Chaotic good, heres my moral dillema. Enter dungeon, trying to be sneaky, see room of lizardmen, they don't see us, wizard puts room to sleep, theres one we didn't see that didnt get put to sleep. Me and paladin go to kill him and prevent him from alerting rest of dungeon. We then need to decide what to do with the bodies, we decide to only take two so we tie them up, we don't know what to do with the others so I think we should just kill them. I kill them with little objection from the party but the DM says that was "an act of pure evil," my alignment has changed and the paladin can no longer adventure with me. I didn't realize the lizardmen are neutral and because we were previously attacked by lizardmen I assumed they were evil. What should I have done in this situation?
Followup question: in this lizardman dungeon would it be ok to take from their chests?
You need to talk with your DM about this - no one on the internet can tell you anything that will actually apply, since alignment is entirely a matter of interpretation.
You'll get the whole range from folk saying that you didn't do anything worth an alignment change and your DM overreacted to those saying that the rest of your party should have suffered alignment shift toward evil right along with you for not trying to stop you from killing defenseless living beings. So what answers you find here (besides "go talk to your DM") are going to do nothing productive for you.
While your decisions define you and your DM can change your alignment, you shouldn't have a problem adventuring with the paladin until they find out you are evil. At which point, the paladin must decide if their oath is more important than their friendship with your character. And whatever decision they make, that's the story of your game.
I wouldn't have done this if I were your DM, though.
As to the chests, you do what's right for your adventurer to do and let your DM worry what your alignment is.
Killing helpless creatures no matter what their alignment is, is not a good act. Shifting you from good to evil in one fell swoop is a little much.
The paladin finding out instantly that your evil while not preventeding you from killing them all, retaining their own "good" is eyebrow raising to say the least.
Unfortunately the DM's decision shows little consistency
Changing you from good to evil is absurd in every dimension. Changing character alignments at all, or even defining them to begin with, is already distasteful to me, but really. I don't even get the thought process.
- You explained your reasoning. In a world where alignment is apparently some innate, definable quality, how are you to magically know what alignment the monsters are? Their actions were apparently indistinguishable from a pure evil creature. You were taking what you considered a morally good (or justifiable) action based on wrong information. That's not a moral failing. The actual motivations of your character haven't changed. Saying that your alignment changed "because they were only neutral" is just ridiculous.
- What's the point of changing your alignment? Is it a punishment? What are you supposed to learn? I mean, apparently you're evil now, so whatever. Why not just do anything you want?
- If your character believes that their actions were wrong and sets out to change their alignment, *bam*, it's done! Because alignment is a mental state. You strive to do Good things, you're Good. Does the DM expect you to change how you roleplay now that you're less Good? Preposterous. You act according to your character motivations, which never changed during this ordeal.
- And what's this about the paladin not adventuring with you? Why the crapsack would the DM decide to cleave your party in half like this? It's one thing for the paladin to have a little chat with you about how you treat unconscious prisoners. Intra-party conflict is not necessarily bad. But apparently there's this hard-and-fast rule in play that once your internal alignment switch is flipped off of Good, the paladin is literally not allowed to play with you. Ultimately, one of you doesn't get to play the game. (Unless you go on some soul-purifying quest, but I already explained why I think that's stupid).
I'm probably reacting more than I should, but I hate this corner of D&D. Alignment is a great shorthand, but a poor mechanic. It doesn't make sense. And I really feel is dumbs down character motivations, when you're looking at your nine-square grid to figure out what your square dictates you should do. In reality, everyone considers themself morally justified, everyone respects laws that they think benefit them, and everyone ignores laws they think are unjust or frivolous.
NullSheen wrote:
The Alignment system is tricky, Here is how me and my party go about it.
I have done terrible things as a good character, I have done good things as a neutral character but it does not matter the end result. No matter how pleasent or awful. What does matter is what was going through your characters head at the time. Were they doing this to do good? Did they see themselves as justified or doing the right thing? Did they like or approve of what they did?
Does doing one thing irrevocably make your character evil? No, changing alignment is changing your view of the world. That happens after a long period of time when your view change. Killing sleeping people who have attacked you is not an evil act. Vicious, Yes but so are other things.
