Alignment Contriversy

[Ipissimus]

I'd argue that his bit about 'no patience for useless laws' is exactly a disrespect for the law; agreeing with the law when it happens to say things you agree with isn't respect, it's simply not having a mindless kneejerk against laws. Not following the laws when you don't agree with them, even when following them have no important consequences? That's Chaotic, I think.

I was speaking of his description as a whole. You'll also note that his character respects laws that are in place for, in his opinion, good reasons. I think the law vs. chaos axis of this character is balanced rather than leaning in either direction strongly. After all, his primary concerns are also balance with nature, a decidedly neutral trait.

 

[buzz]

My PC belives...

Don't worry about what beliefs you want to ascribe to the PC. Seriously.

Look at the descriptions of the alignments in the PHB. Pick the one that best describes how you plan to have your PC act during the game. Write that alignment on your character sheet.

The only point at which the DM should be stepping in is if, after having played the PC over a number of sessions, he sees that you've had the PC act consistently more in line with a different alignment. At that point, it's his job to point this out to you and ask whether an alignment shift is in order. Then, you either shift or play the PC more in accordance with the original alignment's PHB description.

Handling alignment in any other way (i.e., not RAW) will only lead to madness.

 

[akbearfoot]

No one can convince me that torturing someone who is helpless and at your mercy could ever ever be construed to be anything other than heinously evil. If the king says it's legal, then he is an evil king. To me this applies to any sentient creature, not just to humans.

Even in a game where people routinely open doors and immediatly roll initiative to see if they can stab the monsters before they have a chance to speak. Some things are just inexcusable.

 

[Dave G]

No one can convince me that torturing someone who is helpless and at your mercy could ever ever be construed to be anything other than heinously evil. If the king says it's legal, then he is an evil king. To me this applies to any sentient creature, not just to humans.

Even in a game where people routinely open doors and immediatly roll initiative to see if they can stab the monsters before they have a chance to speak. Some things are just inexcusable.

Who tortured someone?!

 

[Will]

He also belives that severe punishment and maybe torture are sometimes nessisary. Some people just will not listen and must be taught that bad actions have bad consiquences.

There you go.

 

[Dave G]

There you go.

Well, there I go. Thanks, I must have missed it.

 

[rawgt3]

Alright lets get this straight. When I said torture my internal dictionary was off. I simply ment that as punishment the way your parents did when you were a kid a.k.a. spanking. If they wont repent willingly they will learn that evil actions will earn them a bloody nose. comprende?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

If they wont repent willingly they will learn that evil actions will earn them a bloody nose. comprende?

Not exactly. Allow me to explain.

OK, this is DND. You can righteously smite people with different ethical values. Fair enough. But even with this as a base line I'd say there's still a difference between a stand up fight and pounding the crap out of a powerless prisoner. So if your character is willing to do the latter I'd argue for a less than good alignment. From your statement I'm just not certain where your character would draw the line.

So far I'd agree with Will: CN. If he draws the line before beating the euphamism out of prisoners then I'd go CG. Definitely NOT lawful of any stripe.

cheers.

EDIT: he'd also have to give up that penchant for provoking cops into fights he knows they can't win. That's just plain nasty. If he continued to do this but stayed away from lethal force I'd still be willing to let him get away with CN; lethal force: CE.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd say NG, but I'd also suggest that you let your DM worry about it. He seems to have a bizarre view of alignments, and since you're playing a class that has no restrictions, it shouldn't affect anything other than maybe rp...if that--NPCs shouldn't be walking around trying to trip your character because you're not playing whatever alignment properly.

 

[Ipissimus]

No one can convince me that torturing someone who is helpless and at your mercy could ever ever be construed to be anything other than heinously evil.

All right, hypothetical situation you might encounter in DnD. Your party is up against a Cult who's aim is to destroy the world so their dark god can eat every soul on the planet and damn them for eternity. You capture one of these cultists but you have no idea where the evil ritual is taking place, not even a clue. The ritual's going down soon, you could have a matter of hours before everything you know and cherish is sucked into a place worse than Hell.

Assuming that you don't have some sort of Mind Probe spell, do you torture the cultist for the whereabouts of their headquarters?

If you want a more realistic situation that posits why a good person might torture someone else, watch the original Dirty Harry.