Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sildatorak 03-01-04, 01:14 AM	Here's the situation: a single character has been offered an uncut diamond (worth 10k cut) for what seems to be a relatively easy matter (insert evil dm laugh). She doesn't think the guy offering it knows its full value (he is looking for his family and he knows it is worth something, just not how much) and is planning on not telling the party of the pay involved. Instead, she's going to take the gem and get it cut and use it to partially fund an orphanage she's constructing. The question: what alignment does everyone think this falls into? It doesn't really have any game effect since she is a rogue, but I'm just curious as to a few other people's opinions.
twentythree 03-01-04, 02:19 AM	I would say chaotic good alignment. She is not using the conventional means of making a fair deal with someone, but in the end, she is using the diamond for a good cause. I would say Chaotic good, unless of course, if by taking the diamond, she somehow stops the man from completing his goal (finding his family), in which case I would say Chaotic Neutral. Hope it makes sense. --Brien
Sarta 03-01-04, 03:26 AM	I'd lean more toward chaotic neutral personally. She thinks she's ripping off the man in question, she intends to rip off the party by not letting them know the true value of the reward and it sounds like she intends to alleviate some of this guilt by using it to fund an orphanage. Honestly though without knowing more about the pc in question it is hard to make an alignment call on something like this. Even a neutral evil character that was once an orphan may have a soft spot in her heart for other orphans and kidnapped family members. She would still be acting well within her alignment by doing the same thing. I think the only safe thing to say is that her actions are neither lawful good nor lawful neutral -- she is definitely intent upon cheating her own party and this concerned parent. Sarta
Sildatorak 03-01-04, 04:11 AM	Originally posted by Sarta she is definitely intent upon cheating her own party and this concerned parent. Actually she is not cheating a parent, she's cheating a son. He was kidnapped and sold into slavery during childhood (~25 years ago) and wants to return home more than anything. Even if he knew the full value of the stone he would still trade it (the character doesn't know this). The party is also not very money-driven, she told them that the guy is paying and that she is putting it toward the orphanage, she just didn't say how much he's paying.
Bopple 03-01-04, 04:25 AM	*scratch* why don't party members ask her how much he is going to pay?
Spongly 03-01-04, 08:08 AM	That sounds like classic chaotic good to me. The guy gets what he wants (this task completed), an orphanage gets completed. The characters actions help a lot of people and hurt no one.
LostDM 03-01-04, 10:42 AM	Examplery of CG Well within the bounds of NG, CN, N Possibly consistent with NE if there is an alterior motive lurking somewhere.
ehrin 03-01-04, 12:23 PM	CG with neutral tendencies, or CN with good tendencies.
committed hero 03-01-04, 01:28 PM	Why chaotic? She has no duty to tell this simpleton that he's got something more valuable then he thought, does she? You said he would still offer the gem knowing it's full price, so HE must believe he's getting a good deal, since this implies he's giving up less than he thinks he would have to in a worst case scenario. It's not the rogue's fault the guy is ignorant. I'd say NG because "good" is served more than anything else (kid finds his dad, party presumably will get some benefit from doing the adventure, and the rogue gets her orphanage (who is she, Mrs. Fagin?)). Call it TN if you factor in the cheating the party aspect.
Thornock 03-01-04, 08:47 PM	Or, at the very most, neutral evil. Think of it: How is value determined? By how much another is willing to pay for what you have. Whatever she pays determines the value, in this case. Knowing that, according to another standard, it is worth more, she is willing to create her own standard that (surprise) benefits her to much higher degree. That is not just non-lawful, but chaotic. Furthermore, by not adhering to a standard of which she is aware, she is cheating this guy. Cheating is evil. her reasons for doing this are irrelevant. What is at issue in this case is what is the effect of her action. It is not so much that she is benefitting herself, but through a form of deception is insuring that the power to act is concentrated into her hands: she could just as easily ask him to build the orphanage, but she wants the glory, or the credit, or whatever. COncentration of power--domination. Unfortunately, by cheating him she is disregarding the 'lawful' aspect, so at best the act is neutral evil. but certainly not neutral, no matter how you look at it.
