I was in a game recently and in character the Unaligned Elven Ranger gets killed. The Good Dwarven Battlerager is within range to theoretically save the Elf. But he choses to instead attack an enemy. In Game reasoning for not saving the elf, "I've hated her since she signed on with the group. She was as good as dead and at least she went out fighting. It was a warrior's death it's the death I want my foes to have, so why not a hated ally?" The Elf and the dwarf have in game held many philosophical arguments and always came out arguing.
Out of game the player of the dwarf asked the elf if the dwarf should attempt to save and the elf's player declined. In order to save the elf the dwarf would have had to double move (difficult terrain) and spend an Action point to make a Heal Check to give the Elf a Saving throw against one of the two ongoing damages that it was suffering from and if it didn't make that save it was going to be dead(the elf was in negative HP and out of Surges) at the beginning of it's turn.
My question is: Was the response of the dwarf within the bounds of the Good alignment?
Don't worry about alignment so much. After all, good people do evil things all the time. Even if this were an evil act, it wouldn't mean the dwarf couldn't be good. Really, nitpicking on alignment is futile, so just save it for the obvious things, like murdering a shopkeep so you can filch his stuff.
The Good Alignment doesn't require you to sacrifice yourself to save others. If the dwarf was thinking about the rest of the party, and the overall situation, then no, it was not wrong. If however, the dwarf was thinking of revenge or malice toward the elf, I'd say he was wrong there.
The most important thing is that if this isn't viewed as a Good act by your group, does that really matter? People make mistakes and step out of their natural alignment all the time. To err is human (or dwarf, as the case is). Only the raw embodiments of Good receive some sort of retributive lashing if they don't act Good all the time.
The dwarf made a mistake. He has to live with it. In-game, that's a character's guilty conscience. Out-of-character, the PCs are enjoying the game and playing it the way they wanted to play it.
Simply put, the dwarf is being callous and indifferent to the death of a fellow party member, which is never good, nor IMO Good.
The dwarf should not be speaking ill of the dead, and should really regard his slain rival with the appropriate respect.
The original act was justified by the constraints of the time, but afterwards a Good character would or should feel some sort of respect or guilt towards the actions that led to a friend's death.
at the rare times I actually play D&D, I tend to treat alignment as what the character thinks he is. because enforcing one giant set of morals is bullshit. people who believe they are killing for fun are evil, people who believe that the genocide they are causing is for the greater good of the world are good, whether my beliefs reflect that or not. so if the dwarf believes that what he did was for the greater good and not just a means of killing off an enemy, then yes, it was within his alignment.
Personally, I feel this is a Evilish action. If I were the DM, I wouldn't make the dwarf take an alignment hit, but his main motivation was to spite the elf, yeah, not really benevolent incarnate. Maybe not enough to change alignment or even worry about, but not a good action. It was inaction that the dwarf knew would lead to the elf's death, and done out of hatred.
Of course, I could have misinterpeted what happened, and it was more of an issue that the Dwarf felt that he couldn't save the elf anyway, and winning the battle was more important for the greater good. If say, the group was fighting a bunch of demons so they could close a portal to the abyss rather then stabbing some bugbears in the face for loot, well, it could change things.
However, what did the dwarf do AFTER the elf had died? Honorable burial, or mad rush for gold?
I would honestly discuss this with the group and consider their opinion before doing anything, however. Their ideas count more then ours after all! See what they are comfortable with.
If you let someone die just because you disagree with them philosophically, there is something wrong with your brain.
I was in a game recently and in character the ... within the bounds of the Good alignment?
something i'd realy like to hear from the OP is, "what does this mean to his alignment and the story?"
are you thinking of declaring him evil or at least unaligned? are you thinking that he should be chastised by LG or G character that is with the party?
i do keep aware of my PCs' alignments because i've got CE drow and E shadar-kai in the party alongside UA half-elf ranger, UA Dborn cleric, UA longtooth druid. so i keep the quest open-ended so that they can act in chaotic and evil ways with appropriate ripples in the setting.
one great example was that the drow player told me ahead of time that he wanted to track down an elf family in a town, disguise himself as the father of the family, murder the mother and children while disguised. i prepped a bit of material for him, but he got spooked while sneaking around town during the night because i had wilden sneaking around in the nighttime mostly for fun.
i described bushes and trees that were oddly shaped and in completely strange places. he got close and inspected one with a fantastic perception roll - it blinked, turned and ran away. so, he was spooked and decided not to engage in crazy pointless murder with strange bushes sneaking in the dark.
