If A paladin reduces A demon to -1 hp. Since he failed to kill the demon outright He would be screwed under this ruling. If he kills the demon he loses his paladin abilities because he is no longer lawful. If he spares the demon He Loses his paladin abilities because he committed an evil act by letting the demon live. If you are unsure about the letting the demon live part check the BOVD. his reply to this argument was as follows:
"In the case of a paladin, a simple Atonement spell cast by any cleric would help in the situation. As the DM, I would then term the quest to regain his alignment. Not to mention a paladin has a code of conduct on which to act upon."
How can I convince him that finishing off the foe was not a chaotic act and prevent this Pally-trap from becoming should someone later decide to play a paladin?
I guess it comes down to how your DM seems the different alignments. I don't understand how one act can suddenly change you, normally I think it takes several actions before the change happens (except for cases such as paladins and maybe clerics.)
It's no more "chaotic" to kill someone who's unable to defend themself than it is "lawful." This is a good/evil issue, not a law/chaos issue. By a strict reading of the RAW, killing an evil creature = good. Most GMs I know like a little more complexity than that, but killing someone who's trying to kill you is almost never "evil."
Also, a single questionable act should not result in an alignment shift (except, perhaps for paladins) unless it's a particularly flagrant one. For example, if your LG fighter butchered an orphanage out of boredom, I would call that a CE act, with attendant alignment shift. A single failing, OTOH, would result in a warning..."That's a chaotic act; keep it up and you'll lose your lawful alignment."
PCs are (mostly) human; they are not made of moral absolutes. That's what outsiders are for. Not even the saintliest paladin can be 100% lawful and 100% good every second of every day of his life. That's one reason a single violation doesn't automatically result in an alignment shift.
If the half-ogre had begged for surrender terms, I could almost see a hit on the good-evil axis. But chaos? How do you figure?
This said, the specific alignment of your fighter character shouldn't matter that much. Just tell the DM "ok, whatever" and continue playing your character to your interpretation of lawful good.
A single action in the heat of battle shouldn't be enough to provoke an alignment change in and of itself, anyway. Not unless very clear-cut boundaries had been crossed. Tell your DM that this single act can't be considered chaotic enough to actually change alignment.
IMHO alignment is really a non-issue, except for paladins, monks and similar classes whose pursuit is alignment dependent.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
I am a lawful good Fighter. In my last session used a coup da gras on a fallen half ogre to finish him off. My DM Ruled that a Chaotic act and changed my alignment to Neutral good. If finishing off a fallen foe is a chaotic act, this presents a serious problem for Paladins.
If A paladin reduces A demon to -1 hp. Since he failed to kill the demon outright He would be screwed under this ruling. If he kills the demon he loses his paladin abilities because he is no longer lawful. If he spares the demon He Loses his paladin abilities because he committed an evil act by letting the demon live. If you are unsure about the letting the demon live part check the BOVD. his reply to this argument was as follows:
"In the case of a paladin, a simple Atonement spell cast by any cleric would help in the situation. As the DM, I would then term the quest to regain his alignment. Not to mention a paladin has a code of conduct on which to act upon."
How can I convince him that finishing off the foe was not a chaotic act and prevent this Pally-trap from becoming should someone later decide to play a paladin?
You should get with your DM, and get him to give you a list of what a paladin can/can't do since the rules are ambiguous. Once he has his rules try to negotiate them to something you think is reasonable. If he can't be reasonable you may want to retire the character. Many DM's have paladin expectations that are nowhere near unrealistic, and you may have one of those DM's.
After edit: I assumed you were a Paladin. Your DM just has a terrible view on alignment. If he said I were chaotic when I was good I would just ignore it and continue to play as LG, unless there is some in game effect of not being lawful good.
Personally I don't think that there is anything wrong with a lawful good character putting a monster/foe out of its misery. One way to look at it is that if a lawful good adventurer can enter into a monster's home and kill them for their money then he wouldn't have any problem putting some of them out of their misery. Not only is he being merciful but he is also vanquishing evil at the same time.
1: my fighter is a dwarf, who may go into dwarven defender. so lawful is a must.
