Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CelestialBarbarian 06-18-05, 03:36 AM	The following incident caused so much conflict in our Thursday night came that I hestitate to even ask about it for fear that a thread on the subject will get so hot that the moderator will shut it down. So I ask in advance to please try to keep it civil, and I'll try to do so too. Thanks! :-) The party entered an old temple of Waukeen in the Sembian town of Yhaunn. We had been hired by Miklos Selkirk and the priests of Waukeen to investigate it and clear out any badguys we found. Inside the temple we found, among others, an evil human about to slay what looked like an identical twin who did not radiate evil. The party members saved the one who did not radiate evil, fighting and killing the evil one when he refused to stop trying to kill the non-evil one. The non-evil one turned out to be a doppleganger. He freely showed us what he was, and seemed willing to return to use to Miklos and spill what he knew of these evil people who had enslaved him and taken over the temple. He seemed to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and some of the party members weren't too nice to him. In particular the female elf, Anwyn, threated to kill him if he didn't come with us, and drew out her swords. My half-celestial Anak intervened and told the doppleganger that we were just going to take him to see the party's friend, Milkos. The doppleganger then imitated three people Anak knew, including his presumed dead father and his astral deva mother. When Anak asked how the doppleganger knew these people, and the doppleganger said, "you told me." So Anak asked if the doppleganger were a mind-reader. Then the doppleganger did the same sort of thing to Anwyn. Apparently the doppleganger imitated, among others, the man who killed Anwyn's father. Anwyn drew her swords and attacked the doppleganger. The doppleganger took Anwyn's form and fought back. Both Anak and our half-orc paladin of Torm, Ront, try to stop Anwyn from killing the doppleganger, but Anywyn killed the doppleganger anyway. Anak started arguing with Anwyn that she had done an evil act by killing the doppleganger for nothing more than imitating some person. Anyway it caused a big fight in the party, with everyone, including the DM, siding with Anwyn. (The half-orc's player missed the session, but some of the player contended that the half-orc paladin wouldn't have cared.) I had my character take the doppleganger's body back to Miklos, who actually was happy that Anwyn had killed the doppleganger becaues even though it wasn't evil and didn't do anything evil so far as we know, he considered it a threat. The rest of the party tried to go on in cleaning out the temple without Anak and the half-orc paladin (whom we decided on a random roll would accompany Anak) but found very quickly that they needed more firepower and returned to Miklos. Before the party left Miklos' place, Anak told Anwyn that if she ever kills an innocent in his presence again either she will have to kill him or he will kill her. She asked if he was threatening her and I snapped, "Are you stupid?! Did you not understand my words?! Either you will have to kill me or I will kill you." After that a newcomer to the party, a Harper, invited us to all go back to the inn and disucss the matter, but it turned out that all she and everyone else wanted to do was persuade Anak that he was wrong and that it was in fact ok to kill the doppleganger just for taunting her (after she'd threatened his life). So . . . I'm not sure if I can continue playing the Anak character with a great that seems so ethically challenged, or if indeed I'll continue playing with a group of people who claimed to believe in real life that killing someone who taunts you isn't an evil act. If I killed everyone who'd taunted or baited me over the course of the past 4 decades there would be a line of bodies stretching across America. To me it seems preposterous. I don't even believe that they think it's not an evil act--I think they just like Anwyn's player and are saying they think it's not evil to side with her. So, what do YOU think? :-D Once again, I'll ask that people try to keep it civil, whether they agree with me or not. Thanks!
Drandom 06-18-05, 04:59 AM	It has to do with intention, I think. You're contending that this action was wrong because the punishment was disproportionate, right? In other words, that since all the Doppelganger did was taunt her, that wasn't sufficient provocation for her to kill it. This issue is, of course, about what the character of Anwyn was thinking when she killed him. Assuming good roleplaying, not simple 'kill-everything-that-moves' logic, then there is possible in-character justification. Apparently this Doppelganger shifted into the form of her father's murderer - I think it's fair to say that could draw a strong emotional response, particularly if the character was close or has any lingering guilt. She was obviously already hostile to the creature, for it to take a form like that, when it already presumably knew what that form meant emotionally (due to mind-reading), would be insulting in a very offensive and intimate way. To lash out in a blind rage, especially with it then choosing the mocking form of one's own self - I can understand that. That is a considerable provocation. Now, obviously it wasn't 'good', in a straight-up, righteous, morally absolutist sense. I do, however, think that it shouldn't be the kind of thing that should turn one evil instantly. Actually, I think it holds great role-playing potential. Your character, Anak, obviously doesn't have to agree with Anwyn and endorse her action - indeed, the conflict between the two could turn out to be very interesting, if roleplayed well. So, my advice to you is to continue playing, yet have Anak make it clear that he disapproves and warn Anwyn not to do it again. It's a great roleplaying opportunity. Just keep it all in-character, and don't ruin the game.
Cymraegmorgan 06-18-05, 05:28 AM	The Doppleganger cannot automatically dismissed as an innocent. The killing of said creature was a rash act, not evil, not even stupid, but maybe short-sighted. You might not want to give up on the party because of one thoughtless act.
JStegmaier 06-18-05, 05:34 AM	Anyway it caused a big fight in the party, with everyone, including the DM, siding with Anwyn. When the DM starts siding with someone on an IC issue, there's definitely a problem there. (The half-orc's player missed the session, but some of the player contended that the half-orc paladin wouldn't have cared.) If that's actually true of the paladin, I, as DM, would have him lose his paladin abilities until he atones. If someone can perform a borderline-evil act right in front of you, and you don't care, you're hardly a paragon of goodness. As for the act itself, as I said, I'd consider it borderline-evil--definitely not enough to warrant an alignment shift unless it was the latest in a long line of such acts. However, it is definitely on the border between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil. The character overreacted to something that a rational person/a good person would have dealt with differently. Someone who was strongly committed to the ways of good would have found the act abhorrent, but others of a more neutral persuasion wouldn't have seen that big of a problem with it. I had my character take the doppleganger's body back to Miklos, who actually was happy that Anwyn had killed the doppleganger becaues even though it wasn't evil and didn't do anything evil so far as we know, he considered it a threat. Being "happy" that someone was killed because you considered it a threat without any reason to actually do so, however, sounds quite evil.
Dragonsblood 06-18-05, 05:38 AM	This was more of a chaotic neutral act IMO. The intent wasn't good or evil, but the act itself was somewhat random and brash. Besides, the thing was a doppleganger not an elf/human/dwarf/etc. I'd think your character would only have a problem with what happened if he's a strong believer in law and order.
Andrew_980 06-18-05, 06:53 AM	she was just looking for an excuse to kill it and the DM gave her one, you my freind are the only one amoung them that deserves to play a Good character, and your PC was in the right to demand she stop such behavour. (by the sounds of it the whole group, barring you, was already evil)
Drandom 06-18-05, 07:52 AM	Being "happy" that someone was killed because you considered it a threat without any reason to actually do so, however, sounds quite evil. The character of Miklos Selkirk (from the FRCS) is actually neutral, dedicated to Sembia over all things. He should be fine with the 'removal of a threat', as he sees it. He's not evil, just very pragmatic. The act itself... I would agree with Chaotic Neutral. It's not evil - there was some provocation, and the intent doesn't appear to be to make the Doppleganger suffer for any personal reward. It seems in character for any Chaotic Good character. No PC has to be a complete saint (unless they're Exalted or something... maybe this Anak, being half-celestial, might well be a hardliner...)
Derren S. 06-18-05, 08:27 AM	That was evil, pure and simple. It wasn't even clear that the doppelganger wanted to taunt her, he only wanted to show that he can read minds. A CN person can't simply kill people because he doesn't like them. Thats CE.
Callista 06-18-05, 10:12 AM	Would you folks stop bashing people for having their Good characters, after extreme provocation, commit Evil acts? Please? I mean, alignment isn't a straitjacket. The most Good-aligned people I know have done Evil-aligned things in the past... minor ones, sure, but evil nonetheless. People are fallible. Playing a Good character as though he/she will never change is really kind of a silly thing to do. Good characters can become evil; and if it makes sense for them to do so, then I would commend the player. If, on the other hand, he decides that his Good character, despite insane amounts of temptation, is simply too perfect to ever do anything even mildly evil... why, then I would say he's probably playing either an Exalted character or a one-dimensional piece of cardboard passing as Good. I have an interesting bit of history in my own life which probably skews my opinion, though; my own stepfather was murdered. If I knew who killed him... well, no guarantee he stays in my presence without some sort of violence for very long at all. So put yourself in this situation: You've just spent a while fighting for your life against the organization the guy belongs to. You don't like him; you don't trust him; and you're not so sure whether to believe your friend who says he's really not a bad guy after all. And now this guy uses mind-reading to peer into your inmost thoughts and imitate the form of the person who killed your father... I'd flip out, too. It's quite understandable, and a logical act considering the circumstances. It mightn't be a hostile act from the doppelganger's perspective; but I wouldn't think so, at least in the heat of the moment. I value privacy too much. Now, if it were just me, all I'd end up doing would probably be a shallow cut or two with my pocketknife. But if I were skilled at fighting... and the doppelgager were off-guard... well, let's just say the guy would be dead long before I had a chance to cool down. Evil act or not, I understand why it was done; and I commend the player for doing it. If the character keeps on finding reasons to be vengeful and impulsive, sure, then the alignment will change. Don't be afraid to act out of alignment if it means being true to who your character is. Same goes for the person who watched this killing. If your character is attached to the group, and the friendship ties him to those people, then have him stay with them. If he's perceptive enough, he probably saw the pain and anger that the character who killed the doppelganger still feels, thanks to her father's murder. He may wish to find a way to keep her steady, to keep her from doing anything rash... she's his friend; and if she flips out again, and is hanged for what she does... well, he'd want to be there to keep that from happening. So your character's Good... so what? Maybe it's better to help the person who did the Evil act; she's still good-aligned (IMO), so there's a lot of hope for her. So--your character's companions show signs of falling into Evil. Your character is in a position, if he manages to be diplomatic enough, to prevent it. (This doesn't mean you have to change the other players' minds; it just means you have to make it logical that their characters would change theirs.) Re. Killing someone who taunts you: Well, it's on the lighter side of Evil; but it's still Evil. Just look at the school shootings... most of those are the people who get teased and taunted, picking up guns and shooting the people who bullied them... Sure, it's not right to pick on someone; it's very wrong, actually; but it's not right to shoot the bully, either. That's what your friend's character did... evil, but understandable.
JStegmaier 06-18-05, 10:34 AM	Re. Killing someone who taunts you: Well, it's on the lighter side of Evil; but it's still Evil. Just look at the school shootings... most of those are the people who get teased and taunted, picking up guns and shooting the people who bullied them... Sure, it's not right to pick on someone; it's very wrong, actually; but it's not right to shoot the bully, either. That's what your friend's character did... evil, but understandable. Unless I misread you, you just said that school shootings are evil, but understandable--I would say that you're concepts of morality are definitely skewed if you consider killing someone who taunts you on the "lighter side of evil." (Beating someone into unconsciousness or nearly to death, etc. is a bit of a different matter.) That's a half step from killing someone because you don't like how they look, and one step from killing someone just 'cause. Of course, by that point, you're insane, not evil.
Derren S. 06-18-05, 11:05 AM	Callista, no offense but I doubt that you know a single good person in the D&D sense. The real world simply doesn't work this way. And rash actions are no excuse. The act of killing the doppelganger because of this rather shows her real personality, a cold blooded killer. Or what would you think about someone who kills someone else because he doesn't like him? Would you think filmstars killing all paparazzo they come accros is ok, because they provoke him? Good action: Ignore the doppelganger and give him a stern warning. Neutral action: Beat him unconcussionous Evil action: Kill him even while your friends try to stop you. Its really frightening how far some people go to defend evil acts and how little they value life. How many murders are needed to make someone evil? And after I rescued a town how many murders, rapes and other nasty things can I do and stay good?
ehrin 06-18-05, 11:26 AM	killing someone because you don't like their attitude is bad/wrong/evil killing someone who taunts you is bad/wrong/evil. Using such extreme force for such a minor infraction is wrong. You have many other options besides deadly force. choosing deadly force as your answer to littering, name calling, spitting, etc. is not good. Killing a willing "prisoner", or someone under your protection, or an ally (not sure of the doppel's exact status here) is wrong/evil.
pres_man 06-18-05, 12:18 PM	I wouldn't give up on your group or your character. Many people aren't at the same point morally as those around them. Only through trials do we evolve to become more moral. This debate has affected your other players in ways they haven't even realized yet. The fact that someone would go against what they are claiming will force them, at least on a subconscious level, to consider your position. In the future when they try to harm someone, draw steel and stand between them. Tell them, "You want this person, you have to come through me." This wasn't chaotic behaviour, this was evil behaviour. CG people do good things because they personally believe it is the right thing to do, not because some "higher" authority tells them to do it. I had a similiar situation where I had a CG elf rogue/wizard. We got attacked by some bandits, most of which targeted our sorcerer. After killing a couple I said, "Surrender or die." The last three surrendered, and after I tied them up, the sorcerer wanted to kill them (to get revenge for them attacking her, the player is a bit vindictive like that in RL). My character got between her and the prisoners and drew his blade, telling her that she'd have to kill him to get to them. She got so mad that she went and wasted a scroll from the loot that I had intended on studying and scribe into my spellbook. I was ok with it since I would rather lose a spell then lose a companion.
The Half-Orc Wizard 06-18-05, 12:49 PM	I think your character acted remarkably well in this situation. I would keep on doing exactly what you have been. Make sure you make it clear that another action like that will lead to some harsh consequences. But, don't abandon your party. It seems like your fellow party member has some definite problems in her past. Try to help her overcome them. Perhaps talk to her in private about her father. What she did was an evil act, although, one could possibly argue it is slightly more neutral. Doesn't matter, really. Your character seem sto have Paladin-like morals, and anything that even hints of evil does not belong. As she is not evil yet, or so it seems, have your character work with her. I remember the Book of Exalted Deeds stated something like the best action a good person can do is to bring evil (or in this case, the borderline of neutral and evil)back to good. I don't think a half-celestial would abandon his friend to walk a path of anger and vengence. Hope all goes well!
NinjaPenguin 06-18-05, 04:39 PM	For my own 2 cents... urgh this is a nigthmare of a situation... Situations possible: Killer is LG: Act is definitely extremely Chaotic, and on the borderline of evil. A Paladin would lose access to abilities, and would have to atone, but as an isolated incident, it wouldn't immediately change established alignment. It shows that the character is fallible. Anyone other than a 'must-be-lawful-or-else' character would likely feel badly about it afterward. Killer is CG: The act is still at least borderline evil. A true measure of this character would be how they feel after the fact... Is it 'They deserved it! You saw how it provoked me, right?' or is it 'Good lord... why did it have to end like that?'. A character that feels no remorse at all, or even regret is obviously on the path toward evil, and will soon, after other incidents that continue this trend, become CN, then CE... As a Half-Celestial, and on the strong end of good, you have a right to be horrified and offended by this... if Lawful, doubly so. But that is an In Character feeling. Out of character, the player's character may be sliding toward CN, and eventually CG... or it may be a hot-button, a fatal character flaw in an otherwise good person. I think this has many possibilities :) Just my own take.
Always-Late 06-18-05, 04:57 PM	Unless I misread you, you just said that school shootings are evil, but understandable--I would say that you're concepts of morality are definitely skewed if you consider killing someone who taunts you on the "lighter side of evil." (Beating someone into unconsciousness or nearly to death, etc. is a bit of a different matter.) That's a half step from killing someone because you don't like how they look, and one step from killing someone just 'cause. Of course, by that point, you're insane, not evil.Stop with the slippery slope. Borrowing without asking is one step from petty theft which is one step away from stealing which is one step from robbery which one step from assault which is one step from second-degree murder which is one step away from first-degree murder is one step away from mass murder is one step away from genocide which is one step away from insanity. I would convict him of the equivalent of manslaughter. You know there are people who will kill for their privacy, right? You know, how people fought to the death to avoid needless search/entry/whatever. And after I rescued a town how many murders, rapes and other nasty things can I do and stay good?And after I murdered and raped a town how much gp can I give to charity and stay evil?
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 05:11 PM	I don't think that what the doppleganger did to the group was a "minor infraction". When someone has an attitude toward you, the very LAST thing one should do is taunt them by pretending to be the murderer of their father. If they didn't respond to such an obvious provocation, I'd wonder about their RP abilities. Seems to me that the doppleganger had a death wish. Again, we see many punishing good for not being a one dimensional construct with no emotions what so ever. The doppleganger pushed some in the party past their breaking point. That is not as some suggested, showing that some person is nothing but a cold blooded killer. It shows they have emotions. The doppleganger is the one at fault for it death. It almost seems like it was doing an act known as "suicide by cop". A suicide by cop is when you want to kill yourself but are unable to pull the trigger yourself. That is when you brandish a gun and have a cop kill you. The dopple ganger did just that. First, it tried to get the half-celestial, who was doing his best to maintain their cool. If it is because theplayer isn't "in touch" with the character or not, I wasn't there. Well, the half-celestial didn't take the bait, so it tried again. Why would it try something like that? Yes, the party was hostile to it but why should they not? So it taunted the person who already didn't like it and got its wish. Now many are saying "Evil" and "Chaotic" which I don't agree. As the party is already out with the blessings of parts of the government or other authoritative body and doing their will, that is not chaotic. It may not be lawful, but that is here I disagree with many on this board. PCs, especially Paladins and Clerics, already have special powers of meeting out justice. The idea of taking perps back for a trial in a court of law is a modern, late 19th century, early 20th century idea. A Paladin or Cleric in my game is fully authorized to meet out justice as they see fit right there on the spot. As this party was, from what I infer, fully authorized by members of the legitimate government to root out issues, they had that same right. While the killing of the doppleganger may not be the best solution, it was still a solution based on how the doppleganger acted towards the party. The actions by the half-celestial, "Do that again and I'll kill you or you'll have to kill me" or something like that reaks of a double standard. Evil can kill, rape, murder, burn, etc., but as soon as a good person crosses the line once, I'm gonna kill you. I think the half-celestial needs to get down off of their high horse and drink a cup of reality. I will bet good money that those who think that good should behave in some straight jacketed way won't be good for long, based on their own criteria, after 1 session of my game. My BBEG will use their compassion, trial by jury BS and the like to great effect. By the time the campaign is over, I'll go out on a limb and say if the good guys behave as is if they can't cross the line, if one takes the BoED as gospel that the BBEG will win everytime.
Zalak 06-18-05, 05:26 PM	Tough call As Anwyn was justifiable angry and the doppleganger was provoking everyone, I say it was a neutral rather then an evil act. Anwyn acted out of understandable anger, which is a neutral motivation instead of an evil one. The half-orc paladin shouldn't lose any abilities as he wasn't there to make his own decisions. Snapping at her later will probably proke OOC resentment towards you, you might want to deal with that as well. The doppleganger was in no position to be mouthing off, I'd say it was more stupidity on it's part to provoke in such a manner someone who is clearly hostile to you.Is this some kind of an exalted game? I can't imagine any other reason you'd be holding someone to a standard of saintly patience like that. Almost anyone would have killed the doppleganger in those circumstances, I don't think I know a single person who is that patient(including myself). Good luck resolving this with your party!
Derren S. 06-18-05, 05:32 PM	Ah, so taking the forms of random people from your memory is a offense punishable by death, especially when someone does it who has this powers naturally and it is completly normal for him. No, you can twist it all you want that was murder and therefor an evil act. For those who defend this action, which sort of crime was it in your opinion? Can't be murder because that is evil, so what was it? Self defense? Hardly.
Aharon 06-18-05, 05:37 PM	Hi folks, the old question that seems to arise every other day on these boards. Is this-and-that evil or isn't it... First time I participate in such a discussion. I do this because I think it is neccessary to support Callista and other contributors who state that the act the elven fighter did commit was good roleplaying. In my opinion, it is sometimes more important to remember that D&D is a roleplay game than that it has an alignment system. Giving characters depth using this alignment system is not always easy, as it is very limited - you will have a very hard time to put all imaginable acts in 9 abstract classes. CelestialBarbarian: From how you described the situation, it seems to me that the death of the elvish fighter's father might be a very important part of this character's background story, which would explain her reaction.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 05:44 PM	I like these quotes the best:Hi folks, (snip) the act the elven fighter did commit was good roleplaying. (snip) D&D is a roleplay game than that it has an alignment system. (snip) you will have a very hard time to put all imaginable acts in 9 abstract classes. CelestialBarbarian: From how you described the situation, it seems to me that the death of the elvish fighter's father might be a very important part of this character's background story, which would explain her reaction. Says it all very well.
Zalak 06-18-05, 05:44 PM	Deren S., He knew perfectly well what effect his naturl power would have under the circumstances, or the doppleganger was stupid. If it could read her mind, it should have known what it thought of that killer. I doubt is was a random person from her memory, or he's have taken someone less likely to infuriate her. The doppleganger intentionally provoked her, he should have known what would happen.
snowlynx 06-18-05, 05:44 PM	Ah, so taking the forms of random people from your memory is a offense punishable by death, especially when someone does it who has this powers naturally and it is completly normal for him. Was there some proof (to the character) that this creature was NOT the result of her father's death? I think it was probably an evil act, but I also believe the player was trying to roleplay their character and not their alignment. If your character really wants to do the right thing, you need to, rather then abandoning your friend, try to guide her into understanding why such rash actions are hurtful. So your character is still playable, if you want. You might suggest that the group keep the OOG discussions to a minimum, and hope the DM can watch over the situation and make rulings. This frees you from it, and even if you don't agree with what he decides....you might consider if it worth giving in in order for the group to have fun.
Derren S. 06-18-05, 05:46 PM	What has roleplaying to do with this? The nature of the act doesn't change only because it had a in game reason. Roleplayed or not it was an evil murder and has to be treated as such. A RP reason is no license to commit evil acts but still staying good. There is no difference in murdering someone because you, as player, are bored or because your character has a in game reason to do it. Sure, alignment is no straith jacket. Thats why you change the alignment of characters when they do acts which go against their current alignment like in this case. @Zalak, when you reread what happened you will see that the doppelganger didn't pick a single form but imitated multiple persons from the mind of the elf. So that the doppelganger had the intention of taunting her with that form is rather unlikely.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 05:50 PM	Ah, so taking the forms of random people from your memory is a offense punishable by death, especially when someone does it who has this powers naturally and it is completly normal for him. No, it is not. But that really isn't what the doppleganger did now, was it? No, you can twist it all you want that was murder and therefor an evil act. It wasn't murder. When you are provoked by an antagonist, when someone recalls unwanted memories FOR you and does it with malicious intent, what would you call it? Yes, the actions on the doppleganger, DG, were malicious. What was the DG trying to do here? Why was it trying to provoke the PCs? I have an idea. It was trying to mind F... the PCs. That is not much different from rape in my book. You can physically rape a person and mentally rape them as well. For those who defend this action, which sort of crime was it in your opinion? Can't be murder because that is evil, so what was it? Self defense? Hardly. Yes, self defense for the reason I just gave. You may not like the answer or my reason but I assure you, it is just as valid as yours.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 05:55 PM	What has roleplaying to do with this? The nature of the act doesn't change only because it had a in game reason. Roleplayed or not it was an evil murder and has to be treated as such. Your opinion. I don't see it as an evil act. It was self-defense. The DG, doppleganger, went into the mind of the elf and brought up an incredibly painful memory. what would be the justification for that? IMHO, the DG was out to mentally rape the party and was punished. The Elf did nothing but protect herself from being violated. A RP reason is no license to commit evil acts but still staying good. There is no difference in murdering someone because you, as player, are bored or because your character has a in game reason to do it. Non-sequitor to what the elf did. While you are correct that should not be any player's or PC's SOP, that is not the circumstances in this particular case. Sure, alignment is no straith jacket. Thats why you change the alignment of characters when they do acts which go against their current alignment like in this case. Because they didn't go against their alignment.
Derren S. 06-18-05, 05:58 PM	I don't know if I should laugh or be frightened of you. So, when you meet a old school friend you haven seen for years, intoduce him to your wife/husband and your new friends and, after a while he begins to tell stories about your youth you are allowed to kill him in self defense when he is about to tell you how on your first school day your peed in your pants in front of the class (Aka unwanted memory)? And you should too reread what happened. The doppelgaenger didn't pick this single form, but switched through multiple forms. So you can't say that he did this to provoke/taunt the elf. Dont forget that doppelgangers can only pick up surface thoughts. So he can only take those forms the elf presents him. Your opinion. I don't see it as an evil act. It was self-defense. The DG, doppleganger, went into the mind of the elf and brought up an incredibly painful memory. what would be the justification for that? IMHO, the DG was out to mentally rape the party and was punished. The Elf did nothing but protect herself from being violated. The Doppelgaenger can only read surface thoughts. So the elf must have thought about this, otherwise the doppelgaenger wouldn't know. And even if this was a special doppelganger, you aren't justified to kill someone because he brings up painfull memories. See my above example. Because they didn't go against their alignment. Sure it does. Alignment in D&D is absolute and not a matter of interpretation and personal point of view.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 06:16 PM	I don't know if I should laugh or be frightened of you. Uh, why would you do ither? So, when you meet a old school friend you haven seen for years, intoduce him to your wife/husband and your new friends and, after a while he begins to tell stories about your youth you are allowed to kill him in self defense when he is about to tell you how on your first school day your peed in your pants in front of the class (Aka unwanted memory)? How are you choosing these analogies? They have nothing to do with each other. I'm assuming that we're both writing in English here. I'll change over to German if you'd like, but it's been a while and so my German is really rusty and would probably be worse. What you described above has nothing to do with what the party is going through. 1: I'm not in a life or death situation. The PCs are going into dagerous territory and deal with people who want to kill. Well, only if their network goes down after I replace things. 2: Peeing one's pants as a child is a lot different than having your father murdered. 3: The DG, doppleganger, was never a friend. 4: My friends usually would never push my buttons like that. 5: The DG may very well be trying to kill me at a later time or soften me up for a later attack from its allies. Please try to make your analogies relevant to the circumstances. So far you have not even tried. And you should too reread what happened. The doppelgaenger didn't pick this single form, but switched through multiple forms. So you can't say that he did this to provoke/taunt the elf. Dont forget that doppelgangers can only pick up surface thoughts. So he can only take those forms the elf presents him. Yeah I did. Seems like there was definite premeditation on its part to find the most painful memory to stick with and hammer the elf. I don't know about you, but having a creature reading my mind is bad enough. Having them go through my memories and pick the most painful is an attack. Thanks for pointing that out. The Doppelgaenger can only read surface thoughts. So the elf must have thought about this, otherwise the doppelgaenger wouldn't know. And even if this was a special doppelganger, you aren't justified to kill someone because he brings up painfull memories. See my above example. A women wears provocative clothing. That means it's ok to rape her? =Derren S.]Because they didn't go against their alignment. Sure it does. Alignment in D&D is absolute and not a matter of interpretation and personal point of view. So your interpretation is correct one? I don't think so.
Derren S. 06-18-05, 06:29 PM	How are you choosing these analogies? They have nothing to do with each other. I'm assuming that we're both writing in English here. I'll change over to German if you'd like, but it's been a while and so my German is really rusty and would probably be worse. No, they are nearly the same. 1: I'm not in a life or death situation. The PCs are going into dagerous territory and deal with people who want to kill. Well, only if their network goes down after I replace things. The temple was cleared, no one was in immediate danger and the DG had no weapons (remember, chained to be sacrificed). It was no life/death situation. 2: Peeing one's pants as a child is a lot different than having your father murdered. Unwanted Memory as you said, and a memory not different than the memory of having your father killed. The murder is a bit more "unwanted" but there are no differences between them. 3: The DG, doppleganger, was never a friend. The make it "someone you know from school without special relation or even your old school rival. It won't change the fact that it is murder 4: My friends usually would never push my buttons like that. It is irrelevant what "your" friends would do. 5: The DG may very well be trying to kill me at a later time or soften me up for a later attack from its allies. Also irrelevant. With that excuse you could kill anyone you ever come acrodd. And do you remember that the doppelgaenger didn't detect as evil? Please try to make your analogies relevant to the circumstances. So far you have not even tried. Ok, how about that. At a social event, you leave your wife/husband for a short while. While you are gone, someone who grew up with you starts talking with your wife. After a while he starts telling her how you and your brother fell into a lake and your brother died. You overhear this part of the conversation. By your logic you are now free to kill him. Heck, he can even tell that it was his fault because he didn't fetch the ambulance. You are still not allowed to kill him. Yeah I did. Seems like there was definite premeditation on its part to find the most painful memory to stick with and hammer the elf. I don't know about you, but having a creature reading my mind is bad enough. Having them go through my memories and pick the most painful is an attack. Are you actually listening? Unless the elf constantly had to make willsaves the Doppelganger didn't search his memory. He took what the elf gave him and switched into multiple forms from the elfs memory before he became the murderer. No search for the most painful memory, just showing off in what forms he can switch. It was the elfs fault that this memory even came up. A women wears provocative clothing. That means it's ok to rape her? Who chooses bad analogies now? A woman wears provocating clothing, is it ok to kill anyone who hints that the woman does some "adult business" or even suggests that to her? Its not nice and certainly worth a kick in the "sensitive parts" but you can't kill someone for it. So your interpretation is correct one? I don't think so. No, the PHB interpretation is the correct one. The one with good = "respect for life" and "mercy", evil = "hurting, opressing and killing others" and neutral = "compunction against killign inncoents"
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 06:50 PM	Still going for personal attacks, eh? Just so you know that is the sign of a person on the losing side of an arguement. No, they are nearly the same. Not even close. The temple was cleared, no one was in immediate danger and the DG had no weapons (remember, chained to be sacrificed). It was no life/death situation. 2: Peeing one's pants as a child is a lot different than having your father murdered. Unwanted Memory as you said, and a memory not different than the memory of having your father killed. The murder is a bit more "unwanted" but there are no differences between them. The make it "someone you know from school without special relation or even your old school rival. It won't change the fact that it is murder It is irrelevant what "your" friends would do. Unwanted Memories are bad enough. Those tied with acts that can't be recovered, the elf's murdered dad is one. What I find so puzzling that you are using word games to make a case. I will be more precices later as I knew what you were saying and I thought you were above word games. Also irrelevant. With that excuse you could kill anyone you ever come acrodd. And do you remember that the doppelgaenger didn't detect as evil? Just because it doesn't show it's evil doesn't mean it doesn't want to kill you. Are you actually listening? Unless the elf constantly had to make willsaves the Doppelganger didn't search his memory. He took what the elf gave him and switched into multiple forms from the elfs memory before he became the murderer. No search for the most painful memory, just showing off in what forms he can switch. It was the elfs fault that this memory even came up.[/QUOTE] Yup. "Honestly your honor, if she wasn't wearing that dress and wasn't out after dark, I wouldn't have raped her. It's her fault." Who chooses bad analogies now? A woman wears provocating clothing, is it ok to kill anyone who hints that the woman does some "adult business" or even suggests that to her? Its not nice, but you can't kill someone for it. You still do. I have no idea where you got that idea. No, the PHB interpretation is the correct one. The one with good = "respect for life" and "mercy" and evil = "hurting, opressing and killing others" Ah yes, a simple explaination for complex issues. Respect for life takes many forms. You choose a narrow and, IMHO, undefendable way to read it. As for your definition of Neutral being "not killing innocents" says what I've been saying. Killing the DG was not an evil act but a neutral one. I think that is what I've been saying all along.
snowlynx 06-18-05, 07:00 PM	"mercy" I just want to point out that my initial perceptions of good and Mercy are incredibly inaccurate as concerns alignments for D&D. The example given for lawful good in the player's handbook suggests that the lady Paladin 'fights evil without mercy'. This doppleganger wasn't evil, but I will admit much relief at learning the 'good character, yeah right' comments I was getting OOC from another player over chasing down the evil pirate that had destroyed several villages were incorrect. The reason everyone brings up the roleplaying is because those of us bringing it up probably feel is is better, usually, to roleplay a character rather then an alignment; that is, we do not blame the person for what they did, it was not 'wrong' of the player to choose that their character would do this thing, even though it was 'evil' of the character. In the end, whether actions are good or evil should probably be left to the DM. It's unfortunate that the DM couldn't or wouldn't just have stepped into this situation and said what he/she felt was final.
Derren S. 06-18-05, 07:10 PM	Still going for personal attacks, eh? Unwanted Memories are bad enough. Those tied with acts that can't be recovered, the elf's murdered dad is one. Never heared of ressurection? Get enough money and dad is fully restored. its not as unrecoverable as you think. And it already happened anyway. It might hurt to be remembred about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. Dad doesn't comes back to life when you simply not think about the murder. Just because it doesn't show it's evil doesn't mean it doesn't want to kill you. To be completly sure you have to kill the bartender, the pesant you meet on the field, your employer and some of your party members. They were not good and you had no gurantee that they won't attack you. "Honestly your honor, if she wasn't wearing that dress and wasn't out after dark, I wouldn't have raped her. It's her fault." Except what the doppelgaenger did wasn't nearly as bad as rape. "if she wasn't wearing that dress and wasn't out after dark, I wouldn't have whistled after her, what made her shooting at me". Ah yes, a simple explaination for complex issues. But thats how it works. Its no complex issue unless you make it one. Respect for life takes many forms. You choose a narrow and, IMHO, undefendable way to read it. And you read it in what way? "I respecting ones life by killing him when he reminds me about something bad"? As for your definition of Neutral being "not killing innocents" says what I've been saying. Killing the DG was not an evil act but a neutral one. I think that is what I've been saying all along. And what makes you think that the doppelganger wasn't innocent? The doppelganger reminded the elf about a traumatic event he doesn't want to be reminded off. Thats all. This is no attack, no "mind rape" only impolite. One can understand why the elf got angry, but he had no right to kill the doppelganger. It was no form of self defense as the elf wasn't attacked. If it would, the surviving jews from the nazi time could legally kill all movie makers who made a movie about holocaust (bye bye spielberg) and former hostages could kill all reporter who are reporting about it. Do you even have a proof that the doppelganger intentionally picked this form to hurt the elf? And don't come with "You have no proof that he didn't." Respect for live, you forgot? To clarify on the RP issue. When a character in my campaign would, for example, mercilessly kill the helpless BBEG because he murdered the characters parents in front of him (at best with a good IC speech before the blow) I give the player some extra XP for good roleplaying and make a note about a evil action. Roleplaying and alignment are two different issues. To roleplay well one doesn't have to stay true to the alignment on the paper. The alignment is just a representation of your actions which changes over time depending on actions. And this is the case here. A evil, roleplayed, in character action of a (probably) good person.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 07:13 PM	I just want to point out that my initial perceptions of good and Mercy are incredibly inaccurate as concerns alignments for D&D. The example given for lawful good in the player's handbook suggests that the lady Paladin 'fights evil without mercy'. This doppleganger wasn't evil, but I will admit much relief at learning the 'good character, yeah right' comments I was getting OOC from another player over chasing down the evil pirate that had destroyed several villages were incorrect. (snip) Even the BoED confuses the issue. Read about how some of the Celestials fight against "evil". Many are merciless against evil and evil doers. As many seem to point out, you don't have to be "evil" to commit an evil act.
