D&D General The child stealing food to survive scenario, for alignment

[Umbran]

Funny thing is, this came up in a game once. My LG PC (leaning LN) saw a kid stealing something so he stopped him using a non-lethal force by knocking him down.

Everybody at the table was aghast. The baker was out that loaf of bread and would suffer because of the loss. Maybe it wouldn't bankrupt the baker, but the baker worked hard to earn money for his family, the kid didn't.

Okay, Javert.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I brought this up in the other thread because I feel it a better thing to debate about alignment, especially the LG alignment than Orc babies.

Yes, please. LG + orc babies is the most toxic trope situation ever. It's interesting to first year DMs and philosophy students, but has no place in an actual game.

What would a character do if they caught a poor street kid stealing food from a merchant in the city? The child is obviously quite poor impoverished and in poor health, so they are likely stealing to survive or to feed their family. The city most certainly has laws that could be harsh for the child now that they are caught, in that it could either be imprisonment or the child loses a hand. What would your character do in this situation now that they caught this little thief?

I think the answer is very obvious for what a NG or CG character would do, in that they'd at least let the child go. But for LG characters this might be more of an internal conflict to them.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. -- Anatole France

Stealing food required for survival of oneself or one's immediate family, assuming the stolen food is not necessary for the survival of it's former owner (i.e., they can afford to have the food stolen and not themselves starve or suffer greatly) and assuming that the thief is unable to afford food (through money, barter or other fair compensation) then it is a neutral action. It's neither good nor evil, neither lawful nor chaotic.

In a lawful sense, it's a society's job to provide food for everyone, often by providing a means for someone to earn a living. Should the law fail to do that, then the law is unjust because that law does not serve society or civilization at all. That's because of the very obvious fact that someone who is dead or unable to work cannot possibly contribute to society. It's intentionally creating a burden for society. Punishing someone for breaking an unjust law is almost certainly an evil action, even if it's the letter of the law. It may even be chaotic in an absolute sense because it supports a law that directly undermines the stability of society and purpose of civilization. Starving populations tend to revolt, and even LE authorities don't want that. Darth Vader's empire needs ditch diggers, too, as it were. The only way it can be lawful is when the law is based in prejudice or discrimination, which is to say, when the law is virtually or actually genocidal. That's just an evil corruption and abuse of law; it's not actually lawful at all. It's lawful-in-name-only.

Remember, the law itself doesn't define what is lawful. It's the focus on what best accomplishes the needs and requirements of civilization and society. A LE society will likely be incredibly selfish or unequal about it, but it's still going to be focused on the survival of the civilization or state. If it begins to subvert that it shifts to NE. [Or, in theory, NG if the law instead required altruism which subverted the needs and requirements of civilization or society.]

As far as a LG character, there are even those who have said that it is a duty to break an unjust law to highlight the injustice, such as Martin Luther King in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." [...] I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

The LG Paladin, then, may find that the best way to oppose an unjust law enforcement would be civil disobedience: The Paladin would donate all their wealth to providing food, then if that did not satisfy the needs of those who were suffering, the Paladin would go and openly steal food. Ideally with the aid or blessing of the merchants. Openly challenge the injustice of the law. Openly bring the power of your god and your church into opposition with the law. Get the agreement of the merchants, contact law enforcement that you plan to steal food on a given date and time, and then show up and take the food without violence and do not pay for it. Civil disobedience does generally require assumptions about the rule of law, however, so may not be appropriate for all settings. Namely, non-lawful ones. It will probably not work at all in a chaotic society, and a Paladin would probably know that going into it and would likely choose a different route. Civil disobedience in many CN, NE, or CE societies is just going to be spitting into the wind.

