PDA

View Full Version : Reactions by alignment



Tiiba
2014-01-15, 09:37 AM
Here's a situation. I'm trying to figure out the reactions three people would have. They are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. (Assume also that these are their actual names. They're brothers.)

They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.

What do the three brothers say?

Edit: (By the way, this is not for an RPG, but for a story. I'm trying to give people different reactions, but they end up all taking different routes to the same conclusion.)

ElenionAncalima
2014-01-15, 09:48 AM
It really depends on your players. There is a reason alignment is so often debated.

Chaotic Good may be the most willing to cooperate with True Neutral...as he is willing to do underhanded things for the greater good. However, should True Neutral's actions offend him, he is also the most likely want to take vigilante justice.

Lawful Good may feel that he could never work with such and amoral person and that True Neutral must be brought to justice for his crime. However, he could also feel innocent lives must be protected now and justice for True Neutral can wait.

Neutral Good is going to be the hardest to predict. You are totally at the mercy of the player's moral compass.

...and of course they are just as likely to do none of the above. I would be ready for multiple different reactions.

TheStranger
2014-01-15, 10:10 AM
Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

mucat
2014-01-15, 10:33 AM
Mostly what TheStranger said. There are more than nine different possible outlooks on life. Knowing a person's alignment tells you a little about their personality and viewpoints, but far too little to predict their reaction to a complicated situation.


They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.
And even after what I just said about alignment not predicting a person's actions...unless he has a strong redeeming side you haven't told us about, I would have trouble describing this guy as Neutral. He knows his actions caused great harm, but would do it again? Is he convinced that, overall, he was acting for the greater good, or does he just not care if he harms people? If it's the latter, that's a distinctly evil outlook.

Daimbert
2014-01-15, 10:36 AM
I'd say that here the problem is more that you are varying the Lawful aspect of their personalities, but the situation as -- simply -- described actually relates more to Good than it does to Lawful. The Law/Chaos axis is essentially no more than "Do you follow your own conscience or do you follow the rules even if they conflict with your own personal feelings?" Lawful characters follow the rules even if they personally, at that point, think that not following the rules will lead to the better outcome as per their other axis, while Chaotic ones follow their own personal judgements even if the rules say otherwise. so, in this case here, speaking strictly on the Law/Chaos axis:

LG: "Was there any law broken? Will I be breaking any law in taking your aid?" (remember that being LG and being a Paladin are not the same thing).
NG: "Hmmm. I don't think I'll be breaking any laws, and it might be worth it to get out of the situation anyway."
CG: "As long as my personal conscience doesn't make me disapprove of you personally, I don't see why I shouldn't help."

But then that does come down to personality, and comes down to how each character FEELS about working with someone who caused the situation and did it with someone who's evil.

A better differentiator would be if the association here would involve breaking the law:

LG: "I'm not going to break the law to get out of this situation. I'll find another way or accept the consequences."
NG: "I don't want to break the law, but if the situation is bad enough ..."
CG: "That it's illegal doesn't say anything about whether or not I should work with you."

But, yes, personality comes into all cases as well, but I think that the reason they all come up the same is that the sitaution calls for a judgement based on the Good/Evil alignment axis, but you're only changing the Lawful one. Think about it for, say, NG, True Neutral, and NE:

NG: "I have a problem working with someone who not only works with evil, but does so wilingly and unapologeticaly" (which doesn't mean that they wouldn't work with them).
True Neutral: "If it works out the way I want, I'll work with anyone".
NE: "... What's the problem?"

Mastikator
2014-01-15, 10:48 AM
They all say "sure I'll help you, I don't like who you cooperate with but you don't deserve this dire, dire fate, I can't live with myself if I look and do nothing".

Then they have different ideas about how to resolve the situation.

Tiiba
2014-01-15, 10:55 AM
They all say "sure I'll help you, I don't like who you cooperate with but you don't deserve this dire, dire fate, I can't live with myself if I look and do nothing".

