The old LG vs CN problem….

[cmad1977]

Sounds like you have people playing Lawful Dimwit and chaotic but not exactly playing together.

 

[N'raac]

Wait... why? Why is the LG cleric dispensing with justice, offering bribes, and making deals with evil doers who show no signs of repentance? Did they beg for mercy? If so, why now do they get a share of treasure? What possible legal claim could they make on it, and what legal claim did the cleric have to give it away if it was stolen goods? What about the victims of the brigands? How will the LG cleric answer them when they cry out for justice? What about the lawful authority of the land? How will the cleric answer him when he asks whether the cleric is obeying and upholding the law?

Why in the heck did the Paladin go along with this? Isn't he sworn to bring evil doers to justice? I mean, the best he can do is swear they'll receive a fair trial. He can't make deals that violate the law to get something he wants, and he can't allow others to do so.

Circumstances. From the original post:

if they were to stand at the back of the room and let the adventurers get past a trapped door to rescue someone.

Now, if that's just "the victim is tied to a chair behind a trapped door, safe and sound", I also question the "let's make a deal" approach. But I wasn't there, so I don't know the situation. "While you fight the Brigands, the Beast kills and eats the Princess" is probably not an acceptable result, so "Look, you're in it for the money - we'll give you cash, just stay out of the way while we rescue the innocent" seems like a viable tradeoff between "protect the innocent" and "punish the guilty". Then it's a variation of the classic dilemma of choosing whether to chase the bad guy or rescue the innocent people he has somehow endangered.

However, the possibility that there are six CN characters, but three are in denial and don't want to look bad is also very real.

Ok, so that isn't merely pragmatic. That's treacherous. You've just entered into an agreement with this group, and now you are going to backstab them. You have deceived them, and now having successfully deceived them you are going to take advantage of them. If they had an objection to the deal, they should have voiced it ahead of time.

That behavior is not Chaotic Neutral. That's Chaotic Evil.

Lying is evil? It's certainly Chaotic, but is it evil?

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Now, respect for life is a hallmark of Good, but if killing the perpetrators of evil deeds means one cannot be Good, we can take that third of the alignment chart out of 99%+ of fantasy RPG's I've ever seen.

The supposedly LG characters made a deal in bad faith and now intend to act cruelly and vindictively. That's just evil. If they justify that by the fact that by the letter of the agreement they didn't say they wouldn't lock up or otherwise mistreat the brigands, that's lawful evil - devils make similar sorts of agreements, not paladins.

LN at best, and I agree leaving them to starve moves it further down the axis.

Like you, I have difficulty with the term "properly kill them". Goading them into a fight so you can claim "self-defense" doesn't cut it. Good people aren't looking for an excuse to kill. But then, didn't the Good people here choose to sacrifice their own wealth to avoid the need to kill the brigands? Taken in isolation, that seems like a Good act. But acts can't be taken in isolation, which brings us full circle to the reasons for making the deal.

 

[Celebrim]

Lying is evil? It's certainly Chaotic, but is it evil?

Lying itself is such a broad category that I don't want to touch it as a whole. It requires an answer to the question, "Are all deceptions, even in a broken world, evil?" Certainly self-interested lies are at least chaotic, like so called 'little white lies', and self-interested lies that harm the receiver are certainly also evil. But what about a lie that is not self-interested, is not cowardly but courageous, and protects the innocent from immediate harm? For example, if the Nazi's come banging on your door, are you required to tell them that you have Jews hiding in your basement if they ask? I won't attempt an answer to such a complex question here, even if I could assume that I could fit such a discussion in a two axis framework.

But treachery? Treachery is evil. Betrayal is evil. Betrayal is bottom circle of hell sort of evil. It's a crime against faith, hope, and love combined, and advances the cause of evil faster than just about anything.

Now, respect for life is a hallmark of Good, but if killing the perpetrators of evil deeds means one cannot be Good, we can take that third of the alignment chart out of 99%+ of fantasy RPG's I've ever seen.

Again, the problem isn't killing per se. The problem is the circumstances and the means.

LN at best, and I agree leaving them to starve moves it further down the axis.

Sort of agree. Neutral if they tell someone in town, "We've got some brigands locked up in the old moat house. They'll probably get a bit thirsty and hungry soon, and might be more amendable to throwing their arms and coming along quietly." Evil if they don't care how they die or intend them to die. Even if they agree that something has to die, good aligned characters believe that even the death should be merciful.

As for the reasons for the deal, I agree that its possible that there are mitigating circumstances around forming the deal - rescuing an innocent hostage, for example. I think even in that situation, the LG paladin would be up front about how limited the deal really is and what the terms are: "Take the treasure and go. I'll give you a day to clear out and make yourself scarce. But understand, this isn't amnesty. I'm only doing this to save the life of the girl. If I ever see you again, you'll face justice. And if I hear about your further crimes, I'll be sure you see me soon." Still, failure to clarify the terms is a lack of wisdom, and not evil or chaotic action.