JStegmaier 06-18-05, 07:17 PM	After that a newcomer to the party, a Harper, invited us to all go back to the inn and disucss the matter, but it turned out that all she and everyone else wanted to do was persuade Anak that he was wrong and that it was in fact ok to kill the doppleganger just for taunting her (after she'd threatened his life). I think this point is important--the elf had already threatened to kill the doppleganger, without provocation, if it didn't do exactly what she wanted it to do immediately. The OP's character intervened, and the doppleganger began reading his mind and changing through various forms--which apparently did not upset him at all. After being asked if he can read minds, the doppleganger proved that he definitely could by taking forms of people the elf had in her thoughts, one of which was a very bad memory. Without, apparently, saying "Hey, you , stop that or you'll be sorry!" the elf once again drew her weapon, then attacked the doppleganger--not until he wasn't an immediately threat anymore (i.e., attacking nonlethally until K.O'd or stopping when the doppleganger came close to death from lethal blows), but until it was actually a lifeless corpse at her feet. LCD2YOU, you seem to find that a perfectly reasonable act for a good person to commit, not to mention you don't believe it is chaotic either. I can't fathom how you can come to that conclusion. The person can still be--in fact, almost certainly still is--good, but the act itself is chaotic and evil. Good people do evil things all the time--that doesn't make them evil, but it doesn't make what they did good either. To flip it around, if the elf had been chaotic evil and done exactly what she had did again, you're interpretation would be that her alignment actually moved [I]away from both chaos and evil, toward, at best true neutral, and more likely neutral good. That simply makes no sense, and I have to assume what you've written is just unclear to at least me for me to have come to that conclusion from it. To reiterate: good people can commit evil acts. That doesn't make them evil, but it also does not make the act any less evil than if it had been committed by an evil person.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 07:52 PM	Never heared of ressurection? Get enough money and dad is fully restored. its not as unrecoverable as you think. And it already happened anyway. It might hurt to be remembred about it, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. Dad doesn't comes back to life when you simply not think about the murder. Then where's the drama? Why would any angel be an avenging angel? Heck, all the "good" deities and servants of good with the power is resurrect everyone from a destroyed village and recreate their homes. That eliminates the need for mortal forces of good. No Paladins, clerics, righteous crusadres and so on. Boring game. That means then that the ultimate failure for good starts and ends at the top. For DnD to have an edge to it, there must be limits or the whole game becomes a battle of forces that are at the pinnacle of power. The rest are just pawns. So to be completly sure you have to kill the bartender, the pesant you meet on the field, your employer and some of your party members. They were not good and you had no gurantee that they won't attack you. Uh, where'd you get that? Except what the doppelgaenger did wasn't nearly as bad as rape. Your opinion. Violating a person mentally or physically is bad. "if she wasn't wearing that dress and wasn't out after dark, I wouldn't have whistled after her, what made her shooting at me". Simple arguement on a complex issue. 1: What time did the incident occur? 2: What was the woman doing at the time? 3: Is the area known to have many attacks on women? 4: Has the woman been attacked recently? 5: Has the woman just come out of a fight? 6: Has the women been attacked recently? 7: Were you approaching her in a threatening manner. But thats how it works. Its no complex issue unless you make it one. The problem is that it is already a complex issue. And you read it in what way? "I respecting ones life by killing him when he reminds me about something bad"? It is more than that and it is complex. It is not a simple solution. Here we are argueing about it from different POV and we're no closer to a consesus. Even if I were to decide that you and others are correct that what the elf did was evil, I think it was neutral, that was after discussing it ad nauseum. The elf really didn't have the luxury of being able to sit back and think about it in depth. It is even harder when someone is going through your memories. And what makes you think that the doppelganger wasn't innocent? The doppelganger reminded the elf about a traumatic event he doesn't want to be reminded off. Thats all. This is no attack, no "mind rape" only impolite. One can understand why the elf got angry, but he had no right to kill the doppelganger. It was no form of self defense as the elf wasn't attacked. If it would, the surviving jews from the nazi time could legally kill all movie makers who made a movie about holocaust (bye bye spielberg) and former hostages could kill all reporter who are reporting about it. Yes, but the elf was in a situation that was "right now" and "in her face". the holocaust survivors would have time. That's the difference between the act being "evil" and a neutral "act of the moment". Do you even have a proof that the doppelganger intentionally picked this form to hurt the elf? And don't come with "You have no proof that he didn't." Respect for live, you forgot? I take it you mean respect for life. Also, neutral holds that one doesn't kill innocents. Using the storyline from the OP, I don't believe the DG was even close to being an innocent. To clarify on the RP issue. When a character in my campaign would, for example, mercilessly kill the helpless BBEG because he murdered the characters parents in front of him (at best with a good IC speech before the blow) I give the player some extra XP for good roleplaying and make a note about a evil action. If a character in my game did that, good or whatever, and they had the authority to meet out justice, Paladins and many clerics of law already have that ability, and they go through the proper motions, they have the right to kill them. Then again, my game is not based on 19th, 20th or even 21st century morality. Roleplaying and alignment are two different issues. To roleplay well one doesn't have to stay true to the alignment on the paper. The alignment is just a representation of your actions which changes over time depending on actions. True, but RP sometimes takes the character out of the alignment when they make characters react to all too human issues and deal with emotional issues. And this is the case here. A evil, roleplayed, in character action of a (probably) good person. Still, I don't think that the elf did an evil act, just a neutral one.
LCD2YOU 06-18-05, 08:04 PM	I think this point is important--the elf had already threatened to kill the doppleganger, without provocation, if it didn't do exactly what she wanted it to do immediately. The OP's character intervened, and the doppleganger began reading his mind and changing through various forms--which apparently did not upset him at all. After a fight? seems that the adrenaline was still in the elf. Seems reasonable to me. After being asked if he can read minds, the doppleganger proved that he definitely could by taking forms of people the elf had in her thoughts, one of which was a very bad memory. A simple, "Yes", would have sufficed. The added insult of the DG was not needed. Like I said, I thought the DG was doing a version of "suicide by cop". Without, apparently, saying "Hey, you , stop that or you'll be sorry!" the elf once again drew her weapon, then attacked the doppleganger--not until he wasn't an immediately threat anymore (i.e., attacking nonlethally until K.O'd or stopping when the doppleganger came close to death from lethal blows), but until it was actually a lifeless corpse at her feet. Not a good thing to do, nor lawful. I don't know if the DG went to -10 from a positive integer in multiple swings. LCD2YOU, you seem to find that a perfectly reasonable act for a good person to commit, not to mention you don't believe it is chaotic either. I can't fathom how you can come to that conclusion. The person can still be--in fact, almost certainly still is--good, but the act itself is chaotic and evil. Good people do evil things all the time--that doesn't make them evil, but it doesn't make what they did good either. It is a reasonable act. I didn't say it was the correct thing to do. I allow for RP and the emotions that flow from them. I think the act was neutral and the elf over-reacted, but it wasn't an evil act. To flip it around, if the elf had been chaotic evil and done exactly what she had did again, you're interpretation would be that her alignment actually moved [I]away from both chaos and evil, toward, at best true neutral, and more likely neutral good. That simply makes no sense, and I have to assume what you've written is just unclear to at least me for me to have come to that conclusion from it. I wouldn't say that as everything is an individual action. The CE player would have different reasons to just kill the DG. The elf fought against it and the organization it worked for. The CE person would not care in any case. To reiterate: good people can commit evil acts. That doesn't make them evil, but it also does not make the act any less evil than if it had been committed by an evil person. I still don't think the elf committed an evil act. I want to know what others feel about what the good was there in the half-celestial's, "Do that again and I'll kill you", to what I thought would be a friend.
Eviltool 06-18-05, 08:16 PM	Before the party left Miklos' place, Anak told Anwyn that if she ever kills an innocent in his presence again either she will have to kill him or he will kill her. She asked if he was threatening her and I snapped, "Are you stupid?! Did you not understand my words?! Either you will have to kill me or I will kill you." So you would kill your friends at the drop of a hat, and you are the good guy here? You wouldn't even try to talk to them about it, and try to, I dunno, help them deal with an obvious past issue. I don't know if I should laugh or be frightened of you. I also think that situation has a big effect on this. This isn't happening at a bbq with friends like you seem to think. This is in a dangerous dungeon, where you have many enemies, and no friends. If someone pushed your character's buttons during this situation, then maybe he would act differently. But, I can understand the anger that I would have for someone who murdered anyone close to me, there or not. Your arguments that a hostile monster going through painful memories in a dangerous location is like hanging out with a friend telling embarrassing stories is logically wrong. People can laugh about that time in first grade you ****** yourself. Laughing at your friends dad's murder would get you beaten at least.
Drandom 06-18-05, 08:44 PM	Why don't we return to the OP's description of the act itself. He seemed to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and some of the party members weren't too nice to him. In particular the female elf, Anwyn, threated to kill him if he didn't come with us, and drew out her swords. My half-celestial Anak intervened and told the doppleganger that we were just going to take him to see the party's friend, Milkos. The doppleganger then imitated three people Anak knew, including his presumed dead father and his astral deva mother. When Anak asked how the doppleganger knew these people, and the doppleganger said, "you told me." So Anak asked if the doppleganger were a mind-reader. Then the doppleganger did the same sort of thing to Anwyn. Apparently the doppleganger imitated, among others, the man who killed Anwyn's father. Anwyn drew her swords and attacked the doppleganger. The doppleganger took Anwyn's form and fought back. Both Anak and our half-orc paladin of Torm, Ront, try to stop Anwyn from killing the doppleganger, but Anywyn killed the doppleganger anyway. Anak started arguing with Anwyn that she had done an evil act by killing the doppleganger for nothing more than imitating some person. This Doppleganger hasn't been acting pleasantly to the PCs by any means, and indeed, appears very suspicious. I wouldn't trust it, and if I was already wound tight because of recent battles, when attacked emotionally at a very tender point, I might lash out too. Another important point - the Doppleganger fought back. From what I read, I imagine the chain if events went like this - Anwyn draws swords. Anwyn lunges at the Doppleganger. Doppleganger shifts into Anwyn. They both fight. This wasn't killing an innocent, defenseless person. The Doppleganger was found in an enemy's stronghold, has acted suspiciously, and though it does not detect as evil, you don't need to be evil to be an antagonist. Obviously it was very emotional for the Anwyn character, and the act was irrational and ill-considered, but I wouldn't say inherently evil. This isn't like killing someone for insulting you, there are extenuating circumstances.
Templetroll 06-18-05, 09:24 PM	From the SRD "Although not usually evil, they are interested only in themselves and regard all others as playthings to be manipulated and deceived." The Doppleganger was using it's ability to deliberately antagonize the people who just saved it. I think I know why the evil guy was about to kill the thing. regarding the 'detect thoughts' ability should only have given the images if the dopple said something to bring it to mind; if it didn't I think the DM let the 'detect thought' run stronger than usual. I'm cognizant that the detect thoughts does allow the dopple to mimic correctly the fighting style of the form taken - that may give a lot of leeway for what memories it was able to bring forth My opinion is the dopple pushed hard on folks it just met because it was still in a bad mood and had new toys, the folks that just rescued it. Unfortunately, one of the toys 'was not safe under pressure' for arrogant shapechangers. It got what it deserved. Stupidity can be fatal. I can see your character's opinion of th eactions taken, but you all might want to have a calmer discussion of it, expressing remorse since she identified the form the dopple took as the murderer of her father. Since there were enemies in the structure, and you are dealing with a shapechanger, I think paranoia is a valid response and no subterfuge is beyond consideration with a dopple. Another thing, killing the dopple may have messed up the plan the DM had for it to get some of those your party killed brought back. It did not have to be evil to work for someone evil; the scene you walked in on may have been playacting. The dopple was arrogant and thought it would have fun, as mentioned, by messing with those who 'rescued' it. It would explain the lack of gratitude; it knew it was never in real danger. Oh, just saw "Batman Begins" - can you imagine how Batman would react if someone he just released from a foe suddenly turned into Joe Chill (murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents) and made rude comments? I think the dopple would be hurtin' and intimidated at best and it would not be beyond the realm of possiblity for the dopple to die, even though it wouldn't be intentional on the part of the 'good guy'.
Fiery_Overlord 06-18-05, 10:01 PM	Please read Defining Alignment (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448516) in it is has an essay and referance to the actual definition of alignment used in D&D. Also believing a sentient being doesn't have a right to live and if killed in an emotional outburt it's alright just because it isn't your race is racism and very evil. Want to know what evil is in very explicite terms read the Book of Vile Darkness. Murder is covered page 7, Vengance page 8, Bullying and cowing innocents page 9. Read them and show them to the other players and DM. Defending the innocent at the potential loss of your own life is by defintion a good thing, in the context you described it. Killing people just because they taunt you is evil, and most likely chaotic. (What ever happened to a simple back-handed across the face for a deep personal offence? Why is it always with swords? Is there no sense of scale?? Not that it would be good, but definately less evil) Being unrepentant about it is even more evil behavior. This really isn't "gray" or ambigous. If that was my campaign there would be some need for atonements (though no change in the alingment unless it became a trend) and some story xp for the person who stood up for what is right. The dopplerganger sounds metally-ill to me, at worse it should have been subdued for its and the party's safty. (sounds like it might have been a danger to itself due to trying to upset people with swords) Also about the personal tragedy that inspired this conflict, What never heard of True Resurrection? Why carry a chip on your shoulder when you can fix the problem, if True Resurrection doesn't work it means dad wants to stay dead, again much better closure. Also about playing the character and not the alignment, that is totally a valid point, but there are consequences that still apply for the character being played in that manner. Sure your feel character may feel justified but you should retain enough OOC objectiver perspective to see the truth yourself. A palidin unwilling to repent is a palidin too proud, he is ripe for a fall. That sound just what like what you have in your game group. Not caring that you killed someone for just making fun of you is more evil than a rash action, and where the real seed of evil begins blooming. It could be argued that the killing was only a minor evil because it was impulsive, being willfully unrepentant is blantantly a sliding down the slippery slope as it is deliberate. About the batman comment, yes but batman's abilities are not alignment based are they? And if the guy he saved died at least he definately would feel bad about it. What if Captain America or spiderman was with batman? I see captain america or spiderman totally saying "You'll have to kill me before I will let you loose control and kill another misguided innocent." Also watch 'Kalifornia' for a nice definition of what seperates a person pushed to far and a sociopath.
Wizards_White_Knight 06-18-05, 10:28 PM	Evil act, with a neutral intent. The elf didn't intend on killing the DG as she walked in the room. I agree with LCD2U in saying that she was being violated, and she acted out as anyone would in such a situation. What she did, was in every way, an evil act. However, her intentions were not evil. I look at alignments based on what the intention of the character is. There was a thread on this board when I was lurker, about Paladins and evil and blah blah blah...It also had soemthign to do with Vow of Poverty, and as I think about it, I don't think this example will work... Meh, I will run wiht it anyway. The scenario given was if a Kobold was 80ft up, next to a "world go boom" button, and you could easily stop him by drinking a potion of fly that is laying on the ground, but didnt to keep the vow. So instead he triies to climb the wall and stop the manic Kobold. World goes BOOM! The intention in this case is selfishness. He could save the world, but he chooses not to because it would be negative to him. He did try and stop the kobold though. Evil act, good intention. If he somehow survived, I'd rule his alignment doesnt change. Possibly make him atone if he were a paladin...but I don't want to go there. The point is, Alignment is based on characters beliefs. If you act within those beliefs, you are true to alignment, and it shouldn't shift. Everyone is created differently. There are only 9 alignments. There are more than 9 people in the world. Expecting to find that everyone lives life as the same alignment exactly the same...Thats just crazy talk.
evilviper77 06-18-05, 11:42 PM	Celestial Barbarian, can you give us the alignments of your party members? It would make it far clearer on how to debate this. Its hard to argue whether the act was evil or not if we don't know the alignment of the character.
Andrew_980 06-19-05, 01:46 AM	the PC may be good (for now...) but the action was evil, to kill for an insult. Not sceam "stop that!!!" and ready an attack, not knock out, but kill over an insult. This is Columbine style crap right here, and if it becomes a pattern then the PC has proven herself evil. hey OP, is she the "I am strong so I choose what's right" type? I have dealt with that and that's just as bad
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 02:50 AM	I think your character acted remarkably well in this situation. I would keep on doing exactly what you have been. Make sure you make it clear that another action like that will lead to some harsh consequences. But, don't abandon your party. It seems like your fellow party member has some definite problems in her past. Try to help her overcome them. Perhaps talk to her in private about her father. What she did was an evil act, although, one could possibly argue it is slightly more neutral. Doesn't matter, really. Your character seem sto have Paladin-like morals, and anything that even hints of evil does not belong. As she is not evil yet, or so it seems, have your character work with her. I remember the Book of Exalted Deeds stated something like the best action a good person can do is to bring evil (or in this case, the borderline of neutral and evil)back to good. I don't think a half-celestial would abandon his friend to walk a path of anger and vengence. Hope all goes well! Wow! Thanks everyone for your great responses! Please let me clarify two points: 1. The half-elf is chaotic neutral and my half-celestial character doesn't know her very well. He thought she was, like most elves, chaotic good, and knows very little about her as she has been secretive. They had not become friends. 2. It turns out that her father is alive and well and that the doppleganger briefly imitated not a murderer, but a dead friend. 3. The player of the paladin didn't attend the session, so we don't know what he thinks of the whole thing. My half-celestial has, to date, been the nicest, sweetest PC. NPCs--even the supposedly good ones--regularly refer to him as an within his hearing, and he never insults anyone back. He even treated the doppleganger nicely, despite the apparent chip on its shoulder. He tries to get evildoers to cease and desist rather than just go for the kill. He's not prone to anger or vengeance. He does believe, however, that the someone guilty of murder should be punished. I don't really hold much hope that he can play much of a good influence in the party. I once played a half-celestial in a party where nobody else was good, but they all trusted my half-celestial and not each other, so they ended up having him in charge of the party treasure. I don't much see anything like that happening in my current party, where at least two of the characters (in addition to the paladin) are nominally good in alignment. The DM has more than once expressed the opinion that my half-celestial should "grow up" and accept such things as killing sentient beings just because they could be a threat. The player of one of the nominally good characters claimed that Anak couldn't hold Anwyn to his view of right and wrong, though she couldn't come up with any reason why he couldn't. The player of the other nominally good character said at first that his character just saw Anak following his path and Anwyn following her path. Later he claimed that he viewed killing the doppleganger as justified because it represented a threat. The DM hasn't so far has a single decent good-aligned character in the campaign. Even the priests of Selune tried to exploit Anak when he first came to town. There's no temple of Lathander in Yhaunn, and the priests of Lathander refuse to open one because it would disturb some sort of balance of power (while at the same time the priests of Waukeen are reopening and old temple of theirs). The DM hasn't allowed anything Anak has tried to do have any impact; no spreading the word of Lathander or helping the poor had done any good; indeed, the poor kids he tries to help just try to pick his pockets. I get the distinct impression that the DM holds goodness in contempt. Frankly I think I would have been having more impact in the campaign if I played a half-fiend. I find myself wondering not only if I can continue to play Anak in that party of PCs, but also whether I can continue to play in that D&D group at all. At the moment at least the group seems to have very little room for a character of extremely good alignment. :weep:
The Half-Orc Wizard 06-19-05, 02:53 AM	I think this point is important--the elf had already threatened to kill the doppleganger, without provocation, if it didn't do exactly what she wanted it to do immediately. The OP's character intervened, and the doppleganger began reading his mind and changing through various forms--which apparently did not upset him at all. After being asked if he can read minds, the doppleganger proved that he definitely could by taking forms of people the elf had in her thoughts, one of which was a very bad memory. Without, apparently, saying "Hey, you , stop that or you'll be sorry!" the elf once again drew her weapon, then attacked the doppleganger--not until he wasn't an immediately threat anymore (i.e., attacking nonlethally until K.O'd or stopping when the doppleganger came close to death from lethal blows), but until it was actually a lifeless corpse at her feet. LCD2YOU, you seem to find that a perfectly reasonable act for a good person to commit, not to mention you don't believe it is chaotic either. I can't fathom how you can come to that conclusion. The person can still be--in fact, almost certainly still is--good, but the act itself is chaotic and evil. Good people do evil things all the time--that doesn't make them evil, but it doesn't make what they did good either. To flip it around, if the elf had been chaotic evil and done exactly what she had did again, you're interpretation would be that her alignment actually moved [I]away from both chaos and evil, toward, at best true neutral, and more likely neutral good. That simply makes no sense, and I have to assume what you've written is just unclear to at least me for me to have come to that conclusion from it. To reiterate: good people can commit evil acts. That doesn't make them evil, but it also does not make the act any less evil than if it had been committed by an evil person. :tiphat: After reading this thread, I can't put my feelings in any better way than this.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 03:21 AM	Celestial Barbarian, can you give us the alignments of your party members? It would make it far clearer on how to debate this. Its hard to argue whether the act was evil or not if we don't know the alignment of the character. Well let's see. Anak, my half-celestial, is neutral good and follows Lathander. I think that Channe, the Harper woman, is also supposed to be neutral good. The paladin obviously is supposed to be lawful good (and his player wasn't there). There's a "Calishite assassin" who I think is a rogue and supposedly has some sort of good alignment, but I don't know any more than that. I'd thought that Anwyn, the elf (a female elf, by the way) had a chaotic good alignment, but it turns out that she's chaotic neutral. I'd also like to mention that I didn't claim that one murder would shift her alignment from chaotic good to chaotic evil, or even from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil. I just believe that the act itself is evil. The party had just saved the doppleganger from one of these evil cultists, who proved no match even for one party member, let alone the lot of us. The DM did, later, step in and rule that while the act wasn't good, it wasn't evil either. I don't actually have any thought of changing his mind. The DM doesn't have an extremely high regard for the rules. He frequently doesn't know how things work, and gets angry if anyone tell him. He probably didn't know how the doppleganger's mind-reading ability works under the rules, and just played it the way he felt like it. One of the other players commented that it seemed like the doppleganger was deliberately baiting us. My character, the supposedly immature one, didn't rise to the bait of seeing his (presumed) dead father--if indeed it was intended as bait at all. I think the DM might simply have had the doppleganger imitate various people from our lives so that he could roleplay them; he's an excellent roleplayer. He also had the doppleganger turn into priests of various gods, including Anak's god, Lathander. I think that the doppleganger (and perhaps the DM) might in part simply have been showing off.
Zalak 06-19-05, 11:15 AM	CelestialBarbarian, Your first priority should probably be to make sure Anwyn's player doesn't have any OOG resentment for being snapped at. Second, you're DM doesn't seem very interested in high morality, your conversion and peace tactics will be much less effective then hardcore smiting. Don't expect to change the world if the world if your Dm uses evil as common and unrepentant, just enjoy the black and white view it offers. Thirdly, I doubt the doppleganger wanted to provoke your party to killing, or even attacking him. But if roleplayed correctly, dopplegangers are often that annoying. To others, The mind read ability was apparently used incorrectly, so it didn't just detect surface thoughts. If it knew who those people were, it knew the anger Anwyn would hold against them and someone using their form. It was just enraging people intentionally. Dopplegagners enloy that sort of thing. White wizards knight BOED, pg. 9 on sacrificing your exalted feats for the greater good. this view is ultimately misguided. It treats the good character's soul as a commodity that she can give up or sacrifice like any other possession. What the character sees as a sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal power of good and evil, in evil's favor. - In short, the means, and not the ends matter. Good intentions are useless in the context of the D&D alignment system, and most consider them useless in real life. Fiery overlord It's not that it doesn't have a right to live, or that it's a different race, or even that it was in anger. Anyone who is suspicious of a doppleganger is justified. They are manipulative and self-serving creatures. Not being polite to one is appropriate overall, as they will take advantage of anything possible. pg. 7 of the BOVD describes murder as for nefarious purposes. Theft, gain, and pleasure are listed as examples. This is a long way from anger by provocation. On p. 8, it talks about evil vengeance with a lack of forgiveness and mercy. These had nothing to do with the situation. To forgive the doppleganger would be impractical considering it's untrustworthy nature, and mercy was shown already. Most neutral parties could justifiably kill a doppleganger on sight for the danger they always pose to be around. Bullying and cowing innocents=obsession with power in BOVD, not attacking dopplegangers who provoke you. Ressurection is not an option in the forgotten realms. It only works 1d10 days after their death, and only with the direct conseent of a diety, usually as a reward for one of their followers for martyrdom or something similar. The dopplegange isn't insane. In the monster manual, it says they manipulate and deceive others. It enjoyed messing with people like that. It's much to the credit of the roleplaying DM to show that. It's this nature that makes them so unpopular. And Anwyn not seeing that as an evil act is hardly surprising, if a board of (mostly) knowledgable D&D alignment experts don't agree on the morality of it. Deren S. As pointed out above, it would have known what sort of an impact it would have on her, so it choosing such a provocative form randomly is unlikely. It also could have used someone more to the effect it wanted to make, assuming that was trying to convince to calm down or just to show off. someone who got her angry enogh to kill would have been an obviously poor choice to it. Ressurection is not an option in the forgotten realms. Even in normal settings, most DMs place restrictions on it's use. And if he wanted to stay dead, that shouldn't make Anwyn feel better about his death, especially considering it was a murder. These dopplegangers do want to hurt people. They are manipulative and deceitful creatures who care only for themselves. This one apparently enjoyed infuriating someone who had just saved it's life from a brutal and painful sacrifice, after not cooperating with them, while most humans would be grateful and cooperative. Violating someone's privacy is a serious crime. The doppleganger had the ability to suppress this, but decided to use it against the PCs. Reporting and making movies is different from deliberately provoking someone. The violation of her rights amounts to rape, if taking a different form. It was not defense in the traditional sense of it, it was a response to someone intruding into her thoughts in a hostile manner. She should have had a willsave, but apparently didn't due to a rules error. Thet the natural response was to resist the mind-reading suggests it was a hostile effect. It isn't just natural for the doppleganger to do, it was deliberately prying into her thoughts.
Derren S. 06-19-05, 11:34 AM	You make a lot of false assumptions. Doppelganger have the same alignment as humans. So all humans are manipulative and untrustworthy and deserve to be killed. You racism rant lacks any proof to back it up. And mind reading is no no way evil, otherwise it would have the evil descriptor like Mind Rape. The only thing the doppelganger did was to assume form from the elfs past. You don't know what the intend was but you can guess that it was to show off considering the circumstances as, not to taunt the elf. And killing because of an assumption is evil as is unjust killing in rage or do you call killing a appropriate punishment for insulting?
Templetroll 06-19-05, 04:30 PM	You make a lot of false assumptions. Doppelganger have the same alignment as humans. So all humans are manipulative and untrustworthy and deserve to be killed. You racism rant lacks any proof to back it up. And mind reading is no no way evil, otherwise it would have the evil descriptor like Mind Rape. The only thing the doppelganger did was to assume form from the elfs past. You don't know what the intend was but you can guess that it was to show off considering the circumstances as, not to taunt the elf. And killing because of an assumption is evil as is unjust killing in rage or do you call killing a appropriate punishment for insulting? Did the doppleganger assume a form to mess with the 'assassin'? I don't recall that being mentioned but I expect not. From the descriptions of the dopple's behavior, and the apparent style of the DM, I believe the dopple was seeking to offend and outrage the 'good' members of the group, or at least those more good than not. The fact that one went over the top, attacked and killed the dopple was something the dopple (and the DM) didn't expect. Thus, it was well-deserved. It may have been an evil act for the PC, but it was just, the dopple was hoist on his petard.
Derren S. 06-19-05, 05:22 PM	And thats fine. The murder probably was in-character and partly "understandable" (not just). But still evil.
LCD2YOU 06-19-05, 07:38 PM	And thats fine. The murder probably was in-character and partly "understandable" (not just). But still evil. The DG was killed but he was not murdered. The act was neutral, not evil. The DG was not helpless, it was provoking and it was attacking. Now I know some of you may not think that reaching into another's mind and then turning into a murdered loved one is not an evil act. I totally disagree. Also, it doesn't matter if the DM wasn't using the DG as it appears "out of the MM". The DM can change things as they need to and on the fly, though I think he made a mistake here. The DG was provoking and the PCs had already been through a lot. As another poster said, the DG wanted to mess with the PCs and did just that. Unfortunately for it, it shook up one PC that was volatile under pressure. It paid a steep price for its pride and arrogance. If it could read minds, it would know what it was douing, yet it continued. That is not the act of an innocent creature. Yes, what the CN elf did was reasonable, no it was not the right thing to do. The DG is not a person. Now, it is a sentient being but DGs as a group are not to be anthropromorphized(sp?). That isn't "racism". DGs are of a completely different species if not in another Genus or higher.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 07:49 PM	And thats fine. The murder probably was in-character and partly "understandable" (not just). But still evil. Yes, I wanted to add that I find Derren's posts particularly logical and insightful. Thank you! I also again thank all the rest of you would are posting on both sides of the issue. I also wanted to add, in the interests of full disclosure, that Anwyn's player now claims to have never threatened to kill the doppleganger if he didn't come with us, but she also claimed to have never had Anwyn or her other characters threaten anyone with death, and I've heard her do it repeatedly. She also once made a small child boy in a supermarket after he accidentally bumped into her. It seems to me that she's quite belligerent right under the surface, and looks for excuses to explode. I'd hoped that having her character kill enemies in the game would suffice. The DM did say after the session that the doppleganger was trying to sow dissension in the party and mess with our minds so that it could escape, and that it chose Anak and Anwyn because "Good is easier to exploit than evil." Of course if it could read minds deeply enough to know about people in our pasts, it should have known that Anwyn wasn't good.
SodaGuy 06-19-05, 08:01 PM	I didn't read the whole thread but I see this incident as an emotional outburst not an outwardly evil act. And it's certainly not enough to call someone evil. But I do agree that that character should control herself better and perhaps have your character control her if he's unable. Also, I'm a new player and am amazed by the depth of this situation and the characters involved. So far, my group's only decisions are "You hear screaming in a burning building. What do you do?" I can't wait until our characters develop such... character.
Saint Sinister 06-19-05, 08:12 PM	These arguements pop up because in this game there's no "bad". just evil. By the way if this happened in america the killer might very well be considered "temporary insanity". Most important thing to remember is that the dm prolly wanted her to kill the ganger, this might just be a good ol hack'n slash adventure sides d&d peaple walk around with swords all day might as well use em.
evilviper77 06-19-05, 08:56 PM	I'd thought that Anwyn, the elf (a female elf, by the way) had a chaotic good alignment, but it turns out that she's chaotic neutral.. Hmmm, this is exactly the reason i hate playing with anyone that is CN, because frankly most people don't play CN they play NE and use CN as as front to get away with doing whatever they want, which includes killing dopplegangers it seems...<makes another note to self> The non-evil one turned out to be a doppleganger. He freely showed us what he was, and seemed willing to return to use to Miklos and spill what he knew of these evil people who had enslaved him and taken over the temple. He seemed to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and some of the party members weren't too nice to him. In particular the female elf, Anwyn, threated to kill him if he didn't come with us, and drew out her swords.. Maybe there would be some hope for her "act of emotion" about seeing her dead friend or father or whatever could have been considered a "CN" act, but considering the fact she drew steel on him AFTER he gave up information and seemed to be trying to help and BEFORE he took the form of her father or whoever, shows she was just looking for an excuse to kill him... an evil act if i ever saw one in my book. Once again i must stat that CN is a broken alignment in the PHB and is abused WAY too much. I like the way baulders gate describes the alignments and they have it just about perfect IMO.
Andrew_980 06-19-05, 09:09 PM	would those of you who veiw killing the doppleganger to be ok be just fine with the situation if it were a child who made fun of the elf? because that is about what this is, a being far weaker has the gall to insult her so she killed it. If thats not evil what is? Hmmm, this is exactly the reason i hate playing with anyone that is CN, because frankly most people don't play CN they play NE and use CN as as front to get away with doing whatever they want Thats why it is the alignment of choice for munchkins and those who enjoy having a powerfull PC to beat on weaker stuff
totoro 06-19-05, 09:32 PM	would those of you who veiw killing the doppleganger to be ok be just fine with the situation if it were a child who made fun of the elf? because that is about what this is, a being far weaker has the gall to insult her so she killed it. If thats not evil what is? Exactly. It seems to me the doppleganger could have been told to do the exact same thing by a demon who wanted the elf to explode in anger, commit murder, and become evil. Just because you were taunted doesn't mean you can murder people (or dopplegangers). And, yes, this was murder by definition. If she only kills those who anger her, then I might assign the alignment of C(E) rather than CE. CE feels like it should be more arbitrarily violent. She's clearly chaotic, though, since she does whatever she darn well pleases. I wouldn't sweat it too much, though. The DM seems to want non-good characters (maybe even evil) anyway.
ConradBland 06-19-05, 10:11 PM	Having read through these replies, I have to wonder....do you all realize that this is a game? Too much time is given over on these boards to nit picky little "moral issues" that seem to wreck sessions, if not entire campaigns. Read the RAW about alignment, then play the alignment. Why are so many DMs out to play Alignment Enforcer in a game where bloodletting is the primary means to power????? This seems a poor substitute for a real plot. What is worse about this thread is that the DM in question seems to be trying to enjoy the game, and the OP is being a Rules Tyrant about another's actions. Can this much squirreliness about alignment be healthy for a gaming group? Are too many of you using the game to express real life frustration over moral issues?
