|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:15AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2007
|
I do not understand the responses you have received so far that have avoided addressing the in-game nature of the action.
In-game, the action was evil, not "unaligned". He killed a companion who was already helpless. It did not save the party. It did not sacrifice the one for the good of the many. It did not serve the greater good. It did not even serve his own interests.
Altghough there may be out-of-game *player* conflict involved, the action was still evil.
Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.
There's no question that the player in question is an idiot who doesn't care about keeping his actions realistic, or even consistent, and to me there's also no question that he's using the tired dogde of "hey, I'm not evil, because I wrote Neutral/Unaligned down on my character sheet!"
However, in my experience, even stupid evil-but-not-really PCs don't murder each other on the spur of the moment. The DM's view of alignment is already hopeless, so arguing about whether the offending PC violated the terms of "unaligned" seems beside the point: even if everyone at the table agrees that his actions were evil, it doesn't bring Xun's PC back to life--nor does it prevent the same moron from PKing other PCs the next time he gets irritated.
So while it's clear that there are significant in-game problems, I would argue that resolving the clear metagame issues will resolve the in-character ones.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:17AM
#22
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Unaligned folks are not unwilling to commit evil. It simply requires that they have a really good reason to do it. Unaligned folks are ambiguously selfish. Not "selfish-bad" -- just "selfish". Their interests come first. This describes most real-life humans. Do good when you can. And don't do bad if you can help it.
Close to what I think, but I ease up on Unaligned a bit more from leaning so much towards good. "Do good when there is little risk towards you and brings favor, or if the risks match the rewards. Do bad if helps you, there will be no consequences, no one really gets hurt, and you can look in the mirror without regret afterwards."
Evil for me lies towards more "Selfish", as in all their motiviations lie in fulfilling their desires of accumulation(of Wealth, Food, Power), satisfaction(of Anger, Lust, Envy, Pride), or safety(of Power, Life, Secrets, Pride). If the actions do not satisfy the desires, there is no point in taking the action. If it does, then woe to anyone you have to step on to obtain it. But its always good to delay or replan the course of actions to limit the possible consequences to a minimum.
Chaotic Evil is of course, "For the Lulz." or "Because." grade motivations. Same motivations as of Evil, for fulfilling desires of accumulation, satisfaction, and safety. Just no cares about the consequences of their actions. Worse though, may be due to the simple fact they enjoy the acts they do.
Though all this can't help make me wonder, what action of the Wizard did the Rogue claim was his excuse to kill him?
Without waiting to have traps checked for I rushed in and opened the tomb without thinking and a creature came out and started attacking. He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:18AM
#23
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I think another problem is people are assuming that Unaligned is supposed to be what Chaotic Neutral was and it isn't.
No, I'm assuming Unaligned is what it means -- lacking any alignment that can act as a guide to behavior.
Chaotic neutral meant somebody dedicated to spreading chaos and liberty. An Unaligned character isn't dedicated at all.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:20AM
#24
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.
That's because your whole group doesn't understand alignment. Alignment doesn't "give rights". And being unaligned doesn't restrict behavior. The problem is that, apparently, the only restriction on being a jerk was that you find something in the description of your alignment to justify being a jerk. i still don't see why the answer isn't to institute a new table rule: Don't be a jerk!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:26AM
#25
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.
That's because your whole group doesn't understand alignment. Alignment doesn't "give rights". And being unaligned doesn't restrict behavior. The problem is that, apparently, the only restriction on being a jerk was that you find something in the description of your alignment to justify being a jerk. i still don't see why the answer isn't to institute a new table rule: Don't be a jerk!
What do you mean we don't understand what alignment is? Alignment is almost like a type of personality and in certain situations certain people feel like they have the right to do something. When you are good you feel like you have the right to vanquish evil, or if you are lawful you feel you have the right to deal justice to those who break the law.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:29AM
#26
|
|
|
I don't think this is a question of alignment. I've always played that even Good and Lawful Good characters can perform the occasional evil act, usually resulting in them having to atone.
It's a question of party cohesion. The rest of the group should turn the rogue's logic around on him, and say they can't tolerate a party member who is willing to kill the other members without a fair discussion from the group. And really: if you were the rest of the party, wouldn't you be rather nervous around that rogue? I say just kick the character out, even if he's Lawful Good.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:41AM
#27
|
|
|
Without waiting to have traps checked for I rushed in and opened the tomb without thinking and a creature came out and started attacking. He felt that because of my mistake I endangered the party which in turn he felt he was given the right to kill me when he had the chance because he was Unaligned.
....Thats it? Didn't help you get better, or not bothering to help save you are both actions I can understand. Out right killing though for stupidity....yeah, that was simply an act of evil and possibly closing in on Chaotic from my opinions on the aligment. Note, my opinions on alignment.
I know I've done stupid things in game, heck I've purposely done stupid things to get the ball rolling if it was in character. I fumble a Perception check, I dive right in thinking its clear rather then wait for someone else to double check. I may pull off Dagerously or Functional Genre Savvy at times in character, but sometimes playing ignorance is fun too.
But to out right kill a party member, for carelessness or stupidity? Ugh. Either that is Evil/Chaotic Evil levels, or simply Jerk reaction.
My reaction in unaligned would have likely been to let the wizard make death saving throws, while dealing with the problem he left behind. If he was still alive after everything was done, or got back up then lucky him. If he died, yay.
On wrecan and alignments? Yeah, I agree. It doesn't "Give rights" or limits behavior(to a degree). It is supposed to set the motivation of the character, and why he does what he does. If there is no motivation, take a hard look again at why you would do such a thing in character. If the motivation is completely against your alignment, something is going to change. Either your alignment, the character trying to redeem himself, or a consequence waiting in the wings.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 10:54AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
I'm going to toss my two cents in with wrecan. It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with your definition of Unaligned, the problem is with a character being a douchebag, and the way to solve the problem is to out and out state that there will be no douchbaggery.
If you ignore this advice because you must have an alignment system you're going to have to houserule what alignments mean, same as previous editions. In which case this board can't help you, you'll have to work something out with your group.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 11:03AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2007
|
Well the Unaligned Rogue made a stealth check and when nobody was looking he did a Coup de grace on me.
I think this part of the original post is something people are overlooking.
Not knowing the particulars of the situation, but forgoing attacking the current threat and hiding, waiting for the opportune time to gank something you perceive as a threat.
This is why I really, really dislike the unaligned alignment. People can use it as an excuse to do whatever, whenever they want and either hide behind and/or justify the action with the unaligned shield.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 11, 2010 - 11:11AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
I'm going to toss my two cents in with wrecan. It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with your definition of Unaligned, the problem is with a character being a douchebag, and the way to solve the problem is to out and out state that there will be no douchbaggery.
If you ignore this advice because you must have an alignment system you're going to have to houserule what alignments mean, same as previous editions. In which case this board can't help you, you'll have to work something out with your group.
QFT
We all know rule Zero
Well there also should be rule 0.5 which states don't be a jerk, don't be a jerky DM, don't be a jerky player, don't be passive-aggressive towards another player, don't be aggressive-aggressive towards another player, don't ever have your PC/NPC act out your own anger towards another player.
There should never ever be any player on player violence. Occasionally, if both players are okay with it and they work it out ahead of time they can roleplay out non-lethal conflict as long as it advances the story. Like when Sam and Dean comes to blows, but later in the episode they resolve their stuff and go kick demon butt.
Bottomline the alignment of the player in question is not the issues the issue is that he is killing another player which is terrible for the game.
Not liking the new forums.
|
|
|