Sildatorak 03-01-04, 10:34 PM	Originally posted by Thornock she could just as easily ask him to build the orphanage, but she wants the glory, or the credit, or whatever. The 10 is only roughly 5-10% of what it is going to cost. Her selling point to the party is that he is going to be a "substantial donor" to this orphanage (which they are somewhat ambivalent about), she has now decided that if they ask she will tell them how much he is giving, but she won't let on that it is pay that is being subverted (it would be so much easier if she just told the son what she would do with his money).
Duvanok 03-01-04, 11:21 PM	Pursuing your own goals (selfish or not) without regard to fairness to others and having no concern about honesty and truth regarding the other members of your party. . .sounds neutral evil to me. What kind of orphanage are you going to be running anyway. . . Wrong is still wrong even if the intentions are good. Lying, or perhaps withholding information, from your so called "friends", taking an item from a man who has no idea how much it is worth, these are certainly not good actions, certainly not lawful. Besides if your character were at all good he would rescue the family members without reward. I say NE.
Sildatorak 03-02-04, 01:59 AM	Originally posted by Duvanok Besides if your character were at all good he would rescue the family members without reward. There is no rescuing. It is escorting the employer back to his childhood home (little does the party no they are going to have to trek across a continent to do it, mwahahahahah). Anyway, I agree with some of you, and disagree with others, so I might as well make my view known. Cheating/disregarding rules is chaotic unless it is causing harm to others, in which case it is evil. Building an orphanage for no gain (she's actually sacrificing money that could go toward a stronghold/den/business) is lawful good (establishing order and helping the less fortunate). Manipulating someone to do something against their nature is evil. The orphanage building is a check for "good." Letting the guy overpay her is definitely chaotic, potentially evil. Telling the party that someone is donating to the orphanage when he is actually paying them is potentially evil. I guess some factors come into play that I didn't bring up in the original post, now that I think about it. The guy who is hiring her is not well off, but he isn't destitute either. He is right between low and middle class (foundry worker). The diamond isn't doing him any good, so taking it is doing no harm, especially if he is reunited with his family. I say that this is a neutral act on the morality scale (no help, no harm). She is actually appealing to the party's sense of adventure as a primary motivator to complete this quest. The group is actually fairly wealthy for their level and are not extremely motivated to go out and search for gold (ah, the days before you could buy magic items). She isn't exactly playing fair with them, but she isn't manipulating them to do something they are disinclined to do. I endorse the moral neutrality on this item. Overall I vote Chaotic Good with Neutral tendencies on both axes.
twentythree 03-02-04, 02:23 AM	Besides if your character were at all good he would rescue the family members without reward Good characters have just as much right as any to request a reward as anyone else. they are in no way restricted from accepting one either. They would not, however, demand one.
allthumbs 03-02-04, 08:03 AM	Originally posted by Duvanok Wrong is still wrong even if the intentions are good. Lying, or perhaps withholding information, from your so called "friends", taking an item from a man who has no idea how much it is worth, these are certainly not good actions, certainly not lawful. Besides if your character were at all good he would rescue the family members without reward. I say NE. Evil in D&D has to do with disregard for lives. Not really an issue here.
Duvanok 03-03-04, 09:01 PM	Originally posted by allthumbs Evil in D&D has to do with disregard for lives. Not really an issue here. No. If that were the case there would be no need for NE LE CE, there would just be E. Stealing is an evil act. Selling someone a cursed item is an evil act. Where is the disregard for lives in these examples? Don't fall into the trap of stereotyping all evil beings as mindless killers bereft of morals seeking only to destroy all that exists. Evil is best when it is subtle, questionable. Evil guys have feelings too.
Duvanok 03-03-04, 09:15 PM	Originally posted by twentythree Good characters have just as much right as any to request a reward as anyone else. they are in no way restricted from accepting one either. They would not, however, demand one. All true. However, this character's primary concern is with the value of that uncut diamond (the reward) not with the saftey of the family. Good characters would be among the poorest and unsuccessful charactes in D&D if they were not allowed to accept rewards. However, if a man asks for help but says he has nothing to offer, what would a good character do? "Sorry you don't have the gold to pay for my services, your family dies." No. Good characters can be concerned about reward, but concern for doing the right thing should come first. In this particular character's example he's most concerned about the reward and the pursuit of his own goals. NE.