elfhound 06-19-05, 10:43 PM	Anwyn is my character. First off, I also am not looking to start a heated debate. Nor did I intend for my first post on these forums to be on this subject. I've been lurking here for a while, since I am relatively new to D&D (3 months) and wanted to hang out, read posts, and get some of my questions answered by reading. But, I do feel the need to post since it's my character in question. I'd like to clarify a few things. Anwyn is a chaotic neutral elf ranger. I do not play, nor do I want to play, a character with evil tendencies or a CE character. CN seemed like a good fit for her, and a challenge for me. When I was creating her backstory, I selected a few things that I thought would provoke an extreme reaction from her. Her friend who died, represents her greatest failure, because this was an old friend, and one who she failed to protect from danger. Her friends were killed on their way to Sembia. She feels enormous guilt, regret, and grief over the deaths of her friends, in part because she blames herself for what happened. She has a constant reminder of their deaths every time she looks in the mirror (there's a scar she got from when she fought their attackers), so it's not something she can easily forget or put out of her mind. I do tend to RP the character, not the alignment, although I do use the alignment as a guideline. It's not an absolute thing, however. Characters will act out of alignment on rare occasions, and personally, I don't have a problem with that. This, for Anwyn, was one of those occasions. Her reaction to the doppelganger's mind reading was 100% true to her backstory. So when the doppelganger imitated her friend, she lost it. It was quite possibly the worst memory she had, along with a total dishonor to her friend's memory, and it elicited a strong, violent reaction. Anwyn is an elf that holds duty and honor very close, and her failure to protect her friend is one of those hot buttons I picked for just that reason. I, as her player, can confirm that Anwyn did not threaten to kill the doppelganger. The bard found the doppelganger first, and the rest of the party came in afterword. The bard had a loaded crossbow out, when Anwyn came into the room. Since there was another weapon out already, she drew her swords. The bard eventually did lower her crossbow, but kept it out and loaded. It was suggested that the doppelganger be taken to Selkirk, and Anwyn agreed that 'it was a good idea.' She still had her swords out, and perhaps that came off as threatening, I don't know. The doppelganger got nervous, and that was when the Celestial tried to reassure it. Then the DG started the mind reading. Another in the group agreed that it was 'death by cop' during one of the metagaming discussions we've had. BTW, after we decided to leave the temple, the party did go to Miklos and Anwyn did tell him that she had killed the doppelganger. She made no attempt to dodge the issue or say she didn't do it and IC, was fully prepared to accept reprecussions. That never came out in game, because Selkirk did not want to take any actions. Incidentally, some of the posts have given me some good ideas for how to continue to RP Anwyn. There will absolutely be consequences for what she has done. The DM and I have been discussing what to do and discussing ideas for how to bring the consequences out in game. She will have to deal with her loss of control, because for her, losing control like that was unforgivable. The reprecussions for that will be interesting. So, I would also like to thank all of you who replied, especially for the well thought out posts and the ideas that I'm getting from reading them. She will not take an alignment shift because of this action- my DM ruled it to be neither good nor evil. However, she's not getting off scot-free either. I'm going to include her loss of control as something she must deal with in the future and we will have consequences in game. It was never my intent to bring a perfect character with no baggage to the table. What it comes down to is that I am enjoying this campaign and enjoying RPing this character. If she did everything perfectly, it wouldn't be fun, or realistic to me. It is now equally important that I RP the consequences of what happened with the Doppelganger. Not so much that she regrets killing it- the creature did instigate the fight in a major way, fought back with weapons, etc., but because she lost control and acted mindlessly, without thinking. I also wouldn't be true to the backstory and the character if I treated this as just a passing incident. So there is Anwyn's player's thoughts on this issue. I'll be happy to respond if anyone has questions or comments. Feel free to PM me if you want. :cool:
LordHell 06-19-05, 11:06 PM	By your description, Anwyn sounds more LN to me than CN - well maybe NG due to your 'duty' and 'honour' slipping away and your anger getting the better of you from time to time. Definately not CN, but really it doesnt matter. Her action isn't really attributed to alignment at all, its attributed to her backstory - which is the key that many people in this thread are failing to grasp, including the original author. The player in question (elfhound) clearly didnt think 'Oh, im going to kill this DG because its a CN thing to do'. She roleplayed to the characters background, and very well by the sound of things. The celestial also roleplayed, but at a bit of a double standard (if you kill them ill kill you - huh?). If I was a Paladin in this situation - I would have tried to stop the killing, but in no way would I threaten to kill my companion if they 'did it again'. Rather, I'd see that this was a clearly very emotional thing for Anywn. I certainly wouldn't approve of the situation, but try to talk to her about it after the situation had cooled off (such as in the tavern), maybe staying close by in future situations to make sure her emotions didnt cause her to do any more rash actions. Adventurers face death, destruction, and killing all the time. Being an adventurer is akin to being a soldier in WW2. You're likely to flip out after prolonged stress and stressful triggers. Remember in saving private Ryan, after the Omaha beach landing, some U.S. soldiers gunned down German soldiers who had surrendered? It is easy for us sitting in our chairs watching the movie, detached from it all, to think that is a wrong and terrible act, because, it is. But the people who did that may have been very good men, with families and children whom they care for, put in extremely emotional stressful situations. Roleplaying out flaws and weaknesses under such stressful enviroments is great in my opinion, players such as Anwyn would be welcome at my table any time.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 11:21 PM	Anwyn is my character. First off, I also am not looking to start a heated debate. Nor did I intend for my first post on these forums to be on this subject. I've been lurking here for a while, since I am relatively new to D&D (3 months) and wanted to hang out, read posts, and get some of my questions answered by reading. But, I do feel the need to post since it's my character in question. I'd like to clarify a few things. Anwyn is a chaotic neutral elf ranger. I do not play, nor do I want to play, a character with evil tendencies or a CE character. CN seemed like a good fit for her, and a challenge for me. When I was creating her backstory, I selected a few things that I thought would provoke an extreme reaction from her. Her friend who died, represents her greatest failure, because this was an old friend, and one who she failed to protect from danger. Her friends were killed on their way to Sembia. She feels enormous guilt, regret, and grief over the deaths of her friends, in part because she blames herself for what happened. She has a constant reminder of their deaths every time she looks in the mirror (there's a scar she got from when she fought their attackers), so it's not something she can easily forget or put out of her mind. I do tend to RP the character, not the alignment, although I do use the alignment as a guideline. It's not an absolute thing, however. Characters will act out of alignment on rare occasions, and personally, I don't have a problem with that. This, for Anwyn, was one of those occasions. Her reaction to the doppelganger's mind reading was 100% true to her backstory. So when the doppelganger imitated her friend, she lost it. It was quite possibly the worst memory she had, along with a total dishonor to her friend's memory, and it elicited a strong, violent reaction. Anwyn is an elf that holds duty and honor very close, and her failure to protect her friend is one of those hot buttons I picked for just that reason. I, as her player, can confirm that Anwyn did not threaten to kill the doppelganger. The bard found the doppelganger first, and the rest of the party came in afterword. The bard had a loaded crossbow out, when Anwyn came into the room. Since there was another weapon out already, she drew her swords. The bard eventually did lower her crossbow, but kept it out and loaded. It was suggested that the doppelganger be taken to Selkirk, and Anwyn agreed that 'it was a good idea.' She still had her swords out, and perhaps that came off as threatening, I don't know. The doppelganger got nervous, and that was when the Celestial tried to reassure it. Then the DG started the mind reading. Another in the group agreed that it was 'death by cop' during one of the metagaming discussions we've had. BTW, after we decided to leave the temple, the party did go to Miklos and Anwyn did tell him that she had killed the doppelganger. She made no attempt to dodge the issue or say she didn't do it and IC, was fully prepared to accept reprecussions. That never came out in game, because Selkirk did not want to take any actions. Incidentally, some of the posts have given me some good ideas for how to continue to RP Anwyn. There will absolutely be consequences for what she has done. The DM and I have been discussing what to do and discussing ideas for how to bring the consequences out in game. She will have to deal with her loss of control, because for her, losing control like that was unforgivable. The reprecussions for that will be interesting. So, I would also like to thank all of you who replied, especially for the well thought out posts and the ideas that I'm getting from reading them. She will not take an alignment shift because of this action- my DM ruled it to be neither good nor evil. However, she's not getting off scot-free either. I'm going to include her loss of control as something she must deal with in the future and we will have consequences in game. It was never my intent to bring a perfect character with no baggage to the table. What it comes down to is that I am enjoying this campaign and enjoying RPing this character. If she did everything perfectly, it wouldn't be fun, or realistic to me. It is now equally important that I RP the consequences of what happened with the Doppelganger. Not so much that she regrets killing it- the creature did instigate the fight in a major way, fought back with weapons, etc., but because she lost control and acted mindlessly, without thinking. I also wouldn't be true to the backstory and the character if I treated this as just a passing incident. So there is Anwyn's player's thoughts on this issue. I'll be happy to respond if anyone has questions or comments. Feel free to PM me if you want. :cool: The only point on which she and I disagree is whether or not she threatened the doppleganger with death if he didn't come with us. I have a strong response against this sort of bullying, so it sticks with me each time she does this sort of thing, whether she remembers it or not. Obviously she was itching to kill something, or she wouldn't have killed it after seeing it imitate a dead friend for six whole seconds. It's not the doppleganger's fault that the friend died, and if the character really blames herself, rather than kill someone unconnected to the death who simply reminded her of it, she might try to kill herself. Now that would be some interesting and unique roleplaying; to date I've never seen a character attempt to committ suicide--except when a player wanted to get rid of the character and the DM wouldn't allow it. :-D I'm glad to hear that she's been talking to the DM about her character. I wish he would talk to me about my character other than to insult the two of us or tell me why the next thing I have Anak try to do to spread the word of Lathander or help the poor won't work. :(
LordHell 06-19-05, 11:28 PM	I might like to add that party conflict isnt the end of the game, in fact, it's a lot of fun. In my current game my LN Wizard has slowly slipped to LE, his own Imp familiar has corrupted him. The other members of the party are a NG Cleric, a LN Hobgoblin, and im not sure what the new character is. Anyway, the Cleric is extremely suspect of me, but has a soft spot (which my character takes advantage of frequently) for me because I helped saved her life. The Hobgoblin fighter doesn't trust me, or rather, my familiar, and thinks im a coward for hiding behind my spells all the time. The party does not quite despise me, but they are getting to the 'I dont trust him' and 'He is really testing my patience' stage. My character doesnt want to harm the other characters, but he is quite liberal on his imps use of suggestion to get the fighter to do what he wants. The party conflict in my game is part of what makes it so fun. The cleric in my party certainly hasnt given up on me (in fact, in an out of game discussion she said she wants to redeem me), I don't think you, CelestialBarbarian should give up on your party either.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 11:33 PM	Having read through these replies, I have to wonder....do you all realize that this is a game? Too much time is given over on these boards to nit picky little "moral issues" that seem to wreck sessions, if not entire campaigns. Read the RAW about alignment, then play the alignment. Why are so many DMs out to play Alignment Enforcer in a game where bloodletting is the primary means to power????? This seems a poor substitute for a real plot. What is worse about this thread is that the DM in question seems to be trying to enjoy the game, and the OP is being a Rules Tyrant about another's actions. Can this much squirreliness about alignment be healthy for a gaming group? Are too many of you using the game to express real life frustration over moral issues? Heh. You must be confusing me with an eye tyrant. :-D I didn't quote any rules at all. When several people pointed out that the DM didn't follow the rules on the way a doppleganger's mind-reading ability works--rules with which I'm not familiar, having not looked up the doppleganger under 3rd Ed--I just pointed out that even if he knew he wasn't following the rules he wouldn't care. Nor is this discussion about anyone playing alignment enforcer. I think killing someone for merely taunting you, not matter how much the taunt touched a cord, is an evil act. I never said that the one act made the character evil. In the real world killing someone for merely taunting you would get you prison time, and not in the Martha Stewart jail for humiliated celebrities either. You'd do hard time in a hard-core prison with people you really, really don't ever want to meet. As for the "it's only a game" argument, I can only say that, as I've observed time and again for the past quarter-century, most players of FRPG put something real of themselves into their characters--who they are, who they aspire to be, who they'd be if they could get away with it, who they'd like to fantasize about being but wouldn't really want to be even if they could get away with it--and they don't react well when someone else doesn't like what their character does. Of course I've seen exceptions, but I've seen even some of the people who claim otherwise get quite upset when push came to shove. So when one person's character has serious conflict with another's, the players almost always end up in serious conflict too.
LordHell 06-19-05, 11:43 PM	So when one person's character has serious conflict with another's, the players almost always end up in serious conflict too. Wrong. This is the difference between people who can roleplay and those who can't. My game for example, I get on great with the other players, despite my character throwing thiny vieled insults at their characters in game, acting repulsive (not caring when one of the party members died, instead glad he made it out alive), and so forth.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 11:47 PM	By your description, Anwyn sounds more LN to me than CN - well maybe NG due to your 'duty' and 'honour' slipping away and your anger getting the better of you from time to time. Definately not CN, but really it doesnt matter. Her action isn't really attributed to alignment at all, its attributed to her backstory - which is the key that many people in this thread are failing to grasp, including the original author. The player in question (elfhound) clearly didnt think 'Oh, im going to kill this DG because its a CN thing to do'. She roleplayed to the characters background, and very well by the sound of things. The celestial also roleplayed, but at a bit of a double standard (if you kill them ill kill you - huh?). If I was a Paladin in this situation - I would have tried to stop the killing, but in no way would I threaten to kill my companion if they 'did it again'. Rather, I'd see that this was a clearly very emotional thing for Anywn. I certainly wouldn't approve of the situation, but try to talk to her about it after the situation had cooled off (such as in the tavern), maybe staying close by in future situations to make sure her emotions didnt cause her to do any more rash actions. Adventurers face death, destruction, and killing all the time. Being an adventurer is akin to being a soldier in WW2. You're likely to flip out after prolonged stress and stressful triggers. Remember in saving private Ryan, after the Omaha beach landing, some U.S. soldiers gunned down German soldiers who had surrendered? It is easy for us sitting in our chairs watching the movie, detached from it all, to think that is a wrong and terrible act, because, it is. But the people who did that may have been very good men, with families and children whom they care for, put in extremely emotional stressful situations. Roleplaying out flaws and weaknesses under such stressful enviroments is great in my opinion, players such as Anwyn would be welcome at my table any time. Yeah, I'm not attempting to make any sort of overall evaluation of what Anwyn's alignment "should" be, or even when Anwyn's behavior follows naturally from her character background, but rather whether killing someone for assuming the form of a dead friend for 6 seconds justifies slaying him or is, in the alternative, an evil act. As for the alleged double-standard, I always wonder when people raise make that sort of comment whether they really believe it or just want to adopt a rhetorical pose. Each individual has a right to life--indeed, if we didn't there'd be nothing evil about killing us in the first place--which he or she can forfeit by unjustly taking the life of another. Hebraic writing has for millenia plaed upon the individual a duty to take a life to prevent someone else from taking his life or the life of a family member. Hebraic law likewise recognizes the justice in taking a life to save a life. There's no double-standard. A double-standard would raise, however, if someone opposed the death penalty for a convicted murderer yet accepted as justified the impulse killing of a taunter. If it were truly acceptable to simply kill someone who taunts me, there would be a lot of dead people out there. ;) As far as for killing enemy soldiers who have surrendered, that might be a natural response, but it's still an evil one, which is why such people now get tried for war crimes.
CelestialBarbarian 06-19-05, 11:50 PM	Wrong. This is the difference between people who can roleplay and those who can't. My game for example, I get on great with the other players, despite my character throwing thiny vieled insults at their characters in game, acting repulsive (not caring when one of the party members died, instead glad he made it out alive), and so forth. I have over a quarter-century of roleplaying experience in many different locations. As I said before, in my experience, most inter-character conflicts develop into inter-player conflicts. That might not accord with your experience, but it doesn't make mine wrong. The fact that you would state boldly otherewise suggests you suffer from a serious lack of objectivity.
LordHell 06-19-05, 11:54 PM	Coming from someone who says "I don't like that kind of Bullying" to Anwyn threating to kill the DG if it didn't come with them, then turning around and threatening to kill Anwyn, I don't take your critisms too seriously im afraid old chap. And while we're going down this road, I think you're being way to melodramatic about this whole situation. It sounds like if anyone needs to be able to seperate player-character relationships, it's you. I reinforce the "It's only a game" comments from above. What exactly is the issue here anyway? Do you not want the others in the group to roleplay their characters because it happens to miff yours? You seem to have some sort of issue here because Anwyn didn't play her elf as to how you'd expect, and now shes causing player-player conflict. :rolleyes:
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 12:01 AM	Coming from someone who says "I don't like that kind of Bullying" to Anwyn threating to kill the DG if it didn't come with them, then turning around and threatening to kill Anwyn, I don't take your critisms too seriously im afraid old chap. And while we're going down this road, I think you're being way to melodramatic about this whole situation. It sounds like if anyone needs to be able to seperate player-character relationships, it's you. I reinforce the "It's only a game" comments from above. What exactly is the issue here anyway? Do you not want the others in the group to roleplay their characters because it happens to miff yours? You seem to have some sort of issue here because Anwyn didn't play her elf as to how you'd expect, and now shes causing player-player conflict. :rolleyes: Well perhaps when you're older and wiser, young man, you'll develop the moral sophistication to be able to distinguish between the bully and the person who stops the bully. Until then I suggest keeping your ears open. :D
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 12:13 AM	Oh yes. I was going to respond to some earlier comments before I got distracted by the insults lobbed at me. :-D Some people have at least seemed to imply that you can't roleplay an interesting character unless the character doesn't try to be good in all situations. I'd say on the contrary that it's quite easy to roleplay a character that isn't good and can therefore do whatever he wants. Try playing a truly good character, especially one that runs around with the normal greedy, sneaky PC who holds only minimal respect for the lives of others. Now that's a challenge. :D
LordHell 06-20-05, 12:17 AM	Well perhaps when you're older and wiser, young man, you'll develop the moral sophistication to be able to distinguish between the bully and the person who stops the bully. Until then I suggest keeping your ears open. :D So Mr Morally Superior here is preaching its ok to fight fire with fire? You know, you could try to TALK to the said 'Bully' [in game and out of game], whom by the sounds of things regrets her rash actions already, instead of coming on the forums looking to see that you've been proven right. But this isn't about your game at all. In your mind - this is about the people in your group having a somewhat different moral stance to you - it offends you. Well, guess what, in D&D you do lots of morally subjective actions - and the alignment system is compeltely screwed on top of that. I don't go around killing things then looting their bodys in real life, in fact, such an action would offend me. But in D&D I do it all the time. This is a concept you're going to have to familiarize yourself with, and maybe you should look at the reason you seem to have player-player conflicts over the past 25 years.
LordHell 06-20-05, 12:20 AM	I don't see any personal insults either, unless you consider 'old chap' to be an insult - but it was more a play on your: 'in my 25 years experiance, back when we used to walk to school, with no legs, through boiling lava..' yada yada.
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 12:29 AM	I don't see any personal insults either, unless you consider 'old chap' to be an insult - but it was more a play on your: 'in my 25 years experiance, back when we used to walk to school, with no legs, through boiling lava..' yada yada. It's often the hubris of the young that they think they can't learn anything from those with more experience. Thus the aphorism, "Experience is a comb life gives you after all your hair has fallen out." :D Sincerely, Mr. Morally Superior :rofl:
pres_man 06-20-05, 01:26 AM	Well CelestialBarbarian, if you are only half-right about how your DM views good-evil, then I would say, retire your character. Your character is good in a world that only has neutral-evil light-evil heavy as alignments. Where their are no good deities. In fact in your DM's world your character is either criminially naive or mentally damaged. In any case, you can only cause yourself more frustration. Create a new character and go nuts, e.g. kill beggar children, I mean they probably are going to try to steal from you so they got it coming. Good gaming.
Darth Doom 06-20-05, 01:30 AM	Frankly, I dont see what the fuss is personally. The elf's player was role playing accordingly: and the character was reacting accordingly. If it had've been my wizard she would have dominated him and sent him into the nearest dragon's cave, pants around his ankles with a little drum kit playing "killing the in the name of". However on the basis of whether it was an evil act, my belief is that it was not. Evil is a word used very lightly these days, and what the elf did is by no means evil. A bit extreme yes, but by no means evil. Being frank: The doppleganger had it coming. The elf warned him, and using his mind reading abilities he deliberately probed her mentally most private region (the thoughts in her own head), took a highly painful being from her memory then mimicked it right in front of her. What did he hope to achieve if not evoking the elf's wrath? "Dont mind me Miss.Elf-that-has-already-warned-me, Im just going to turn myself into the person that murdered your father then taunt you!" What did he expect? The elf to simply laugh, pat him on the shoulder and thank him for the excellent joke? The doppleganger had it coming, the Elf went bezerk and I can see why. She didnt randomly kill someone on the street simply because she could, she didnt hold him make him bleed to help pass the time: she flipped out at a potentially threatening creature with the visage of her fathers murderer that was freely taunting her, and quite happy to do so. The dopplegangers actions in themselves were evil acts and were more than a mere 'insult': to an elf - a notably proud race along side dwarves - it would be a grevious kick in the knickers well deserving of death. A bit rash: yes. Evil? Nope. He'll think twice before doing that again.
pres_man 06-20-05, 01:58 AM	Just remember if you are truly mentally disturbed you aren't evil. So the elf wasn't evil, she was just insane. Ask her if it was that time of the month/year/decade/whatever freaking cycle female elves are on. I mean we all know how insane human females get, an elf's "special friend" probably lasts at least a month, just think how crazy they would be by the end.
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 02:25 AM	Well CelestialBarbarian, if you are only half-right about how your DM views good-evil, then I would say, retire your character. Your character is good in a world that only has neutral-evil light-evil heavy as alignments. Where their are no good deities. In fact in your DM's world your character is either criminially naive or mentally damaged. In any case, you can only cause yourself more frustration. Create a new character and go nuts, e.g. kill beggar children, I mean they probably are going to try to steal from you so they got it coming. Good gaming. I would really rather be wrong. At first I thought the DM just had something against me personally--we had argued by email about a non-D&D issue some months prior to the campaign he and treated me coldly--but the nature of his comments about my character "growing up" to accept the killing of neutral creatures who haven't done anything threatening, plus the fact that all of his good-aligned NPCs are either stupid, insane or crazy, leads me to believe that he just holds good in a fair amount of contempt. I have thought about going the route of just playing an evil character, asssasinating the street urchins whom my current PC can't help without permission from one of the other NPCs who has every poor child in the city of Yhaunn following his orders, and in general doing other nefarious things. I've also thought about turning Anak into a vigilante a la Batman, having him go around and kill all evil-doers without remorse, whether they're currently doing anything evil or not. :D I mean, he's already got the wings and everything! :D
totoro 06-20-05, 02:31 AM	Elfhound played her character properly. The DM should acknowledge the good roleplay and also try to assign an appropriate alignment. I do think it is the business of all of the other players whether the alignment assigned is as would be RAW. Otherwise, they need to figure out what the alignment house rules are. Killing someone for taunting you/being stupid is evil. That doesn't mean killing someone for being stupid is "incorrect" if that is how you play your character. Elfhound is dangerously unstable, but doesn't want to be evil, so her character will become more complex. That's a good thing. If her alignment shifts to C(E), so what? Maybe she will actually shift to C(G) after the consequences of a lethal outburst really sink in. Play the character. Let the DM worry about the alignment. And with such a new player, I'd be lenient while her alignment stabilizes.
evilviper77 06-20-05, 11:11 AM	I've also thought about turning Anak into a vigilante a la Batman, having him go around and kill all evil-doers without remorse, whether they're currently doing anything evil or not. :D I mean, he's already got the wings and everything! :D To bring this thread a little off topic because of certain regenative beings posting here :D... In the new movie Batman Begins (which is a spectactular movie everyone needs to see!), he doesn't kill them, he knocks them out with some super critted sub-dual dmg!
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 11:39 AM	Here's mine: 1: The DG, doppleganger, was KILLED, not murdered. There are such things as justifiable homocide, or in this case dopplecide. 2: The CN Elf acted well within her alignmenet and I'd dare say rights to kill her tormentor. 3: The DG wa not a child merely taunting the elf. The analogy of this being the equivilant to the murder of a child just taunting you is not even in the same league. 4: The DG, or the DM who may or may not have had a reason beyond not knowing the rules completely such as the DG had been told or there was something in the room etc. that enhanced the DG's mind reading ability, went into and deliberately read minds looking for the most painful memories. 5: DGs are not human and to say that is an incorrect statement. While it is true that many humans and almost all DGs are neutral, humans don't as a general rule have the ability to read minds. Most also do not toy with people as was described in the MM on the motives of DGs. 6: The act was neutral, not evil. Re-read what murder is again and what happened. There was no gain for elf save sparing her mind by killing the DG. To say that she did indeed then gain something is like saying that people who get a chance to kill their torturer and do so commit an evil act. She was being mentally tortured. 7: From the differences in the stories of the both the OP and the person playing the elf, it is easy to see that they perceived things differently. While some people do go overboard on wht they perceive vs what really happened, I will take them at their word on that they thought happened. There are small differences that lead to different conclusions. As such, I will say that though the hald-celestial didn't care for the actions of the elf, the elf was not trying to be a blood thirsty murderer. Things went down in a way that was regretable but not unrealistic. 8: This leads me back to the heroic half-celestial. From the OP's own comments, he did say to the elf, "If you do this again, I will kill you or you'll have to kill me". That leads me to this conclusion: A: The Half-Celestial's, HC, self-righteousness fails on close inspection. Did the half-celestial even bother to find out why the elf did what she did? I didn't see it in either description. That and the half-celestial came out with a decree, "Do it again and die", yeah that's a "good" character. B: The HC is not concerned about the feelings of others. The half-celestial must have known something about the elf's dad yet didn't seem to care about the elf's feelings of being taunted, and IMHO tortured, by a being who was going into her memories and bring out the most painful of them. C: Why so many others who responded to this did not pick up on the HC's obvious infraction on alignment is beyond me. Yeah, I will say threatening to kill someone when you don't know what's going on and ignoring the plight of the one who killed their antagonist is an evil thing to do. Flame away.
Beamup 06-20-05, 11:47 AM	The DG's death was a clear murder by any definition of the term, and a clearly Evil act. Killing someone because they're annoying/harassing/taunting/etc. you is murder. Only if they're actively threatening you or someone else is it not. Flipping out and killing somebody in such a situation is very understandable, and good RP in this case, but it's still murder and Evil. Anak's reaction was also totally appropriate. Somebody commited murder in front of him - naturally he's not going to tolerate that if he's commited to Good. Declaring that he'll prevent any further murders by any means necessary is 100% appropriate. Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL.
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 12:13 PM	The DG's death was a clear murder by any definition of the term, and a clearly Evil act. Killing someone because they're annoying/harassing/taunting/etc. you is murder. Only if they're actively threatening you or someone else is it not. Flipping out and killing somebody in such a situation is very understandable, and good RP in this case, but it's still murder and Evil. Read again. The DG was going into memories and attacking a person with them. Now the attacks may not be physical, but they will damage a person. Anak's reaction was also totally appropriate. Somebody commited murder in front of him - naturally he's not going to tolerate that if he's commited to Good. Declaring that he'll prevent any further murders by any means necessary is 100% appropriate. No it wasn't. Anak was jumping on someone who protected themself and was being self-righteous without being right. Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. I disagree entirely. The elf did not murder anyone. Why you insist that being essentially mind raped is not an attack is beyond me. The elf killed her attacker. To me, that is self defense. As for the actions of Anak, here's a real email conversation between myself and the rest of the group. A quick setup: Laun, 8 Str Human, my character, NG 15th Wizard, follows the Goddess Madriel from the "Scarred Lands". Vrodish, Dwarf, Laun's best friend, CN 6th Barbarrian/8th Level Baruk Dum (a PrC in which the designer and player of the character won 3rd prize. He'll be there at GenCon in August) Grayson, Human, NG 14th Cleric of Madriel Thorall, Dwarf, N 14th Cleric of Nemorga "Father" William, Human, NG/CG 3rd Cleric of Madriel/11th Rogue Commander Nolan, my other character - yes I play two characters, Human, LN 2nd Aristocrat/8th Fighter/3rd Vigil follower on Hedrada We just got hammered but eventually destroyed a Black Dragon. We nearly died. As healed up as best we could and came into a room where we almost died again. There were two "crystals" that were also mages. We won the fight and the crystals shattered, revealing two Slacerian children (the DM doesn't like psionics and neither do we) who had power from their mom, who had taken over the body of the Dragon. The mom was destroyed, literally and the kids, well, they are kids again, albiet children of a race that wants us all dead. Vrodish goes to kill the kids and Laun intervenes. Vrodish picks Laun up and tosses him across the room and kills one kid, definite overkill. Grayson comes in and drops a flame strike on the other kid. There's not even ash remaining. This is how is went down via email: ======================================== ================== Ok, that said. Now this is through Laun..... Laun is angry and upset. He looks over the dead bodies, or the one and then the black scorched mark where the other used to be, and struggles to hold back his emotions. Looking over at Vrodish and Grayson he shouts out, "Why? Yes, why did you have to do this?" Whit that Laun pulls out a mask that all but Grayson would recognize and states, "Vrodish, remember what we did to the Plainsrunner?" Laun pulls it out unfolding it. You note that water drops start falling from it. I have been charged with giving this back to the Plainsrunner by the Angel of Mercy herself. I will not fail. But I failed here none the less." Laun starts to pace on the floor but before anyone can say anything he continues, "Yes, I have failed here with you Vrodish. I thought it was possible after all we had been through that perhaps you would have seen that perhaps giving someone a small chance is a good thing. I was the recipient of a second chance. There was no reason to let me live." Laun lets his voice drop, "Anyone could have easily said about me, 'Ah, just another spoiled brat, a second child who knows that the money will run out and he's trying to gain all for himself'. The really sad point ins they would have been right. But someone did take mercy on me." With that his gaze fixes on Grayson. "I learned that MERCY", up till that word, Laun's voice was calm, tinged with a hint of sadness but he quickly collects himself and continues, "is what my benefactor is all about. Yes, I have failed at times but save for one glaring example of late, I have conducted myself in as benign a manner as this situation would allow." Eyes still fixed on Grayson as Laun continues. But Laun's eyes do not convey anger or hatred in them. Instead those who look see a great sadness and pain as he continues to speak to the group, "I had hoped that being blessed with one so close to the Angel of Mercy I would learn more about what compassion, mercy and understanding." After that Laun looks at the group. He attempts to meet each one in the eye for a few seconds. If he does or doesn't suceed with that, it will not matter. He then goes over to a corner, sits and prays. TH wrote=> Vrodish let's Laun have his say, then moves close to him, looking into the eyes of his oldest friend and most stalwart companion. "My friend, we have had to make many difficult on long journey. Our choices have led us to seal a friends away in a dimension of death and darkness, to attempt to murder our companion, and to slay even gods. All these things we have done for the greater good in our attempt to best serve the gods and the land of Scarn." Vrodish pauses a moment as if in thought, then continues in a very firm and unwavering voice. "To allow Galeeda's spawn to live would have been no mercy. Save your mercy for the children of the gods. Such a thing is not for the spawn of the Ancient Enemy. My people have a saying that has kept us alive in the frozen wastes of Krakadom - To leave alive an enemy is to slay a friend. No time is this more true than now. To leave alive any Slarecean, no matter how they appear, is to risk everything. Even now our Ancient Enemies have the entire world in thrall. Our people are but their puppets to manipulate as they will. The gods slowly die as they remain cut off from the prayers of their children. Laun, we cannot afford to dole out mercy to the Ancient Enemy. We cannot afford a kindness that could sting us and cause us to fail in our task. If we fail, the whole world dies with us. Mercy dies with us. Our gods die with us." Vrodish reaches out and softly grasps the shoulder of his friend. "No Laun, mercy was not an option for us - this time." FH wrote=> Laun looks at Vrodish and tries to smile. "Yes, my friend. It is true that we face terrible, horrid things that want not just to kill us, but destroy the ones we love and the Gods we serve. They are evil to be sure and our resolve to stop them and their plans. But if we are going to stoop to what they would do, if their evil lives on through us, then they have already won. "Don't get me wrong. I wanted to make them pay for things that they have done. I saw the carnage outside and in my head, I wanted nothing more than justice. But if all I want is justice under my own terms, then I am no better than those who ruled Calastia with an iron fist. "I don't know what should have been done to them. I still think that there is a way to win by living in peace with all who have called Scarn their home. That is something I would like to try to accomplish. With that Laun stops, looks at Vrodish, puts his hand upon his shoulder and say, "Come, let's go. We have more to save. Worrying about anything other than the tablets will be a waste. We have many to save, much ale to drink, women to love and a world to reclaim." ======================================== ================== No threats, no, "I'll kill you" Anak was dead wrong in his reaction, more so IMHO than the elf ever was by killing the DG.
Beamup 06-20-05, 12:16 PM	Read again. The DG was going into memories and attacking a person with them. Now the attacks may not be physical, but they will damage a person. Being annoying is an attack and "mind rape" now. The Twinkie Defense is alive and well!
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 12:18 PM	Being annoying is an attack and "mind rape" now. The Twinkie Defense is alive and well! but I understand it..... When you have nothing, bring up something that is completely off topic. It helps to confuse the issue and provides cover when you can't make a case. OBTW, where did I say that just being annoying is an attack? I would really like to see your answer. If you can't back it up, retract it and I would like an apology.
Derren S. 06-20-05, 12:31 PM	But he is right. When you call someone an idiot is its also damaging and so, by your definition you are allowed to respond with lethal force.
Beamup 06-20-05, 12:42 PM	When you have nothing, bring up something that is completely off topic. It helps to confuse the issue and provides cover when you can't make a case. It's 100% on topic. Fundamentally, it's the same concept. "I'm not responsible for my actions because somebody/something else made me do it." OBTW, where did I say that just being annoying is an attack? Well, let's see here... The DG was going into memories and attacking a person with them. The elf killed her attacker. But he is right. When you call someone an idiot is its also damaging and so, by your definition you are allowed to respond with lethal force. Precisely. Thank you for putting it so well.
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 01:10 PM	It's 100% on topic. Fundamentally, it's the same concept. "I'm not responsible for my actions because somebody/something else made me do it." Uh no. The "Twinkie Defense" was used by a guy who said he ate too many twinkies and so his blood sugar was way off. Please explain the relevance to someone going into your mind to pull out painful memories. Also, the city councilman who went into the Mayor's office and killed the mayor and the other councilman was not under duress of life and limb. The elf was. Your analogy is way off and you are incorrect, again. Thanks for playing. Originally Posted by LCD2YOU OBTW, where did I say that just being annoying is an attack? Well, let's see here... Originally Posted by LCD2YOU The DG was going into memories and attacking a person with them. The elf killed her attacker. I see read for comprehension is not your strong suit. I asked for when I posted that being annoying was an attack. You posted nothing about someone going into another's mind and that is attacking them. Also, I stated clearly that the elf killed heer attacker, not someone's who is being merely annoying. Are you saying that if someone goes into your mind and pulls out memories of loved ones dying is not an attack but just annoying? You really are stretching things to make them fit the way you want, aren't you? Again, thanks for playing. But he is right. When you call someone an idiot is its also damaging and so, by your definition you are allowed to respond with lethal force. Precisely. Thank you for putting it so well. Really? Where did I say that? Already you owe me an apology for not being able to back up your posts when you stated that just being annoying is attacking and from the point of this entire thread, worthy of being killed. Now you and Derren S. have gone so far as to put things into my posts that I did not say, despite your attempts to link them, about being called a name can lead to lethal force from what I posted. Again, using all of my posts in complete context, show me where I stated that. If not, back off and apologize for that as well. Let's see you pony up to the table and see what you really are. That goes for you too Derren S. I await your responses.
Derren S. 06-20-05, 01:49 PM	Your problem is that you think reading minds is a capital offense. it is not, it is no equal to murder, attempted murder, rape or whatever you call it. It is not an attack and does not allow someone to respond with lethal force. You can say that it would have been neutral to beat the doppelganger up and knock it unconcussionous, but killing it was clearly wrong and evil. Is someone allowed to kill someone else who researches his background and disguises as the murderer of his father, clearly knowing that it is just a disguise? No. The fact that this background research was performed through mind reading doesn't change anything.
evilviper77 06-20-05, 02:03 PM	Again, using all of my posts in complete context, show me where I stated that. If not, back off and apologize for that as well. Let's see you pony up to the table and see what you really are. That goes for you too Derren S. I await your responses. LCD2YOU for someone that so badly wants an apology, you sure don't act like it...and also for being the person who started all the bashing on other posters (or their characters here (Celestial Barbarian)) you sure seem to act alot like that doppleganger by verbally "attacking" everyone else. [sarcasm up!] Quick guys lets kill this Doppleganger!!! He is verbally scarring me!!![sarcasm down] There are better ways of debating rather than throwing around derogative high level vocab words, so why don't we go back to the mission at hand, and answer Celestial Barbarian's original question for this post instead of turning it into Flame Wars.
Beamup 06-20-05, 02:17 PM	UThe "Twinkie Defense" was used by a guy who said he ate too many twinkies and so his blood sugar was way off. Please explain the relevance to someone going into your mind to pull out painful memories. Also, the city councilman who went into the Mayor's office and killed the mayor and the other councilman was not under duress of life and limb. The elf was. Your analogy is way off and you are incorrect, again. Thanks for playing. The relevance is that in both cases people are claiming to not be responsible for their actions, with no good reason. It's identical. I see read for comprehension is not your strong suit. COC violations are not an appropriate form of argumentation. I asked for when I posted that being annoying was an attack. You posted nothing about someone going into another's mind and that is attacking them. Also, I stated clearly that the elf killed heer attacker, not someone's who is being merely annoying. Are you saying that if someone goes into your mind and pulls out memories of loved ones dying is not an attack but just annoying? You really are stretching things to make them fit the way you want, aren't you? As a matter of fact, "someone going into your mind and pulling out memories of loved ones dying" isn't even annoying. It has no effect on you at all. You aren't even aware of it happening, in fact. Might I remind you, also, that the murder was not committed because of the mindreading, but because of the shapeshifting. So the situation as it stands is that somebody has done something with no effect on the PC whatsoever, that the PC couldn't even tell happened. Then they shapeshifted into an old friend's form. Due to the PC's mental state with regard to said friend, she flips out and attacks. The DG has done absolutely nothing other than being annoying/harassing/taunting. Really? Where did I say that? Already you owe me an apology for not being able to back up your posts when you stated that just being annoying is attacking and from the point of this entire thread, worthy of being killed. I did not state that just being annoying is attacking. You explicitly stated, several times, as quoted, that the DG's actions constituted an attack. In point of fact, the DG's actions constituted no more than annoyance/harassment/taunting. Hence, you claim that annoyance/harassment/taunting constitutes an attack. Now you and Derren S. have gone so far as to put things into my posts that I did not say, despite your attempts to link them, about being called a name can lead to lethal force from what I posted. Your claim (paraphrased) is that doing something psychologically distressing constitues an attack subject to retaliation with lethal force, AFAICT. Calling someone an idiot is similarly psychologially distressing, hence by the logic you appear to be using, it would also be an attack subject to retaliation with lethal force. Again, using all of my posts in complete context, show me where I stated that. If not, back off and apologize for that as well. Let's see you pony up to the table and see what you really are. Done. Repeatedly. I will close by observing the irony of people demanding apologies while simultaneously making personal attacks totally unrelated to the discussion at hand.
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 04:27 PM	LCD2YOU for someone that so badly wants an apology, you sure don't act like it...and also for being the person who started all the bashing on other posters (or their characters here (Celestial Barbarian)) you sure seem to act alot like that doppleganger by verbally "attacking" everyone else. Really? Like how? I pointed out where Celestial Barbarian's character was at fault. What is your point? Save for not believing Beamup is reading things very well and may indeed be either reading out of context on purpose or really can't do it at all, what are you talking about. Be specific. If not, then why the attack? Is Beamup a friend of yours? Also, what else are you talking about? The small fact that Beamup started off with moral dictates like this: Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. Yeah, that's a good place to start from. [sarcasm up!] Quick guys lets kill this Doppleganger!!! He is verbally scarring me!!![sarcasm down] Really? Your sarcasm is poor at best. Have you just come out of a battle? Am I reaching into your mind and pulling out painful memories of a loved one who was truly murdered? Am I part of an organization that you are already taking up arms against? See, once again I'm being hit with things out of context. It bothers me that you think what is essentially mind rape (ok what do you call it then?) is just fine and is something that can be laughed at. There are better ways of debating rather than throwing around derogative high level vocab words, so why don't we go back to the mission at hand, and answer Celestial Barbarian's original question for this post instead of turning it into Flame Wars. Yes there are. For the record I did not: 1: Use my own terminology and then attack someone else to defend it. Both Derren S. and Beamup are doing just that. 2: Talk about this one situation and make it out like it will always be the case, no matter how one changes the circumstances around. I said in this one instance, the one the OP described, the actions were not evil. I didn't say they were good or even the correct thing to do, just understandable. Go back and read what was posted then answer who is flaming whom.
Andrew_980 06-20-05, 04:28 PM	What if the "emotional attack" was accedental? would she still be "justified" in killing an annoyance? what if she was told "go **** an orc!" and the person didn't know she had been raped by an orc? they brought up painfull memories, they deserve to die right? Your problem is that you think reading minds is a capital offense I will say that mind reading is wrong, but she way beyond over reacted The "Twinkie Defense" was used by a guy who said he ate too many twinkies and so his blood sugar was way off. I think that is in referance to the "I am not at fault ____ made me do it" mentality that is being desplayed, as in she was justified because he "hurt" her so it isn't really her fault. Kind of like most mass/serial killers, not really their fault, right?
