Lawful Good player more Chaotic Neutral

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
(3.5) I've recently hung up the DMing hat and passed it over to one of my players who is running a new campaign. All is well except for one player who is insistent on playing lawful good characters even though he is clearly unable/unwilling to play as such. Out of the last 5 characters he's played 3 have been LG, paladin, cleric, and paladin (what he is playing now). Every single one acts the same, get loot? mine. See enemy? Kill. Conflict between him and NPC? Intimidate.

The worst came when I was DMing and they saved some petrified elves from long ago who had been working to open a portal and summon demons. The elves managed to earn the trust of the group, eventually they were found out and one had been captured. It went something like this:
Him (LG cleric of Moradin): "Airameth is tied up?"
Me: "Yes..."
Him: "Ok, I break his legs."
Everyone else: "No, that's insane. He's helpless!"
Him: "Hmm.. Alright, I piss on him."
Everyone else: O.O
Him: "What? He betrayed my trust."

I've talked with him many times and gave tips/ideas, even going as far as removing spells temporarily when I was DM. Now that we're in a new campaign he's decided to roll paladin AGAIN. It's literally the same character, just a different sheet. I'm almost at my breaking point, how can I be a NG cleric of Pelor when I have a paladin in my group trying to kill every NPC that doesn't see eye to eye?

Thank you in advance
If you were the DM, I'd recommend simply throwing out alignment.

From what you say, I assume the DM is unwilling to actually do anything, meaning he approves of the behavior.  You can't do much on that front.  You might consider asking the DM, away from the game, why this kind of behavior isn't getting him in trouble, but considering how heinous the transgressions are, it seems like this wouldn't get very far.

If 'everyone else' includes every other player at the table, and they all agree with you that this character is problematic, then you could simply take the matter IC.  Next time he gets ready to go over the line, you all tell him, in-character, to sit down and shut up.  If he goes over the line, you can either vote his character out of the party, or jump on him and beat the crap out of him en masse.
(Noting that you're playing 3.5E.)

Well, the game-mechanic consequences of the Paladin's actions are no longer your problem, they are the DM's problem.

Now that you're a player rather than a DM, you need only be concerned with how you react and what your deity thinks of your reaction. Perhaps your cleric should attempt some instruction. As long as you are steadily trying to lead this wayward soul to the Light, and interposing yourself to block abusive behavior when you have reasonable opportunity to do so, Pelor should be happy with you. More drastic action on your part should not be required until things get to the point where the character is more evil than good - which should be well past the point where the DM steps in.

(By the way, while maliciously urinating on someone is insulting and degrading, it is not generally harmful. In fact, if you're in the wild and feel a need to irrigate a wound with a sterile liquid... fresh urine is sterile, unless the supplier has a kidney/bladder infection. Breaking the prisoner's legs, on the other hand, is clearly an Evil act in almost all circumstances, and almost certainly not even pragmatic. It would be vastly easier to justify a quick minimum-pain beheading.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Ask the DM to throw out alignment and any effects based on it. He can play his paladin as a wild reckless ****, devoted to the wild reckless **** diety. You can play your cleric as a stand up generally good guy devoted to the stand up generally good guy PC. 


If the issue is that his ****ary is ruining the game for you take him aside one day and say "your ****ary is ruining the game for me. Can you tone it down a bit?" If he is a decent guy you can have a chat about it and come up with a solution. If not, well why are you playing with him?

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Hobbling captives in a way that is easily reversible might be reasonable behavior in some situations, and the facts that they are members of an enemy race and were petrified in the act of summoning demons certainly weigh in his favor.


Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is.  The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is.  The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?



I believe that's a difference between lawful and chaotic. When I think of a crusader of good I don't picture someone who will degrade others just because they are evil.

However, I hear what everyone is saying, maybe I wasn't clear in talking to him before.

Thank you all
Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is.  The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?

Wow.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game.


Anti-LG behaviour generally involves reneging a previously agreed (even sworn thing), especially for little more than convenience.


That said, perhaps just put Alignment out of the game and just RP your character. Your char doesn't know your Paladin friend's Alignment (although if you're playing earlier editions, you probably can guess he's LG). Make it your DM's problem, after all that's probably why you hung up the hat (at least for this game)


Have fun, relax Be yourself / your char Screw the rest.

