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

[R_J_K75]

CN: do nothing

CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.

 

[Flamestrike]

CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.

Indeed.

I think the best example I can give to people of CN is Captain Jack Sparrow.

Other good examples include Deadpool (generally; depends on the writing, but the MCU version for sure), Hondo Onaka from Star Wars and Daryl Dixon from TWD (although he sometimes he veers towards CG, and other times he veers towards CE).

Most depictions of Logan (Wolverine) pre and early X Men also have him CN (with good tendencies) with a core part of his early story arc being him leaving his more amoral, jaded and animalistic tendencies behind to embrace the Good man he is inside.

 

[R_J_K75]

Indeed.

I think the best example I can give to people of CN is Captain Jack Sparrow.

Other good examples include Deadpool (generally; depends on the writing, but the MCU version for sure), Hondo Onaka from Star Wars and Daryl Dixon from TWD (although he sometimes he veers towards CG, and other times he veers towards CE).

Most depictions of Logan (Wolverine) pre and early X Men also have him CN (with good tendencies) with a core part of his early story arc being him leaving his more amoral, jaded and animalistic tendencies behind to embrace the Good man he is inside.

I remember reading I believe in Dragon Magazine on alignment that a True Neutral character will always take on another alignment until a situation utterly dictates dictates they take a neutral stance.

I played in a campaign that we had an NPC adventuring with us. I was trying to figure out her alignment and was convinced she was CG until she screwed us over at one point. Years later talking to the DM I found out she was TN.

 

[Flamestrike]

I remember reading I believe in Dragon Magazine on alignment that a True Neutral character will always take on another alignment until a situation utterly dictates dictates they take a neutral stance.

True Neutral peeps are simply neither morally good (they dont go out of their way to help others) not morally evil (they have enough empathy and compassion to avoid going around harming others). They also dont feel strongly about honour, family or tradition (law) while also not feeling strongly about personal liberty, individualism and spontaneity (chaos).

They just live their lives doing the best they can to be happy.

 

[GreenTengu]

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.

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.

Wouldn't a Lawful Good character generally just pay for the bread themself to resolve the situation. That way the merchant gets the money to support their family and the child gets the food to support their family.
Its not like any adventurer is ever going to be short on funds, so it isn't even a tremendous sacrifice on the character's part. And-- really-- if the character isn't willing to sacrifice a copper or two to see that everyone is happy, are they even Lawful Good?

 

[Flamestrike]

Wouldn't a Lawful Good character generally just pay for the bread themself to resolve the situation. That way the merchant gets the money to support their family and the child gets the food to support their family.
Its not like any adventurer is ever going to be short on funds, so it isn't even a tremendous sacrifice on the character's part. And-- really-- if the character isn't willing to sacrifice a copper or two to see that everyone is happy, are they even Lawful Good?

Nah man.

Just bash the kid on the side of the head with your greatsword (non lethal damage, so it's all good) and then hand him over to the authorities.

 

[Bitbrain]

CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.

I would consider that Chaotic Evil.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Drag out the, "But it is historical!" argument when you are playing a game that is intended to actually be historical. Until then, it comes out as rather egregious cherrypicking.

The OP postulated that the child could face dire consequences if caught, including loss of limb. Saying "he won't be charged since he's underage" seems to be outside of the premise of the OP, even if it is not because of adherence to "historicity" but just because the society the child is in just thinks that children can lose a limb for a minor theft. Plus, it's not as "easy" as you say: if you trust the judicial system to exonerate the child, I guess you help the merchant to stop him (LG) even if unfortunately at the end of the judicial process the child is missing an arm (unforeseenable consequence)? Or do you assume your judgement is enough to substitute it to the rightful authorities who will certainly come to the same conclusion as your character and do nothing (CG?)

 

[GreenTengu]

The OP postulated that the child could face dire consequences if caught, including loss of limb. Saying "he won't be charged since he's underage" seems to be outside of the premise of the OP, even if it is not because of adherence to "historicity" but just because the society the child is in just thinks that children can lose a limb for a minor theft. Plus, it's not as "easy" as you say: if you trust the judicial system to exonerate the child, I guess you help the merchant to stop him (LG) even if unfortunately at the end of the judicial process the child is missing an arm (unforeseenable consequence)? Or do you assume your judgement is enough to substitute it to the rightful authorities who will certainly come to the same conclusion as your character and do nothing (CG?)

It seems one is dealing with a lawful evil society in such a case. Permanently maiming someone so that they can no longer be a functional and productive worker just doesn't make sense in a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral society. A LN society would probably force the child to work for the merchant, or at least someone else in the production chain to create the bread, until they had paid off their debt. Maybe even a couple times the actual labor put into creating the bread as a dissuasive measure. But temporary indentured servitude is just far more sensible than removing one of your citizen's productive capabilities permanently.

 

[jgsugden]

Hey, reducing large groups of people to a label and saying what they'd do based upon that label... now, I may be missing something, but that seems to be a problematic path.

As we can see from the variety of answers on this thread, a PC that decides which of these 9 broad buckets best describes their PC is free to do whatever their character would do regardless of the label they applied. The label is not, and never should be, a restriction on what the PC elects to do.