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

[Coroc]

In my experience these kind of righteous moments happen in campaigns where other things are already happening. The Paladin goes off on some self-sacrificial quest, while the Ranger is all, "You know we have that whole Age of Worms ending the world thing, right? We can't wait three months," and the Cleric says, "And breaking you out defeats the purpose of what you're doing."

It can easily be an example of a well-played character, but the consequences of it could derail an ongoing campaign. That's not necessarily fair to the rest of the players or the DM.



Eh, I'm not a fan of a deus ex machina. Simply put, the gods generally don't have that kind of direct influence in the campaigns I play in. Otherwise, why would they aid the Paladin but not the other thieves? The gods might send dreams or visions to their clerics or paladins, but the gods typically expect mortals to solve mortal problems with mortal solutions. That's the mortal condition and the consequence of free will. The gods act through the faithful because the gods know that the faithful will (or are most likely to) choose to follow their patron's will, not because only the faithful are worthy of favor.

cannot shorten bec phone post:
on deus ex machina also use it only when really fitting but this is such a situation. I also believe irl you best can convince grown up people by example. The folk would see that the law needs to be refined by the pallys action. Every body is happy and St.Launcelot can continue his age of worms task.

 

[DammitVictor]

"Apprenticeship? Dude, I built a business, and became a mayor you yourself respected! I need your 'help' like I need a kick in the teeth!"

"As you wish, Monsieur 2-4-6-0-1."

 

[jasper]

I brought this up in the other thread because I feel it a better thing to debate about alignment, especially the LG alignment than Orc babies.

What would a character do if they caught a poor street kid stealing food from a merchant in the city? The child is obviously quite poor impoverished and in poor health, so they are likely stealing to survive or to feed their family. The city most certainly has laws that could be harsh for the child now that they are caught, in that it could either be imprisonment or the child loses a hand. What would your character do in this situation now that they caught this little thief?

I think the answer is very obvious for what a NG or CG character would do, in that they'd at least let the child go. But for LG characters this might be more of an internal conflict to them.

Even my LG paladin would say. "I not the city's cop! Take your laws and shove it up the rulers BEEP!"
My LG paladin who is one of the City's cop, "Shove the law. Kid don't let me catch you stealing again. Kobold Avenger put the kids meals on my tab."

 

[5atbu]

That's a modern concept.

Kids in UK could get deported to the colonies, sent to a workhouse etc.

Death and/or mutilation in some cultures.

Age of criminal responsibility in England: 10
Scotland :8
Some parts of USA: no bottom limit

 

[GrahamWills]

I have to say, all your CE characters have very limited vision. My CE character will do whatever it takes to get the child hurt, but not killed, stir up the crowd against the ”evil laws that stop a child from even living” and at the very least make the citizens distrust and fear the Authorities. Best case in this scenario is my character giving a powerful speech from the top of a burning barricade as a horde of incensed locals storms the law courts and destroys any trace of law in this city. With luck I’ll find a chance to off the kid quietly as a martyr will woke much better once the initial riot is over. Make the kid a local saint if we can, get his icon all over the area and spread it out through the countryside. The goal is to have normal folk annoyed at any law take out their pendant and think “what would Fynnver do” — because he will be famous for one thing only, defying the law and being killed by it.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I brought this up in the other thread because I feel it a better thing to debate about alignment, especially the LG alignment than Orc babies.

What would a character do if they caught a poor street kid stealing food from a merchant in the city? The child is obviously quite poor impoverished and in poor health, so they are likely stealing to survive or to feed their family. The city most certainly has laws that could be harsh for the child now that they are caught, in that it could either be imprisonment or the child loses a hand. What would your character do in this situation now that they caught this little thief?

I think the answer is very obvious for what a NG or CG character would do, in that they'd at least let the child go. But for LG characters this might be more of an internal conflict to them.

People don't understand what LG if they think stopping the child vs. letting him go is really this binary.

What would the LG character do? Catch the child, make him return the food. Then the LG character themselves would buy the food and give it to the child. Maybe throw in some advice like "You know the baker could use an extra set of hands, maybe he'd pay you in bread for some work."

We need to be more creative about how to perceive different alignments.

