCs, as well as untrustworthy (killing the wererat she bribed). Admittedly, she was helpless at the time, but that shouldn't change matters. I mean, is killing a helpless devil evil? Now, the act of killing her was definately chaotic (despensing justice yourself instead of taking her to the proper authorities), but in either case, I don't feel it requires an immediate alignment shift unless it violated some code of conduct (like Paladins and Clerics have). It's reasonable to assume that a fighter/rogue would consider the action to be justified. As for coup de grace being evil, are you saying that letting them bleed to death instead is any more/less so?
Thubby 02-16-07, 06:36 PM	So the death penalty is evil? I would be careful of treading into potential political mindfields with statements such as that. well, this priestess didnt get any form of due process. she didnt get killed i the mitst of battle. its against the law to kill an attacker you have disabled (unconcious, bound, even running away) IRL. so it was probably at least unlawful. and she was killed, not because she was a danger to innocent people, but because this character just didnt want her following them (they dont know if she would actualy keep coming after them, he just guessed)
DaidojiTaidoru 02-16-07, 06:51 PM	well, this priestess didnt get any form of due process. she didnt get killed i the mitst of battle. its against the law to kill an attacker you have disabled (unconcious, bound, even running away) IRL. so it was probably at least unlawful. and she was killed, not because she was a danger to innocent people, but because this character just didnt want her following them (they dont know if she would actualy keep coming after them, he just guessed) Due process is a law chaos issue. The PCs know the truth and can act upon it. 'Impartial judges' is a conciet of law to the chaotic mind. The convience issue however is good-evil. Killing people just because it will make your life a little easier is not a good act. The big question in my mind is whether or not this is a big part of how the character envisions himself. Is he going to slit the throat of everyone who might be dangerous to the party behind everyones backs? Or was this an isolated incident that he's going to spend a lot of time wondering if he did the right thing? That should determine the alignment shift in this case. Of course if the character continues on a similar vien....
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 07:09 PM	You can kill helpless people and not be evil. It all depends on how and why. In this case, he definately killed someone in an evil way, it was an execution. However, I don't think a single act should shift his alignment. Alignment shouldn't be that fluid. Yeah, that's what I was saying about situations determining the intent of acts. As far as if one act causes alignment shift, it depends on the dm and the act. In this case, after the session I would ask the person why he killed her, and ask if he realizes it was evil. Depending on how he answers would depend on if I change his alignment. But since there are no rules governing alignment changes, it is up to the dm to use his better discretion.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 07:10 PM	So the death penalty is evil? I would be careful of treading into potential political mindfields with statements such as that. I would say it is. At least in d&d terms. In real life terms, I think it's wrong. But that is just my opinion.
johnkretzer 02-16-07, 07:38 PM	Killing helpless people is not neccessarily evil even in D&D. It depends on the reason. He didn't do this this thinking I am going to kill her for fun or I will profit from this. He killed her because he saw it as a way to protect himsrlf and his campanion from someone who in his assessment would not stop coming after them. Also he saw it has a way to get the truth out. Now I am not going to say this was a good action, but evil? I would probably have said to the player that it was a little cold-blooded. Personsaly I wouldn't have doner the action anyway, not because it was evil, but because the action was... stupid. Because the PCs are not only going to be still chased because they left the dead body of a high ranking official in their inn room, but will destroy any chance of finding a non-fanatic member of the Church of the Silver Flame to call off the attack dogs. But then again I have always seen the alignments(for non-outsiders and undead) more as guidlines then straitjackets.
pres_man 02-16-07, 10:20 PM	and she was killed, not because she was a danger to innocent people, but because this character just didnt want her following them (they dont know if she would actualy keep coming after them, he just guessed) So you are now claiming the party was not innocent and actually deserved to be attacked in the middle of the night, and her actions were justified? Because if they weren't that means the party was innocent and by killing her, he was in fact protecting innocents. I might point out that this woman had already proven she was untrustworthy when she had killed the wererat. To think that leaving her would come to any end other than her continuing after the party is naive. And no coup-de-grace (also known as stroke of mercy) is not evil, neither is the death penalty. Neither is good, but they are not evil. Leave your RL moral beliefs there.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 11:24 PM	Killing helpless people is not neccessarily evil even in D&D. It depends on the reason. As I also said. Reason has alot to do with it. That's why I suggested the dm ask the reason behind it. He didn't do this this thinking I am going to kill her for fun or I will profit from this. He killed her because he saw it as a way to protect himsrlf and his campanion from someone who in his assessment would not stop coming after them. Yeah, it might be considered borderline by some(neutral/evil). But she wasn't holding a knife to his throat or anything like that. She was helpless. He could have turned her into the authorities. That would have been the good thing to do. Instead, he killed her while she had no means of defense, so regardless if she is good, evil, etc. it was an evil act. Now some might see it as neutral, but that's another arguement that I'll let someone else start.:D
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 11:32 PM	So you are now claiming the party was not innocent and actually deserved to be attacked in the middle of the night, and her actions were justified? Because if they weren't that means the party was innocent and by killing her, he was in fact protecting innocents. I might point out that this woman had already proven she was untrustworthy when she had killed the wererat. To think that leaving her would come to any end other than her continuing after the party is naive. And no coup-de-grace (also known as stroke of mercy) is not evil, neither is the death penalty. Neither is good, but they are not evil. Leave your RL moral beliefs there. But who is to judge if the party is innocent? Do you know their whole backstory, where they've been and what they've done? You could say he was protecting his friends and be accurate, but to automatically assume they are innocent is the same as automatically assuming there was no other reason she killed the wererat. In fact, if she is working for the silver flame and they are charged with stamping out lycantrophy, she was just doing her duty. Beyond that, we don't know if there was more motive. As for the death penalty, you are the one who brought it up. If you don't want other's views, don't bring it up. And the other person said execution, which does not equate to death penalty.