- so, what would you do about his alignment or actions if it is in fact judged to be evil?
I generally interpret alignment to mean intent. If you wish others harm, whether they are good or evil, then you are evil. If you wish others well and only resort to violence because it is absolutely necessary, then you are good.
I would say that whether or not this was an evil act is up to the player. If the character thought, "Now's my chance to be rid of that annoying elf!" then he's pretty clearly evil (albeit lawful evil). If he honestly felt that the best thing to do was finish the fight rather than save the innocent, he shouldn't be faulted for making a judgement call.
Let's look at the sequence of events.
1. The dwarf's player asked the elf's player if they wanted him to try to save them.
2. The elf's player said no.
3. The dwarf's player then came up with an in-character justification for his character's choice of actions.
Now, on the assumption that the dwarf's player would have attempted to save the elf if the elf's player had said yes, then the dwarf's actions are perfectly in line with his Good alignment - he allowed the elf to recieve an honorable and heroic death in battle which is what he would have wished for himself in that same situation.
This is what we need to keep in mind... The dwarf offered to help, the elf declined - realizing that the dwarf most likely couldn't save them anyway, and then the dwarf played out the consequences of the elf player's decision.
It would be an entirely different situation if the dwarf had intentionally said that he wasn't going to save the elf even though he could have easily done so, just to spite the elf.
As for the wording of the dwarf's response, it is perfectly allowable for a Good character to hate someone, even a member of their own party. "Good" does not mean saintly, or even nice. You're not required to do unwise things in order to try to save people when there's little chance of success. In-character, the dwarf is an experienced warrior and would have recognized the fultility of attempting to save the elf. And so, he didn't try. In accordance with his culture and beliefs, he allowed the elf to die bravely, as he would have done even with someone that he actually liked.
We've pretty much stopped tracking alignment entirely since we swapped to 4e. I'm less happy with the alignment system in 4e than I was with the one in 3e, and I didn't really like the one in 3e 
. So we don't worry about alignment and just decide on a case-by-case basis how PCs and NPCs would act in a given situation. It works fine.
So, rather than worrying about the Dwarf's alignment, why don't you just worry about how your PC or NPCs will react to the situation? The game will play out the same anyway!
I would not call "not saving the elf" an Evil act. It wasn't a good act either. It was neutral. As you said in order for the elf to have been able to survive the combat they would have had to receive healing and then make 2 saving throws. Also to be able to heal the Elf the dwarf would ahve had to spend two move actions and an action point additionally it would ahve required taking at least one Opportunity Attack. This would ahve ulitmately meant a considerable quantity of resources for the party spent on an, effectively, already lost comrade.
This is not a case of the Dwarf casualy shrugging his shoulders as a comrade died. Instead it is a case where, to paraphrase Star Trek, the needs of the many out weighed the needs of the one. The combat must have been dicey if a PC was that near Death. Somebody made a tactical error if the party was that spread apart, and finally the entire party might have been lost if both the elf and dwarf had dropped because the dwarf was knocked out attempting to get into a position to save the elf.
The Good thing would have been to do every thing in his power to save the Elf. His actions were not callous and he did not just let the elf die, but decided the risks, which were clearly present, were to great to lend aid. That is not evil but it is not good. Being Good means trying to always strive for Good but it does not mean that every action made must be good.
As a DM I would monitor this. But it seems likely the Dwarf will continue striving towards good and will not always take the easy road or only be good when it is convenient. Had he been an earlier edition Paladin I might have required the Paladin make some form of sacrifice as attonement for his failure, but I would not have viewed it as an act that would strip him of his status.
First, I'd like to congratulate you on having what appear to be very mature players. The dwarf's player asking if he should attempt to save the elf is exactly how such things should be handled 
Secondly, I agree with Psk20, the most important thing is how PCs and NPCs react. If tracking alignment is absolutely necessary, I'd give the dwarf a pass for now, based on the fact that his reaction was partly determined by an out-of-game decision on behalf of the elf's player, which he then rationalised in the game, and partly because he didn't actively hurt the elf, he merely avoided helping her in a dangerous situation (battle) where it might have saved his own life.
