What alignment is this? What would you do?

Iron_Chef

First Post
Please help me figure out what alignment this is and what the character should do:

This PC was trained by his father in a unique and deadly style of martial arts, which his father had used to make a small fortune as a gladiator, buying his freedom and a small inn. The son was forbidden by his father to fight in the arena, but was approached by his father's longtime rival and offered a chance to secretly participate in the gladiatorial games (in disguise), in exchange for which the rival would furnish him with a set of masterwork weapons. The son agrees, wishing to experience the "exciting" life of his father and to test out several "refinements" of his father's combat style, proving them superior, as his father has dismissed the son's new techniques as inferior to his own "true" style. This is a point of contention between father and son, as is the son being "saved" for a better life than his father had. Otherwise, father and son get along well and love each other, working together at the inn, which the son will inherit someday. The son asks himself: "Why did my father instruct me in the deadly arts if I was never to use them?" and "Why is my father's life not good enough for me?"

The son participates in his first match and wins. His father's rival keeps his word, giving him the weapons as agreed, and asks the son to participate in the next match. The son agrees, though now he realizes that if he doesn't have much of a choice, as the rival would expose him to his father if he refused. This, the rival implies, but keeps his tone as friendly as possible. Obviously, the rival is betting on his success, and so he also bets on himself to win, every last coin he has, which is now doubled as he wins again in the arena, and his secret remains safe.

However, when he comes home from celebrating with some "adoring fans" he finds a suspicious woman in his inn posing as a prostitute. He notices her tattoo, and recognizes her as member of a powerful local crime family. Not wishing to bring the wrath of this group on his father's inn, he agrees to let her go and not speak of her if she will tell him the reason she is here. She tells him she was sent to assassinate his father's business associate, a tax collector (not friend, mind you, the tax collector was a rat bastard, but better than some), a sleeping upstairs, who is now dead. Horrified, he realizes that his father may be accused of murdering the tax collector, and having dead guests turn up in the inn is bad for business. So he works out another deal with the assassin, whereby she will forge records of the dead man's passage out of the country on a ship in exchange for cash; supposedly, they each put up 50% of the bribe money required, since it is both their best interests for people to think the man has gone away rather than finding him dead and asking questions. She promises to take care of this and he allows her to depart unmolested. He then wakes one of his servants (who can keep secrets), and together they bundle the dead man up, transport him out of the inn, and onto their fishing boat. They weigh his body down and dump it in the deepest part of the harbor, under cover of fishing for their morning catch. When they return to the inn, an inspector is there asking after the missing (dead) tax collector. The son lies to the inspector, attempting misdirection and half-truths more than outright lies. The inspector promises to check up on the story that the tax collector checked out "bright and early" and said he had to catch a boat on business.

Now, as it turns out, there is a missing pirate treasure supposedly bured nearby, and the pirate who buried it (and is long dead) was a frequent guest at the inn. So the inspector and many other interested partioes now begin to suspect that tax collector found either the treasure or a map or some other clue in the inn, and departed. More bad news: The tax collector never filed certain licenses the father bought, and now that he is gone, his replacement (a bitter enemy of the father) is out to nail the father for the license "violations." So, the father tells the son to break into the missing tax collector's house and get ahold of the missing paperwork. The son attempts to, but is foiled in his quest before he can even get to the house, which some other party burns down. The son goes home to find another, inspector waiting for him, accusing him of burning down the house and saying he will go before the court in two days for an official inquiry at which time charges may be brought, and the penalty for arson is death...

What alignment is this? What would you do?

The son wants to prove himself to his father (and to himself), and use most of the money won to help improve the inn (which is the third best [out of three] in the district). Certainly though, he wants to create something for himself, some lasting legacy, whether an arena record or business venture. He wants to obey the city laws, and loves his country (think decadent Imperial Rome where justice is often for sale) but keeps finding himself in positions where the laws must be bent or broken, not just for his own sake, but for his family. The hypocrisy & corruption of his country is becoming more obvious, but so are the ways to live within that system. He never kills unless he must, but is finding himself forced to kill more often. He's totally in over his head, with each new lie he tells or law he breaks creating more problems than they solve. He wants to be a good, (mostly) law abiding citizen, but is realizing that there seems little profit in that if no one else is bothering to obey the rules (sure they pretend to in public, but they merely twist the law to their own ends). He is willing to play the same game if he must. He does not want to abandon his family or his birthright, yet would do so if it meant saving them. It turns out he may also have some yuan-ti blood in him (on his dead mother's side), though the character is not aware of it. Certainly, he has a fascination for snakes, and he schemes a lot, though perhaps not very well. ;)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

*peruses the post

Alot of the choices he's made is the result of inexperience, wanting to prove himself to his father and protecting the said from harm. Wanting to protect someone from harm is a good action, but how he did it is rather, naughty. In the end, i'd say he's a very inexperienced chaotic good character. If he were truly evil, he'd be doing it because he wanted to, not because he was protecting a loved one.
 

When in doubt, the answer is usually neutral, and that looks right in this case. The character seems to act mostly for his own benefit or that of his family. He doesn't appear much concerned with what's right or wrong on any moral scale but instead handles each situation in the way that he thinks will bring him or his family the greatest benefit, so neutral seems most appropriate.
 

