I didn't want to create another alignment thread, yet I did

[Jon_Dahl]

I have an alignment question. It is related to one or two threads that I have created earlier this year....

You are a retired adventurer. You hear that a group of infamous adventurers have taken your group's name. Even though they haven't done anything criminal, it is strongly suspected that the leader of the group has his group members killed on purpose. This is because the members keep dying at an alarming rate and the leader is actually known as the Journeyman of Death because everyone dies around him. So the group always has new members but the same leader.

You are contacted by a sage who thinks that the leader might be allied with the forces of evil. He has no proof, though. You and your group decide to send a letter to the group asking them to at least change their name so that your group's good name wouldn't be tarnished. They don't change the name and they reply you nothing.

Much later on, the other group randomly kills an innkeeper, a young elf, who is survived by his widow and a little baby girl. They also kill one of their group members in the process. After that, they kidnap the town sheriff and publicly threaten the whole village. Most of the villagers flee the village because it's understood that they might be all slaughtered (This wasn't said with this exact words but dozens of people understood it like that). The group ransacks the sheriff's office. The bodies of the elf and the killed group member are ex tempore burned in the town square and the funeral pyre is made from a wall of the inn.

The sheriff is then taken to the capital. The group has a lawyer in the capital, a Sage of Law, who manages to help the group avoid punishment. They only receive a formal warning from the city guard.

At this point, you and your group decide to kill the group in a sudden ambush. The decision is based on the fact that they don't want to talk since they didn't reply your previous message, and since they make such rash and murderous decisions, you and your group can't afford give them a fighting chance. Official methods won't help, since they have the Sage of Law to back them up. You make a plan how to kill the other group without placing any innocents in harm's way. Then you just kill them in a well-executed ambush. You donate some of the loot to the elf's widow and help her to rebuild the partially destroyed inn.

What is your alignment?

[Rhyltran]

I have an alignment question. It is related to one or two threads that I have created earlier this year....

You are a retired adventurer. You hear that a group of infamous adventurers have taken your group's name. Even though they haven't done anything criminal, it is strongly suspected that the leader of the group has his group members killed on purpose. This is because the members keep dying at an alarming rate and the leader is actually known as the Journeyman of Death because everyone dies around him. So the group always has new members but the same leader.

You are contacted by a sage who thinks that the leader might be allied with the forces of evil. He has no proof, though. You and your group decide to send a letter to the group asking them to at least change their name so that your group's good name wouldn't be tarnished. They don't change the name and they reply you nothing.

Much later on, the other group randomly kills an innkeeper, a young elf, who is survived by his widow and a little baby girl. They also kill one of their group members in the process. After that, they kidnap the town sheriff and publicly threaten the whole village. Most of the villagers flee the village because it's understood that they might be all slaughtered (This wasn't said with this exact words but dozens of people understood it like that). The group ransacks the sheriff's office. The bodies of the elf and the killed group member are ex tempore burned in the town square and the funeral pyre is made from a wall of the inn.

The sheriff is then taken to the capital. The group has a lawyer in the capital, a Sage of Law, who manages to help the group avoid punishment. They only receive a formal warning from the city guard.

At this point, you and your group decide to kill the group in a sudden ambush. The decision is based on the fact that they don't want to talk since they didn't reply your previous message, and since they make such rash and murderous decisions, you and your group can't afford give them a fighting chance. Official methods won't help, since they have the Sage of Law to back them up. You make a plan how to kill the other group without placing any innocents in harm's way. Then you just kill them in a well-executed ambush. You donate some of the loot to the elf's widow and help her to rebuild the partially destroyed inn.

What is your alignment?

I would say there needs to be more to make an actual consensus. What I mean is it doesn't take (in most cases) a single act to determine or represent alignment. However, if I had to base a character off this one action alone, probably neutral good depending on their reasoning if not chaotic good.

[Jon_Dahl]

I would say there needs to be more to make an actual consensus. What I mean is it doesn't take (in most cases) a single act to determine or represent alignment. However, if I had to base a character off this one action alone, probably neutral good depending on their reasoning if not chaotic good.

I agree with you, 100%, but since we are talking about an act of premeditated mass murder, I think we might say that in this particular case a single act could be used to determine or represent alignment. This may be faulty logic, but we can talk about that.