2: this was not my first "Chaotic" act. My fighter done a few things that my DM considers to be chaotic. but I still see the dangers of this ruling if a lawful good character were to face a bunch of demons reduce them all to negative HP. this would be grounds for multiple evil/chaotic acts.
Chaotic actions? Really? Ask him what would happen if a Lawful Evil character did the same thing. By his logic, the action is just as against Lawful Evil (read: common assassin alignment) as it is against Lawful Good.
If he is consistant, try to arrange a situation based on making a Lawful Evil villain jump through rediculous hoops.
What I would want to do is try DM-ing a Lawful Good game affiliated with an LG church, and see how he attempts to act Lawful Good.
I'd be curious to learn just why this was considered a "chaotic" act. If anything I would expect an adjustment more along the good-evil axis (killing a helpless enemy) rather than the law-chaos axis.
It's not 'honorable,' so law-chaos makes sense.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
MMMmmm... Seems to fit right in with several of these points. It is only chaotic if that isn't standard operating procedure.
If A paladin reduces A demon to -1 hp.
A bit off-topic, but I thought only PCs went into negative hit points; monsters are dead as soon as they're reduced to 0 HP.
A bit off-topic, but I thought only PCs went into negative hit points; monsters are dead as soon as they're reduced to 0 HP.
nope, only undead and constructs
Alignment should represent that average way that you act. A LG character can perform a few chaotic acts, or some neutral (non good) acts, at no effect. If you performed a single lawful act (donated to a church) would he move you back to LG?
You need to sit down w/ him and talk w/ him about what alignment represents, and what each alignment really means.
I am a lawful good Fighter. In my last session used a coup da gras on a fallen half ogre to finish him off. My DM Ruled that a Chaotic act and changed my alignment to Neutral good. If finishing off a fallen foe is a chaotic act, this presents a serious problem for Paladins.
I
How can I convince him that finishing off the foe was not a chaotic act and prevent this Pally-trap from becoming should someone later decide to play a paladin?
You are not a Pally, so do not worry about that.
If you are concerned about YOUR PC becomeing Chaotic, then sit your DM down and talk with him about this, like two adults.
Or, why not invite him here and have him give his side? I double-dog-dare ya.:P
...I double-dog-dare ya[/b].:P
I have not head that in a long time, but on a more serious note....invite him over.
nope, only undead and constructs
Ah, thanks. I guess my old DM was either doing it wrong, or he may have just had a house rule that took it for granted that once we'd reduced an enemy to 0 hp, we made sure they were dead (instead of making us take the time to go around CdG-ing everything).
Apologies for the off-topic - back to your regular thread
When a Lawful Good character performs an action which is against his alignment, then that action is ALSO against either Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil, depending on which axis the character 'breaks' his alignment on. Of course, not all DM's enforce those standards for CG or LE characters.
From the quote of the DM, he apparently believes no-win alignment traps are OK. This attitude will be a problem. In part because these are usually the same DMs who use alignment as a punishment. When discussing pally-traps, literally ask him "What is he supposed to do?"
Again, I think this DM needs to be shown a Lawful Good campaign.
What if the king orders all goblins put to the sword? Since he is the law, PCs are merely following the law. However, it would still be evil to kill a helpless foe, even though it is the lawful thing to do.
Is killing the opponent in a merciful way better than allowing him to bleed out? That is a good question. Which one is better based on alignment?
Nevertheless, the DM may have a problem with the LG alignment and/or the player is taking liberties with his alignment. The DM finally got fed up and penalized the player.
The player and DM need to come to an understanding of alignment.
2 A fallen foe is not a defencless creature, it is a creature you have been trying to kill. Should it awake it will be able to fight again.
3 Fighters are just that, fighters. Enemies are for fighting.
4 Alignments are not straight jackets, they are goals for characters to work towards and aspire for. A single chaotic or evil act does not stop you being lawful good, otherwise all alignments would be in constant flux. Down this path, madness lies (you took the last cookie without offering it first, you are now EVIL! You failed to stab the baby,you are now GOOD!)
5 Remember rule zero and rule zero . five.
Rule 0: The DM is always right nad can run the game however he/she wants.
Rule 0.5: Players reserve the right to quit a stupidly run game and start their own.
