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

[Coroc]

I definitely disagree, especially with your determination that Myztek is evil. A lawful good character could certainly believe that the law is the law, that no-one is above the law, and that good is served by letting the law deal with all lawbreakers.

From the poster:

"Myztek Dryken Delerosh, a LG fighter/wizard, a former CE Thayvian under a helm of opposite alignment, would capture the kid, hand him over to the constables and say the law is the law."

The law is the law yeah? If the law orders the kid to be hanged or mutilated for stealing an apple the it is the utmost duty of a Lawful GOOD character to see actively that this is carried out?

If it were a notorious grown up thief then maybe a LN character would do so, a LG character in this case, never. Also @Oofta The LG charcter would eventually see the kid turned over to an Orphanage or good Foster care , pay the shopkeeper for the damage, and pay for the kids education so it doesn't have to steal but never act like Myztek.

Edit: A Lawful good character, upholding an evil law, becomes evil himself that should be self evident.

If a Law is evil then the lawful good character is not bound to it, instead he must strive to topple the evil law and put a good one in its place.
One that turns over criminal urchins to a foster care, and not one that puts kids to the gallows for stealing food.

2nd edit: Myzteks behavior can also be categorized with the Lawful Stupid meme, it is a perfect example for it.

 

[Flamestrike]

We're not talking about the real world though, we're talking about one where there's a manifest source of Law and manifest source of Chaos. One where "Neutral Good" is labeled true good because the Lawful Good are "crusaders' and "zealots".

It feels like our big difference in the interpretation is how strong the Law and Chaos at the corners are.

They're as strong as they are. For some people very strong, for others not as much. If you have a rigid adherence to Law, despite the moral cost or implications of your actions, you're not Lawful Good.

Look at someone like Judge Dredd. He's committed to the Law with an indefatigable zeal. He also happens to work for a LE dystopian regime. For him, the Law takes priority over any moral consideration of his actions. He doesnt go out of his way to harm others, yet he does harm others, by punishing the guilty with severe punishments, nor does he go out of his way to help others, although he certainly does help others, by fighting crime.

He's extremely Lawful (Law/ Chaos), and morally Neutral (with a slight evil bent on account of the dystopian regime he serves).

If Mega City 1 implemented a far more altruistic and forgiving legal code, Dredd would enforce that as well, without fear or favour.

He is the Law.

So, in the examples above where folks gave an alignment and an action, I get why you disagreed. If they reversed it and gave the action and then assigned the closest alignment, did they get those right?

No, the reverse is true as well.

I see a person who tosses a warhammer at a child who stole a loaf of bread, seeking to knock the child to the ground 'because it is my code that all crimes are to be answered for, notwithstanding any other consideration' to be very Lawful, and morally Neutral.

'You do the crime, you do the time' is a very LN thing to assert.

 

[DammitVictor]

I disagree with your above statement in that 90 percent of people are NE, but I agree that the majority of people are not Good (the majority of people are Neutral) and this is where the disconnect lies (people trying to assert their own moral code as being Good, when it is not).

The majority of people have great qualms about engaging in assault, murder, rape and torture. Ergo, they are not Evil. The majority also lack the self sacrifice and altruism to consistently place the welfare of others above themselves, and demonstrate altruism, mercy and compassion for others. Ergo they are not Good.

Nah. This is the hill I will die on: most people have qualms about committing assault, murder, rape and torture themselves, in the company of their fellows who might judge them for it. Most people have qualms about being called as an assailant, a murderer, a rapist, or a torturer; those qualms disappear if you call those actions something else, if a comforting authority figure tells them it's okay, or if they can derive all of the benefits of those acts by asking someone else to perform them on their behalf.

Everyone's favorite punching bag is slavery. Everyone agrees that slavery is Evil because they're the sixth generation descendants of the people who fought a bloody civil war to abolish it-- for purely economic reasons-- but now we're arguing about whether or not it's Evil in-game.

How many of the people arguing that slavery is okay in the game, and how many people arguing that even fictional slavery is unforgivable... are making that argument on electronics manufactured in the Peoples' Republic of China? I don't know for a fact that I'm not. Some of the things I own-- I'm not sure which-- are made by inmates in privately-owned prisons for victimless crimes. The majority of people buy these slave goods. The majority of people oppose the domestic and foreign policy reforms that would eliminate these modern forms of slavery.

I know ten percent isn't a majority, but there was a recent study that showed that if you asked men anonymously and never called it "rape", one in ten men would admit to having used physical force to obtain sex. How many more lied?

Going any further than this would get deeply political in a hurry-- I've probably already got all ten toes over that edge-- but suffice it to say that majority of people, the vast majority of people, enjoy hurting people when society reassures them it's okay and condones hurting people when they profit from it and don't have to witness the carnage first-hand.

The majority of human beings are Neutral Evil. And the lies they tell themselves to sleep at night are what they define as Lawful Good.

 

[Flamestrike]

Nah. This is the hill I will die on: most people have qualms about committing assault, murder, rape and torture themselves, in the company of their fellows who might judge them for it.

Your implication there is most people would engage in murder, rape, assault and torture if they could get away with it, or could do those acts without anyone else finding out. With no-one to judge, why not right?

Which is a terrifying view for you to have. Indicative of a lack of empathy on your behalf.

People choose not to engage in murder, rape, torture and assault, because they're human beings with empathy and compassion for the suffering of others.

