a lawful/ good who was unjustly arrested can escape from prison? [Archive]

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 10:58 AM

It depends on whether the lawful good person is expecting some sort of trial, a chance to defend themselves and seek justice according to the rule of law. If there is a chance this is a misunderstanding, and there is a way to resolve it peacefully by following the law, then the LG ought to abide by the law.

However, getting captured by an enemy and thrown in a cell is not the same sort of situation. They would absolutely try to escape, because this is not a legit authority that intends to give them a fair chance. You could say the situation is the same if it is a legit authority, not an enemy, but there is no right to trial- unlawfully accused and arrested, and imprisoned with no chance to appeal or prove your innocence? I think escape is the only option, since there's no expectation that you would ever be released otherwise. That is not a good law (no trials), it isn't serving justice.

Basically, the lawful person will put their trust in laws to see justice done as the first option. Their first choice will be to respect the authority of legally appointed justice officers. They will ask to have a chance to explain or prove their innocence. If they are found guilty by a legit trial, they might ask their friends to help prove their innocence and appeal the judgment when they've got the proof.

Mellack

2018-08-18, 10:58 AM

Alignment is not a straitjacket. If they feel it is appropriate to escape, then they should. If they would rather wait and fight it in the court, they can do that too.

JackPhoenix

2018-08-18, 11:07 AM

a lawful/ good who was unjustly arrested can escape from prison?

That depends on how good the prison's security is and how skilled is the would-be escapee.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 11:22 AM

Alignment is not a straitjacket. If they feel it is appropriate to escape, then they should. If they would rather wait and fight it in the court, they can do that too.

Obviously. The question is: when should a person feel it is appropriate to escape? A chaotic good person will have a much different answer than a lawful person. Your alignment must absolutely inform your reaction to legal authority, or else it is a pointless thing to distinguish about a character.

Unoriginal

2018-08-18, 11:35 AM

Obviously. The question is: when should a person feel it is appropriate to escape? A chaotic good person will have a much different answer than a lawful person. Your alignment must absolutely inform your reaction to legal authority, or else it is a pointless thing to distinguish about a character.

The alignment is only a fraction of a character. Asmodeus and your average Hobgoblin grunt have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they'd react the same.

Asking "how would a person of X alignment react to Y" is like asking "how would a person of X culture/faith react to Y", because the category is just as broad if not broader.

Ganymede

2018-08-18, 12:15 PM

a lawful/ good who was unjustly arrested can escape from prison?

How can we answer this without knowing the PC's backstory, personality, ideal, bond, and flaw?

stoutstien

2018-08-18, 12:58 PM

Alignment is that one nostalgic idea in D & D that needs to just die. Unless your entire campaign is set in one ethnocentric setting ideas like good, bad, unlawful and neutral can't be defined. I never would like to hear a player say they can or cannot do something based on their alignment maybe they could based on the situation and then they would just have to face the moral consequences. Lawful good Paladin has to purge The Village before a plague spreads?

JackPhoenix

2018-08-18, 01:39 PM

Obviously. The question is: when should a person feel it is appropriate to escape? A chaotic good person will have a much different answer than a lawful person. Your alignment must absolutely inform your reaction to legal authority, or else it is a pointless thing to distinguish about a character.

It absolutely does not. "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." "Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." See anything about legal authority there? No? That's because alignment has nothing to do with that.

jaappleton

2018-08-18, 01:43 PM

The best guidelines for Lawful Good are the Tenets of Devotion.

You must obey JUST authority.

Unjust? Wreck it’s face.

JakOfAllTirades

2018-08-18, 01:55 PM

Lawful Good isn't stupid.

Alignment isn't a prison.

Stupidity, however, might as well be.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 01:56 PM

It absolutely does not. "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." "Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." See anything about legal authority there? No? That's because alignment has nothing to do with that.

So society expects people to break out of prison when they disagree with the process that put them there? It depends on the society, but usually the right thing according to a society ruled by laws is to respect the legal authority and seek justice through the application of the law rather than taking matters into your own hands in contravention of legal processes.
To me, "respect legal authorities" and "do the right thing according to society" are the same thing in a society with laws and legal authorities that are perceived as just and fair. That's why, if the LG person perceived the laws of the land as just and legitimate, they would prefer to follow them. That's what a law abiding society expects.

