Alignment? [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Alignment? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
goatboi
09-07-06, 11:53 PM we are playing on a continent that is sparsely populated. Areas of higher population are slowly being annihilated by advancing armies of humanoids, headed by drow. Our teenaged PCs come from a rural village wiped out by goblins. They have managed to hook up with one of the few places of safety, namely an ancient fort manned by our higher level PCs. They have been holding back raiders in advance of the main army, rescuing survivors and trying to build up the fort as a point of resistance. Anyhoo, our low level PCs are pretty freaked by their introduction to adventuring. They don't have the usual access to nice friendly towns, mentors etc. On their first foray into the wilderness to look for survivors, they discovered some of the blood curdling butchery left behind by the goblins in a fortified village. After dispatching some goblins left behind, they tracked them to a cave and managed to somehow slaughter an entire tribe that came up from there out of the underdark.

Okies, enough background. My question is on alignment. I play a 17 yo human female wizard and I don't know what my alignment _ought_ to be. Our GM is flexible in changing alignment btw. On the one hand, it behoves us to cooperate with our erstwhile mentors and help protect survivors. It's also a _good_ thing to do. On the other hand, being a typical wizard I see no problem in keeping as much loot as physically possible to finance our futures and advance my character. She also has not too many problems with sucking up to the high level PCs in order to keep us alive and get training and equipment. I usually have no probs with characterisation, but our happy go luck teens are in a very grim situation and have seen some nasty things.
aleshandre
09-08-06, 11:06 PM Good is very much in line for your character based on the motivation you've established for her. There is nothing wrong with seeing to her future by any means needed - as long as it isn't at someone else's expense. Taking benefit at someone else's expense is where the road turns toward the evil. When I say at someone else's expense, I mean they loose something and you gain, but they gain nothing in return. A person who voluntarily gives without expecting reccompense is already getting something for it, though it may not be tangible.
ericSHINRA
09-08-06, 11:13 PM I'd say you fall somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good but a little more information might help.

Are you at all interested in the survival of those around you in the long run or are you simply siding with the higher level PC's for your own gain?

Did the tribe from Underdark consist simply of soldiers or where there innocent men, women and children as well?

Being a wizard, did you have a mentor at all in your community before it was destroyed by Goblins who might have imparted a philosophy or set of beliefs on your character?
goatboi
09-09-06, 04:19 AM I'd say you fall somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good but a little more information might help.

Are you at all interested in the survival of those around you in the long run or are you simply siding with the higher level PC's for your own gain?

Did the tribe from Underdark consist simply of soldiers or where there innocent men, women and children as well?

Being a wizard, did you have a mentor at all in your community before it was destroyed by Goblins who might have imparted a philosophy or set of beliefs on your character?

Yes, definitely interested in the survival of other PCs because they were from the same village. Also interested in protecting the innocent because they are survivors or under threat just like us. In different circumstances, I'd picture this PC being annoyingly chirpy. As it is, surviving is a grim existence particularly for low level people.

The goblins...uh I think there were females many of whom who killed who couldn't escape. Bit of a us or them thing I guess. The ranger's racial enemy is goblins so 'nuff said.

I haven't thought much about her first mentor. The chap is dead, of course but that would yield some ideas I think
aleshandre
09-09-06, 03:02 PM I'd actually go Neutral Good, since there isn't really a law to rebel against or support. Survival has little to do with what is legal. That is reflected in even lawful societies in RL where not guilty by way of self-defense is an option.
Hydryh
09-10-06, 04:59 AM I would say you're leaning towards either NN or CN. Slaughtering the helpless goblins was NOT a good act; no matter what alignment they are, helpless is helpless.
ericSHINRA
09-10-06, 11:09 AM Yes, definitely interested in the survival of other PCs because they were from the same village. Also interested in protecting the innocent because they are survivors or under threat just like us. In different circumstances, I'd picture this PC being annoyingly chirpy. As it is, surviving is a grim existence particularly for low level people.

The goblins...uh I think there were females many of whom who killed who couldn't escape. Bit of a us or them thing I guess. The ranger's racial enemy is goblins so 'nuff said.