[Cenric]

This one act sounds chaotic good to chaotic neutral to me, if only because dnd is an odd universe in which killing evil is considered "good". This is assuming that you know for 100% fact that theyre capital E EVIL, then i would let it run as a strongly chaotic good act. However killing a bartender is only lowercase e evil, if at all, without the other groups motivations its kind of a tough call but I think youre hovering around CG or CN.

Remember good doesnt mean stupid, if you have no other recourse than violence being good doesnt mean you have to charge in head first with your eyes closed.

Edit: oops wasnt totally clear, being good doesnt mean you cant plan your murdering of the bad guy, so premeditated murder doesnt affect the alignment decision

[Jon_Dahl]

Remember good doesnt mean stupid, if you have no other recourse than violence being good doesnt mean you have to charge in head first with your eyes closed.

I don't know if it's clear from the OP, but the group is hitting them hard and fast, because they think that dealing with them directly will just get them murderhoboed and there is no indirect way to handle the situation (or at least they don't see any such way). So charging with your eyes closed is the complete opposite of what they are trying to do, although the result will be exactly the same.

[Karl Aegis]

I'd either have to guess Lawful Good, the Chaotic Evil version of Stupid Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. Hard to tell based on a small handful of actions.

[danzibr]

I don't see it as leaning much to either lawful or chaotic, but slightly toward good (not enough to be Good). So, overall, neutral neutral.

[Red Fel]

What is your alignment?

I could swear I've heard this exact scenario before. I'm almost positive there's been a thread about a group of retired adventurers whose party name was stolen, and a large chunk of response fell along the "Why does a retired adventurer care?" spectrum. But to answer the question:

Lawful Evil.

I could make up some garbage argument, although to be fair premeditated murder of a group based on them not responding to fan mail is pretty fricking Evil, but at the end of the day that's just my default response. "What alignment is this guy?" "Lawful Evil." "Why?" "Because it's easy."

Lawful Evil. If it isn't, it should be.

[Jon_Dahl]

I could swear I've heard this exact scenario before. I'm almost positive there's been a thread about a group of retired adventurers whose party name was stolen, and a large chunk of response fell along the "Why does a retired adventurer care?" spectrum. But to answer the question:.

Yes, but I couldn't find it. I swear. But don't try to find it, that would just embarrass me.

[hamishspence]

to be fair premeditated murder of a group based on them not responding to fan mail is pretty fricking Evil

That's not the reason, I figured - the innkeeper murder, and the sheriff kidnapping, which that group committed, plus their lawyer getting them off, was the reason they were targeted:


Much later on, the other group randomly kills an innkeeper, a young elf, who is survived by his widow and a little baby girl. They also kill one of their group members in the process. After that, they kidnap the town sheriff and publicly threaten the whole village. Most of the villagers flee the village because it's understood that they might be all slaughtered (This wasn't said with this exact words but dozens of people understood it like that). The group ransacks the sheriff's office. The bodies of the elf and the killed group member are ex tempore burned in the town square and the funeral pyre is made from a wall of the inn.

The sheriff is then taken to the capital. The group has a lawyer in the capital, a Sage of Law, who manages to help the group avoid punishment. They only receive a formal warning from the city guard.

At this point, you and your group decide to kill the group in a sudden ambush. The decision is based on the fact that they don't want to talk since they didn't reply your previous message, and since they make such rash and murderous decisions, you and your group can't afford give them a fighting chance. Official methods won't help, since they have the Sage of Law to back them up.

[Virdish]

I would say it's pretty neutral. There is the motivation of stopping this group from killing more which is a good motive. On the other end is the motive of not wanting your adventuring groups name sullied. That is a pretty self-serving motive so cancel those out and you get something on the neutral axis. I would say chaotic but it seems that if the law was an option than the group would have pursued that option.

Edit: Real world would be different but murderhobo is a legitimate job description of most adventuring parties and a fair number of said parties are staffed with "good" people.

[Echch]

Lawful Evil. If it isn't, it should be.

I'd say this applies. Not even only to this case, but in general.

[Red Fel]

I'd say this applies. Not even only to this case, but in general.

Like I said, default response. Anyone asks, that's my first answer.

[LordOfCain]

Like I said, default response. Anyone asks, that's my first answer.
What alignment is this one hundred percent goody two-shoes paladin who acts perfectly?
Red Fel:
Lawful Evil. If it isn't, it should be.

[Echch]

What alignment is this one hundred percent goody two-shoes paladin who acts perfectly?

