Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ikeren 03-19-06, 08:06 PM	I think I've got a problem. In the gaming world, there are 5 sub leaders called Arch Deacons, that fall under a god king. God king just disapeared, and the area is thrown into chaos. So I've got a little rebel cabal trying to set up a democracy in its stead by keeping the Deacons in chaos while gaining power. I'm the leader, and I am a chaotic good fighter. The good part is kind of getting screwy. I just abducted an ambassador, threw her guards on the road with food to make the return trip and that is it. To get her into the city, I give her the choice of taking a cat form polymorph or dying. We are holding her for ransom now (100000 gold and 10 magic items...we'll see what happens with that). She's manacled to a wall in my house. In my recent history, we've got me killing the city watch. So I am wondering...is good the right alignment? I mean - I just want the peasants to be accurately represented. But abduction - isn't that "evil"? Killing the city watch...? Incidently, her vest is magical in a low magic game... Would stealing it be okay, to put it to use at a good cause? We don't know her alignment, but she is the ambassador of the guy who is in charge of keeping the elves down, and may or may not have been responsible for a genocide. Does it even make sense that my character is good? Here's where it gets funnier. One of the cohorts is a Lawful Good Paladin. On page 44, column 2 of the PHB, under the heading Code of Conduct, you see "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect the legitimate authority". In this situation (realm in chaos, 5 arch deacons of varying degrees of evil - 1 may even be good! - vying for control?) could you argue that there is no legitimate authority, and we are trying to create one? (A democratic system)? Or is there...any reason for this paladin to be with us? Oh well, off to more abductions and murders!
Jarbear00 03-19-06, 08:28 PM	You don't sound very good at all unless you are fighting against an evil government. But other that that you sound more evil than good
Ikeren 03-19-06, 08:37 PM	Does a genocide and bloody campaign, plus 5000 years of ignoring the peasants make a government evil? My character says yes...
xvthreetwoonevx 03-19-06, 09:05 PM	Personally, I think you are chaotic neutral. You're fighting desparately against an obviously corrupt government, but you're not doing evil things simply for your personal gain (though the ransom is questionable...how does you getting a bunch of cash help the greater good? Perhaps get them to stop the genocide, or something?) Your means aren't good, and some of them maybe a little evil, but you're in the right frame of mind. You're doing good and bad things to acheive a good end, so I think neutral's more appropriate for your particular methods.
Redisbest 03-19-06, 09:48 PM	I think that you could still swing a good alignment. What were your other options when dealing with the ambassador? Are you treating her well (other than the chained-to-the-wall bit)? It seems to me as though you didn't have much of a choice with her, and so long as that money isn't for direct personal gain, the ransom could be ok too. Who knows, maybe you could persuade her to join you... As for the watch, one less that righteous act shouldn't change you to neutral. [EDIT after thinking] A good person can do bad things while working towards the greater good, if he recognises that his actions may have consequences. If, in the end, there is a price to pay, a good character will accept that. Maybe the consequences will be a feeling of guilt over the deaths of the guardsman, or maybe the LG government that you establish will see fit to punish you. Alignment is subjective.
Callista 03-19-06, 10:13 PM	You could be CG bordering on CN, or CN bordering on CG... it's one of those things that's really kind of hard to tell. The "city watch" thing is the most evil part of the whole bit I can see. Could you have helped killing them? If they were evil themselves, and you killed them to prevent them doing something horrid (like maybe they were preparing to torch the poor quarter or something) then that's OK; but if you could've helped killing them, rather than just leaving them knocked out or something, then yeah, you're on the borderline. Don't worry about your alignment for now--it should come clear sooner or later. You're not a cleric or paladin, so mechanically, it won't matter for most purposes. Just play your character; take spell effects based on what you've got written on your sheet; and change or don't change the alignment when it gets to be a little clearer. It's either that, or change it back and forth twice or more a session, as your character commits one act or the other...
Surgo 03-19-06, 11:09 PM	You sound pretty CG to me. And I would certainly take the vest. Quite simply, you're doing what you have to. A lot of people will say CN, and a lot of people will say CG. You're in a war here, and war isn't pleasant. It also sounds like a really fun campaign!