I take the Magic the Gathering color pie as inspiration for this. My biggest example is this. If black saves the world did they do it for the greater good for everyone? No not at all, They saved the world because they are on the world and do not want to die. Simple as that. Its their philosiphy, Its WHY they do things that makes the biggest diffrence not What although What does play a part.
Edit: Also the Pally does not have meta knowledge! The paladin character does not know about character sheets or that yours now says Chaotic Evil because your DM told you so. So until you start doing evil things left and right I do not see how your paladin would know.
Coredump00 wrote:
I have a question for the OP. Are you guys playing 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons? If you are, it sounds like the DM is hung up on a previous edition (ie, the Paladin can't adventure with you, which would be because the paladin is LG and you are now CE?) Yeah, if that's the case, then ask the DM to show you where Paladins (a) have to be LG and (b) cannot adventure with someone of your new alignment. Then, find a new game, because DMs like this are just control freaks with a story to tell and the players be damned!
Seriously, though .. if you guys are playing 5th edition, unless the DM is houseruling it, the Paladin's player can decide if he will continue adventuring with you, not the DM. Also, being that you are now Evil, feel free to really screw over the DMs pretty "lawful good" world by killing everything in sight without provocation ("Hey, *you* made my alignment evil, DM .. I'm just playing my alignment.")
I think it is a little much but as a GM killing helpless none evil creatures is an act I would warn my player. "Are you sure you want to kill these helpless creatures?" The name note of it.
But as others have said you should talk to the GM about it.
Coredump00 wrote:
I Agree that Allignment is a slippery slope but used correctly it can be a fantastic role play tool.
I guess it depends on how good is good?
Personally I think slaying a helpless creature is not a good act but I also do not think its inherently an evil act either.
The situation descibed is not that much different to a crodile kills a human and then humans go and hunt the crodile because it may kill again (of course it will if its hungry and you silly enough to be in its terriortory) .
Are the human hunters evil? Not according to the humans, the crodiles however may have a different perspective.
Are Vampires Evil because they drink blood and kill people to survive (or because the MM says so?)?
What do cows/chickens/deer think about the player chracters, who kill them to survive?
Its all a matter of perspective.
The queston really is if you choose Chaotic Good as the allignement for the character, what makes you "good"?
ShouldIFeelBad wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
You should ask your DM these following questions.
a ) If one single act of pure evil is enough to turn you from good to evil, would a single act of pure good do the opposite?
b ) If you killing the defensless creatures marks you as evil, would it not also mark everyone else who was a complicit accessory to you as evil? Yes, even those who objected, unless they physically tried to stop you, are just as guilty as you are. In fact, this act might even mark them as chaotic.
Talk to your DM.
ShouldIFeelBad wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
My group threw out alignment altogether and now we just act as our characters would. Crazy, right?
As to the original post; why were you in the dungeon in the first place? I think that makes all the difference as to how your actions and "wealth re-distributions" are viewed, morally speaking.
Also, why can't a paladin adventure with characters of different alignments? That never made sense to me. Shouldn't they at least try to work with others to influence them to change their ways?
Wicked complicated topic.
As a DM I would have to agree that murdering helpless foes is potentially evil, but it is pragmatic evil, not pure evil. It should have an impact on how you play your character, but that is a good thing- let it challenge you to develop your character. I don't know that I would have changed your alignment as a result, but depending on what diety, if any, you worship, I probably would have given you an ongoing penalty until you atoned for your actions, or chose to willingly alter your alignment to match your play style.
I think the DM might be seeing this a little differently. Allow me to rephrase: You didn't just kill a bunch of unconscious foes. You decided how many you were willing to save, set those aside, and butchered the rest. What are you taking the other two for? Why didn't you tie them all up? Why didn't you knock out the one you and the Paladin chased down (because that's totally an option if you made it to melee)? There are some serious ethical questions being glossed over in your description.
Now, with that out of the way, I don't agree with this one incident changing your PC's alignment, but not one other character's. I certainly don't agree with the Paladin suddenly being forced to stop adventuring with you because of information he doesn't have about things that aren't mechanically relevant to him. But I can definitely see a perspective where this looks well beyond callous or vicious, edging into straight up Evil.
Clutchbone wrote:
Nah, not really. Alignment is pretty simple, once you get down to it.
Lawful = You follow laws and orders, wherever they are applicable. You are tough, but fair.