Sarta 03-03-04, 09:17 PM	Sorry if this forms a divergent tangent, but I couldn't help but being surprised at how much you said her orphanage would cost. Then I looked things up in the good 'ol stronghold builder's guide and saw that 100 K gp's is not out of the question assuming she just adapts an army base cluster and uses masonry walls. I definitely think the prices in that book are a bit out of whack with the rest of the economy they have established. Sarta
Thornock 03-03-04, 11:10 PM	The reward of being a good character is that the town officials don't try to cut your head off each time you try to fence your loot. That and hot chicks.
TheGogmagog 03-03-04, 11:38 PM	My fist gut feeling was chaotic neutral. Until you clarified, that the rogue isn't doing anything illegal or evil. I originally went with chaotic because of some level of deciet in trading, but now I don't think there is any involved. I went with neutral instead of good because a good act doesn't counterbalance an evil act. Since no evil act is involved there isn't anything 'dragging the character down'. If this were a defining moment in a character's background story (which I might steal) The character would be Any Good. For one instance, It wouldn't 'shift' a character either way.
Bromabaz Silvertwister 03-04-04, 01:41 AM	I would say she was Netural Good. That she didn't tell the party of her gain means she isn't lawful, and since she's using the diamond for a good cause well, she isn't evil. And she's not evil because she would have killed the little ingrate and taken the diamond without doing anything. After cutting, it impossible to trace and free money. she's done nothing choatic, or lawful, thus the netural tag. As for not telling her group about the rock: Maybe the other members of her group would use it for gear or other non-orphan related activities.
Sildatorak 03-04-04, 05:41 AM	Originally posted by Duvanok However, this character's primary concern is with the value of that uncut diamond (the reward) not with the saftey of the family. [snip] In this particular character's example he's most concerned about the reward and the pursuit of his own goals. NE. Two things. First- Nobody's safety is on the line if she refuses. It is a combination of private eye/escort (in the body guard sense of the word) work if she is hired. Second- She. :D
committed hero 03-04-04, 09:18 AM	Originally posted by Duvanok No. If that were the case there would be no need for NE LE CE, there would just be E. Stealing is an evil act. Selling someone a cursed item is an evil act. Where is the disregard for lives in these examples? Don't fall into the trap of stereotyping all evil beings as mindless killers bereft of morals seeking only to destroy all that exists. Evil is best when it is subtle, questionable. Evil guys have feelings too. "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life." That's from the Player's Handbook definition of evil with respect to alignment. We can argue about stealing and the motives behind it, but for purposes of this game and this act, it's not necessarily always evil. Some could argue that selling cursed items depends on the nature of the curse, but I would agree that the whole point of a curse is to mess with someone's life and would be considered evil before examining the other circumstances of the sale (whether it was done knowingly, whether the buyer knew there was a risk, whether the sale price reflected possible, um, defects - whatever).