DMScott said:
When in doubt, the answer is usually neutral, and that looks right in this case. The character seems to act mostly for his own benefit or that of his family. He doesn't appear much concerned with what's right or wrong on any moral scale but instead handles each situation in the way that he thinks will bring him or his family the greatest benefit, so neutral seems most appropriate.
I'm going to agree, I would say True Neutral, maybe bordering on Chaotic Neutral.
 



AnthonyJ said:
Well, by legal standards I think we're talking accomplice after the fact. He's probably Neutral Evil.

From his point of view, once he made the agreement to let the woman go and not mention her actions (he had no idea what she'd done at that point), he had no choice but to live up to his end of the bargain... plus, if he did break his oath, not only would he be an oathbreaker, but he'd have a powerful crime family seeking revenge on him and his family! He never expected her to be an assassin. Getting rid of the tax collector's body was merely disposing of some inconvenient trash (life is cheap there and the man was no friend). He didn't kill anybody, he couldn't do anything to change the fact that the man was dead, but he could prevent a scandal from damaging his father and the inn. Family and personal honor are most important to his culture, so it seemed the only logical choice to him. He never suspected that it would lead to all the trouble he's currently embroiled in, but he doubts he would do it any differently if he could go back and do it again.

I'm not sure there is an "accomplice after the fact" in the country's laws. Did medieval countries or Rome have laws like this? Seems pretty modern to me.

He has kept every agreement he ever made (except the one to his father to stay out of the arena), regardless of the consequences. That's pretty lawful. Plus he's trying to work within the law as much as possible (it just hasn't been very possible lately). Keep in mind that it is a decadent republic where bribes are common and justice... or revenge... can be commonly bought, and most in positions of power regularly abuse their office for personal gain, so there is really little that is black and white except for the appearance family and personal honor.
 

It's an interesting flaw of the alignment system that everyone so far has read the exact same evidence and each has come up with a different alignment to explain the behavior. I don't know who's right or wrong yet, LOL, but I'm glad the responses keep coming in, as all are welcome and helpful.

Granted, he's only as lawful as he needs to be, and only as chaotic as circumstances force him to be, so maybe Neutral is correct. He hasn't consistently leaned too far towards good or evil, maybe he's been trying to do good by doing evil, but never doing evil for evil's sake.
 
Last edited:

Yes, 'accomplice after the fact' is a modern concept, but the whole formal legal structure is fairly modern. A medieval society would still punish you, they'd just describe the situation differently.

So, in order:
Fighting in the Arena: lack of respect for (father's) authority. Neutral(law/chaos). Unclear what sort of competition this is, but given the term 'deadly' in the description of the art, it sounds like he's killing people for money, which is Evil.

The blackmail is interesting; many characters would simply ignore the threat of telling the father.

He encounters a suspicious woman, who he recognizes as a member of a crime syndicate. Before finding out why she's there, he promises to keep it a secret. This is Stupid (which does not fit on the alignment chart), though how stupid depends on the law/chaos table, since a chaotic character would just lie.

Having discovered that she's killed someone, he chooses to keep his agreement (Lawful, but mildly Evil, particularly since the character has no special pattern of Lawful behavior). In addition, he chooses to help her cover up the crime (moderately Evil) because if he does not do so, the inn will lose business (greed, also Evil).

He then attempts to deceive law enforcement (Chaotic, and as he's protecting an Evil person, Evil)

Pirate Treasure: not relevant to alignment.

Break into the inspector's office to steal paperwork: Chaotic; as the character supposedly had actually paid for the licenses, it's Neutral (Good/Evil).

Overall:
Good/Evil: weakly Evil.
Law/Chaos: little dedication to either side, and thus Neutral.
 

AnthonyJ, I would disagree with a couple of your assessments:

AnthonyJ said:
Fighting in the Arena: lack of respect for (father's) authority. Neutral(law/chaos).
this seems more chaotic than neutral.

AnthonyJ said:
He encounters a suspicious woman, who he recognizes as a member of a crime syndicate. Before finding out why she's there, he promises to keep it a secret. This is Stupid (which does not fit on the alignment chart), though how stupid depends on the law/chaos table, since a chaotic character would just lie.
protecting oneself and one's family against the member of a dangerous organization is stupid - self-protection is more neutral or NG, IMO.

AnthonyJ said:
Having discovered that she's killed someone, he chooses to keep his agreement (Lawful, but mildly Evil, particularly since the character has no special pattern of Lawful behavior). In addition, he chooses to help her cover up the crime (moderately Evil) because if he does not do so, the inn will lose business (greed, also Evil).
keeping this agreement (and thus continuing to protect himself and his father) again seems for neutral or NG(self-preservation isn't particularly lawful or chaotic - it's just smart).


AnthonyJ said:
He then attempts to deceive law enforcement (Chaotic, and as he's protecting an Evil person, Evil).
he doesn't seem to be protecting the evil person, so much as himself and his father, so yes to chaotic, but definite no to evil - maybe neutral or even good (protecting his father).


So my "Overall" opinion would be on the Good/Evil axis: goodish or neutral, and on the Law/Chaos axis: either neutral leaning toward chaotic or vice versa. My gut thinks he's CN or N leaning a bit towards CG/NG - not all CN characters are crazy. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top