I am Blue/White

In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game.



Then they were not lawful good, what is lawful about killing and maiming? Actions speak louder then words. Maybe another example is in order, this happened just last week. The group finishes talking with this (innocent) man who has been working in a store where the BBEG is often.
Bard- "So what do?"
Paladin- "Let's kill him, he helps out The Blessed."

Now, the examples I've given aren't the worst but they would be if not for the other players stepping in. It's just things like this that frustrate me. I've talked with the others in the group and I'm not the only one that feels this way, next time I'm just gonna make myself more clear.

BTW: DM likes the idea of alignment and wants to keep it in game.
Last I checked, even the 2E Paladins killed Enemies. They were not disallowed from killing or maiming enemies, by being forced to knock them unconscious.

Another non-LG roleplay (in my opinion) would be to kill "innocents" without justification or just on a suspicion.
In the example you gave above, that would be relevant concern. 
It is not about the act of Killing or Maiming ; it is what lawful justification there is for it before Killing or Maiming.

So yes, I do agree your "friend" is really stretching it. 

I am Blue/White

Urination has no inherent moral absolute, no matter how uncouth you think it is.  The intent here was definitely to degrade, but shaming naughty people is what LG holy men are for, isn't it?

Wow.




What?
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider

What?


The idea that you could say that with a straight face.


Of course it has a good/evil connotation to it. 


Its doing something to someone they do not want you do. Basic definition of evil.


If you disagree with this idea, please give me your home address. I have some craigslist want ads to post. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game.

In real life, they did this in the name of God and King Whatsisname, which isn't the same thing as Lawful Good.

But there's a difference between killing an enemy combatant, or even coup-de-gracing a captured enemy combatant, and pointlessly breaking prisoners' legs.

If you're going to attempt to transport the prisoner, you probably need his legs functional. If not, why not just kill him?

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

What?


The idea that you could say that with a straight face.


Of course it has a good/evil connotation to it. 


Its doing something to someone they do not want you do. Basic definition of evil.


If you disagree with this idea, please give me your home address. I have some craigslist want ads to post. 



Calm down, tough guy.  Who said anything about a straight face?


Am I going to have to add little cavorting smiley faces for people to see a preposterous claim and realize I'm not really suggesting we eat babies?  
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
I'm -snip- suggesting we eat babies


My character's gonna rat you out to the local authorities for that nasty bit of anti-social behavior. Tongue Out

OP:

You and the rest of the group need to talk to the Paladin's player and ask, "Why are you playing a Paladin?"  If the problem is that he (the player) has a problem with holier-than-thou people and is using the game to get fantasized revenge on such by trampling their reputation, the group need to tell him to take it home alone.

There is a 3.x supplement somewhere that lets you create a CG Paladin or LE Paladin; maybe one of these would help?  Otherwise, assign the player some homework: he has to describe the god who this paladin of his worships.  Add it to the campaign pantheon.

Come to think of it, you might want to create this player a Classic Half-Orc Barbarian.  It might be right up his alley.

Best complements I have yet received:

Show

Making it up as I go along:

{BRJN} If I was writing the Tome of Lore, I would let Auppenser sleep. But I also would have him dream. In his dreaming he re-activates the innate powers of (some) mortal minds. Or his dreaming changes the nature of reality - currently very malleable thanks to Spellplague &c. Or whatever really cool flavor text and pseudo-science explanation people react positively to.

{Lord_Karsus} You know, I like that better than the explanations for the Spellplague.

 

Prepped ahead of time:

I started the thread "1001 Failed Interrogation Results" (which seems to have faded into that great electronic goodnight, alas)

{ADHadh} These are all good and make sense! I just can't come up with something that's not covered here and is not completely ridiculous.

 

My 4e characters:

Show

Active:

LFR Half-elf StarLock8 Gondolin Nightstar

AoA Dwarf Guardian Druid8 Narvik from House Wavir

Character Ready-to-go:

Neverwinter Dwarven Invoker / Heir of Delzoun, worships Silvanus (!) "Truenamer" - speaks Words of Creation

Concepts I'm kicking around:

"Buggy" Wizard - insect flavor on everything.  His DMPC version is going to become a Lamia.  Becauae lichdom is so cliche.