Duvanok 03-04-04, 10:34 PM	Originally posted by committed hero "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life." That's from the Player's Handbook definition of evil with respect to alignment. We can argue about stealing and the motives behind it, but for purposes of this game and this act, it's not necessarily always evil. Some could argue that selling cursed items depends on the nature of the curse, but I would agree that the whole point of a curse is to mess with someone's life and would be considered evil before examining the other circumstances of the sale (whether it was done knowingly, whether the buyer knew there was a risk, whether the sale price reflected possible, um, defects - whatever). Correct, it does say that. . . about evil. But, as I stated before, if that summed up everything there would be no need for the other half of the alignment, that being L, N, or C. If you read a few paragraphs further under the same sub-section of the PHB that you were so kind to quote from you will find the following (assuming we are both looking in the 3.5 book): "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
Duvanok 03-04-04, 10:38 PM	Originally posted by Sildatorak Two things. First- Nobody's safety is on the line if she refuses. It is a combination of private eye/escort (in the body guard sense of the word) work if she is hired. Second- She. :D First- Yes, I got a bit off topic in the heat of the conversation.:embarrass Second- How you doin'? ;)
Haradim 03-04-04, 10:58 PM	I'd peg it as a CN act, all told...possibly edging close to the border of CE. She apparently doesn't care about the opinion of her companions with regards to the use of the reward (which they may well end up demanding later, as they will be participating in the task at hand), and is quite prepared to not even do the guy proposing the task the courtesy of finding out a rough estimate. Earmarking the reward for an orphanage is a generous enough goal (assuming orphanages aren't horrible places to be in your game), but it's very much a 'my way, hopefully nobody gets hurt' method of approaching the situation. I don't understand all the deception though. Nothing you have posted has indicated an objection to the use of the reward from the rest of the party, so I'm not seeing any particular reason to keep things concealed from them. And finding out the value of the stone would be a trivial task, and it's only fair that the person has an idea of what it's worth. Odds are fair that in many such situations, said reward would still be offered, because they weren't really concerned about its value in the first place; they were prepared to offer it blind anyway. So yeah. I'd go with CN for this event. But the disregard for everyone else's input, as well as the willingness to deny the other PCs from any reward, would likely put said person on my watch list.
Ehelonna 03-05-04, 04:07 AM	Originally posted by Haradim I don't understand all the deception though. Nothing you have posted has indicated an objection to the use of the reward from the rest of the party,Well, their lack of concern may change if they realize that the reward is 10,000 gp instead of the 100-1,000 gp + warm fuzzy feeling that they are assuming. :D Plus, even though the "client" would be willing to offer the stone if they knew the true value, the character does not expect this to be the case. The reason for the deception is that the character has specific desires that may not be compatible with the people with which she is dealing. Rather than try and ensure that there is no misunderstandings, she is downplaying the costs/benefits, to convince the others (client and party) to go along with her plan. She isn't trying to make any of them do something that they would find unpleasant, so she isn't being evil... but she is definately acting in a "dishonourable" manner. My assessment of the act is CN with good tendencies. She is ignoring established rules, but her overall goal is good... even if her tactics are not lawfull. I don't place this a CG because she may be harming one or the other party (due to indifference rather than malice) and she is taking no precautions to alievate this.
allthumbs 03-05-04, 03:24 PM	Originally posted by Duvanok Correct, it does say that. . . about evil. But, as I stated before, if that summed up everything there would be no need for the other half of the alignment, that being L, N, or C. " Sure there is - look at the problem from the other side. Law and Chaos have nothing to do with respect for life. That axis deals with things like duty, honor, intuition, and freedom. Plenty of Lawful societies exist where there are plenty of ways to legally kill someone - the US is such a place. What about a society with a dueling code? "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." Clearly this rogue has made a commitment to build an orphanage - sacrificing wealth and the freedom to pick up and travel elsewhere for the time being. Isn't that considered "good" under the definition?
Beamup 03-05-04, 03:48 PM	I'd say NN or CN. Definitely not lawful, definitely not good. Probably not evil. The PC is cheating this guy - she thinks he doesn't know what it's worth, but she's accepting it without telling him. The fact that he'd make the trade anyway is irrelevant, as the PC does not know this. The PC is cheating the party - by not cutting them in on their share of the reward. They may not care that much, but again she's still cheating them out of their cut. But, this is being done in an ultimately Good cause. This balances out the evil of cheating people in a bargain, so Neutral on that axis. Building an orphanage isn't really Lawful in any sense, and cheating in a bargain is somewhat Chaotic, so CN or NN. Uses Evil and somewhat Chaotic means to achieve a Good end - that's CN or NN.
Duvanok 03-07-04, 01:50 AM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by allthumbs [B]Sure there is - look at the problem from the other side. Law and Chaos have nothing to do with respect for life. That axis deals with things like duty, honor, intuition, and freedom. Plenty of Lawful societies exist where there are plenty of ways to legally kill someone - the US is such a place. What about a society with a dueling code?[B] I don't think you are understanding my point, or perhaps I am just not explaining myself well enough. Your above response has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Fearing the only thing I can do at this point is repeat myself I will end or discussion here. Good luck to you.