A killing blow on a fallen opponent is not chaotic. Your DM has some control issues.
1 Killing a defencless creature is evil.
Incorrect. The fact that the creature is defenseless is almost entirely irrelevant to why that creature should or should not be killed. After all, your very next point is...
2 A fallen foe is not a defencless creature, it is a creature you have been trying to kill. Should it awake it will be able to fight again.
And this IS largely correct. If it is okay to try to kill a given creature in active combat then it is highly twisted to declare that it is EVIL to ENSURE that the creature you were just fighting is well and truly dead.
4 Alignments are not straight jackets, they are goals for characters to work towards and aspire for. A single chaotic or evil act does not stop you being lawful good, otherwise all alignments would be in constant flux.
Correct, and incorrect. Alignments ARE in constant flux. If you accept the truth that alignments are not straightjackets and do not DICTATE actions then MANY actions by characters are going to fail to be strictly within their chosen alignment. This is proper. As long as players have an idea of where their characters are headed and why, and are not being disruptive in the process, it is appropriate that their actions vary according to actual in-game motivations, and are NOT dictated simply by meta-game constrictions of alignment in DEFIANCE of in-game circumstances. Characters must be given generous leeway in varying their characters actions. Keeping an eye on the TRENDS is vastly more appropriate than attempting to judge each individual action (and in fact is how alignment is generally supposed to work).
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm
The DM in the OP needs to actually put a few points in his Knowledge (alignment) skill.
- First, a LG fighter is NOT as restricted as a Paladin.
- Second, CDG of an ENEMY is (of course) not murder, nor is it inherently chaotic, but is actually a generally sane, sensible and perfectly allowable action.
- Third, even if it were shockingly chaotic enough to shift alignment, the player in question should have been warned first that taking such an action would endanger his characters alignment - because alignment is NOT a hammer to hit players over the head with AFTER the fact.
- Fourth, it should not have been necessary to warn the player in the first place because the player should have been given clear understanding long beforehand of the DM's views on alignment, thus knowing that BECAUSE the DM has certain views on alignment this would NOT be something he wants his character to do.
Incorrect. The fact that the creature is defenseless is almost entirely irrelevant to why that creature should or should not be killed.
Deffenceless here to mean a creature that is incapable of deffending itself under any circumstances, such as a baby, not one that is CURRENTLY incapable, as intended by my next comment as you pointed out.
But when I said "alignments would be in flux" again I ment flux to mean CONSTANT change, as evidanced by my rather silly example. Yes alignment can change. No every act does not change it.
The DM in the OP needs to actually put a few points in his Knowledge (alignment) skill.
I agree with your list in broad terms, but point three works differently in my games. As magic items exist to perform the warning function PCs generaly get one warning, and only after the fact. It is not possible to become evil in one action, but slipping to neutral from either direction is much easier. At least in my games. Your games may vary.
Your DM has some control issues.
We need this in 72 point flashing glitter text.
Alignment is not usually in flux, alignment is usually constant. A LG character who performs a chaotic act is just that, a LG character w/ some chaotic tendencies. The alignments give a general perspective on to how you act. A lawful character can perform chaotic acts, just as an evil character can perform good acts. The alignment you carry represents your overall place on the scale. If you are lawful more often than not and good more often than not, you are LG. As opposed to making alignment change often, just open up the meaning of alignment
(not saying either of you are wrong, just proposing a third way to play it)
- I have invited the DM to the forum
- He is not holding the fighter to the same standard as a paladin. I simply used a paladin as an example of how his ruling could really mess up alignment dependent characters.
CdG'ing a demon is a chaotic good act--the paladin would not lose his powers. I would only call it CG for irredeemably evil creatures though; otherwise it's just self-defense (CN).
Before you commit an "iffy" act like that, if you're a paladin, ask your DM for a Knowledge (Religion) check. It saves you a lot of trouble. If your DM is particularly picky, try a phylactery of faithfulness too.
Anyway, there was some information left out of the situation of why I shifted him one toward the chaotic. There were three encounters with his LG dwarf fighter that made my decision for me.