The question didn't specify whether the authorities doing the arresting were legitimate, exactly what the law and the supposed crime were, nor the LG character's relationship with the society. That's why there are different cases to address in my first post, some where it would be appropriate to escape and others where a character might not want to. The lawful part of the alignment does have something to do with a person's relationship and feelings about laws.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-08-18, 02:12 PM

In my opinion, alignment is the least important/binding part of a character's personality. It's what gets used as an ultimate fallback if none of

* Bond
* Ideal
* Flaw
* Backstory
* Background
* In-game history

are salient enough to decide the issue. It's absolutely not a straitjacket or a constraint--people act outside their alignment all the time.

And when I think of "the law is the law, just or unjust", I'm thinking more of LN than LG. Mechanus is all about following process no matter how absurd the results are, not Mount Celestia.

JackPhoenix

2018-08-18, 02:47 PM

So society expects people to break out of prison when they disagree with the process that put them there? It depends on the society, but usually the right thing according to a society ruled by laws is to respect the legal authority and seek justice through the application of the law rather than taking matters into your own hands in contravention of legal processes.
To me, "respect legal authorities" and "do the right thing according to society" are the same thing in a society with laws and legal authorities that are perceived as just and fair.

That's one specific society out of many possible ones. It also assumes that the "society" considers laws and legal authorities just and fair instead of neccessary and often annoying, like most societies do, but presented as just and fair. And that everyone in that society assumes the legal authorities are infallible. I seriously doubt any society considers being unjustly imprisoned "fair".

That's why, if the LG person perceived the laws of the land as just and legitimate, they would prefer to follow them. That's what a law abiding society expects.

Sure... they would prefer to, but that doesn't mean they absolutely have to follow them 100% of the time. If they are imprisoned unjustly (or even justly, in some cases, like if you break the speed limit while trying to stop some sort of disaster, and can't afford the delay), as in the OP, they may attempt to escape, or they may stay there until the authorities sort the mistake out, assuming the authorities are going to do something like that in the first place. Or that they don't have more important things to do... sure, they can tell the city watch about the army of undead the lich that framed them builds to conquer the world, but what are CR 1/8 NPCs supposed to do about that even if they believe them? Compared to that, prison time is meaningless.

Think of the movie Fugitive, for example. Or Les Misérables after Valjean's change of heart.

The question didn't specify whether the authorities doing the arresting were legitimate, exactly what the law and the supposed crime were, nor the LG character's relationship with the society.

The question specified that the characters was arrested unjustly. It was also pretty simple yes/no question: Can LG person escape from the prison? The answer is, obviously, yes. Would they? That depends on multiple factors that aren't covered by the question, but alignment isn't the most important of them.

The lawful part of the alignment does have something to do with a person's relationship and feelings about laws.

Again, not neccesarily. Lawful may refer to laws, traditions, personal code or other things.

And when I think of "the law is the law, just or unjust", I'm thinking more of LN than LG. Mechanus is all about following process no matter how absurd the results are, not Mount Celestia.

To the point of trying to free unstoppable god-killing abomination (no, totally not Snarl), because the wizards who imprisoned it in the first place promised it the chance to kill the gods, and then broke their side of the deal when they decided to keep it as a deterrent instead of unleashing it upon the world.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 02:49 PM

It's absolutely not a straitjacket or a constraint--people act outside their alignment all the time.

People acting outside of alignment is a totally pointless thing to talk about when asking what a person of a given alignment would (ideally) do; the question is obviously about what the alignment suggests a person would do. Of course there are other factors, of course you can act any way you want and even change your alignment. But if you can't point to the way the alignment would impact your decisions, then there is no reason to even have alignment. And maybe that's what people prefer- we don't need alignments in the game, after all. But the question isn't whether we should use alignments, It's what does this alignment say about this sort of scenario.

Mellack

2018-08-18, 03:06 PM

People acting outside of alignment is a totally pointless thing to talk about when asking what a person of a given alignment would (ideally) do; the question is obviously about what the alignment suggests a person would do. Of course there are other factors, of course you can act any way you want and even change your alignment. But if you can't point to the way the alignment would impact your decisions, then there is no reason to even have alignment. And maybe that's what people prefer- we don't need alignments in the game, after all. But the question isn't whether we should use alignments, It's what does this alignment say about this sort of scenario.