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 05:05 PM	Let's see what you posted and what was left out..... UThe "Twinkie Defense" was used by a guy who said he ate too many twinkies and so his blood sugar was way off. Please explain the relevance to someone going into your mind to pull out painful memories. Also, the city councilman who went into the Mayor's office and killed the mayor and the other councilman was not under duress of life and limb. The elf was. Your analogy is way off and you are incorrect, again. Thanks for playing. The relevance is that in both cases people are claiming to not be responsible for their actions, with no good reason. It's identical. Again, not identical. The Mayor and Councilman were not a threat. The DG was. The Mayor and Councilman were not reaching into the mind of the murderer. The DG was. There is more but why you insist on saying it is the same is just because you've lost the arguemnet and are trying to just get me upset so you can claim victory. It almost worked. I see read for comprehension is not your strong suit. COC violations are not an appropriate form of argumentation. No go here sport. This is from this exchange: OBTW, where did I say that just being annoying is an attack? Well, let's see here... The DG was going into memories and attacking a person with them. The elf killed her attacker. Right there you lost it. I asked you for a direct quote on where I said what you claimed. You came back with something that you pulled out of context, ie read the whole thing and everything that I said made the elf's choose understandable, incorrect action but not evil nor murder. You did not respond and I made note of that. If you don't like it, then answer the question I asked, or take it back an apologize. I asked for when I posted that being annoying was an attack. You posted nothing about someone going into another's mind and that is attacking them. Also, I stated clearly that the elf killed her attacker, not someone's who is being merely annoying. Are you saying that if someone goes into your mind and pulls out memories of loved ones dying is not an attack but just annoying? You really are stretching things to make them fit the way you want, aren't you? As a matter of fact, "someone going into your mind and pulling out memories of loved ones dying" isn't even annoying. It has no effect on you at all. You aren't even aware of it happening, in fact. Might I remind you, also, that the murder was not committed because of the mindreading, but because of the shapeshifting. So pulling out painful memories is not a bad thing huh? I'll let the guys who I work with who have PTSD that when they crawl under a desk to avoid incoming fire that you said that. Pulling out memories, traumatic ones, is a form of toture. That you don't recognize it as such is more a testament to what you don't know then anything else. So the situation as it stands is that somebody has done something with no effect on the PC whatsoever, that the PC couldn't even tell happened. Then they shapeshifted into an old friend's form. Due to the PC's mental state with regard to said friend, she flips out and attacks. The DG has done absolutely nothing other than being annoying/harassing/taunting. Uh, no. While the PC may not be physically or mentally aware that the DG was in her head, she could see the results of it. See if you were to go to some of the places I've been and made an "arching whistling sound", after some of the guys pick themselves off of the floor, they will be using a sponge to get all of you off of the floor. I'm not saying that to be mean, just what I'd know that would happen. Really? Where did I say that? Already you owe me an apology for not being able to back up your posts when you stated that just being annoying is attacking and from the point of this entire thread, worthy of being killed. I did not state that just being annoying is attacking. You explicitly stated, several times, as quoted, that the DG's actions constituted an attack. In point of fact, the DG's actions constituted no more than annoyance/harassment/taunting. Hence, you claim that annoyance/harassment/taunting constitutes an attack. No, I claimed that the DG was not being annoying. I claimed he was attacking. Never said he was annoying. Now you and Derren S. have gone so far as to put things into my posts that I did not say, despite your attempts to link them, about being called a name can lead to lethal force from what I posted. Your claim (paraphrased) is that doing something psychologically distressing constitues an attack subject to retaliation with lethal force, AFAICT. Calling someone an idiot is similarly psychologially distressing, hence by the logic you appear to be using, it would also be an attack subject to retaliation with lethal force. Again, no I did not. What I claimed is a more simple and basic than that. The DG used its abilities as a weapon. It wanted to get a responce out of the party. It went against a person who was not as in control as they should have been and pushed way too far. That is an attack in my book. If the DM was playing the DG as if it could read minds that easily, what else could it do? Yup, it was attacking. I said this: Here's mine: 1: The DG, doppleganger, was KILLED, not murdered. There are such things as justifiable homocide, or in this case dopplecide. 2: The CN Elf acted well within her alignmenet and I'd dare say rights to kill her tormentor. 3: The DG wa not a child merely taunting the elf. The analogy of this being the equivilant to the murder of a child just taunting you is not even in the same league. 4: The DG, or the DM who may or may not have had a reason beyond not knowing the rules completely such as the DG had been told or there was something in the room etc. that enhanced the DG's mind reading ability, went into and deliberately read minds looking for the most painful memories. 5: DGs are not human and to say that is an incorrect statement. While it is true that many humans and almost all DGs are neutral, humans don't as a general rule have the ability to read minds. Most also do not toy with people as was described in the MM on the motives of DGs. 6: The act was neutral, not evil. Re-read what murder is again and what happened. There was no gain for elf save sparing her mind by killing the DG. To say that she did indeed then gain something is like saying that people who get a chance to kill their torturer and do so commit an evil act. She was being mentally tortured. 7: From the differences in the stories of the both the OP and the person playing the elf, it is easy to see that they perceived things differently. While some people do go overboard on wht they perceive vs what really happened, I will take them at their word on that they thought happened. There are small differences that lead to different conclusions. As such, I will say that though the hald-celestial didn't care for the actions of the elf, the elf was not trying to be a blood thirsty murderer. Things went down in a way that was regretable but not unrealistic. 8: This leads me back to the heroic half-celestial. From the OP's own comments, he did say to the elf, "If you do this again, I will kill you or you'll have to kill me". That leads me to this conclusion: A: The Half-Celestial's, HC, self-righteousness fails on close inspection. Did the half-celestial even bother to find out why the elf did what she did? I didn't see it in either description. That and the half-celestial came out with a decree, "Do it again and die", yeah that's a "good" character. B: The HC is not concerned about the feelings of others. The half-celestial must have known something about the elf's dad yet didn't seem to care about the elf's feelings of being taunted, and IMHO tortured, by a being who was going into her memories and bring out the most painful of them. C: Why so many others who responded to this did not pick up on the HC's obvious infraction on alignment is beyond me. Yeah, I will say threatening to kill someone when you don't know what's going on and ignoring the plight of the one who killed their antagonist is an evil thing to do. Flame away. Compared to this from you: Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. Yes, you're right, those of us who see that both are wrong, well one is now DEAD and wrong. Glad to see that you came into this discussion with such an open mind. Again, using all of my posts in complete context, show me where I stated that. If not, back off and apologize for that as well. Let's see you pony up to the table and see what you really are. Done. Repeatedly. No, you have not done anything like it. You put your words into my posts and then tell me to defend them. Sorry, I only defend my own posts. You use your own definitions and then claim that is what another, in this case myself, has said. You are twisting words and not being very good at it. I will close by observing the irony of people demanding apologies while simultaneously making personal attacks totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. No, you're closing as you can't defend what you said and I caught you trying to slide in your own words into another's post. You have done nothing but show that you are unable to do anything more than cut and paste, poorly, and attack your own strawmen. Come back and play when you can actually discuss what a person actually said, not what you wanted them to say.
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 05:09 PM	Thank you Derren, evilviper77, and Beamup for your articulate and passionate defense of my actions. :) LCD2YOU, please exercise a little more restraint in how you disagree with me and the others so that the moderators don't shut down the thread. Thanks! :) It probably doesn't change anything for anyone, but as I indicated earlier, the doppleganger did not turn into the form of the person who murdered Anwyn's father, as it turns out that Anwyn's father is still alive. Rather the doppleganger took the form of a dead friend of Anwyn's. Anwyn apparently blames herself for the friend's death. I don't think that anyone claims that reading your mind without your permision isn't an intrusion. Anak himself momentarily considered bopping the doppleganger over the head with the bottom of his fist, and had Anwyn simply slugged the doppleganger and left it at that, Anak wouldn't have said anything. The Harper woman reacted to the doppleganger by shouting, "Stay out of my mind!" Anak wasn't actually annoyed by the mind-reading per se, but by seeing the images, and he felt some surprise at how strongly the Harper reacted against the mind-reading. That surprise got completely lost until now in the ensuing events of killing the doppleganger and all that followed. When Anak asked the doppleganger how he knew the people from Anak's life that he imitated, he said, "You told me." Anak asked, "Are you a mind-reader then?" It sounded to Anak like the doppleganger reads minds the way that we hear sounds--if you're close enough, you overhear without trying. I think that's not how the 3.5 doppleganger's power actually works, but certainly fantasy and science fiction literature portrays telepathy that way as often as not. Telepaths often have to learn to not read minds so that they can stay sane despite the babel of thoughts in their heads. The doppleganger picked up unconscious thoughts or memories so easily that it still seems to Anak like the doppleganger just hears what people think. After Anwyn killed the doppleganger, we had an argument that took place partly in character and party out of character. People shifted back and forth, as they often do in D&D, so that we couldn't always tell whether someone said something in character or out of character. At some point I got the idea that Anwyn had killed the doppleganger for imitating the killer of her father. Although Elfhound and I disagree on how belligerently she's played her character, Anak expected her to one day snap and murder someone over a small provocation, and that she did so in the case of the doppleganger seemed clear at the time she did it. In the ensuing arguments over the evil of doing so, nobody ever challenged that that's exactly what happened. The Harper, on the contrary (or perhaps her player out of character--that's not always clear), tried to argue the "temporary insanity" defense, saying exactly that: that Anwyn had snapped and killed the doppleganger while temporarily insane. (I'm not sure whether Elfhound agrees entirely with the Harper player's argument or not.) So Anak knew from the moment it happened why Anwyn killed the doppleganger: she got angry and lost control. I might also add that Anwyn didn't merely attack the doppleganger and kill him with one stab of her rapier or short sword. It took her three rounds to kill the doppleganger, during which time she hit him some six times. During the three rounds both Ront (the paladin) and Anak called to her repeatedly to stop. Ront even managed to swing the flat of his greatsword at her once, trying to inflict non-lethal damage, but he missed. She didn't just kill the doppleganger with one angry blow. Nor has she expressed any regret over it, saying repeatedly that "He had it coming." From Anak's perspective, Anwynn is a hot-headed murderer, and a wholly unrepentant one at that. I know out of character that she feels terrible for losing control, but that's not the same as feeling terrible for killing someone. I also know out of character that because Anak told Anwyn that if he sees her kill another innocent she'll either have to kill him too or he'll kill her, Anwyn is going to exercise a great deal of care before she kills again. Anak doesn't know that, of course, but out of character I'd have to say that if Anak's words have caused her to think twice about taking the life of someone who isn't trying to kill her, then they've had the intended deterrent effect.
Callista 06-20-05, 05:21 PM	Unless I misread you, you just said that school shootings are evil, but understandable--I would say that you're concepts of morality are definitely skewed if you consider killing someone who taunts you on the "lighter side of evil." (Beating someone into unconsciousness or nearly to death, etc. is a bit of a different matter.) That's a half step from killing someone because you don't like how they look, and one step from killing someone just 'cause. Of course, by that point, you're insane, not evil.Well, I guess it has to do with the D&D "evil", which is often narrower than my own definition of evil. In real life, I would say that, yes, school shootings are absolutely, inescapably, evil. They're evil in D&D's definition of "evil", too; but they're "less evil" in that system than in my own, real-life system of belief. Yeah, I know, that sounds confusing, but bear with me. What I mean when I say "evil, but understandable" is that it's possible to understand why people a lot like us would do something so horrible. It's possible to see why, after so much provocation, a combination of anger, insanity and a skewed sense of justice might cause a fallible person to do something like shoot a bully. In D&D, "evil but understandable" is still solidly evil; but it's not as bad as some things you could do. Kind of like the difference between third degree murder... say, killing someone when you pull a knife in the heated anger of a fistfight... and the first-degree, planned murder of a spouse for the life insurance money. They're both evil; but one is going to get you punished more than the other. That's what I mean about using school shootings as an example. I'm trying to explain why the person who committed the evil act in the OP's story shouldn't be abandoned by the Good-aligned character... because it's the sort of evil that, while it's still evil, you can understand; the sort of evil it's possible to be redeemed from. What's more, it's not a bad thing to do, either, role-playing-wise; it's a very understandable thing to do after someone taunts you like that. More than likely, if her friends were unable to stop her, it was a matter of one or two rounds... twelve seconds isn't a long time, maybe not a long enough time for the character to think straight enough to get past the anger. So: Like I said, evil but understandable... That clear things up?
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 05:23 PM	Let's see what you posted and what was left out..... Again, not identical. The Mayor and Councilman were not a threat. The DG was. The Mayor and Councilman were not reaching into the mind of the murderer. The DG was. There is more but why you insist on saying it is the same is just because you've lost the arguemnet and are trying to just get me upset so you can claim victory. It almost worked. No go here sport. This is from this exchange: Right there you lost it. I asked you for a direct quote on where I said what you claimed. You came back with something that you pulled out of context, ie read the whole thing and everything that I said made the elf's choose understandable, incorrect action but not evil nor murder. You did not respond and I made note of that. If you don't like it, then answer the question I asked, or take it back an apologize. So pulling out painful memories is not a bad thing huh? I'll let the guys who I work with who have PTSD that when they crawl under a desk to avoid incoming fire that you said that. Pulling out memories, traumatic ones, is a form of toture. That you don't recognize it as such is more a testament to what you don't know then anything else. Uh, no. While the PC may not be physically or mentally aware that the DG was in her head, she could see the results of it. See if you were to go to some of the places I've been and made an "arching whistling sound", after some of the guys pick themselves off of the floor, they will be using a sponge to get all of you off of the floor. I'm not saying that to be mean, just what I'd know that would happen. No, I claimed that the DG was not being annoying. I claimed he was attacking. Never said he was annoying. Again, no I did not. What I claimed is a more simple and basic than that. The DG used its abilities as a weapon. It wanted to get a responce out of the party. It went against a person who was not as in control as they should have been and pushed way too far. That is an attack in my book. If the DM was playing the DG as if it could read minds that easily, what else could it do? Yup, it was attacking. I said this: Here's mine: Compared to this from you: Yes, you're right, those of us who see that both are wrong, well one is now DEAD and wrong. Glad to see that you came into this discussion with such an open mind. No, you have not done anything like it. You put your words into my posts and then tell me to defend them. Sorry, I only defend my own posts. You use your own definitions and then claim that is what another, in this case myself, has said. You are twisting words and not being very good at it. No, you're closing as you can't defend what you said and I caught you trying to slide in your own words into another's post. You have done nothing but show that you are unable to do anything more than cut and paste, poorly, and attack your own strawmen. Come back and play when you can actually discuss what a person actually said, not what you wanted them to say. As Princess Lookie's father said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Let's not argue and bicker over 'oo killed 'oo ... ." ;)
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 05:40 PM	What if the "emotional attack" was accedental? would she still be "justified" in killing an annoyance? what if she was told "go **** an orc!" and the person didn't know she had been raped by an orc? they brought up painfull memories, they deserve to die right? A few points here: 1: I have never said the DG deserved to die. I said I understand WHY the elf killed it. If I did say that, that is regretable as I never intended to say that. If I did say that, please point it out so I may address it and correct it. 2: If a person kills another because of what you stated, I don't think it was evil as I'd think the killer would be insane. There is a difference between going into someone's mind and looking for painful memories and use it against them, that's an attack. I will say that mind reading is wrong, but she way beyond over reacted. I would too but I still don't think it is murder, evil and it is understandable. That is what I've been saying. I think that is in referance to the "I am not at fault ____ made me do it" mentality that is being desplayed, as in she was justified because he "hurt" her so it isn't really her fault. Kind of like most mass/serial killers, not really their fault, right? In some cases, I am sure that some mass murderers are insane. Still, I don't think that saying there is much of a connection between the particular case that the elf went through and a serial killer. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 05:44 PM	Thank you Derren, evilviper77, and Beamup for your articulate and passionate defense of my actions. :) LCD2YOU, please exercise a little more restraint in how you disagree with me and the others so that the moderators don't shut down the thread. Thanks! :) You mean like this? Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. In the future I'll start my conversations with blankett statements like that. Gets the blood going :D
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 05:45 PM	Well, I guess it has to do with the D&D "evil", which is often narrower than my own definition of evil. In real life, I would say that, yes, school shootings are absolutely, inescapably, evil. They're evil in D&D's definition of "evil", too; but they're "less evil" in that system than in my own, real-life system of belief. Yeah, I know, that sounds confusing, but bear with me. What I mean when I say "evil, but understandable" is that it's possible to understand why people a lot like us would do something so horrible. It's possible to see why, after so much provocation, a combination of anger, insanity and a skewed sense of justice might cause a fallible person to do something like shoot a bully. In D&D, "evil but understandable" is still solidly evil; but it's not as bad as some things you could do. Kind of like the difference between third degree murder... say, killing someone when you pull a knife in the heated anger of a fistfight... and the first-degree, planned murder of a spouse for the life insurance money. They're both evil; but one is going to get you punished more than the other. That's what I mean about using school shootings as an example. I'm trying to explain why the person who committed the evil act in the OP's story shouldn't be abandoned by the Good-aligned character... because it's the sort of evil that, while it's still evil, you can understand; the sort of evil it's possible to be redeemed from. Hey, Callista, too bad you don't live here in the DC area; we'd like to have you in the Saturday night group I run. :) During the debate over Anwyn's killing of the doppleganger, I said that in the real world it would be considered murder. One of the other players said that it would be regarded as third-degree murder. But in the game his character is the one who moved into the doorway to try to slow Ront and Anak from getting into the room to stop Anwyn from killing the doppleganger. I haven't mentioned much of Anak's background before, as it didn't seem relevant to whether Anwyn's act was evil or not. His background does have some relevance to whether he has any chance of redeeming Anwyn from her evil. Anak is 18 years old, and until a few weeks ago, had lived alone on a deserted island after his father's ship was attacked by pirates. Anak can't quite read yet (not until he levels up for the first time) and often speaks like a kid. Pretty much everyone has dismissed him as immature and unable to understand the complexities of "real life" because he doesn't use adult language to express himself. This has allowed them to dismiss his innate goodness as mere immaturity. NPCs regulary calling him "dim" or an "idiot" within his hearing. In short, everyone pretty much disrepsects him and wants him to change. Nobody seems to have considered that he might be as good as he is not because he's uneducated, but because he's an angel. So I don't see any prospect that he will be able to "redeem" anyone. I've noticed also that none of the NPCs has any respect for altruism or feels any gratitude for anything selfless that anyone does for them. Anak can try to help the street urchins as much as he wants, but unless they fear that he will kill them, they won't stop trying to pick his pockets. They wouldn't even run in the races he set up (Lathander encourages physical fitness) without the permission of the "Calishite assassin" whom they fear, even though they can win the equivalent of a month's wages in one small race.
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 05:48 PM	As Princess Lookie's father said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Let's not argue and bicker over 'oo killed 'oo ... ." ;) What are you trying to say? Inquiring minds want to know. OBTW, check out how I responded to Andrew_980 Also see what got me upset at Derren S.: I don't know if I should laugh or be frightened of you. Why did he need to say that?
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 06:08 PM	Hey, Callista, too bad you don't live here in the DC area; we'd like to have you in the Saturday night group I run. :) During the debate over Anwyn's killing of the doppleganger, I said that in the real world it would be considered murder. One of the other players said that it would be regarded as third-degree murder. But in the game his character is the one who moved into the doorway to try to slow Ront and Anak from getting into the room to stop Anwyn from killing the doppleganger. Murder is an evil act either premeditated, First Degree, or done in the commission of another evil or ammoral act like robbery, Second Degree. What Anwyn did was a mistake. There were better courses of action and she went with her gut, an honest thing to be sure, so it didn't make it an evil act. Here we are argueing over what was the act and Anwyn had what, 30 seconds? If it takes longer than 2 pages on this board, then it is most likely non-premediated and not evil. That doesn't mean that it was the smart thing to do nor would my NG PC have done it. But my LN one sure would have.
elfhound 06-20-05, 08:21 PM	I also know out of character that because Anak told Anwyn that if he sees her kill another innocent she'll either have to kill him too or he'll kill her, Anwyn is going to exercise a great deal of care before she kills again. Anak doesn't know that, of course, but out of character I'd have to say that if Anak's words have caused her to think twice about taking the life of someone who isn't trying to kill her, then they've had the intended deterrent effect. To clarify, it is Anak that Anwyn will be exercising the caution with, because she never knows what his reaction will be if she has to kill again. One thing about how Anak is played- he's always kept his word, so Anwyn has no reason to doubt anything he says. She's not going to exercise care before she kills any enemy who is attacking her, but she is going to exercise care if she must kill in front of Anak- because she never knows if he'll disagree and go for her. That goes for any kill. Anwyn sees Anak's words as a death threat, not a deterrant for anything. I plan on using that for character development as well. However, the only way Anwyn would ever attack Anak is if he attacked her first, with a weapon that can deal lethal damage. Words alone, no matter how insulting or how angry, will not do it. Otherwise, she would have responded to the death threat with force. For one, as was posted, he's been isolated on an island. Anwyn won't fault him for not knowing everything that's going on in the city, nor does she expect him (or anyone else) to have exceptional social skills. So even if he does get angry and say some stuff, she's not going to take any action unless he physically attacks her. Before the death threat, she was perfectly neutral towards Anak, because here was one of the few people in the city who would not try to dissemble or present some ulterior motive. After the death threat, she won't act unless he does. But she will be cautious around him, as she would around anyone who threatened to kill her no matter what the reason. Also, what LCD said is a valid point- game time, I had about 30 seconds to decide. This was the first time Anwyn killed anyone who was not physically attacking her first, but this was a provoked attack. I had to make that call based on her backstory and what I felt, in a split second, that she would do. And this was not ruled an evil act by my DM. He ruled it neutral, so there is no alignment change. My personal opinion is that the act was not evil. I might consider it an evil act if she did it just because she felt like it- but then, the character would not attack someone for that reason. The attack was not unprovoked. She's got to deal with that issue from her past, and deal with it she will. So, as a player, I don't see a situation exactly like this coming up again. I'll be using it as a catalyst, so that the character now has a way to put the past to rest. I wasn't planning on that when the action happened- that was a total surprise for me, but now that it's over, I'm definitely going to use it. Anwyn's not a character who will fly into a rage easily and just haul off and start killing. That's exactly why she's having so much trouble with losing control. Here's an elf who's always seen the use of force as a tool or a weapon of some sort, and all of a sudden this doppelganger brings up her worst memories, fears, and failures all rolled into one. She loses control of herself and kills it. If she were in control of herself she may have settled for a good beating of the doppel, but she was not, so she killed it. And even though it took a few rounds, after the first round, the doppel turned into her and fought back, with weapons. So, she didn't have an easy kill- she was fighting an opponent who fought back. She's not exactly feeling remorse over the kill, because she felt she was attacked first with those memories. But she is going to have difficulties with losing control, and have fears about losing control again. That's going to add a lot to the character.
evilviper77 06-20-05, 08:43 PM	Really? Like how? I pointed out where Celestial Barbarian's character was at fault. What is your point? In response to how you started and continued flaming... Lets see... Well, I see that you can't defend your position...... (the topic of your fourth post after NO flaming nor degrading comments from the others towards you) but I understand it..... When you have nothing, bring up something that is completely off topic. It helps to confuse the issue and provides cover when you can't make a case. OBTW, where did I say that just being annoying is an attack? I would really like to see your answer. If you can't back it up, retract it and I would like an apology. This flame of Beamup was called for why? he was trying to lighten the mood with a statement that was in fact on topic (although it could have been in better flavor). Your analogy is way off and you are incorrect, again. Thanks for playing. and there was reason to state this why??? You even put in a snide comment at the end to top it off. A simple i disagree would have sufficed, if there was even need for that. I see read for comprehension is not your strong suit. I asked for when I posted that being annoying was an attack. You posted nothing about someone going into another's mind and that is attacking them. Also, I stated clearly that the elf killed heer attacker, not someone's who is being merely annoying. Are you saying that if someone goes into your mind and pulls out memories of loved ones dying is not an attack but just annoying? You really are stretching things to make them fit the way you want, aren't you? Again, thanks for playing. This post needed these bold sentences why? For trying to flame someone for taking the subject "off-topic" you sure have a lot of off topic remarks yourself. Between the bolded sentences was a fine post, it told your PoV and gave your reasons for your PoV; while the first and last sentence added nothing on topic to your post. I could go on and on, but the whole having to quote stuff is a real drain, i can't see how all of you can do it for so so so so so many times! =D On another tangent If the "Really? like how?" is about not wanting an apology, most people don't verbally bash someone they want to apologize to them. Furthermore, my point being that you need to quit flaming the other posters and just put down your point of view about your perspective on whether what she did was right or wrong, without all the insulting remarks. Yes, they did flame you, but that was AFTER agression by you. Continuing... Save for not believing Beamup is reading things very well and may indeed be either reading out of context on purpose or really can't do it at all, what are you talking about. Be specific. If not, then why the attack? Is Beamup a friend of yours? I hope i was specific enough for you now, and my post was not an attack on you, it was an attack on the flaming that has been going on in this thread recently, and since you started the flaming, i decided to call you out first. Celestial Barbarian does not need your bickering, he wants your opinions about the matter in his game, i am trying to help him acheive those goals. And no, Beamup is not a friend of mine, although he doesn't seem like a bad guy. You would be an ok guy if you left out all your derogatory remarks... you make good posts and valid points. Also, what else are you talking about? The small fact that Beamup started off with moral dictates like this: Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. Yeah, that's a good place to start from. Beamup has a right to his opinion, and his opinion is that Anwyn's actions were anything but evil, and Anak's reation was anything but good. Although he did go to the extreme of saying anyone else who thinks different is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL he didn't point that comment at anyone in specific. While you on the other hand specifically point out people and flame them. [sarcasm up!] Quick guys lets kill this Doppleganger!!! He is verbally scarring me!!![sarcasm down] Really? Your sarcasm is poor at best. Have you just come out of a battle? Am I reaching into your mind and pulling out painful memories of a loved one who was truly murdered? Am I part of an organization that you are already taking up arms against? That statement was directed at my above point that you were acting like the DG by verbally flaming the other posters (before they started flaming you), and trying to get them rilled up and mad. See, once again I'm being hit with things out of context. It bothers me that you think what is essentially mind rape (ok what do you call it then?) is just fine and is something that can be laughed at. No one is saying what the DG did was just fine and dandy (atleast from what i can tell), they are just saying that her actions were evil, and that she didn't have a good enough excuse to kill the DG. There are better ways of debating rather than throwing around derogative high level vocab words, so why don't we go back to the mission at hand, and answer Celestial Barbarian's original question for this post instead of turning it into Flame Wars. Yes there are. For the record I did not: 1: Use my own terminology and then attack someone else to defend it. Both Derren S. and Beamup are doing just that. 2: Talk about this one situation and make it out like it will always be the case, no matter how one changes the circumstances around. I said in this one instance, the one the OP described, the actions were not evil. I didn't say they were good or even the correct thing to do, just understandable. Go back and read what was posted then answer who is flaming whom. To finish this post off, you DID in fact use your own terminology and attack someone else to defend it and tick them off...and i have read what was posted, and i have answered who is flaming whom, so please keep it civil and just post your PoV's without anything extra along with it. Everyone this really shouldn't be a hard thing to do.
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 08:45 PM	To clarify, it is Anak that Anwyn will be exercising the caution with, because she never knows what his reaction will be if she has to kill again. One thing about how Anak is played- he's always kept his word, so Anwyn has no reason to doubt anything he says. She's not going to exercise care before she kills any enemy who is attacking her, but she is going to exercise care if she must kill in front of Anak- because she never knows if he'll disagree and go for her. That goes for any kill. Anwyn sees Anak's words as a death threat, not a deterrant for anything. I plan on using that for character development as well. However, the only way Anwyn would ever attack Anak is if he attacked her first, with a weapon that can deal lethal damage. Words alone, no matter how insulting or how angry, will not do it. Otherwise, she would have responded to the death threat with force. For one, as was posted, he's been isolated on an island. Anwyn won't fault him for not knowing everything that's going on in the city, nor does she expect him (or anyone else) to have exceptional social skills. So even if he does get angry and say some stuff, she's not going to take any action unless he physically attacks her. Before the death threat, she was perfectly neutral towards Anak, because here was one of the few people in the city who would not try to dissemble or present some ulterior motive. After the death threat, she won't act unless he does. But she will be cautious around him, as she would around anyone who threatened to kill her no matter what the reason. Also, what LCD said is a valid point- game time, I had about 30 seconds to decide. This was the first time Anwyn killed anyone who was not physically attacking her first, but this was a provoked attack. I had to make that call based on her backstory and what I felt, in a split second, that she would do. And this was not ruled an evil act by my DM. He ruled it neutral, so there is no alignment change. My personal opinion is that the act was not evil. I might consider it an evil act if she did it just because she felt like it- but then, the character would not attack someone for that reason. The attack was not unprovoked. She's got to deal with that issue from her past, and deal with it she will. So, as a player, I don't see a situation exactly like this coming up again. I'll be using it as a catalyst, so that the character now has a way to put the past to rest. I wasn't planning on that when the action happened- that was a total surprise for me, but now that it's over, I'm definitely going to use it. Anwyn's not a character who will fly into a rage easily and just haul off and start killing. That's exactly why she's having so much trouble with losing control. Here's an elf who's always seen the use of force as a tool or a weapon of some sort, and all of a sudden this doppelganger brings up her worst memories, fears, and failures all rolled into one. She loses control of herself and kills it. If she were in control of herself she may have settled for a good beating of the doppel, but she was not, so she killed it. And even though it took a few rounds, after the first round, the doppel turned into her and fought back, with weapons. So, she didn't have an easy kill- she was fighting an opponent who fought back. She's not exactly feeling remorse over the kill, because she felt she was attacked first with those memories. But she is going to have difficulties with losing control, and have fears about losing control again. That's going to add a lot to the character. Ok, out of character, you had lot more time than six seconds to respond. It look lots of time to play out those three combat rounds, and both Ront and Anak told her to stop and tried to get into the room to stop her. The DM even asked you specifically if you were attacking to inflict non-lethal damage, and you said "no." You had plenty of time to consider it out of character. Now, after it's all done, I don't know how Anwyn could not understand the difference between killing someone who's trying to kill you and killing someone for taunting you. Anak specifically said, "you can't just go around killing people for annoying you." He also said, "if you kill an innocent again in front of me, you'll either have to kill me or I'll kill you." Does any of that sound unclear? You've killed before in front of him, and he's killed before in front of you, in all cases when someone was trying to kill party members. Anak's definition is perfectly clear in character; it's Anwyn's killing of the doppleganger that enters an unclear area. There's no way for Anak to tell that she won't kill some other being that does nothing else but taunt her. The people who've suggested that Anak should stay around to try to redeem Anwyn can see what that's not a possibility. The DM has ruled that killing someone for taunting you isn't an evil act; the player doesn't believe it's an evil act, and the character doesn't think that it was an evil act. The character feels bad about "losing control" but not about the actual killing. Anak will get no where with that. Not only will Anwyn not consider that as an angel Anak knows something about good and evil that she doesn't, but the players refuse to consider the possibility that something that we'd consider evil in real life might be evil in the game. I honestly don't know then where they're getting their in-game notions of good an evil. Anwyn can believe that it's not an evil act, but how can she, unless she has a very low Intelligence score, not understand that when Anak says he'll kill her if she slays another innocent, that he's referring to killing someone who's just taunting you, and not to someone who's trying to kill you?
totoro 06-20-05, 09:13 PM	I still think elfhound's character, while well-played, did lower-case evil. The DG is neutral, so you can treat it like a real-life murder case (with evil creatures, it becomes more complicated because killing evil creatures could be considered good--a topic of other threads). So, what was the crime? Elfhound could be tried for murder (assume murder is evil). She could easily be convicted of murder if the DG was just standing there. When determining whether homicide is actually manslaughter, first you must decide whether the elements of murder are met, then apply some mitigating factors. Clearly, we have the act (a killing) and the intent (to kill). Next step, mitigation. Manslaughter could perhaps be thought of as evil tendency (rather than evil). It is sometimes referred to as mitigated murder (i.e., murder with justification). Elfhound already said she was overcome with emotion and acted accordingly, so we don't really need to consider the evidence. She seems to fall into the classic manslaughter case. She would still be guilty and could go to jail for a decade in the USA. It's a very serious crime that should be thought of as (E). If this were self-defense, we might think of the act as neutral. (And I would only think of a killing as good if the target were evil, which is not the case here.) However, mind reading is not lethal. To act in self-defense you must be in fear for your life. So, no self defense here. Also, she acted as she felt emotionally compelled to. It was undisciplined and exhibited a lack of self-control. That sounds chaotic. So, C(E). I hope elfhound continues to play her character as she intends and doesn't let alignment assignments change her. Evil tendencies basically means you are neutral. It doesn't make you into a demon-worshipper. It makes you dangerous in civilized company, and even more dangerous in the wilds (as the DG can attest), but CN isn't much better. :)
snowlynx 06-20-05, 09:19 PM	Pulling out memories, traumatic ones, is a form of toture. That you don't recognize it as such is more a testament to what you don't know then anything else. Bad psychologist! Evil psychologist! How dare you bring up bad memories; DIE! ------------------------ Anyway...we don't know the dopple's intent. For all we know, he was just trying to show her what he could do. For all we know, he was secretly laughing at the painful memories he could bring to her mind. Without knowing this, how can we judge the dopple's intent? What Anywn did was unwise. She did not show restraint or mercy. Bringing up a painful memory to a character is NOT justifiable grounds for the character killing the creature. Now, if the character were forced to withstand days of this, or were caputred and the captor was tormenting the victim with scenes of the past, I might say differently. But here, she had the option of just turning and walking away. ------------- Here's my thoughts on the matter: It might have been a neutral act: if the dopple could read minds, he was pretty dangerous at that point, and a mindreader could take advantage of the information stolen to use against the group. Anwyn's reaction, though harsh, might be considered in self defense- not because she was peronally insulted, but because the information could be used against her and indeed it may have seemed to her as if it was being used against her. It might have been an evil act: Anwyn was angry at the dopple for daring to take that form, and killed the doppleganger out of hate. Characters that frequently act out of hate are usually not good, and not neutral characters. This act was an exception on how she normally acts, so it shouldn't be enough to affect her alignment. As such, I would leave it up to the DM's ruling, particularily since he knows far more about the situation then we do. He knows exactly what the doppleganger knew and how the doppleganger would have used said information. ---------------------- Player of Anak: consider grapple as a somewhat kinder alternative to threatening. I understand why your character is threatening Anywn, but you should see what (less lethal) methods you have of dealing with her; she was misguided, but she is not herself an evil creature. (Besides, threatening her seems to make her more angry, not less.)
