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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Czhorat" data-source="post: 1179290" data-attributes="member: 13826">Questions and ConsequencesFirst off, it seems that there should be more to this story. Is there a reason the Dwarf engaged in what must have been an obviously suicidal attack? Was the party blocking his escape? Did they threaten him? Was he simply convinced that they were too  inherently dishonest for him to trust them not to shoot him in the back?I'm pretty much in agreement that the rogue acted dishonestly and chaotically, but not evilly. His behaviour seems consistant with a CG type of alignment. Lawful good types or paladins would not likely make any offers that they don't intend to keep. If the rogue offered the dwarf his crossbow back in exchange for information and received that information then the rest of the party would likely be bound by that promise if they're inclined to keep their words in the first place. If they are more like Robin Hood then Sir Galahad they'd be perfectly willing to bend the truth a bit.I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the difference between an implied verbal agreement and an ironclad contract. The issue with morality and ethics is the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law. If the rogue says, for example, "Do you want your crossbow back? Then you'd better tell us what we want to know..." then it's clearly implied that there's some reward to the prisoner for divulging information.This brings us to the last point -- consequences. To those in the outside world, the fact is that the party took a prisoner and killed him in cold blood. If anyone witnessed the end of the battle they might have seen the party take a prisoner and later depart with a magic new crossbow and leaving a dead dwarf behind. If this sort of behaviour keeps up, the party will eventually become known as a group that takes no prisoners. You might hint to them that if this keeps up the party's foes will very likely fight to the death rather than be captured and summarilly killed anyhow. It also means that the wizard will have to break out the detect thoughts spells for interrogation because a reputation for not livign up to your promises means you have nothing with which to bargain.As far as what alignments the party has, none could be lawful. A lawful character would not make promises that he does not mean to keep, would not make snap decisions without consulting the rest of his team, and would not sulk because he's annoyed with his partners. The aristocrat and the fighter are not good. They took no precautions to safeguard the life of a helpless prisoner. The fighter simply cutting him free without a plan for what to do with him WAS a recipe for disaster.  The aristocrat's slaying him seemed like a petty, childish act. There's no reason he couldn't have tried to stabilize him and turn him over to the proper authorities for an appropriate punishment. The group dynamic seems strongly chaotic to me. Although they have a common problem, they approach it as individuals. Lawfulness, to me, at least implies working as a group and deferring to authority.That's my four cents.</blockquote>

Verification