The encounter discussed in the beginning of this thread is where I will start. Vardock's party had just been going through a cave that exited on the far side of the city they had to escape from. They were on the run from the Dark Knights of Neraka, as they had broken out of prison and had some items in their possession of great value. They had also earned the enmity of a certain gangster when they ruined his establishment in a bar fight. The gangster had told them they would owe him a favor at some point... On the way out, they broke into daylight, and saw a half-ogre and half-elf waiting on them. They had met the half-elf in the past, being the party had liberated some artifacts from the half-elf's bandit camp (artifacts were stolen property of the elven kingdom).
The half-elf says his new employer is the gangster who had taken an interest in the party. They were aware that the party was heading to some ruins of some sort, and Blackbird (the gangster) wanted 50%. So we had a RP back and forth how much the group might give to Blackbird or risk violence at a later time. The rest of the party goes to talk amongst themselves, and even make some Diplomacy rolls. Vardock's dwarf says to hell with it, and draws his axe to attack. The half-orgre and half-elf didn't have their weapons drawn, and so started the battle. The rest of the party gets involved (w/grumbling) and they take down the half-ogre, while the half-elf and sniper (who was hiding in the hills above) got away. While the LG cleric of Mishakal (goddess of healing) goes to take a look at the the half-ogre, Vardock cuts his head off. The half-ogre was a hired thug, but other than some rough words, did nothing to the party. Being this was the third time where Vardock had done something simliarly chaotic, and was LG, I awarded him an NG alignment, well on his way to CG. Now don't get me wrong, they are dealing with some shady folks, which is why I am not messing with the good part of his alignment.
Don't care who you are, or what you say, LG aligned folks don't go starting fights for impatience reasons. There was a simliar situation in an earlier gaming session where he started the action and agression. Not to mention, you don't see LG's cutting people's heads off for no reason.
Now, he had said this would be a problem with a paladin. I answered with the paladin's code of conduct would not allow him to act as irrationally as his character has. And if the paladin did, and lost his alignment, then it would necessitate an Atonement spell.
So there you go. Flame me if you will, but I am pretty happy with my ruling.
Hey all, I am just replying to this thread at the behest of Vardock. I usually frequent the dragonlance forums (boo-hiss). ;)
Anyway, there was some information left out of the situation of why I shifted him one toward the chaotic. There were three encounters with his LG dwarf fighter that made my decision for me.
The encounter discussed in the beginning of this thread is where I will start. Vardock's party had just been going through a cave that exited on the far side of the city they had to escape from. They were on the run from the Dark Knights of Neraka, as they had broken out of prison and had some items in their possession of great value. They had also earned the enmity of a certain gangster when they ruined his establishment in a bar fight. The gangster had told them they would owe him a favor at some point... On the way out, they broke into daylight, and saw a half-ogre and half-elf waiting on them. They had met the half-elf in the past, being the party had liberated some artifacts from the half-elf's bandit camp (artifacts were stolen property of the elven kingdom).
The half-elf says his new employer is the gangster who had taken an interest in the party. They were aware that the party was heading to some ruins of some sort, and Blackbird (the gangster) wanted 50%. So we had a RP back and forth how much the group might give to Blackbird or risk violence. The rest of the party goes to talk amongst themselves, and even make some Diplomacy rolls. Vardock's dwarf says to hell with it, and draws his axe to attack. The half-orgre and half-elf didn't have their weapons drawn, and so started the battle. The rest of the party gets involved (w/grumbling) and they take down the half-ogre, while the half-elf and sniper (who was hiding in the hills above) got away. While the LG cleric of Mishakal (goddess of healing) goes to take a look at the the half-ogre, Vardock cuts his head off. The half-ogre was a hired thug, but other than some rough words, did nothing to the party. Being this was the third time where Vardock had done something simliarly chaotic, and was LG, I awarded him an NG alignment, well on his way to CG. Now don't get me wrong, they are dealing with some shady folks, which is why I am not messing with the good part of his alignment.
Don't care who you are, or what you say, LG aligned folks don't go starting fights for impatience reasons. There was a simliar situation in an earlier gaming session where he started the action and agression. Not to mention, you don't see LG's cutting people's heads off for no reason.
Now, he had said this would be a problem with a paladin. I answered with the paladin's code of conduct would not allow him to act as irrationally as his character has. And if the paladin did, and lost his alignment, then it would necessitate and Atonement spell.