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 09:52 PM	I just wanted to say, evilviper77, that I really appreciated your thoughtful, balanced comments on the subject of flaming. I would add that I notice when we end a sentence with "why" it sounds sharper: contrast "Why did you end with those sentences?" with "You ended with those sentences, why?" I think we all can slip into harsher language when we're in a heated debate, and I hope we can all try to focus on the topic and try to avoid the sharper language, as most of the posts have done. :)
evilviper77 06-20-05, 10:02 PM	I just wanted to say, evilviper77, that I really appreciated your thoughtful, balanced comments on the subject of flaming. I would add that I notice when we end a sentence with "why" it sounds sharper: contrast "Why did you end with those sentences?" with "You ended with those sentences, why?" I think we all can slip into harsher language when we're in a heated debate, and I hope we can all try to focus on the topic and try to avoid the sharper language, as most of the posts have done. :) I agree, ending with why does sound alot better :D and i also hope we can get back to all of the posts being thoughtful responses about the subject. I hate seeing a good thread turn into a flame war. Oops, i think i mis-interpreted what you said, i like to end sentences with why because it was how i was taught in school and i just like the sound of it personally; no sharpness intended. =)
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 10:03 PM	Very well argued legal brief, totoro! :)
CelestialBarbarian 06-20-05, 10:06 PM	I agree, ending with why does sound alot better :D and i also hope we can get back to all of the posts being thoughtful responses about the subject. I hate seeing a good thread turn into a flame war. Oh, sorry I was unclear. By "sharper" I mean "harsher." I think it shoulds harsher to end the sentence with "why." :)
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 10:11 PM	In response to how you started and continued flaming... Lets see... Well, I see that you can't defend your position...... (the topic of your fourth post after NO flaming nor degrading comments from the others towards you) They couldn't defend their position. Beamup brought out the "Twinkie Defense". It was a non-sequitor. Ergo, they couldn't and my statement stands. As for myself not being flamed first, are you really sure about that? Let's start with this from Derren S.: I don't know if I should laugh or be frightened of you. No, that wasn't an attack or flame now was it? Please be specific on why it is not. No, you can twist it all you want that was murder and therefor an evil act. No, that wasn't an attack. That came after my post about how I thought the elf did nothing evil. Twisting words? That is what he said. This flame of Beamup was called for why? he was trying to lighten the mood with a statement that was in fact on topic (although it could have been in better flavor). So Beamup didn't start with a flame? Frankly, anybody who tries to claim Anwyn's actions were anything but Evil or that Anak's reaction was anything but Good is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL. So I and others are flat out wrong. As I was the major torch carrier at the time who said that the elf's actions were not evil, I would say that was a pretty good flame attack on me. Essentially, not only are we wrong in the game, but we are unable to tell those thing In Real Life. Please tell me why you don't see that as a true flame and personal attack? and there was reason to state this why??? You even put in a snide comment at the end to top it off. A simple i disagree would have sufficed, if there was even need for that. After a while when one is defending themselves from multiple attacks, one's attitude becomes more harsh. Sorry, I'm only human. This post needed these bold sentences why? For trying to flame someone for taking the subject "off-topic" you sure have a lot of off topic remarks yourself. Between the bolded sentences was a fine post, it told your PoV and gave your reasons for your PoV; while the first and last sentence added nothing on topic to your post. Yeah. It happens especially when not only are people not reading what you said but substituting their own definitions. It is a standard attack practice. If you get the person off of their game, which I will admit Beamup did do far a time, one could claim victory by default. I could go on and on, but the whole having to quote stuff is a real drain, i can't see how all of you can do it for so so so so so many times! :D Please do. I look at it as an opportunity to learn and find where I can get better. However, I really don't see where I started it. Please point it out, but I will defend my position, if possible. If I can't then I'll admit to it. On another tangent If the "Really? like how?" is about not wanting an apology, most people don't verbally bash someone they want to apologize to them. They most certainly do when they are upset at them. When they, in this case myself, feel when they honestly believe that not only is someone or a few people misunderstanding but actually misrepresentating what they said. Furthermore, my point being that you need to quit flaming the other posters and just put down your point of view about your perspective on whether what she did was right or wrong, without all the insulting remarks. Yes, they did flame you, but that was AFTER agression by you. I point out where I completely disagree with you. I said nothing to Beamup until their statement about how they couldn't understand how a person can have that POV in the game or IRL. Continuing... I hope i was specific enough for you now, and my post was not an attack on you, it was an attack on the flaming that has been going on in this thread recently, and since you started the flaming, i decided to call you out first. Celestial Barbarian does not need your bickering, he wants your opinions about the matter in his game, i am trying to help him acheive those goals. Then I ask you to take a far more objective view on when things started. I think you'll be not so hard on myself and much harder on Beamup and Derren S. And no, Beamup is not a friend of mine, although he doesn't seem like a bad guy. You would be an ok guy if you left out all your derogatory remarks... you make good posts and valid points. That's an interesting thing to say. I'm glad I'm not a bad guy, if IMHO, I stop defending what I posted and not point out where I believe others used what I said not only out of context, but changing what I posted to begin with in my messages. Please note how I respond to Andrew_980. Please also note how the said individual responds to me. Beamup has a right to his opinion, and his opinion is that Anwyn's actions were anything but evil, and Anak's reation was anything but good. As I have said, Anak's actions were not good, but they were not evil. Anwyn's actions were not evil, but it should absolutely no compassion nor any comcern about what happened to the elf. Anwyn's actions were that of any individual who wants to get their way. Although he did go to the extreme of saying anyone else who thinks different is flat-out wrong, both in D&D or IRL he didn't point that comment at anyone in specific. While you on the other hand specifically point out people and flame them. No. I shouldn't take that as a personal attack. Sorry, I don't buy that. I was the main defender on Anak's actions and it seems pretty darn personal and pointed flame attack to me. That statement was directed at my above point that you were acting like the DG by verbally flaming the other posters (before they started flaming you), and trying to get them rilled up and mad. Again, it is your opinion that I flamed first. I showed you where that is not my POV. When someone comes out and says not only what Derren S. said, but the blanket attack statement from Beamup, I don't react well. It was personl, IMHO, and just because Beamup didn't come out and say it directly doesn't mean it wasn't directed. I can read between the lines. No one is saying what the DG was just fine and dandy (atleast from what i can tell), they are just saying that her actions were evil, and that she didn't have a good enough excuse to kill the DG. I never said that the DG deserved to die. All I ever said is that the elf's actions were understandable and not evil. If I did, I'd like to know where. To finish this post off, you DID in fact use your own terminology and attack someone else to defend it and tick them off...and i have read what was posted, and i have answered who is flaming whom, so please keep it civil and just post your PoV's without anything extra along with it. Yeah, I don't doubt that. Any particular area, besides what you posted? Everyone this really shouldn't be a hard thing to do.[/QUOTE]
LCD2YOU 06-20-05, 10:29 PM	Pulling out memories, traumatic ones, is a form of toture. That you don't recognize it as such is more a testament to what you don't know then anything else. Bad psychologist! Evil psychologist! How dare you bring up bad memories; DIE! And surgeons cut into bodies to remove cancer and things that could kill the person. The same scapel can be used to inflict unbelievable amounts of pain to a victim while causing little permanent damage to said victim. What really matters is the intent behind the actions. Don't you agree? If you agree, then please tell me why you bothered to say such a thing in the first place.
Ragey 06-20-05, 10:56 PM	(Using Paladin as a example, *knows the woman isn't a paladin* ) There was many other things she could of done instead of killing the doppleganger. Even Subdual damage with the hilt of her sword or a simple punch in the nose for the action. What exactly is her alignment? I missed it, but considering your alignment and that of the Paladin's, that was CLEARLY a evil action. Mercy and Judgement. The Doppleganger was not evil, but taunting or a simple show of power, he still should not have been killed. If someone taunted me, and I killed them outright, I would be arrested. A threat or not, everyone should be given a chance, and this 'ganger wasn't. If a Paladin was taunted and he cut down a innoncent, would people be this quiet about it? No. It would probably be worse if the 'ganger was not a 'ganger, but the same race as the woman. If this doesn't effect the party, then it can still affect you. Roleplay it out. Show that your character feels disdain for the action. Shrug the woman off sometimes, but remember, if you consider it a evil action and she doesn't, the best thing any good character can do is Redeem someone. She should pick up the book of Exalted Deeds, its a great book for someone who is 'Truly' expiring to be a hero, a real 'Good' Character. (Sure neutral characters can be heroes.) The greatest chapter I have read in many D&D hardbacks is 'Variant Rules: Mercy, Prisoners, And Redemption' in the Exalted Deeds. I very much enjoy this book. Try these things: 1. If your alone and your fighting, try and take a prisoner instead of cutting them down, A humanoid would be best to do, someone who is more useful dead. Sure, you can use 'Speak with the Dead' spell, but a living man has no limit to the questions. 2. Around your group, try and show mercy. Talk to your DM, see if you can do something in battle that may show that you are as gentle as you are firm. Do lethal damage, but when the person starts looking near death, ask the DM if you can do subdual damage and knock the person out (Start carrying Rope. If you have a rogue, check if s/he has good rope use skills, or buy either of these two things: Shackles of Silence or Antimagic Shackles) 3. Do what many do not, or ever have in a campaign. Redeem a villain you fight. Aim for low first, see if you DM will allow it, then Aim for the top. A boss, a powerful being, try and capture it and take 'em in (Antimagic helps here since most bosses have magic).
elfhound 06-20-05, 11:55 PM	[QUOTE=RageyShe should pick up the book of Exalted Deeds, its a great book for someone who is 'Truly' expiring to be a hero, a real 'Good' Character. (Sure neutral characters can be heroes.) The greatest chapter I have read in many D&D hardbacks is 'Variant Rules: Mercy, Prisoners, And Redemption' in the Exalted Deeds. I very much enjoy this book. [/QUOTE] Anwyn is chaotic neutral. And I'll take a look for the Exalted Deeds book. Any excuse to go to a bookstore works for me. Shoot, sometimes I don't even need an excuse. I will try online if I can't find it in the store, but I like browsing in an actual store. Especially if it's open late and serves coffee. So, off to the bookstore I go :cool: There's a lot of books out there, so any recommendations are good. Like I said, I'm pretty new to D&D, and I'm here to learn as well as discuss things, so any advice or suggestions are welcome.
elfhound 06-21-05, 12:15 AM	I still think elfhound's character, while well-played, did lower-case evil. The DG is neutral, so you can treat it like a real-life murder case (with evil creatures, it becomes more complicated because killing evil creatures could be considered good--a topic of other threads). So, what was the crime? Elfhound could be tried for murder (assume murder is evil). She could easily be convicted of murder if the DG was just standing there. When determining whether homicide is actually manslaughter, first you must decide whether the elements of murder are met, then apply some mitigating factors. Clearly, we have the act (a killing) and the intent (to kill). Next step, mitigation. Manslaughter could perhaps be thought of as evil tendency (rather than evil). It is sometimes referred to as mitigated murder (i.e., murder with justification). Elfhound already said she was overcome with emotion and acted accordingly, so we don't really need to consider the evidence. She seems to fall into the classic manslaughter case. She would still be guilty and could go to jail for a decade in the USA. It's a very serious crime that should be thought of as (E). If this were self-defense, we might think of the act as neutral. (And I would only think of a killing as good if the target were evil, which is not the case here.) However, mind reading is not lethal. To act in self-defense you must be in fear for your life. So, no self defense here. Also, she acted as she felt emotionally compelled to. It was undisciplined and exhibited a lack of self-control. That sounds chaotic. So, C(E). I hope elfhound continues to play her character as she intends and doesn't let alignment assignments change her. Evil tendencies basically means you are neutral. It doesn't make you into a demon-worshipper. It makes you dangerous in civilized company, and even more dangerous in the wilds (as the DG can attest), but CN isn't much better. :) Nice post. I will continue to play the character as I have planned to. From what I've read about alignments and the discussions focusing on them, I can conclude that I very much play the character and not the alignment most of the time. Is this a bad thing? Or does that depend on the campaign? Her actions were completely consistent with the background and the issues I chose that could (and did) set her off. She's a CN ranger who has spent most of her time away from civilization, with the exception of a few close friends. And I really don't want to play an evil character... especially not a demon worshipper, so it's nice to read your thoughts on that matter. That wasn't my intent with choosing CN. Thanks again for the posts.
LordHell 06-21-05, 12:18 AM	D&D alignments are based on intent and result. The intent probably wasn't evil, but more a 'make it stop' kind of intent. The result itself was evil. Many people seem to assume that because the Doppleganger never did anything physical to her, it was merely 'taunting' her. These people are pretty naive in my opinion and have no idea about what emotional stress can do to people. Now, not that this is any excuse in the long run - but there are a few things to remember. This is D&D, not real life, where killing/revenge/retribution/etc is generally taken very lightly. If it was a Wizard attempting to charm a party member, I guarentee they'd attack and probably kill the Wizard. A good character might have restrained himself, maybe even beating the doppleganger around a bit using non-lethal damage. Killing the Doppleganger for such hideous emotional torment is perfectly in line with what a Neutral character would and could do. Neutral characters arn't 'between' good and evil. They dabble in both in roughly the same amount. Unless this combat lasted 1 round, I wonder why no one (i.e. the Anak) tried to grapple Anwyn and tried to restrain her? Did you just stand back and let this happen, then proceed to threaten to kill her afterwards? Hmm.
elfhound 06-21-05, 12:40 AM	D&D alignments are based on intent and result. The intent probably wasn't evil, but more a 'make it stop' kind of intent. The result itself was evil. Many people seem to assume that because the Doppleganger never did anything physical to her, it was merely 'taunting' her. These people are pretty naive in my opinion and have no idea about what emotional stress can do to people. Now, not that this is any excuse in the long run - but there are a few things to remember. This is D&D, not real life, where killing/revenge/retribution/etc is generally taken very lightly. If it was a Wizard attempting to charm a party member, I guarentee they'd attack and probably kill the Wizard. A good character might have restrained himself, maybe even beating the doppleganger around a bit using non-lethal damage. Killing the Doppleganger for such hideous emotional torment is perfectly in line with what a Neutral character would and could do. Neutral characters arn't 'between' good and evil. They dabble in both in roughly the same amount. Unless this combat lasted 1 round, I wonder why no one (i.e. the Anak) tried to grapple Anwyn and tried to restrain her? Did you just stand back and let this happen, then proceed to threaten to kill her afterwards? Hmm. Good points, LordHell. Combat lasted three or four rounds, I think. The only one who really tried to stop her was the half-orc paladin, who tried to smack Anwyn on the head with the flat of his blade and missed (he was trying for non-lethal damage). His regular player was not there this session, so Celestial was running both the paladin and his character Anak at the same time. Emotional stress played a huge part in Anwyn's reaction. If the doppelganger had chosen to turn into someone she knew, like someone she's met in the city, or even her parents, she would not have reacted beyond just issuing a verbal warning to knock it off. But it chose the one person (elf) that would truly incite a violent reaction because of the emotional blow of the shapeshift. Emotional trauma is a tricky, tricky thing. It is not easy to deal with, this I know. So, Anwyn's reactions to the doppel were accurate to her backstory.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 02:00 AM	Good points, LordHell. Combat lasted three or four rounds, I think. The only one who really tried to stop her was the half-orc paladin, who tried to smack Anwyn on the head with the flat of his blade and missed (he was trying for non-lethal damage). His regular player was not there this session, so Celestial was running both the paladin and his character Anak at the same time. Emotional stress played a huge part in Anwyn's reaction. If the doppelganger had chosen to turn into someone she knew, like someone she's met in the city, or even her parents, she would not have reacted beyond just issuing a verbal warning to knock it off. But it chose the one person (elf) that would truly incite a violent reaction because of the emotional blow of the shapeshift. Emotional trauma is a tricky, tricky thing. It is not easy to deal with, this I know. So, Anwyn's reactions to the doppel were accurate to her backstory. Actually LH if you go back and reread my original post you will see that both the half-orc and Anak tried to stop Anwyn. The DM gave her at least two rounds before we could act, however, and I rolled low on the initiative for Anak. The half-orc got one chance to land a non-lethal blow on Anwyn before she killed the doppleganger, and he missed. Anak never got a chance because she had already killed the doppleganger before his initiative tick on the round that the DM finally allowed him to act. I had both characters try to stop Anwyn, but she wouldn't listen and by the time they acted there was nothing they could do.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 02:32 AM	Lets not forget that we are talkning about alignment and not law. Alignment doesn't care for "temporary insanity" and thinks like it. As Lord Hell said its about intend and result. Intend: Make him stop changing into the murder of her father Action: Kill an innocent. That is evil. How the information about the murder was obtained doesn't matter. Mind reading, gathering information, divination its all the same because it doesn't affect someone. It also doesn't matter that this happened shortly after combat. That may be a defense in court, but doesn't affect alignment. The only thing the DG did was altering into the form of the murderer of the elfs father, nothing more, nothing less. This is no attack it is an insult. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill because of an insult? No. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill someone because they look like someone else you hate? No. @CelestialBarbarian Did the Doppelganger only take this form out of the elfs memory or was it one of many forms from Anwyns memory he took? If yes did she warn him to stop when he took the first form?
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 02:49 AM	Lets not forget that we are talkning about alignment and not law. Alignment doesn't care for "temporary insanity" and thinks like it. As Lord Hell said its about intend and result. Intend: Make him stop changing into the murder of her father Action: Kill an innocent. That is evil. How the information about the murder was obtained doesn't matter. Mind reading, gathering information, divination its all the same because it doesn't affect someone. It also doesn't matter that this happened shortly after combat. That may be a defense in court, but doesn't affect alignment. The only thing the DG did was altering into the form of the murderer of the elfs father, nothing more, nothing less. This is no attack it is an insult. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill because of an insult? No. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill someone because they look like someone else you hate? No. @CelestialBarbarian Did the Doppelganger only take this form out of the elfs memory or was it one of many forms from Anwyns memory he took? If yes did she warn him to stop when he took the first form? 1. The doppleganger took on three forms for Anak, then took on the form of priests of at least four different gods (including Anak's god, Lathander), and then several forms from Anwyn's mind. He did not take on the form of the killer of Anwyn's father--that was just the impression that the party left me with. It turns out that the form to which Anwyn responded with violence was a dead friend whom Anwyn blamed herself for killing. She basically killed the doppleganger out of her own sense of guilt. 2. The doppleganger kept each form for only a few seconds. Anwyn lashed out as soon as he shifted into the form of her dead friend. So she was not trying to stop the doppleganger from taking the form of her dead friend, as the doppleganger was simply spending a few seconds in each form. 3. Anwyn did not warn the doppleganger but just attacked.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 02:57 AM	Even worse than thought. Do you still think that was "mind rape" LCD2YOU? Showing someone a picture of a dead friend? And a very logical reaction. You think you have killed a friend by accident and feel guilty about it. Then someone disguises as this friend and the first thing you do is to kill him again.
Fiery_Overlord 06-21-05, 03:45 AM	"GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “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. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."-SRD Neutral isn't undefined. It is a narrow strip of behavior, it is easier to be somewhere in the wide spectrums of good or evil than to be neutral. It does not sound like there are "compunctions against killing the innocent", so it can't be neutral behavior. Neutral isn't doing good and evil things equally, that is either good or evil (most likely evil). Evil people can do things that are good, and good people can have moments of weakness and do evil things. However if you do evil things regularly then you are evil by default. (since good is altruistic self-sacrifice and protecting others it is harder to maintain than a simple lack of compassion) Can you become good again? Well that depends on you. Suspecious is far from guilty. The doppelganger was not displaying mentally well choices (antagonizing a group of well armed people it just met, pushing buttons it knew would drive even good people to harm it), and was most likely a danger to itself and others. Do you compassionately sudue it or kill it, which was the situation that confronted the adventuring party. One form of evil is simply a lack of compassion. How much compasion has the character displayed? The choice of socially acceptable victims does not make you good. As I have noted in my thread about Defining Alignment (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448516) in real life peaople will skew thier entire paradigm to avoid seeing themselves as 'bad'. This is why using a third-person defintion is important. Also, ooc you should try to be understanding as it sounds the player is perhaps a little to emotionally "in-synch" with thier character and having trouble seeing that it is the character's morality questioned, not the player's.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 03:56 AM	"GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “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. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."-SRD Neutral isn't undefined. It is a narrow strip of behavior, it is easier to be somewhere in the wide spectrums of good or evil than to be neutral. It does not sound like there are "compunctions against killing the innocent", so it can't be neutral behavior. Neutral isn't doing good and evil things equally, that is either good or evil (most likely evil). Evil people can do things that are good, and good people can have moments of weakness and do evil things. However if you do evil things regularly then you are evil by default. (since good is altruistic self-sacrifice and protecting others it is harder to maintain than a simple lack of compassion) Can you become good again? Well that depends on you. Suspecious is far from guilty. The doppelganger was not displaying mentally well choices (antagonizing a group of well armed people it just met, pushing buttons it knew would drive even good people to harm it), and was most likely a danger to itself and others. Do you compassionately sudue it or kill it, which was the situation that confronted the adventuring party. One form of evil is simply a lack of compassion. How much compasion has the character displayed? The choice of socially acceptable victims does not make you good. As I have noted in my thread about Defining Alignment (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448516) in real life peaople will skew thier entire paradigm to avoid seeing themselves as 'bad'. This is why using a third-person defintion is important. Also, ooc you should try to be understanding as it sounds the player is perhaps a little to emotionally "in-synch" with thier character and having trouble seeing that it is the character's morality questioned, not the player's. Thanks Fiery. For elfhound's sake you might want to explain what the SRD is. Thanks! :) I will say that the DM isn't going to care what the SRD or the PHB says on the subject, and frankly he gets mad anytime someone points out that he's not following the rules. At least he's bitten off my nose more than once. Maybe he'd listen to someone he didn't already dislike. :D
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 05:34 AM	Lets not forget that we are talkning about alignment and not law. Alignment doesn't care for "temporary insanity" and thinks like it. As Lord Hell said its about intend and result. Maybe you think that. The alignment of an insane individual, one of mental illness, is neutral in my book. Yes, an individual who becomes insane from dealing with evil and other overpowering entities was probably very evil to begin with and so retains their evilstatus. However, those who were not evil to begin with but become insane are still their original alignment. If the person commits acts that would normally be considered evil while insane, if they are ever cured they should atone. However, they aren't responsible. To be responsible they must be aware of their actions. A truly insane person would not be aware. Intend: Make him stop changing into the murder of her father Action: Kill an innocent. You'd be absolutely correct if the elf murdered an innocent. But the issue is I don't consider the DG innocent. The situation, as it was presented when I started argueing this point, the DG was an enemy. Its mind reading ability, way past the standard, meant it was a threat. As I have said earlier, if by design or the DM forgot about how the DG's powers worked, the players and PCs would be unaware. I hold that anything that can reach into one's mind and pull out specific and painful memories is a true threat. No? If I could read minds and tell you exactly what another was thinking and draw out memories, I'd be a threat to anyone I didn't like. That is evil. Again killing an innocent is evil. I am of the very strong opinion that the DG was nothing close to an innocent. That was reinforced by how the DG reacted to the party. How the information about the murder was obtained doesn't matter. Mind reading, gathering information, divination its all the same because it doesn't affect someone. Simple gathering of information in and of itself is not evil nor good. What really matters is what the person does with and and what their intentions are. By their very nature, using others as mere toys to be messed with, DGs do not have the best intentions. This particular DG showed nothing different, from its actions described in the original posting. If you use information with evil intent, like insider trading, learning the routes the person's kid takes to and from school, medical history so you can exploit it later, etc., or if you gain the information to find where the princess is being held, how the disease is spread from a terrorist, etc., what matters is what you do with the information. It is like I've heard. What is the difference between an nuclear device and rocks? The rocks take a heck of a lot longer to kill thousands. No, a nuke is not automatically an evil device. Indeed, if nukes are used to deflect or destroy an asteriod on a collision course with the Earth, I'd say even the most anti-nuke person would consider it a good thing. It also doesn't matter that this happened shortly after combat. That may be a defense in court, but doesn't affect alignment. Intent has everything to do with alignment. Do good with evil intentions is still evil. The only thing the DG did was altering into the form of the murderer of the elfs father, nothing more, nothing less. This is no attack it is an insult. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill because of an insult? No. Is it allowed, by alignment, to kill someone because they look like someone else you hate? No. A simple insult? Of course not. But what we really disagree on is what the actions of the DG were. I say it was an attack as it was going through the party's minds. In what was an evil stronghold, and from what I thought I read about the DG working for the other side, if an enemy is reading your mind, it is an attack. If your enemy wants to learn about you, it is most likely to find weaknesses and easier ways to destroy you. That is where the serious disconnect really is. I consider reading another's mind without permission an attack. Is mind reading always an evil attack on an unwilling person? No. It is based on the intent behind the mind reading. The Paladin who asks the wizard to use telepathy to find where the slaves are hidden in the mine complex is gaining information to do a righteous act. Using mind reading to unnerve another is an attack that is designed to bring another down. Bringing an opponent down mentally, which is breaking them in my book, is a serious attack. Ergo the DG attacked and with its intentions unknown and it not doing anything to alleviate fears that it had an additional agenda, the elf was within her rights to defend herself. I have also stated, and this is where I do get upset at you, these things: 1: The elf's actions were understandable 2: The elf's actions were not evil 3: The elf's actions were not the best thoughtout plan she could have done 4: The actions the player were, despite the OP's post where he claimed that the player of the elf had more than just a few minutes to make up her mind and therefore the character's mind, not metagaming. The elf was roleplayed, not metagamed. The player did what she thought the elf would do. 5: I never, ever stated nor said that the DG deserved to die @CelestialBarbarian Did the Doppelganger only take this form out of the elfs memory or was it one of many forms from Anwyns memory he took? If yes did she warn him to stop when he took the first form? I'd like to know that as well.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 05:36 AM	I'd like to know that as well. He already answered that. Look directly under my post (The one you quoted). Its interesting that you now try to defend the actions as insanity. What makes you think tha tthe elf is insane? And in D&D insanity is no wild card for murder. An evil action is a evil action no matter if you mind works "normally" or not. Intent is also not the only thing which affects alignment. Do evil with good intend and it is also evil. And the ability to read minds doesn't make you a threat. Fact is that the DG was a prisoner rescued by the party. Its natural abilities doesn't make them an enemy. Or is every cleric also an enemy because they have acces to the same ability the DG had? Maybe you should read the first post again. The DG was no enemy, it was a prisoner about to be killed. After the party rescued it, it cooperated with them the best way it could (informing the party about its nature and agreein to accompany them to be questioned). Is that how an enemy behaves? And when you say, or at least imply, that the DG didn't deserve to die, why then was killing the DG not evil? And that the elf role played is unimportent to the alignment.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 05:49 AM	He already answered that. Look directly under my post (The one you quoted). Its interesting that you now try to defend the actions as insanity. What makes you think tha tthe elf is insane? And in D&D insanity is no wild card for murder. An evil action is a evil action no matter if you mind works "normally" or not. Intent is also not the only thing which affects alignment. Do evil with good intend and it is also evil. And the ability to read minds doesn't make you a threat. Fact is tha the DG was a prisoner rescued by the party. Its natural abilities doesn't make them an enemy. Or is every cleric also an enemy because they have acces to the same ability the DG had? He probably hadn't read as far as my reply when he replied. :) Generally it's a good idea to read further posts before replying. I'm also hoping he'll read the definition of neutral from the SRD (and PHB) posted above and see that it doesn't fit with the way that he's defining neutrality. I'd also like to mention that, so far as I know, when someone does get a verdict of "not guilty by reason of temporary insanity" he doesn't generally just walk out of court a free man. As I understand it, the state will place him in an institution for observation and therapy (and perhaps medication) for some time in the hopes of ensuring that the person doesn't relpase into temporary insanity any time soon. I'd guess that it varies from state to state.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 08:16 AM	He already answered that. Look directly under my post (The one you quoted). One at a time. I was just adding to my reply to you that I was interested in it as well. Why did you feel the need to say anything about it? I know why, you are deliberately trying to provoke me. Its interesting that you now try to defend the actions as insanity. What makes you think tha tthe elf is insane? And in D&D insanity is no wild card for murder. An evil action is a evil action no matter if you mind works "normally" or not. Where did I say the elf was insane? Again you are reading what you want to read in my posts want you want to read. Please show me where I said that. Specifics are nice. Intent is also not the only thing which affects alignment. Do evil with good intend and it is also evil. If you explain it like that it is. Sometimes bad things happen from good intentions. They usually are called "unintended consequences", "mistakes" or just "accidents". Just because something bad happens from it doesn't make it evil. And the ability to read minds doesn't make you a threat. Fact is that the DG was a prisoner rescued by the party. Its natural abilities doesn't make them an enemy. Or is every cleric also an enemy because they have acces to the same ability the DG had? Again, you are pulling far too much out of what I said. You want that to be true because that position is undefendable. Good thing I didn't make it. A person who uses spells, swords, mental abilities against you in such a way as to disable, learn secrets to use against you, control or otherwise maim, hurt, etc., is an enemy. You are taking what I said deliberately out of context. I want you to reread what I said and put it into the context that I'm using not the strawman you want to use. Maybe you should read the first post again. The DG was no enemy, it was a prisoner about to be killed. After the party rescued it, it cooperated with them the best way it could (informing the party about its nature and agreein to accompany them to be questioned). Is that how an enemy behaves? How it initially behaves is not the issue. In whatever really happened, it started to annoy, taunt and then mentally attack the party. I don't know why it did that. If the party pushed it, then the party is guilty, including the OP's character. If it decided to have fun, then it is guilty. And when you say, or at least imply, that the DG didn't deserve to die, why then was killing the DG not evil? Bad things happen. That does not make them evil. The DG attacked the elf and the elf defended herself. That is what I am saying. And that the elf role played is unimportent to the alignment. That is not what I said. I said the player RP'd how the elf would act. She didn't do as the OP stated that she, the player, had time to rethink the actions. The character was RP'd just fine. She did a rash action, not an evil one. Oh yes, the way a character is RP'd helps determine the alignment of the character. Again, I don't see what the elf did that was evil.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 08:27 AM	He probably hadn't read as far as my reply when he replied. :) Generally it's a good idea to read further posts before replying. Yeah, no personal attack there. Hide it behind smiley faces :) and all is peachy! :D This is fun! ;) I'm also hoping he'll read the definition of neutral from the SRD (and PHB) posted above and see that it doesn't fit with the way that he's defining neutrality. To whom are you refering to with that statement? Like the definition of the LG Paladin, again from the PHB, "One who fights evil without mercy". So the PHB and most DnD material is contradictory on many alignment issues. I'd also like to mention that, so far as I know, when someone does get a verdict of "not guilty by reason of temporary insanity" he doesn't generally just walk out of court a free man. As I understand it, the state will place him in an institution for observation and therapy (and perhaps medication) for some time in the hopes of ensuring that the person doesn't relpase into temporary insanity any time soon. I'd guess that it varies from state to state. Well, if you're replying to Derren S. and the elf being insane, besides Derren S., I don't know of anyone who stated that. But again I see modern day solutions to what would be an essentially middle ages milue. In the distant past, the insane were often: 1: Burned, after all it must have been a demon inside them. 2: Banished, usually someplace pleasant like a desert. 3: Locked away in a dank, dark, dungeon somewhere and left to rot. Very seldom were they left in peace.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 08:32 AM	3. Anwyn did not warn the doppleganger but just attacked. the other parts, the chip on the DG's shoulder wasn't related this time. Also, The DG really didn't warn Anwyn before he transformed either. Now the story is changing ever so slightly.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 09:24 AM	the other parts, the chip on the DG's shoulder wasn't related this time. Also, The DG really didn't warn Anwyn before he transformed either. Now the story is changing ever so slightly. There's been no change in the story, I don't think that Derren is trying to provoke you, and I didn't intend any insult when suggesting that it's a good idea to read subsequent posts before posting in case someone has already answered the question.
elfhound 06-21-05, 09:34 AM	Even worse than thought. Do you still think that was "mind rape" LCD2YOU? Showing someone a picture of a dead friend? And a very logical reaction. You think you have killed a friend by accident and feel guilty about it. Then someone disguises as this friend and the first thing you do is to kill him again. I think that perhaps I may have misunderstood the DM. I can certainly check later. I remember him indicating me, and then switching into a 'very old friend' not switching into multiple forms for Anwyn. So, if the DM did switch into other forms that Anwyn knew, I either misunderstood or missed it. But I believe he only took one form from her mind, immediately after he switched through all of the priests, and that form was her friend. She would have recognized the elf princess from the mind reading that the DG did on Anak, and possibly one of the priests if it did the High Priestess of Selune (I forget which priests it chose). At that point though, she was watching, since it was aiming at Anak. Throughout all of those she was able to maintain control, but lost it when it looked at her and picked her friend. Anwyn knew it was the doppelganger and not her friend who was standing in front of her. Her friend's dead, she's not likely to forget that. So it was the doppelganger, and not her friend, that she attacked. Would she have stopped if the doppelganger had gone down on its knees and begged mercy? Probably. I think that may have gotten through. But what the DG did was not to beg for its life, but to shift into her form, complete with swords, and fight back. In character, was it the best action she could have taken against the doppelganger? No, and I've never argued that it was. She lost control of herself and went straight to lethal violence. But, hands down, that was the best (and only) action that I could have taken to be consistent with her background. The doppelganger was by no means an innocent, nor did I as a player believe it to be an innocent. Nobody in the party provoked it, it did respond fairly well to Anak's persuasion to come along, but it did decide to have a go at the party first. If it objected to the weapons that both the bard and Anwyn had out, well, we were in a temple, just finished with a fight, and there were still enemies in the building. Now, in game, we are going to work with this. It's not going to be 'let's waltz into a dungeon, kill stuff, loot, and then waltz out.' This is going to affect her and it will come out in future games. So no, Anwyn isn't perfect. And now she will have to deal with that.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 09:34 AM	There's been no change in the story, I never said wholesale changes. Just subtle things here and there. I don't think that Derren is trying to provoke you, Then why does he say things like this: Its interesting that you now try to defend the actions as insanity. What makes you think tha tthe elf is insane? And in D&D insanity is no wild card for murder. An evil action is a evil action no matter if you mind works "normally" or not. I never said anything about the elf being insane. So where'd he get that? and I didn't intend any insult when suggesting that it's a good idea to read subsequent posts before posting in case someone has already answered the question. I don't know about that.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 09:57 AM	I never said wholesale changes. Just subtle things here and there. Then why does he say things like this: I never said anything about the elf being insane. So where'd he get that? I don't know about that. Can you tell me what subtle change you mean? Somebody did use the insanity defense argument, although I don't know who it was. Based on recent experience with Derren, I suspect he'll go back and quote whatever gave him the idea that it was you. In any case, I'm very sorry that it seems like people are attacking you, and I'll do my best to refrain from anything that seems like it's attacking you.
Logos 06-21-05, 10:03 AM	Mindreading is an attack and the course of self defence is to kill the DG That sounds a lil thin to me, Attacks generally do dmg as apposed to unpleasentness. I'd call it out of character as an excuse in character as a evil act that shouldn't change alignment Killing helpless people (which DG more or less are anyway except for some mischief) is evil . If it wasn't an evil act should her compadres have not tried to stop her, The Helplessness repecting life thing is missing there. Anyways Logos
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 10:16 AM	I think that perhaps I may have misunderstood the DM. I can certainly check later. I remember him indicating me, and then switching into a 'very old friend' not switching into multiple forms for Anwyn. So, if the DM did switch into other forms that Anwyn knew, I either misunderstood or missed it. But I believe he only took one form from her mind, immediately after he switched through all of the priests, and that form was her friend. She would have recognized the elf princess from the mind reading that the DG did on Anak, and possibly one of the priests if it did the High Priestess of Selune (I forget which priests it chose). At that point though, she was watching, since it was aiming at Anak. Throughout all of those she was able to maintain control, but lost it when it looked at her and picked her friend. Anwyn knew it was the doppelganger and not her friend who was standing in front of her. Her friend's dead, she's not likely to forget that. So it was the doppelganger, and not her friend, that she attacked. In character, was it the best action she could have taken against the doppelganger? No, and I've never argued that it was. She lost control of herself and went straight to lethal violence. But, hands down, that was the best (and only) action that I could have taken to be consistent with her background. The doppelganger was by no means an innocent, nor did I as a player believe it to be an innocent. Nobody in the party provoked it, it did respond fairly well to Anak's persuasion to come along, but it did decide to have a go at the party first. If it objected to the weapons that both the bard and Anwyn had out, well, we were in a temple, just finished with a fight, and there were still enemies in the building. Now, in game, we are going to work with this. It's not going to be 'let's waltz into a dungeon, kill stuff, loot, and then waltz out.' This is going to affect her and it will come out in future games. So no, Anwyn isn't perfect. And now she will have to deal with that. Elfhound and I disagree, alas, on one fundamental point: I distinctly remember her threatening the doppleganger with death if he didn't come with us to Miklos. There's no question in my mind that she did just that, because that's what led me to have Anak intervene. I might also add that the "Calishite assassin" (Synn) instantly suspected of the doppleganger of nefarious purpose when he revealed himself as such, and the suspicion came across in the way that Synn approached getting the doppleganger to come with us. So the doppleganger had been treated badly when Anak said, "Don't worry, we just want to take you to see our friend Miklos; you'll be safe." So yes, the doppleganger had reason to feel angry at the party, although trying to provoke Anak seemed rather misplaced. The DM regularly has NPCs treat Anak like garbage, however, so it didn't seen out of the ordinary. I have no idea why Anwyn would have any reason to even have to worry about whether she could "maintain control" when the doppleganger replicated images from Anak's mind. Why would images from Anak's mind cause her to get upset? I suspect that if she did have to maintain control while seeing images from Anak's mind, it had more to do with the doppleganger's irriating way of speaking. Elfhound and I also disagree on this fundamental point: I've always seen Anwyn as tightly wound, looking for an excuse to unload on someone with lethal violence. The fact that Anwyn had to maintain control while the doppleganger rewarded Anak's sweetness with mockery just reinforces Anwyn's explosive nature. I also don't see how 6 seconds of imitating a dead friend's form translates into three or four rounds of lethal violence as the only possible response--unless of course, she was tightly wound and just looking for an excuse to kill.
pres_man 06-21-05, 10:19 AM	That's right folks, its that time of the week again! Where we announce the winner of this week's Trolly award. As you recall the Trolly goes to the poster who most successfully makes other posters believe he is a legitimate poster while he flames them and turns helpful suggests into personal attacks on himself. This week's Trolly goes to ... (drum roll) ... envelope please ... LCD2YOU Congratulations on your win, and everybody keep up the good work.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 11:15 AM	That's right folks, its that time of the week again! Where we announce the winner of this week's Trolly award. As you recall the Trolly goes to the poster who most successfully makes other posters believe he is a legitimate poster while he flames them and turns helpful suggests into personal attacks on himself. If that is what you think, that is your right to do so. I was expressing my thoughts. If you think otherwise, that is your perogative. I gave my honest opinion on the subject. I am not sorry for that. If I've offended, well, after an award like this, it makes it very difficult to really feel much sympathy. OBTW pres_man, I noticed you don't take emails. I do. Drop me a line sometime. I'm not saying you're right, no far from it, but so what. I have posted many reasons why I didn't think the elf's actions were evil. I do believe you disagree. That's fine. As for helpful suggustions turned into attacks, well after getting a just a small few "helpful suggestions" after some of the stuff slung at me here, excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt. This week's Trolly goes to ... (drum roll) ... envelope please ... LCD2YOU Congratulations on your win, and everybody keep up the good work. Hmmm, seems kinda hollow. But if it makes you feel better, have your fun.