Unfortunately, civil disobedience generally will often not make for a compelling D&D adventure, since civil disobedience generally results in criminal punishments which can be quite severe in most D&D settings (not the least of which because everyone is fictional). That's often not going to be fun to roleplay out for the entire table, so I would probably discourage my players from taking that route. If the Paladin is in jail for the next three months of in-game time, it doesn't really help the progress of the rest of the party's story if they want to explore dungeons, kill monsters, and loot treasure. Discretion should be the better part of righteousness because each PC's story still needs to function within the needs of the players at the entire table; the game is first and foremost cooperative like that. If that's what a PC really wants to do, it's fair to tell the player that doing so will probably make their PC an NPC. One PC shouldn't co-opt the entire campaign.

 

[Coroc]

... If that's what a PC really wants to do, it's fair to tell the player that doing so will probably make their PC an NPC. One PC shouldn't co-opt the entire campaign.

If that's what the PC does you should instead award him an inspiration point for extraordinary roleplay and move the game ff three months (if you got a in-game schedule hampered by that then wing it, you are the GM!)

I could give you a like for all the other things in your post except that last sentence.

Edit: if a pally/LG cleric/LG faithful PC at my table would do this, I would even put in a divine intervention as soon as the guards try to arrest him. Everyone would recognize a saint of the people in this character and no one would dare to put his hands on him.

 

[Cadence]

Falling works the same in real life as it does in the game. Long falls tend to kill you.


If a player intentionally leapt off a cliff knowing they had the HP to survive the fall, they're metagaming player knowledge of the rules, into their characters knowledge.

And after the first time the mid-to-high level character has to jump off a 30' cliff and is essentially unhurt, they just chalk it up to a lucky coincidence? They never learn that they have the amazing ability to tale falls essentially unhurt. They never share that knowledge with anyone else.

If you want falls to work the same way as in real life then the rules should reflect that. You could, for example, separate hitpoints into con-based and heroic-based and have falling bypass the later. That's not how the rules work.

Please also see the query below about how characters to approach combat.

I dont need to 'randomly simulate' anything. Maybe the Dwarf that won gold was a high level Monk, or had some feat or other ability that increased his speed. Beats me.

It's just from an in game perspective, you dont know those things with any degree of certainty.

I'm pretty sure the Dwarf in question knows if he's a high level monk or not and knows roughly how fast he can run a 40 compared to most urchins he sees racing down the street during the day. Are you saying the character doesn't know if he can run pretty quickly or not?

Other options were available to the Dwarf that did not involve harming the child, or putting the child in danger of injury or death. They may have been more difficult, less certain in outcome, or whatever, but they were morally superior choices.

Don't let better be the enemy of the good.

I do not understand what part of the post of @Flamestrike implores some extraordinary knowledge he could only have, if he were said player or DM?

Unless the actual Player and DM are psychos IRL there POV should be exactly what @Flamestrike describes. And unless in game the Dwarf is a psycho, this is exactly what knowledge he would have. I mean those are things so basic, like that you need air to breathe. That the sky is blue, in or out game is more ambivalent than that.

In D&D some character got hit points. If it is more than the max fall damage this character survives. Is that clear to the player? Yes. Is that clear to the in game character? Absolutely no!

Someone gets hit by a warhammer? He probably gets injured or dies. Applicable in game and IRL

So characters should act like the world works like our real world does in terms of damage from weapons and their ability to take punishment?

I assume all of your players characters are amazed in combat when they're either repeatedly hit by hammers and swords and the like and don't go down - or when every single swing apparently just grazes them even though they're surrounded? And that they would never dream of charging into a room full of goblins or kobolds because a cut from a single one of their short swords could be lethal? And that they'd never take on a dragon because something the size of a dinosaur with a brain and fire breathing would tear through them quicker than some of the scenes in Jurassic Park? <insert almost every combat situation from every module ever and them being insane to even try>. That's how it would work in real life, right?

Okay, Javert.

I'm now picturing Javert obsessively tracking Valjean for decades to give him gold so he can get an apprenticeship. The ending now seems even sadder for Javert :-(

 

[FrogReaver]

Imagine watching a parent toss a hammer at a misbehaving childs legs IRL, in order to knock the kid to the ground.

