Editing Midnight RPG - Alignment Conversations

==Andrew==
There's been some neat discussion about alignment
being tossed around lately, particularly by Steve as
it relates to Eranon's possible shift from Lawful to
Neutral good. On that topic, I thought I'd raise this
and see what other people though about it:

In my opinion, the whole election-fixing thing that
Zal'Kazzir masterminded in the last session was a
thoroughly Evil act. In essence, he decided to
undermine the future of the first free settlement of
humans in who-knows-how-long, letting them believe
they had the right to govern themselves while secretly
consolidating power into the hands of a very few --
and not because it in any way benefited the citizens
of First-Hold, but in order to grant HIMSELF more
power. That's what I KNOW he did. He may very well
have done a lot of other stuff, dominated people,
etc., in order to get his way. But the initial act
alone? Totally evil. Evil as hell. If killing three
people while fighting the influence of an evil
artifact -- people who, I will add again, are openly
threatening your life -- is enough to shift one's
alignment to Evil, deliberately undermining humanity's
first new hope in a hundred years for obliquely
personal gain sure as hell should be.

It occurs to me that this may be entirely irrelevant,
since it seems as though Zal is becoming some sort of
demonic creature and may soon be shifting alignment
anyway. If Kevin didn't already have that in mind,
however, consider this to be a strongly-held opinion
that the election-rigging of First Hold should be more
than enough to alignment-shift Zal to evil.

Thoughts?



==Steve==
I pretty much agree with everything Andrew is saying here.  Though clever and good roleplaying, definately evil.  I have no more to say about that until more questions or commentary are raised.
 
-steve



==Bill==
I agree with your assessment of Zal's actions in the "election" (stretching
that word a bit).  The evil-ness of it is probably debatable, but I don't
think it's in the Neutral column.  I say it's debatable because I don't know
how much personal power he could gain from this.  So what if the guy in
power is friendly toward him?  We want them ALL to be friendly toward us as
a group, don't we?  His motivations could be fairly non-harmful, even if his
methods are seriously dirty.

So, we all talked about him turning into a demon.  What's this mean? 
Personally, I think how this happens is extremely complicated.  He's gone
through no transition whatsoever, and suddenly he's no longer human?   At the
very least, he should have lost his body along the way.  But, it's
complicated, and I don't know how many of the details Kevin's worked out
yet.  Based on his tendancy to commit, then alter as he goes, I'm guessing
it's as far as "He's a demon!" right now.  But going from being a creature
with a dual spirit (as D&D defines mortals, humanoids have both an eternal
soul and a "body"-like spirit that are separate, which is how it's possible
to resurrect a humanoid) to being a creature who IS a spirit (no dual
nature - just a spirit that can come in the form of a body) is just not
something that normally is EVER possible.  Kyuad becoming undead, as a point
of contrast, is the normal (but infortunate) result of death for many
creatures.

As a suggestion, perhaps the rules on how a D&D monk becomes an outsider at
later levels should be used as a guidline.  It's more a form of ascention
than a form of complete transformation, and that would make him not a demon,
but an outsider that is native to Aryth (this plane) and most similar to
demons.

Anyway, if things continue along the path to become more of a demon, it's
entirely likely that Zal'Kazzir will become a creature with the Evil
subtype, which would require that his alignment be evil.  It's not like with
undead or animals, which are most commonly (but not necessarily) found in
their natural state with evil or neutral alignments, respectively.  A
creature with the Evil subtype MUST be evil - it's inherant.

What worries me is that Adam is going to roleplay his alignment, and
according to what we've seen, he's really good at that.  So it's not like
he's going to start doing good things in an effort to make ammends.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: an Evil character has no business
being a PC in a game like this where we're trying to be heroes.  I think
that if Zal becomes Evil, then he becomes an NPC under Kevin's control and
Adam makes a new character.  This is the reason that my betrayer from the
previous Midnight campaign was no longer under my control after I actually
betrayed them, and I think we should follow prescident here.

-Bill



==Kevin==
On the topic of Eranon's alignment shift...  I'm open to thoughts on that from everyone.  I'm not sure one infraction - in this case allowing emotional care for the dragon to make him react, not to mention that it was pseudo out-of-game since it was only a gut reaction and not a direct question from which he responded.  The question about the dragon was more for Steve than Eranon, although it flowed over to game in a way.  Its less about the rules and more about the drama in this situation.  So I'm not looking to press any shift for that.  If that "lack" of lawful direction continues, then yeah - it should be considered.  Thoughts?



Note #1 - I don't think any other CHARACTER knows he "fixed" the election, correct?  He didn't tell anyone, did he?  (that's just a reminder not an accusation) 

Was Zal's action in fixing the election "evil"?  I'm not sure.  I know its wrong.  I know its unethical.  But is it "evil"?  There was a plot point in the new Battlestar Galactica show that had the "good guys" doing this to safeguard the fleet.  Doing it for the RIGHT reasons.  They eventually decided to make it known and not go through with it.  But its a good example.


So exactly WHY is that so evil?  

He was doing it for the betterment of First-Hold.  As a note (for the players) Captain Wilhelm Fogg [Erenlander, wildlander 4 - quickstride, Overland Stride] is NOT under the "employee" of Zal'Kazzir.  He is not a rogue and was never contacted by Zal (that you guys know of).  Side Note - I wish Adam hadn't blurted out that he had a secret spynet with the rogues, man that guy's GOT to learn to keep private game stuff private...  Anyhow, assuming that Zal is not in "control" of Wilhelm - he did so because Wilhelm was the best most honest choice.  I'd also note that while Kyuad saw some sort of "residual" magic illusionary energy around the wedding party (ie. Wilhelm's bride/family) after looking into it further (with Zal's aid) he determined that nothing seemed amiss with Wilhelm Fogg or his wife-to-be Mari Urraca.


I don't disagree completely, I'm just looking for more "definition" for this act.  But I agree with Bill that it seems less "Evil" and more Neutral with this maybe being an evil (lower case "E") action.  <font color="red">'''''BILL:''' I said it was '''not''' neutral.''</font>  Also, I'd note that an alignment shift, more toward evil, DOES seem reasonable based on the past actions of Zal  (conversely to Eranon).  I just want to discuss it further before taking it to Adam.  And if so, what "brand of Evil"?  Chaotic or Neutral Evil?


As far as it being "entirely irrelevant" with Zal "becoming" something else.  I'm not sure what you guys are talking about.  What details do you have (in AND out of character) that he's becoming something else?  Or a demonic creature of some sort?

The things I'd note that that might make you think this would be:
:*  Zal mentioned a name for which the Witch Queen could "call to him" and he'd "attend" the queen.  here's the quote:
:::  '''''If you have desperate need of me, I have ways of travelling to you very quickly, and am willing to do so if you require. If you have great need, you may Call me to you, though I place great trust and faith in you by doing so. You need but Call my name, and use the proper address of "Kepak Za'al" and I may attend you. This information I give ONLY to you, and I trust that you appreciate the significance and meanings of this information.'''''
::  With that I'd note that Zal can cast and recieve "Dreams" if she were to call to him.  He can also use the "Paths" to go to her quickly.  And he's already shown that he likes giving aliases to take care about deals made, the name '''Kepak Za'al''' he gave could be another alias and/or a code word for the Witch Queen so that he'll know its really her.
:*  Zal has appeared a little "sickly" in the days following the Battle for First-Hold.  Kyaud could have noticed that Zal has been having sporadic pain, looking unhealthy, his skin paler than normal, and eyes looking as though he needs sleep.  But also note that he's done alot of "Dream" spell casting that might make him lose some sleep, not to mention just having come out of the major battle and recovering from wounds...  This (while noteworthy) is actually probably LESS odd than Eranon's own health issues (ie. having lost and restored 2 negative levels following the battle).


Anything else??


More importantly to me for the campaign...  HOW does and will this effect the in-game group, and the overall campaign?  Will it "matter" much for the party right now?  In the future?  How so?


If Zal (Adam) in the future wanted to turn into something else (of demonic nature) I'd have to figure that out at the time.  I'm not sure if there are templates or some sort of class for that.  I'll ask Adam what he's thinking about (if anything).  

To note Bill's point...  As far as you know, other than anything above there have been no other "changes" to Zal that anyone's noticed.  That doesn't mean something hasn't happened.  I'm neither confirming nor denying that.  You just haven't noticed or investigated it further...  If you want to do so, do something in-game or by bluebook and we'll go from there.  No one's "looked" in any way to know if he's "suddenly no longer human" as Bill notes.  I'm not sure why you all think that.  But I'm open to you looking for more...

I can imagine it WOULD be a complicated procedure to change into something else demonic-like.  If Adam wanted to do that I'd want to sit down with him to have a detailed conversation about it, and make notes on a wiki page to remember what would come of it.



One thing I really really REALLY need you guys (Bill and Adam specifically) to do is STOP STOP STOP saying things are "normally impossible".  That's crazy talk.  Its a magical fantasy world.  I understand that we have RULES that make things "improbable"  but NOTHING is subject to change or impossibility when it comes to the "magic" of the world.  If I want to change a creature's abilities (say giving an Umber Hulk the powers of a Rust Monster) FOR Midnight and our campaign - BING!  it's done.  If a player gets turned into a psuedo-Lich - BING!  Its totally possible!!  As long as there's an "in-game" "in-world" reason, I'm not going to NOT make the change.