Andrew_980 06-21-05, 02:37 PM	I think that Elfhound, player of the offending elf, has shed a whole new light on the discussion. Would she have stopped if the doppelganger had gone down on its knees and begged mercy? Probably this sounds more like satisfying an ego than convincing a person to regain control that was the best (and only) action that I could have taken to be consistent with her background. lethaly violent outbursts to reminders of guilt are the only way to be consistant? change that alignment to CE, she was never neutral Yeah, no personal attack there sorry guys but on this I will have to agree with him, no more personal attacks please And finally with no quotes, Anak did what any paladin should. He declared that the next time she wanted to kill without just cause it would be over his dead body. thats what good does.
Bruunwald 06-21-05, 03:01 PM	All philosophical discussion aside, reading that first post again, I can't help but feel that the DM was getting too involved in the discussion. Seems to me like he was metagaming: perhaps that he knew that eventually the doppleganger's hidden evil agenda would come out. From this perspective, he may be arguing that the elf did a good thing. But from the info provided at the moment the killing took place, it was the wrong thing, and the DM should have known to stay in the moment. Killing somebody for taunting you is wrong, end of story. In-game, if there was pure hatred in the elf's heart, against the man being imitated, I can see a character going off the deep end. That's good storytelling. But was she right? No.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 03:08 PM	But, hands down, that was the best (and only) action that I could have taken to be consistent with her background. I agree with Andrew. If this is true, the character never was CN but CE.
pangalactic 06-21-05, 03:14 PM	Are you actually listening? Unless the elf constantly had to make willsaves the Doppelganger didn't search his memory. He took what the elf gave him and switched into multiple forms from the elfs memory before he became the murderer. No search for the most painful memory, just showing off in what forms he can switch. It was the elfs fault that this memory even came up. I don't know if this has been addressed (didn't read the whole thread, sorry) but actually it's the DM's fault. Whoever was playing the elf will not have been telling the DM what they were thinking of, so the DM chose to have the Doppelganger take that form. Presumably this is a fairly established group, and your DM knows the temperaments of both his/her players and their characters. If that is the case, and the DM specifically chose this form for the Doppelganger to take knowing the likely consequences (and the fact that you play a presumably LG celestial means that you were always going to object to those consequences), i'd be having words with your DM, not the player of the elf. Yes, the act was evil, but it was also relatively in character. The DM didn't have to choose that form for the Doppelganger.
evilviper77 06-21-05, 03:16 PM	That's right folks, its that time of the week again! Where we announce the winner of this week's Trolly award. As you recall the Trolly goes to the poster who most successfully makes other posters believe he is a legitimate poster while he flames them and turns helpful suggests into personal attacks on himself. This week's Trolly goes to ... (drum roll) ... envelope please ... LCD2YOU Congratulations on your win, and everybody keep up the good work. Yes, i agree with andrew, STOP with the personal attacks...There is ABSOLUTLY NO REASON for this post besides to get LCD mad. NO ONE has trolled on this board and you need to erase this post and apologize to LCD, he has made fine posts about this topic, and has simply defended himself. Just because he has a different point of view about the topic doesn't give you the right to flame and post such things. I would have to disagree with LCD's PoV about what the elf did, i thought it evil, but that doesn't mean i have to blatently disrespect him because of it. Everyone has a right to their own PoV. Furthermore i would like to retract my statements about LCD, i thought he started posting on page three, but it ends up HE was the one provoked first (all the way back on page 1), not the other way around. He has simply been defending himself from people like you pres_man. Your disrespect is NOT needed on this thread, nor anywhere on these boards. LCD has done a superb job of not flaming after i wrongly called him out, while some of you on the other hand have continued fanning the flames. To repeat myself, STOP THE FLAMING and simply reply to the topic at hand. I thank all of you who haven't done anything but stated your opinion on the matter.
LCD2YOU 06-21-05, 03:21 PM	Thank you. Much appreciated.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 03:31 PM	I disagree with you, when you consider this provoking than, hm, then I don't know, feel provoked then. Just consider that this is not my intention. For me, your way of thinking is just completly strange, especially how low you apparently value life imo. (No attack, just a observation.) Ok, when I read your post I was in a hurry so I got the insanity part wrong. I thought that it was connected to the elf. And why I said that CelestialBear alsready answered the question? Because at least I rarely read if there is something new before my post, especially not on the last page. So I wanted to point you to the answer before it it had to be reposted or the whole issue got forgotten.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 03:34 PM	Yes, i agree with andrew, STOP with the personal attacks...There is ABSOLUTLY NO REASON for this post besides to get LCD mad. NO ONE has trolled on this board and you need to erase this post and apologize to LCD, he has made fine posts about this topic, and has simply defended himself. Just because he has a different point of view about the topic doesn't give you the right to flame and post such things. I would have to disagree with LCD's PoV about what the elf did, i thought it evil, but that doesn't mean i have to blatently disrespect him because of it. Everyone has a right to their own PoV. Furthermore i would like to retract my statements about LCD, i thought he started posting on page three, but it ends up HE was the one provoked first (all the way back on page 1), not the other way around. He has simply been defending himself from people like you pres_man. Your disrespect is NOT needed on this thread, nor anywhere on these boards. LCD has done a superb job of not flaming after i wrongly called him out, while some of you on the other hand have continued fanning the flames. To repeat myself, STOP THE FLAMING and simply reply to the topic at hand. I thank all of you who haven't done anything but stated your opinion on the matter. Thanks evilviper77 for your thoughtful comments and for taking the to go back and discover that LCD had a legitimate grievance. I apologize again for any flaming I've done. Can we drop the subject of who flamed who and get back to the topic at hand now? :)
Derren S. 06-21-05, 03:42 PM	Ok, after this flaming and off topic talking about various laws etc. let me summarize how I see the situation. 1. The doppelganger was rescued from beeing killed but threatened by the group 2. Shortly after the fight the Doppelganger began to take various forms from peoples memories. 3. He Then took the form of a dead friend of the elf (not murderer, that was a mistake). It wasn't the first form from the elfs memory, but apparently the player missed that, so lets say it was the first form 4. This freaked the elf out who attacked and killed the Doppelganger, fully knowing that it was just a altered shape. The player said that this was the only believable way to roleplay the elf. While I thought that the act was evil and the CN character slipped, I now still think that it was a evil act but I have my doubts is this elf is CN rather CE and completly nuts. I can't think of a neutral person whos logical respons to someone impersonating a dead friened is killing him without warning. You can start disagreeing in 3...2...1...now! ;)
pres_man 06-21-05, 03:48 PM	I agree with you on doubting the CN nature of the elf in this case. Striking out was probably chaotic and initial neutral. Yet when her friends where yelling at her to stop and one even tried to attack her to get her to stop, well that is when it become evil. She had to know at that point that she was going too far and that she should stop. My guess is that the player decided that she had already start a chain of action and didn't feel like it could be stopped, which of course is not true. One swing out of anger is understandable, the killing is not. Had the PC been totally by herself with only the DP present then perhaps it would have been a neutral act (didn't have anyone reminding her to stop).
evilviper77 06-21-05, 03:49 PM	Well, getting back to the topic at hand, i think the main problem on whether what she did was right or wrong has to do with everyone's interpretation of mind reading. To LCD it seems he interprets it as a deep mind probing, giving the DG access to anything that the person knows (tell me if i'm assuming wrong), and that the other side thinks of it as the DG can't just read the thoughts of what the person is thinking at the time (once again, tell me if i'm assuming wrong). If it is like what i think LCD thinks, then the DG is indeed a threat because he can use anything they know against them later like telling enemys where to find the head of their org, their HQ and such things, making him indeed a threat. Now you can say he acted all nice and such, but i would act nice to if i had a bunch of high lvl fighters surrounding me, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't run off and tell no them. Now where i disagree with his is that i doubt she was thinking of those things when she decided to attack the DG, making in my opinion her act more evil than anything. For those of you who think mind reading as just what you are thinking at the time, the DG was indeed no threat to them and there is no excuse to kill him. I think of the mind reading ability as this, just being able to read what people are thinking of at the time. But what is done is done, and anwyn has already killed the DG so just try to RP it to the best of your ability. Your half-celestial would not know what she was thinking at the time or why she did it (unless of course she told you IC). So what i think you should do is simply think of your characters position on such things, using just the information HE would know, and RP it out like that.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 03:55 PM	The problem with this reasoning is that it can lead to a whole lot of killing. Are the PCs allowed to kill a city official who asks for their names because he can use them for Trap the Soul spells? LCD said himself, Gathering Information is a tool, it depends on how the information are used. And as long you don't know how the DG would use the information, mind reading is nothing punishable, at least not by death. Did the DG mess with the party? I think not, but LCD does. Maybe the new information will change his mind, but if not explain to me why you think changing into an dead friend of the elf was messing with the party? For me it was just one form out of many he took to demonstrat his ability, both to change his form and to read minds.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 03:58 PM	I don't know if this has been addressed (didn't read the whole thread, sorry) but actually it's the DM's fault. Whoever was playing the elf will not have been telling the DM what they were thinking of, so the DM chose to have the Doppelganger take that form. Presumably this is a fairly established group, and your DM knows the temperaments of both his/her players and their characters. If that is the case, and the DM specifically chose this form for the Doppelganger to take knowing the likely consequences (and the fact that you play a presumably LG celestial means that you were always going to object to those consequences), i'd be having words with your DM, not the player of the elf. Yes, the act was evil, but it was also relatively in character. The DM didn't have to choose that form for the Doppelganger. The DM, the player of Synn (the "Calishite assassin"), the player of the Channe, the Harper woman, and the player of a renegade Zent (also absent on the night in question) apparently have played together for some years. Elfhound, who plays Anwyn, the player of Ront the paladin (absent the night in question) and I all joined when they started the current campaign a couple of months ago after two of them returned from overseas. I think the DM was as surprised as anyone that Anwyn would just kill the doppleganger, but once he saw it happening, he encouraged it by making Ront and Anak wait two or three rounds before getting a chance to even roll initiative. So far as I can tell, there's no point in my having words with the DM. He hasn't liked me since we made the mistake of discussing something political by email a couple of months before he returned, and he seems to take great delight in having every NPC, even the allegedly good-aligned ones, treat Anak like garbage. So far as I can tell, with him it's "my way or the highway," which is part of why I'm not sure I'll remain with the group. Elfhound seems to fit in well with the long-term members of the group, and has been invited to socialize with some of them outside of the game, while I most assuredly have not. He had Miklos Selkirk approve of Anwyn's killing of the doppleganger, ruled during our debate that the killing was neutral, not evil, and wrote me a nasty email afterwards telling me that Anak will have to grow up and face the harsh reality of the world. Anak is actually neutral good, a follower of Lathander. We also have a paladin in the party, who's lawful good. Not only did Anwyn not give any thought to how these two paragons of good would react to her killing the doppleganger, but I suspect that Elfhound never considered how the players of those paragons might react to it either.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 04:02 PM	Well then it could be that the DM ruled so to oppose you. I guess there is no chance to convice the DM to tell you why he ruled this way? And has he also a aversion against the paladin? If yes that could mean that he does want to do an evil game and you two are in the way.
pres_man 06-21-05, 04:03 PM	Allow me to go slightly off topic for a sec, I'll bring it back to the situation, trust me. Let us say that the U.S. government learned of a person who was telepathic, and can shapeshift what the heck. Do to some foul up the telepath was brought to the senior militiary officer. Suddenly this telepath has access to all kinds of classified secrets and if they got free could endanger many lives. Would killing the telepath be the smart thing to do? Perhaps, I mean there is the risk of information getting out and people being put in risk. But is the gain of having a telepath in your custody going to out way that risk, besides the fact that it might be unethical to kill somebody for just being what they are. Now think about this situation, here the party had in their custody a creature that could read minds and could change shapes. Would this make them uncomfortable, sure. But to kill this creature, especially when it had not been a threat before being attack (claiming because it defended itself makes it ok to kill it is a little silly to me) just does not seem like a smart idea to me.
CelestialBarbarian 06-21-05, 04:12 PM	Well then it could be that the DM ruled so to oppose you. I guess there is no chance to convice the DM to tell you why he ruled this way? And has he also a aversion against the paladin? If yes that could mean that he does want to do an evil game and you two are in the way. He gets very cross any time I open my mouth with anything metagame--seems to see it as a challenge to his authority as DM. I think he ruled that way partly out of contempt for extreme goodness, and partly out of hostility toward me.
Eviltool 06-21-05, 04:12 PM	On further thought, this kinda sounds like dm inexperience, or just a bad dm. First, playing favourites, as in, every npc automatically picks on the good character for no reason. Poor show for that. Second, from the details of this encounter, it seems likely that his intention was to have the doppler get killed. And I don't think he played it out as well as he could have at that. A smart enemy wouldn't be likely to try and mess with people in this situation until he learned enough about them to be relatively certain of survival. a large group of well armed adventerours invading a hostile territory, fresh off a combat, are not good people to mind-screw. It just doesn't make sense for the doppleganger to do this. Third, he doesn't seem to be able to moderate very well, or Celestial Barbarion wouldn't be posting here. He also didn't seem to take the time to explain and/or figure out exactly what happened to let the other players have a better idea of what exactly transpired. I also think that next time he might want to give a better reason for you to be travelling together. It seems like the party is pretty untrustworthy of each other, thus, why are they together? Would you trust your life to someone you think is a mad dog killer, and have known for only a month or so?
pangalactic 06-21-05, 04:24 PM	The DM, the player of Synn (the "Calishite assassin"), the player of the Channe, the Harper woman, and the player of a renegade Zent (also absent on the night in question) apparently have played together for some years. Elfhound, who plays Anwyn, the player of Ront the paladin (absent the night in question) and I all joined when they started the current campaign a couple of months ago after two of them returned from overseas. I think the DM was as surprised as anyone that Anwyn would just kill the doppleganger, but once he saw it happening, he encouraged it by making Ront and Anak wait two or three rounds before getting a chance to even roll initiative. So far as I can tell, there's no point in my having words with the DM. He hasn't liked me since we made the mistake of discussing something political by email a couple of months before he returned, and he seems to take great delight in having every NPC, even the allegedly good-aligned ones, treat Anak like garbage. So far as I can tell, with him it's "my way or the highway," which is part of why I'm not sure I'll remain with the group. Elfhound seems to fit in well with the long-term members of the group, and has been invited to socialize with some of them outside of the game, while I most assuredly have not. He had Miklos Selkirk approve of Anwyn's killing of the doppleganger, ruled during our debate that the killing was neutral, not evil, and wrote me a nasty email afterwards telling me that Anak will have to grow up and face the harsh reality of the world. Anak is actually neutral good, a follower of Lathander. We also have a paladin in the party, who's lawful good. Not only did Anwyn not give any thought to how these two paragons of good would react to her killing the doppleganger, but I suspect that Elfhound never considered how the players of those paragons might react to it either. I hate to say it, because I tend to try and work out differences with my group, but it sounds like you're either going to have to play a different character who is more 'acceptable' to your DM, or find another group. Personally, i'd be looking for another group, because it seems like there's bad blood between the DM and yourself. OOG differences shouldn't affect IG situations and rulings - the DM should be impartial - but unfortunately they all-too-often do. The best thing to do in this situation, IMHO, would be to cut your losses and find another group, preferably with a more mature DM. It doesn't sound as though your current one is willing to leave OOG conflicts out of the game where they belong. A few years back I was ina group where, for whatever reason, the DM strongly favoured my character over the other (there were only two of us, as well as the DM). It got to the point where my character (a Bard) was being inundated with money by officials of the town simply for strumming a chord on his lute, whereas the other character was physically and verbally abused by every NPC we encountered. Often the two happened simultaneously. I tried to work it out with the DM, but to no avail. Eventually we both decided to pack it in, and instead got our own group together. It simply was't fair - to either of us, because it caused tensions between us as characters and as players - and all the infighting it caused meant we never ended up adventuring. Of course, if you think things might get better, or if you're willing to play a different character, then by all means stay. I'm just offering my opinions, everybody is different. But I strongly believe that D&D is about everybody having fun, and it doesn't sound like you're having much fun. Here's hoping everything works out for you *crosses fingers* :)
LordHell 06-21-05, 05:17 PM	I agree with Andrew. If this is true, the character never was CN but CE. Posts like this want make me to rip my hair out in frustration. ONE ACTION DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CHARACTER EVIL It also says in the DMG (the page escapes me now, but Ill find it later) that a perfectlly acceptable way of playing Neutral is doing both Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, in somewhat equal amounts.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 05:19 PM	Posts like this want me to rip my hair out in frustration. ONE ACTION DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CHARACTER EVIL Read the whole story. There is no way the character would not have been evil before that when the only believable action for the character was to kill without warning.
LordHell 06-21-05, 05:34 PM	Read the whole story. There is no way the character would not have been evil before that when the only believable action for the character was to kill without warning. If anyone needs to read the whole story, it's you She feels enormous guilt, regret, and grief over the deaths of her friends, in part because she blames herself for what happened. She has a constant reminder of their deaths every time she looks in the mirror (there's a scar she got from when she fought their attackers) so it's not something she can easily forget or put out of her mind. BTW, after we decided to leave the temple, the party did go to Miklos and Anwyn did tell him that she had killed the doppelganger. She made no attempt to dodge the issue or say she didn't do it and IC, was fully prepared to accept reprecussions Here are some examples of Good behaviour. Killing and threatening the doppleganger was arguably evil behaviour. Anwyn is clearly neutral. I don't really see what the problem is anyway. In my mind, this thread should never have been created in the first place. The only thing each party is guilty of (except the DM) in this circumstance is roleplaying. CelestialBarbarian however is clearly cannot handle a bit of in character conflict and feels that game is lost.Tough cookies. Elfhound I think you played your character exceptionally well, and I think you have presented yourself great in this topic. You would be a welcome addition to my game any day, and as a DM unless you were an Exhalted character or a one restricted by alignment I wouldn't even feel the need to create an issue over your actions against the doppleganger. Well done for grasping D&D better than some people in this forum, only after 3 months.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 05:37 PM	So showing a little regret is enough good to balance cold blooded murder? Right. And when I give a begger 10 gp I can raze a town and stay neutral. So tell me, what good must one do to balance murder in your opinion?
LordHell 06-21-05, 05:44 PM	So tell me, what good must one do to balance murder in your opinion? Risking your own life to save your friends. Besides, neither you, or I know Anwyns full story, only Elfhound knows that. By her level headed responses on this forum I think Ill give her the benefit of the doubt, instead of preaching to her what I - some lame ass over the internet - thinks of her character and her alignment. Also Derren, I must say, that you really love to twist peoples arguments and over-exaggerate them. My point was that Anywn clearly wasnt evil because she fully regretted her action and said that losing control like that a very bad thing. An evil person probably wouldn't care. You come back equating that to someone giving a peasant 10gp and then killing a whole town. Where is the comparason in that? This is not the first time you've done it, you do it all over this forum on multiple topics. You exaggerate the other side of the argument to make them look 'foolish' and you gloss over your side, i.e. that what the doppleganger did to Anwyn was merely heckling or taunting :rolleyes: You are really intellectually dishonest.
Fiery_Overlord 06-21-05, 05:49 PM	The fact you are not "Evil" doesn't make the action any less evil. You type larger, I’ll type smaller. Nor does it alleviate responsibility or accountability for one's actions. Good people can do evil things, very true. However, there are still consequences for all actions good or evil. One consequences is not being seen in the same light by your comrades. Another could be through justifying yourself you alter your paradigm enough that you now lack compassion and find evil acts less repugnant, and general moral decay. Believing it is ok to kill people who upset you is evil. Example taken from the news stories in real life: Getting cut off in traffic, it’s dangerous. (in fact it could kill more than just you if it causes a pile up) The person who does that to you puts you at risk, and yes it is suspicious behavior. Does than mean pulling out your glock and shooting them is a good or even neutral act?? No! (Emotionally satifying? Perhaps...)The act is obviously evil. Back to game: In the Doppelganger case the killing of the being was committed under emotional duress and is thus far less severe than the unrepentant behavior afterward, which is a willful and deliberate callous act. A death sentence for merely taunting is not within the confines of good or neutral behavior. “GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “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. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.”-SRD BTW I don’t see anyone one else referencing the SRD on this subject. By definition it is the third-person standard by which alignment is measured. I post this section of the SRD again because only Celestial Barbarian and myself have referenced it so far in the debate.
LordHell 06-21-05, 05:55 PM	The fact you are not "Evil" doesn't make the action any less evil. A death sentence for merely taunting is not within the confines of good or neutral behavior. Another post that wants me to rip my hair out in frustration. So you equate digging up ones most painful memories and parading them before ones face as "merely taunting"? (your own words). Also, MOST OF US (except LCD) have all agreed this was an evil action. However based on Anywns overall story and picture she gives of her character - I do not see her as being an evil character. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. This fits Anwyns definition pretty well actually. She has risked her neck before to help her friends, and she fully regrets killing the 'innocent' doppleganger.
Derren S. 06-21-05, 05:57 PM	Ok, no evil person, at least as far as we know, but an evil action which was the question in the beginning.
Fiery_Overlord 06-21-05, 05:58 PM	Dear Lordhell, First your nick is kewl, To answer your question one word: Yes. (but to elaborate, painful memories are painful memories. Hurting people emotionally can be extremely severe but never warrants a death sentence. Yes, I know how hurtful memories can be, personally, it doesn’t make it anything more than taunting. There needs to be sense of scale for punishment, killing for emotional hurt in not a good or neutral act. Memories are hurtful, not harmful. I am not saying that that the act itself should change the alignment, just that there are consequences for actions. I have said many times sometimes good people have moments of weakness. This is not an excuse nor does it alleviate responsibility, but the character has to now either face what they have done or risk sliding down the slippery slope of self-justification. And yes I do agree this all is good RP situation.)
evilviper77 06-21-05, 06:08 PM	This is why if i was a DM, i would ban the alignment 3.5 CN, the PHB defines the alignments all screwy. Go old school alignments!!!! (baulders gate, load up the game if you have it and check it out).
pangalactic 06-21-05, 06:10 PM	Also, MOST OF US (except LCD) have all agreed this was an evil action. However based on Anywns overall story and picture she gives of her character - I do not see her as being an evil character. I have to agree here; while the action in and of itself was evil, this doesn't make the character evil. I think what we have a case of here is good roleplaying on both sides. Elfhound roleplayed her character well, and (IMO, although i'm well aware that many of you will disagree with me) so did CelestialBarbarian. Although people have pointed to the "try to kill another innocent and i'll kill you first" argument he used, I personally feel that this was just said in the heat of the moment to get Anwyn to back down, and for her to think about her actions. Nowhere has CelestialBarbarian said (please correct me if i'm wrong) that he would actually kill Elfhound's character if there was a repeat of these events, but I believe he would be roleplaying perfectly within his character to use any necessary force to prevent a repeat occurence. Maybe not by killing her, but certainly by hurting her enough to subdue her. After all, which is worse; allowing a fellow group-member to kill another person ("Doppelgangers are people too" - I can see the badges and fundraisers now ;) ) innocent - whether provoked or not, or preventing the death and also preventing a neutral character slipping further towards evil, even if force has to be used to prevent this? But regardless of all that, i've said it once and i'll say it again - I think the DM is at fault here. I've nothing much in particular against this kind of In Game conflict, but by allowing it to spill out of the game (and, in particular, by taking sides both in- and out-of-game) the DM has demonstrated that he is not mature enough to be behind that screen.
Fiery_Overlord 06-21-05, 06:55 PM	....But regardless of all that, i've said it once and i'll say it again - I think the DM is at fault here. I've nothing much in particular against this kind of In Game conflict, but by allowing it to spill out of the game (and, in particular, by taking sides both in- and out-of-game) the DM has demonstrated that he is not mature enough to be behind that screen. This is an awesome point. The DM's job is to be a fair impartial arbitrator of the world. The situation could have been fine if the DM checked his facts and ruled according to the third-person definition rather than taking sides on impulse. Either that or write down his personal standard so everyone could be on the same sheet, (though I doubt he would be able to define it as concisely or articulately as the SRD, it was professionally written after all)
pres_man 06-21-05, 07:00 PM	Since someone mentioned related some posts/opinions to the RAW, I'll try to do that here. So tell me, what good must one do to balance murder in your opinion? Risking your own life to save your friends. That isn't really a good issue. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Now risking your life to save strangers, that is good behaviour. My point was that Anywn clearly wasnt evil because she fully regretted her action and said that losing control like that a very bad thing. An evil person probably wouldn't care. That is not completely true, this might be true for a CE person, but LE might. Now if she had regretted the killing, not losing her temper, then that would be the sign of a non-evil person.
pangalactic 06-21-05, 07:48 PM	This is an awesome point. Why thankyou. It's not often my posts get noticed on forums, let alone complimented. Much appreciated :)
Andrew_980 06-21-05, 08:25 PM	ONE ACTION DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CHARACTER EVIL you are right there, but that is not why i said she is evil. Read her remarks (Elfhound, the elf's player) she said that the only reaction that is consistant for her character is lethal violence. Tuanting answered with lethal force the ONLY way? sure sounds CE to me. We do not know the context of other games they have shared but her own words make this character sound evil. This fits Anwyns definition pretty well actually. She has risked her neck before to help her friends, and she fully regrets killing the 'innocent' doppleganger. no she doesn't regret it, she said she was willing to accept the reprecussions. just like many real serial killers walk calmly to the cell or chair, they accept it. but regret?, remorse?, never and neither does she CelestialBarbarian however is clearly cannot handle a bit of in character conflict and feels that game is lost.Tough cookies. no i think what he is "guilty" of is having an issue with a DM and player(s) with the morality of Charles Manson or the Unibomber. He alone tries to be the altruistic one (as Good is SUPPOSED to be) and get shafted by a DM with contempt for good
snowlynx 06-21-05, 08:27 PM	What really matters is the intent behind the actions. Don't you agree? If you agree, then please tell me why you bothered to say such a thing in the first place. What really matters is Anywn's intent behind the actions. Yes, the doppleganger's intent matters, and I write in the rest of the previous post the two ways it could be neutral or good (depending on how much of a 'threat' the dopplganger really was.) The doppleganger was NOT evil, so we can presume he doesn't make a habit of trying to inflict pain on others. (That would be evil.) Regardless, I don't think much of this discussion matters anymore. It doesn't matter if her actions were good and evil, since most people have stated, if this was her only action, that she shouldn't be evil for it. CelestialBarbarian: You have a couple of options here. If you like playing with the group, keep your OOC discussions on your plans to a minimum, and try to pull them off in-game. That will prevent DM metagaming to stop them. (Don't tell him you have plans, but are not telling him about them, that will just annoy him.) You might try to recruit other players to Anak's cause In Game if it seems they get more attention for you; this is a locgical move In Game for your character as he surely notices his word doesn't seem to be enough, so it's much better to have someone who carries more weight spread the word for you. People have suggested leaving the group if you don't get along with the DM, but I will guess that some of the resistance you're getting from the DM is because you're discussing your plans out of game and he doesn't want to hear them. Player of Anwyn, whose name I can't remember (sorry :( ) : Yes, you should roleplay your character over your alignment. You are not something like a Paladin who has to consider how his actions will affect his purity, so it's fine and better to just roleplay your character. I do have a suggestion for you that should quell any 'your character is evil!' worries you might have had in your mind. Take the alignment quiz for your character: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b Congratulations, if you have filled out this quiz with all IC info, you now have an official Wizards ruling on your character's alignment. Player of Anak might like taking the test too :) Oh, the quiz isn't perfect, and I often have trouble answering the questions.....because it seems it should be dependant on circumstance, which may alter the results significantly. But it's a great 'huh, I didn't think of my character that way' experience sometimes, and I have changed my characters' alignments after taking the test.
elfhound 06-21-05, 09:08 PM	Player of Anwyn, whose name I can't remember (sorry :( ) : Yes, you should roleplay your character over your alignment. You are not something like a Paladin who has to consider how his actions will affect his purity, so it's fine and better to just roleplay your character. I do have a suggestion for you that should quell any 'your character is evil!' worries you might have had in your mind. Take the alignment quiz for your character: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b Congratulations, if you have filled out this quiz with all IC info, you now have an official Wizards ruling on your character's alignment. Player of Anak might like taking the test too :) Oh, the quiz isn't perfect, and I often have trouble answering the questions.....because it seems it should be dependant on circumstance, which may alter the results significantly. But it's a great 'huh, I didn't think of my character that way' experience sometimes, and I have changed my characters' alignments after taking the test. I took the test, according to Anwyn: Here's the results: Based on your answers to the quiz, your character’s most likely alignment is Neutral. Neutral A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. The common phrase for neutral is "true neutral." Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. --excerpted from the Player’s Handbook, Chapter 6 I answered as I thought my character would. And in response to another issue brought up in this thread- I apologize if I was not clear enough. Using lethal force was the best action she could take in THIS situation in order to remain consistent with the background I came up with. It does not apply to all situations she may find herself in, meaning she would not act the same way in another situation as she did with the doppel. I was speaking specifically about the doppelganger when I wrote my above post. And I've never argued, again, that the action itself was good, just that it was appropriate for her background. She isn't perfect, after all. I believe it was a Neutral incident, with possible (E) overtones. My DM ruled it Neutral, and he's been great with letting me bounce ideas off him for future character development. This whole situation has created lots of intriguing possibilities for this character. As for my statement about possible mercy if the doppel had given up after the first round, that was a 'what if' scenario. After the first round, it changed into Anwyn and fought back, so it was a moot point. And thank you for your kind words, LordHell :cool: Anwyn's been a heck of a good time to play, and I'm really enjoying the campaign I'm in. That's why I'm playing, to have a good time. I know I don't have a lot of experience with D&D, and I'm not afraid to admit that. But it's been one hell of a fun ride so far :w00t:
OctoberRaven 06-22-05, 04:14 AM	In the legal sense of the word, the act of killing the doppelganger is murder, unequivically, and unless the courts use divination there is no way to justify the murder. Now, in a sense of alignment. Perhaps you have heard of the term 'crime of passion'; the person acted not in cold blood but as a release to the anger/hate/etc to the images and memories that the doppelganger triggered. I would say this is a CN act. It was murder, but it was NOT in cold blood; however, this is NOT a just action. Not good, but not evil, and definatly not lawful. Thus, it is CN of not just N. Should it change alignment? No. Nobody is perfect. Even the most level-headed of us will act unrationally once in a while. Was it right to berate the character on the act? As far as from a PC's POV yes, the character is entitled to say it was wrong. OOC there should be no major quarrel or discussion of it. As a DM, I would have the character arrested and by order of <person in charge> be placed under the jurisdiction of the paladin character. And a paladin who doesn't care about a murder isn't a paladin, he's a fighter. 'Nuff said. Flame all you want, I wont read it.
CelestialBarbarian 06-22-05, 09:40 AM	I'd like to thank all the people who posted thoughtful comments. When I started the thread I felt upset to have been treated like I was crazy for thinking that killing the doppleganger for no more than imitating someone for six seconds was evil. It's comforting to know that not only do other people agree that it's evil, but that the majority of posters agree that it's evil. I didn't anticipate that the character's player would read the thread, and I feel frustrated that she's never indicated that she's even considered the possibility that the posters who say killing the doppler is evil might be correct. I have to admit though that I took particular comfort when she stated that killing the doppleganger was the best and only course of action for her character, and several posters revised their perception of her character from CN or C(E) to just plain CE. I'd also like to thank the posters who identified a problem with the DM; you persuaded me to write to the DM and just tell him flat out that I think he's playing favorites. I don't know if I'd mentioned this, but last week before the game I emailed him, pointed out several negative things he was doing to my character, and asked him if he was telling me he wanted me to leave the group. Without telling me that he did not want me to leave the group, he did give a reason for each of the negative things. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and just accept the separate explanations, but after last session's events and his subsequent emails, and your comments, I decided it's just better to address the issue of DM favoritism (or hostility) head-on. I wouldn't feel much surprise to find my participation in the group ending when the DM returns from vacation next week. If so, while I certainly won't miss having everyone call Anak an idiot to his face, Anak's inability to accomplish anything charitable or spread the faith of Lathander, or any of last week's "manslaughter isn't evil" nonsense, I will certainly miss playing Anak,:weep: miss his many humorous interactions with the PCs and NPCs, and miss seeing him fight evil, spread light and hope, and grow in both character and power. Thanks again for all of your feedback. :) Live long and prosper. May the Force Be With You. ;)
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 10:11 AM	First, Derren S.: I just want you to know it is statements like this: For me, your way of thinking is just completly strange, especially how low you apparently value life imo. (No attack, just a observation.) this is not a great way to start off. Why? Well, even though you did state that "IMO" in your opinion I have a low regard for life. My reasons for stating why I thought it wasn't an evil act are discounted from the start. Obviously if I have no respect for life, then I can be easily ignored. Anything I say after that has no weight. It also puts people on the defensive from the start. It is like saying, "Do you still beat your wife? This is not an attack, just an observation." No, I am not saying you beat your wife. I don't know you nor do I know if you have a wife. It is to get a point across on how I think you come across in some instances. I will also state that I am not alone in saying you take what people say and use your own definitions: Also Derren, I must say, that you really love to twist peoples arguments and over-exaggerate them. Please stop. This is not a flame nor an attack. Now, back to the main course. Much has been said that I didn't see the act of the elf being evil. Here's why: In a nutshell, what I understood the OP in saying was the DG was getting into people's minds. I saw nothing about saving throws or the DM asking questions about what the party was thinking. As I have said before, it could have been from DM inexperience, something the DM had as a "special" creature or just plain uncaring ineptitude. As I did not know the DM (and everyone would complain about the DM not knowing about "x" if they disagree with them) I gave the benefit of the doubt and went with "special creature". Yes, as far as the player/PC knows, the DG was a rescued prisoner. The OP also stated the DG seemed to have had a chip on its shoulder. The party as a group was already hostile to it (could one of the other players have known, thought, sensed or seen something the OP missed?) and from the OP's post, the DG went through many forms before settling on the elf's dad. From that, I came to the following conclusions: 1: The DG was deep probing the party's minds. No saves, no questions to the players about what they were thinking. Sounds like a deep probe to me. 2: The DG was deliberately not just antagonizing the party but attacking them with vivid and painful memories. As the DM had already done some none standard stuff, I would wonder what else was going to happen. That would be as a player metagaming (couldn't help it) and as a PC whose life may be in danger. That is why I don't think that AS I STATE IT, the action was evil.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 12:04 PM	How do you know that the DG shifted through painful memories? Except for the elfs friend (not father) non of the forms were "painful". Yes, the way you state it is was not evil, but is it what really happened? From what the player from the elf and CelestialBabarian told us this doesn't seems to be the case.
CelestialBarbarian 06-22-05, 12:11 PM	How do you know tha tthe DG shifted through painful memories? Except for the elfs friend (not father) non of the forms were "painful". Yes, the way you state it is was not evil, but is it what really happened? From what the player from the elf and CelestialBabarian told us this doesn't seems to be the case. I might also add that the doppleganger never "settled" on the form of Anwyn's friend; the instant the doppleganger took the form of Anwyn's friend, she attacked him.
elfhound 06-22-05, 12:14 PM	How do you know tha tthe DG shifted through painful memories? Except for the elfs friend (not father) non of the forms were "painful". Yes, the way you state it is was not evil, but is it what really happened? From what the player from the elf and CelestialBabarian told us this doesn't seems to be the case. The friend was painful for Anwyn. I don't know if any of the images were painful for Anak, Celestial is the one who should answer that. LCD is correct, we did not make any saving throws related to the mind reading. The Doppel did the forms from Anak's mind first. Then he moved to Anwyn. The Doppel stayed in Anwyn's friend's form long enough to say "I'll always be there for you, Anwyn." After it said that, she attacked.
CelestialBarbarian 06-22-05, 12:34 PM	The friend was painful for Anwyn. I don't know if any of the images were painful for Anak, Celestial is the one who should answer that. I already answered that above. LCD is correct, we did not make any saving throws related to the mind reading. I've already addressed the likelihood that the DM didn't follow the RAW but just ran it the way he felt like it. The Doppel did the forms from Anak's mind first. Then he moved to Anwyn. The Doppel stayed in Anwyn's friend's form long enough to say "I'll always be there for you, Anwyn." After it said that, she attacked. Ok, I stand corrected. I've been saying that she attacked the doppleganger after he'd taken the form of her friend for 6 seconds (one round, the minimum, assuming the shift takes a standard action), but it actually takes at most 2 seconds to say "I'll always be there for you, Anwyn." So Anwyn attacked the doppleganger only 2 seconds after he took the form of her dead friend.
totoro 06-22-05, 12:58 PM	In the legal sense of the word, the act of killing the doppelganger is murder, unequivically, and unless the courts use divination there is no way to justify the murder. Well, if you are talking about real-world murder, in the technical sense there was no murder. Murder requires the killing of a human being. Moreover, an act of killing is not automatically murder. Self-defense, voluntary manslaughter, and murder all have the same requirements (a killing + intent to kill). Voluntary manslaughter has the same requirements of murder, but the murder is mitigated by local factors (codified factors aren't really useful here since there will not be a codified factor related to shapeshifting into a loved one). Saying that the killing of the doppelganger is murder, unequivocally, is like saying that there is no such thing as manslaughter. You must consider mitigating factors. And, courts use "divination" all the time. The way they determine whether someone is guilty is by assuming that a set of facts (using evidence). Even if the facts are not really accurate, that is what is used to decide upon guilt. Courts determine both whether the act was committed and the psychological state of the perpetrator (and they are sometimes wrong, but the judgment is made nevertheless). If the court decides murder was not mitigated, it is murder. In this case, we don't need to guess. The PC freely admitted her motivations and the DM is free to decide whether the motivations and circumstances were sufficient to mitigate the murder down to voluntary manslaughter. I say they were, which is why the act was C(E) in my book. If you feel the circumstances were not sufficient to mitigate, she probably acted CE. And if you think she was completely justified in her actions, you might say she was CN.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 01:02 PM	You are mixing law and alignment. Alignment doesn't follow the same rules as law. There are no migating factors for alignment. Either the killing was just and in defense of others (good), in self defense (neutral) or evil (rest).