So there you go. Flame me if you will, but I am pretty happy with my ruling.
I have to agree with the DM here. A string of random acts does seem chaotic to me. If the party is trying to work out a less violent solution, and someone starts swinging I think they should have to earn the right to be called lawful.
How many lawful act has he done in the same period of time?
Why the two step jump? If these where enough for an alignment change neutral is the next logical step.
Alright, lets assume the three acts where chaotic just for the sake of argument.
How many lawful act has he done in the same period of time?
Why the two step jump? If these where enough for an alignment change neutral is the next logical step.
It is not just the amount of chaotic acts it is the degree of the acts. Players don't get as much credit for acting within their alignment as trouble from straying because they are supposed to act within their alignment.
It is just like if a cop saves the lives of 50 people, and kills 3 as part of some crime. He will get credit for the 50, but it will be outweighed by the wrongful death of the 3, since he is supposed to be saving people anyway.
It is not just the amount of chaotic acts it is the degree of the acts.
I agree with this part. Both quantity and quality need to be factored in.
Players don't get as much credit for acting within their alignment as trouble from straying because they are supposed to act within their alignment.
That would make the standards for alignment internally inconsistent.
It is just like if a cop saves the lives of 50 people, and kills 3 as part of some crime. He will get credit for the 50, but it will be outweighed by the wrongful death of the 3, since he is supposed to be saving people anyway.
Alignment wise? Maybe, not enough info is given.
Don't care who you are, or what you say, LG aligned folks don't go starting fights for impatience reasons. There was a simliar situation in an earlier gaming session where he started the action and agression. Not to mention, you don't see LG's cutting people's heads off for no reason.
Now, he had said this would be a problem with a paladin. I answered with the paladin's code of conduct would not allow him to act as irrationally as his character has. And if the paladin did, and lost his alignment, then it would necessitate an Atonement spell.
So there you go. Flame me if you will, but I am pretty happy with my ruling.
Hearing your side of the story does make more sense to me. On those grounds, I agree with your ruling.
Were he to make a reasoned choice to fight now rather than pay the gangster, that would be ok? Or if he coup-de-graced on the sincere belief his foe needed die?
My only concern is this looks like an "alignment-hammer" approach which ends up being used to punish players. Since the character is aspiring towards Dwarven Defender, it may be a good idea to guide him in what Lawful should be doing.
I am a lawful good Fighter. In my last session used a coup da gras on a fallen half ogre to finish him off. My DM Ruled that a Chaotic act and changed my alignment to Neutral good. If finishing off a fallen foe is a chaotic act, this presents a serious problem for Paladins.
If A paladin reduces A demon to -1 hp. Since he failed to kill the demon outright He would be screwed under this ruling. If he kills the demon he loses his paladin abilities because he is no longer lawful. If he spares the demon He Loses his paladin abilities because he committed an evil act by letting the demon live. If you are unsure about the letting the demon live part check the BOVD. his reply to this argument was as follows:
"In the case of a paladin, a simple Atonement spell cast by any cleric would help in the situation. As the DM, I would then term the quest to regain his alignment. Not to mention a paladin has a code of conduct on which to act upon."
How can I convince him that finishing off the foe was not a chaotic act and prevent this Pally-trap from becoming should someone later decide to play a paladin?
Either Rules of the Game or Sage mentioned Paladins can Coup De Grace: Thus no alignment issues arise for Pallys.
Now your DM needs to write these house ruled interpretations down. Explai what he considers and does'nt consider Chaotic.
Once you are on same wavelength you wo'nt have this trouble.
Alright, lets assume the three acts where chaotic just for the sake of argument.
How many lawful act has he done in the same period of time?
Why the two step jump? If these where enough for an alignment change neutral is the next logical step.
Going from Lawful Good to Neutral Good is a one step jump. I wanted to put him to straight Chaotic Good, but then realized that would be a two step jump. I have also informed Vardock that he can get his Lawful alignement back, it will just take some time.
Going from Lawful Good to Neutral Good is a one step jump. I wanted to put him to straight Chaotic Good, but then realized that would be a two step jump. I have also informed Vardock that he can get his Lawful alignement back, it will just take some time.
