A moral question

[Sirperry]

Recently I ran a low level good campaign.  The party was exploring a dungeon infested with kobolds and goblins.  The party parleyed with the kobolds (due to overwhelming odds) and agreed to retrieve the kobold's mascot that was stolen by the goblins in exchange for safe passage through kobold territory.  The kobolds provided a lightly armed and armored guide to assist the party.  The guide was with the party through several encounters where he mostly avoided combat but did try to assist the party, especially when they fought goblins.  At the end of a particularly bloody encounter, a PC directed both of his attacks at the guide and killed him without warning.

I felt that the PC's action was both chaotic and evil. 
The player disagreed, stating that kobolds are evil, so it is both SMART and GOOD to kill them, not evil.
The player also defended his action by pointing out that HE had not personally agreed to anything.

What do you think ?
BTW, There were some unusual circumstances that hinged on the players alignments (and the players knew it), so this was an important detail. 

[Prime32]

Remember this: "Good means compassion". Ask yourself if that was a compassionate act.

[bhu]

What was his alignment?

Had the scout every done anything to him personally?

Does he have a history of being an attention whore who does stuff like this just to grind campaigns to a halt?

[Chemus]

Having been in on the campaign, I'll chime in here:

What was his alignment?

Listed as CG

Had the scout every done anything to him personally?

No. The player went along with it as long as the kobold had a use.

Does he have a history of being an attention whore who does stuff like this just to grind campaigns to a halt?

Attention whore? That about sums it up. The grinding campaigns to a halt? Dunno. 'Goes toward intent Your Honor...'

[AfterCrescent]

Was that random or thought out? Sounds random, but maybe the player had a reason other than "kobolds R teh Evilz!" If he did, it wouldn't be chaotic. But I second Prime's assessment. It was not good. It was, in fact, evil. Remember, evil kills evil all the fucking time.

[Rebel7284]

Ah the famous "Chaotic Stupid".

If you want to be nice, tell him his alignment is now Chaotic Neutral.  He should be aware that random unnecessary pain and death is what chaotic evil is all about and he's well on his way there.

edit: The only other alignment that could be argued is neutral evil since he used and then discarded the kobold.  Such manipulative ways COULD mean neutral evil.

[AndyJames]

Had the scout every done anything to him personally?

No. The player went along with it as long as the kobold had a use.

That is the definition of Evil. There are no two ways about it. On the Law/Chaos spectrum, he can be either, since if he technically did not say yes, then he is still behaving Lawfully when he whacked the Kobold. This is classic Devil behaviour.

[altpersona]

one act is not generally alignment shifting.. 


is it a pattern of behavior? 

you said it you thought it was chaotic and evil.. his listed alignment is chaotic and good.. one act to shift from G to E?

the real issue i see is if the party has a LG or two..

[AndyJames]

LoL! My impression was that this guy keeps doing things like that and the C and the G on his char sheet are just letters to him. Funny how a split second look can really fix things in your mind, eh?

[altpersona]

if he is continuously chaotic , then good...

if he is continuously killing friendly npc's then bad..

[Chemus]

That was the first time. But not the last. Player on at least three occasions went and killed potentially important NPC. Once we all were waffling, other times we had no warning.

[Sirperry]

I thought it was pretty obvious that it was an evil act.  I was merely looking for confirmation.  Thanks.

Yes, he does tend to cause games to grind to a halt
The guide's behavior could best be described as lawful neutral while he was with the party.

I do not believe it was a random thing.  The player tends towards planned mayhem.

While it is true that he did not participate in the parley and treaty, he was present and did not speak against it.  I regard that excuse as a complete copout (which is okay for a LE character but not a good character).

I do not try to stongarm players into shoehorned alignments and I agree that a single act usually does not change an alignment.

The real problem is that he plays every character, regardless of alignment and class, as a neutral evil rogue 

Like I said, I was really just looking to see if everyone else agreed with my position on this.  Thanks y'all !

[bhu]

If youd like to have a little fun with him go to WHen Inspiration Strikes and look at my Pain medication Inspired PrC's post, theres a few Kobolds at the bottom.  M.A.D.D. should do nicely.

[Shapeshifter]

Murderous betrayal does not become a "good" act (or even non-evil) just because the target was evil. If it were then, for instance, the most murderous and chaotic of the Drow would be good. Good and evil are not just "teams", they're philosophical systems.

The player is either confused or trying to deep six the game.

[Prak, the Mad]

Murderous betrayal does not become a "good" act (or even non-evil) just because the target was evil. If it were then, for instance, the most murderous and chaotic of the Drow would be good. Good and evil are not just "teams", they're philosophical systems.

The player is either confused or trying to deep six the game.

unless of course your dm has decided that in a specific world they're just teams. This is usually also a "Everything Wotc has published is kosher" game.

But yeah, killing the kobold without reason or warning is an evil act. One system I've seen used, which works fairly well, is an alignment point system, and "randomly"(ie, without obvious justification) and without warning killing an important, helpful npc is worth something like 10 evil points, and if you have more good or evil points than the other end of the spectrum, you're that alignment.

[Kuroimaken]

Well, I think everyone already claimed his act was irrevocably evil. To me, this guy needs a lesson or two in roleplaying.

Much as I dislike it, here's a suggestion. Get him a Greater Curse'd helm, bracelet, or whatever. Give it a little power, just so you don't say he's completely shafted.

Have the item drain or burn points off his most important stat every time he goes against the alignment he's supposed to be roleplaying.

It can be REALLY hard to convince an attention-whoring, one-shoe-fits-all kind of player to do good roleplaying. So hit him where it hurts: the dice.

[Sirperry]

Great suggestion Kuro 

[Prime32]

It's a good act to kill evil?

Two words: Light Yagami
He must be a saint.

[Kuroimaken]

It's a good act to kill evil?

Two words: Light Yagami
He must be a saint.

He actually renounced Sainthood right when he killed Raye Penber and his girlfriend.

[Prak, the Mad]

Light's a good character to keep in mind. Evil can do good, but it's going to do it in an evil way.

In other words, Evil can end a war that ensures the destruction of the world, but they're going to do it through genocidal slaughter of the supposed world destroyers.