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 01:27 PM	How do you know that the DG shifted through painful memories? Except for the elfs friend (not father) non of the forms were "painful". As I have stated, the circumstances on what did happen has changed a bit. Yes, the way you state it is was not evil, but is it what really happened? From what the player from the elf and CelestialBabarian told us this doesn't seems to be the case. Elfhound and Celestial Barbarian are still putting together what really did happen and what the other was thinking. We'll probably never know for sure. Still, I get this feeling that the elf was RP'd, not metagamed. That leads to snap decisions.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 01:30 PM	Still, I get this feeling that the elf was RP'd, not metagamed. That leads to snap decisions. That was never the question. A role played evil act is not different from a metagamed evil act. Alignment in D&D isn't subjective. It doesn't matter if someone had a RP reason to perform something evil or that the evil was done because of a metagame reason.
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 01:36 PM	Still, I get this feeling that the elf was RP'd, not metagamed. That leads to snap decisions.That was never the question. We agree on something! A role played evil act is not different from a metagamed evil act. Alignment in D&D isn't subjective. It doesn't matter if someone had a RP reason to perform something evil or that the evil was done because of a metagame reason. Alignment in DnD is subjective to the views and outlooks of the people playing the game. Even using the PHB, the "paladin hunts/kills evil without mercy". Yes, there is the Chapter on Alignments but it doesn't over-ride what came before. Good promotes life. If a way to promote the most life is to kill evil, then that is what needs to be done. Of course it should be done ONLY after every reasonable alternative is thought out.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 01:47 PM	Alignment in DnD is subjective to the views and outlooks of the people playing the game. What is good, neutral and evil is clearly defined, in the PHb and by the DM, so how can it be subjective as there is only one instance who decides it and that is not the offender? It doesn't matter when someone thinks that what he does is good, when he kills innocents (no, I don't mean the DG, but generally) he does evil.
pres_man 06-22-05, 01:49 PM	Alignment in DnD is subjective to the views and outlooks of the people playing the game. To a certain extent I agree. My personal opinion is that the DM should determine what is good and what is evil. Simply for the fact that have to keep every single NPC in the game consistent, including the deities. Even using the PHB, the "paladin hunts/kills evil without mercy". Yes, there is the Chapter on Alignments but it doesn't over-ride what came before. Actually I think it says "fights" evil without mercy. One can fight evil through strength of arms or through compassion. Also, I think it could be argued that a section describing alignment would over-ride some flavor text in a previous section. Order in the text does not indicate priority of acceptableness. Good promotes life. If a way to promote the most life is to kill evil, then that is what needs to be done. Of course it should be done ONLY after every reasonable alternative is thought out. That is a fine way to play, of course this will eventually lead most paladins to actually be lawful evil by the definition. I mean using that thought process it only makes sense to put baby kobolds on spikes since they will most likely grow up to do evil. You can do more good by destroying all creatures who have a propensite for evil. I wonder why the elves, dwarves, and gnomes tolerate humans and halflings, they have a very good chance of becoming evil.
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 02:25 PM	Alignment in DnD is subjective to the views and outlooks of the people playing the game.What is good, neutral and evil is clearly defined, in the PHb and by the DM, so how can it be subjective as there is only one instance who decides it and that is not the offender? It doesn't matter when someone thinks that what he does is good, when he kills innocents (no, I don't mean the DG, but generally) he does evil.The guidelines are there, but they are not clearly defined. If they were, discussions like these wouldn't be so numerous on the boards. There is so much that goes into, "Is an action good or evil". Can true idiot, IQ = 30/Int 3, do an evil act if they are blissfully unaware of what they are doing? Can an animal commit an evil act? For the most part, intentions govern it all. What makes even the best of intentions turn into evil acts is continuing to do actions with bad results as you won't learn that just because you think you're doing a good act, ie good intentions, they end up hurting/maiming/killing/enslaving/etc. others. When you refuse to learn, that is when it becomes evil. The whole alignment system is a giant pallette of various grays. To a certain extent I agree. My personal opinion is that the DM should determine what is good and what is evil. Simply for the fact that have to keep every single NPC in the game consistent, including the deities.Bravo. Amen brother. All players should have a really good idea what is and is not good, evil, neutral, lawful and chaotic. Actually I think it says "fights" evil without mercy. One can fight evil through strength of arms or through compassion. Also, I think it could be argued that a section describing alignment would over-ride some flavor text in a previous section. Order in the text does not indicate priority of acceptableness.Um, how does one fight evil with compassion but not mercy? That is a fine way to play, of course this will eventually lead most paladins to actually be lawful evil by the definition. I mean using that thought process it only makes sense to put baby kobolds on spikes since they will most likely grow up to do evil.If one takes it to extremes, one could say that life itself is the root of all evil so kill all life. There are other checks and balances, like the intelligence, wisdom and experiences of the PC that come into play. Note I didn't say player. A player that uses player knowledge instead of having a character that could learn from their mistakes is metagaming. I prefer RPing. Even if that means honest and well intentioned actions having terrible consequences is a better game. That is the problem with taking things to the extremes. You can do more good by destroying all creatures who have a propensite for evil. I wonder why the elves, dwarves, and gnomes tolerate humans and halflings, they have a very good chance of becoming evil.I wonder why dwarves are LG even though they will go into a goblin or orc stronghold and put the entire populace to the sword. Same with elves. The difference of course is that as a whole, humans are more allies than not and can be reasoned with far more easily than orcs or goblins.
pres_man 06-22-05, 02:59 PM	Can true idiot, IQ = 30/Int 3, do an evil act if they are blissfully unaware of what they are doing? Can an animal commit an evil act? For the most part, intentions govern it all. I would have to say yes a true idiot can do an evil act. Now whether they could ever be evil themselves, being too unaware to realize the act was evil is another matter. For example, Lenny from Mice and Men, killed a woman. Just because he didn't understand what he was doing until too late, doesn't mean the act wasn't evil. Though Lenny himself might not have been, and perhaps couldn't be. Um, how does one fight evil with compassion but not mercy? Good question. A definition of compassion could be: compassion: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it A paladin might have a desire to not have someone imprisoned for life, but may not give into that desire, but instead regularly visits with the person and over time converts them to good. This doesn't not mean that the paladin thinks that the person should not be punished for their past wrong doings but they are sympathetic to them as a sentient being. I wonder why dwarves are LG even though they will go into a goblin or orc stronghold and put the entire populace to the sword. Same with elves. I agree, and that is why in my games they wouldn't do that. What they would do is go into a stronghold of people that were threatening/attacking them and kill all the combatants. They would then make the non-combatants leave the area. Most human cultures in the RL in the past either put whole enemy populations to the sword (evil), forced the enemy non-combatants to become citizens (evil/neutral/good), or ejected the non-combatant citizens (neutral/good).
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 03:48 PM	I would have to say yes a true idiot can do an evil act. Now whether they could ever be evil themselves, being too unaware to realize the act was evil is another matter. For example, Lenny from Mice and Men, killed a woman. Just because he didn't understand what he was doing until too late, doesn't mean the act wasn't evil. Though Lenny himself might not have been, and perhaps couldn't be. So by that reckoning, an animal can commit an evil act, correct? Good question. A definition of compassion could be: A paladin might have a desire to not have someone imprisoned for life, but may not give into that desire, but instead regularly visits with the person and over time converts them to good. This doesn't not mean that the paladin thinks that the person should not be punished for their past wrong doings but they are sympathetic to them as a sentient being. Great in theory, but where do all of these prisons come from? What happens when the prisoners start banding together? Here's a tough one, who pays for it? Just getting the people there is a lot of fun. I agree, and that is why in my games they wouldn't do that. What they would do is go into a stronghold of people that were threatening/attacking them and kill all the combatants. They would then make the non-combatants leave the area. Most human cultures in the RL in the past either put whole enemy populations to the sword (evil), forced the enemy non-combatants to become citizens (evil/neutral/good), or ejected the non-combatant citizens (neutral/good).I can see where ejecting the non-combatants is a truly evil act. If the Dwarves or Elves want to make the orcs leave and eject them, if the only path they are allowed to take is through the desert, where most will die, that is evil. Besides, if the Dwarves and or Elves try to convert them to good or at least non-threatening neutrality, the "evil Orcish Gods might have something to say about that.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 03:51 PM	So by that reckoning, an animal can commit an evil act, correct? Wrong. Animal int = 2, not able to discern between alignments, not eben able to understand what alignment is Dumbest Half-Ork ever born int = 3 able to understand what alignment is.
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 04:14 PM	Wrong. Animal int = 2, not able to discern between alignments, not eben able to understand what alignment is Dumbest Half-Ork ever born int = 3 able to understand what alignment is.If that were the case not even children would be completely innocent. If an Int 3 person can understand the abstract concepts of alignments, then the easier concepts of basic right and wrong can be grasped by them as well. That would mean that even those areas that do not execute based on diminshed mental abilities would feel free to do that. What I am really trying to get at here Derren S. is that alignment is not a simple ruling. There are no blanket ways to rule good/neutral/evil. Each case is different and unique.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 04:23 PM	In the real world yes, but not in D&D.
Andrew_980 06-22-05, 04:25 PM	So by that reckoning, an animal can commit an evil act, correct? Yes, cats engage in torture all the time, an evil act. they ar not capable of reasoning/understanding morality and so they are neutral That would mean that even those areas that do not execute based on diminshed mental abilities would feel free to do that I beleive in the death penalty as the removal of a threat ad wish the would execute those who cannot understand just as much as those who don't care, they are both a threat. (one day with no meds and people can get hurt, I have seen it and no one should have to face that) What I am really trying to get at here Derren S. is that alignment is not a simple ruling. There are no blanket ways to rule good/neutral/evil. Each case is different and unique I agree with you on that, i see little use for absolutism. Almost every case must be considered for act, intent, motivation, ect. For the record i am one of those people who says a "vow" PC should not hesitate to break it for extremely greater good and is evil not to in some cases
Eviltool 06-22-05, 04:59 PM	You are mixing law and alignment. Alignment doesn't follow the same rules as law. There are no migating factors for alignment. Either the killing was just and in defense of others (good), in self defense (neutral) or evil (rest). So if the paladin kills an unarmed and tied up evil guy, that is evil, but if he killed an evil guy who was attacking him, that is evil too? For the point, I actually agree with Pres_man. The act of attacking a possible enemy in anger is chaotic. Not evil. However, continuing to attack it while your friends all try to stop you for half a minute is evil.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 05:02 PM	So if the paladin kills an unarmed and tied up evil guy, that is evil, but if he killed an evil guy who was attacking him, that is evil too? Self defense and protection of innocents are covered by alignment. Read the PHB section about it. Killing while under drugs and killing with cold logic are two completly different cases in law, but for alignment both are equally evil.
pres_man 06-22-05, 06:37 PM	So by that reckoning, an animal can commit an evil act, correct? Sure, but the animal can't be evil. This is often why predators are killed when near settlements. It is not because of the mentality of the beast but the actions it takes. Great in theory, but where do all of these prisons come from? What happens when the prisoners start banding together? Here's a tough one, who pays for it? Just getting the people there is a lot of fun. I've hear this type of concern before. Good folk if they are willing to work (and the DM is willing to allow them to work and find help) can deal with all of these problems. Convience isn't an excuse for good folk. And as for payment, there once was this insane idea in the U.S., chain gangs! Prisoners were forced to do work to pay off their debt to society. I don't see why there could not be something similiar in a D&D setting. I can see where ejecting the non-combatants is a truly evil act. If the Dwarves or Elves want to make the orcs leave and eject them, if the only path they are allowed to take is through the desert, where most will die, that is evil. And why would they only be allowed to take that one? Sounds like the DM has some hard times playing a good culture. But really if the only choices were putting all the non-combatants to the sword, where they would all definitely die, or sending them into a harsh were some of them might die. I think one choice is more neutral than evil. Which way the DM chooses says a lot about their concept of good vs evil, and their understanding of neutral in D&D. Besides, if the Dwarves and or Elves try to convert them to good or at least non-threatening neutrality, the "evil Orcish Gods might have something to say about that. Indeed, I would think so. And what a great roleplaying experience, the party protecting the "enlightened" orc folk from the evil orc horde being lead by a cleric of Gruumsh. Now that is what I call D&D. :D
Zalak 06-22-05, 09:59 PM	The doppleganger was trying to get the party to fight, and it knew the circumstances behind his death. It certainly knew what effect it would have on Anwyn, or it has a wisdom of 6. It planned on provoking her to violence, it just didn't plan on dying. It wasn't mentally ill, it just underestimated how effective Anwyn would be at killing, and how effective the party would be at stopping it. I say it brought it's fate upon itself, and killing it shows a short temper but none of the malice or self interest associated with evil.
totoro 06-23-05, 01:22 AM	You are mixing law and alignment. Alignment doesn't follow the same rules as law. There are no migating factors for alignment. Either the killing was just and in defense of others (good), in self defense (neutral) or evil (rest). I'm kinda late responding, but... We really only differ in semantics. Self defense is one excuse for intentional killing. Killing in war is another. In a sense, you are simply saying that intentional killing with an excuse (i.e., fully mitigated) is neutral. I agree. You failed to define what it means to have evil tendencies. I would say it is intentional killing that is partially mitigated (1% to 99% mitigated--in other words justified, but not excused). So, I'd say intentional killing with excuse = neutral. Intentional killing with justification = (evil). Intentional killing with no excuse or justification = evil. That's related to law, but the law is supposedly related to morality, like alignment. There are no laws that do better than excuse (neutral), since that would be a little weird. What's better than being declared innocent of murder? A get out of jail free card? So, good intentional killings need to be defined.
totoro 06-23-05, 01:41 AM	Sure, but the animal can't be evil. This is often why predators are killed when near settlements. It is not because of the mentality of the beast but the actions it takes. This makes no sense at all. If an animal commits an evil act all the time, but can't be evil, that is. That means a tree can commit an evil act if the wind blows the wrong way. Or a virus can commit an evil act by killing you. Or a knife can commit an evil act by getting stuck in you. Next thing you know you'll be saying accidentally killing someone is evil. It's not.
LCD2YOU 06-24-05, 01:55 PM	I'm kinda late responding, but... We really only differ in semantics. Self defense is one excuse for intentional killing. Killing in war is another. In a sense, you are simply saying that intentional killing with an excuse (i.e., fully mitigated) is neutral. I agree. You failed to define what it means to have evil tendencies. I would say it is intentional killing that is partially mitigated (1% to 99% mitigated--in other words justified, but not excused).Disagree. Any killing that is justified is excused. To me, those are generally a good thing. So, I'd say intentional killing with excuse = neutral. Intentional killing with justification = (evil). Intentional killing with no excuse or justification = evil.Intentional killing with excuse, justification, no other viable choices = good That's related to law, but the law is supposedly related to morality, like alignment. There are no laws that do better than excuse (neutral), since that would be a little weird. What's better than being declared innocent of murder? A get out of jail free card?If one murders, in my book murder is part of killing but not all killings are murder, and they are not punished in some fashion = EVIL + EVIL So, good intentional killings need to be defined.I'd say a "Good" killing is so dependant on situation, facts at hand, etc., it would be handled on a case by case basis.
Andrew_980 06-24-05, 02:26 PM	wow LCD, deja vu, eh. this sounds alot like another thread....
LCD2YOU 06-24-05, 02:37 PM	wow LCD, deja vu, eh. this sounds alot like another thread....Yeah. I will say that I started other thread to get what people think are the circumstances for good, neutral and evil. I thought this thread was essentially over.
Derren S. 06-24-05, 03:41 PM	Disagree. Any killing that is justified is excused. To me, those are generally a good thing. Intentional killing with excuse, justification, no other viable choices = good So killing in seldefense is a good thing which you get celebrated for? And when a police sharpshooter kills someone who has taken hostages he deserves a promotion because he did a good thing by killing the criminal. That are all neutral things. Non of them exhibit a single thing which defines good like respect for life and mercy.
LCD2YOU 06-24-05, 05:56 PM	So killing in seldefense is a good thing which you get celebrated for?Uh, again Derren. Where did I ever say that killing is a cause for celebration? And when a police sharpshooter kills someone who has taken hostages he deserves a promotion because he did a good thing by killing the criminal.You are projecting on to me things I have never said. That some people feel that way is their PoV. That are all neutral things. Non of them exhibit a single thing which defines good like respect for life and mercy.In your opinion. I don't agree.
totoro 06-24-05, 10:24 PM	I was using excuse and justification in their legal sense. Killing in self defense is excused. Killing someone who is sleeping with your wife is justified (at least it used to be; it has changed in most modern jurisdictions). You aren't excused for a justified homicide, but the crime is mitigated because you don't seem quite as bad as a murderer. Bar fight killings may fall under the justified (but not excused) category. Sorry about the confusion. I don't think "justified" killings, when defined this way, are even neutral. They aren't quite evil, though. (And I disagree that killing someone who is sleeping with your wife is justified, I'm only reporting that this was the law at one time.) Excused killings *may* be good, but they would more likely range from neutral to good. The motivation for self-defense is inherently neutral in tone. Defending others or hunting down and killing evil creatures could be considered good. Hunting down and killing evil creatures would obviously be illegal IRL, but not in D&D (IMO).
totoro 06-24-05, 10:30 PM	Disagree. Any killing that is justified is excused. To me, those are generally a good thing. Intentional killing with excuse, justification, no other viable choices = good If one murders, in my book murder is part of killing but not all killings are murder, and they are not punished in some fashion = EVIL + EVIL I'd say a "Good" killing is so dependant on situation, facts at hand, etc., it would be handled on a case by case basis. Legally speaking, justified killings and excused killings are mutually exclusive. Intentional killing with excuse = no crime (IRL). Intentional killing with justification = manslaughter (IRL). Intentional killing with no excuse or justification = murder (IRL). And killing with no other viable choices = excused (IRL), unless "viable" is given too much play.
LCD2YOU 06-24-05, 11:00 PM	I was using excuse and justification in their legal sense. Killing in self defense is excused. Killing someone who is sleeping with your wife is justified (at least it used to be; it has changed in most modern jurisdictions). You aren't excused for a justified homicide, but the crime is mitigated because you don't seem quite as bad as a murderer. Bar fight killings may fall under the justified (but not excused) category. Sorry about the confusion.No problemo. I don't think "justified" killings, when defined this way, are even neutral. They aren't quite evil, though. (And I disagree that killing someone who is sleeping with your wife is justified, I'm only reporting that this was the law at one time.)I've heard before that there was a time when killing someone who you find in bed with your wife was legal. A Union General, before the war, did just that. From some of the details, I understand the death of his wife's lover was most unpleasant. I agree though that is not a justified or even excusable killing. What that is, in my lexicon, is murder and it is evil. I'm not saying the tramp is right, just the guy should have been smarter and realized basically she ain't worth the dirt to bury her in. As for the guy, well, if she did it to one person, she'll cheat again. Let him enjoy his now fully available PoA. Same goes for the guy who cheats on his woman. As for bar fights, well I stay out of "bars". What is good is that I have never seen a fight in the 4 years in the places I've been going in that time. Still, I would say anyone who goes to a "honkey tonk" and goes there with a puffed up chest and a mouth full of attitude would not be terribly innocent of anyhting. Excused killings *may* be good, but they would more likely range from neutral to good. The motivation for self-defense is inherently neutral in tone.I think the basic act of killing in self-defence transcends good, neutral and evil as it just is what life will do to protect itself. It is not even a "neutral" act as it is basic and instinctive. Rare is the individual who allows themself to die. Defending others or hunting down and killing evil creatures could be considered good. Hunting down and killing evil creatures would obviously be illegal IRL, but not in D&D (IMO).That is another can of worms. The reason why we just can't "hunt down" evil creature IRL is we have people who do that for us. The reason we just don't let these same people kill off the "BAD GUYS" is for due process. I don't think there'd be a lot of due process in any DnD setting.
Cadfan 06-24-05, 11:37 PM	I don't know of any time when in modern law you could kill someone you found in bed with your wife, and have it be legal. It was, however, automatically manslaughter for a long time. You could also kill your wife as well, and still get the auto-manslaughter charge.
totoro 06-25-05, 02:34 AM	I don't know of any time when in modern law you could kill someone you found in bed with your wife, and have it be legal. It was, however, automatically manslaughter for a long time. You could also kill your wife as well, and still get the auto-manslaughter charge. Justified murder *is* manslaughter. So, I believe you are right. (I should probably stop using the term "justified" since it has a different colloquial meaning than the one I intend.) In the holy roman empire and the middle ages, killing your wife for adultery was excused (obviously, this varied depeding upon the laws of the time/place). More recently (centuries, that is), it was manslaughter and, even more recently (decades in the US), it has become murder.
Jennicea 06-26-05, 08:05 PM	Exactly. I wouldn't sweat it too much, though. The DM seems to want non-good characters (maybe even evil) anyway. I'm one of the players in this game. About half the group has been out of town of town for the last week, and haven't had any opportunity to explain our actions or offer more than one point of view on what happened. If I'm late to the party, my apologies - (well ok, seing as I was on a cruise in the Caribbean, I'm not *really* sorry, but I would have written earlier if I was at home!) =) I've tried writing a reply a number of times but I always get too long-winded, so I will try to be brief and stick to only what I can add about my PC, or what I know from asking the DM cirectly about it. If anyone else of the characters wishes to respond, I will allow them to do so for themselves rather than make any assumptions aout their behavior. I'm a firm believer in speaking only for yourself and letting others speak for themselves. #1 - You have all gotten one, and only one, accounting of the events of this adventure. While much of it is accurate, there are some discrepancies from what I recall - though happily, I saw at least one of these later corrected. (I'm also still working my way through reading here - amazing the amount of email and board traffic in a week!) Please keep in mind, as with any relaying of events, each person has their own version of what happened, and each version will be different. Ask any detective interviewing witnesses after a crime - some people say they don't remember everything, others swear they remember it all perfectly and will swear on a stack of bibles, yet somehow none of the accounts ever match perfectly. That's true here too - so do keep that in mind. #2 - I and my husband have both taken the DM to task about having only bad exaples of good NPCs. It was an honest, genuine accident of planning and he means to remedy it. When he was taking characters and players for the game, one of the hard and fast rules was "No Evil PCs, period." I cannot believe he wants an evil or neutral party - quite the opposite. I think it's more because the campaign is an urban setting, based off Borgia Italy-atmosphere and set in Sembia, and so there is a lot of manipulation and plotting and such that go on. Good people plot a bit less, so he's been using a lot of neutral or LE PCs. I know at least half of us hope for better examples of good NPCs - and told him such - but saying he is trying to push us towards evil is - in my belief - flat-out wrong. He's human, he makes honest mistakes, and there are times he doesn't do the rules perfectly. My husband is the rules lawyer who has every rule memorized =) - our GM wings it a bit more, sometimes makes mistakes, references the rules after the session, but generally doesn't like to break the flow of the game while we're playing. He's a good storyteller for the most part though and sets up complex worlds - nobody's perfect as a DM, and the periodic screwup of a rule is in my mind worth the price of admission for a character-driven storyline. I also know I can shoot him an email or pull him aside after the session and point out the error. DM trying to force everyone to evil? No - more like DM whose main NPC is a self-interesed politician, who only allows good or neutral chars in his campaign, and who made an honest and accidental mistake in the good NPCs that he has every intention of fixing. #3 - It has been portrayed that the elf, Anwn, killed the doppleganger and everyone almost cheered her. This is vastly different from the events as I recall them. When we found the doppleganger, he was on his knees before a man - identical to him - pointing a sword at his throat. My character found them and asked what was going on - both insisted the other was trying to kill him. She called the paladin and asked if either was evil - the man with the sword was. She told the man with the sword to drop it and surrender. He refused, so she cast charm person on him and started asking him what was going on and why the doppleganger was on the ground. He turned to face her, and the doppleganger stabbed him in the back while the other was charmed. The charmed guy *was* evil, but in some manner the doppleganer did exactly what everyone is debating the elf for - killing an opponent who at that point was no longer a threat and had his back turned - and who was under the influence of a charm spell, to boot. Yes, he was evil, and he had been threatening the doppleganger - so it probably was a just kill - but there are shades of grey. #4 - Yes, detect thoughts was probably misused. However - at least in Anwyn's case, the memory pulled wasn't done because it was the most painful, but because it was the closest to the surface. The doppleganger didn't necessarily know it had lit a fuse - it just pulled the first image from Anwyn's head. Oopsie! (I know this because I asked the GM.) It was the thought closest to the surface, so that's what it got. Just happened to be the freshest and most severe pain... #5 - I won't speak for the other members of the group, but I hardly think it's fair to say we are all "fine" with this and support the elf. I think it's more fair to say that others have chosen to handle it differently and in ways fitting their own char concepts. My character was quite horrified - not only at the killing of the doppleganger, but also the fact an elf of all races would let their heart and emotion rule their head so easily. The elf is ICly also her best friend at the moment, and one she regularly talks to IC but away from the other party members (mostly done through pivate emails in char, cc'ed to he GM). My char (for the record, a wizard though presently adopting the guise of a bard for a Harper mission. I could explain, but it's not relevant and I don't want to waste everyone's time on something out of scope) pulled Anwyn aside after the paladin and celestial had left for Miklos's - I took the player into another room to act this out so the other players wouldn't hear the conversation. She then read the elf the riot act for her actions, verified the identity of the form the DG took, but then sternly lectured her on how you can't just run about losing your head and whacking everything that upsets you. She also told Anwyn that she needed to own up and take responsibility for her actions, to present herself to Miklos and honestly explain what happened, and take whatever punishment the legal system doled out. I hardly consider this as being either "evil" or "fine with what happened". I consider it more someone watching in horror as their best friend does something really wrong, telling them privately that they've got to own up for it, but still being their friend and not casting them to the wolves because of the action. If I was a paladin, I probably would side with justice over friendship - but as a CG wizard dealing with her best friend, well...it's still her friend. In no way, shape, or form did my character ever condone her actions - she yelled at her friend privately, wrote an IC letter to Miklos asking for mercy in the sentancing of the elf because, while the action was wrong and unjust, the elf had to date been a merciful and fair woman who was acting under extreme emotional duress and for the court to consider the context. My char is also now drinking heavily and crying in public because of the emotional horror of everything which just happenedand the turmoil of what to do when someone you care about does something awful. I'd bet some of the other PCs did things I'm not aware of and have actions and motivations for their actions too - so until they can say their piece, should they really be judged as being evil or betraying concept? #6 - One additional point which came up earlier. The player of the celestial mentioned how nobody in the party listens to him and how they ignore him. He's absolutely right - to date, most of the other PCs have ignored a lot of his suggestions or advice. What he fails to mention is that his celestial's background story is that he was marooned on a deserted island at age 8 ad, after 10 years, just flew back to civilization. Per his concept, he plays him like an 8 year old - naive of society, not understanding slang, and saying things in combat like "Bad ratman! Why are you mean to nice lady?" This fits for the concept - but um, can you *really* blame the rest of the party for generally not turning to him for advice or decisionmaking? I play a wizard with a natural intelligence of 18, who has character flaws of arrogance and pride (aka she already thinks she's right all the time anyway!) and she honestly believes the celestial is a bit "touched in the head", and treats him IC as a sweet but ignorant simpleton. So while my PC doesn't really look to him for guidance, I do think there's some level of in-char justification there. I know there was more that I wanted to say, but I'm sure that's more than enough for now. While I certainly think the debates about alignment are good and healthy, and I've seen a lot of good points raised, I do have to confess to being *quite* steamed wen I see me and everyone else written off as evil PCs who clearly are just looking for excuses to kill monsters and a GM who is trying to force us all to be evil. It's both unfair and inaccurate - so I sincerely hope that I've given a second point of view to consider. As with any point of view - don't treat it as Truth, but rather an additional view of what happened. I don't expect to reply after this, unless anyone wants to ask me anything specific about wht my character did or her background, because I don't want to get into a point-counterpoint thing. I'd kind of prefer to just let it drop, least from my end - I only wrote to correct those perceptions which felt unfair. It looks like our group is going to utterly implode because of this, so the whole issue is kind of moot anyway. I just felt the need, for the sake of fairness, to provide some additional background and points of reference before I'm condemned as a shoddy roleplayer who doesn't understand evil or good alignment and whose character is on the fast lane to the Abyss. Thank you al for your time!
LordHell 06-26-05, 08:13 PM	Well Jennicea it sounds like your group has a lot of fun actually. It sounds like to me your group is blessed with a lot of good roleplayers. It would be a shame that it gets ruined because one person can't seperate In Character conflict and Out Of Character conflict.
Jennicea 06-26-05, 08:30 PM	D&D alignments are based on intent and result. Unless this combat lasted 1 round, I wonder why no one (i.e. the Anak) tried to grapple Anwyn and tried to restrain her? Did you just stand back and let this happen, then proceed to threaten to kill her afterwards? Hmm. The doppleganger had shifted into the form of Anwyn, so there were two identical Anwns fightin each other. We had no clue which was the real one. Also for the record, we had the paladin use the hilt of his sword to try to do subdual to one of the Anwyns and knock her out of combat. It just didn't work. I wish it had been that easy! I think most of us were sitting there watching the dueling Anwyns going, "Crap, what do we do?" I certainly was!
CelestialBarbarian 06-27-05, 12:34 AM	I'm one of the players in this game. About half the group has been out of town of town for the last week, and haven't had any opportunity to explain our actions or offer more than one point of view on what happened. If I'm late to the party, my apologies - (well ok, seing as I was on a cruise in the Caribbean, I'm not *really* sorry, but I would have written earlier if I was at home!) =) I've tried writing a reply a number of times but I always get too long-winded, so I will try to be brief and stick to only what I can add about my PC, or what I know from asking the DM cirectly about it. If anyone else of the characters wishes to respond, I will allow them to do so for themselves rather than make any assumptions aout their behavior. I'm a firm believer in speaking only for yourself and letting others speak for themselves. #1 - You have all gotten one, and only one, accounting of the events of this adventure. While much of it is accurate, there are some discrepancies from what I recall - though happily, I saw at least one of these later corrected. (I'm also still working my way through reading here - amazing the amount of email and board traffic in a week!) Please keep in mind, as with any relaying of events, each person has their own version of what happened, and each version will be different. Ask any detective interviewing witnesses after a crime - some people say they don't remember everything, others swear they remember it all perfectly and will swear on a stack of bibles, yet somehow none of the accounts ever match perfectly. That's true here too - so do keep that in mind. #2 - I and my husband have both taken the DM to task about having only bad exaples of good NPCs. It was an honest, genuine accident of planning and he means to remedy it. When he was taking characters and players for the game, one of the hard and fast rules was "No Evil PCs, period." I cannot believe he wants an evil or neutral party - quite the opposite. I think it's more because the campaign is an urban setting, based off Borgia Italy-atmosphere and set in Sembia, and so there is a lot of manipulation and plotting and such that go on. Good people plot a bit less, so he's been using a lot of neutral or LE PCs. I know at least half of us hope for better examples of good NPCs - and told him such - but saying he is trying to push us towards evil is - in my belief - flat-out wrong. He's human, he makes honest mistakes, and there are times he doesn't do the rules perfectly. My husband is the rules lawyer who has every rule memorized =) - our GM wings it a bit more, sometimes makes mistakes, references the rules after the session, but generally doesn't like to break the flow of the game while we're playing. He's a good storyteller for the most part though and sets up complex worlds - nobody's perfect as a DM, and the periodic screwup of a rule is in my mind worth the price of admission for a character-driven storyline. I also know I can shoot him an email or pull him aside after the session and point out the error. DM trying to force everyone to evil? No - more like DM whose main NPC is a self-interesed politician, who only allows good or neutral chars in his campaign, and who made an honest and accidental mistake in the good NPCs that he has every intention of fixing. #3 - It has been portrayed that the elf, Anwn, killed the doppleganger and everyone almost cheered her. This is vastly different from the events as I recall them. When we found the doppleganger, he was on his knees before a man - identical to him - pointing a sword at his throat. My character found them and asked what was going on - both insisted the other was trying to kill him. She called the paladin and asked if either was evil - the man with the sword was. She told the man with the sword to drop it and surrender. He refused, so she cast charm person on him and started asking him what was going on and why the doppleganger was on the ground. He turned to face her, and the doppleganger stabbed him in the back while the other was charmed. The charmed guy *was* evil, but in some manner the doppleganer did exactly what everyone is debating the elf for - killing an opponent who at that point was no longer a threat and had his back turned - and who was under the influence of a charm spell, to boot. Yes, he was evil, and he had been threatening the doppleganger - so it probably was a just kill - but there are shades of grey. #4 - Yes, detect thoughts was probably misused. However - at least in Anwyn's case, the memory pulled wasn't done because it was the most painful, but because it was the closest to the surface. The doppleganger didn't necessarily know it had lit a fuse - it just pulled the first image from Anwyn's head. Oopsie! (I know this because I asked the GM.) It was the thought closest to the surface, so that's what it got. Just happened to be the freshest and most severe pain... #5 - I won't speak for the other members of the group, but I hardly think it's fair to say we are all "fine" with this and support the elf. I think it's more fair to say that others have chosen to handle it differently and in ways fitting their own char concepts. My character was quite horrified - not only at the killing of the doppleganger, but also the fact an elf of all races would let their heart and emotion rule their head so easily. The elf is ICly also her best friend at the moment, and one she regularly talks to IC but away from the other party members (mostly done through pivate emails in char, cc'ed to he GM). My char (for the record, a wizard though presently adopting the guise of a bard for a Harper mission. I could explain, but it's not relevant and I don't want to waste everyone's time on something out of scope) pulled Anwyn aside after the paladin and celestial had left for Miklos's - I took the player into another room to act this out so the other players wouldn't hear the conversation. She then read the elf the riot act for her actions, verified the identity of the form the DG took, but then sternly lectured her on how you can't just run about losing your head and whacking everything that upsets you. She also told Anwyn that she needed to own up and take responsibility for her actions, to present herself to Miklos and honestly explain what happened, and take whatever punishment the legal system doled out. I hardly consider this as being either "evil" or "fine with what happened". I consider it more someone watching in horror as their best friend does something really wrong, telling them privately that they've got to own up for it, but still being their friend and not casting them to the wolves because of the action. If I was a paladin, I probably would side with justice over friendship - but as a CG wizard dealing with her best friend, well...it's still her friend. In no way, shape, or form did my character ever condone her actions - she yelled at her friend privately, wrote an IC letter to Miklos asking for mercy in the sentancing of the elf because, while the action was wrong and unjust, the elf had to date been a merciful and fair woman who was acting under extreme emotional duress and for the court to consider the context. My char is also now drinking heavily and crying in public because of the emotional horror of everything which just happenedand the turmoil of what to do when someone you care about does something awful. I'd bet some of the other PCs did things I'm not aware of and have actions and motivations for their actions too - so until they can say their piece, should they really be judged as being evil or betraying concept? #6 - One additional point which came up earlier. The player of the celestial mentioned how nobody in the party listens to him and how they ignore him. He's absolutely right - to date, most of the other PCs have ignored a lot of his suggestions or advice. What he fails to mention is that his celestial's background story is that he was marooned on a deserted island at age 8 ad, after 10 years, just flew back to civilization. Per his concept, he plays him like an 8 year old - naive of society, not understanding slang, and saying things in combat like "Bad ratman! Why are you mean to nice lady?" This fits for the concept - but um, can you *really* blame the rest of the party for generally not turning to him for advice or decisionmaking? I play a wizard with a natural intelligence of 18, who has character flaws of arrogance and pride (aka she already thinks she's right all the time anyway!) and she honestly believes the celestial is a bit "touched in the head", and treats him IC as a sweet but ignorant simpleton. So while my PC doesn't really look to him for guidance, I do think there's some level of in-char justification there. I know there was more that I wanted to say, but I'm sure that's more than enough for now. While I certainly think the debates about alignment are good and healthy, and I've seen a lot of good points raised, I do have to confess to being *quite* steamed wen I see me and everyone else written off as evil PCs who clearly are just looking for excuses to kill monsters and a GM who is trying to force us all to be evil. It's both unfair and inaccurate - so I sincerely hope that I've given a second point of view to consider. As with any point of view - don't treat it as Truth, but rather an additional view of what happened. I don't expect to reply after this, unless anyone wants to ask me anything specific about wht my character did or her background, because I don't want to get into a point-counterpoint thing. I'd kind of prefer to just let it drop, least from my end - I only wrote to correct those perceptions which felt unfair. It looks like our group is going to utterly implode because of this, so the whole issue is kind of moot anyway. I just felt the need, for the sake of fairness, to provide some additional background and points of reference before I'm condemned as a shoddy roleplayer who doesn't understand evil or good alignment and whose character is on the fast lane to the Abyss. Thank you al for your time! You know, I started this thread to get some perspective from people who don't know anyone in the group. It was never intended to be a forum for members of our group to debate in public what happened. I just wanted to get feedback from outsiders about what happened in the group. Had I known that anyone in the group read the boards, I wouldn't have started the thread in the first place. I don't know how Elfhound found the thread in the first place, but I can only assume that she then told Jennicea and the DM about it in hopes of getting me kicked out. If that's the case, she was successful, as both Jennicea and the DM wrote to me last night saying 'goodbye.' Ok, I'm having the worst attack of Meniere's Disease that I've had in five or six years, so I'm going to post this before it gets lost and maybe later, after I'm no longer nauseous, finish it.