Then they have different ideas about how to resolve the situation.

The Goods are in the bind, not TN.

Thanks guys. I see my problem now - I didn't do enough to figure out my characters' personalities. That's why they all think like me.

Kalmageddon
2014-01-15, 10:59 AM
Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

This.
Not much else to say.

Sith_Happens
2014-01-15, 11:32 AM
I'm pretty sure all three of them would say some variation on "Give me the thing, and I'd better not catch you doing that again, Klondike bar or not."

Slipperychicken
2014-01-15, 11:40 AM
Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

This. Alignments aren't people.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-15, 11:55 AM
I should write a story where characters are named things like L. Goode and C. Eville.

Tiiba
2014-01-15, 12:26 PM
I should write a story where characters are named things like L. Goode and C. Eville.

And C. would be the the paladin trying to prevent Erythnul from sponsoring L.'s apotheosis.

Jay R
2014-01-15, 01:48 PM
The alignment system is not a way to determine thoughts or actions. It is a (poor) tool for characterizing thoughts and actions after you've decided what they are.

My recommendation: When creating a character, first figure out how he or she thinks (I find it helps to compare the character to a real-world or fictional person, with changes. "She's like Elena in The Mask of Zorro, but she never trusted her father." "He's like Gilligan, but without the quiet dignity."

Then work up stats, skills, feats, etc.

Finally, after the character is complete in your mind, ask yourself what alignment that character is.

Don't decide she is Lawful Neutral and build from that. Decide that she thinks a certain way, build her actions and abilities from that, and then figure out (not decide) what her alignment is.

"Begin with an individual, and before you know it you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find you have created – nothing."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-16, 02:20 AM
As others have said, there's simply not enough information in your presented scenario to reasonably judge what characters of those alignments might do in response.

There's also the not so minor issue of the fact that, however they react, it's not a result of their alignment. How they react is a result of their individual personalities; their upbringing, their personal foibles, past experiences with similar situations, etc; and -that- determines their alignment.

Jay R
2014-01-16, 02:02 PM
Here is the crucial observation, that will help explain everything else:

There are more than nine ways for people to react.

AMFV
2014-01-16, 02:18 PM
Here is the crucial observation, that will help explain everything else:

There are more than nine ways for people to react.

This is true, there are ten.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-16, 03:11 PM
This is true, there are ten.
{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

Jay R
2014-01-16, 06:32 PM
{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

You left out the three most common D&D alignments - Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Back-stabbing.

russdm
2014-01-16, 07:05 PM
You left out the three most common D&D alignments - Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Back-stabbing.

Actually those three are all parts of one alignment: Player Characters. You can have all three present in one character and have it work even if they are annoying as all get out.

AMFV
2014-01-16, 07:12 PM
{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

Well if you don't know the tenth one I'm afraid I can't tell you about it, it's super-secret.

Mastikator
2014-01-17, 01:47 AM
{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

I count 362 880, since you can be any combination.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-17, 01:52 AM
I count 362 880, since you can be any combination.

How did you get that number?

Mastikator
2014-01-17, 01:52 AM
How did you get that number?

Nine factorial.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-17, 01:59 AM
Nine factorial.

There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

AMFV
2014-01-17, 02:27 AM
There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

Well technically since you can have tendencies, you could be Lawful Lawful Good, or Chaotic Neutral (Evil), which opens up quite a few more possibilities. Depending on how you want to factor things.

Mastikator
2014-01-17, 02:49 AM
There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

Unless you do alignmentshifts on a daily basis. If you can do up to 9 in one day then it's possible to have 9! number of ways to react.

TuggyNE
2014-01-17, 03:36 AM
Unless you do alignmentshifts on a daily basis. If you can do up to 9 in one day then it's possible to have 9! number of ways to react.

I am completely lost as to why this is a thing. Why would having previously been of alignment X affect your reaction in a way that is substantially different from currently being of alignment Y? How are these alignments shifting almost diametrically (from LN to CE, say) without intermediate steps and nigh-instantaneously? What is the source of the arbitrary nine switches/day figure?