In the light that this is the result of a string of 'chaotic' behavior, that sounds reasonable to me.
The rest of the party goes to talk amongst themselves, and even make some Diplomacy rolls. Vardock's dwarf says to hell with it, and draws his axe to attack. The half-orgre and half-elf didn't have their weapons drawn, and so started the battle.
Flame you? H@ll no. IMHO this unprovoked attack on the part of the dwarf is far more telling than cutting off the head of his defeated foe. The halfelf and halfogre were *negociating* for cryin out loud. This is a very chaotic act, and linked with previous behaviour of the same sort cries out for an alignment shift, particularly in light of the dwarf's aspirations towards the dwarven defender class, which is a paragon of dwarven honour.
Now, if the dwarf had an epiphany and consulted with some dwarven sage who could somehow make him see the error of his ways, and come to truly regret his previous chaotic-leaning ways, maybe, just maybe, he might someday aspire to become a dwarven defender. Maybe. But thye DM made the right call here.
The only thing I would second-guess is the OOC comment on the part of the DM telling the player that his character had changed alignment. In my book, the DM should quietly take note of alignment shifts provoked by character actions, and only inform the player when some in-character game effect makes the shift apparent, such as when the character comes under the effect of a detect alignment spell, circle against alignment or damage from some specific alignment effect. Or... the day the player says "hey, I'm going to take a level in dwarven defender now," and the DM sadly informs him that he is unable to do so, as certain (unspecified) prerequisites have *not* been met. The player shouldn't be told *why* he can't take the prestige class, just that he can't. Finding out could be a whole nother adventure in itself.
So good on the DM for ruling on the alignment shift. Bad on the DM for telling the player about his ruling. And good on the player for playing his character exactly as he desires, but bad on the player for imagining that his behaviour is consistent with lawful good alignment.
Alignment, at the end of the day, is 100% DM call.
Cheers, --- Wheldrake
That is an absolutely horrible idea. I see druids in the DM's future if he listens to that.
Here, it is clear the DM is in the right, but he's also wrong as he did not explain the whys and wherefores more clearly to the player. Had the DM communicated better with his player, we would not have had this thread.
The other "Rash" act was charging into a camp we were going to attack anyway. the group was plotting to sneak around so the rouge, who did not have any special vision, to get one sneak attack, in the DARK. this was in the sylvan key quest in the dragon lance campaign setting book if any of you need details.
My character rushes into battle ONLY, when the group tries to form a overly complicated and useless plan.
My character has also been very lawful in every other situation, often using the disarm action or a Truncheron (1d8 sap) rather than harming the enemy. I Coup De Gras The enemy to make sure he does not come back to haunt us again, like the half-elf.
And yeah that's not a chaotic act and even if it was it certainly isn't enough to change your alignement. Nor is it against a paladin's code of conduct.
First, all you lawfuls can't lie people need to take a good, long look at Baatezu.
Second, all you finishing an opponent off = evil and/or chaotic people need to seriously reconsider how you expect non chaotic and/or evil characters to function in your world, seeing as they can never use lethal force.
I think that covers most of the posters here.
I agree with your list in broad terms, but point three works differently in my games. As magic items exist to perform the warning function PCs generaly get one warning, and only after the fact. It is not possible to become evil in one action, but slipping to neutral from either direction is much easier. At least in my games. Your games may vary.
The problem with this is that players and DM's, even if they have been communicating well, STILL have differing opinions and interpretations from time to time. If I go along, playing my character in what I THINK is a perfectly acceptable and non-controversial fashion, and suddenly get a warning that actions long past, which I can no longer choose to change, were indeed considered by the DM to be unacceptable or controversial I have been given no opportunity as a player to amend my choices of what I would have my character do. It is not part of the game to have to GUESS at what the DM considers correct/appropriate alignment behavior, ever.
Now I might not change what he'd do but at least I would KNOW what I'm getting into when I make that choice. If I wasn't particularly committed to some of those actions I might very well have chosen differently had I known simply BECAUSE I did not wish to get into that kind of roleplaying territory.