But lacking specific terms to the deal, good demands generosity and law demands you be fair. Immediately trying to find a way to back out of the agreement, is simply being treacherous.

 

[Wellby]

Why do I ever neglect these forums? Such a great discussion, and one I never really engaged with in my 1980s gaming days.
I now DM for my kids.
So, to address some of the excellent points: The argument about children vs adults and CE actions. Exactly. Those 13 and under love to play LG, those over 13 are not allowed to play CE, but choose CN and have to be reigned in…What this says about humanity, I do not want to pursue.

To tell you where we are: Shackled City. the group had just snuck in, killed Tongueeater in the kitchen of the Lucky Monkey, the monk whacked and terrified two brigands (from upstairs) who quickly gave up. They descended the stairs with these two brigands as hostages, and the hill folk/rogues in the cellar are the people we're talking about. The lawful good party members are the younger kids, and they do like to avoid violence if possible. Ergo, the deal which yes, I wouldn't have made as a paladin, but a paladin that hates violence makes such a deal…The bad guys stand aside and the group rescued Shensen. The 14 year old CN bard then says, let's waste these dudes, they killed the high priest, they are evil, they will kill us, it is 'just' to kill them, sure we 'duped' them, but come on, these guys are horrific, let's deal some justice. The younger, LG characters are feeling trapped by their decision to avoid violence, and I can't say that I don't sympathize.

I've loved the level of philosophic discussion here. I hope it continues!!

finally, I do agree with the suggestion: begin the next session with a deus ex machina, they attempt to escape, they kill them, they load their treasure, and on the 8 hr ride back to Cauldron, I force the group to discuss these ideological differences, and come up with strategies to avoid such problems in the future. yes?

thanks again.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The younger, LG characters are feeling trapped by their decision to avoid violence, and I can't say that I don't sympathize.

Really, knowing whats the right and acceptable thing for the LG characters to do at this point is something a DM should have already known. For that matter the PLAYERS should have known it too. LG characters don't go around NOT KNOWING WHAT'S RIGHT. The correct interpretation is ALWAYS the DM's - not the book's or someone else's ideas about it. And that's never something the DM should be keeping a secret from PC's.

The first problem, as already mentioned, is that LG characters (ESPECIALLY paladins) just shouldn't be adventuring for any length of time with CN characters, IMO. Yes, 3E rules allow it but it's not that great an idea - and this issue is exactly why. But overlook that for the moment. The good PC's have struck a bargain. The non-good PC's DID NOT DISAGREE and thus tacitly agreed to it as well. If they had concerns about it then the issue would not be one of breaking the agreement but that the agreement had not yet been reached because there was no consensus among the PC's. It seems like not the best of arrangements to be making deals with brigands but I also don't see anything particularly horrifying about it. So... if the good PC's are okay with it then the non-good PC's really don't have as much justification to break the deal as they THINK they do. If they're having second thoughts about the deal AFTER it's been made then the good PC's simply need to tell them that NEXT time they'd better make objections known a little sooner because to try to kill the brigands NOW would put the good PC's in the ridiculous position of DEFENDING the brigands against their own allies. That would not be the fault of the good PC's so much as the two-timing inclinations of the non-good PC's. Really, they're just demonstrating that they are NO MORE TRUSTWORTHY than the brigands they want to kill.

finally, I do agree with the suggestion: begin the next session with a deus ex machina, they attempt to escape, they kill them, they load their treasure, and on the 8 hr ride back to Cauldron, I force the group to discuss these ideological differences, and come up with strategies to avoid such problems in the future. yes?

Not just that. As DM YOU need to come up with a much clearer set of guidelines for players to use that will cut these conundrums off before they even start. How do you deal with prisoners? What if someone Evil surrenders? Do you kill them for being evil or MUST you accept surrender REGARDLESS of circumstances? Are paladins in particular able to BE PALADINS and kill evil things without endangering their status? Where should characters draw the line? When the alignment of one PC says we CAN do this, but the alignment of another PC says we CAN'T, are they supposed to FIGHT to determine who's right - or will they have an understanding of WHOSE MORALITY will be the default that EVERYONE in the party agrees to abide by? Those are just a few of the questions you need to consider as DM. You need to figure out the answers ahead of time and tell the players what those answers are.

The purpose of alignment is not to CREATE THESE PROBLEMS. The purpose of alignment is to help everyoneAVOID THESE PROBLEMS.

 

[GreenTengu]

People shouldn't be playing Chaotic Neutral. That is your first problem and until that problem is resolved, it doesn't matter what else the rest of the party plays.