 

[Flamestrike]

Except there was a way with a soft underhanded throw to stop the kid to be certain no permanent damage was done. It's called "ask the DM." The DM and the player determine what is possible.

If he had said it was not possible, I would have asked for other options. Could I slide the hammer on the floor, was there something soft I could throw or any other number of options including letting the kid go.

If you had been the DM you could have ruled differently. You were not so you did not. Besides, I fully admit he leaned LN on certain things. As far as my PC was concerned, a crime was being committed, he stopped the crime without using excessive force. My PC didn't buy into "necessity justifies crime" although the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.

Note: this was an AD&D game so improvising actions was pretty common.

You're doing it again.

This isnt about you or what you knew. Its about your character.

Im stating that your character, threw a warhammer at a child who was running away from you, knocking him to the ground and hurting him. For all your character knew (and any bystanders) you could very well have injured or even killed the child.

You the player knew the blow would only knock him down (DM said so). Your character OTOH simply pretty sure you you could knock him to the ground without seriously injuring or killing him. Your meta-knowledge of the action based on your chat with the DM is not your players knowledge.

This is why your fellow players, imagining the scene through the eyes of their characters, were aghast. You threw a warhammer at a childs legs, hurting him, knocking him to the ground, and with the possibility of causing him serious harm.

You werent trying to injure him, but to people in the game world you could have, even though (to us at the table, with our meta-knowledge) we knew you couldnt.

 

[Flamestrike]

And after the first time the mid-to-high level character has to jump off a 30' cliff and is essentially unhurt, they just chalk it up to a lucky coincidence?

Yeah. Just like when it happens to us in real life. Sometimes even small falls injure you. Sometimes you can fall a long way and not hurt yourself saved by a lucky break.

 

[Cadence]

This isnt about you or what you knew. Its about your character.

You the player knew the blow would only knock him down (DM said so) knew you couldnt...

Yeah. Just like when it happens to us in real life. Sometimes even small falls injure you. Sometimes you can fall a long way and not hurt yourself saved by a lucky break.

So your argument is that characters should act like the world works like our real world does in terms of what they would think about damage and weapons and the like.

So characters should be amazed when in every single combat they're in after a while they are either repeatedly hit by hammers and swords and the like that don't slow them down at all, or single swing apparently just grazes them even though they're surrounded? Should they ever leave combat when their hp are getting low but are still above what they had at 1st level, because a single nick wouldn't be a bad thing usually and a solid stroke should be just as lethal as when the combat started in real life? Should they never dream of charging into a room full of goblins or kobolds or bandits because a good cut from a single one of their short swords could be lethal? Are rusty swords particularly lethal due to tetanus? Should they be managing their combat against the taller giants so that they don't get fallen on? Are they awed then none of them are ever killed by that, or do you roll for who gets crushed? And certainly they'd never take on a dragon because something the size of a dinosaur with a brain and fire breathing would tear through them quicker than some of the scenes in Jurassic Park? At some point, is it possible for them to be vaguely rational and go on any of the published adventures?

 

[Oofta]

You're doing it again.

This isnt about you or what you knew. Its about your character.

Im stating that your character, threw a warhammer at a child who was running away from you, knocking him to the ground and hurting him. For all your character knew (and any bystanders) you could very well have injured or even killed the child.

You the player knew the blow would only knock him down (DM said so). Your character OTOH simply pretty sure you you could knock him to the ground without seriously injuring or killing him. Your meta-knowledge of the action based on your chat with the DM is not your players knowledge.

This is why your fellow players, imagining the scene through the eyes of their characters, were aghast. You threw a warhammer at a childs legs, hurting him, knocking him to the ground, and with the possibility of causing him serious harm.

You werent trying to injure him, but to people in the game world you could have, even though (to us at the table, with our meta-knowledge) we knew you couldnt.

I'm stating that my character knew he could do this without causing permanent damage. How did he know? He was a specialist in the use of his hammer. Beyond that I can't tell you what my PC knew or didn't know. Last time I checked he's not real. Although if there really are infinite multi-verses then in theory he could be.

IIRC I was actually inspired by a show that had a cop throwing his nightstick to trip a guy. I thought it was a cool visual.

I don't understand why this particular issue has your grundies in a bundle, but I'm done discussing it with you. Have a good one.