The image of a 100% goody two-shoes paladin is actually one worth maintaining. I mean, if I were LE, then I would try to have a good public image so people won't bother me too much.
If I'm an Urpriest and can actually back my identity up with divine spells, I can pretty much do what I want if my image is good enough. After all, according to the public eye, I can still cast spells and thus whatever questionable action I took didn't make me fall.

[Strigon]

I know you think this one scenario is enough to get a feel for their alignment, but it just isn't.

They killed someone that was a threat to innocents, and was also causing them a bit of trouble at the same time. Stopping them is something a Good, Neutral, or Evil person would have done.

They couldn't be stopped by official channels, wouldn't respond to attempts to talk, so you moved on to killing them. Really, there's not much else to do. Once again, any Good, Evil, or Neutral person could do this.

You did it through an ambush. This is somewhat Chaotic, but not too much considering the circumstances. It's more "A Paladin would be unlikely to do this" than "This action defines a Chaotic character".

If you were to ask me to write up a character of each alignment that this happened to, I could do it without problems.

[Rizban]

I would say there needs to be more to make an actual consensus. What I mean is it doesn't take (in most cases) a single act to determine or represent alignment. However, if I had to base a character off this one action alone, probably neutral good depending on their reasoning if not chaotic good.If they're only attacking a typical four-member party, it's technically only multiple murder, not mass murder.


To address the question though, I'm inclined to believe it's on the spectrum of Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil. Regardless of the actions of the other party, you're taking the law into your own hands, because you don't think the actual legal system carried out justice. That's pretty strongly Chaotic.

You're definitely not performing a Good act, but you are removing a potential Evil from play. It's fairly neutral on the G/E axis with the scenario given. If, however, they're not actually Evil and just have bad press, you slip from Neutral to Evil pretty quick.

All of this, of course, only addresses the alignment of the ambush, not of the ambushers themselves.


On the other hand, if someone puts out a bounty on them, and you take it, then it's just Adventuring As Normal. Alignment doesn't even come into play at that point. :smalltongue:

[Nifft]

1 - The retired adventurer's former group has a good name. That points to Good.

2 - The retired adventurer cares about his group's good name, and his reputation overall. That points to a Humanoid who has not been driven insane by exposure to the Far Realms. (A desire for well-earned respect is not any particular alignment.)

3 - The retired adventurer tried talking first. That points to Good.

4 - The sorts of things that make the retired adventurer angry are pretty clearly Evil things. That points to Good.

========

I'd put this guy anywhere on the Good third of the chart.

[Rizban]

3 - The retired adventurer tried talking first. That points to Good.That points more to Lawful. He's trying to use legalese means to resolve the situation rather than showing up and forcing the point. Simply changing the name doesn't actually address the underlying situation, but it satisfies the Law side.

[Nifft]

That points more to Lawful. He's trying to use legalese means to resolve the situation rather than showing up and forcing the point. Simply changing the name doesn't actually address the underlying situation, but it satisfies the Law side.

"We don't mind if you keep breaking the law, but you're also ruining my reputation, and so you need to stop using my name."

That doesn't sound particularly Lawful to me.

It does sound like an attempt to resolve a problem in a peaceful way before resorting to violence, and to me that's neither Lawful nor Chaotic -- IMHO it's Good.

[TiaC]

You're all missing the real question, is starting an alignment thread an inherently Chaotic act? It definitely increases disorder in the forum.

[Rizban]

"We don't mind if you keep breaking the law, but you're also ruining my reputation, and so you need to stop using my name."At that point in the narrative, that's not what is happening. At the point at which contact is made, the only thing happening is that some negative rumors are circulating that are potentially tarnishing the retired adventurer's name.

The point then is not to investigate or resolve the rumors, it's simply to clear his former group's name and protect product identity. It's the equivalent of a trademark lawyer sending a cease and desist letter for trademark infringement.



You're all missing the real question, is starting an alignment thread an inherently Chaotic act? It definitely increases disorder in the forum.
To that point, posting any new thread increases disorder. :smalltongue:

[Nifft]

At that point in the narrative, that's not what is happening. At the point at which contact is made, the only thing happening is that some negative rumors are circulating that are potentially tarnishing the retired adventurer's name.

The point then is not to investigate or resolve the rumors, it's simply to clear his former group's name and protect product identity. It's the equivalent of a trademark lawyer sending a cease and desist letter for trademark infringement.

Yes, that's my point #2. It does not contradict point #3.