If the question is "what does this alignment say about this sort of scenario", my answer would be: "very little to none." The alignment of the character should be a product of their decisions based on their goals, bonds, ideals, relationships, and flaws. It is a consequence, not a cause.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 03:28 PM

That's one specific society out of many possible ones. It also assumes that the "society" considers laws and legal authorities just and fair instead of neccessary and often annoying, like most societies do, but presented as just and fair. And that everyone in that society assumes the legal authorities are infallible. I seriously doubt any society considers being unjustly imprisoned "fair".

Sure... they would prefer to, but that doesn't mean they absolutely have to follow them 100% of the time. If they are imprisoned unjustly (or even justly, in some cases, like if you break the speed limit while trying to stop some sort of disaster, and can't afford the delay), as in the OP, they may attempt to escape, or they may stay there until the authorities sort the mistake out, assuming the authorities are going to do something like that in the first place. Or that they don't have more important things to do... sure, they can tell the city watch about the army of undead the lich that framed them builds to conquer the world, but what are CR 1/8 NPCs supposed to do about that even if they believe them? Compared to that, prison time is meaningless.

Think of the movie Fugitive, for example. Or Les Misérables after Valjean's change of heart.

The question specified that the characters was arrested unjustly. It was also pretty simple yes/no question: Can LG person escape from the prison? The answer is, obviously, yes. Would they? That depends on multiple factors that aren't covered by the question, but alignment isn't the most important of them.

Again, not neccesarily. Lawful may refer to laws, traditions, personal code or other things.

To the point of trying to free unstoppable god-killing abomination (no, totally not Snarl), because the wizards who imprisoned it in the first place promised it the chance to kill the gods, and then broke their side of the deal when they decided to keep it as a deterrent instead of unleashing it upon the world.
There are many different scenarios and we don't know from the OP exactly what it is. Unjust arrest can mean different things. Are the "authorities" an obviously corrupt group that strongarm people, and no real law or due process? Then you aren't going to cooperate at all, probably. Have you been framed by an enemy or case of mistaken identity, but the authorities are legitimate with just laws, are doing what seems to be right and just doing their jobs? Maybe you're going to try proving yourself innocent by the law before you resort to socially disruptive behavior. In modern western democracies, for example, a person would not be expected or supported in resisting the authorities, even if they were falsely accused. They would go to court with lawyers. Nobody would think the right thing to do for an innocent person would be to evade capture or stage a prison break or commit any sort of violence. Most D&D societies aren't as rigorously legalistic as ours, obviously, but the point is that a lawful good person would take some serious deliberation before they considered flaunting the laws of a society that they think is just, even if they find themselves on the wrong side of it. Because that is what distinguishes lawful good from neutral and chaotic good. If they don't think it is a just society, if the laws aren't good and the people enforcing them are corrupt, then there's really no question. The OP didn't say that- I'd read into it that this was not the case, because obviously a LG person doesn't respect the authority of devils or a hobgoblin warlord or some evil tyrant that is enslaving people. The implication in the question was that there is some doubt about what the alignment's reaction would be (ie false accusation, but good society and laws).

I'm also saying it doesn't matter if alignment is the most important factor. It is "a" factor, and it can be analyzed, in isolation from other traits, before we start piling on all the other things that might influence a character's decision. Lawful and Good mean something in relation to how a person reacts to society and its laws. Given examples of different sorts of situations, we can make predictions about the alignment's influence on the character.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 03:44 PM

If the question is "what does this alignment say about this sort of scenario", my answer would be: "very little to none." The alignment of the character should be a product of their decisions based on their goals, bonds, ideals, relationships, and flaws. It is a consequence, not a cause.
If alignment means something, and it is attached to the character behavior in some way, then it has something to say. Whether it is seen as a cause of behavior or a descriptor of it is not relevant. Of course your actions impact and can change the alignment, that isn't in question.

So I'll reframe the question- What sort of behavior on the part of a falsely accused or unjustly arrested person would result in their receiving or maintaining a lawful good alignment? In what scenario could a prison break be considered behavior that will not impact a lawful good alignment?

That is what I'm addressing. That's all. Not saying all lawful good people must always do X, Y or Z, not saying that your bonds and flaws don't matter, not saying alignment is more important than other aspects of your character. Just describing what lawful good means.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-08-18, 03:52 PM

If alignment means something, and it is attached to the character behavior in some way, then it has something to say. Whether it is seen as a cause of behavior or a descriptor of it is not relevant. Of course your actions impact and can change the alignment, that isn't in question.

So I'll reframe the question- What sort of behavior on the part of a falsely accused or unjustly arrested person would result in their receiving or maintaining a lawful good alignment? In what scenario could a prison break be considered behavior that will not impact a lawful good alignment?

That is what I'm addressing. That's all. Not saying all lawful good people must always do X, Y or Z, not saying that your bonds and flaws don't matter, not saying alignment is more important than other aspects of your character. Just describing what lawful good means.

Thrudd, that question assumes that actions dictate alignment. They don't, not in 5e. Alignment describes the usual, default attitude of a character toward certain value propositions, when nothing else takes precedence.

My answer to the OP's question is "undetermined and undeterminable without more information." I can imagine characters where different, firmly LG characters take opposite stands on the same matter (varying the rest of the character). I can imagine different scenarios where the same character takes opposite stands (varying the circumstances).

Alignment just really doesn't say much unless you know the rest of the character. In fact, I'd say it's more useful for simple NPCs (those whose exact characters aren't built in detail because they're minor characters) than for PCs. PCs have too much other characterization for the added bit to matter except in highly artificial circumstances. Minor NPCs often just have a name, a race, and an alignment tag. Or organizations might have a basic alignment tag because they don't have a consistent personality beyond that.

lawgnome

2018-08-18, 04:15 PM

Alignment describes what your character strives to be. It isn't a straightjacket. It is merely a tool to help you, as the role player, get into the character of the character.

So, would a lawful good character try to escape from prison? It depends: does the story stop if you dont? If so, then yes, a lawful good tries to escape prison. It is pretty simple, really.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 05:00 PM

My answer to the OP's question is "undetermined and undeterminable without more information." I can imagine characters where different, firmly LG characters take opposite stands on the same matter (varying the rest of the character). I can imagine different scenarios where the same character takes opposite stands (varying the circumstances).

I also answered that it is undeterminable based on the info given, but I did so by listing some possible scenarios and describing how a LG character might act differently in them, to show there isn't one answer (yes/no). The LG says something about how that character would act, or how they should act if they want to be LG, and it is reasonable for someone to ask what that is. I don't think the correct answer is "it doesn't mean anything, just follow your character's other traits." Alignment is one of the traits, along with flaws and bonds and ideals and background. Nothing in the book says it is less important or derivative or dependent in some way on the others. There's no order of operations listed in arriving at a character's behavior.

I understand the drive to minimize the role of alignment in the game, and the desire to interpret the rules in a way that leaves them with the smallest impact, but given that alignment still exists for PCs, they are clearly intended to provide some kind of guide to role play or to describe something important about the character.

Clearly we can't justify all possible behaviors and actions as falling within any alignment at all. This means there are certain behaviors and actions (of course given context) which must be exclusively appropriate to some alignments and not others. There must be "something" that a lawful character would not do that a chaotic character would, and vice versa, because those alignments are opposites and contradictory to one another. In any given situation, you can say "this behavior would be the more lawful thing to do" or chaotic or good/evil. Breaking out of prison may carry chaotic implications depending on the circumstances. Doing something chaotic might be the best choice for a lawful character sometimes, but you can't say that the act was lawful because the character calls themselves lawful. When a character often acts in ways that seem to contravene their listed alignment, that's when the DM suggests or requires alignment change.

Mellack

2018-08-18, 05:25 PM

Nobody would think the right thing to do for an innocent person would be to evade capture or stage a prison break or commit any sort of violence.

I am going to disagree with you on this. Doing exactly what you describe has been the basis of many different movies and stories. The Fugitive, Bourne movies, Supernatural, James Bond, Batman. All of these have had to flee and/or fight legitimate police. I think the Dukes of Hazzard had nothing but the heroes running from the police. It is a common cinematic trope, and would be expected in many people's games.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-08-18, 05:25 PM

I have yet to see a case where one person telling another that they're playing their character wrong has been beneficial. I have seen cases where people had to be told to play differently or leave, but that's not "playing their character wrong", it's "playing the wrong character." This goes for alignment as well.

Except for a very few vestigial mechanical elements (which are all on the DM's side of the screen, since they're monsters and items), alignment is entirely an internal-use thing. It's a set of questions to ask yourself if you don't know how to portray a character. That's it. It doesn't come from actions, actions don't contribute to it[1] unless the player chooses them to. And it's broad enough that connecting it to specific scenarios leaves tons of overlap. You can describe the same person acting the same way in the same scenario as almost any alignment.

Thus, "what should an X character do" questions are useless, because they're asking about the wrong side of things entirely. The answer, 99% of the time, is whatever the other parts of his personality direct. Or better "whatever is best for the fun of the game," because that's what really matters.

[1] The only act that has an alignment-associated tag in this edition is raising and controlling undead, and that's a "good characters won't do it habitually," not a "you're X if you do this." And the devs have expressed that even that much of a tag was probably a mistake in their opinion.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 08:10 PM

It's a set of questions to ask yourself if you don't know how to portray a character. That's it. It doesn't come from actions, actions don't contribute to it[1] unless the player chooses them to. And it's broad enough that connecting it to specific scenarios leaves tons of overlap. You can describe the same person acting the same way in the same scenario as almost any alignment.

To interpret the game as you describe, there is no reason to have alignment. It literally does nothing and means nothing. I don't believe that's the intent behind including it in the game, even changed as it is from earlier editions.

Your claim would have the result of removing all meaning from the words and terms applied to alignments. Each player can't just define them however they want, there'd be no point to having shared terms.

It is literally, logically impossible to both hold that the terms have separate meanings and requirements but also to use all the different terms to describe an identical scenario. In a given scenario, there will be something a good person would do, sometching an evil person would do, a lawful, a chaotic. If, in most scenarios, they would all do the same thing, then they are useless and pointless as a way to differentiate characters. There can be overlap, but there has to be a point where the lines are drawn by definition.

Chaotic evil and lawful good, for instance, should be seeing eye-to-eye and behaving similarly in very few/no cases. Someone that labels their character LG but is acting in a way more consistent with CE would be very hard put to justify themselves in regards to the alignment. And if you aren't enforcing such things in at least a minimal way, by warning and suggesting and upholding some sort of standard, then you might as well remove alignment from your table altogether (which is totally fine, btw).

D&D descriptions of alignments are all over the place, it's true. Law and chaos especially are vague and contradictory, and really seem to be setting specific as to their application. But they are still terms with meanings.

I think that breaking out of jail because you've been wrongly imprisoned is a textbook chaotic act. You're choosing to take matters into your own hands to right a wrong instead of relying on law or procedure or the justice found through society's rules. If it is an evil and corrupt society then this one chaotic act will be forgivable for normally lawful good people, because there is no hope that any more lawful behavior will be appropriate. They are bad/broken laws and you don't need to follow them. If it is a good society where a misunderstanding or mistake has occurred, then breaking out would be inappropriate, at least for the LG character to suggest or initiate. While they likely still will do so in a game situation, that would be an opportunity for them to question how committed they are to the ideals of lawfulness (aka rule of law vs informal custom and traditional etiquette). Of course, arrest and imprisonment events in a game are usually highly contrived and not really a fair way to judge anything, since it is basically the DM purposefully setting the lawful authorities against the PCs : a scenario where the only good acts are also chaotic acts. Lawful good becomes functionally impossible to play if the DM has set up the campaign this way.

JackPhoenix

2018-08-18, 08:57 PM

Snip

There's a reason: it's a roleplaying aid. It helps people keep their character's personality consistent and it helps the others get some idea what to expect from the character, but it doesn't actualy limit what actions are they allowed to take.

There's no "chaotic act", and it doesn't matter who runs the prison. A single action won't change your alignment, because alignment doesn't describe any single action: it describes the character's personal attitude. If the attitude changes, so does the alignment.

redwizard007

2018-08-18, 09:05 PM

To interpret the game as you describe, there is no reason to have alignment. It literally does nothing and means nothing. I don't believe that's the intent behind including it in the game, even changed as it is from earlier editions.

Your claim would have the result of removing all meaning from the words and terms applied to alignments. Each player can't just define them however they want, there'd be no point to having shared terms.