I normally have rather high standards for good characters, and if the dwarf continues to display a lack of concern for others, it would definitely be worth considering his alignment again, but in this case, I'd let it slide.
It's a single ~neutral act in the career of (Im guessing) an otherwise good characters adventures. Don't worry about an alignment change or anything, but keep it in mind. If the next X actions are also neutral sugges to the player they might consider a new alignment. (possibly as a result of the death of their elven companion)
Its especially unfair to really judge given the fact he didn't have too much of a choice without oocly disrespecting the wishes of the player of the elf. It wasn't a choice of save the elf or not, it was a choice of how do I justify not saving the elf icly because thats what the player asked oocly. Given tha the asked in the first place I'm sure he intended to save the elf, I sincerely doubt he was going to go, "Oh you want to be saved...too bad."
It's as evil an act as a Wizard refusing to grapple an Orc Barbarian to save his Warlock buddy. Yes, doing it would be incredibly heroic, and doing it successfully will make him legendary, but its incredibly suicidal. In real life, paramedics tell people to perform first aid on people only if there's no risk to them themselves: if the get hurt helping, then paramedics have to help two people.
So definately unaligned. If anything, I'd question the Leader for not being close enough to help, or have a backup plan to keep the Elf alive.
Thank you for all of your views of this topic. It is very helpful for me making a decision on how to act/react.
I will admit here and now in this game I am the battlerager being accused of the cold and evil act by the DM.
On a side note here was the entire situation.The Party consists of a Melee Bard, Ranged Ranger, Area Effect Wizard, and the Battlerager.
Early in the encounter a monster shot some type of webbing that makes a 5x5 square are difficult terrain until the end of the encounter. This difficult terrain is at the entrance to the room going out into the passageway. The Battlerager is just inside the room about 2-3 squares on one edge of it. He has no enemies adjacent to him or in the way to the elf. Just 4 squares of difficult terrain. The Bard is off on the other side of the room, being dragged by one of the enemies after he was immobilized by it. The Wizard is 2 squares away from the Ranger and immobilized. The poor ranger is dropped while having immobilize, Blind, Ongoing Poison Damage, and Ongoing Damage. Just before the Battlerager's turn the DM hits the Ranger with a ranged attack that slid him to that position. Otherwise there was only 2 squares of difficult terrain between the Battlerager and the Ranger.
If you let someone die just because you disagree with them philosophically, there is something wrong with your brain.
Mayhaps, but that's not exactly the case. The Dwarf didn't help because it would have used an entire turn plus action point, to make a heal check to stabilize the elf. Meanwhile whatever just dropped the elf gets another turn. If he had a majestic word or something, I could understand, but given the circumstances, it seems like a perfectly reasonable judgement call.
No. This was not in the bounds of Good. This is obviously a Chaotic Evil act and your character should've become such. Proper roleplaying from here on out consists of killing the rest of your party over the course of many accidents in combat.
If you have to ask if what you did was good, then you're more worried about those couple of words that have no impact on how your character acts, rather than on how he acts and interacts with the world. The point of alignment was to give a springboard and to go and be from there. Don't worry if not everything you do is Lawful Good or Good. Worst case scenario, your DM decides to brand the party Chaotic Evil for Breaking and Entering (dungeon), Manslaughter X and Theft (dungeon crawling), Grand Theft Auto in some games, Heresy, Treason, Etc. They should really revise the Good definition to include the words "Trying," just to help reduce any possible ambiguity.
In other words, don't worry about staying good or being good, just act and be. If you're good, it'll become apparent. If you're not everyone elses good, that'll also become apparent.
His arguement was logical and sound. The dwarf would have had to break from combat to attempt to save the elf, and even then there would be no guarantee that the elf would survive. Breaking from combat would have given the enemy a large advantage, perhaps with no benifit to the dwarf's group in the end, at some point the dwarf is right to accept that the elf's demise is unavoidable.