Im not particularly interested in what behaviour they were trying to correct there, or what their higher motives were. It is not a morally good thing to do.

This is one of those times when the real world has no bearing on the fiction because the fiction has already departed from the real world. Blame the DM for setting up that scenario if you don't like it. But if you could throw a hammer to stop a child thief with no chance of harming the child and you did so in the hope that you could intervene in his life for the better then failing to do so would not be good.

 

[Cadence]

OK. As I see the alignment system:

Throwing a warhammer at a kid's legs comes under the LE heading - possibly moved to LN by checking with the DM that it wouldn't harm the kid.

Throwing a hammer that won't seriously harm the kid so that you can give them gold for an apprenticeship and save them from a potential life of crime and bad future punishment, when the kid is too fast for you to catch, is LE or LN? Or do you mean that just for throwing the hammer because they stole something?

 

[FrogReaver]

The only problem I find in @Oofta's scenario is that the DM determined the PC could know he would have no chance of hurting the child. That's where the scenario breaks from realism. But once it's established that such is the scenario then throwing the hammer cannot be evil.

 

[Umbran]

I'm now picturing Javert obsessively tracking Valjean for decades to give him gold so he can get an apprenticeship. The ending now seems even sadder for Javert :-(

"Apprenticeship? Dude, I built a business, and became a mayor you yourself respected! I need your 'help' like I need a kick in the teeth!"

 

[Oofta]

I'm not judging your actions. Its not important what you and the DM agreed to.

I'm judging your characters actions. You threw a warhammer at a hungry child, who was stealing a loaf of bread, trying to take his legs out from under him.

In game, there was no way for your character to know the child would not be hurt by your actions. None. And of course it was going to hurt the child 'non lethal' or otherwise. You were throwing a warhammer at a childs legs for Gods sake.

That's not going to tickle no matter how you want to spin it.

Except there was a way with a soft underhanded throw to stop the kid to be certain no permanent damage was done. It's called "ask the DM." The DM and the player determine what is possible.

If he had said it was not possible, I would have asked for other options. Could I slide the hammer on the floor, was there something soft I could throw or any other number of options including letting the kid go.

If you had been the DM you could have ruled differently. You were not so you did not. Besides, I fully admit he leaned LN on certain things. As far as my PC was concerned, a crime was being committed, he stopped the crime without using excessive force. My PC didn't buy into "necessity justifies crime" although the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.

Note: this was an AD&D game so improvising actions was pretty common.

 

[Bacon Bits]

If that's what the PC does you should instead award him an inspiration point for extraordinary roleplay and move the game ff three months (if you got a in-game schedule hampered by that then wing it, you are the GM!)

I could give you a like for all the other things in your post except that last sentence.

In my experience these kind of righteous moments happen in campaigns where other things are already happening. The Paladin goes off on some self-sacrificial quest, while the Ranger is all, "You know we have that whole Age of Worms ending the world thing, right? We can't wait three months," and the Cleric says, "And breaking you out defeats the purpose of what you're doing."

It can easily be an example of a well-played character, but the consequences of it could derail an ongoing campaign. That's not necessarily fair to the rest of the players or the DM.

Edit: if a pally/LG cleric/LG faithful PC at my table would do this, I would even put in a divine intervention as soon as the guards try to arrest him. Everyone would recognize a saint of the people in this character and no one would dare to put his hands on him.

Eh, I'm not a fan of a deus ex machina. Simply put, the gods generally don't have that kind of direct influence in the campaigns I play in. Otherwise, why would they aid the Paladin but not the other thieves? The gods might send dreams or visions to their clerics or paladins, but the gods typically expect mortals to solve mortal problems with mortal solutions. That's the mortal condition and the consequence of free will. The gods act through the faithful because the gods know that the faithful will (or are most likely to) choose to follow their patron's will, not because only the faithful are worthy of favor.