Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Dual Mar 13, 2014 1:21:41	I am playing a Lawful Neutral Monk/Spell Caster ( he has the feat Monnastic Training ), and I have a problem with everyone saying that he has done several evil things and should have his alignment changed.  To begin with we have a person in our party that has been cursed with an evil split personality and my character has been doing spell research to see how to remove the personality split, since a normal remove curse did not work.  So when  another player found out my character was doing this he called it an evil act since my character  was doing the research without telling anyone about it. Later during an actual war between two neighboring countries my character and the party were attacked by an extremely large number of enemy soldiers.  As the soldiers began to realise that they were losing, they decided to surrender.  My character was the only one that continued to fight, well actually another character stopped him before he actually continued to attack the surrendering soldiers.  I do not believe that continueing to attack was an evil act due to the fact no rules for battle were etablished and the soldiers only surrendered because they found us stronger then they thought we were.  These are the only 2 acts that the other players have continued to bring up saying that he has acted evil....So what is the general concensus on this?
#2 Matyr Mar 13, 2014 3:13:31	The general concensus is that alignment causes problems in situations such as this and if you don't have a pre-set way to deal with it there is very little that going and asking online opinions is going to help.  Basically it has to be between the characters/players.  Alignment is such a vague concept that it is impossible to actually have a clear concensus on basically anything on that concept.
#3 iserith Mar 13, 2014 5:01:41	"Evil" is what the (admittedly vague) rules that define "evil" say it is and nothing more:   d20srd wrote:
#4 Dual Mar 13, 2014 12:43:42	I guess what I am looking for is validation to the fact I don't believe what I have done to be evil.  I have been playing D&D since the Advanced version came out.  So I believe I know how to play different alignments.  Some things going on in this game are because rules we have all agreed upon have been broken by others, and now I believe they are looking for things to say I have done to be able to validate things they have done so that no one can say anything about it.  This hasn't really been a "rule" question so much as The one thing I have to be thankful for is that our DM does not agree with what some of the players have said and has actually told them to drop it.  But that doesnt mean they dont bring it up when he's not around.  I am just tired of it and needed to come here and see if my thoughts about this matter equalled anyone elses thoughts.  I am not asking as a "rule" but what do you think as if you were playing?  I am not whining here,  It's just that when you enjoy a game due to being able to create a new world and play to relax and enjoy, it becomes difficult when you get told you are doing it wrong...  If you can understand what I am saying...
#5 iserith Mar 13, 2014 12:45:06	Alignment changes are between you and the DM. Everyone else can go stick it in places that aren't Lawful as far as I'm concerned.   Having said that though, what you describe speaks to a larger problem - an underlying disagreement between you and the other players about something. Alignment may very well be just a stand-in for it. Other players seem to not want you to do X and then when you do X they say it's against your alignment instead of saying, "Hey man, I'm not going to have fun if you do X, so can we work together to come up with something else?" (Or better yet, "Yes, and then I do this other thing to make your idea better for me in a way that supports and does not negate the idea you had.") This is something only a direct and polite conversation can resolve, so get on that pronto. The opinions of anonymous people on the internet with regard to whether you're acting your alignment aren't going to help the situation, even if you feel validated.
#6 Dual Mar 13, 2014 13:24:27	Iserith.  you my very well be corret on what you said.  Thank you.
#7 iserith Mar 13, 2014 13:52:35	Sure thing. Let us know how it goes!
#8 MrCustomer Mar 13, 2014 20:21:35	Dual wrote:
#9 Dual Mar 14, 2014 10:23:04	MrCustomer.  Could you please expanded on your view of not accepting surrender "as not only evil, but also as being unlawful". I ask so as to see another point of view.  And I do agree surrendering to a more powerful force is better then continueing to fight.  There was alot that happened and I shortend it for the sake of the post.  If you would though, please expand your thoughts for me.  Thank you.  A difference of opinion might help me to see from their side as well.   Also on the split personality thing.  I did find out that this was something the player asked the DM for.  It did break one of the original rules that we all agreed upon and the player has lead everyone else in the party to believe that the DM had done this to him.   We are playing a family party that has grown up together and the split personality character has sacrificed one of our brothers to save thier own butt, and was ( for lack of a better word ) "forgiven" due to believeing that it was a curse given to him.  We had all agreed upon playing non-evil characters and this is why  I feel that particular player started calling my actions evil,  because he found out through another party member that I was researching a spell to seperate them.  I only recently found out that the DM did not cause this to happen.  The player asked for it to happen.  This being the case I believe his saying I am acting evil might be due to him choosing to play an evil character and wanting others to begin playing evil as well.  I could be wrong but that seems to be the logical conclusion.