Chaotic = You actively rebel and opose laws, wherever they might be applied. You are free, but antagonistic.
Good = You are an altruistic person, always striving to help those in need.
Evil = You are an egotistic person, at best having no qualms in harming others, when that would profit you(but otherwise not going out of your way to be a prick).
Neutral = You are indifferent. At best, you like to keep to yourself, you might help someone in need, if it's not too much trouble to you. At worst, you may exhibit mercurial behavior. And then there's the guys who talk about balance and stuff.
LG = You strive to carry out and promote lifestyle of helping others, while following a well-defined set of rules. If a law is unjust, you antagonise it. If a society prospers without the safety net of a law system, you wish to implement one.
CG = You strive to carry out and promote a lifestyle of helping others, while letting them be their own persons. If a society prospers under strict rulership, you will endeavor to unburden said society of its shackles. If going up against a law would cause more harm than good, you begrudgingly let it pass.
LE = You are an egotistic yet principled person. You may disregard a law, if not doing so would impare you more than help you, but you hate lawlessness in general, and may even put yourself in harm's way in order to safeguard a law, if the alternative is a lawless world.
CE = You are the absolute worst of the worst, a reject of society, and should be put down like a rabid dog. 
(Ok... so maybe you are someone who revels on his freedom, and wishing others also experience that same freedom you do. Well, wishing is a strong word. Perhaps, not caring if others are as free as you. The problem is that you are an egotistical prick among pricks, and won't hesitate to inflict harm to others if there's a tiny bit of chance that it might benefit you),
Vahnyu wrote:
Our DM likes us to roleplay when we aquire feats (how and why did you acquire that feat etc) so I made my halfling thief change from CG to CN. He recently had a near death experience (2 failed death saves) where he received a vision from Tymora and became devoted to the luck god (lucky feat). Now when faced with biploar yes/no decisions he just flips a coin, disagreements with other (N)PCs are settled with a game of rock, paper, scissors, he's become a gambling addict. It's caused a few interesting scenarios. But while alignment can be a good rolepaying tool it sounds like the OPs DM forgot cardinal rule number 1 and let his interpretation of the alignment "rules" get in the way of everyone having fun. It sounds like he did it almost as a punitive measure, I would mischievously mess with his head for shitz n giggles. Tell the paladin to leave and go home, or ask if the Paladin player would like to instantly drop his vows (the oathbreaker paladin line is pretty cool) and start roleplaying evil characters, and messing with the campaign (kill obviously important NPCs etc, let evil events happen and try to profit from them). Kill the Paladin! (but apologise to the player saying it's what your character would do now that he's evil).
Basically make him reap what he has sown to demonstrate his foolishness.
Lindonius wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
If this is a 5e game, everybody involved needs to read the Paladin rules.
They have statements specifically designed to prevent LS* or SG^ railroad decisions being forced on Paladins by other players (including the DM).
* LS = Lawful Stoopid
^ SG = Stoopid Good
Edit: removed Paladin quandry because the Paladin in OP is somebody else's character.
OP:
You didn't NEED to kill all the sleeping lizardmen. Read the rules on a Sleep spell - your character is at least vaguely familiar with them by reputation, even if he is not a Wizard - and see how long you have before they wake up and you all must get outta Dodge. You had a little time to grab whatever struck your eye in the room, then split without a bloodbath.
As I imply just above, beating you over the head with the Paladin's character was a DM mistake.
Think outside the box: can you lock them In the room? Jam the door(s) shut? Tie them all together and/or to a pillar? There are ways to avoid cold-blooded murder without also setting yourself up for a TPK coming from all directions.
There is also the possibility that this challenge is just too strong for your group and you shuld have retreated.
What brought your group and the lizardmen into conflict - cattle raids? Burning down peasant villages? Killing / eating people? Human explorers in the vicinity are attacked / killed without warning? If so, you may be morally justified in eye-for-an-eye retaliation. OTOH if the lizardmen are being driven out of their ancestral territory by advancing civilization, your moral situation is murkier.
Talk with your DM: are monsters meant to be killed? Negotiated with? Counting coup? Something else? If you are not all on the same page here, the argument you just had will crop up again and again, in many different circumstances.
Some monsters are Inherently Evil (devils, demons). Others are not. Where do Lizardmen fall?
Noctaem wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote: