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

[Oofta]

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.

Alignment is a general descriptor, not a iron clad rule of how people must behave.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As I mentioned before, You can help the kid and still be 'not good', if your motives for helping the kid are selfish. Maybe you are helping the kid by paying for the bread to be able to create a closer relationship to the Merchant and assassinate him later. Maybe you are helping the kid to show prove your worth to a powerful organization and acquire more power, maybe you are helping the kid because you are genuinely empathetic to the kid. Maybe you are helping the kid to sway him and get him to join your Street gang.

The action is totally independent of the intent/alignment, in many cases.

So, on the other side of the coin, maybe your a 'evil' act is to get the kid arrested and sent to a work camp because you feel that will pay off his debts, teach him work ethic and rehabilitate him and bring him out of poverty.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

It's a good thing no-one is doing that then isnt it?

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

That was either in the Rules Cyclopedia or the Player’s Handbook for 2nd edition. The same sidebar had that CN had to be played LOL! Random.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

It's fun watching simualtionists and gamiest talk past each other through this thread:

Simulationist A: "in the real world, hitting someone with a hammer could cause permanent harm, therefore the act is evil"
Gamist A: "by the rules, it was impossible to hurt the kid with a hammer, therefore the act is morally neutral"

Simulationist B: "in the real world, falling off a cliff will kill you, so people wouldn't just do that in the game world"
Gamist B: "by the rules, you cannot die from falling off the cliff, so why would a character not do that?"

So long as everyone in your group is OK -- or at least understands -- the style of play you are playing, and so long as you are consistent in that style, either answer is right.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

Yes but they will interven to maintain balance if it looks like either, good, evil, law or chaos are gaining on any of the others.

 

[R_J_K75]

I would consider that Chaotic Evil.

Thats the problem with alignment everyone has an opinion which usually differs.

 

[R_J_K75]

That was either in the Rules Cyclopedia or the Player’s Handbook for 2nd edition. The same sidebar had that CN had to be played LOL! Random.

Think I actually saw it in a few spots but god knows where.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes but they will interven to maintain balance if it looks like either, good, evil, law or chaos are gaining on any of the others.

Not necessarily they wont. They may very well just be not invested enough in good, evil, law or chaos to care.

 

[R_J_K75]

Not necessarily they wont. They may very well just be not invested enough in good, evil, law or chaos to care.

Possibly. But the portrayal of the Emerald Enclave from the Vilhon Reach supplement comes to mind, although they were druids and its a little of a different case, but I that was my mindset when I made that comment.