(Reply to #2) Krusk	Matyr wrote:
#11 Tsulia Mar 16, 2014 9:03:18	In the few games I've played, Aligned beyond the 'BASIC' good and evil cause more problems than solves. Although I personally think an 'evil' character has its place within ANY group of players, it depends on how the player plays after that simple factor - do they betray their own party? Do they screw others over unfairly... or do they play it smart and act the prick when it's okay to do so? Like... killing that unarmed lookout because they saw you?   The problem example would be - mission, rescue human slaves. Character? Human hating race. Evil. Grouped with humans +assorted. Spending the entire mission hurting every human they come into contact with.   The above has no place in the above party. But, the character may have had a place in say... an incursion into an 'evil' human town or militant town/fort.   Back on topic - a monk researching anything* is not evil. Nothing further from the truth! Unless of course, you plan on having the spirit take control over the players body.   I agree with what others have said - talk to the ones bringing up the issues, hash them out... ask why (huge step forward) and go from there.
#12 DaBeerds Mar 17, 2014 13:39:39	Dual wrote:
#13 Dual Mar 18, 2014 17:34:44	After the last weeks game play I am trying to decide if it is worth it or not to continue playing this campaign.  I found the problem and it ridiculous.  Just a player trying to get away with something to end a game and remove the fun for everyone else.  I believe I am done with the game and also don't currently plan to play in any of this persons games if/when he DM's in the future.  I did talk with him several times to no avail.  I have now told the DM that since I have no choice as to what is happening ( with the exception of killing or casting spells to stop the evil PC) and why I don't know if I will continue on.  It's suppossed to be fun, not suppossed to have to spend all your time and gold creating spells to protect yourself from a party member because they are suddenly evil and are trying to kill you every chance they get.....And the excuse being...."I don't know why she feels this way she just does......"  Thats crap.  So I think I am going to take a break from the game and just relax for awhile.....It's not much fun to play a game like this.  The only really big problem is that the DM has a wonderful/creative imagination and the game has been anything but boring. So for all those that gave advise I thank you very much...It was very helpful....This turned out never to be an alignment issue, it turned out to be a player issue.  If I continue playing its only because of others in the game.  thanks again .
#14 Krusk Mar 19, 2014 15:06:46	So I think I am going to take a break from the game and just relax for awhile.....It's not much fun to play a game like this.
#15 MrCustomer Mar 19, 2014 19:13:18	To expand my viewpoint, historically there has always been generally accepted rules to warfare, the most common of which is to accept the enemies surrender. Generally because killing surendering troops is seen as simply murdering them. This is not always the case of course, but note that ussually both sides follow the same conventions (meaning they will face the same treatment) in any war there are multiple battles, some won and some lost, but aside from regular soldiers there are also your elite, generals, nobles, etc. these people are valuable so killing your enemies when they surrender means they in turn will kill these VIPs when they try and surrender. Butcher the enemies troops in one battle and yiu've effectively killed your own prince in another, not a good tactic.    Also historically (and tactically) you want to encourage the enemy to surrender, instead of say, forcing them to fight to the death with the determination  of desperate men. Wars are often won by those who refuse to surrender and are willing to fight to the last man standing, simply because they are willing to do so. Even if you do win you will still loose additional resources yourself by needlessly continuing the fight against surrendering enemies when you force them to continue to fight you.   on that context your monk could well of made a war between the two nations alot more brutal. Say after the grpup slaughters the enemie as they try to surrender, what do you think would happen to all the enemies prisoners of war? A likely retaliation would be for them to hang all their captives as an example, and that will escelate fast when the other side replies in the same manner. It's an action on you monk's part that could kill thousands on both sides, especially if one side decides to up the ante and put a city to the torch when it falls, because "hey you are slaughtering our people, so you brought this on yourselves"    yes a realistic result of your mink's action could be the death of many thousands, even tens of thousands of peoples.   so ask yourself, is that Good (altruistic and respects life) or Evil (disregards life)? Is it lawful or chaotic?    If the end result of your actions could lead to thousands of soldiers slaughtered in the field, prisoners hanged, and cities burnt to the ground, would you not consider this Chaotic Evil, of at the very, very least, not Lawful Good.
#16 Dual Mar 19, 2014 20:01:45	MrCustomer.  Thank you for expanding...I appreciate it.
