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. 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!  ;)