It is literally, logically impossible to both hold that the terms have separate meanings and requirements but also to use all the different terms to describe an identical scenario. In a given scenario, there will be something a good person would do, sometching an evil person would do, a lawful, a chaotic. If, in most scenarios, they would all do the same thing, then they are useless and pointless as a way to differentiate characters. There can be overlap, but there has to be a point where the lines are drawn by definition.

Chaotic evil and lawful good, for instance, should be seeing eye-to-eye and behaving similarly in very few/no cases. Someone that labels their character LG but is acting in a way more consistent with CE would be very hard put to justify themselves in regards to the alignment. And if you aren't enforcing such things in at least a minimal way, by warning and suggesting and upholding some sort of standard, then you might as well remove alignment from your table altogether (which is totally fine, btw).

D&D descriptions of alignments are all over the place, it's true. Law and chaos especially are vague and contradictory, and really seem to be setting specific as to their application. But they are still terms with meanings.

I think that breaking out of jail because you've been wrongly imprisoned is a textbook chaotic act. You're choosing to take matters into your own hands to right a wrong instead of relying on law or procedure or the justice found through society's rules. If it is an evil and corrupt society then this one chaotic act will be forgivable for normally lawful good people, because there is no hope that any more lawful behavior will be appropriate. They are bad/broken laws and you don't need to follow them. If it is a good society where a misunderstanding or mistake has occurred, then breaking out would be inappropriate, at least for the LG character to suggest or initiate. While they likely still will do so in a game situation, that would be an opportunity for them to question how committed they are to the ideals of lawfulness (aka rule of law vs informal custom and traditional etiquette). Of course, arrest and imprisonment events in a game are usually highly contrived and not really a fair way to judge anything, since it is basically the DM purposefully setting the lawful authorities against the PCs : a scenario where the only good acts are also chaotic acts. Lawful good becomes functionally impossible to play if the DM has set up the campaign this way.

I have to disagree here. There is so much gray area within alignment that defining specific acts becomes a great exercise in debating.

If PCs ambush the prince's tax collector, kill him and his men, bury them with an appropriate religious service, give the money to the poor, and praise the absent king what alignment are they?

Giving money to the poor is good.
Killing is evil, especially if it's unnecessary.(Exceptions to be made for greenskins, opposing religions, and those speaking different languages.)
Attacking an agent of the crown is certainly chaotic, as is ambush.
Loyalty to the king and burying the dead are lawful.

So what's the alignment? It doesn't matter. Really, what effect does alignment have on game mechanics? Play interesting characters with a personality based on a solid backstory and develop that personality in a manner consistent with their life experiences. Do the same for NPCs. Problem solved.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 09:39 PM

There's a reason: it's a roleplaying aid. It helps people keep their character's personality consistent and it helps the others get some idea what to expect from the character, but it doesn't actualy limit what actions are they allowed to take.

There's no "chaotic act", and it doesn't matter who runs the prison. A single action won't change your alignment, because alignment doesn't describe any single action: it describes the character's personal attitude. If the attitude changes, so does the alignment.

How does it describe their attitude, and how does it help keep their personality consistent? It has to mean something- you have to be able to apply it to things your character does and situations they are in, or it is no aid at all.

They are defined, exclusive terms that inform you about different sorts of moral and social behavior. It doesn't limit your behavior, but there are limits to what each word means. If your behavior and attitude is better described by one word than another, then you would use the word that better describes them. You would not use evil to describe things that are generally called good and vice versa. By using these terms at all, we are admitting and allowing that those terms actually do apply to something in the game, it's not a "there's no such thing as good and evil, it's all relative." If that were so, we'd take the terms out of the game, because they wouldn't really describe anything.

One act might not change it, but there is unquestionably some point at which your actions impact it or it impacts your actions. There is a hypothetical limit to this equivocating, even if it isn't the jail break scenario. If chaotic and lawful (and good and evil) are words used to describe characters, there must be things the characters do, decisions they make, that can be described as either chaotic or lawful. Otherwise you could never tell the difference between a lawful and a chaotic character, which makes no sense as they are primarily defined by their opposition and difference to one another.

greenstone

2018-08-18, 09:40 PM

Being lawful doesn't even mean you must respect all the laws all the time, either.