20goingon1232 03-19-06, 11:20 PM	Depends on your motivation. If he is doing it for just power so that no one can tell him what to do, CN. If he is doing for power so that he can tell others what to do or else, CE. If he is out to help peasants and better the lot of others, CG. Remember, Robin Hood is the epitome of CG and the guy was a bandit...
Ikeren 03-20-06, 08:50 PM	The ransom is to equip my small cabal to and to advertise and further fight the corrupt government. The ambassador, we basically decided to kidnap to throw in a bit of chaos and gain some money to further support future endevours. The other choice was kill her, because it would cause the same amount of chaos (the ambassador randomly disapears...), it wouldn't garner the ransom, but it would be simpler. And yes, she is being treated fine otherwise. The thing about fighting city guardsmen was thrown in by the DM as an explanation of how my character and another met. Quoting from the campaign It was at the capital that he chanced upon Meiron battling against a patrol of imperial guard. Instantly, he saw a kindred spirit, and leapt to his assistance. That is all that I was told. I took the creative licsence to say I won, because 1) I'm a souped out 10th level fighter with a high point buy, 2) I had strong help, and 3) I got out alive...so I think I killed them. Maybe we just knocked them unconcious. Or ran. I don't really know. I'd assume the worst :D And the character doesn't want power. I am struggling to prove that a democracy is a good idea. Anyways, thanks for the help guys. I guess I'll leave it as chaotic good and see where I go from here...
Douglas Zuver 03-20-06, 09:18 PM	A long time ago, somewhere in Dragon magazine there was an article entitled: "For God and Country" It went on to talk about Alignment is not the only issue with a player's actions and who they get along with. Two Paladins leading two diffent good armies can meet in a battle field and fight each other because they are serving two very different countries. Druids could diplomatically side with one Paladin Rangers from the same forest could diplomatically side with the other Paladin I don't remember the whole article, but it was interesting to read. Food for thought.
Squaba 03-20-06, 11:59 PM	You sound CG to me, you may have slipped off the path a bit with the murder, and if you do kill the woman then you might be digging a deeper hole for yourself. The Paladin has to go though, ask your DM to replace it with a Paladin of Freedom from UA that'll fit your character a lot better.
Vaelan 03-21-06, 08:09 AM	Good people respect the dignity of sentient beings. Kidnapping a sentient being and holding it against its will is not respectful of the dignity that should be accorded to it. If you choose to conduct your revolution in such a manner, you aren't Good. At best, you're a solid, pragmatic Neutral. A solid, pragmatic Neutral whom the people will never actually trust because your enemies will be telling them all about how you kidnap people for money and are nothing more than a scoundrel using this "democracy" nonsense as an excuse to satisfy your greed. Not only are your actions Evil and would realistically be quite damaging to the popular acceptance of your philosophy, but it also directly contradicts your philosophy. Democracy is based on the idea that people should, for the most part, be free to make their own decisions (see: govern themselves). You're kidnapping people, which denies them every freedom your philosophy would dictate that they're entitled to.
zlatko 03-21-06, 09:00 AM	You are being CN. And take the vest. Were it a benevolent goverment you would be... Lawful Evil!
Surgo 03-21-06, 09:01 AM	Good people respect the dignity of sentient beings. Kidnapping a sentient being and holding it against its will is not respectful of the dignity that should be accorded to it. Except, he's neither plannng to hold her there forever, nor kill her. From what he said he's going to let her go, and probably the sooner the better.
kintire 03-21-06, 09:03 AM	Good people respect the dignity of sentient beings. Kidnapping a sentient being and holding it against its will is not respectful of the dignity that should be accorded to it. I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the Good alignment that precludes capturing and imprisoning people, either in war or law enforcement. This woman is an agent of an enemy who is at least strongly suspected of heinous crimes, and has previous for tyranny: at the same time, she's not a combatant. Imprisonment (in decent conditions) is fine. Demanding cash for a ransom is a little iffy, but no one's perfect I guess... Democracy is based on the idea that people should, for the most part, be free to make their own decisions (see: govern themselves). You're kidnapping people, which denies them every freedom your philosophy would dictate that they're entitled to. Nonsense. No democracy in history has denied itself the right to take prisoners of war during conflicts or imprison criminals. That "for the most part" up there covers quite a few cases. The Paladin has to go though, ask your DM to replace it with a Paladin of Freedom Not necessarily. If you are fighting to establish a stable democracy in a state in chaos, a Paladin will be right up with that. of course, when you get to the actual writing the constitution stage you should be prepared for a parting of the ways...