johnkretzer 02-16-07, 11:46 PM	As I also said. Reason has alot to do with it. That's why I suggested the dm ask the reason behind it. Yeah, it might be considered borderline by some(neutral/evil). But she wasn't holding a knife to his throat or anything like that. She was helpless. He could have turned her into the authorities. That would have been the good thing to do. Instead, he killed her while she had no means of defense, so regardless if she is good, evil, etc. it was an evil act. Now some might see it as neutral, but that's another arguement that I'll let someone else start.:D Ok this a Eberron campaign so you might not know this. She is from what I gather a very high ranking member of the Silver Flame(I gather this from her having a PrC which is very rare in Eberron for NPCs). This happened in a very a Silver Flame controled town.(I am guessing Thrane) Thrane or a town controled by the Silver Flame is a ruled and runnned by the Silver Flame. Which means she is the authorities. Hell she might have been acting on the orders from the local mayor. Now I don't for sure if the DM played with things to make it different, but it is logical that turning her over to authorty would be a bad move in a regular Eberron game...
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 11:55 PM	Ok this a Eberron campaign so you might not know this. She is from what I gather a very high ranking member of the Silver Flame(I gather this from her having a PrC which is very rare in Eberron for NPCs). This happened in a very a Silver Flame controled town.(I am guessing Thrane) Thrane or a town controled by the Silver Flame is a ruled and runnned by the Silver Flame. Which means she is the authorities. Hell she might have been acting on the orders from the local mayor. Now I don't for sure if the DM played with things to make it different, but it is logical that turning her over to authorty would be a bad move in a regular Eberron game... Then on the same note, she had every reason to kill the wererat. Which would then make it even worse that the player killed her. Tsk tsk tsk, you evil player.:P And I'm not to familiar with eberron, I just know some basics.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 12:02 AM	Then on the same note, she had every reason to kill the wererat. Which would then make it even worse that the player killed her. Tsk tsk tsk, you evil player.:P And I'm not to familiar with eberron, I just know some basics. Sure she did actualy it was her duty to kill the wererat( I wouldn't even call this evil :) ), but her reason for trying to kill the PCs in their sleep? He just showed her the same mercy she was going to give them. Also I am not evil or good I am practical
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 12:13 AM	Sure she did actualy it was her duty to kill the wererat( I wouldn't even call this evil :) ), but her reason for trying to kill the PCs in their sleep? He just showed her the same mercy she was going to give them. Also I am not evil or good I am practical Well, I just said that it solved the murder of the wererat part. She may have tried to kill the pc's, but they successfully detained her. Going back and killing someone who is now helpless when you could have killed them when the were trying to kill you seems to scream evil to me. It's like if I got into a knife fight with somebody, but knocked him out before either of us was killed. I decide later to go back and shoot him while he is sleeping, to make sure he doesn't mess with me again. I should have just killed him the first time. Doing it the second time screams premeditated murder to me, which is hard to argue that it isn't evil. But like I said, some people will see it more neutral, as his friends lives are involved too.
Thubby 02-17-07, 12:30 AM	So you are now claiming the party was not innocent and actually deserved to be attacked in the middle of the night, and her actions were justified? Because if they weren't that means the party was innocent and by killing her, he was in fact protecting innocents. I might point out that this woman had already proven she was untrustworthy when she had killed the wererat. To think that leaving her would come to any end other than her continuing after the party is naive. kindly do not put words in my mouth (theirs already plenty in there). im not saying they deserved to be attacked. im saying that this priestess posed no danger to anyone other than the party (do we know for a fact she was trying to kill them, and not detain them?). people never refer to themsleves as innocent. most cops arent considered innocent iether (or at least cops dont consider themsleves). when i say "inncocent people" i mean bistanders, the joe shmoes of the world. coupe de grace-in-and-of itself isnt evil. i have a problem with the persons rationale realy.
