ALignment challenge 201

[trentonjoe]

What alignment does this statement best represent:

"A cowboy may sell you a bum horse if you don't know better but if he gives you his word and a hand shake the job will get done."

CG?
LN?

That has thrown me for a loop. Thanks.

 

[CCamfield]

Sounds kind of neutral to me. I don't think there's anything in the statement leaning towards good or evil. Honouring the handshake agreement indicates lawful tendencies, but then again cheating someone without the handshake is chaotic. Those seem to balance out.

 

[Merlion]

or looked at another way it could show how self contradictory and silly the whole Law/Chaos thing is.
Edit: Self contradictory isnt the right term. more it shows how the Law/Chaos axis of alignment is so nebulous and represents so many things, combined with the fact that they eventualy flow into each other, just makes that part of alignment downright silly.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd go with LN, since selling someone a bad horse if they don't know any better than to check it for themselves or don't haggle is no concern of his. He's obeying the law, but getting a good deal.

But I also think that alignment really doesn't cover that sort of thing...you could just call him N and not worry about it.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Lawful Neutral is what I would go with. He is assuming the buyer knows his horses and hell if you are buying a horse you better know what you are doing. Second he is giving you his hand and word, a 'code of the west'.

Now, to get on my soapbox. Code of the West is a defined set of rules, which is important in any game. It is up to the DM to define what is evil and good and base alignment on that.

 

[Mercule]

I would not consider it LN. I'd be more inclined to go with Chaotic of some flavor because of the disregard for societal pressures and norms. Still, I don't know that the behavior is really indicative of either Law or Chaos.

I'll have to take issue with the fact that the choices listed are between CG and LN. That implies that CG is somehow less good than LG or NG, which is an attitude that really horks me. CG are no more or less likely to harm someone than LG, and swindling is one form of harming.

 

[smetzger]

or looked at another way it could show how self contradictory and silly the whole Law/Chaos thing is.
Edit: Self contradictory isnt the right term. more it shows how the Law/Chaos axis of alignment is so nebulous and represents so many things, combined with the fact that they eventualy flow into each other, just makes that part of alignment downright silly.

I agree, I got rid of the Law/Chaos deal in my game and haven't missed it one bit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Lawful Neutral.

The willingness to shtupp the buyer means that he's not entirely Good, but the willingness to Do the Right Thing means that it's not entirely Evil...he doesn't appear to be hurting anyone out of malice.

The willingness to abide by an oath he takes means that he respects a code of conduct, and a set of rules and norms, which is Lawful. He is willing to shtupp the buyer on the horse, but he never took an oath to sell a horse fairly -- he's offered leeway in that respect. Simultaneously, he'd feel guilty if he broke his word, and disrupted his code of conduct. Where there is law, he follows it. Where there isn't, he has no responsibility to follow it.