I just ... I just don't understand.

Evo_Kaer
2014-01-17, 05:35 AM
Even if everyone says its impossible to answer, I'm going to try my luck:

LG: "Why should I trust you, if you brought us into this mess in the first place?"
NG: "I might overlook what you did, if you get us out of here"
CG: "I'm still not sure if I should kick you before or after we get outta here"

TheStranger
2014-01-17, 08:07 AM
Even if everyone says its impossible to answer, I'm going to try my luck:

LG: "Why should I trust you, if you brought us into this mess in the first place?"
NG: "I might overlook what you did, if you get us out of here"
CG: "I'm still not sure if I should kick you before or after we get outta here"

All of those are entirely reasonable reactions, and consistent with the given alignments. However, that's primarily because you could justify any of the nine alignments having any of those reactions (possibly with slight differences in wording). You're making assumptions about the personalities that go along with each alignment.

Lorsa
2014-01-17, 08:28 AM
I'm sorry, but according to the D&D alignment system, how can a person that willingly creates a situation that places other people in immediate danger of physical harm only so he can abuse their situation and offer help in exchange for a reward be described as True Neutral? It seems to me the (wise?) old man is Evil himself.

Mastikator
2014-01-17, 08:34 AM
I am completely lost as to why this is a thing. Why would having previously been of alignment X affect your reaction in a way that is substantially different from currently being of alignment Y? How are these alignments shifting almost diametrically (from LN to CE, say) without intermediate steps and nigh-instantaneously? What is the source of the arbitrary nine switches/day figure?

I just ... I just don't understand.

Reactions occur over time. If an alignment shift occurs simultaneously then it's a thing.
Reacting while going LG -> CE isn't the same as reacting while going CE -> LG or even staying neutral.

TuggyNE
2014-01-17, 09:07 AM
I'm sorry, but according to the D&D alignment system, how can a person that willingly creates a situation that places other people in immediate danger of physical harm only so he can abuse their situation and offer help in exchange for a reward be described as True Neutral? It seems to me the (wise?) old man is Evil himself.

Nahhh, his manipulations finally bumped him down from NG just last week, so he's still got a ways to go. :smalltongue:


Reacting while going LG -> CE isn't the same as reacting while going CE -> LG or even staying neutral.

OK. But since alignment changes almost always occur over time, it's impossible to just bump from LG -> CN without first going through either NG or TN … either of which, naturally, has its own influence on the process, and is the new "previous" alignment. Each alignment is only adjacent to between 3 and 5 others, so that right there messes the 9! figure up completely. Add to that the apparently completely arbitrary restriction on exactly nine alignment changes per day (what, you can only be LG once per day, unless you're swapping back and forth between it and LN?), and the very dubious relationship between whatever alignment you were seven swaps ago and your reactions now, and the thing just doesn't begin to add up.

Oh yeah, and also, which is more important: what alignment you were immediately before your current one, or the alignment you are most nearly exemplifying right now? (Possibly excluding your present one.)

Basically all I'm saying is that is an extraordinarily strange number to throw around.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-17, 09:09 AM
I'm sorry, but according to the D&D alignment system, how can a person that willingly creates a situation that places other people in immediate danger of physical harm only so he can abuse their situation and offer help in exchange for a reward be described as True Neutral? It seems to me the (wise?) old man is Evil himself.

If that were the situation presented, you'd be correct. Such a character would, indeed, be evil.

However, the OP says that the true neutral character cooperated with the evil character, not that he knowingly and willfully created the situation at hand. More likely, since he's seeking outside assistance, the situation is an unintended consequence of his actions; the soon to be victims just being unexpected collateral from some other project.

At least that's what I'd assume from the OP's (absurdly vague) description.