In a way I wish all of you would (to a point) react the way STEVE reacts to monsters/magic/etc...  He just doesn't know the details of the rules for certain things, so he never "questions" anything with an accusatory negative means. It just "stinks" or is "cool"!  

So please.  Don't point out the flaws in such directed accusatory (you're cheating) ways.  If something's different, think about how your CHARACTER would deal with it.  



On a side note - sometimes I DO accidentally miss a rule.  So, I AM very cool with you noting that "this is the way it is in the rules"  however, when I say.  "Yup, I know"  or  "Really? Show me?"  then that's the end.  I'll look it up and use it or not.  I'll do my best to keep the RULES under the table, that is - to not make you aware if I've altered something or not.  Mostly so YOU can each be surprised.



Back on point - if you have a note about something being "impossible" normally.  Please note the rule, book and page number as best you can.  (or a link to the SRD)  So I can reference it myself and reply.  Same said at game, if you "doubt" sometime - please look it up and be ready to show me when you question something.  I actually LIKE when you do that, but HATE when anyone comes at me telling me I'm wrong with no back up.  Sometimes I am wrong (I'm human), but sometimes I've made a CHOICE to change something.

What I PROMISE you is that if/when I change something it will ALWAYS have "internal continuity" for the rules and in-game background.  For example - if an Umber Hulk suddenly can disolve mettle with a touch, there WILL be a reason - that some twisted Mother-Wife made these things for a Legate looking to impress someone and there are only 5 in existance, etc.. etc... etc..



If Adam chooses to talk to me about any change I will reference the D&D Monk rules for becoming an outsider.  That's a great suggestion.  I haven't ever looked at them.  Question Bill - how/why would "that make him not a demon, but an outsider that is native to Aryth (this plane) and most similar to demons"?


If Zal were to become something else - I'd assume that his alignment would be based on whatever he was becoming.  Meaning, if he wanted to try to become one of the Fallen - he'd become whatever alignment they are.  Or if its an archon, it'd be that alignment.  I don't know, but that seems right...



As for Adam playing his alignment.  I honestly don't think that playing an "Evil" character is as problematic as it might seem at first glance.  Frankly, in Midnight it might even be easier than a normal D&D game or other RPG.  While I (personally) don't like the idea of player characters being Evil  (I'm more into heroics)  I can and do see the potential.  Especially in Eredane.  It seems like you could be Evil and still do things that would work in-line with what the resistance needs.  Its just when things turn in the resistance's favor (as example with First-Hold becoming "free") is when an Evil character might show his stripes...  Then again, Evil isn't stupid.  I'd say that simply deceiving your "friends" and maybe even trying to have them help you do "Evil" gains is evil in and of itself.

I just don't think that alignment as used traditionally in a D&D game is as black and white as "normal", and PCs could play "Evil" as long as they maintain a good in-game character working relationship.  As soon as the dynamic of the game is messed up due to that "Evil" character then it goes down one of two ways.... either:
:*  the Evil character kills one or more of the PCs and new PCs join him
:*  the Evil PC is forced from the party (or killed) by the other PCs and he makes a new PC
Again - neither of those mean that the new PCs couldn't be just as evil.  Its just a new bar and line set.  But until that point, if anyone "went Evil" I don't think its a game ended.  The big reason it mattered for Durgaz was that:
:*  a.  Durgaz is much more obvious in action than Zal, and an "Evil" Durgaz would be much more overt.
:*  b.  Alignment mattered to Durgaz's abilities and code.



So while I agree that I prefer "non-Evil" characters in a campaign (especially one of this epic nature), I don't think its bad.  I DO think it CAN ONLY either lead to:
:*  that Evil PC's eventual downfall
:*  the PC's overall goal being destroyed in the end by that Evil's actions

YES - "fight fire with fire" and "being more dark than the Shadow" have been quotes in-game from Lloth and others, but once that brand of "Evil" succeeds... then what??  That's the repercussion that dooms the PC's overall "Good" intentions.  


And strangely enough...  I'm okay with THAT being an end to our campaign.  As the lead storyteller (GM), that would BE a satisfying END to the campaign for the story.  BUT, is that what YOU all want as players and characters?  If not, you need to figure that out IN-GAME.  To be honest, almost ALL of the PCs are on that slippery slope that could be "defined" as "Evil" in a "Good" world.  
:*  Zal is definately closest to "Evil" if not already, his ways/actions are dangerously close to evil - even if the goal is good and the heroes "win" in the end, will he be able to stop his ways?
:*  Durgaz is second on the close to "Evil" list...  His ways (while 100% ORC in nature, bravo for the Role-play) ARE still slanted toward an "Evil" direction.  Orcs are "Evil".  There culture is "Evil".  That has to change dramatically to be acceptable in a "Good" or "Neutral" world.
:*  Kyaud is next in my opinion... While Kyuad doesn't do anything "Evil" necessarily, just dealing with the undead and dead bodies and such has always been taboo in most "Good" and "Neutral" cultures.  Is there a place in that new world for this type of person?
:*  Eranon is the furthest away from "Evil"...  but its his race's insular ways that make it a hard road for him to walk.  Being able to adapt to others (PCs or cultures) while still maintaining a "non-Evil" way is the thing he'll need to do.



So... in the end.  YES - if Zal (or any others) become "Evil" and it changes the nature of the entire group or disrupts the entire campaign...  YES he would become an NPC.  But just going to "Evil", in my humble opinion, will not immediately make him an NPC and unplayable character.  

TRUE - I do not want to run or play in this campaign with an EVIL direction.  But using the Evil in the world to head toward the Epic Destiny of the "majority" of the PCs goals... that's okay by me, as defined above.  The example of Bill's old character in the previous campaign is and was a different goal.  We determined from the beginning that Bill wanted to play a "role" that WOULD eventually end.  We played it out and it rocked.


If/when it gets to that direction, that Zal (or any other) would be so "Evil" as to disrupt the campaign - then its actually MORE likely that the other PCs would KILL him.  But if possible/appropriate he would become an NPC.



Honestly, to me, if Zal becomes "Evil".  I see it balancing out IN-GAME more than me, us, having to "worry" about it out-of-game.  Adam will be "warned" about this, I think he already has been.  But if (or when) Durgaz or another KILLS Zal in-game, that's when it'll likely come to a conclusion.  That or when Zal makes a deal that seals YOUR fate!  ;)

==Bill==
I spoke off the cuff in the previous email.  Let me revise some of what I
said.

The [http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monsterTypes.html#evil Evil subtype] doesn't mean the character MUST be evil.  I could buy a Zal-turned-
demon character (with the Evil subtype) that remains Chaotic Neutral without
having any issues with it at all.

-Bill

==Andrew==
::  ''So, we all talked about him turning into a demon. What's this mean? Personally, I think how this happens is extremely complicated.  He's gone through no transition whatsoever, and suddenly he's no longer human?''

Well, we as players have no idea what it means. In
fact, I'm going to venture that Adam as a player
probably doesn't really know what's happening. I don't
know exactly what Kevin told him, if anything, but
this wouldn't be the first time Adam took a tidbit of
information and leaped to wildly inaccurate conclusion
from it.

That doesn't mean that Zal can't TELL the other PCs
that he's becoming a demon (he didn't, because he
knows that we associate demons with evil, but he did
tell us he was becoming something else.) We don't know
what's really going on, and neither do our characters,
so I wouldn't start worrying about what this means or
whether it makes metaphysical sense until we have more
information to work with.

::  ''The evil-ness of it is probably debatable, but I don't think it's in the Neutral column.  I say it's debatable because I don't know how much personal power he could gain from this.  So what if the guy in power is friendly toward him?  We want them ALL to  be friendly toward us as a group, don't we?  His motivations could be fairly non-harmful, even if his methods are seriously dirty.''

Right, but motivation and intention has nothing to do
with whether something's an evil act or not. That's
why the road to hell isn't paved with deliberate ill
will. Neither does it matter whether he actually
stands to gain anything personally. What does matter
is that he's taken the first independent human
settlement to rise in a century and outfitted it with
a puppet government controlled by a secret unelected
cabal which nobody knows about but him. Even if he did
this with what he genuinely believed were the best
interests of First-Hold in mind, he's still dashed
whatever chances the settlement might have had of
starting out as a truly free society, and he did it
knowingly and willingly, with no regard whatsoever for
the damage he might be doing in the process ... and
someone like Zal would certainly know what happens to
societies that are set up this way.

That's assuming that his intentions WERE good ones,
and that he really DID decide to do this because he
thought it would benefit First-Hold, not for some sort
of personal gain. Which is, let's face it, pretty damn
unlikely. And as I said before, I don't think good
intentions would make it any less evil.

::  ''I've said it before and I'll say it again: an Evil character has no business being a PC in a game like this where we're trying to be heroes.  I think that if Zal becomes Evil, then he becomes an NPC under Kevin's control and Adam makes a new character.''

I don't necessarily agree. If Zal does become Evil, it
shouldn't be an issue at all until the other PCs have
reason to become aware of it. At that point, it's up
to them to figure out what, if anything, should be
done about it. Zal's turning Evil doesn't necessarily
mean he automatically becomes a cackling sociopath.

I will say this, though: I'm done coming up with
reasons to make Durgaz tolerate what should be
unacceptable behavior. Both Adam and Zal have to
understand this by now. If push comes to shove
(again), Zal'Kazzir's being a PC will no longer afford
him any special privileges, as far as I'm concerned.

==kevin==
Good point about Adam/Zal allowing it to be the first time Adam took a tidbit of information and leaped to wildly inaccurate conclusion from it.