QFT. Alignment is an internal code of ethics, not an external one.

Thrudd

2018-08-18, 10:05 PM

I have to disagree here. There is so much gray area within alignment that defining specific acts becomes a great exercise in debating.

If PCs ambush the prince's tax collector, kill him and his men, bury them with an appropriate religious service, give the money to the poor, and praise the absent king what alignment are they?

Giving money to the poor is good.
Killing is evil, especially if it's unnecessary.(Exceptions to be made for greenskins, opposing religions, and those speaking different languages.)
Attacking an agent of the crown is certainly chaotic, as is ambush.
Loyalty to the king and burying the dead are lawful.

So what's the alignment? It doesn't matter. Really, what effect does alignment have on game mechanics? Play interesting characters with a personality based on a solid backstory and develop that personality in a manner consistent with their life experiences. Do the same for NPCs. Problem solved.
I don't disagree, but that is arguing for removing alignment from the game. Fine, I prefer it so, too.

If there is alignment being used, then it is defined as something. It may be debatable between tables, people may disagree over the decisions, but it is on the DM to rule how various acts fall into and impact alignments. If a character is acting out of alignment in the DM's opinion, they should point it out, because that's a part of the game. Maybe it has some supernatural significance in the setting. Regardless, the DM, hopefully primarily based on agreed on standards, ultimately defines what it means to be "good", "evil", etc. in their game, and will be judging chatacters' performance partly through that lens.

For Robin Hood and his merry dudes, they are mostly chaotic good (pretty much the consistent example D&D always uses for chaotic good), because they are perpetually in opposition to the authorities and are willing to act out against it- their entire setting is defined by that. I don't believe having principles or respecting tradition makes you lawful. The king didn't order them to do that, they had no authority to divert tax revenues and were not sworn in as law enforcers. They weren't IA, rooting out corruption among the Prince's men and tax collectors. Personal loyalty to a man you admire is not a particular lawful quality. Burying the dead is not lawful either, that's a nearly universal custom. If lawful means abiding by any sort of custom or code of conduct, then it universally applies to almost every human ever. All creatures with any sort of social group and culture are lawful. I reject this, since we are told that humans and other intelligent creatures are all over the lawful/chaotic spectrum, even with entire societies leaning toward chaotic (Drow, Orcs, etc.)

Lord Vukodlak

2018-08-18, 10:31 PM

Do not think of lawful as law but order.

redwizard007

2018-08-18, 11:18 PM

I don't disagree, but that is arguing for removing alignment from the game. Fine, I prefer it so, too.

If there is alignment being used, then it is defined as something. It may be debatable between tables, people may disagree over the decisions, but it is on the DM to rule how various acts fall into and impact alignments. If a character is acting out of alignment in the DM's opinion, they should point it out, because that's a part of the game. Maybe it has some supernatural significance in the setting. Regardless, the DM, hopefully primarily based on agreed on standards, ultimately defines what it means to be "good", "evil", etc. in their game, and will be judging chatacters' performance partly through that lens.

For Robin Hood and his merry dudes, they are mostly chaotic good (pretty much the consistent example D&D always uses for chaotic good), because they are perpetually in opposition to the authorities and are willing to act out against it- their entire setting is defined by that. I don't believe having principles or respecting tradition makes you lawful. The king didn't order them to do that, they had no authority to divert tax revenues and were not sworn in as law enforcers. They weren't IA, rooting out corruption among the Prince's men and tax collectors. Personal loyalty to a man you admire is not a particular lawful quality. Burying the dead is not lawful either, that's a nearly universal custom. If lawful means abiding by any sort of custom or code of conduct, then it universally applies to almost every human ever. All creatures with any sort of social group and culture are lawful. I reject this, since we are told that humans and other intelligent creatures are all over the lawful/chaotic spectrum, even with entire societies leaning toward chaotic (Drow, Orcs, etc.)

Would it be silly to agree with about 90% of this and spend a few pages arguing exactly what qualifies as lawful behavior so that we can explore the most abstract and inconsequential parts of our hobby?

I'm with you on the ability to pull alignment entirely, and yet it does provide a framework that allows quick generalizations to be communicated fairly efficiently. I'd hold on to it for that alone, but it should never be a straight jacket.

BurgerBeast

2018-08-19, 02:15 AM

a lawful/ good who was unjustly arrested can escape from prison?