Bob Loblaw 02-17-07, 12:33 AM	So the death penalty is evil? I would be careful of treading into potential political mindfields with statements such as that. In my opinion it is. However, I wasn't refering to that. I was refering to gang-style executions. I should have made that clearer because I was trying to avoid politics.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 12:38 AM	And no coup-de-grace (also known as stroke of mercy) is not evil. And I said that the act itself isn't evil(after remembering an important fact), it is the way you use it. It is never a good act, and most of the time it is neutral. But if you go and coup de grace all the enemies you fell who are dying after the battle is over, it is evil.
Lhordaxes 02-17-07, 12:54 AM	What would a certain drow ranger popularized by WOTC do? I can't ever picture this character even performing coup-de-grace and he is undoubtedtly good. If a foe is helpless, meaning no threat to you, then a good character would not kill them. Now, killing someone who is dying and has no chance of survival is a justified use of coup-de-grace.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 01:05 AM	What would a certain drow ranger popularized by WOTC do? I can't ever picture this character even performing coup-de-grace and he is undoubtedtly good. If a foe is helpless, meaning no threat to you, then a good character would not kill them. Now, killing someone who is dying and has no chance of survival is a justified use of coup-de-grace. Um.... Since when did Drizzt became the poster boy for morality?
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:08 AM	What would a certain drow ranger popularized by WOTC do? I can't ever picture this character even performing coup-de-grace and he is undoubtedtly good. If a foe is helpless, meaning no threat to you, then a good character would not kill them. Now, killing someone who is dying and has no chance of survival is a justified use of coup-de-grace. I like your reasoning of it. Killing someone who has no chance of survival would be neutral or evil, unless they asked to be "put down". Then it would be good(debatable, but I'll just refer you to a thread about it). But it isn't often that someone you are fighting to the death will say, "Just kill me." They more often beg for their lives, even if they would die anyway. Good characters don't go around killing helpless people. It says in the phb that they have a respect for life. If you respect life, you wouldn't kill helpless people, thus making you neutral or evil depending on other circumstances.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:09 AM	Um.... Since when did Drizzt became the poster boy for morality? Your right, but that is beside the point.
Lhordaxes 02-17-07, 01:13 AM	Um.... Since when did Drizzt became the poster boy for morality? I'm not saying he should be your personal role-model. I'm using him as an example of the good alignment within the D&D context.
Thubby 02-17-07, 01:13 AM	Your right, but that is beside the point. (quoted this one because its shorter) this does raise the issue of regenerators, since one of (if not the) only way for a non mage to kill a regenerating creature is to coup de grace it.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 01:18 AM	Well, I just said that it solved the murder of the wererat part. She may have tried to kill the pc's, but they successfully detained her. Going back and killing someone who is now helpless when you could have killed them when the were trying to kill you seems to scream evil to me. It's like if I got into a knife fight with somebody, but knocked him out before either of us was killed. I decide later to go back and shoot him while he is sleeping, to make sure he doesn't mess with me again. I should have just killed him the first time. Doing it the second time screams premeditated murder to me, which is hard to argue that it isn't evil. But like I said, some people will see it more neutral, as his friends lives are involved too. Ok point 1: She wasn't left permantly helpless...she would have recovered and gone after them with a vengence. The old saying. " Never leave a enemy alive." I mean would it be better if the peramently crippled her? Point 2: By his actions of going back killing her he is protecting his campanions from prosecution. If he had done it infront of them they would be held accountable too. He evidently felt that it had to be done.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:20 AM	(quoted this one because its shorter) this does raise the issue of regenerators, since one of (if not the) only way for a non mage to kill a regenerating creature is to coup de grace it. But if you use that right after you fell him, then it would be neutral(depending on circumstances). If you use that after you take a while to think of how to kill him, that certainly sounds evil. A good person would think of how to detain a wounded enemy. Side rant. The main problem with the good and evil thing is that everything would be less complicated if they just said good kills evil and vice versa. But they wanted to be fancy and try to work in some realism. So RAW makes it hard to justify a good character killing anyone. If they just had it say that good kills evil, then no arguements could ensue.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:25 AM	Ok point 1: She wasn't left permantly helpless...she would have recovered and gone after them with a vengence. The old saying. " Never leave a enemy alive." I mean would it be better if the peramently crippled her? Point 2: By his actions of going back killing her he is protecting his campanions from prosecution. If he had done it infront of them they would be held accountable too. He evidently felt that it had to be done. So if an evil character goes back and kills someone because he feels that they threaten his companions, it would be good? Fact is, the act is neutral at best, evil at worst, and mostly in between. There are other ways of protecting people besides killing. A good character would have found one of those ways. One such possibilty is running away. If she tracks you down and attacks again, you would have a justifiable reason to kill her. And yes, cutting off her feet would have been better than killing her, as you are still preserving life. That would be more in line with a good character's actions(although a little twisted), but still not good.