And just to repeat myself because it is such a very important thing to keep in mind, The three good characters' reaction to this situation -cannot- be predicted by alignment alone because how they react to this and other situations determines their alignment, their alignment does -not- determine how they act. There's simply far too little information about both the situation at hand and the characters themselves to make any kind of reasonable determination.

Mastikator
2014-01-17, 06:12 PM
OK. But since alignment changes almost always occur over time, it's impossible to just bump from LG -> CN without first going through either NG or TN … either of which, naturally, has its own influence on the process, and is the new "previous" alignment. Each alignment is only adjacent to between 3 and 5 others, so that right there messes the 9! figure up completely. Add to that the apparently completely arbitrary restriction on exactly nine alignment changes per day (what, you can only be LG once per day, unless you're swapping back and forth between it and LN?), and the very dubious relationship between whatever alignment you were seven swaps ago and your reactions now, and the thing just doesn't begin to add up.

Oh yeah, and also, which is more important: what alignment you were immediately before your current one, or the alignment you are most nearly exemplifying right now? (Possibly excluding your present one.)

Basically all I'm saying is that is an extraordinarily strange number to throw around.
...Why?

I can go from having one apple to having three apples without having two apples. I can go from being happy to being angry without being neutral. Whether you treat alignment as objective or subjective you can totally jump between any two.

Edit-

Yes in retrospect 9! is a strange number to throw around, you can go LG -> CE -> LG -> TN -> CG. The presence of two LGs mean that it's not just 9!, it's potentially an infinite number of combinations.
If we instead say that there is a limit to how many alignment shifts you can do during a given action, and call that number "n", then it's "n" to the power of 9.

Isamu Dyson
2014-01-17, 06:35 PM
It would be more accurate to say "Alignments are not necessarily personality.".

Frozen_Feet
2014-01-17, 07:50 PM
Here's a situation. I'm trying to figure out the reactions three people would have. They are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. (Assume also that these are their actual names. They're brothers.)

They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.

What do the three brothers say?

Edit: (By the way, this is not for an RPG, but for a story. I'm trying to give people different reactions, but they end up all taking different routes to the same conclusion.)

Insufficient information, but I will give it a shot still.

LG will focus on the Evilness of TN's actions and their possible illegality. He will try to sway him towards alternatives that are still Lawful but not Evil. Once he survives the situation, he will seek to apprehend LE and bring him before justice, with possibly doing the same to TN if he shows no signs of redemption.

NG will question whether Lawfulness of the act was enough to justify its Evilness, and ask TN to listen to his heart. Once he survives the situation, he will hand off LE to LG, while remaining with TN to try and change his way.

CG will immediately think TN stupid for following LE. He will probably try to exact vigilante justice on both LE and TN, possibly roughing them up before leaving them in the nads of LG and NG brothers. He then wanders off to do his own thing.

They will all accept the means to escape the situation, because they are not morons. This, provided TN will just give them to them. LG will probably appeal to honor, law of the land, and benefit of the masses to get them, NG will appeal to TN's good nature and ask him to think of those who suffer, and CG will probably guilt-trip him by lecturing how his personal whims and freedoms don't justify causing suffering to others.

Lorsa
2014-01-18, 05:52 PM
If that were the situation presented, you'd be correct. Such a character would, indeed, be evil.

However, the OP says that the true neutral character cooperated with the evil character, not that he knowingly and willfully created the situation at hand. More likely, since he's seeking outside assistance, the situation is an unintended consequence of his actions; the soon to be victims just being unexpected collateral from some other project.

At least that's what I'd assume from the OP's (absurdly vague) description.


Here's a situation. I'm trying to figure out the reactions three people would have. They are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. (Assume also that these are their actual names. They're brothers.)

They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.

There are a few key points in this statement that tells me the person shouldn't be True Neutral. First, they are in a dire, dire situation. That probably means their lives are in danger. He also tells me that he has what they need. It doesn't say that he's giving them what they need, just that he has it (which implies he want something in return).