Halfling Tempest Fighter - just because nobody else is doing it

Shifter Beast-o-phile Druid - for Nentir Vale campaign

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Am I going to have to add little cavorting smiley faces for people to see a preposterous claim and realize I'm not really suggesting we eat babies?  



Yes, because
1) This is the Internet.  We can't read your body language or hear your tone of voice, which combines with
2) There are people who make preposterous statements on these boards all the time and mean them.

Therefore, without a smiley or 'sarcasm tag' or somesuch, it is very difficult to tell if you're joking, so we pretty much have to take you at your word.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Its doing something to someone they do not want you do. Basic definition of evil.


Not really, otherwise a police officer pulling over a speeding motorist is evil. Or someone dragging a suicidal man off a ledge is evil. Or a parent forcing his child to eat his peas is evil. Or on and on and on.
There is a 3.x supplement somewhere that lets you create a CG Paladin or LE Paladin; maybe one of these would help?


Unearthed Arcana.pg. 53
In the context of D&D or even the Crusades in real life, LG Holy Men did go around killing, maiming and all kinds of horrible things in the name of "LG". So, why not? After all its a fantasy game.

In real life, they did this in the name of God and King Whatsisname, which isn't the same thing as Lawful Good.

But there's a difference between killing an enemy combatant, or even coup-de-gracing a captured enemy combatant, and pointlessly breaking prisoners' legs.

If you're going to attempt to transport the prisoner, you probably need his legs functional. If not, why not just kill him?



Not to mention that Crusaders killed/tortured defenseless women, children, and elderly with the sole reasoning that "They're infidels, therefore they're just as evil and deserving of death as the infidel soldiers." That is NOT LAWFUL GOOD BEHAVIOR. It's Lawful Evil at best (evil acts committed on the order of their superiors).
Not to mention that Crusaders killed/tortured defenseless women, children, and elderly with the sole reasoning that "They're infidels, therefore they're just as evil and deserving of death as the infidel soldiers." That is NOT LAWFUL GOOD BEHAVIOR. It's Lawful Evil at best (evil acts committed on the order of their superiors).


Crusaders were often rouges who pillaged the countryside of Europe before they moved down to the Holy Land. The offer of a sanctioned excursion for looting and pillaging was a way to get the bad elements out of the hair of the nobles and the church. And that basically set the tone for the campaigns. A real shame for the Byzantines, who wound up victims of their supposed reinforcements.

Not really, otherwise a police officer pulling over a speeding motorist is evil. Or someone dragging a suicidal man off a ledge is evil. Or a parent forcing his child to eat his peas is evil. Or on and on and on


We can have a long debate on this if you want. I'd rather not. 


The officer suggest the speeding motorit pull over. The motorist agree it will be a good idea. Unless the parent physically pushes the food down the throat, it isn't forcing. I'd agree that parent is acting in an evil manner.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

The officer suggest the speeding motorit pull over. The motorist agree it will be a good idea.


First of all, those flashing blue and red lights are not "suggestions." They are commands. Backed by force of law.

But let's say the motorist doesn't. The police officer, instead of engaging in high-speed pursuit, records the licence plate number. The offender gets a ticket in the mail. The offender does not agree to pay the ticket. Next time the offender somehow ends up in police custody, the offender is forcibly kept until he pays. Evil.
Unless the parent physically pushes the food down the throat, it isn't forcing.


Or, you know, the parent grounds the child, takes away his toys, gives him a spanking when the terms of being grounded are violated, etc. Evil. Right?

The fact is, your definition makes every attempt to instill discipline in a child, or to stop someone from doing something bad to someone else, evil.
I would argue scope. A police officer's job is to stop people from doing things that are wrong or evil. By speeding, the motorist is being neutral at best, sliding toward either chaos or evil (individual over group, self over others). Further, by breaking that law, the motorist is forcing other drivers and people near that road to do something they don't want - be somewhere needlessly dangerous. Therefore the cop is being LG, by stopping the person from forcing their will onto others.