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 01:40 AM	I like your reasoning of it. Killing someone who has no chance of survival would be neutral or evil, unless they asked to be "put down". Then it would be good(debatable, but I'll just refer you to a thread about it). But it isn't often that someone you are fighting to the death will say, "Just kill me." They more often beg for their lives, even if they would die anyway. Good characters don't go around killing helpless people. It says in the phb that they have a respect for life. If you respect life, you wouldn't kill helpless people, thus making you neutral or evil depending on other circumstances. Ok now this where I think we part and this isn't to say your way is inferior or anything like that. But here is a situration I have encountered: My character and another one came up a group of about thirty orcs that had you human capitives. So we waited till noon( orcs are nocturnal) I snuck in the camp and started to kill the sleeping orcs while the other character was there to back me up while I do it. Now I veiw this as a good act...because we were protecting the innocent people. Because we are not that high of level the 'honorable' way would have failed. Hit and run tactics might have worked but then again they might have started killing the prisoners anyway. Now thinking about what happened in OP's situration I would have to say it is evil...but not because he killed a helpless person. But because ultiminatly there was others ways to handle this without killing her...she was just trying to fight for what she believes is right(It might be misguided). That is why I hate how Paladins are written up in that they can't associate with evil beings. Which means the only thing a evil person will know from a paladin is death. Yup that is a way to convert someone to good. I guess are main diffferences is that you view D&D alignments as solid rules. I veiw them as guidelines.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 01:45 AM	And yes, cutting off her feet would have been better than killing her, as you are still preserving life. That would be more in line with a good character's actions(although a little twisted), but still not good. While I have change my stance a little on this situration...I think crippling someone for life is evil in of it self...also in D&D very hard to do. You leave them to live the rest of their lives in agony. That is definitly more evil in my opinion then just killing her. If you are dead you are sent to your just destination atleast in D&D. Though yes in Eberron afterlife it is a toss up.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:56 AM	I guess are main diffferences is that you view D&D alignments as solid rules. I veiw them as guidelines. For arguement purposes, I use them as written. In my campaigns, though, I do use them as guidelines. I let go the fact that good character's are killing people, even if they are evil. RAW makes that almost impossible. There is almost always a better solution to at least try ahead of time, going by RAW. But I like the bad guys getting wacked. In my campaigns, however, killing a helpless person would almost always be evil, unless you have a good reason to justify it, then it would be neutral. This is why coup de grace is almost never used(and isn't really needed as we play once they're down, they're dead) in my campaigns. I usually don't even nitpick with alignments period. In a case like this, I would want at least an explanation, though.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:59 AM	While I have change my stance a little on this situration...I think crippling someone for life is evil in of it self...also in D&D very hard to do. You leave them to live the rest of their lives in agony. That is definitly more evil in my opinion then just killing her. If you are dead you are sent to your just destination atleast in D&D. Though yes in Eberron afterlife it is a toss up. Yeah, crippling would be more than likely be evil(given circumstances), but by RAW, killing would always be more evil, thus a grosser violation of the good alignment. I would want an explanation either way.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 02:11 AM	I usually don't even nitpick with alignments period. In a case like this, I would want at least an explanation, though. I can definitly agree with you there.
CaptainPicard 02-17-07, 03:29 AM	What would a certain drow ranger popularized by WOTC do? I can't ever picture this character even performing coup-de-grace and he is undoubtedtly good. If a foe is helpless, meaning no threat to you, then a good character would not kill them. Now, killing someone who is dying and has no chance of survival is a justified use of coup-de-grace. Drizzt ran down and killed a fleeing opponent who was no threat to him or his allies. Just thought I'd mention that.
johnkretzer 02-17-07, 04:27 AM	What would a certain drow ranger popularized by WOTC do? I can't ever picture this character even performing coup-de-grace and he is undoubtedtly good. If a foe is helpless, meaning no threat to you, then a good character would not kill them. Now, killing someone who is dying and has no chance of survival is a justified use of coup-de-grace. um... I just remembered this but did you read the first book? The Crystal Shard? Where when Wulfgar came into Icingdeaths lair and the dragon was a asleep? He did the 'right' and woke up the dragon....I believe Drizzt called that naive and foolish. He should have took that free shot...
kelvinaw273 02-17-07, 07:19 AM	My view on this ... Lady T's act was no better or worse than the player characters when she killed the wererat. The action was dishonourable, not good ... but not exactly evil either. Trying to kill the party because they might reveal information she believes will panic the populace, even though it is true ... that IS an evil act. In all honesty this has the hallmoarks of the Fallen paladin syndrome, namely performing evil acts in the name of a good goal. The purity of the goal does not stop the character being evil, because evil is as evil does. In both cases of 'murder' the victim was evil and (at least potentially) a murderer. In the case of Lady T it certainly became apparent that (a) Local judiciary would not intervene to stop her (they were Flamites after all), and (b) she would come after the party again. In short, I do not think the alignment change is warrented. The DM should not use alignment to restrict players - but it is perfectly in line to warn a player if their stated actions do not (in the DM's opinion) correspond to their stated alingment.