Now, this situation was caused by someone being Lawful Evil (again the implication that their lifethreatening situations was caused intentionally by a person. Not only that, it was caused by his collaboration with this individual, which means Lawful Evil wouldn't have been able to accomplish this without him. He also says that he'd do the very same simply because of his own greed.

Lastly, it says he is old and wise. Wisdom usually is a part of Prudence (the virtue) and implies having foresight and ability to accurately predict the outcome of your actions.

So to conclude, he is both portrayed as having the necessary character trait to be able to predict that this situation would occur due to his actions and being motivated purely by greed without any consideration or care for the welbeing of others.

That, according to D&D, is Evil (probably Neutral).

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-18, 06:58 PM
There are a few key points in this statement that tells me the person shouldn't be True Neutral. First, they are in a dire, dire situation. That probably means their lives are in danger. He also tells me that he has what they need. It doesn't say that he's giving them what they need, just that he has it (which implies he want something in return).

Now, this situation was caused by someone being Lawful Evil (again the implication that their lifethreatening situations was caused intentionally by a person. Not only that, it was caused by his collaboration with this individual, which means Lawful Evil wouldn't have been able to accomplish this without him. He also says that he'd do the very same simply because of his own greed.

Lastly, it says he is old and wise. Wisdom usually is a part of Prudence (the virtue) and implies having foresight and ability to accurately predict the outcome of your actions.

So to conclude, he is both portrayed as having the necessary character trait to be able to predict that this situation would occur due to his actions and being motivated purely by greed without any consideration or care for the welbeing of others.

That, according to D&D, is Evil (probably Neutral).

You're making several logical leaps here.

First is that the dire situation is an immediate threat to life and limb. It could just as easily be that a usurper (Mr. LE) is almost in a position to take power; a situation that any patriot would consider dire, indeed.

Second is that him saying he has what they need being a coercion to get something he wants rather than a bargaining chip to keep them from killing him. You've snap-judged him to be evil, why wouldn't the PC's.

Third is that wisdom allowing one to flawlessly predict the outcome of every action. Deception is a thing and it's a thing that successful LE characters tend to be good at.

Finally there's the conceit that high wisdom is automatically associated with good ("virtue"). Because of the objective and equal nature of the four alignments in D&D aligning with any of the four is equally wise if the "virtues" of that alignment sync up with your own ideas of what's right and wrong.

Inference and implication can be useful analytic tools but, like most things, they become counterproductive when taken too far.

Jay R
2014-01-19, 01:02 AM
OK. But since alignment changes almost always occur over time, it's impossible to just bump from LG -> CN without first going through either NG or TN … either of which, naturally, has its own influence on the process, and is the new "previous" alignment.

"Almost always"? You've provided no evidence for that, and it seems highly unlikely to me.

If a previously Lawful Good person sees a huge treasure with a single guard, and gives in to temptation to kill the guard and take the treasure, there was no intervening period of "Neutral" between good and evil.

I suspect that temptations to be evil are far more common, and more compelling, than temptations to be neutral.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-19, 01:42 AM
"Almost always"? You've provided no evidence for that, and it seems highly unlikely to me.

If a previously Lawful Good person sees a huge treasure with a single guard, and gives in to temptation to kill the guard and take the treasure, there was no intervening period of "Neutral" between good and evil.

I suspect that temptations to be evil are far more common, and more compelling, than temptations to be neutral.

Le sigh.

A character's alignment is determined by consistent behavior which is, in turn, determined by general outlook and attitude. A paladin who would be so tempted by a treasure as to violate both his ethos by stealing it and his morals by killing an innocent bystander to do it doesn't have the personality to have become a LG character in the first place.

There's simply no good reason he couldn't simply incapacitate the guard and if the treasure is rightly owned by someone that's not an evil person or illegitimate authority no LG person should be tempted beyond the breaking point to steal it in the first place unless there are some sort of mitigating circumstances.

People just don't suddenly set aside their long-held outlook on ethics and morality over a single instance of temptation.