100% true that no one knows what (if anything) is going on with Zal "becoming" anything or not.


I think its hard to say conclusively that motivation and intention has nothing to do with an act being evil or not.  It definately makes it in a GRAY territory, but the old example of "would you kill a baby Hitler" is a great example of intention for good in an evil act.

So HAS one act, from a "founding father", actually doomed any chance for First-Hold to make a difference?  I don't know if that's true.  Its definitely a bad start, but then again noone knows that it was a false election...  Is that bad?


I agree with Andrew that its up to the PCs to determine what to do with an "Evil" character if/when that ever comes up.  Afterall no one has an alignment sign over his head, so really... who's to know unless actions in-game note that.  This is different than Bill's old character, since that character's "story arc" WAS out and out betrayal.  Zal hasn't shown or done that directly... yet.  <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' So you'' say.</font>


I also think its perfectly FAIR, FUN and COOL that you each act in-character.  I think, in the past, the actions of Zal have NOT been worth driving him out or KILLING him without a chance.  He's been given those chances.  If he goes too far again, he should feel the ramifications.  So YES - you SHOULD play your character as you think he would act.  I think that's fair.  I think Adam (and Zal) are aware of this by now.


HOWEVER,  that said...
I'd also note that if/when it comes to that, I'd ask/suggest that IF Zal (Adam) tries to talk or offer a new comprise that you at least consider it.  NOW... I know letting the wizard with mind magic talk could be deadly, however.  I want each of you to consider allowing for him to offer you a solution.

My point here is that I would NEVER allow a PC to just slip poison in your drink or slit your throat in your sleep WITHOUT a CHANCE to be able to know/stop it.  Its just not fair.  So.  With that, just killing Zal in one blow  (or with a planned attack)  will be both unfair and unsatisfying to the PC, to the player and to the game.  

If/when it comes to this.  It should be a FIGHT TO REMEMBER, one in which Zal has a chance to defend himself (though not overly so) and or just escape!)  


I am NOT suggesting you do anything different or false.  But if/when it ever comes to this I ASK that you discuss it with me privately BEFORE enacting it.  I've forced Adam to do this on numerous occasions when Zal has done something secretive to other players.  I have ALWAYS given YOU clues to his actions and a chance to learn them, and react.  So I want to be able to do the same thing FOR Adam if it were to ever come to that.  That doesn't mean I'd want to hobble you so that Zal can take over your mind unfairly.  However, he should be able to defend himself.

That's important to note.  Don't just think about THIS in terms of "Durgaz will KILL Zal if xx happens".  Because he might try BUT Zal might be able to defend.  So that's when you need to rely on your team/friends.  I don't want Andrew pissed at the game IF Zal were to get a spell off and Dominate Durgaz before he's killed...  That's not cool.  Its not player vs. player.  It would be character vs. character vs. the group.


Does that make sense?



SO...
In the end - do not EVER expect a simple "easy kill" situation no matter how "Evil" the character is/gets.  There will always BE a chance for the other character to act in the "suprise round" if not see the actions coming BEFORE initiative starts.  That's only fair and I'd do it for all of you.


Yes?


== Bill ==

'''''Note:''' I left comments above in red italics.''

Another thing occurred to me, but I'm going to white it out (highlight to read) in case you don't want a possible OOC spoiler:

<font color="white">It's possible that a demon has possessed Zal.  That's how outsider spirits gain bodies - they possess other beings and take over that body.  If this is the case, we might soon lose Zal completely, and we should act to save him from this.  If it's not the case, and if in fact his soul has changed from that of a human in its own body to that of a demon that is (technically) possessing '''a''' body, then it's still going to appear to us (using the normal means of detecting this sort of thing) that he's possessed and when we try to fix it, Zal loses his body.  It's kind of a catch 22 in that respect.</font>

<font color="white">There's also the possibility that he took up a night king on some kind of offer.  Perhaps Sululael has Ardherin dead to rights and is grooming Zal as his replacement.  The transformations could be totally explained that way, because he'd be changing into a night king meant to replace Demon's Bane.  I hope we get our own opportunity to make this happen on our own though.</font>

The difference between the way a monk turns into an outsider and the way outsiders (trapped spirits) in Midnight work is pretty big.  If Zal ''becomes'' an outsider, then he's actually becoming a disembodied eternal spirit that is currently possessing a body.  

The spirit of a normal mortal is linked with the body, and once the two are severed, the spirit only has two options: "death" (freedom to be no more), or "bondage" (remain attached to a dead body - undeath).  This whole thing is the metaphysical explanation given for how resurrection magic works - the body is given life (a blast of positive energy) while the spirit is called back into oneness with the corporeal form.  Becoming a Fell is similar, except that it doesn't involve the positive energy that would give the body life, so it goes on attempting to continue the same processes without an internal source of positive life energy.

''The previous information is based on the descriptions given for how outsiders and humanoids differ, and on how the Midnight system of life and unlife is described.''

So this all changes for Zal if he becomes a demon.  He instead becomes an eternal, fully singular spirit with only one aspect, and no inherent oneness with corporeality.  So in order for him to have a body at all, he has to force the soul of a mortal into submission and steal the use of that soul's bonded "body" spirit.  If that body dies, he suffers nothing but an inconvenience as he himself simply exits and attempts to find another body to possess.  It works just like astiraxes though, so he'd have a weakness too.  Most likely Law and something else.

Monks in D&D work differently.  They simply become a magical creature.  Stats stay the same, but other things that affect the monk do so as if he were an outsider (mainly this refers to things like dominate person, which only works on humanoids - this wouldn't work on a level 20 monk at all).  The monk remains a being of a dual nature, and total destruction of the body still means death of the spirit (or freedom, whathaveyou, but it does '''not''' mean that the spirit can take another body).  The monk also gains other benefits.

So, here's something to consider, if the details aren't already worked out and Zal is in fact turning into something else.  This new being that he is going to become is considered an outsider of the [http://dndsrd.net/monsterTypes.html#chaotic Chaotic subtype] (even though he's still a human).  As such, from the SRD for that subtype: "A creature with the chaotic subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were chaotic-aligned."  This doesn't prevent him from becoming more Lawful, but it fits the character.  Similarly, the Evil subtype could be applied as well, and not necessarily change him to Evil alignment - but he's still subject to things that target or detect Evil.  In actual fact and implementation, Zal's body and spirit are still linked - resurrection works on his flesh, and there is still the oneness between the "soul" spirit and the "body" spirit.  He doesn't become a trapped spirit at all, but his body is considered Outsider (native) to all things that affect him.  If you give him other Outsider abilities like Darkvision and Telepathy, I suggest he also have vulnerabilities, since there is no drawback to any of this.  These could be rolled from [http://darknessfalls.leaderdesslok.com/world_creatures-trapped.htm this table] (scroll down) or just picked.  Perhaps this vulnerability simply cannot be protected against (like any source of DR he gains has this key) OR he takes 50% more damage from this source.

If it's judged that this is a bad idea, I'm still not too hip to him becoming a demon.  What's happening is that he's becoming a different type of creature with a lot of benefits and few drawbacks - namely, he has to commit a pretty evil act to get a body if his current one dies, and he can be called/summoned.  The first sucks because it requires an evil act (possession) but there's no way to kill him now.  Ever.  Compared to Kyuad's phylactery situation, that's pretty uber.  Especially given that possession is based on Charisma, and that gives him a pretty good chance of possessing any of the PCs, much less everything else.  The drawback of being able to be summoned/called is similar to Kyuad's vulnerability to Turning - it would suck more if it happened but it's far less likely to happen too.  So for similar benefits and penalties as what Kyuad got for turning into a lich, Zal suffers two of the drawbacks (but no social interaction problems, and standard healing isn't deadly) and becomes a trapped spirit.  

The balance issues I'm fine with.  I only point it out to show the similarity.  But I kinda wish the situation had less than a plainly obvious correlation with what happened to Kyuad.  Seems like we could come up with something more imaginative than "Let's do this again!"  For that reason more than the demonic stuff, I hope something else is going on.  It really makes Kyuad's situation seem like a trial run instead of something unique in the group.

Then again, I don't know, maybe this is just "the plan" for everyone, and Kyuad was only the first of the four of us to get hit with it.

== Andrew ==

::  ''On the topic of Eranon's alignment shift... <snip> Thoughts?''

Here's what I told Steve when he asked my opinion: I don't think what Eranon did with the dragon (choosing the "good" choice over the "right" choice, or Good over Lawful) would have been enough to force an alignment change if he didn't want one. Since Steve had been making noises about possibly changing alignment for some time, though, I DID feel as though that moment would be a good catalyst for cementing that change. 

::  ''Note #1 - I don't think any other CHARACTER knows he "fixed" the election, correct? He didn't tell anyone, did he? (that's just a reminder not an accusation)''

Nope. None of the other characters knows, or has any reason to suspect.

::  ''Was Zal's action in fixing the election "evil"? I'm not sure. ... <snip> There was a plot point in the new Battlestar Galactica show that had the "good guys" doing this to safeguard the fleet.''

Kevin, if you're referencing that Battlestar Galactica episode in an argument AGAINST the inherent evil-ness of election fixing, I strongly suggest you go back and re-watch the episode. The conclusion drawn by the "heroes" in that episode was that building a brand-new society on a foundation of lies could NEVER be justified, even though they had very good, non-selfish reasons for wanting to ensure their opponent did not win.