Varia 02-17-07, 10:19 AM	It also says: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. No where in that does it say that if the character is evil, they can kill it. It says RESPECT for life. It doesnt say "blind, unthinking preservation of life at all costs in all circumstances". Are good characters all vegetarians? (Ignoring for now that vegetables are alive too...) No? So, not all life is sacrosanct. The absolutist stance fails at the first test. So the real position is somewhere short of "preserve all life". Self-preservation is pretty-much universally recognised as a valid reason to kill. The Lady clearly intended to kill the players. There was no reason to believe or that she would not try again if allowed to live. There was no reason to believe that the players had recourse to the law to protect them, since they were in Silver Flame territory and they knew it. I think they were therefor justified in killing her while she was helpless to protect their own innocent lives. The fact that only one of them actually decided to kill her doesnt change that basic issue. He shouldnt have been happy about it (and a bit of roleplaying that unhappiness during the killing would have been good), but if something is necessary through no fault of your own then you do what you have to. Especially for neutral-good and neutral-evil alignments where the ends are generally considered to justify the means. Heck, in the absence of any legal or other recourse, if she was actively trying to kill them/get them killed, a neutral-good character would be perfectly justified in breaking into her house and slitting her throat in her sleep. He shouldnt be happy about having to do it, and he certainly shouldnt kill anyone else in the process, but it would be alignment-legal.
Varia 02-17-07, 10:34 AM	That is why I hate how Paladins are written up in that they can't associate with evil beings. Which means the only thing a evil person will know from a paladin is death. Yup that is a way to convert someone to good. A couple of things- First, a paladin isnt required to kill every evil thing he sees. Heck, some evil certainly isnt worthy of death, even if you catch it in the act. And second, it says a paladin cannot ASSOCIATE with evil, it does NOT say that a paladin cannot INTERACT with evil. A paladin is perfectly capable of preaching or teaching at evil, or trying to set a good example to evil in the hopes that it will catch on, he merely cant associate with evil, in a " Hi, let me introduce myself, I'm a paladin, and these are my associates..." kind of way.
pres_man 02-17-07, 11:41 AM	But she wasn't holding a knife to his throat or anything like that. She was helpless. So the only time you can kill someone if you are good is if you are at their mercy? He could have turned her into the authorities. That would have been the good thing to do. No, it would have been the lawful thing to do. It may also have been good, if the authorities were good. In this case though that does not seem to be a viable option as her organization has close ties to the authorities. Instead, he killed her while she had no means of defense, so regardless if she is good, evil, etc. it was an evil act. No, it was a dishonorable act (i.e. chaotic). Killing someone without means to defend themselves is not necessarily evil. It depends greatly on the situation. In this case, she attacked them, and I don't think the OP said anything about using non-lethal means, which means she intended to commit cold blooded murder on them. She forfeited her life at that point. The reason people generally have courts is so that 1)individual citizens don't have to take justice in their hands and 2)to make sure that innocents are not wrongfully punished. The first reason is a lawful concern the second a good concern, ignoring the first is a chaotic act and the second didn't come into play since her guilt was self-evident. As for good and evil by the RAW, I noticed you ignored the reasons why evil kills. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Did the rogue do this? No. Not evil yet. “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. First off, the implies statement. This is a one direction statement, evil => hurting, oppressing, and killing. It is not a two direction statement, evil <=> hurting, oppressing, and killing. Non-evils can hurt, oppress, or even kill and not be evil. The rest of the paragraph goes on to explain why evil beings kill. The rogue was not killing for an evil deity or master, or for sport or even to pursue evil. The only thing remotely that might apply is for convience, but that is such a broad statement as to be almost meaningless, and I might add he went back (an inconvience) to do it. No, his actions do not stack up to the RAW definition of evil. They don't necessarily stack up to the RAW definition of good either. That must mean his actions were neutral. One neutral act is not reason enough to slide someone's alignment. This sounds more like the PC killed the DM's pet NPC and the DM threw a hissy fit about it. Tell the DM to grow some.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 12:11 PM	So the only time you can kill someone if you are good is if you are at their mercy? 1)No, that is one of the few ways it would be good to kill someone. Good people could kill at other times, but situation are rare when killing comes above the neutral alignment. There are alomost always better alternatives. No, it would have been the lawful thing to do. It may also have been good, if the authorities were good. In this case though that does not seem to be a viable option as her organization has close ties to the authorities. 