Chaotic Neutral is not an alignment that can function in a group-- not a sustained group. Nor would they want to! D&D is based around party-based adventuring, it is not a 1st player shooter nor a video game RPG where you walk around the village stealing everything that is in people's houses and selling them to the local shop that has infinite money, then go off alone to kill the monsters who are threatening the village (but not really any threat to you) because they are worth XP and have gold and then return to the village for further reward on your heroic feat at which point you use your bluff speech option to get more gold out of them... unless the strategy guide you are usings says there is a way to get more reward some other way.

Chaotic Neutral people are insane, unpredictable and only follow the basic rules of decency to the point that their life is directly threatened. They are the sort of Libertarian nut jobs who carry AK-47s into their local burrito shop just to get a thrill out of frightening people and because the law won't stop them. And none of them can stand each others company for more than a few minutes before calling another a commie (LN) when their exercising their "freedoms" interfere with one another's "freedom" or one decides they should functionally cooperate in order to accomplish... well.... anything.

The moment someone offers up a character with a CN in that alignment box, you should erase those letters as they nothing more than asking for permission to act like a jackass without consequence. Instead, just tell them they have no alignment and to just have their characters act like people who care about the world they are in, value things in it, care about their own livelihood and well being and are interested in cooperating with the other characters in the group-- and beyond that don't give two thoughts to what their alignment is and don't let any notion of what it is guide or inform any of their actions-- just their investment in getting along with the other characters and making sure this world they live in and the stuff they have in it doesn't disappear while perhaps gathering more stuff if they have the opportunity.

 

[Wellby]

That last post was hilarious, and well put. (AK47s in the burrito joint…yup).

Maybe I should have a talk with each CN character and see if they'll start migrating...

 

[Celebrim]

People shouldn't be playing Chaotic Neutral. That is your first problem and until that problem is resolved, it doesn't matter what else the rest of the party plays.

I protest that the problem isn't Chaotic Neutral as a valid character choice so much as CN is the primary choice of alignment for people who want to be Chaotic Evil, but don't want to write 'evil' on their character sheet. Likewise, the problem is not so much playing a character whose motivations may contrast with the bulk of the party, as it is not having the maturity to play those characters as anything but one dimensional caricatures. And speaking of one dimensional caricatures...

Chaotic Neutral people are insane, unpredictable and only follow the basic rules of decency to the point that their life is directly threatened. They are the sort of Libertarian nut jobs who carry AK-47s into their local burrito shop just to get a thrill out of frightening people and because the law won't stop them. And none of them can stand each others company for more than a few minutes before calling another a commie (LN) when their exercising their "freedoms" interfere with one another's "freedom" or one decides they should functionally cooperate in order to accomplish... well.... anything.

Ok, so I could be wrong but I think that probably violated norms on the EnWorld board. I also strongly get the impression you don't know any of those 'libertarian nutjobs' save third hand through some media lens which has them looking like orcs to you as opposed to real complex persons every bit as valuable as your are and whose beliefs and values however they came about them are at least as coherent and reasoned as your own. In any event, I disagree with both your characterization of CN, and your characterization of libertarians (even though I self-identify as neither). Perhaps more care should be taken regarding our real world analogies. If we are going to use them, it might be helpful to be respectful.

However, for the record, doing something in order to get a thrill out of frightening someone is not a neutral motivation. I have lived plenty in the deep south where carrying guns isn't viewed as abnormal, and I've never seen an AK-47 in an burrito shop. And while reasons for carrying a gun vary widely from individual to individual, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for a person to carry a gun openly precisely so that someone won't be afraid. Not everyone looks at one like a snake about to strike. And I also disagree with the ability of CN people to get along with others. In fact, I generally disagree with any personality based description of alignment.

The moment someone offers up a character with a CN in that alignment box, you should erase those letters as they nothing more than asking for permission to act like a jackass without consequence.

Hmmm... this isn't getting any better.

Maybe you ought to look up the idea of projection.

Instead, just tell them they have no alignment and to just have their characters act like people who care about the world they are in, value things in it, care about their own livelihood and well being and are interested in cooperating with the other characters in the group-- and beyond that don't give two thoughts to what their alignment is and don't let any notion of what it is guide or inform any of their actions

In the context of a fantasy game, not caring about your alignment wouldn't mean you didn't have one. It would just mean you hadn't intellectualized what you believe or value.

-- just their investment in getting along with the other characters and making sure this world they live in and the stuff they have in it doesn't disappear while perhaps gathering more stuff if they have the opportunity.

As a player, you can do that regardless of the alignment on your character sheet. It requires a bit of intelligence and a lot of humility (even when the PC itself isn't supposed to possess either trait), but if you want to do it, then you can. Not only have I done it as a PC, but I can animate NPC's in such a way that regardless of their alignment the player's don't want to just kill them or do away with them.