::  ''He was doing it for the betterment of First-Hold.''

Where do we get that? It's not as though Zal'Kazzir tallied the votes and realized that the villagers had voted to elect someone who would have had serious detrimental effects on the future of First-Hold. No ... he, Zal, decided who he wanted to win, told the council to vote, pretended their votes were being counted and then proclaimed HIS choice the winner. No, we have no hard evidence (as players) that he did so for his own personal gain. However, if that wasn't his motivation, why did he keep it a secret? Why didn't he discuss it with the other PCs? Why didn't he just publicly APPOINT a leader, instead of pretending to carry out the will of the people while secretly doing whatever he pleased? I doubt anyone would have minded ... he had to explain to them all how democracy worked, remember? So why the deception?

::  ''As a note (for the players) Captain Wilhelm Fogg is NOT under the "employee" of Zal'Kazzir.''

No, he is not. However, Adam made it abundantly clear that he had assured Wilhelm's win because he believed Wilhelm to be a figurehead, an "empty suit" that could be easily controlled by his secret shadow government. This is player knowledge, of course, but it's as a player that I'm arguing this point of view. 

::  ''Anyhow, assuming that Zal is not in "control" of Wilhelm - he did so because Wilhelm was the best most honest choice.''

Sure, OK. As long as we totally disregard everything Adam said about why he was having Zal do this, and as long as we put complete faith in the purity of Zal'Kazzir the character's motives ... then yes, we can come to this conclusion. 

But even if we do those things, the election was still a sham, and Wilhelm was obviously NOT the best most honest choice, or he would have won the election. Hell, maybe he did. We'll never know, because it was rigged.

::  ''Also, I'd note that an alignment shift, more toward evil, DOES seem reasonable based on the past actions of Zal ... <snip> if so, what "brand of Evil"? Chaotic or Neutral Evil?''

I don't see any indication that he's become any less chaotically-inclined than he was. If Zal went evil, he would be chaotic evil.

::  ''As for Adam playing his alignment. I honestly don't think that playing an "Evil" character is as problematic as it might seem at first glance.''

Not inherently, no. As a player, I don't think there's any reason to arbitrarily turn a PC into an NPC just because his alignment switches to evil.

However, Zal'Kazzir is on, like, strike four here as far my PC's tolerance for his "questionable" acts is concerned. I don't need to remind you how many times now I (Andrew) have had to sit down and come up with yet another reason why my character would do nothing to stop someone he would considered to be extremely dangerous, when the only REAL reason was that the dangerous person was a player character. If Zal turns evil -- and, more to the point, starts acting in accordance with his new alignment -- I'm not going to do this any more. Adam has been warned about this. Zal has been warned about this. If he decides to ignore those warnings, any consequences of that decision are his responsibility, not mine, Steve's, yours or Bill's.

::  ''I think its hard to say conclusively that motivation and intention has nothing to do with an act being evil or not. It definately makes it in a GRAY territory, but the old example of "would you kill a baby Hitler" is a great example of intention for good in an evil act.''

How is this relevant? We're not talking about killing a baby Hitler. We're talking about building corruption and deceit into a newly-formed society from its very genesis ... NOT because any particular reason exists to think that calamity would occur otherwise, but simply because a single person decides that he wants it done that way. I agree that there are circumstances under which one could arguably do evil in the service of good, but this totally wasn't one of those.

I mean, unless I'm missing something. Did Zal somehow know that whoever won the election legitimately would turn out to be a genocidal maniac, or lead First-Hold to destruction? Was it sheer coincidence that the people he appointed to his "shadow government" had no qualifications other than the fact that they had apparently pledged loyalty to him?

::  ''So HAS one act, from a "founding father", actually doomed any chance for First-Hold to make a difference? I don't know if that's true. Its definitely a bad start, but then again noone knows that it was a false election... Is that bad?''

You tell me. Historically, how have nations whose governments were established through bogus elections or secretly controlled from behind the scenes turned out?

Are you telling me that if nobody ''knew'' Durgaz killed those three men, or was made to believe they'd died in a boating accident or something, that would have made the killings OK?

::  ''I'd also note that if/when it comes to that, I'd ask/suggest that IF Zal (Adam) tries to talk or offer a new comprise that you at least consider it.''

As a player, absolutely ... having Zal die or leave the group some other way shakes things up in ways that I would not be happy with. HOWEVER, as I said before, I'm very tired of having to come up with more ways that I can justify Durgaz saying "OK, Zal, but next time I'm ''really'' gonna do something." I mean, how many times do your suspicions have to be proven right before you act on them? If I keep doing this, you'll have a genuinely strong case for shifting Durgaz's alignment away from Lawful, simply because he keeps making situational allowances for deviating from his code. I'm serious.

::  ''SO... In the end - do not EVER expect a simple "easy kill" situation no matter how "Evil" the character is/gets. <snip> That's only fair and I'd do it for all of you.''

Agreed. That is only fair.

However, IF it comes down to that, I DO ask that you keep in mind whose choices made things turn out that way. It's not fair for us to kill Adam's character without giving him a chance to defend himself, but it's also not fair to the rest of us if Adam's conscious decision to repeatedly ignore warning after warning ... and our finally getting fed up enough with it to react in a way that the situiation demands ... ends up destroying the campaign for everyone.



==Kevin==
On Bill's note:  '''''"I know you've got the power to just decide anything works any way you want, but the game is sooooooooooooooooo much more fun when you don't."'''''  I just completely disagree.  And I'd have to question WHY you think that??

: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Because arbitrary changes to things that should be within the realm of knowledge or control of our characters is maddening.  To me.  Do I really have to put the words "to me" at the end of everything I write?  It's me writing it.  "The game is soooo much more fun (to me) when you don't."  See?  Anyway, point was that because it's possible to use the rules to make something work, it's best to do so (I'm making this as an absolute statement, not a matter of opinion or to point out my preference) rather than just not bothering with explaining how it's done, because at some point an explanation '''will''' be necessary, for one reason or another.  And if your only explanation is "because I'm the GM dammit" then it makes me as a player feel pretty powerless, and makes me want to give up trying to answer the more interesting questions.  Questions deserve answers, and "because I'm the GM dammit" is a cop-out, considering that it is totally within the realm of your abilities (and ours, by extension) to come up with a legitimate answer for the way things are.  '''Point:''' hey, let's at least TRY to come up with something.''</font>

I will always use internal continuity with the game, and traditionally I WILL use monsters/spells/NPCs/places as written in the books when I use them - I do NOT AGREE that "its more fun when I don't".  I know it might be confusing to YOU as a player who KNOWS the rule or rules or description or whatever.  But that shouldn't make it "less fun" in any way.  In the best of worlds for playing a game YOU (the player) wouldn't know or have read ANY of the rules for the things that come after you or things you meet.  Yes... that's let predictable, but that's life.  That's the adventure of the unknown, that's FUN. 

I don't like, don't plan to, and don't want to go into every situation with YOU knowing exactly what "xx" monster can do.  Or what "xx" disease is and how to counter it.  Or knowing the answer because you read it in a stat block.  That's SOOOOO less fun for me GMing.  And frankly it hamstrings the stories we can tell.  

So as noted I will follow an internal consistency, but two things you'll have to just deal with:
:*  the GM can/will change anything as needed  (but I'll always be fair about it)
:*  not knowing is not a bad thing  (its another part of the game's challenge)

In the end I'm happy when you come to me with "this is different from the rules, here's the book/page on how it normally works..."  but DO NOT just expect me to say "oh, you're right...."  This is still an issue I have with your (Bill) and Adam's communication style.  Your manner of relaying this make me feel like you think I'm an idiot, that I didn't read or KNOW its different.  Sometimes I might miss it, but the majority of the time I know EXACTLY what I'm doing.  I have ran the game fairly smoothly for 38 sessions.  Not to mention all the other games I've ran or am running.  Your comments always ALWAYS seem antagonistic in nature.  You might not mean them that way - but that's my perception.



Next...

Bill you noted some interesting thoughts on what's "really" happening with Zal (if anything IS happening at all).  If you want to entertain those ideas, I'm more than happy to help.  I'd suggest either exploring them by talking to the other PCs in a Bluebook, in-character in-game, or both.  You're welcome to note how you go about this investigation in bluebook or during games and I'm happy to help Kyuad roll through those ideas.  Remember though, I've never confirmed nor denied that there is ANYTHING going on with Zal.  So this is all hypothetical.  Remember one BIG part of Midnight as we've established is PARANOIA... Don't forget that.  Cause this is NEAT!


I've noted all your thoughts on changing into something else.  Good thoughts, if it ever comes up it'll be handy for reference.  On your last notes...

:::  '''''"If it's judged that this is a bad idea, I'm still not too hip to him becoming a demon."'''''
:::  and your comparisons to Kyuad becoming a Lich. 
:::  and this note... '''''"But I kinda wish the situation had less than a plainly obvious correlation with what happened to Kyuad. Seems like we could come up with something more imaginative than "Let's do this again!" For that reason more than the demonic stuff, I hope something else is going on. It really makes Kyuad's situation seem like a trial run instead of something unique in the group. Then again, I don't know, maybe this is just "the plan" for everyone, and Kyuad was only the first of the four of us to get hit with it."'''''


Don't be concerned... IF ever there comes some change I'll consider this.  I also agree that I don't ever want any PC to have a rehash of the same thing.  That's lame.  So if it were to happen it would have a different situation and set of criteria.  I would use Kyuad (and other notes) as precident, but not just to "Let's do this again".  


I'll ask again that you (and Adam) PLEASE not talk in absolutes.  You set down this "ultimatums" of your like/dislike of things and it make it REALLY hard for me to GM the situations.

When you note "If it's judged that this is a bad idea, I'm still not too hip to him becoming a demon." it makes me feel like if its not done YOUR way you'll disapprove and have less fun or be unhappy with my choice.  I don't want or need to hear that.  It makes the game less fun for me.  And honestly I wish you wouldn't summarily comment that way.  Same said with the above:  '''''"but the game is sooooooooooooooooo much more fun when you don't."'''''.  That's ONLY your point of view.  Some people actually LOVE when things get changed.  One of those players is me.  Please consider that.



On to Andrew's comments...

You're right Andrew - I was referring to that BSG episode, and I do know that the "good guys" went back and fixed it.  However the people that made the choice (the secondary characters to Adama and Roslyn) totally thought they were doing it for a GOOD cause.  It was just a comparison.  I know what eventually happened in the show, but UNTIL others learn of the true outcome of the vote, it CAN'T be "changed" for the better by anyone.  'Cause no one knows... yet.  ;)


As for WHY Zal made the deceptions of the vote... I don't know.  It wasn't my choice.  I was just noting that I "think" he did it from a non-Evil point of view.  I could be wrong though, he IS "Chaotic" after all.  I was giving him the benefit of doubt.  :)

Good point about knowing "as a player" that Adam considers Wilhelm to be "an empty suit".  I forgot that.  Damn, I wish Adam could keep some things private.  In a way that'd be more fun to have private.  In a way though, its fun being public since its made a fun conversation here... :)


I agree that you shouldn't feel "constrained" as much anymore.  He's been "warned" in and out of character.  I'd note though, as a point of reflection, that Durgaz learned (and is learning) LOTS about the way of humans.  Last session was awesome for this fact.  So I'm wondering if these revelations will offer any more insight into Zal as a fellow warrior in the battle.  Maybe giving him another benefit of doubt.  I'm not saying you SHOULD do that.  I'm just noting a thought that might happen.


On that note - I forgot to mention...  Remind me of something that Captain Willis wants to talk to Durgaz about next game session.  Or if you want we can do a bluebook about it.  Its not alot but I think its a very important character bit for that NPC to talk to Durgaz about.


Back to Zal...  Overall, I'm NOT defending/disagreeing or arguing with you about an alignment shift.  I'm just playing devil's advocate (hehe, no pun intended but oh so appropriate!) and asking questions to get the conversation thought through enough to GO to Adam with the change if necessary.  So don't think I'm disagreeing with you.


You're right about not wanting to destroy the campaign for everyone though, that's my main focus.  I don't think its necessarily headed that way, but I'll always have that at the highest point of my consideration.  Don't worry on that angle. 


More?

==Andrew==

::''I'd note though, as a point of reflection, that Durgaz learned (and is learning) LOTS about the way of humans. Last session was awesome for this fact. So I'm wondering if these revelations will offer any more insight into Zal as a fellow warrior in the battle. Maybe giving him another benefit of doubt. I'm not saying you SHOULD do that. I'm just noting a thought that might happen.''

Maybe, if not for the fact that what Durgaz has learned/is learning about the ways of humans involves heretofore alien concepts of trust and respect, neither of which is remotely applicable to what Zal has done here. Election-fixing, lying, and deception are not "the ways of humans." (OK, they are, but this is a fantasy game, so let's pretend for a moment that we're dealing with basically good, idealized humans.) They're also not "the ways of orcs". You know what they are the ways of? Legates.

Of course, this doesn't technically matter, because "these revelations" are currently unknown to Durgaz or to other members of the party. 

Incidentally, I remain baffled as to why your reaction to every Zal/Durgaz conflict thus far has always been along the lines of "Maybe Durgaz should learn to tolerate Zal'Kazzir's lying and deceiving his allies" and not, you know, "Maybe Zal'Kazzir should stop lying and deceiving his allies." I'm not judging your point of view, I'm just mystified by it.

<br>
::''As for WHY Zal made the deceptions of the vote... I don't know.  It wasn't my choice.  I was just noting that I "think" he did it from a non-Evil point of view.  I could be wrong though, he IS "Chaotic" after all.  I was giving him the benefit of doubt.  :)''

Fair enough. Like I said to Bill, though, I don't know that "intent" has anything to do with what makes something an evil act. Most people who commit acts we'd consider evil don't do it because they're Eeeevilll ... they do it because they have some twisted idea of how to do good. Mao Tse-tung killed eighty million people to bring his nation into the twentieth century, presumably for the betterment of its people. Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side because he wanted to save the life of a loved one. How is saying "Well, he committed an evil act, but he did it from a non-evil point of view" substantially different from "the ends justify the means"?

<br>
On a final note (I don't know what more I can really say on this topic), what I'm really pushing for here is some consistency on the part of the GM. I'd have argued for the evil-ness of election fixing regardless, but you did set a precedent when you alignment-shifted my character, however briefly, to Evil because be '''killed three people in self defense, while insane.''' We discussed this at the time; I didn't think it was quite enough to force an alignment change, primarily because it was not part of a pattern of similar behavior (although I did agree that it was a serious code violation), but you did, and that's how it went down. All I'm saying is that if '''killing three people in self defense, while insane''' is considered Evil enough to forcibly alignment-shift a PC, '''deliberately, premeditatedly, and secretly derailing the attempts of the first free human society in generations to hold a fair and open democratic election - motivated by what we can only guess was PERSONAL GAIN, since it in no way benefitted the people affected and was accomplished entirely in secret''' sure as hell is, particularly when it '''is''' part of a pattern of similar behavior. If I can't get you to understand why [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion_%28politics%29 subverting] the 48-hour-old system of government we're trying to set up on behalf of the '''good guys''' might arguably be a more serious breach of conduct than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter manslaughter] ... then, hell, I don't know what to tell you.

: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' I agree with this whole paragraph.  Especially in light of the fact that Adam didn't have to do anything underhanded.  He could have had Zal approach the other characters and point out that he thinks things are too sensitive to leave the new leadership up to chance, and that one candidate stands out as the best choice, even if the people of the city don't see it.  Instead he treated the whole thing as if the other PCs' desires for a fairly-elected government were so unimportant that he needn't bother himself with changing anyone's mind - he could just lie to US and pretend that the election was a success!  "See?  Your plan worked, and now there's a leader in charge," is I'm sure what Zal is going to say to us.  Not only is it selfish, it's horribly disdainful... of US.''</font>

: <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this '''done''' and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen."  It could be that Adam really didn't think things through very well (or even treat the situation with the gravity that it deserved), and if he had he would have handled the whole thing very differently.  I remember that there was much laughing and talking OOC at the time, so I think that assuming he did it all with the spirit of disdain and deception that WE all rightly perceive isn't necessarily a safe assumption.  I want to give Adam the freedom to make mistakes.''</font>

: <font color="red">'''''Andrew:''' Oh, just to be clear, I totally think '''Adam''' deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not arguing that '''Adam''' is evil. However, based off what we've observed Adam's '''character''' doing, and what Adam himself told us his character was doing and why, I don't see much doubt to give Zal'Kazzir the benefit of.</font>


==Kevin==
Bill, on your point about -  I took it to the Yahoo Group, because its a CONTINUING bigger concern I want FINISHED that all players need to be aware of...


::  Incidentally, I remain baffled as to why your reaction to every Zal/Durgaz conflict thus far has always been along the lines of "Maybe Durgaz should learn to tolerate Zal'Kazzir's lying and deceiving his allies" and not, you know, "Maybe Zal'Kazzir should stop lying and deceiving his allies." I'm not judging your point of view, I'm just mystified by it.

Good point...  I'll try to explain a little.
I feel that Adam (and by that Zal) has had lots and lots of different people hammering home those points of view.  I'm not saying those people (including me) hammering on him that he NEEDS to think about these things is WRONG.  No way.  He absolutely needs to consider those things.  

However, he's had his lion's share of reaction.  


No one (except me) has made suggestions to you to consider for Durgaz.  Mostly because YOUR play isn't detrimental to the balance (or rather imbalance) of the game.  However, YOUR play is detrimental to Adam/Zal.  If you choose to NOT tolerate him Adam doesn't get to play his character.  


So... to be fair and balanced as possible.  To take up a little for Adam's play, I tend to always mention the OPPOSITE alternative to this solution.  I'm not suggesting that its the better choice.  I'm just reminding you (and everyone) that while it IS true that Adam has a choice to make in his play that effects his character and the game, so to do YOU have a choice that effects ADAM'S character and the overall game.


Ultimately I usually come closer down to YOUR side of the argument (that Adam might rethink his choices) but I feel its my responsibility to remind the group that there are two sides to the coin.

So it's no mystery.  Don't be mystified.  I don't disagree with YOU.  I'm continually mentioning alternatives to the solution.  With this recent "change" in Durgaz "learning" some stuff, I wanted to mention it again.  Its not that I want YOU to change, its that I don't want that change to not be an option if it (at some point) does make sense.

I don't look at Durgaz's "decisions" in the past to NOT kill Zal as anomolies in his character development, I look at them as choices the character has made - even IF they were made for player reasons.  Those decisions are still there.  How will/would they mesh in with these new future decisions.  Then combine that with the NEW learning he's had from OTHER humans about HUMAN interaction.  Meaning... Zal is a HUMAN, so perhaps this is helping Durgaz to understand Zal's choices in a way.  