TuggyNE
2014-01-19, 01:51 AM
"Almost always"? You've provided no evidence for that, and it seems highly unlikely to me.

If a previously Lawful Good person sees a huge treasure with a single guard, and gives in to temptation to kill the guard and take the treasure, there was no intervening period of "Neutral" between good and evil.

And how often does that happen, versus merely slipping slowly? Very infrequently, hence my use of "almost always". A single counterexample of an improbable scenario is entirely insufficient to disprove this.

Lorsa
2014-01-19, 04:56 AM
You're making several logical leaps here.

Considering the lack of information we were given, I thought some speculation was in order! Besides, questioning the True Neutralness of the old seemed like a valid point.


First is that the dire situation is an immediate threat to life and limb. It could just as easily be that a usurper (Mr. LE) is almost in a position to take power; a situation that any patriot would consider dire, indeed.

It's true, we don't know what the dire dire situation is. We do know that it's something they need to escape. Not overcome, solve or fight, but escape. Since they are good people, they probably wouldn't escape a situation where an Evil usurper was about to take power. They would fight him. The wording "escape" implies that it's more of a threat towards them as individuals I think.


Second is that him saying he has what they need being a coercion to get something he wants rather than a bargaining chip to keep them from killing him. You've snap-judged him to be evil, why wouldn't the PC's.

Yeah, why wouldn't the characters? That is part of my point too. Whichever way you look at it "telling someone you have what they need" and "giving someone what they need" are two different things.


Third is that wisdom allowing one to flawlessly predict the outcome of every action. Deception is a thing and it's a thing that successful LE characters tend to be good at.

Not flawlessly, but wisdom is the ability to properly predict outcomes. That's kind of what it does. Furthermore, he didn't state that he was decieved (also, it is hard to decieve an old, wise mentor figure). He said he would do it all again. I am fairly certain the OP would have mentioned if the old man was decieved. So we can only assume, with the information given, that he knew what he was doing and what was going to happen.


Finally there's the conceit that high wisdom is automatically associated with good ("virtue"). Because of the objective and equal nature of the four alignments in D&D aligning with any of the four is equally wise if the "virtues" of that alignment sync up with your own ideas of what's right and wrong.

I didn't say it was associated with Good. I said it was part of the virtue Prudence. People can be very Evil (in D&D alignmet sense) and still be Prudent and Wise.


Inference and implication can be useful analytic tools but, like most things, they become counterproductive when taken too far.

I agree. I admit that I don't really know if the old wise man is Evil or not, but from the information we were given, I believe it is valid to question his alignment (since the OP decided that alignment was important in this case). Furthermore, I am mostly looking to what is written, without assuming things that aren't there. Your counter arguments are mostly based on information we don't have (lilke the fact that he was decieved).

Most of the ambiguity is in what sort of dire dire situation this is. Usually though, when people speak about escaping dire situations, it means they are dangerous in the physical sense.

Oh and lastly, I think this is a very fun exercise, to try and defend my statement. We both know that the OP provided us we far too little information to really help him in any meaningful way.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-01-19, 05:18 AM
-snip-

Ultimately I think we're arguing both sides of the same coin here. We just don't know enough to make any real judgements about any of it. Is TN really neutral? We can't say. We don't know what the actual situation is, we have no idea of his motives, we don't know what he did to bring about the situation or even if the resultant dire situation is something he caused intentionally or is simply what he considers acceptable collateral that he's willing to help rectify if it wasn't.

I wasn't making any assumptions, simply positing scenarios in which it's plausible that TN actually is neutral. Hell, the hypotheticals I mentioned could even lead a good character to have caused the situation.

P.S. If a usurper is about to take power in, say, a few days, you're probably right in that the party would want to fight rather than flee. If, on the other hand, the usurper is to take power in the immediate future (less than a day) and the prince needs to get away in a hurry, they're going to flee with all speed, prince in tow. Not that it matters. My point was always that dire situations in need of escape need not be immediate threats to life and limb.