When I ask myself, "Who cares about his or her reputation?", I see answers like:
- Paladins
- Tyrants
- Barbarian Champions
- Gladiators
- Faerie Princes
- Dragons
- Shop Keepers
- Bartenders
- Blacksmiths
- Merchants
- Money Changers
- Thieves
- Kings
- Mercenaries

I'm not seeing any particular necessity for being Lawful (nor Chaotic) in that list.

[Rizban]

The difference is not in who cares about their reputation but in how those individuals would react to the issue.

The individual in question issued a Cease and Desist letter. That practically screams Lawful to me...

[Nifft]

The difference is not in who cares about their reputation but in how those individuals would react to the issue.

The individual in question issued a Cease and Desist letter. That practically screams Lawful to me...

Ah, I thought you were being funny, but it seems you were serious. Let's be clear here: it's not a C&D letter. Here's why: ignoring a C&D letter has legal consequences, because a C&D letter is the first stage in a legal proceeding. There were no legal consequences, and there is no legal proceeding in progress. Instead, the consequence is that there's going to be a privately sponsored assassination attempt.

There is no literal C&D letter. It's just a polite request.

It's like this, imagine you have two buttons:
[_] Ask nicely.
[_] Murder.

If you push the "Murder" button before trying the "Ask nicely" button, you might be Evil.

Pushing "Ask nicely" is not a particularly Lawful act.

[Rizban]

Ah, I thought you were being funny, but it seems you were serious. Let's be clear here: it's not a C&D letter. Here's why: ignoring a C&D letter has legal consequences, because a C&D letter is the first stage in a legal proceeding. There were no legal consequences, and there is no legal proceeding in progress. Instead, the consequence is that there's going to be a privately sponsored assassination attempt.

There is no literal C&D letter. It's just a polite request.

It's like this, imagine you have two buttons:
[_] Ask nicely.
[_] Murder.

If you push the "Murder" button before trying the "Ask nicely" button, you might be Evil.

Pushing "Ask nicely" is not a particularly Lawful act.I'm not arguing that the final act is not Chaotic. That would be silly. I pretty clearly stated that earlier in the thread.
I'm inclined to believe it's on the spectrum of Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil. Regardless of the actions of the other party, you're taking the law into your own hands, because you don't think the actual legal system carried out justice. That's pretty strongly Chaotic.However, we're not debating the alignment of the ambush. We're trying to determine the alignment of the person.

Based on the evidence we have of Party A, as you so clearly lined out for us, I've drawn my conclusions; however, I would like to add a few points (starting with #5) before proceeding with them.
Party A has a good reputation
Party A cares about that reputation.
Party A demanded that Party B stop calling itself "Party A."
Party A was angered by the Evil acts of Party B.
Party B ignored the demands and escalated their Evil.
Party B worked the system to get pardons for anything they do, including murder and kidnapping of public officials.
Party A sees that Law has failed and takes action based on a reasoned assessment of Party B's actions.


So, yes, the ambush is clearly a Chaotic act; however, all other actions and insight we have from Party A indicates Lawfulness. They formally demanded Party B change it's name, then gave Party B appropriate time to respond. They allowed the legal system to address the larger situation. They only then decided to take matters into their own hands in the only way Adventurers are trained to do: killing it and taking its stuff. They see an Evil running unchecked, and adventurers tend to go take care of Evil when it pops up. That's pretty much their job.

I'm not saying their alignment's strongly Lawful, but they appear to be on the Good side of the spectrum leaning towards Lawful if not outright Lawful Good. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't fight your foes cleverly or use surprise, and being adventurers solving things as adventurers after the legal system fails doesn't make you not Lawful.

[Deophaun]

What alignment is this one hundred percent goody two-shoes paladin who acts perfectly?
Definitely, absolutely, without a doubt Lawful Evil Mastermind. Why else go through all that effort to escape suspicion?

I'm going with Chaotic Stupid. Really, what group of adventurers give their band a name and then don't protect their servicemark with all the ruthlessness tenacity of a pack of kobolds in a gnomish nursery? You bash that problem's head open in the crib.

[Jon_Dahl]

Wow, the discussion so far has been very interesting and entertaining! Almost no one agrees with anyone! Keep them coming!

[Jon_Dahl]

Here are the results so far and they are fascinating! When someone mentioned only one alignment, it counted as a full vote. Mentioning two or more alignments scored half a point for each.

1½ Lawful good
1½ Neutral good
1 Chaotic good
2 Neutral
1 Chaotic neutral
1 Lawful evil
1 Chaotic evil

Neutral is winning. No love for NE.