A Human's world (and obstensively Zal's world) is not as "lawful" or black and white as Durgaz's (or Orc's) world.  Durgaz is learning that... And so, what will that mean for his relationship with Zal?  It might change nothing.  But it might help understand him more.  That's your choice.  I'm just mentioning that I don't think that's an impossible (or improbable) direction if you took that direction.



::  what I'm really pushing for here is some consistency on the part of the GM. I'd have argued for the evil-ness of election fixing regardless, but you did set a precedent when you alignment-shifted my character, however briefly, to Evil because be killed three people in self defense, while insane. We discussed this at the time; I didn't think it was quite enough to force an alignment change, primarily because it was not part of a pattern of similar behavior (although I did agree that it was a serious code violation), but you did, and that's how it went down. All I'm saying is that if killing three people in self defense, while insane is considered Evil enough to forcibly alignment-shift a PC, deliberately, premeditatedly, and secretly derailing the attempts of the first free human society in generations to hold a fair and open democratic election - motivated by what we can only guess was PERSONAL GAIN, since it in no way benefitted the people affected and was accomplished entirely in secret sure as hell is, particularly when it is part of a pattern of similar behavior. If I can't get you to understand why subverting the 48-hour-old system of government we're trying to set up on behalf of the good guys might arguably be a more serious breach of conduct than manslaughter ... then, hell, I don't know what to tell you.



I think my general want to discuss before making a rule call is confusing you.

I at no point have disagreed with your thoughts.  In fact, at points I've agreed all out.  But I've also asked questions in hopes of better walking through the decision.  


As to "consistency on the part of the GM"...

I feel that I've always shown this consistency.  In the situation with altering Durgaz's alignment I did the EXACT thing as I've done here.  In fact, I believe it went down the exact same way.  Another player asked "would this change Durgaz's alignment?"  to which I replied with a discussion JUST LIKE THIS one.  After which I made the final call on the ruling based on the majority of your fellow players (myself included).

The only difference HERE is that last time it was ALL held in private emails.  Which is why I've asked that this discussion be in the form of a Bluebook.  Because at that time it was troubling to YOU (Andrew), I hadn't realized how much actually.  And this time we have a full line of the entire discussion up and ready for anyone to read/review at any time.

I feel that's the consistency.  The situations are obviously different.  
:*  Durgaz's situation was a little more cut and dry.  He killed three people in cold blood who offered him no real danger at all.  They were neither anywhere near his power level and they were only coming to "arrest" and remove him as ordered by the dock manager.
:*  Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election.  One that he thought (via his "supreme" ability of Diplomacy and Nobility Knowledge) would be the best option for the new government.  


In both situations the PC is/was wrong.  However the fuzzy area of "Evil" is a little different.  In Durgaz case its alot more cut and dry, he killed people with no reason.  In Zal's case he fixed things to his liking, that might be beneficial or not.


Again - I'm not saying Zal's actions were right or not-Evil.  I'm saying its different and less black/white.  Afterall those situations exemplify the character for which they are based!  Its martial action vs. political motivation.





::  I agree with this whole paragraph. Especially in light of the fact that Adam didn't have to do anything underhanded. He could have had Zal approach the other characters and point out that he thinks things are too sensitive to leave the new leadership up to chance, and that one candidate stands out as the best choice, even if the people of the city don't see it. Instead he treated the whole thing as if the other PCs' desires for a fairly-elected government were so unimportant that he needn't bother himself with changing anyone's mind - he could just lie to US and pretend that the election was a success! "See? Your plan worked, and now there's a leader in charge," is I'm sure what Zal is going to say to us. Not only is it selfish, it's horribly disdainful... of US. 



I agree with you guys.

The only caviate I would add is that this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games.  Its despicable.  But that's why we LOVE to hate Zal'Kazzir.  

The only negative about all this talk is the fact that RIGHT NOW all our player-to-player out-of-game talk is great but ultimately its all meaningless.  The fact is that until someone learns that the election was fixed (through some sort of investigation)  its all only out-of-character talk.


And a question I have for you guys...

'''What would you DO if your character learned about this situation??'''  

You might want to think about that.  What does it mean to the group?  What does it mean to the town?  What will the ramifications for Zal be?  Will you take it to the leaders of First-Hold?  Or will you let it go?  





::  Be that as it may, I think we owe Adam the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he dealt with the whole situation flippantly, like, "Gee, I just want this done and this is the fastest way I can think of to make that happen." ...snip... I want to give Adam the freedom to make mistakes. 



I feel that ALL our decisions SHOULD have ramifications IN-GAME, whether made as a choice OR made as an accident in some way.

That said, I would guess that Adam DID make this decision to just get it over with.  Adam has told me on many occasions that sometimes he just wants the "boring stuff" over with...  And this seemed like a flippant decision in that manner.  Because if there IS a reason for the decision Adam hasn't ever shared it with me.  



::  Oh, just to be clear, I totally think Adam deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not arguing that Adam is evil. However, based off what we've observed Adam's character doing, and what Adam himself told us his character was doing and why, I don't see much doubt to give Zal'Kazzir the benefit of. 



Again - I agree, however the BIG BENEFIT OF DOUBT you all need to remember STRONGLY is that you DO NOT have this information in-character.  If it were a perfect world (in our gaming environment) you wouldn't even have this information OUT-OF-CHARACTER... there's a REASON why we have tons of private (and hallway) conversations in this campaign.

PARANOIA is primary.

It's a common theme and thread that runs through everything in our campaign.  That secrecy creates alot of the FUN drama of the story that might normally been there before. 


I'd challenge to ask - How many other games have you played inwhich this level of paranoia and secrecy have mattered in-game and been "enforced" out of game as well??  Now, how many D&D games has this been true for?


Its Adam's slip ups that sometimes insight these "challenges".  I'm trying to make sure he's aware of that more.


other thoughts?

==Andrew==

::''The only negative about all this talk is the fact that RIGHT NOW all our player-to-player out-of-game talk is great but ultimately its all meaningless.  The fact is that until someone learns that the election was fixed (through some sort of investigation)  its all only out-of-character talk.''

<br>
Huh? How is it meaningless? A ruling on whether a random PC's alignment should change HAS to take place out of game, by definition. We're not discussing how our CHARACTERS would react to Zal's deception. Honestly, I have no idea. In character, I'm not sure that Durgaz has enough understanding of how democracy is supposed to work to determine that any wrongdoing was done. The WORST thing we might figure out that he's done was lie to the townspeople, and since we haven't figured that out, we're not going to be making any in-character decisions any time soon.

<br>
Also, you keep mentioning the fact that nobody knows the election was fixed, as if that automatically makes it any less evil. Putting aside for a minute that, well, it doesn't, I'd like to point out that unless I'm remembering wrong, none of the PCs witnessed Durgaz murdering the three sailors. So I guess that makes it OK, right? Even if there WERE PCs present, are you implying that it wouldn't have been evil if there weren't? It sounds like you are.

<br>
::''I feel that's the consistency. The situations are obviously different.
::''Durgaz's situation was a little more cut and dry. He killed three people in cold blood who offered him no real danger at all. They were neither anywhere near his power level and they were only coming to "arrest" and remove him as ordered by the dock manager.''
::''Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election. One that he thought (via his "supreme" ability of Diplomacy and Nobility Knowledge) would be the best option for the new government.''
<br>
I don't know whether you're just playing devil's advocate to an extreme, or whether you've just forgotten or just haven't been paying attention to a few things, so let me recap them here:

<br>
1) Durgaz killed three people in cold blood, '''while insane,''' whom he had no way of knowing in character were "nowhere near his power level." They outnumbered him three to one. They were armed. They were '''openly discussing their plans to torture and kill him.''' Was there a better, less-evil way to deal with this problem? Absolutely. Is it the cut-and-dried, obvious situation you make it out to be? You'd have a much stronger case for that if you weren't trying to argue that it's inherently more evil than selling out the futures of hundreds of people for personal gain.

<br>
2) Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election. I don't know where you're getting this whole "He thought it would be best for the townspeople due to his supreme Nobility Knowledge and Diplomacy", because '''Adam himself told us, right there in game, out loud, that he was doing it solely to consolidate his own power.''' NOT for the benefit of the townsfolk. NOT because he thought Wilhelm would be the best leader of First-Hold. For Zal'Kazzir. You can keep saying that his motives were pure, but '''the player behind the character explicitly told us otherwise.''' I can keep repeating ad nauseam that Ardherin is probably just orchestrating these situations to test us, so that once he's convinced we're strong enough he can appoint us all his magic guardians of goodness and send us riding around outer space on flying unicorns, helping the unfortunate, but I seriously doubt that will make it true.

I should note here that if Adam HAD told us that Zal was doing this out of genuine concern for the townpeople, I could have been convinced that the act was pretty Chaotic, but not inherently Evil, even if it DID result in badness for First-Hold (the same way Eranon's decision to free the dragon was Chaotic, not Evil, even if the dragon ends up killing a lot of people.) He didn't, though. He did it for himself. There's no question in my mind that it's Evil under those circumstances.

<br>
And before you say that you wish Adam had kept his mouth shut and not told us that, whether we know doesn't have any bearing on how evil something is. If Durgaz decides to start sneaking into First-Hold and eating babies every night, but he does it all via bluebook so nobody knows, it's still fucking evil.

