R_J_K75
Legend
CN: do nothing
CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.
CN: do nothing
CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.
Indeed.
I think the best example I can give to people of CN is Captain Jack Sparrow.
Other good examples include Deadpool (generally; depends on the writing, but the MCU version for sure), Hondo Onaka from Star Wars and Daryl Dixon from TWD (although he sometimes he veers towards CG, and other times he veers towards CE).
Most depictions of Logan (Wolverine) pre and early X Men also have him CN (with good tendencies) with a core part of his early story arc being him leaving his more amoral, jaded and animalistic tendencies behind to embrace the Good man he is inside.
I remember reading I believe in Dragon Magazine on alignment that a True Neutral character will always take on another alignment until a situation utterly dictates dictates they take a neutral stance.
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.
Wouldn't a Lawful Good character generally just pay for the bread themself to resolve the situation. That way the merchant gets the money to support their family and the child gets the food to support their family.
Its not like any adventurer is ever going to be short on funds, so it isn't even a tremendous sacrifice on the character's part. And-- really-- if the character isn't willing to sacrifice a copper or two to see that everyone is happy, are they even Lawful Good?
CN: Trip the kid as hes running away, eat the bread then beat the baker senseless just for the fun of it. At least thats what 99.9% of the people Ive ever seen play Chaotic Stupid would do.
Drag out the, "But it is historical!" argument when you are playing a game that is intended to actually be historical. Until then, it comes out as rather egregious cherrypicking.
The OP postulated that the child could face dire consequences if caught, including loss of limb. Saying "he won't be charged since he's underage" seems to be outside of the premise of the OP, even if it is not because of adherence to "historicity" but just because the society the child is in just thinks that children can lose a limb for a minor theft. Plus, it's not as "easy" as you say: if you trust the judicial system to exonerate the child, I guess you help the merchant to stop him (LG) even if unfortunately at the end of the judicial process the child is missing an arm (unforeseenable consequence)? Or do you assume your judgement is enough to substitute it to the rightful authorities who will certainly come to the same conclusion as your character and do nothing (CG?)