In battle such tough calls are commonplace, people fall in battle and choices of having to save them or leave them have to be made. If the case was that the elf could easily have been saved (for a certainty) then perhaps it would have been evil of the dwarf to, by gross negligence, allow the elf to die, however under the circumstances, his rational is valid. He had no certainty of saving the elf, and it may have been foolhardy to attempt doing so, and this for someone who he strongly dislikes.
At any rate, even if this action was considered not good, I would not classify it as evil either. It, by itself, would not warrent an allignment shift imo. Yes, I would classify this action as Unaligned or Neutral. To have attempted to save the elf at all cost would imo be altruistically Good, going above and beyond, but I can find no deliberate neglect in the dwarf's decision to find it evil. Again he made a rational call in the midst of battle, I don't find his actions deviated from his allignment.
If you have to ask if what you did was good, then you're more worried about those couple of words that have no impact on how your character acts, rather than on how he acts and interacts with the world.In other words, don't worry about staying good or being good, just act and be. If you're good, it'll become apparent. If you're not everyone elses good, that'll also become apparent.
The OP isn't worried about his actions - the problem is that his *DM* has labelled them Evil, which he disagrees with.
It wasn't a very good act, but alignment is not a straight jacket. Good characters are allowed some transgression, as long as it's not blatent (IE murdering a dozen orphans).
It wasn't a very good act, but alignment is not a straight jacket. Good characters are allowed some transgression, as long as it's not blatent (IE murdering a dozen orphans).
Yes, the dwarf would definately be opposed to murdering so many PCs. 
But what if they were orphan mindflayers?
Simply put, the dwarf is being callous and indifferent to the death of a fellow party member, which is never good, nor IMO Good.
The dwarf should not be speaking ill of the dead, and should really regard his slain rival with the appropriate respect.
The original act was justified by the constraints of the time, but afterwards a Good character would or should feel some sort of respect or guilt towards the actions that led to a friend's death.
You're forgetting that each player has his own views of his character's traditions and etiquette, and those of his character's race. Perhaps simply acknowledging that the elf died an honorable warrior's death, instead of being saved at the hands of a despised rival, is considered by the dwarf to be a final symbol of respect for a powerful fellow warrior. Plenty of good (or at least in their culture's eyes; Norse warriors, I'm looking at you) people did things we'd regard as horrible. Much as we'd like to believe it to be true that justice and morality are universal, every culture has subtle nuances that can completely change an outlook on life. Why can't the same be said of fictional cultures?
I know you said it's just your opinion, but without acknowledging the opposite side of the debate, you don't end up making much of an argument.
Or perhaps I've just been watching too much political news lately.
We've pretty much stopped tracking alignment entirely since we swapped to 4e. I'm less happy with the alignment system in 4e than I was with the one in 3e, and I didn't really like the one in 3e
So, rather than worrying about the Dwarf's alignment, why don't you just worry about how your PC or NPCs will react to the situation? The game will play out the same anyway!
Hate to sound like an ass, but he didn't ask for an alignment debate regarding whether or not the concept itself is viable, he asked to see what the dwarf's action would mean in alignment, some people like using alignment even if it isn't necessarily the way you play. I personally hate alignment, I feel it encourages "Alignment Lawyers" whom I feel are far worse than rules lawyers because I don't believe in anything that gives someone the right to impose their values and morals on someone else even if the other party disagrees. Oh well, 4th Ed. alignment is next to worthless in terms of power anyway (and I say good riddance), why even complain about it anymore?
Gimli was less than fond of Legolas for the first few months of their journey, but he wouldn't have let him die. Sounds like this guy needs to switch to unaligned or maybe even nuetral evil.
You could never say that this justifies the dwarf becoming evil. He was not conciously and actively working against the elf. If anything this one action was unaligned and it was still not extreme enough to warrant an alignment change.
MAYBE if he said that he wasn't going to heal him because he did not like the player OOC then you would have an argument. But not only did he have a reason in game (the chance of himself being harmed), he also had role-played his dislike to the elf prior.
If anything I would congradulate the dwarf on his speach, he role-played extremely well his allowing the elf to die. Saying he hated the elf from the beginning and wishing him the same death as his other enemies (honorably and in battle) was a nice touch.
I've had characters die before and I only wish that another player had cared that much, even if was in a negative manner.