Witch 03-21-06, 11:28 AM	Remember, Robin Hood is the epitome of CG and the guy was a bandit... Robin Hood was CN at best.
Varia 03-21-06, 02:46 PM	Revolutions are strange times when peoples usual behaviours and rules dont necessarily apply, and alignments are more flexible than usual. All I can say is to consider the various revolutions in history, and how you would characterise them, and why, most especially the american revolution of course (assuming the poster is american). *Hugs* Varia
arjomanes 03-21-06, 02:48 PM	Robin Hood, Zorro, Francis Marion and William Wallance could all be characterized as Chaotic Good. None of them completely avoided soiling their hands with killing, theft, or property damage, but sometimes desperate times demand desperate actions. Of course not everyone would view them as Chaotic Good, but sometimes what is perceived to be good or neutral or evil in war varies. The killing, raping or plundering of innocent civilians would be an evil act. The killing of your enemy's soldiers would mostly remain a "good" act by the rules of war. The assasination of enemy agents or leaders would be at best a neutral act. Executing a spy would remain a "good" act; executing an ambassador, healer or priest would be evil (assuming she is an unnarmed noncombatant). Ransoming the enemy's ambassador would be a chaotic neutral act, but probably not enough on its own to alter your alignment. If everything goes south and the ambassador accidentally dies, that might nudge you over to chaotic neutral, since you would have participated in an evil act (wholly intentionally or not). To avoid being untarnished, you would want to adopt a policy of not killing people outright, allowing your enemies to surrender and treating prisoners fairly. If possible, you will inflict subdual damage against enemies who are not evil (such as the lawful neutral town guard), or force surrender, but will kill armed combatants if you need to in order to avoid execution and the loss of freedom for your people. Razing the countryside and forcing a war of attrition would be a neutral or evil act, as the people would suffer more than the nobility, but forcing a siege could remain good since you have no other choice. In this instance your character is definitely chaotic good. It looks like you are attempting to free people from oppression in a decadent government that is already falling into civil war. You are not an invader or oppressor, and you are attempting to avoid violence whenever possible. I think that this represents chaotic good in a difficult situation. Events may continue to force you over towards neutral, however, if you wish to stick to your ideals of freedom. It seems like it would hard to survive a civil war without becoming a little jaded and tainted.
moriarty13 03-21-06, 03:09 PM	Heck, you might even be lawful good. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of the land, just that you adhere to a personal code and accept a valid heirarchy. Fighting to put a good democratic government in place because your personal code says that's the right thing to do is quite valid. Paladins have a different set of rules on top of being lawful good, they don't necessarily apply to everyone. Doing slightly mean things to good people doesn't mean you are evil. Torturing them might. Kidnapping them and holding them hostage, if done for the right reason, is perfectly valid. Alignments shouldn't be looked at as strict rules, they are more guidelines. If a chaotic person follows a law, it doesn't mean he becomes lawful. And the reverse is also true. Now, over a long period of time you become less good and act harsher and harsher, then you may edge over to CN, but from what you say the circumstances are a good enough excuse (unless your character is using them as an excuse to do mean things for fun:)).
KoronBlackwing 03-21-06, 04:42 PM	All I can say is that by everything stated you would remain good until you commit a truely evil act. two old sayings come to mind that relate very well to being CG. 1st "When fighting against evil, good does not always have to fight fair." 2nd "Sometimes it truely is the ends that justify the means." With these thoughts in hand continue as you are and you remain good.
