Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I'd say it certainly represents that the evil player is not pure evil. Which is okay! And good! And should be encouraged. No people (fuck you outsiders) are pure any alignment! Even though it is probably a good act, the person is morally complicated, and within the binds of the D&D alignment system can still easily be evil.

[Flying Dice]

To make the opposite example, Ghandi is like the epitome of lawful good.  The dude literally wouldn't hurt a fly and had a very sophisticated moral philosophy of non-violence.  However he made a career of breaking laws.  He had very high moral standards that he followed but those moral standards told him to break laws.

You know, except for how he was a racist as bad as any European when it came to Africans. Lawful Neutral if anything; his work was explicitly for the benefit of upper-caste Indians.

Though that does highlight an important point, Lawful != "Always follows the law."

[highmax28]

So here's a question, because this is a topic brought up in my current pathfinder game:

A character has been abused and used by a lot of people, from their mother to an entire church, to the point they're sick of being used and hates everyone because of it. The player wants the character to grow to be able to see that not everyone wants to use them, and slowly shift them away from being a selfish asshole.

The player said they kind of want to shift them from NE to NG, but I don't know if the above would make them LE going to CG or something else. The character is definitely not lawful in the sense that we just discussed where they follow the laws of the world, but their own kind of "I do whatever benefits me, I don't care if I leave people in the dust because they'll hurt me" ideals. They're very secretive, but they slowly opened up to the party huntress.

What would cause an alignment shift in this case? I'm allowing it to happen, but I'm not sure what to expect. I'm also unsure if that would be considered evil at all. I'd like some insight on this

[GiglameshDespair]

I'm talking more about saving them because they like or enjoy their company for example goodplayer has been evilplayers friend for years in game and the evil character genuinly likes good character but before now they have never in their life done something for another at the cost of their own convience.

It takes a lot more than a single action to become good, in my reckoning. If evil character consistently starts to act for the benefit of others as his motive, then his alignment might shift, but even evil people have friends.

So here's a question, because this is a topic brought up in my current pathfinder game:

A character has been abused and used by a lot of people, from their mother to an entire church, to the point they're sick of being used and hates everyone because of it. The player wants the character to grow to be able to see that not everyone wants to use them, and slowly shift them away from being a selfish asshole.

The player said they kind of want to shift them from NE to NG, but I don't know if the above would make them LE going to CG or something else. The character is definitely not lawful in the sense that we just discussed where they follow the laws of the world, but their own kind of "I do whatever benefits me, I don't care if I leave people in the dust because they'll hurt me" ideals. They're very secretive, but they slowly opened up to the party huntress.

What would cause an alignment shift in this case? I'm allowing it to happen, but I'm not sure what to expect. I'm also unsure if that would be considered evil at all. I'd like some insight on this

I... would actually argue that hanging around with your group would not be conductive to a good alignment of any sort, since you're working and condoning the actions of evil people (the rapist Druid, etc). From what I've read, you seem the stereotypical murderhobos. I'm not criticising that you are, merely stating what you seem to be, and what your party does not seem to be is "good".

[Harry Baldman]

Leaving people in the dust if they've outlived or outsucked their usefulness isn't really lawful or chaotic in itself. 'Lawful' indicates a presence of strong principles. If somebody is lawful, that would indicate that they do care about something rather than that they don't. Lawful people tend to be method-oriented, the how of something matters deeply to them. Chaotic people are more interested in the end result, and how they get there is really something that's not terribly relevant.

Also, I somewhat disagree with the idea of an alignment shift in general. An alignment should represent the underlying driving force of your character (greed, pride, bloodlust would be good examples of underlying motivations that result in evil, for example). An integral part of your personality. There is a fundamental difference between those who just genuinely don't give a fuck who has to die to further their ambitions and, well, regular people who just figure out what seem like good reasons for why they do shitty things. If you're motivated to be a dick to people because you don't trust them, that seems like a strictly neutral antiheroic motivation rather than what you would expect from somebody properly evil. Deep down all evil people harbor a monstrous core that sets them apart from others, you know?

[LordBrassroast]

I much prefer this chart to vanilla. It adds 4 new qualifiers in between the 4 extremes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Jimmy]

That's some great insights into my scenario, thanks folks!