2)It would have been good, because you are showing a respect for life. It may not have been viable, so he took a route that wasn't good. No, it was a dishonorable act (i.e. chaotic). Killing someone without means to defend themselves is not necessarily evil. It depends greatly on the situation. In this case, she attacked them, and I don't think the OP said anything about using non-lethal means, which means she intended to commit cold blooded murder on them. She forfeited her life at that point. The reason people generally have courts is so that 1)individual citizens don't have to take justice in their hands and 2)to make sure that innocents are not wrongfully punished. The first reason is a lawful concern the second a good concern, ignoring the first is a chaotic act and the second didn't come into play since her guilt was self-evident. 3)The way he killed her may have been chaotic, but I am looking at the reason. It was murder for profit, the fact that she would no longer threaten him and his group. She wasn't threatening anyone else. Some have a reasonable reason to see the group part as making it a not evil act, but it was by no means good. As for good and evil by the RAW, I noticed you ignored the reasons why evil kills. Did the rogue do this? No. Not evil yet. 4)He profited by elimanating a threat to him. Profit does not equal gold. Profit equals benefit. He benefited by getting rid of a potential threat. But as I said, this may also been seen as neutral, as he did it for a selfish reason(neutral act), to protect himself and his friends. He didn't kill her to save an innocent bystander, which given other situations, may have been good. First off, the implies statement. This is a one direction statement, evil => hurting, oppressing, and killing. It is not a two direction statement, evil <=> hurting, oppressing, and killing. Non-evils can hurt, oppress, or even kill and not be evil. The rest of the paragraph goes on to explain why evil beings kill. The rogue was not killing for an evil deity or master, or for sport or even to pursue evil. The only thing remotely that might apply is for convience, but that is such a broad statement as to be almost meaningless, and I might add he went back (an inconvience) to do it. 5)If evil kills by hurting, oppressing, and killing, and you do one of those things, that is evil. You make no sense with that arguement. And he was really incovienced by going back?:rolleyes: No, his actions do not stack up to the RAW definition of evil. They don't necessarily stack up to the RAW definition of good either. That must mean his actions were neutral. One neutral act is not reason enough to slide someone's alignment. This sounds more like the PC killed the DM's pet NPC and the DM threw a hissy fit about it. Tell the DM to grow some. 6)I said that it could be viewed as neutral a trillion times.:rolleyes: I would view it as evil, so I understand where the dm is coming from. I never said that everyone has to view it as evil. ..
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 12:20 PM	It says RESPECT for life. It doesnt say "blind, unthinking preservation of life at all costs in all circumstances". Are good characters all vegetarians? (Ignoring for now that vegetables are alive too...) No? So, not all life is sacrosanct. The absolutist stance fails at the first test. So the real position is somewhere short of "preserve all life". Self-preservation is pretty-much universally recognised as a valid reason to kill. The Lady clearly intended to kill the players. There was no reason to believe or that she would not try again if allowed to live. There was no reason to believe that the players had recourse to the law to protect them, since they were in Silver Flame territory and they knew it. I think they were therefor justified in killing her while she was helpless to protect their own innocent lives. The fact that only one of them actually decided to kill her doesnt change that basic issue. He shouldnt have been happy about it (and a bit of roleplaying that unhappiness during the killing would have been good), but if something is necessary through no fault of your own then you do what you have to. Especially for neutral-good and neutral-evil alignments where the ends are generally considered to justify the means. Heck, in the absence of any legal or other recourse, if she was actively trying to kill them/get them killed, a neutral-good character would be perfectly justified in breaking into her house and slitting her throat in her sleep. He shouldnt be happy about having to do it, and he certainly shouldnt kill anyone else in the process, but it would be alignment-legal. Perhaps I should have also highlighted a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Killing someone in their sleep shows a lack of these concerns. It was by no means a good act. Borderline neutral/evil, depending on how you look at the other factors. And they didn't know for fact that she would come back to kill them. So he killied her out of pretense, showing a lack of respect for her life. If she had attacked them again, then by all means kill her. But he had no proff of it. And I am in no way arguing law/chaos. Your arguement about ng character, or any good character for that matter, sneaking in and killing one in their sleep, is justified as good in no way.
pres_man 02-17-07, 12:28 PM	If she had attacked them again, then by all means kill her. But he had no proff of it. What if she swooned again? That is she fell unconscious. He wouldn't be justified then, he has no proof she will come after him a third time. What if she then did come after him a third time, but again got knocked unconscious, he has no proof she would come after him a fourth time. ...