I haven't thought much about her first mentor. The chap is dead, of course but that would yield some ideas I think

Ok, so you're all for the survival of the other PC's because of your past history but what about the NPC's?

I understand why you'd want to track down the goblins responsible for the massacre but you and your adventuring party slaughtered an entire tribe of goblins. As Hydryh said:
Slaughtering the helpless goblins was NOT a good act; no matter what alignment they are, helpless is helpless.

I still say you fall between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral but lean more towards the latter.
aleshandre
09-10-06, 03:05 PM Combat is hardly something that can be classified as easily as saying "slaughtered an entire tribe". My question is whether the goblins were "helpless" or not. Additionally, from what little is here to read, this isn't a case of killing them because of alignment, but as an act of self preservation and the preservation of human society. That's hardly an evil act. Goblins kill humans - slaughter them. They also raise more goblins with a hatred of humans and teach them to slaughter them. They come in massive hordes to outnumber their prey. That's hardly grounds for negotiation. There is only one option for an enemy like that. When facing an enemy that shows no mercy in the face of an overwhelmed opponent, you can not afford to show mercy to them. Mercy can only be afforded to those who are willing to be merciful. That isn't to say that if a goblin comes asking for help that you kill it. It does mean that you can't just decide that a single act can give you grounds to judge a person's entire character (pardon the pun). I still say that chaotic is not appropriate in a society where law doesn't truely exist. I hold to Neutral Good perhaps true Neutral.
dvlsadvct
09-11-06, 03:46 PM I would say Neutral good with a lean towards True neutral. Depending upon your future actions.
goatboi
09-12-06, 03:19 AM Combat is hardly something that can be classified as easily as saying "slaughtered an entire tribe". My question is whether the goblins were "helpless" or not. Additionally, from what little is here to read, this isn't a case of killing them because of alignment, but as an act of self preservation and the preservation of human society. That's hardly an evil act. Goblins kill humans - slaughter them. They also raise more goblins with a hatred of humans and teach them to slaughter them. They come in massive hordes to outnumber their prey. That's hardly grounds for negotiation. There is only one option for an enemy like that. When facing an enemy that shows no mercy in the face of an overwhelmed opponent, you can not afford to show mercy to them. Mercy can only be afforded to those who are willing to be merciful. That isn't to say that if a goblin comes asking for help that you kill it. It does mean that you can't just decide that a single act can give you grounds to judge a person's entire character (pardon the pun). I still say that chaotic is not appropriate in a society where law doesn't truely exist. I hold to Neutral Good perhaps true Neutral.

Yup, I agree with much of this. Thanks to all who have replied as this has clarified what I think which is NG tending towards CG. :clap:

The gobbos in question had a number of female humans captive. We had tracked them from a burnt out settlement where they'd killed most of the inhabitants. This included pegging out, defiling and eating (not necessarily in that order) a number of women. While scouting their lair we had to endure listening to the screams of a few captives who didn't make it. It was pretty nasty for our poor little fishing village teens to listen to the screams of the dying and have to hold back until we'd scouted thoroughly. :mymy:

None of the male goblins were unarmed, and most of them tried to rush us at the cave entrance. Unfortunately for them, not only did we break their front ranks, we picked off their chief and guard. When they were routed back into the cave, I don't recall whether the female goblins resisted or not. Very likely we would have killed anything goblinoid, regardless.:evillaugh
Callista
09-14-06, 03:22 AM Well, mechanically, there's no difference between a female and a male goblin, and these were with the usual goblin horde... so they probably weren't noncombatants. And if you don't remember your DM saying anything like, "The goblin pleads for its life" or "she doesn't seem to know much about fighting"... then you were probably killing your basic female goblin, just as evil and dangerous as her male counterpart.

Your character's alignment seems to border between TN and NG with a bit of a lean towards chaos. Survival is her main motivation right now, and that's true neutral. She's also fighting for other humans, and that's Good; chances are she's doing it because she knows humans have to stick together, or the goblins/drow/whatever will wipe them all out.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goatboi 09-07-06, 11:53 PM	we are playing on a continent that is sparsely populated. Areas of higher population are slowly being annihilated by advancing armies of humanoids, headed by drow. Our teenaged PCs come from a rural village wiped out by goblins. They have managed to hook up with one of the few places of safety, namely an ancient fort manned by our higher level PCs. They have been holding back raiders in advance of the main army, rescuing survivors and trying to build up the fort as a point of resistance. Anyhoo, our low level PCs are pretty freaked by their introduction to adventuring. They don't have the usual access to nice friendly towns, mentors etc. On their first foray into the wilderness to look for survivors, they discovered some of the blood curdling butchery left behind by the goblins in a fortified village. After dispatching some goblins left behind, they tracked them to a cave and managed to somehow slaughter an entire tribe that came up from there out of the underdark. Okies, enough background. My question is on alignment. I play a 17 yo human female wizard and I don't know what my alignment _ought_ to be. Our GM is flexible in changing alignment btw. On the one hand, it behoves us to cooperate with our erstwhile mentors and help protect survivors. It's also a _good_ thing to do. On the other hand, being a typical wizard I see no problem in keeping as much loot as physically possible to finance our futures and advance my character. She also has not too many problems with sucking up to the high level PCs in order to keep us alive and get training and equipment. I usually have no probs with characterisation, but our happy go luck teens are in a very grim situation and have seen some nasty things.
aleshandre 09-08-06, 11:06 PM	Good is very much in line for your character based on the motivation you've established for her. There is nothing wrong with seeing to her future by any means needed - as long as it isn't at someone else's expense. Taking benefit at someone else's expense is where the road turns toward the evil. When I say at someone else's expense, I mean they loose something and you gain, but they gain nothing in return. A person who voluntarily gives without expecting reccompense is already getting something for it, though it may not be tangible.
ericSHINRA 09-08-06, 11:13 PM	I'd say you fall somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good but a little more information might help. Are you at all interested in the survival of those around you in the long run or are you simply siding with the higher level PC's for your own gain? Did the tribe from Underdark consist simply of soldiers or where there innocent men, women and children as well? Being a wizard, did you have a mentor at all in your community before it was destroyed by Goblins who might have imparted a philosophy or set of beliefs on your character?
goatboi 09-09-06, 04:19 AM	I'd say you fall somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good but a little more information might help. Are you at all interested in the survival of those around you in the long run or are you simply siding with the higher level PC's for your own gain? Did the tribe from Underdark consist simply of soldiers or where there innocent men, women and children as well? Being a wizard, did you have a mentor at all in your community before it was destroyed by Goblins who might have imparted a philosophy or set of beliefs on your character? Yes, definitely interested in the survival of other PCs because they were from the same village. Also interested in protecting the innocent because they are survivors or under threat just like us. In different circumstances, I'd picture this PC being annoyingly chirpy. As it is, surviving is a grim existence particularly for low level people. The goblins...uh I think there were females many of whom who killed who couldn't escape. Bit of a us or them thing I guess. The ranger's racial enemy is goblins so 'nuff said. I haven't thought much about her first mentor. The chap is dead, of course but that would yield some ideas I think
aleshandre 09-09-06, 03:02 PM	I'd actually go Neutral Good, since there isn't really a law to rebel against or support. Survival has little to do with what is legal. That is reflected in even lawful societies in RL where not guilty by way of self-defense is an option.
Hydryh 09-10-06, 04:59 AM	I would say you're leaning towards either NN or CN. Slaughtering the helpless goblins was NOT a good act; no matter what alignment they are, helpless is helpless.