I have been looking at it in a few different ways, but here's where the idea of Lawful Evil came from:

If they were performing a Chaotic Evil act, they would just murder the old widow and take what they want.

If they were performing a Neutral Evil act, they would get what they want through dominating the widow, then murder her to avoid further complications.

If they were performing a Lawful Evil act, they would keep the widow alive and comfortable despite the risks and difficulties, because their personal code believes that murdering innocents in cold blood is wrong, but they don't respect other's freedom of will.

As a completely different topic, do any DMs here count casting [Good] or [Evil] descriptor spells as worthy of alignment change? For example, Create Undead? What about Summon Monster X?

[Shadowlord]

Communist necromancer is beyond your good-evil duality. 

[Jimmy]

Remember: Undead are people too!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Criptfeind]

As a completely different topic, do any DMs here count casting [Good] or [Evil] descriptor spells as worthy of alignment change? For example, Create Undead? What about Summon Monster X?

Not once, especially if they don't like it. If they cast it a lot, certainly.  And I personally think of different spells as different levels of evil. For example summoning fiends might be bringing evil energy into the world, but it's pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things (unless it is in fact, not, and in your world it is actually a big deal, in that case it might cause more issues, especially if they know it does), and I probably would never have it cause a neutral caster fall, although a good aligned cleric might have issues if they did it a lot. Create undead though is pretty dang evil most of the time, so someone doing it would fall a lot faster.

[Twinwolf]

As a completely different topic, do any DMs here count casting [Good] or [Evil] descriptor spells as worthy of alignment change? For example, Create Undead? What about Summon Monster X?

I'm not a DM, but here's my take.

If they're casting a spell outside of their alignment, there's got to be a reason. Casting an evil spell doesn't automatically make you evil. Instead, impress upon them how it felt. Did the Lawful Good person doing the "Create Undead" feel that what they had just done was fundamentally wrong? Or, maybe it felt more... exciting. It gave them a rush. They might want to try it again. I think that that could give the opportunity for character development.

[BlackFlyme]

Unless you get your spells from a deity, casting spells with an alignment descriptor don't mean as much to me as the context behind why you are casting the spell in the first place. Unless it is an incredibly, irredeemably Evil spell.

Deities will give you a swift kick in the ass for casting a spell they do not approve of, but that is not as much an alignment problem as a class-code-of-conduct problem. I've read a few stories online of people casting Infernal Healing on an unknowing Paladin or Cleric for the lulz, and the Paladin/Cleric immediately falling because they accepted the aid of Evil.

Somewhat related question, I have a Lawful Good Monk with the ability to cast Ki Leech as a free action. This steals Ki, or life force, of any living creature I confirm a critical hit against, or any living creature I drop to zero hitpoints. This has no actual harmful affect to them, however. But it is still an Evil spell. Would I shift if I used this only on enemies I felt deserving of it?

[scriver]

I much prefer this chart to vanilla. It adds 4 new qualifiers in between the 4 extremes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I don't really think it adds anything. It's better to assume that the "extremes" aren't actually extremes unless you are a personification of each particular Alignment (Outsider scum!).

[Criptfeind]

I've read a few stories online of people casting Infernal Healing on an unknowing Paladin or Cleric for the lulz, and the Paladin/Cleric immediately falling because they accepted the aid of Evil.

As someone who enjoys playing as a paladin this makes me sad. Paladins don't fall (in 3.5 at least) for this sorta thing, like, not even with their restrictive oath by pure RAW would this be an issue for them. 

I much prefer this chart to vanilla. It adds 4 new qualifiers in between the 4 extremes.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I don't really think it adds anything. It's better to assume that the "extremes" aren't actually extremes unless you are a personification of each particular Alignment (Outsider scum!).

Yes, to be honest it seems like the four 'new' things could be replaced by... say, precise use of capitalization.

[Jimmy]

For a Cleric it's pretty much a non-issue, since they're banned from casting spells with an alignment descriptor that opposes their deity's alignment. So unless they're a Cleric of a True Neutral deity casting a spell enough times that it shifts them two alignment steps away from their deity, they're golden.

I've always found the subjectivity of most DMs to label Create Undead as 'worse' than other evil spells to be kind of unfair. I mean, what's worse: inviting a thinking, sentient force of pure evil into this world to give it a window into our material plane and have a chance to interact with the souls there, or to make someone's dead corpse into a puppet under your control?