kelvinaw273 02-17-07, 12:35 PM	Perhaps I should have also highlighted a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Killing someone in their sleep shows a lack of these concerns. It was by no means a good act. Borderline neutral/evil, depending on how you look at the other factors. Which is what this NPC tried to do to the party. And they didn't know for fact that she would come back to kill them. So he killied her out of pretense, showing a lack of respect for her life. If she had attacked them again, then by all means kill her. But he had no proff of it. Did he have to wait until she killed him before he decided that is what she intended? This NPC had (a) shown a disdain for the lives of those she considered immoral in the past (the wererat she betrayed and killed) and (b) had attempted to kill them once in a dishonourable and underhand manner. I'd say that her following them to kill them had a reasonable enough likelyhood for the party to want to play itsafe, quite apart from it being the likely penalty for attempted murder (of which they knew she was guilty). Furthermore they could argue this served a good cause as this NPC had TWICE betrayed and tried to kill supposed allies because she disagreed with their nature or proposed (non-evil) course of action, and doubtless would again whether it was the party or another group. And I am in no way arguing law/chaos. Your arguement about ng character, or any good character for that matter, sneaking in and killing one in their sleep, is justified as good in no way. I think I just addressed this point above - it can be good, because they are likely saving further victioms of this NPC, be it themselves or others. The act is Dishonourable, not evil in this context. It is justifiable in moral terms. Dishonour is associated with 'chaotic', although chaotics may have their own honour code that allows them to act on a whim and still maintain their code, so it may be regarded as an unethical act, not an immoral one.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:53 PM	What if she swooned again? That is she fell unconscious. He wouldn't be justified then, he has no proof she will come after him a third time. What if she then did come after him a third time, but again got knocked unconscious, he has no proof she would come after him a fourth time. ... I said that a coup de grace delivered immediately after an enemy is felled wouldn't be evil. So if she attacks a second time, kill her. He would also be more justified in killing her as she is proving that she will not stop in attempting to kill them. The first attack shows that she tried to kill them once, but she may never bother them again. If they would have killed her in the first fight, then it wouldn't be even remotely evil(probably still neutral though). The point where it turns is he premeditated her murder while she was helpless and he took advantage of that fact. Sounds at least borderline neutral/evil to me. To you, it may have been neutral. I've said that already.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 01:55 PM	Which is what this NPC tried to do to the party. That is they key word, tried. Past tense, meaning she may not ever bother them again. If they killed her while she was trying to kill them, different story.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 02:02 PM	I think I just addressed this point above - it can be good, because they are likely saving further victioms of this NPC, be it themselves or others. The act is Dishonourable, not evil in this context. It is justifiable in moral terms. Dishonour is associated with 'chaotic', although chaotics may have their own honour code that allows them to act on a whim and still maintain their code, so it may be regarded as an unethical act, not an immoral one. But her duty is to kill lycans. So that is completely besides the fact of her trying to kill the party. The two are very nonassociated. The only proof they have of her maybe being evil is that she tried to kill them. She may have had other unknown reasons that only she(the dm really) knows. She has not shown to be a crazed serial killer. Maybe she is charged with eliminating those who witness the silver flame's underhandedness. That would make her lawful neutral. But we don't know that. She hasn't proved to be evil, just that it is possible. That still gives the pc no good reason to kill her while she is helpless. Good wouldn't do that. Neutral and evil would. How you view it from that depends on how you view the other points. Nowhere am I arguing law/chaos.:rolleyes: It may have been mentioned, but it isn't the point I am arguing.
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 02:10 PM	Did he have to wait until she killed him before he decided that is what she intended? This NPC had (a) shown a disdain for the lives of those she considered immoral in the past (the wererat she betrayed and killed) and (b) had attempted to kill them once in a dishonourable and underhand manner. I'd say that her following them to kill them had a reasonable enough likelyhood for the party to want to play itsafe, quite apart from it being the likely penalty for attempted murder (of which they knew she was guilty). Furthermore they could argue this served a good cause as this NPC had TWICE betrayed and tried to kill supposed allies because she disagreed with their nature or proposed (non-evil) course of action, and doubtless would again whether it was the party or another group. No, but a good character would have waited. She has not shown disdain, she has shown a commitment to her duties. Therefore she hasn't shown that she is evil, just that she is neutral or evil. Even if following them may have been likely, that doesn't change the fact that killing a helpless person isn't good. It is neutral or evil, depending on how you view other circumstances. I'm not saying he can't kill her, I'm saying that they way he did it isn't in line with what a good character would do. The dm therefore had a right to question the act. Whether it was enough for an alignment change is a completely different arguement and since it isn't defined in the rules has to be adjucated by the dm. So the dm was within his rights tp do it, even though it may not be fair. I said he was right in he's reasoning, not that he was right in doing it(which he may or may not be, depending on your viewpoint). He should have gotten more info from the player before making the final decision.
pres_man 02-17-07, 03:31 PM	But her duty is to kill lycans. So that is completely besides the fact of her trying to kill the party. The two are very nonassociated. The only proof they have of her maybe being evil is that she tried to kill them. She may have had other unknown reasons that only she(the dm really) knows. She has not shown to be a crazed serial killer. Maybe she is charged with eliminating those who witness the silver flame's underhandedness. That would make her lawful neutral. But we don't know that. She hasn't proved to be evil, just that it is possible. And back to the RAW: 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. I believe in this setting we can't go by the "always" alignments (that is the big difference I believe), thus killing a lycan for merely being a lycan is an evil act as it is a condemnation based on their race. And this person showed that they cared about order more than freedom, dignity, or life by attacking the party when they said they were going to expose the truth (a stupid thing to do in my opnion, but whatever). I would say she is pretty squarely in the evil catagory, maybe not LE as she employs dishonorable methods (backstabbing an ally).