 

[N'raac]

Lying itself is such a broad category that I don't want to touch it as a whole. It requires an answer to the question, "Are all deceptions, even in a broken world, evil?"

The first problem, as already mentioned, is that LG characters (ESPECIALLY paladins) just shouldn't be adventuring for any length of time with CN characters, IMO. Yes, 3E rules allow it but it's not that great an idea - and this issue is exactly why.

Let's talk about this issue. Like lying, it seems a broad issue (plus, I hate to risk leaving Celebrim out of any ethics discussion!). Paladins have been barred from having evil associates. "We are judged by the company we keep", and he certainly should not condone evil or chaotic activity.

But is this another example of simplistic morality? What is more noble, to shun those who turn away from the path of righteousness, or to stand as a shining example of righteousness, showing the unenlightened the error of their ways, and working to redeem them? "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Somewhat tangentially, [sblock]as I consider this and similar threads, I am amazed how much a comic strip about stick figures can add to my thinking on this. Order of the Stick (pushing 1,000 posts) has some pretty amazing bits. This may be the best description I have ever seen of alignment change, and he just slipped it in under the radar. The whole Belkar story arc is a pretty solid example of an Evil character associating with Good characters, and having that example rub off, not really consciously and despite the Evil character's best efforts. Way back in its history, it has some of the best Intolerant Paladin examples as well.

Not bad for half a dozen stick figures who started out poking gentle fun at our little hobby. I aspire to imparting the depth of these stick figures to my characters.[/sblock]

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I protest that the problem isn't Chaotic Neutral as a valid character choice so much as CN is the primary choice of alignment for people who want to be Chaotic Evil, but don't want to write 'evil' on their character sheet. Likewise, the problem is not so much playing a character whose motivations may contrast with the bulk of the party, as it is not having the maturity to play those characters as anything but one dimensional caricatures.

I do think there are two to three other groups of people jostling to take up the Chaotic Neutral alignment--on the whole it's rather a busy place (which is why it comes up so often):

"Mischievous Rascals" - I see these people as coming at it from the opposite direction that the "I (perhaps unknowingly) want to write 'Evil' but can't because that's a no-no" group. Labelling yourself as "Good" makes it sound like there are too many strings attached--this person wants to have some self-interested fun now and then. Expect playful pranks (but rarely/never ones that would be permanently hurtful), nicking non-essential shiny things for personal enjoyment or to sell off later, and a sassy attitude toward anyone in an "official" position of power (unless, as with most Chaotic alignments, that official has personally earned the Mischievous Rascal's respect). These will be generally easy to deal with, because as long as they can crack some jokes and have a good time, they're up for basically anything, though a crackdown on dissent or dispassionately carrying out punishment regardless of whether it is "deserved" will probably rub them the wrong way.

"Actually Chaotic Neutral!" - The rare few who are more like, say, Garret from the original Thief series. He's really not an especially "good" person, and with rare exceptions he really is in it for himself. Even his efforts to save the city are easily attributed to avenging wrongs done to him or those he immediately cares about, or trying to prevent apocalypse (which is terribly bad for business). This kind of person is amoral (not immoral) and motivated primarily by "looking out for number one." First, survival; second, a comfortable living; third, excitement and entertainment. Ironically, this person is actually much easier to deal with than the previous one. In general, their motivations will be pretty clearly stated, and often merely the promise of excitement, adventure, and really shiny money is enough to get them motivated; they're also very rarely cruel, because it's stupid to make unnecessary enemies, and because having that kind of reputation is bad for business. Those that do engage in violence--e.g. bounty hunters, rather than thieves--will tend to preserve that professionalism, and either way, a job's a job, though their methods for completing it may be...unorthodox.

"Maximum Badass" - This is the one that's sort of half-there. Unlike the "I want no strings" of MR, MB is about wanting nothing to "tarnish" your tough-guy reputation. This is the kind of thing Han Solo would do; he's carefully constructed an image of himself as a thoroughly "moral grey area" character, but when push comes to shove, he's really just "white that's got grubby" (as Granny Weatherwax would put it). In a sense, they're sort of midway between the above two; they see themselves as the 'not especially good person' but are easily convinced to go along with Team Good. While they might not turn down a secret theft, in a "character is what you are in the dark" moment, they'll do the good/noble thing before doing the amoral-self-interest thing.

When you add in the people who (knowingly or not) really want to play CE but can't, that's four fairly distinct (or three distinct plus a meaningful midpoint) archetypes all bundled into the same alignment square. I'm not sure there are nearly as many nicely-distinct variations for most other squares, and pretty dang sure they won't be as popular as the four above.

Really, though, I'm more surprised that the majority of the group is Lawful; the vast majority of people I've played with favor either CN (usually not the "I reeeeaaally want to be Evil!" version) or CG, and see Lawful anything as a fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud.