Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SailorNash 11-17-03, 01:47 AM	Scenerio: The mayor of a large town has been assassinated, and an important person is missing. The PC's are sent to investigate. After going through a dwarf-built sewage system and several underground caves for two hours or so, the party stumbles into an underground cavern about a half-mile in diameter. The party consists of one front-line fighter only (a barbarian), with two second-line fighters (monk and rogue) as well as two spellcasters. The barbarian is the higest level member of the party by two or three levels. In this cavern, several things approach the party. There is another barbarian, a druid, and a small army of a dozen or so dire badgers or weasels (or some other oversized feral animal). The PC barbarian is at the front of the party. The NPC druid shouts "halt! who goes there!" Barbarian PC: "We mean you no harm. Just looking for a lost friend of ours." Barbarian NPC: "This area is forbidden. Leave immediately." Barbarian PC: "We'll be out of here as soon as we can. Any chance you could tell us anything about [missing NPC]? If you can help us, then we'll be out of here all that much sooner." Barbarian NPC: "leave now or we'll kill you." Barbarian PC says "We have no problem with you. There's no need to fight." Barbarian NPC draws his sword and shouts "You'll DIE!" Barbarian PC slowly draws his two-handed sword, holding it in just one hand while saying "We *really* don't have to do this...." Barbarian NPC rages, charges, and attacks, attempting to kill Barbarian PC. Since Barbarian PC is the only meat shield protecting the rest of the party, he grabs his sword with both hands, rages as well, and begins to attack the NPC barbarian. Now, in this example, what allignment would you think the Barbarian PC was? Also, for extra credit, what allignment character would have willingly dropped their weapons, allowed the enemies to tie them up and capture them so that they hopefully will be taken to the same area that the missing person was (if these people were indeed responsible for that person's dissapearance)? Inquiring minds want to know.
Araciel 11-17-03, 01:55 AM	I'd say the PC BBN could be of any alignment other than LG/LN/LE, and the only reason for that is because of the class restriction of not being able to be lawful. since you did not tell us WHY the pcs went to investigate, only that they were SENT to investigate. I would instinctively had said NG, because the BBN did not need to fight, but was forced to, but then i realized that evil doesn't mean bloodthirsty. as for the bonus question...i dunno...chaotic stupid? most people i know, though they are not adventurers, would not take the chance of being restrained, especially when they do not know the intentions of those who MIGHT not take prisoners.
SailorNash 11-17-03, 02:15 AM	Originally posted by Araciel [B]I'd say the PC BBN could be of any alignment other than LG/LN/LE, and the only reason for that is because of the class restriction of not being able to be lawful. since you did not tell us WHY the pcs went to investigate, only that they were SENT to investigate. I deliberately left that blank, as I wanted to know the effects that one encounter might have on someone's allignment. In rpg's, the entire party ends up going from one point to another as a group more times than not, so to a certain degree why all the characters went isn't as important as how they handled the things when they got down there. (The characters volunteered to go of their own free will though - they were not ordered or forced to investigate anything.) Also, I didn't want to say anything about that part as it would greatly influence the answer. If I said "to rescue the helpless" then it's obviously Good, if I said "to see if I can find some treasure abandoned down there" it'd be Neutral, and if I said "cause I want to secretly place explosive glyphs everywhere so I can collapse the cave and destroy the entire city", then it'd be Evil. =P So, just imagine if a character did what the PC did in the above example, would that start to shift his alignment more towards Good or Evil, Law or Chaos or Neutrality?
Araciel 11-17-03, 02:28 AM	if thats what you mean then i'd say neutral/good
Trydan 11-17-03, 04:13 AM	I'd say any neutral. One encounter alone is not enough to define alignment, and NG, TN and NE could all have reacted the way the PC Bbn did. CG would also be a possibility, but I think CN and CE would have fought or fled, rather than persistently tried to maintain negotiation. As Araciel said, lawful is not possible for barbarians. I know the above is not very specific, but I guess, it rules out 5 alignments, so that's better than 50% :rolleyes:
Midnight Lurker 11-17-03, 05:50 AM	The encounter really has nothing to do with alignment, IMO. The party is outnumbered in unfamiliar territory. Any smart character is going to try to talk their way out of it, or attack when backed against a wall. Alignment isn't about your actions in one encounter, its more about your motivations for your actions and your actions covering a span of time. I could easily fill in the blank spots in the encounter so that those actions would fit in with any alignment (aside from the previously mentioned lawful barbarian thing).