bonethug0108 02-17-07, 04:25 PM	But it technically isn't what she wants. The silver flame itself wants to stamp out lycans. She is following orders by killing the lycan, implying lawful neutral. She is also following orders by trying to protect the oragnization, again lawful neutral. She isn't taking what she wants within her codes, she is blindly following orders without concern towards good and evil. But her alignment is beside the point. If a good character is about to kill a helpless person and another good character killed the first, was he good in doing it? You cannot look at the person's alignment and say, "hey it's evil, let's kill it." That is not in the RAW and that is, as I stated before, a big mistake on their part to leave it out. They just should have said good kills evil and vice versa.
calronmoonflower 02-17-07, 05:01 PM	To detemain if a act id good or evil to must look at the ramifocations of both committing or NOT COMMITTING the act. So you must look at Lady T's alignment. It would be at best Lawful Neutral at best and Lawful Evil at worst. Killing good poeple because you think that they tell the truth is evil. If they turned her over to the legal authorities they might be persecuted by Church of the Silver Flame and even be arrested for assulting a offical of the church. If they simplely left her alive (and not to die of wounds) the church (or possibly just Lady T if she went rogue, and likely not even then) would likely follow up with other attacks and possibly be backed by the local government. Leaving everything as it is also puts more innocent people in danger of assassination if they know the truth. If they left her to live or die as she was it would be much as if they killed her. As I see it this act was solidly choatic, but not evil. The PC was acting as judge, jury, and executor. Killing someone that is dangerous to yourself and other (not just your party, but anyone that happens on the truth) is not evil. Just because the PC though upon the act before committing doesn't make it evil, just not clear on what the best course of action is. As it is the DM set you up with a hard choice. No choice is without severe consequences and seems to leading you toward a direct conflict with the Church of the Silver Flame. Unless Lady T went rogue, and even then it's only the PC's word against Lady T's (or in this case a dead body). The Speak With Dead spell can help explain everything if they can convince some in authory (local of the church) so find some who can cast it and use it on Lady T's corpse. ________________________________________ _____ My 3.5 update of the Ballisteer (Psionic Prestige Class) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=790831
VargasWynter 02-17-07, 05:08 PM	OP here. First of all I want to thank everyone for their comments thus far. I did not expect this many responses, as my original intention of the post was to rant about the unfairness of the DM toward the other player. I believe I need to make a few clarifications. 1. This is an Eberron campaign, and I do not know much about Eberron. The only information I know on the campaign setting is what I have been told from the DM. One of the first things he told me is that alignment is very vague in this setting, more so than in the PHB. Now this is what got me in an uproar to begin with. He had told Marl’s player that he should not allow him the action of to kill Lady T while she was helpless, since it was an evil act. At this point in the session I told the DM, he could not restrict the actions of our characters. While the DM has control over what happens in the game, the players have control over the actions of their characters. 2. In our group we all believe the action of Marl killing Lady T while she was helpless to be an evil act. We have no argument there. However, the other player and I do not believe the single act is enough to justify an alignment change. While some of the comments so far said that he should provide an explanation for is action. More or less, he said that if Lady T was capable of breaking into our room to kill us in our sleep then she was dangerous to be left alive. After all, we might not be lucky enough to hear her breaking in next time. While alignment is a vague to begin with, I would like to quote the PHB. (Note: This is only my 2nd ever post on this site and I do not know how to make those snazzy little quote boxes) PHB 3.5 page 103 last paragraph: “Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.” 3. That being said if alignment shifts so easily in this campaign for one evil act to cause a shift from good to neutral, then a good act should move it back. Or a chaotic act should shift you along the other axis. This puts me in a predicament, since I am playing a Knight. I have to remain lawful to retain the use of some of my class abilities and continuing advancing in my class. Now I have already performed a chaotic act (I won’t go into detail here), but my alignment has never shifted nor has the DM said anything to me. I suppose this is for 1 of 2 reasons: 1. Since I perform more lawful acts than I have chaotic, my alignment is still generally lawful. 2. The Law/Chaos axis is not as important as the Good/Evil axis, according to the DM. If the first is true, then it should hold that one evil action amongst many good actions would mean the other character would remain good. However if the latter is true, we might as well not even use the Law/Chaos axis since the DM is just going to gloss over it anyway. Side note not pertaining to the alignment argument: Some of you pointed out that we should have turned Lady T over to the authorities after subduing her. Normally our group would have done this. Someone posted earlier that it sounded like we are in Thrane in the Eberron setting. I think this is correct. The local authority is the Church of the Silver Flame. We did not think it wise to turn her over to the authorities of what we believe to be a corrupt organization, as we would probably be the ones taken into custody or worse.