LordHell 06-27-05, 12:43 AM	Really it seems to be CelestialBarbarian that you have skewered the story to make it sound like you were the 'good' guy (pun intended) and that everyone else is giving you a hard time. Now that they have tried to defend themselves and oh no, you never intended for that to happen, didn't you? Heaven forbid people actually defend themselves against your accusations. To me, it sounds like YOU are the problem player in the group. Everyone roleplayed out their characters quite well by the sounds of things, but for some unknown reason you have been miffed by this personally and feel that you're not being listened to, hence the rest of the group is 'evil' and the DM is 'taking sides'. By the sounds of your character, I wouldn't listen to you either, and to be honest I'd find your child-speak to be highly irritating - in character and out of character. Maybe it was best that the DM told you goodbye, because I suspect you are causing out of game tension within the group.
LCD2YOU 06-27-05, 05:55 PM	Really it seems to be CelestialBarbarian that you have skewered the story to make it sound like you were the 'good' guy (pun intended) and that everyone else is giving you a hard time. Now that they have tried to defend themselves and oh no, you never intended for that to happen, didn't you? Heaven forbid people actually defend themselves against your accusations. To me, it sounds like YOU are the problem player in the group. Everyone roleplayed out their characters quite well by the sounds of things, but for some unknown reason you have been miffed by this personally and feel that you're not being listened to, hence the rest of the group is 'evil' and the DM is 'taking sides'. By the sounds of your character, I wouldn't listen to you either, and to be honest I'd find your child-speak to be highly irritating - in character and out of character. Maybe it was best that the DM told you goodbye, because I suspect you are causing out of game tension within the group.Which is why I didn't jump on the "it's truly vile, wicked and evil" bandwagon when it went through.
pres_man 06-28-05, 09:01 AM	Please. Sounds like the DM couldn't stand having the truth shown to him, that he sucks at playing with good characters, and responded like a child, "Leave now, because I can't defend my actions." Besides if he was a good DM and sure that he was right, what the heck would he care if "we" discuss the situation. Throwing a player out because he seeks out an avenue of blowing off some steam and justification for his own roleplaying seems a bit petty.
LordHell 06-28-05, 05:25 PM	Please. Sounds like the DM couldn't stand having the truth shown to him, that he sucks at playing with good characters, and responded like a child, "Leave now, because I can't defend my actions." Besides if he was a good DM and sure that he was right, what the heck would he care if "we" discuss the situation. Throwing a player out because he seeks out an avenue of blowing off some steam and justification for his own roleplaying seems a bit petty. Did it ever occur to you that there is much more to this than what has gone on in this message board? There is clearly angst between the DM and CelestialBarbarian, heck, the GROUP and CelestialBarbarian, prior to this topic ever existing. The way he accuses Anwyn's IN CHARACTER action for being the catalyst in his reason for having conflict with the group out of character, aught to ring alarmbells in your head. So the DM ruled that Anwyns actions were neutral. Woop De big Doo - who cares. 99% of games the show would go on and this would never be an issue. But not so here. Two of the three players in this topic didn't seem to have any problem with it, and by the sounds of it almost the entire group didn't. But one player had a problem with it. He also states that he has had many issues in the past with In Character conflict spreading to Out of Character conflict. Whats the common denominator here? You know it sounds to me that this whole alignment issue wasn't the issue it all. It sounds more like the 'last straw' in a string of issues. I think the DM has finally recognized the cause for conflict in his group and removed it. That's what any good DM would do.
pres_man 06-28-05, 07:56 PM	Did it ever occur to you that there is much more to this than what has gone on in this message board? So I am wrong for slamming the DM but you are right for slamming CelestialBarbarian. Neither of us knows the whole situation, so climb on down of the high horse. I gave my opinion, you gave yours, you got no standing to claim yours is any more correct the mine. There is clearly angst between the DM and CelestialBarbarian, heck, the GROUP and CelestialBarbarian, prior to this topic ever existing. A DM that allows their personal feelings control their behaviour in game is a poor DM. If the DM couldn't be impartial then he should have stepped down. The way he accuses Anwyn's IN CHARACTER action for being the catalyst in his reason for having conflict with the group out of character, aught to ring alarmbells in your head. Actually I think it was his character having a problem with her character and then the party having a problem with his IN-CHARACTER roleplaying. But whatever. So the DM ruled that Anwyns actions were neutral. Which from a DM who has up to this point been incapable of playing good NPCs. This opinion was not only CelestialBarbarian but Jennicea's as well. Two of the three players in this topic didn't seem to have any problem with it, and by the sounds of it almost the entire group didn't. But one player had a problem with it. Actually Jennicea said her character did have a problem with what the elf did, that it was not acceptable to her. She just prefered to address it privately, instead of to the group. She then didn't back up CelestialBarbarian, from the sounds of it. Perhaps because he was the group whipping dog? He also states that he has had many issues in the past with In Character conflict spreading to Out of Character conflict. Whats the common denominator here? Actually it sounded to me like he had problems with the DM not addressing his in character concerns and dismissing him out of character. Common denominator, poor DM that had something against a player that DARED to suggest that things could be improved upon. You know it sounds to me that this whole alignment issue wasn't the issue it all. It sounds more like the 'last straw' in a string of issues. I think the DM has finally recognized the cause for conflict in his group and removed it. That's what any good DM would do. I agree, it is probably best for CelestialBarbarian to be out of that gaming group. The DM obviously had a beef against him and wasn't going to let up. The rest of the party was either too inexperienced or oblivious to realize that one of their own was getting whipped on a regular basis. This will hopefully get them to realize that they might be next now that CelestialBarbarian is gone. Of course couples make poor targets since if you upset one, you will probably lose both, which might be 1/2 the party. Players with no immediate ties to others are always the best targets for immature DMs.
LCD2YOU 06-28-05, 08:37 PM	You are so aghast at what you perceive as poor playing, from all I can see is that you agree with the CB so much that you took an instant dislike to the rest of the group. Now, for the rest: So I am wrong for slamming the DM but you are right for slamming CelestialBarbarian. Neither of us knows the whole situation, so climb on down of the high horse. I gave my opinion, you gave yours, you got no standing to claim yours is any more correct the mine.You did more than just slam the DM. From here: Sounds like the DM couldn't stand having the truth shown to him, that he sucks at playing with good characters, and responded like a child, "Leave now, because I can't defend my actions."you come out swing and saying he sucks. I did not see that from mine nor from LH's posts. The worst reaction I saw from LH was here: To me, it sounds like YOU are the problem player in the group.He didn't say CB sucked. He didn't say that CB is incapable of defending his actions. He clearly said that it was his opinion. My statement of: Which is why I didn't jump on the "it's truly vile, wicked and evil" bandwagon when it went through.stands. There are three sides to every story. The one side, the other side and the facts. From reading CB's posts, I thought something was missing. A DM that allows their personal feelings control their behaviour in game is a poor DM. If the DM couldn't be impartial then he should have stepped down.Oh bull. People aren't required to keep company with individuals who act in ways that are irratating to them. Actually I think it was his character having a problem with her character and then the party having a problem with his IN-CHARACTER roleplaying. But whatever.Well, we weren't there so we'll never really know. However, reading from all from that group who posted, it seems that CB certainly held the minority opinion. Not that the minority opinion is a bad thing, but here's a little prevailing logic I learned over the years. If I think I'm an all around great guy, role-player and humanitarian, that's great, if I am. But, if other people around me see a self-absorbed, powergaming roll-playing munchkin and schmuck, the odds are that the "other people" are more correct. I am not saying that CB is that at all. It is just something you may want to ponder. Which from a DM who has up to this point been incapable of playing good NPCs. This opinion was not only CelestialBarbarian but Jennicea's as well.So? Nobody is a great DM at first. It takes patience. However, Jennicea also stated: It was an honest, genuine accident of planning and he means to remedy it.Sounds like the DM was getting his legs. There are times it takes a bit to warm up. Actually Jennicea said her character did have a problem with what the elf did, that it was not acceptable to her. She just prefered to address it privately, instead of to the group.Yeah that sounds really immature. She then didn't back up CelestialBarbarian, from the sounds of it. Perhaps because he was the group whipping dog?Maybe. ut then again maybe he brought it on himself. Hey, it happens. Actually it sounded to me like he had problems with the DM not addressing his in character concerns and dismissing him out of character.Maybe CB wasn't addressing it well at all. Common denominator, poor DM that had something against a player that DARED to suggest that things could be improved upon.Or a player who berates a DM, jumps on the DM whenever they don't like something until the DM says, "Fine, go and don't forget the horse you rode in on". Which one is correct? I lean towards the DM on this one. Hey, I could be wrong, but CB's story just never did sit right with me. Don't know why, it just didn't. I agree, it is probably best for CelestialBarbarian to be out of that gaming group.Hey, so do I. Miracles never cease. The DM obviously had a beef against him and wasn't going to let up. The rest of the party was either too inexperienced or oblivious to realize that one of their own was getting whipped on a regular basis.Or the player had a beef and wasn't going to let up. The rest of the party may really have not known what to do. After all, it doesn't seem that this group was around for very long. People who could get along real good in most situations just for some reason get on each other's nerves for whatever reason and then it just goes south. This will hopefully get them to realize that they might be next now that CelestialBarbarian is gone. Of course couples make poor targets since if you upset one, you will probably lose both, which might be 1/2 the party. Players with no immediate ties to others are always the best targets for immature DMs.Bravo. One last deep and personal dig at the DM based on what is essentially one person's POV. Yeah, Jennicea and her husband have gotten on the DM who she thought is trying to correct issues that arose. Sounds like a DM who probably isn't bad, just didn't get his act together and was taken to task for it. Sounds like some just didn't like it and kept up pressure, even if none was needed. That's my take on it at least.
LordHell 06-28-05, 08:39 PM	By reading these responses it's clearly obvious to me you have reading comprehension issues. Let's begin. So I am wrong for slamming the DM but you are right for slamming CelestialBarbarian. Neither of us knows the whole situation, so climb on down of the high horse. I gave my opinion, you gave yours, you got no standing to claim yours is any more correct the mine. Yes, actually, you are. Because the DM isnt here to defend himself, and two OTHER players have came in here and backed him up. A DM that allows their personal feelings control their behaviour in game is a poor DM. If the DM couldn't be impartial then he should have stepped down And you're telling ME to get off my high horse, then you come around with a statement like this? To a certian extent, you are right. But I'd hardly call this situation one you are refering too. The DM ruling the situation was neutral was the DM making a decision, CelestialBarbarian tried to twist it to make it look like he was taking sides. It just so happens that the majority of the group agreed with the DM. Also, people are Human. DM's are Human. There probably isn't a DM on this planet that doesnt let their personal feelings influence their decisions at some point. 'The DM should step down!' Man, talk about elitism. LOL. Actually I think it was his character having a problem with her character and then the party having a problem with his IN-CHARACTER roleplaying. But whatever This is why I believe you have reading comprehension issues. No where have the other players of this group stated they have had problems with his actions in character. Many of them agreed with his actions. HE was the one with an out-of-game problem over an issue that should never have been one. Hence we arrive where we are today. I applaud everyones in-game ability to roleplay, including celestialbarbarians [apart from his highly irritating child-speak]. It's just celestialbarbarians inability to seperate out of game and in game incidents that have clearly led us to where we are today. Which from a DM who has up to this point been incapable of playing good NPCs. This opinion was not only CelestialBarbarian but Jennicea's as well. So what? Why is this even an issue? Is alignment REALLY that important or is roleplaying more important? I hate to say this, but if you wanted to make alignment a huge issue in my game I'd show you the door. You also might note the DM himself has talked to at least one player about this issue and wants to resolve it. He clearly has the ability to talk to players. Actually Jennicea said her character did have a problem with what the elf did, that it was not acceptable to her. She just prefered to address it privately, instead of to the group. She then didn't back up CelestialBarbarian, from the sounds of it. Perhaps because he was the group whipping dog Again this is why I am led to believe you have reading comprehension issues. I never mentioned anywhere that Jennicea's character didn't find it acceptable. Read again: Two of the three players in this topic didn't seem to have any problem with it, and by the sounds of it almost the entire group didn't. But one player had a problem with it. You know the difference between a player and a character right? Maybe you dont, Celestialbarbarian doesnt. This would explain much. Actually it sounded to me like he had problems with the DM not addressing his in character concerns and dismissing him out of character. Common denominator, poor DM that had something against a player that DARED to suggest that things could be improved upon. The DM from both elfhounds and Jennicia's accounts was quite willing to discuss issues with them, but not with CelestialBarbarian. Perhaps there is a more important reason for this. Me, unlike you, take the testimony of all three people who have posted in this thread and make an overall judgement. Until I hear the DM's own testimony the jury is still out, but from Jennicia's and Elfhounds account (2:1) he doesnt sound like a bad DM at all. You are blatantly ignoring everything they are saying. I agree, it is probably best for CelestialBarbarian to be out of that gaming group. The DM obviously had a beef against him and wasn't going to let up. The rest of the party was either too inexperienced or oblivious to realize that one of their own was getting whipped on a regular basis. This will hopefully get them to realize that they might be next now that CelestialBarbarian is gone. Of course couples make poor targets since if you upset one, you will probably lose both, which might be 1/2 the party. Players with no immediate ties to others are always the best targets for immature DMs. So you take one account and take it as canon, accuse the others as being inexperianced or oblivious (despite them saying they've clearly had discussions with the DM about it), then arrive at some absurd conclusion that the DM is immature. I hope you don't do jury duty often.
pres_man 06-29-05, 01:29 AM	The DM ruling the situation was neutral was the DM making a decision, CelestialBarbarian tried to twist it to make it look like he was taking sides. It just so happens that the majority of the group agreed with the DM. Gee, why in the world would he think that? Hmmm, lets think about it. Well there is the fact that the DM never had a single good NPC ever, in a game with a half-freaking-celestial as a PC. Then there is the issue of the delaying the good PCs until the issue was already effectively settled. Gee, you are so right, he never had a legitmate reason to doubt that DM. HE was the one with an out-of-game problem over an issue that should never have been one. What out of game problem? A discussion on what is good and evil behaviour? That really a problem? Your saying that a player with a PC that is a freaking-half-celestial shouldn't be concerned with what the DM classifies as "good" and "evil" behaviour. Especially when it contradicts with many peoples opinions (as is evident by this thread). So what? Why is this even an issue? Is alignment REALLY that important or is roleplaying more important? I hate to say this, but if you wanted to make alignment a huge issue in my game I'd show you the door. What is good or evil, darn well better be important if I'm playing a being whose has a parent/ancestor that is the freaken embodiment of good. If you say, "No evil PCs." And then don't focus on what is good or evil, what is the freaken point with not having evil PCs. You also might note the DM himself has talked to at least one player about this issue and wants to resolve it. He clearly has the ability to talk to players. I think you meant to say, "He clearly has the ability to talk to some players." Gee, what characteristic do these players have that others don't have, are they physical or emotional or what? Until I hear the DM's own testimony the jury is still out, but from Jennicia's and Elfhounds account (2:1) he doesnt sound like a bad DM at all. You are blatantly ignoring everything they are saying. I doubt we'll hear from the DM. As for him being a bad DM or not, well that is pretty subjective right? I mean if I had a DM that let my character basicly do anything they felt like, without any reprocussions, I might think that is a pretty good DM. Hey, I'm having fun. I hope you don't do jury duty often. As I hope you do not either, especially if there is a young lady on trial.
IceFractal 06-29-05, 04:17 AM	If the elf had simple beaten the crap out of the Doppelganger, I'd firmyl rule that as not evil. She was provoked, it was a tense situation, sometimes things happen. However, that was not the case. The case was that she killed the Doppelganger. Let's pose a scenario: Someone calls you a racial slur. A really bad one. And it brings up painful memories, because some of your family have been the victims of that kind of prejudice. Are you justified in killing them? No. Popping them one on the nose, sure. Even beating them up, maybe. But killing them? Where the heck does that come from? And let me point out that this is actually a harsher case than existed in the game - the Doppelganger may not even have been trying to provoke her that badly. Just because adventurers are highly armed and dangerous, it doesn't make it any less evil to abuse that power. Saying that the Doppelganger "should have known better" is as ridiculous as saying the a lethal mugging is not a crime because the victim "should have known not to be in that part of town at night". Now on the other side, I'm not saying her alignment would jump straight to CE. Alignment shift happens over time, not usually in one instance, and this, while being evil, was a single act of rage, not a premediated slaying. However, that doesn't mean it's exactly excusable either. From a Celestial character, it merits a warning like was given at the very least.
LCD2YOU 06-29-05, 02:05 PM	was good. I was wrong. I based it off of what I saw, not what happened. Ok, moving on. If the elf had simple beaten the crap out of the Doppelganger, I'd firmyl rule that as not evil. She was provoked, it was a tense situation, sometimes things happen. However, that was not the case. The case was that she killed the Doppelganger.My term would be she Murdered the DG. I think your use of the word KILLED means the same as my MURDERED. Just getting the nomenclature set. Let's pose a scenario: Someone calls you a racial slur. A really bad one. And it brings up painful memories, because some of your family have been the victims of that kind of prejudice. Are you justified in killing them? No. Popping them one on the nose, sure. Even beating them up, maybe. But killing them? Where the heck does that come from? And let me point out that this is actually a harsher case than existed in the game - the Doppelganger may not even have been trying to provoke her that badly.Just that? Nope. As for beating them up, if you've ever hurled a racial slur, you don't have that right. As for the DG provoking her, it was just reading memories. From the OP's original post, it seemed that the DG could pull memories and pulled out the most hurtful ones, as the DM would know about them. That was a bit of DM not knowing his monsters. Just because adventurers are highly armed and dangerous, it doesn't make it any less evil to abuse that power. Saying that the Doppelganger "should have known better" is as ridiculous as saying the a lethal mugging is not a crime because the victim "should have known not to be in that part of town at night".Two points: Abusing power is always an "evil" act. Now there's "evil", "Evil" and "EVIL". They are all evil acts but I do hold there is a difference between the white lie to someone's face just because and summoning destroyers from the 5th Dimension to destroy your world. The second part is that people should take personal responsibility in their actions or they shouldn't be surprised by others not taking personal responsibility in their own actions. It's a two way street. Now on the other side, I'm not saying her alignment would jump straight to CE.Very much agreed. To me, even if she did that often, ie murder people who acted in a certain way she'd be at worst CN with evil tendencies. The type of soul that would go to Pandemonium. Alignment shift happens over time, not usually in one instance, and this, while being evil, was a single act of rage, not a premediated slaying. However, that doesn't mean it's exactly excusable either. From a Celestial character, it merits a warning like was given at the very least.I have a problem like that. From what I read, though there might have been some tension either OoC or IC between the two, CB's character did nothing to find out what was wrong and why she did that. There was the blanket statement of, "Do that again and I'll kill you". Do what again? Whenever CB's character deems she did something wrong? Be honest here. Why didn't CB's character find out what set the character off before telling her that he'd go ballistic on her the next time?
pres_man 06-29-05, 03:09 PM	Be honest here. Why didn't CB's character find out what set the character off before telling her that he'd go ballistic on her the next time? Well we don't actually know he didn't find out before warning her. The entire chain of events still seems pretty confusing. One moment the DG is shifting in front of the half-celestial and then the next moment it shifts in front of the elf, who proceeds to attack it, yet the half-celestial wasn't close enough to interfere with the attack for 2-3 rounds. I know there was a mention of another character delaying the half-celestial, but if they had been that close, how would it be possible? Then there was some discussion in character, out of character, trans-character about whether it was evil, or justified, or whatever, during this time it is quite possible that the half-celestial would have heard the "reason" (excuse?) that the elf attacked, as there was in character talk going on this is reasonable. Did the threat come after this discussion or before it? As I said it is difficult to tell from the three players posts. Besides, even if he found out, it might not still be justified in the half-celestial's mind. I mean he didn't attack it, was it annoying, sure, did it deserve to be killed, he didn't think so. He probably would see her explanation as an excuse to cover herself for acting in an evil fashion (from his point of view). Also don't forget this part of his original post, which neither of the other players disagreed with. Before the party left Miklos' place, Anak told Anwyn that if she ever kills an innocent in his presence again either she will have to kill him or he will kill her. Seems pretty clear what the issue was, killing innocents. Not killing, not protecting yourself, killing innocents. If the elf is unsure what an innocent is, then perhaps she shouldn't be the agressor when confronting unfamiliar folk.
LordHell 06-29-05, 05:18 PM	A whole wad of pathetic mewling As I hope you do not either, especially if there is a young lady on trial. Oh of course, you figured me out. *Slaps his head for being so transparent* Because Elfhound and Jennicea are females, that's clearly why I'm taking their side! Wow, go Sherlock Holmes! :rolleyes: No, really, what does gender have to do with this discussion? Are you implying something way off base because your argument generally doesn't have two legs to stand on? presman, I am now 100% certian that you have not read a single damn word that the other players in this game have posted. You're still trying to imply that this doppleganger (who stabbed an 'innocent' man in the back) was the equivalent of some innocent 6 yearold girl skipping in her playground, while Anywn was obviously some horrible child eating monsters from the firey depths of hell itself. If only it was so clear to the masses huh?
pres_man 06-29-05, 05:21 PM	Oh of course, you figured me out. *Slaps his head for being so trasparent* Because Elfhound and Jennicea are females, that's clearly why I'm taking their side! Wow, go Sherlock Holmes! :rolleyes: No, really, what does gender have to do with this discussion? Are you implying something way off base because your argument generally doesn't have two legs to stand on? Me thinks you protest too much. Have you anything meaningful to contribute?
LordHell 06-29-05, 05:22 PM	Me thinks you protest too much. Have you anything meaningful to contribute? If you read through this thread, yes. Before CelestialBarbarian started being so negative about everything I actually tried to offer him advice and examples of how in game conflict can lead to a fun game and good roleplaying, without effecting out of game conflict. I also agree with you that the act was Evil, but what I don't agree with is that alignment should be such a huge issue that it ruins your entire game. In fact, It shouldn't really be an issue at all. The whole alignment issue that has been fabricated by CelestialBarbarian is just a sideshow for conflict between CelestialBarbarian and his group, not just the DM.
DM from the 70s 06-29-05, 07:34 PM	Well, seeing that I was the DM in this little melee, maybe I can provide a little illumination. At least I can provide the doppleganger's point of view... While attempting to liberate the abandoned Temple of Waukeen in Yhaunn from a Zhentarim slaving ring, our heroes came upon a mercenary duking it out with what appeared to be a slave. Jennicea's character cast charm person on the mercenary and told him to stop fighting. The mercenary told her that it was a doppleganger that he was fighting. Imagine her surprise when the slave's hand became a sword and ran the poor mercenary through the back. Well, in the mind of the doppleganger, that was one opponent down and one to go. Unfortunately, the rest of the party finished up their tasks (mopping up a few more mercenaries manning a Gondite flame thrower) and arrived on the scene. Well, I thought, isn't this inconvenient for the doppleganger...especially since they're blocking the doorway! Time to parlay and escape when the moment presents itself. The doppleganger plead that it was enslaved by the Zhentarim and only wanted to escape the city. [I will neither confirm nor deny the veracity of this statement due to the fact that some of my players read these boards.] The characters began to discuss what to do. When one of them mentioned turning him over to the Sembian government, the doppleganger felt that things have gone from bad to worse. He began to attempt to find the weak links of the party. First he began to mimic folks from the plaintiff's memory. No luck. Ah, a frail little elf maiden (Elf Hound)...maybe she will lose heart when he starts mimicking friends of hers who came to a tragic end... He picked the wrong elf maiden. Elf Hound's PC flew into a rage and attacked the doppleganger. He assumed her form to keep the other PCs out of it and the melee ensued. After about two rounds, the doppleganger was dead. When the Plaintiff took the murder to Miklos Selkirk, Miklos' reaction was something along the lines of "She murdered a doppleganger? I'll put her in for a medal!" From my point of view as a DM, a merchant kingdom would not have a heck of a lot of sympathy for a shapershifter that can read minds. Heck, if they brought the doppleganger back alive, it probably would have been hung (as well as drawn and quartered for good measure). I didn't penalize Elf Hound for two reasons: 1. She was neutral (which, contrary to current trends, I do not view as "good-lite") 2. She was roleplaying a character who had a very hard life and saw one of her few friends - now departed - mimicked. Flying into a rage seemed logical. There you have it.
LordHell 06-29-05, 08:14 PM	Well said DM from the 70's. Many people who post on these boards get so wound up in their discussions and arguments, that they forget that fundamentally we are playing a game where you loot, pillage, and do all sorts of real world evil acts as a matter of course. People who have compared the Doppleganger in recent posts to that of an innocent school girl, and that you are a poor DM for not 'punishing' Anwyn are not only being intellectually dishonest, but they are being extremely unrealistic about how this game is usually run, and indeed the fact it IS A GAME. DM from the 70's, I think you are mostly blessed with a good group, and I am personally envious of the roleplaying some of your group is capable of.
pres_man 06-29-05, 10:02 PM	Well, seeing that I was the DM in this little melee, maybe I can provide a little illumination. Glad you stopped by, perhaps we can get some clarification. While attempting to liberate the abandoned Temple of Waukeen in Yhaunn from a Zhentarim slaving ring, our heroes came upon a mercenary duking it out with what appeared to be a slave. This seems strange, why would the doppleganger not fight like the mercenary if his life was in danger? Why appear to be a slave? Jennicea's character cast charm person on the mercenary and told him to stop fighting. The mercenary told her that it was a doppleganger that he was fighting. Imagine her surprise when the slave's hand became a sword and ran the poor mercenary through the back. Again, why didn't he have the sword already? It just seems extremely strange. The DG's actions at this point could still be considered neutral, as a charmed person isn't a dominated person and could still turn around and start attacking again. Also how much did the DG know about charm person spells? He began to attempt to find the weak links of the party. First he began to mimic folks from the plaintiff's memory. No luck. Ah, a frail little elf maiden (Elf Hound)...maybe she will lose heart when he starts mimicking friends of hers who came to a tragic end... As others have said, this seems almost like a suicidal tactic at this point. Wouldn't he have been smarter to try this when he had a reasonable chance of escaping? He assumed her form to keep the other PCs out of it and the melee ensued. So he was convinced that he could handle her, or was he just fearful that the party would back up the elf? Miklos' reaction was something along the lines of "She murdered a doppleganger? I'll put her in for a medal!" From my point of view as a DM, a merchant kingdom would not have a heck of a lot of sympathy for a shapershifter that can read minds. Heck, if they brought the doppleganger back alive, it probably would have been hung (as well as drawn and quartered for good measure). From the SRD, under alignments: Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. I can see how a person who thinks that they are playing in a game using the standard alignments would find such a stance as disturbing. It is a lawful evil viewpoint. I didn't penalize Elf Hound for two reasons: 1. She was neutral (which, contrary to current trends, I do not view as "good-lite") One would hope it is not also "evil-lite". Again from the SRD: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. The fact that she is neutral should change the fact whether the act was evil or not, I would think. Unless the game is using a subjective alignment system, of course. 2. She was roleplaying a character who had a very hard life and saw one of her few friends - now departed - mimicked. Flying into a rage seemed logical. Logical, yes, non-evil, I wouldn't think so. Think about the situation where the guy comes home and catches his wife in bed with his best friend. He snaps and grabs his gun and shoots both. Is his behaviour understandable based on the situation, perhaps, does that make it acceptable, not at all.
LordHell 06-29-05, 10:35 PM	presman, your posts make me want to stab my eyes out in frustration. This is the last time im going to try and have some sort of discussion with you based on any form of reason. Again, why didn't he have the sword already? It just seems extremely strange. The DG's actions at this point could still be considered neutral, as a charmed person isn't a dominated person and could still turn around and start attacking again. Also how much did the DG know about charm person spells? WTF WTF WTF First of all. You consider stabbing someone in the back Neutral, but attacking someone who bought painful memories to taunt you, who was quite capable of defending themselves, evil. In my mind, BOTH actions were evil. At least be consistant. By YOUR logic, Anwyns actions could be considered "neutral' since this doppleganger has just KILLED someone right in front of her who turned their back on them, after all, he could kill HER too. So this Doppleganger was innocent, after stabbing someone in the BACK - according to you. But it's ok for CelestialBarbarian to threaten to kill Anwyn if she killed someone, but it's not OK for Anywn to threaten to kill the Doppleganger after he killed someone? WTF? Thirdly repeat after me. Read other peoples posts properly. Read other peoples posts properly. Read other peoples posts properly. Read other peoples posts properly. NO WHERE DID THE DM SAY THIS ACTION AS NEUTRAL. HE SAID ANWYN WAS A NEUTRAL CHARACTER SO HE IS NOT GOING TO PENALIZE HER. ONE EVIL ACTION DOES NOT MAKE YOU EVIL. The fact that she is neutral should change the fact whether the act was evil or not, I would think. Unless the game is using a subjective alignment system, of course The fact that the actions was evil shouldnt change the fact that she is NEUTRAL. There is no reason she should be penalized for it for acting 'out of character' OR 'out of alignment'. If she made a habit of such behaviour, then an alignment change might be warrented, but certainly NO SORT OF PENALTY. Why you think people should be penalized for roleplaying their characters is BEYOND COMPREHENSION of a mere mortal like me. If I played in your game, I'd be too damn well scared to do any form of roleplaying incase you punished me for it.
pres_man 06-30-05, 10:37 AM	First of all. You consider stabbing someone in the back Neutral, Actually I think I said it could be neutral. Repeat after yourself. Read other peoples posts properly. And yes it could be neutral if someone was just trying to kill, and stated that they were fighting and weren't going to stop. Then by protecting yourself by taking adventage of this break in concentration might not be evil. It wasn't honorable, it wasn't good, yet defending yourself is not evil. but attacking someone who bought painful memories to taunt you, who was quite capable of defending themselves, evil. In my mind, BOTH actions were evil. At least be consistant. Oh no painful memories!!!! Give me a freakin break. Killing someone for bring up painful memories is a freakin evil act. You know it. Consistent? Two totally different situations, one guy has a sword and is trying to kill you, and then gets distracted. The other a guy brings up a bbbbaaadddd memory for you. Immediate threat? By YOUR logic, Anwyns actions could be considered "neutral' since this doppleganger has just KILLED someone right in front of her who turned their back on them, after all, he could kill HER too. Again repeat after yourself. Read other peoples posts properly. Anwyn wasn't even present when that happened. Well, in the mind of the doppleganger, that was one opponent down and one to go. Unfortunately, the rest of the party finished up their tasks (mopping up a few more mercenaries manning a Gondite flame thrower) and arrived on the scene. Wow, talk about Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot. You didn't even bother to read the DM's post before reacting, hmmm. So this Doppleganger was innocent, after stabbing someone in the BACK - according to you. If he was innocent or not, the party did not know. And as I said above his actions with the first guy could be neutral. He WAS IN IMMEDIATE DANGER. The guy he was fighting said it was the DP he was fighting, he didn't indicate that the fight would stop. Seeing someone who invokes a painful memory isn't an IMMEDIATE DANGER to you. That is the difference. But it's ok for CelestialBarbarian to threaten to kill Anwyn if she killed someone, but it's not OK for Anywn to threaten to kill the Doppleganger after he killed someone? WTF? Where did she threaten the DG? She said she never did. Again repeat afterself. Read other peoples posts properly. And yes it is ok, because he's you know ... good ... protect the innocent and all that. Notice he said she might have to kill him, basically saying, "I'm willing to die to stop you from killing others without reasonable cause." NO WHERE DID THE DM SAY THIS ACTION AS NEUTRAL. HE SAID ANWYN WAS A NEUTRAL CHARACTER SO HE IS NOT GOING TO PENALIZE HER. ONE EVIL ACTION DOES NOT MAKE YOU EVIL. Not to us he did not. He said it to Anwyn though. See her posts. Also it seems you didn't doubt this. So the DM ruled that Anwyns actions were neutral. Again repeat after yourself. Read other peoples posts properly. The fact that the actions was evil shouldnt change the fact that she is NEUTRAL. There is no reason she should be penalized for it for acting 'out of character' OR 'out of alignment'. If she made a habit of such behaviour, then an alignment change might be warrented, but certainly NO SORT OF PENALTY. I don't remember anyone saying she should have been turned to evil. I do remember seeing posts (and making them) that said her total lack of remorse for the killing (not her losing her temper) indicated that she was probably already evil, i.e. she was already a cold blooded murderer. But nobody that I remember seeing said, this one act should switch her alignment. Though from what I've seen from the players' and the DM's post, in this game neutral was actually being played "evil lite". So it is understandable that a person who is expecting a game that have the standard alignment guide would find this disturbing. Why you think people should be penalized for roleplaying their characters is BEYOND COMPREHENSION of a mere mortal like me. If I played in your game, I'd be too damn well scared to do any form of roleplaying incase you punished me for it. Please show where I said anyone should be penalized? What I said was the act was evil in my view (and quite a few others, including yourself) and that it should at the very least be recognized for that. It is not penalities, it is called consequences. So yes, if you want to play in a game free of consequences, then you would not be welcome in my game. You attack the king because he insulted you, dang right the whole kingdom is going to be on your rear, "What but I was only roleplaying?" Yeah, and here are the consequences of those choices.
snowlynx 06-30-05, 03:08 PM	While attempting to liberate the abandoned Temple of Waukeen in Yhaunn from a Zhentarim slaving ring, our heroes came upon a mercenary duking it out with what appeared to be a slave. Jennicea's character cast charm person on the mercenary and told him to stop fighting. The mercenary told her that it was a doppleganger that he was fighting. Imagine her surprise when the slave's hand became a sword and ran the poor mercenary through the back. Thank you; this was the piece I think I was missing. Even if the act were on the side of evil, which I no longer think it is, there's reason for the characters to believe this doppleganger might be a danger and a threat based on his previous actions; thus the action was much farther on the side of neutral then any other stance. (Not that one act should change a character's alignment.) Anak's response was probably based on his believing the dopple's bluff...and therefore coming to the conclusion that the dopplganger was merely an innocent creature trying to get out. This was similarily not an evil act, but the difference in their actions comes from both characters having the subjective truth rather then the absolute truth. Thus, it should be solved in-game with no conflict out of game; hopefully both players can come to this conclusion- and the game can move on...?
snowlynx 06-30-05, 03:25 PM	Why you think people should be penalized for roleplaying their characters is BEYOND COMPREHENSION of a mere mortal like me. Please show where I said anyone should be penalized? What I said was the act was evil in my view (and quite a few others, including yourself) and that it should at the very least be recognized for that. It is not penalities, it is called consequences. So yes, if you want to play in a game free of consequences, then you would not be welcome in my game. I have a horrible thing to suggest here. If a character is acting evil, and does many evil acts, you might call their alignment changing to evil 'consequences' but you should never use the word "penalized." Unless the DM is putting in special penalties for evil characters, being of an 'evil' alignment is not a 'penalty' in any way, shape, or form, unless the character created has exalted feats or is a Paladin, in which case they should have known better. It affects how the character acts, it makes them vunerable to holy spells and weapons, and it may affect how some individuals who can detect alignment view them; but it's not a 'penalty'. It's just an 'alignment.' The fact that people seem to view it as a 'penalty' suggests why there are so many problems with making a ruling on if an act is 'evil' subjectively- as long as it is viewed as a penalty, it's no wonder people aren't willing to accept when an act their character does is ruled as being evil!
WizO_Cat 07-04-05, 11:39 PM	Ok everyone, just a friendly reminder: Let's keep the posts to the subject matter of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, I'm going to have to close the thread and send out some disciplinary actions to the offenders.