 

[Coroc]

Nah. This is the hill I will die on: most people have qualms about committing assault, murder, rape and torture themselves, in the company of their fellows who might judge them for it. Most people have qualms about being called as an assailant, a murderer, a rapist, or a torturer; those qualms disappear if you call those actions something else, if a comforting authority figure tells them it's okay, or if they can derive all of the benefits of those acts by asking someone else to perform them on their behalf.

Everyone's favorite punching bag is slavery. Everyone agrees that slavery is Evil because they're the sixth generation descendants of the people who fought a bloody civil war to abolish it-- for purely economic reasons-- but now we're arguing about whether or not it's Evil in-game.

How many of the people arguing that slavery is okay in the game, and how many people arguing that even fictional slavery is unforgivable... are making that argument on electronics manufactured in the Peoples' Republic of China? I don't know for a fact that I'm not. Some of the things I own-- I'm not sure which-- are made by inmates in privately-owned prisons for victimless crimes. The majority of people buy these slave goods. The majority of people oppose the domestic and foreign policy reforms that would eliminate these modern forms of slavery.

I know ten percent isn't a majority, but there was a recent study that showed that if you asked men anonymously and never called it "rape", one in ten men would admit to having used physical force to obtain sex. How many more lied?

Going any further than this would get deeply political in a hurry-- I've probably already got all ten toes over that edge-- but suffice it to say that majority of people, the vast majority of people, enjoy hurting people when society reassures them it's okay and condones hurting people when they profit from it and don't have to witness the carnage first-hand.

The majority of human beings are Neutral Evil. And the lies they tell themselves to sleep at night are what they define as Lawful Good.

Exactly, but it goes deeper than this. Your goods e.g. textiles made by quasi slave labor are an example: As a buyer of those goods you could say I try to alter the only thing I can, because I cannot topple the system allowing that I boycott these goods and do not buy them. But think about that "slave" laborer for a moment, if many people would boycott the goods he manufactures then his "company" would go down and he would be unemployed and starve along with his family.
So what is the better thing to do? There is no easy way out.

 

[Cadence]

I see a person who tosses a warhammer at a child who stole a loaf of bread, seeking to knock the child to the ground 'because it is my code that all crimes are to be answered for, notwithstanding any other consideration' to be very Lawful, and morally Neutral.

'You do the crime, you do the time' is a very LN thing to assert.

It feels like that misrepresents the motivation and leaves some vital things out.

I explained that if the kid was hungry I'd throw in a few gold for an apprenticeship so he could earn his keep, but theft is wrong. If the kid got away with stealing a loaf of bread now, the lesson he learns is that he can get away with theft. In a couple of years it wouldn't be the loaf of bread, it would be the baker's earnings for the week.

Better to stop the kid and at least try to turn their life around.

I didn't have the speed to do a tackle.

If he had the option he would have just grappled the kid. If the DM had responded that there was a chance to kill the kid I wouldn't have done it.

Using the details as given - your character would have apparently let the kid get away (because, as stated, you didn't have the speed to catch them, and you wouldn't knock them down from a distance). Your character therefore would have done nothing to help the child's life, leaving them to presumably continue stealing, and possibly face whatever town justice there was whenever they were finally caught by the watch.

Their character got the child an apprenticeship, showed them that there are people out there who care, and a lesson against stealing.

But at least your character would be around to lecture them later on how it wasn't actually good?

 

[Flamestrike]

Using the details as given - your character would have apparently let the kid get away

No, I just wouldnt have tossed a warhammer at them to stop them.

'Hey Kid, come over here' (Intimidate - do so sternly - or Persuasion - offer gold) would have sufficed yeah?

The PC had no problem hurting the child (throwing a warhammer at his legs). That's my issue here.

 

[Coroc]

Your implication there is most people would engage in murder, rape, assault and torture if they could get away with it, or could do those acts without anyone else finding out. With no-one to judge, why not right?

Which is a terrifying view for you to have. Indicative of a lack of empathy on your behalf.

People choose not to engage in murder, rape, torture and assault, because they're human beings with empathy and compassion for the suffering of others.

Yea, you would wish. And I hope most really are. But empathy goes only so far, if your empathy is demanding responsibility, expenses and effort on your side, e.g. care for someone or pay for someone poor then the empathy is gone pretty fast.
The stakes for the first degree things of @FaerieGodfather are higher, of course. And he should eventually have written it a bit more context driven, just because authority would allow e.g. murder, people would not necessary kill other people needlessly (of course psychopaths would readily exploit that situation), but if the circumstances are dire enough, almost everybody would kill and torture, e.g. a him or me situation, or getting food for the starving kids.

If you say you would not kill in an emergency or self defense, to protect yourself or someone you love, then I think you either do not love that someone, or not telling the truth.

 

[Flamestrike]

Imagine watching a parent toss a hammer at a misbehaving childs legs IRL, in order to knock the kid to the ground.

Im not particularly interested in what behaviour they were trying to correct there, or what their higher motives were. It is not a morally good thing to do.

 

[Cadence]

No, I just wouldnt have tossed a warhammer at them to stop them.
'Hey Kid, come over here' (Intimidate - do so sternly - or Persuasion - offer gold) would have sufficed yeah?

They've got their back to you running and are scared the shop-owner is going to snag them. Come here kid I have gold, or just yelling to stop seem pretty unlikely to succeed to me unless you have some magic backing it up.

Maybe @Oofta considered it and decided it wouldn't work as well. Maybe in the rush of the moment he just didn't think of it. And yet he's condemned as not good enough for his trouble to get the kid on the right road. The judgementalness in labeling him that way feels pretty close to the zealotry of LG though, so your argument has that going for it. ;-)