ericSHINRA 09-10-06, 11:09 AM	Yes, definitely interested in the survival of other PCs because they were from the same village. Also interested in protecting the innocent because they are survivors or under threat just like us. In different circumstances, I'd picture this PC being annoyingly chirpy. As it is, surviving is a grim existence particularly for low level people. The goblins...uh I think there were females many of whom who killed who couldn't escape. Bit of a us or them thing I guess. The ranger's racial enemy is goblins so 'nuff said. I haven't thought much about her first mentor. The chap is dead, of course but that would yield some ideas I think Ok, so you're all for the survival of the other PC's because of your past history but what about the NPC's? I understand why you'd want to track down the goblins responsible for the massacre but you and your adventuring party slaughtered an entire tribe of goblins. As Hydryh said: Slaughtering the helpless goblins was NOT a good act; no matter what alignment they are, helpless is helpless. I still say you fall between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral but lean more towards the latter.
aleshandre 09-10-06, 03:05 PM	Combat is hardly something that can be classified as easily as saying "slaughtered an entire tribe". My question is whether the goblins were "helpless" or not. Additionally, from what little is here to read, this isn't a case of killing them because of alignment, but as an act of self preservation and the preservation of human society. That's hardly an evil act. Goblins kill humans - slaughter them. They also raise more goblins with a hatred of humans and teach them to slaughter them. They come in massive hordes to outnumber their prey. That's hardly grounds for negotiation. There is only one option for an enemy like that. When facing an enemy that shows no mercy in the face of an overwhelmed opponent, you can not afford to show mercy to them. Mercy can only be afforded to those who are willing to be merciful. That isn't to say that if a goblin comes asking for help that you kill it. It does mean that you can't just decide that a single act can give you grounds to judge a person's entire character (pardon the pun). I still say that chaotic is not appropriate in a society where law doesn't truely exist. I hold to Neutral Good perhaps true Neutral.
dvlsadvct 09-11-06, 03:46 PM	I would say Neutral good with a lean towards True neutral. Depending upon your future actions.
goatboi 09-12-06, 03:19 AM	Combat is hardly something that can be classified as easily as saying "slaughtered an entire tribe". My question is whether the goblins were "helpless" or not. Additionally, from what little is here to read, this isn't a case of killing them because of alignment, but as an act of self preservation and the preservation of human society. That's hardly an evil act. Goblins kill humans - slaughter them. They also raise more goblins with a hatred of humans and teach them to slaughter them. They come in massive hordes to outnumber their prey. That's hardly grounds for negotiation. There is only one option for an enemy like that. When facing an enemy that shows no mercy in the face of an overwhelmed opponent, you can not afford to show mercy to them. Mercy can only be afforded to those who are willing to be merciful. That isn't to say that if a goblin comes asking for help that you kill it. It does mean that you can't just decide that a single act can give you grounds to judge a person's entire character (pardon the pun). I still say that chaotic is not appropriate in a society where law doesn't truely exist. I hold to Neutral Good perhaps true Neutral. Yup, I agree with much of this. Thanks to all who have replied as this has clarified what I think which is NG tending towards CG. :clap: The gobbos in question had a number of female humans captive. We had tracked them from a burnt out settlement where they'd killed most of the inhabitants. This included pegging out, defiling and eating (not necessarily in that order) a number of women. While scouting their lair we had to endure listening to the screams of a few captives who didn't make it. It was pretty nasty for our poor little fishing village teens to listen to the screams of the dying and have to hold back until we'd scouted thoroughly. :mymy: None of the male goblins were unarmed, and most of them tried to rush us at the cave entrance. Unfortunately for them, not only did we break their front ranks, we picked off their chief and guard. When they were routed back into the cave, I don't recall whether the female goblins resisted or not. Very likely we would have killed anything goblinoid, regardless.:evillaugh
Callista 09-14-06, 03:22 AM	Well, mechanically, there's no difference between a female and a male goblin, and these were with the usual goblin horde... so they probably weren't noncombatants. And if you don't remember your DM saying anything like, "The goblin pleads for its life" or "she doesn't seem to know much about fighting"... then you were probably killing your basic female goblin, just as evil and dangerous as her male counterpart. Your character's alignment seems to border between TN and NG with a bit of a lean towards chaos. Survival is her main motivation right now, and that's true neutral. She's also fighting for other humans, and that's Good; chances are she's doing it because she knows humans have to stick together, or the goblins/drow/whatever will wipe them all out.