There's a reason it's a philosophical concept. You can make a lot of different arguments work, if you make them properly. The OP needs to come up with a system of interpretting the alignment descriptions that works for their group.

"Not only are you wrong, but I even created an Excel spreadsheet to show you how wrong you are." --James Wyatt, May 2006

Dilige, et quod vis fac

We agree to abide by a social contract. That contract allows punishment for disobediance of laws. As a society we agree what those laws should be by majority descision provided they do not infringe on specific and explained personal freedoms. The officer suggests you abide by them, or suffer their consiquences, but he does not force you to. If he didn't throw on lights and suggest you pull over, but rather triggered concealed spike strips forcing you to stop. That would be an example of him forcing you to stop breaking the law.

A parent child arrangement is very different than normal, but yes some of those forms of discipline you list I would consider evil. You get more flies with honey.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

You get more flies with honey.



Yeah, but you get even more with manure...Tongue Out

We agree to abide by a social contract.


If I decide to rescind my agreement (assuming I ever made such an agreement to begin with) to the social contract, then enforcement of those laws against me must be evil.  I must be able to recind my agreement, otherwise I am now being forced to do something that I do not want, and that makes the social contract itself evil by your definition.

And no, the parent-child relationship cannot be significantly different for this purpose, otherwise that would prove the inadequacy of your defintion of evil (suddenly, there are glaring exceptions).


If I decide to rescind my agreement (assuming I ever made such an agreement to begin with)



You agree to it by living within a country. To reject that contract is as simple as leaving said country. Countries where you aren't allowed to leave are considered fairly evil. At any time you are free to leave your country. To move into another one requires agreeing to their contract. You could also theoretically live somewhere unclaimed. The moon, much of the ocean and most of space are unclaimed. 


This is really the basis of all government. 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

You agree to it by living within a country.


Where? When did I get a little popup box saying "By entering this country, you agree to abide by the social contract?" Did this happen while I was passing through a birth canal? When did I even accept the logic of this social contract? Or are you imposing this logic on me, in that very evil manner? The fact is, I'm here now. I was here before I ever had the opportunity to agree to anything, tacitly or otherwise. By insisting I sign on to the social contract to continue to live in my current state, you are imposing something upon me which I might not want, which is, by your arguement, evil.

And I won't get into how ridiculous "you can live on the moon" is. We're talking about evil here, not government legitimacy based on exit.
This is really the basis of all government.


And by your definition, then, all government is evil. I know some people who would agree with that.
I don't know or want to know where you live. A social contract is the idea that a government gets its power from the consent of the governed. The governed agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for certain government provided ideas. If you disagree with your government you are free to leave, or try change your government. If your attempt to change your government is peaceful, your government must allow it. If not, then you can expect to be stopped. If a government doesn't follow this system, then yes by my definition they are evil. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

So... let me try to get this right: if you disagree with a specific accord, like, let's say, a philosophical debate on good and evil should be posted in the "off topic tavern" and not in the "What's a player to do?" section (I' m taking a totally random accord, don't read anything into it... Tongue Out ) and I decided to be peacefull in my protestation by posting in said hypothetical debate, would a moderator forcing the post to be moved to the off topic tavern be evil, since I was peacefull?

Just asking, I'm getting confused!! 
Haha, of course nobody actually agreed to the social contract.  You agree it to it only by staying living within the borders of your country and receiving the benificts of it.  Ever gone to public school?  Use mail?  Roads?  You continue to agree to the social contract by using any of these things.  Sure, you were kind of forced to agree to it when you were born.  You're practically your parents property/responsibility until you're an adult (emancipated, etc.) so your parents sort of signed if for you by staying in the country.

When Krusk mentioned free land on the water and the moon, I think he was pointing out how there really isn't any free land available.  As unfair as it is, you pretty much have to agree to somebody's rules now.  There isn't any free land, countries are everywhere thanks to an ever increasing human population.  You are forced to agree to somebodies rules.  It's totally not fair, but unless you want to live on the moon or on international waters, you're out of luck.  Refuse to play by the rules and you get improsoned/fined/executed.