No, I still insist that the DM must give adequate warnings AS THEY HAPPEN, whether the player is aware of the consequences of what he's doing or not. Alignment shifts should never, ever take a player by surprise. By rights he must be every bit as aware as the DM of what direction things are heading and why. It is then up to the player to decide if the roleplaying consequences/responsibilities of a changed alignment is where he wants to go. There is no reason whatsoever for a DM to silently note alignment trends, and every reason to discuss them openly and frequently. To do otherwise is a disservice to the player. The primary purpose of alignment, as I always insist, is to guide the player in roleplaying. The DM should want to ASSIST with that by expressing concern and advice, not to use alignment to take players unawares (in any fashion) and give them a sort of, "You should have known better, so TAKE THAT," lesson instead.
Clearly that's not your intent, but I see that to be where it almost inevitably leads.
Some players are not as good at "Playing the part" they want to. I had a first time D&Der who wanted terribly to play Lawful Good (something I don't normally allow from first timers) and with a bit of discussion the phylactery of faithfulness (removing the restriction of contemplation on the matter) decided this would be a VERY good way of learning how to be lawful good in my game. All games are VERY different and I can understand that. The player in my game got one for free given the circumstances, but they are only 1,000 gp in the DMG.
On behalf of the player here, I don't think he really wanted to lose his alignment....
On behalf of the DM here..... you may have left him no choice but to shift your alignment....
Ok that having been said, would a retract on the alignment change and the newly adjusted Phylactery be an equitable solution here?
I suggest this because it is likely what I would do. This way you (DM) can have a way to warn him before hand about chaotic or evil actions, and you (player) would have a moment to retract the act you are about to commit.
Issues can arise though. Player needs to be willing to adjust his actions to match his alignment as much as possible, and DM needs to be willing to let him know before hand....
FIRST and FOREMOST: ALL games are played differently, one of my house rules makes the phrase "but my last DM" OFF LIMITS for rule disagreements. I work with my players as much as possible. If your player has his heart set on being a Dwarven Defender, please for his enjoyment teach him what it means to be lawful good in your game.
I hope this helps the both of you
It's Coup de graCE
And yeah that's not a chaotic act and even if it was it certainly isn't enough to change your alignement. Nor is it against a paladin's code of conduct.
It's Chaotic in that it is dishonorable (as is attacking flat-footed opponents), but it doesn't even register on the radar unless you have a code of conduct specifically mentioning it because those are standard parts of combat.
If the wizard paralized a non-agressive npc and the same warrior beheaded him, then yes, that would be dishonerable..
Coup-de-Grace is not, in and of itself, chaotic, it can be lawful as well
The situation as I saw it was as follows. Submit to extortion, Lie to the guys, or fight. That was made perfectly clear. diplomacy failed before I charged. Lying would have not been lawful. It was made perfectly clear By the DM that the Enemy wanted to fight, and that other than lying to them, a fight would be inevitable.
The other "Rash" act was charging into a camp we were going to attack anyway. the group was plotting to sneak around so the rouge, who did not have any special vision, to get one sneak attack, in the DARK. this was in the sylvan key quest in the dragon lance campaign setting book if any of you need details.
My character rushes into battle ONLY, when the group tries to form a overly complicated and useless plan.
My character has also been very lawful in every other situation, often using the disarm action or a Truncheron (1d8 sap) rather than harming the enemy. I Coup De Gras The enemy to make sure he does not come back to haunt us again, like the half-elf.
Words of a Wise Dwarf:
In other words, you have a lack of patience and act impulsively, my son. Even if you are a simple dwarf, you fight like the fire when you should be the rock. Be still. Let foes come to you, and deal with them firmly. Do not seek to strike the first blow, but always strike the last. Diplomacy fails, my son, when your foe attacks you, not the reverse. To be the first to resort to violence is in many cases to be the first to admit defeat.
Do not howl in like the wind, but instead flow like the sea: if you are moved by the actions of others, return with greater force. Let the enemy make the first mistake, so that all can see their folly, and then they shall be exposed before the Law. Feel the rock beneath your feet, and do not falter. Does the rock grow impatient? Does the earth rush in? Then neither shall you.
That's what a Dwarven Defender is all about, and what you should be aspiring to!