:: ''Afterall those situations exemplify the character for which they are based! Its martial action vs. political motivation.''

So ... what ... mugging someone is totally worse than being, or enabling, a dictator? Stabbing someone is always worse than bilking dozens or even hundreds of people out of their livelihood? I don't see what "martial action vs. political motivation" has to do with the inherent wrongness of an act.

:: ''The only caviate I would add is that this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games. Its despicable. But that's why we LOVE to hate Zal'Kazzir.''

I'm not arguing that. It's totally within Zal'Kazzir's character, just as it is within Durgaz's character to lash out violently when he feels he's being threatened. Acting "according to character" isn't a free pass to do whatever we want, UNLESS the character in question is chaotic or neutral evil. In fact, doesn't the very statement "this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games" describe EXACTLY the sort of "pattern of behavior" that we determined would be grounds for alignment change?

<br>
Look, when all's said and done, you are the GM and you can make whatever ruling you want, even if I disagree with it (and, with all due respect, most of your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me.) I really don't understand your apparent feeling that we shouldn't be discussing this as PLAYERS because our characters don't know about it. Whether our characters know about it, and what they would do (if anything) upon finding out should have no bearing whatsoever on our ability to discuss its ramifications as players ... we obviously wouldn't be discussing "Alignment" IN character, so either it's discussed here or not at all. 

<br>
It also occurs to me that you may also be making special allowances for Adam here, either because you think the rest of us have been "unfair" to him OR because you think that his turning evil would force the group to kill him, thereby causing problems you don't want to deal with. If that is the case, I can understand why you might want to do that, but I certainly hope you wouldn't actually go through with it. First of all, as I've stated already, I'm NOT arguing that the group needs to kill Zal, or that he should become an NPC. I AM arguing that he's done something bad enough to warrant an alignment change. Whatever comes after that is up to Adam and all of the rest of us, '''exactly as it was when you alignment-shifted Durgaz.''' When I talk about wanting consistency, that's what I mean.


==kevin==
::  Huh? How is it meaningless? A ruling on whether a random PC's alignment should change HAS to take place out of game, by definition. 



I wasn't talking about the ruling on an alignment.  I was meaning that until the situation is known in-character it wouldn't matter.

Nothing more.  So rather than saying "meaningless" perhaps a better term would be "not relevant yet".




::  Also, you keep mentioning the fact that nobody knows the election was fixed, as if that automatically makes it any less evil. Putting aside for a minute that, well, it doesn't, I'd like to point out that unless I'm remembering wrong, none of the PCs witnessed Durgaz murdering the three sailors. So I guess that makes it OK, right? Even if there WERE PCs present, are you implying that it wouldn't have been evil if there weren't? It sounds like you are.



No.  I think, Andrew, you might be reading my words with undue antagonism.  Apologies if you're reading that.  Its not my intent.  At no time am I trying to suggest that those actions are not evil.  I'm not saying it or implying it.  I'm not.

I'm just noting that at this point there are no repercussions to be made in-character.  And asking questions to make sure we have all this thought through well before I take it to Adam.  At this point I think ALL of us (me, you, Bill and Steve) unanimously agree.  That was a bad thing to do.  Altering the outcome of a people with no care or concern for the betterment (as far as we know) is not the right course of action.





::  I don't know whether you're just playing devil's advocate to an extreme, or whether you've just forgotten or just haven't been paying attention to a few things, so let me recap them here:
::  2) Zal'Kazzir altered the results of an election. I don't know where you're getting this whole "He thought it would be best for the townspeople due to his supreme Nobility Knowledge and Diplomacy", because Adam himself told us, right there in game, out loud, that he was doing it solely to consolidate his own power. NOT for the benefit of the townsfolk. NOT because he thought Wilhelm would be the best leader of First-Hold. For Zal'Kazzir. You can keep saying that his motives were pure, but the player behind the character explicitly told us otherwise. 



I was playing devil's advocate.

Although Adam, wrongly commented our-of-character and DID give you all (as players) what Zal'Kazzir's motivation 'might' have been, my point about his skills is that Zal'Kazzir IS (by skill) a master level diplomat.  Perhaps that would give him a better judge of who could/should lead.  

Again... that DOES NOT mean its right.  But it is a consideration to note.  

By noting that (and playing Devil's Advocate FOR Zal'Kazzir the character, not necessarily Adam's choice) I was meaning that while Zal's motives were NOT "good" they might not have been specifically for his own gain.  

Then again ADAM told the group inner motivations.  But I also know Adam has been "using" out-of-game communication for disinformation as well.  Solely because it aids the play of his character's abilities...  (namely the ungodly level of social skills)  


So yes.  I am ONLY playing devil's advocate to ask questions.  




::  And before you say that you wish Adam had kept his mouth shut and not told us that, whether we know doesn't have any bearing on how evil something is. If Durgaz decides to start sneaking into First-Hold and eating babies every night, but he does it all via bluebook so nobody knows, it's still fucking evil.



100% true.  But because of the way we've built the game, that's something that I'd prefer we keep private.  If someone's alignment changes BEYOND the other PCs reason to know (ie. someone by choice or secretive) I'd want to keep it private.  For all you know Zal'Kazzir IS already EVIL.  I'm not saying he is, but just as you suggested to Bill that he trust in "not knowing", I'd ask the same here.  

I'm more than happy with the outcome of the discussion.  But please don't assume that I'm disagreeing with you or arguing or even defending those actions as NON-Evil.  I'm just looking for good definitions, in case it needs talked about.  For all we know Adam may be TRYING to become Evil with Zal'Kazzir.  I don't know - I'll find out what he thinks when I take this outcome to him.


So...  In the end I'd say, AWESOME discussion and I have most everything I need and:  '''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."'''





::  So ... what ... mugging someone is totally worse than being, or enabling, a dictator? Stabbing someone is always worse than bilking dozens or even hundreds of people out of their livelihood? I don't see what "martial action vs. political motivation" has to do with the inherent wrongness of an act.



No.

I never said that.  You're putting different meanings in my words.  What I mean is that mugging someone is MUCH easier (black and white) to see than being or enabling a dictator.

In most cases the latter is MUCH more "Evil" than the former.  But sometimes can take more time to sort out.




::  Acting "according to character" isn't a free pass to do whatever we want, UNLESS the character in question is chaotic or neutral evil. In fact, doesn't the very statement "this is the way Adam has demonstrated Zal to be over many many games" describe EXACTLY the sort of "pattern of behavior" that we determined would be grounds for alignment change?



Yes.

I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm against it.  I've just been asking questions, not disagreeing.

Acting "according to character" isn't a free pass.  It is interesting to note though.





::  Look, when all's said and done, you are the GM and you can make whatever ruling you want, even if I disagree with it (and, with all due respect, most of your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me.) I really don't understand your apparent feeling that we shouldn't be discussing this as PLAYERS because our characters don't know about it. Whether our characters know about it, and what they would do (if anything) upon finding out should have no bearing whatsoever on our ability to discuss its ramifications as players ... we obviously wouldn't be discussing "Alignment" IN character, so either it's discussed here or not at all.




Andrew...  You seem angry about this.  I'd suggest that you've misunderstood me.

I haven't had any "reasoning".  I've had questions.

I didn't say the players shouldn't be discussing this.  Quite the opposite actually.  What I did note was that at this point, the discussion can't offer anything back (immediately) in-character.  

I've maintained that I like and appreciate discussion on how everyone views the situation to give me 4 different points of view on the situation to make an informed decision.  What I've been doing is NOT disagreeing, but asking questions that I'd guess the player in question (Adam) might have.  If I ask now (Devil's Advocate) then I'll have thought it through (with your help) before needing to answer if/when Adam asks.  

I've done the same thing in every other similar situation about a major judgment call for a player and their character.  For example:
*  I asked for the majority thought and devil's advocate when Durgaz's alignment was in question.  The choice was to the majority.
*  I asked for majority aid when discussing Kyuad's power balance.  And in fact turned the whole decision over to the players to avoid any unfair bias.





::  It also occurs to me that you may also be making special allowances for Adam here, either because you think the rest of us have been "unfair" to him OR because you think that his turning evil would force the group to kill him, thereby causing problems you don't want to deal with. If that is the case, I can understand why you might want to do that, but I certainly hope you wouldn't actually go through with it. 




You would be incorrect.  

I have never thought that, wanted that, or plan to do that.

Ever.



Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.  I don't want you (or anyone) to think I'm disagreeing or arguing here.  This has been a good and enlightening discussion.  I'm glad we're having it.  I hope it will happen as needed in the future.  

But I also hope that (as you suggested to Bill)  you won't assume the worst.

I don't think you did completely,  but I can feel a little aggravation.  

I don't want to insight that.

Since we're both ACTUALLY in total agreement on this.  I just had questions to aid my decision process.

Cool?


'''EDIT''':  I just reread the definition of Chaotic Evil.  Funny...  Its Zal to the letter:
::  '''''"Characters of this alignment tend to have little respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own selfish desires. They typically only behave themselves out of fear of punishment."'''''

==Andrew==

Re-reading some of my responses here, I realize that they do come off as kind of angry-sounding. This isn't intentional. If the "voice" of these posts reads as seems angry to you, replace the "angriness" with "extreme confusion". Maybe I've misunderstood a lot of your statements; maybe you're just playing devil's advocate to an extreme. But when I hear what I THINK is an argument that manslaughter is inherently and automatically worse than turning over hundreds of lives to a secret self-interested shadow regime, or when it SOUNDS like you're saying that this stuff is only worthy of consideration because we FOUND OUT about it, or when you keep making defenses for Adam's character that are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by things Adam has told us himself ... do you understand why my reaction might be along the lines of "what? Wait ... huh? What? WHAT?" 