Vaelan 03-22-06, 01:45 AM	Except, he's neither plannng to hold her there forever, nor kill her. This is entirely irrelevant. Committing an Evil act for a short amount of time doesn't make the act any less Evil. I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the Good alignment that precludes capturing and imprisoning people, either in war or law enforcement. Perhaps you should read the PHB's section on the Good alignment and take some time to research the ethical philosophy upon which it is based. Since you clearly haven't done this, I really find it quite difficult to care if you agree or not. Further, the OP has already stated that monetary gain was one of the primary motivations in kidnapping this woman. Kidnapping people for money, no matter the circumstances, isn't Good. This woman is an agent of an enemy who is at least strongly suspected of heinous crimes, and has previous for tyranny... Misleading. This woman is an ambassador, and thus most likely had absolutely nothing to do with any of these heinous crimes. Imprisonment (in decent conditions) is fine. Imprisonment is a concession towards practicality over moral righteousness. Imprisoning people, no matter what the conditions, is not appropriate behavior for a Good character. But, as you said, nobody is perfect. Nonsense. No democracy in history has denied itself the right to take prisoners of war during conflicts or imprison criminals. That "for the most part" up there covers quite a few cases. The entire basis of democracy is that its power comes from the approval of the people. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that this form of government hasn't been approved by the majority of the people, nor have the people given the OP's character the right to take such actions. As such, your argument is invalid as the character is not acting as an authority in a democratic government, which anyone of average intelligence should be able to gather from the fact that he is still fighting to establish said government. Lastly, we're speaking of an absolute: Good. Good is perfect and people are not. As such, what others have done in the course of history is not at all relevant. The fact is, the OP's character is not conducting himself in a manner that is consistent with the PHB's description of Good. He is showing a marked lack of respect for the dignity of sentient beings, one in particular.
kintire 03-22-06, 06:57 AM	Further, the OP has already stated that monetary gain was one of the primary motivations in kidnapping this woman. Kidnapping people for money, no matter the circumstances, isn't Good. It isn't necessarily evil either. Kidnapping legitimate targets for money to fuel a just cause is neutral. Good characters can commit neutral acts and remain good. Hence, no problem. Misleading. This woman is an ambassador, and thus most likely had absolutely nothing to do with any of these heinous crimes. Joachim von Ribbentrop was an ambassor too, and he ended up at Nuremberg like the other senior Nazis. Ambassadors can resign; if she continues to support her master in whatever role she is contributing to the crimes. Imprisonment is a concession towards practicality over moral righteousness. Imprisoning people, no matter what the conditions, is not appropriate behavior for a Good character Nonsense. Detaining someone as a POW or for criminal offences to protect your soldiers or citizens from them without the necessity for killing the prisoner is perfectly appropriate behaviour foor a good character. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that this form of government hasn't been approved by the majority of the people, nor have the people given the OP's character the right to take such actions. As such, your argument is invalid as the character is not acting as an authority in a democratic government This is not a porblem with imprisonment, but with the entire cause. Its not a large problem either; He isn't a government, he is fightin g to give the people a chance to choose against people trying to deny them that chance. If the people then choose the old regime he should respect that, but thats not a problem until they do. In any case, this is no help to you: your line was: Democracy is based on the idea that people should, for the most part, be free to make their own decisions (see: govern themselves). You're kidnapping people, which denies them every freedom your philosophy would dictate that they're entitled to. Which remains incorrect. Lack of a democratic mandate may be a problem; imprisoning people is not. Lastly, we're speaking of an absolute: Good. Good is perfect and people are not. As such, what others have done in the course of history is not at all relevant. No, we are speaking of whether the OPs actions fall within the scope of the Chaotic Good alignment. This does not require him to be a candidate for sainthood. As long as he is operating with the good of others in mind, the occasional neutral act is fine. Perhaps you should read the PHB's section on the Good alignment and take some time to research the ethical philosophy upon which it is based. Since you clearly haven't done this, I really find it quite difficult to care if you agree or not. which anyone of average intelligence should be able to gather Oh, you're one of those are you? never mind... you'll get over it! ;)