#17 BlackLibrary Mar 25, 2014 13:06:38	If only one could put real people on "IGNORE".  You can't.  You have to focus on yourself, Dual.  Let no single person destroy a game for you.  Take the high road, ignore them...or counter them.  They act how they act because it works on you.  When they see it no longer works on you, that you are above their pettiness (in game and out of game), then so be it.     If a character does dirty despicable things on their own, let the DM deal with it..  I find it is best to let "in game" consequences have their fullest effect.   For instance, we had a player that decided to kill innocent folks in the local town we were in.  Literally attacked and killed the Inn Keeper and his son, and got away with it in game.  I was mad, but I thought...may be my character should do something.  So, I waited until he spilled what he did to the rest of the party.  My Lawful Nuetral Warlord then proceeded to inform the authorities in town.   Later, the party went on an adventure and returned back to the town.  The inn we used was closed, and when we came across some guards, I pointed out that this was the fellow who killed the good Inn Keeper.  They left, proceeded to get the Beat Squad, returned back to arrest him and him alone for his crime.  The character was arrested, jailed, tried, and imprisoned.  We all laughed and had fun with it.  The character promised to hunt us all down!  LOL!  Made for great story!  Why get your OWN claws dirty?  if you are lawful nuetral, then you should get the Law on your side.   The player had to either GNC or play a different char until the character would get free.  He chose the funner part...and made a new character.      BTW...Your character -definitely- broke the his own morals killing soldiers who surrendered UNLESS you can produce a book/law/etc that originates from some higher authority to have no mercy on your enemies.    If your character has no such screed, then yes...he broke the law, and he did what was chaotic and murdered innocents...which is evil.  But hey...I'm just tossing oil on the dying flame.
#18 Dual Mar 28, 2014 10:43:42	Blacklibrary.    Thank you for the advice.  I have played since this original post started and have been ignoring what the player has been doing with his character.  Also, you might have misread my post a bit..... I did not end up killing the soldiers.   My character would have continued attacking them but was stopped when other party members stepped in and stopped him from doing it.  Although I still don't believe continueing to attack them just because they decided that they had made the wrong choice by attacking us and wanted to stop.  They other characters in the game had gotten in between my character and the attacking party and talked my character out of continueing.
#19 Seth_Ulrik Mar 28, 2014 13:11:36	Id like to chime in, if that's ok. Continuing to assault a surrendered enemy/enemies, whether they did it out of sheer opposing strength or not, could be seen as a savage act of aggression. Less perhaps 'evil', though it can certainly be seen as such if you take into account the general rules of war regarding surrendering enemies. I, as a player, wouldn't see -one act- as evil, but perhaps a road -to- evil if not careful. My two copper for thought on the subject.
#20 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat Mar 30, 2014 10:45:44	Seth_Ulrik wrote:
#21 Noon Apr 01, 2014 23:03:37	Dual wrote:
#22 Dave_son_of_Dave Apr 10, 2014 10:01:12	I think one of the problems with alignment, especially when it comes to Evil, is that it becomes hard to differentiate between an act of Evil and an act of Just-Being-That-Guy-Right-Now. It'd be like if the party goes to a tavern, and your monk doesn't tip the server. It's not evil, it's just not being as nice as you could be. In the case of attacking surrendered soldiers, it's kind of a jerk move, because you're assaulting something that's not putting up a fight, but as you say, there are circumstances are surrounding the situation where the monk's motivations might be understood. That's a bit of a more extreme case, as it involves lives on the line, and in that regard, I can see why the other player might be looking at you sideways after the fact. The studying of curse removal under the veil of secrecy is probably a better example of what I'm getting at, where the monk isn't truly hurting anyone through his actions, just not being super-social. The main point is, not being nice doesn't eqal being evil.
#23 BRJN Apr 11, 2014 12:45:59	OP: Both in-character and out-of-character, discuss this individually with the rest of your group.   Edit: If the other players are also having problems with the 'multiple personality' player, then maybe the group should ask HIM, not YOU, to leave.   Your monk should offer to do penace for attacking the soldiers that tried to surrender.  I, too, would be upset to see that - but I'd also cut you some slack because of "the heat of battle" and the tactical circumstances, and maybe a big bucket of cold water - or having you "accidentally" trip over my extended foot and fall flat on your face - was the most suitable method to get your attention when those circumstances changed.   I flatly do not see why researching how to remove a curse from somebody is supposed to be Evil.  It IS Lawful - studying the rules (of magic in this case) seeking a loophole or unexpected application of the essential nature of magic.  Let's think about this: Jekyl is cursed to become Jekyl-and-Hyde.  I want to remove the curse and free Jekyl.  If the Hyde personality finds out, his interpretation will be that I'm trying to exterminate him !  So the evil personality will twist moral claims to his own advantage (surprise surprise).  This sounds a bit like the good-for-nothing boyfriend who claims "My girlfriend is being mean to me, she made me a homeless" when she throws him out of her house.  Your decision to research in secret is a necessary precondition for the success of your project, not a sign of Evil.