Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 808696" data-attributes="member: 5100">You can justify almost any response on the Law/Chaos axis.Situation A: The group is attacked by a group of thieves right outside a city. The thieves are easily subdued. Some are unconscious and bleeding to death.Question 1: What should the healers do?Any good would probably heal them.  I don't think L/C matters here.Alternatively, Law could justify not healing them because it's an unnecessary drain on resources.  Chaos because they don't think the individuals are deserving.Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?What else are they going to do with them?  That's important.  Also, is the city guard "good"?Law is going to be most inclined to the brigands over to the watch regardless.  On the other hand, if they've been given any legal power that could apply (even if the jurisdictions overlap), they would be well within bounds to mete out justice on their own.Law could also apply the law of their homeland, order, religion, etc. to every situation.  In that case, they'd do whatever was called for ("thieves should die, I kill them").  They could also deal a "favor of the gods" scenario and leave them dying, although that probably isn't a good act.Chaos would probably turn them in just because it's a hassle to deal with it themselves.  Unless the chaotics think that the brigands are deserving of death for their crimes, in which case, they may go ahead and coup d'grace.The thing to keep in mind here is that "chaotic" != "stupid".  Even if they completely believe the brigands should die, they will probably not do it themselves if it's illegal.  The cost/benefit ratio is too high.  Chaotics do not usually disobey laws simply to "stick it to the man".On the other hand, even though chaos may take into account what the legal _repurcussions_ of their actions are, they don't incorporate the _legality_, as such, into their decisions.  If the chaotic believes the brigands should live (or die) and the law says otherwise, he'll weigh the _punishment_ of his disobedience against his values and decide based on that.Situation B: The group is attacked by 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.Question 1: How should they react?Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react? Of course, the base line is as for the brigands.  The only differences depend on whether the giants are innately evil.It depends on beliefs about rehabilitation, which is neither lawful nor chaotic.  I have to believe that killing a creature that could be converted with any reasonable effort qualifies as a non-good act.If fire giants are inherently evil (a campaign-world decision), then there is no reason not to kill the fire giant.  Of course there's always the function reasons like the giant has information, or a show of mercy may beget mercy and avert a war, etc.  But we're talking morality here.About the only difference here is that, if a treaty exists, the lawful would be inclined to take prisoners because the treaty dictates.  A chaotic would only care because of the loss of life that would follow the breaking of the treaty.If the fire giants could be rehabilitated, then most good characters would spare the giant.  Whether they turned the giant over to the autorities would depend on a number of factors.  Lawfuls would look to what was stipulated in the law or his order's beliefs.  Chaotics would simply consider what was "good".</blockquote>

Verification