Leap 11-17-03, 08:00 AM	I agree - could be anything
Tzor 11-17-03, 09:05 AM	Originally posted by SailorNash Now, in this example, what allignment would you think the Barbarian PC was? Any alignment that the PC wated to be. The barbarian attempted to parly, and was then attacked. It is not clear that they wouldn't have been attacked anyway, and being attacked with your backs turned on the enemy is not always smart. Originally posted by SailorNash Also, for extra credit, what allignment character would have willingly dropped their weapons, allowed the enemies to tie them up and capture them so that they hopefully will be taken to the same area that the missing person was (if these people were indeed responsible for that person's dissapearance)? Inquiring minds want to know. Some variation of STUPID. First there is no real indication that these two members are a part of the group they seek. (They might have also stumbled upon a secret cult site.) Second there is no indication that they would be "captured" since the options were to either leave or to die. Third unless they had an ace up their tunics and were planning this, once tied up with the missing person what then?
Morka 11-17-03, 02:56 PM	Originally posted by SailorNash Now, in this example, what allignment would you think the Barbarian PC was? I would also say NG, CG, TN or NE. Even CN would fit, but a CE would have attack as soon as the opponent have draw his sword. Also, for extra credit, what allignment character would have willingly dropped their weapons, allowed the enemies to tie them up and capture them so that they hopefully will be taken to the same area that the missing person was (if these people were indeed responsible for that person's dissapearance)? Inquiring minds want to know. Any alignment, but non barbarian. (If the barbarian is the typically low INT type). The rogue or wizard might have suggest it. And they would have talked of this to the druid who should be more diplomat than the NPC barbarian. Even in this situation, it is risked for anyone to propose himself as a prisonner, when it is easier to move backward and try another road.
SailorNash 11-17-03, 10:06 PM	Thanks for the input. I know it's not enough to define allignment by just that one action, but I wanted to see what everyone would say. My DM was using this exchange as one of his examples of how Evil my character is. In his opinion, what a Good character would do would be to willingly be tied up and drug off. I simply thought this was silly, since I thought I was acting not only Good but a little more willing to talk than a barbarian normally would be.
Midnight Lurker 11-18-03, 06:59 AM	Originally posted by Morka [B]<snip>but a CE would have attack as soon as the opponent have draw his sword. <snip> No... that's SE (Stupid Evil). When you're outnumbered and outgunned, any PC of above average intelligence, regardless of alignment, would back down. OK... unless they wanted to die. My DM was using this exchange as one of his examples of how Evil my character is. In his opinion, what a Good character would do would be to willingly be tied up and drug off. No. Does being good mean that you politely succumb to an evil groups wishes? Nope. About the only way any character would willingly be captured is if there was no way out otherwise. Even then, most PCs (again, of any alignment) would do everything in their power, including fighting to the death, to avoid capture. NOTE: Unless these druids, barbarian, and dire rodents are representatives of law enforcement. In that case, I could see the expectations to go along quietly. However, it definitely doesn't look that way from your original post :)
Morka 11-18-03, 09:47 AM	Originally posted by SailorNash In his opinion, what a Good character would do would be to willingly be tied up and drug off. I simply thought this was silly, since I thought I was acting not only Good but a little more willing to talk than a barbarian normally would be. No. The opponent never ask to surrender. The choice was only to flee or die. How your DM think you should guess your opponent have rope to tie you, or potion to drug you? Midnight Lurker, you're right, but it depend on the level of the Barbarian. A barbarian of enough high level, backed with a rogue, a monk and two spellcaster (probably a priest and an arcane caster) can wipe up those beasts with minimum damage. That should be CE.
Midnight Lurker 11-19-03, 05:39 AM	Thus the outnumbered and outgunned :P A high level barbarian with that backup wouldn't be outgunned in this case :D
Sephraem 11-19-03, 07:11 AM	Well, it's clear from the dialogue that the barbarian isn't stupid. Some of those words had more than one syllable so he's a veritable genius as far as barb's go! ;) Not to mention a diplomat of the highest order! :D As Tzor accurately pointed out, any alignment could fit. From Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, offering your opponent a chance to back down gives you the chance to get out of the fight without looking like a wuss. This type of thread seems to be quite common at the moment and I'm getting the impression that there are quite a few DMs out there who aren't trying to understand their PCs motivations, but simply making decisions based upon their conceptions of the PCs actions. To be fair to those DMs, it's their games to run how they choose, but if people are bringing it to the boards to get advice (or backup), it looks as though the players in question don't feel heard. Perhaps presenting the same scenario to your DM and discussing how the scenario could apply to a number of alignments will help your DM to appreciate how you see alignment differently to him. Then move on to discuss the specifics of how your character viewed his actions and what he meant by them. It strikes me that your DM might be having trouble resisting the urge to work against the players, rather than with them. Is he having trouble challenging the party? Regardless, I hope it all works out.
Araciel 11-20-03, 07:18 PM	i never get any credit ~the end~