<br>Maybe you have information that I don't. Maybe Zal is evil already, as you pointed out. Maybe he's actually setting up his secret police to smuggle food and medicine to sick orphans all over Eredane, and just hasn't told us yet. Obviously, I don't have any idea what all we're dealing with here. But IF something like that is the case, I wish you'd just say what I suggested you say to Bill. Tell me that there's stuff at play here that I don't know about yet, and that this stuff has some bearing on the topic at hand, and I'll drop it and trust that you know what you're doing. Seriously, I will. But when you start making arguments that seem (to me) completely untenable, without any indication that there's anything going on other than what we've been made aware of, it is in my nature to SAY so if I think those arguments don't hold water.

<br>There's another factor at work here, and it was touched on when I mentioned GM consistency. Reading just how hard you seem to be fighting AGAINST the notion that subverting democracy is inherently evil, while repeatedly bringing up by way of comparison that what amounts to manslaughter IS inherently evil, I can't help but ask myself "What the hell? Did you argue this hard when it was MY character's alignment on the line? ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players? When you say that 'you wish Adam hadn't told us that', are you implying that the only reason you're entertaining the possibility that this is an alignment-buster is that someone FOUND OUT about it?" And another point: you say you just want to hear everyone's thoughts before you "take this to Adam". But you didn't "take it to me" when you changed Durgaz's alignment; the first I learned of it was when a good-aligned outsider sniffed it out and threatened to kill him over it. I didn't get a chance to argue MY case. What gives?

<br>Honestly, if I was having this discussion with ADAM, I'd be a lot more open to HIS rationalization of why what Zal did wasn't evil (if, in fact, he DOESN'T consider it evil.) I think Adam is a smart guy, a good roleplayer and an honest player, and if he thinks he has a genuine case against the evil-ness of election-fixing, sure, I'll listen to that. But you, being the GM, are supposed to be impartial, so when I see you acting like Zal'Kazzir's defense attorney, it bugs me. I'm not out to get Adam OR his character; I never have been, although I obviously HAVE had more quibbles about things he's done in and out of game than I have had with any other player/PC. Nonetheless - and you can choose to believe this, or not - these prior quibbles, and the resolution thereof, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with my approach to this debate. I just wanted to be sure they weren't influencing yours, either.

<br>
:: ''Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.  I don't want you (or anyone) to think I'm disagreeing or arguing here.  This has been a good and enlightening discussion.  I'm glad we're having it.  I hope it will happen as needed in the future.  ''
::''But I also hope that (as you suggested to Bill)  you won't assume the worst.''
::''I don't think you did completely,  but I can feel a little aggravation.  ''
::''I don't want to insight that.''
::''Since we're both ACTUALLY in total agreement on this.  I just had questions to aid my decision process.''
::''Cool?''

<br>Yes. Totally.

<br>Please don't read those last few paragraphs as antagonistic or angry, and don't take them to mean I'm accusing you of anything, because I'm not. What I AM doing there is giving you some insight into where my reaction to some of your previous responses was coming from. I get that we're in agreement, NOW, but there was a lot of in-between there when I was absolutely baffled by what seemed to be utterly specious reasoning.

<br>But I get it now. So yeah, cool.


==Kevin==
::  Maybe you have information that I don't. Maybe Zal is evil already, as you pointed out. Maybe he's actually setting up his secret police to smuggle food and medicine to sick orphans all over Eredane, and just hasn't told us yet. Obviously, I don't have any idea what all we're dealing with here. But IF something like that is the case, I wish you'd just say what I suggested you say to Bill. -snip-  But when you start making arguments that seem (to me) completely untenable, without any indication that there's anything going on other than what we've been made aware of, it is in my nature to SAY so if I think those arguments don't hold water.


just FYI - the only reason I was making arguments was to get more info and "ammunition" in case Adam questioned the change.  As it turns out (after talking with him) he sees the point and agrees, although regrettably...

But otherwise - yeah...  '''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."'''  hehe
 


::  ARE you making special allowances for one PC over another because you feel that the PC in question (and/or his player) is being unfairly "ganged up on" by the other PCs and/or players? 


No.

::  When you say that 'you wish Adam hadn't told us that', are you implying that the only reason you're entertaining the possibility that this is an alignment-buster is that someone FOUND OUT about it?" 


No.


::  There's another factor at work here, and it was touched on when I mentioned GM consistency.  -snip-  Did you argue this hard when it was MY character's alignment on the line? 


Yes and no.

I questioned just like I have here.  But I never argued for.  I haven't ever argued here for Adam.  I've questioned but not argued.  I did the same with Durgaz's alignment shift.  Exactly.


::  And another point: you say you just want to hear everyone's thoughts before you "take this to Adam". But you didn't "take it to me" when you changed Durgaz's alignment; the first I learned of it was when a good-aligned outsider sniffed it out and threatened to kill him over it. I didn't get a chance to argue MY case. What gives?



Correct.  But ONLY because yours mattered to your powers/abilities.  The choice was made then I wanted to bring it out in-game.  Bringing it to you prior would have been anti-climactic for the story purposes  (meaning you suddenly learning your power was gone).

In Adam's case.  In Steve's case.  It just doesn't matter to the abilities so there's no need to keep it.  There'd be no way to "show" it in-game as there was with you.



::  But you, being the GM, are supposed to be impartial, so when I see you acting like Zal'Kazzir's defense attorney, it bugs me. 


In my opinion I have been 100% impartial.  I've repeated noted that I AGREE with this, "however..."  then I ask a question.  Not in Zal's defense, but rather to have the full discussion.  What you're seeing as bias, is actually me just looking for more material and thought to take to Adam as reasoning behind the fact for the change.

As you noted with Bill's perceptions, I think this is just a misconception about my intentions.  In other words...

'''"The GM works in mysterious ways, trust that I know what I'm doing."''' 


::  Please don't read those last few paragraphs as antagonistic or angry, and don't take them to mean I'm accusing you of anything, because I'm not. What I AM doing there is giving you some insight into where my reaction to some of your previous responses was coming from. I get that we're in agreement, NOW, but there was a lot of in-between there when I was absolutely baffled by what seemed to be utterly specious reasoning.
::  But I get it now. So yeah, cool.



Great!

I'm not looking to baffle or confuse.  If I question, its to get more detail.  Its not because I don't have a formed opinion yet,  its not because I disagree.  Its because I want to be as informed as possible.  And also make sure that YOU are all informed or have though out things I think of, or know to be true that you're not aware of yet.
@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 One thing I really really REALLY need you guys (Bill and Adam specifically) to do is STOP STOP STOP saying things are "normally impossible".  That's crazy talk.  Its a magical fantasy world.  I understand that we have RULES that make things "improbable"  but NOTHING is subject to change or impossibility when it comes to the "magic" of the world.  If I want to change a creature's abilities (say giving an Umber Hulk the powers of a Rust Monster) FOR Midnight and our campaign - BING!  it's done.  If a player gets turned into a psuedo-Lich - BING!  Its totally possible!!  As long as there's an "in-game" "in-world" reason, I'm not going to NOT make the change.
-<font color="red">'''''Bill:''' It's not crazy talk.  It's just a matter of pointing out how things '''normally''' work, emphasis on '''normally'''.  And it's done so you, mainly, are reminded of the rules that you might otherwise not have a reason to reference or look up.  It's constructive feedback and information to help in the process of defining how things '''will''' work in whatever change you're attempting to make.  Without knowing normal limitations, you don't know when you're breaking them, right?  It also serves the purpose of telling you what our impressions of the way things are going could be, which could benefit you by giving you ideas in how to explain the "why" and "how" of what eventually happens.  More than once this kind of feedback has helped in giving you idea seeds that have developed into neat stuff.''
-''I'm '''not''' saying you're cheating.  If I'm saying that you're cheating, I'll use those words.  I know you've got the power to just decide anything works any way you want, but the game is sooooooooooooooooo much more fun when you don't.''</font>
 In a way I wish all of you would (to a point) react the way STEVE reacts to monsters/magic/etc...  He just doesn't know the details of the rules for certain things, so he never "questions" anything with an accusatory negative means. It just "stinks" or is "cool"!
@@ Line 195: / Line 191: @@
 So... in the end.  YES - if Zal (or any others) become "Evil" and it changes the nature of the entire group or disrupts the entire campaign...  YES he would become an NPC.  But just going to "Evil", in my humble opinion, will not immediately make him an NPC and unplayable character.
-TRUE - I do not want to run or play in this campaign with an EVIL direction.  But using the Evil in the world to head toward the Epic Destiny of the "majority" of the PCs goals... that's okay by me, as defined above.  The example of Bill's old character in the previous campaign is and was a different goal.  We determined from the beginning that Bill wanted to play a "role" that WOULD eventually end.  We played it out and it rocked.  <font color="red">'''''Bill:''' Good point.''</font>
+TRUE - I do not want to run or play in this campaign with an EVIL direction.  But using the Evil in the world to head toward the Epic Destiny of the "majority" of the PCs goals... that's okay by me, as defined above.  The example of Bill's old character in the previous campaign is and was a different goal.  We determined from the beginning that Bill wanted to play a "role" that WOULD eventually end.  We played it out and it rocked.