Yes.

It's really that simple.

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would say "no" to this.

Anyone can escape from prison, for any reason. Lawful good people can also do evil things. That's because lawful good people are people. They have good and evil inside of them. In order to be lawful good, you have to be more lawful than neutral and more good than neutral. You do not have to purely lawful nor purely good.

Also, being lawful doesn't necessarily pertain to the particular legal systems of any given society. It's possible to be lawful and hold beliefs that require you to attempt to escape from prison. (And in that case, you could fail to do so, and still be lawful.)

JackPhoenix

2018-08-19, 07:14 AM

How does it describe their attitude, and how does it help keep their personality consistent? It has to mean something- you have to be able to apply it to things your character does and situations they are in, or it is no aid at all.

It describes their attitude as fitting under one of the nine general statements. It encourages consistence through rewards, as Inspiration is rewarded for staying true to the character's personality described on the sheet. It's also only a minor part of character's personality: 1/6th, at best. Personality traits, ideal, bond and flaw make the rest.

They are defined, exclusive terms that inform you about different sorts of moral and social behavior. It doesn't limit your behavior, but there are limits to what each word means. If your behavior and attitude is better described by one word than another, then you would use the word that better describes them. You would not use evil to describe things that are generally called good and vice versa. By using these terms at all, we are admitting and allowing that those terms actually do apply to something in the game, it's not a "there's no such thing as good and evil, it's all relative." If that were so, we'd take the terms out of the game, because they wouldn't really describe anything.

You assume that the terms weren't left there because they are sacred cows from years ago, even if the meaning changed from their origins. Multiple times. Which is pretty much what happened.

One act might not change it, but there is unquestionably some point at which your actions impact it or it impacts your actions. There is a hypothetical limit to this equivocating, even if it isn't the jail break scenario. If chaotic and lawful (and good and evil) are words used to describe characters, there must be things the characters do, decisions they make, that can be described as either chaotic or lawful. Otherwise you could never tell the difference between a lawful and a chaotic character, which makes no sense as they are primarily defined by their opposition and difference to one another.

Problem is that you're trying to tell a difference between "lawful" and "chaotic" characters. There's no such thing. There are lawful good characters, who typically behave in certain way, and chaotic good characters, who also typically behave in a certain way. Both have reasons why they behave like that...their actions may seem identical to outside observer, but the LG character behaves that way because that's what his society expects of him. The CG character doesn't give a damm about what the other people think, but he may follow his consciense and end up acting the same way. Lawful good, lawful neutral, and lawful evil each do their own thing, even if they all have "lawful" on the label. And even individuals of the same alignment will behave differently.

I had a NE bard, who could out-paladin a party paladin anytime she wanted to. From her typical (public) behavior, you couldn't tell she's selfish, immoral female dog. She helped people without asking for a reward, risked her own life, and generally acted as heroically as she could... not because she cared about anyone else, but because she wanted to be seen as a hero to help her to reach her own goals, which was the throne of the kingdom, and perhaps more. But this "paragon of good and justice" would murder anyone who stood in her way without qualms if she could get away with that... including people she's otherwise genuinely cared about, if necessary.

Thrudd

2018-08-19, 05:37 PM

Problem is that you're trying to tell a difference between "lawful" and "chaotic" characters. There's no such thing. There are lawful good characters, who typically behave in certain way, and chaotic good characters, who also typically behave in a certain way. Both have reasons why they behave like that...their actions may seem identical to outside observer, but the LG character behaves that way because that's what his society expects of him. The CG character doesn't give a damm about what the other people think, but he may follow his consciense and end up acting the same way. Lawful good, lawful neutral, and lawful evil each do their own thing, even if they all have "lawful" on the label. And even individuals of the same alignment will behave differently.

There is something that distinguishes an LG character from a CG character. It is the difference between L and C. They don't act the same partly because one is L and the other is C. The difference between LG, LN and LE is the G, E and N. None of this changes anything I've asked. People with the same alignment will act different because they have other traits that are different (and are played by different players). But sharing the same alignment means they would have similar views about the things that alignment describes, and sometimes that will result in them choosing similar actions, too. Those letters written on your sheet mean something, the L and the G each stand for something that are combined to inform you about the character's beliefs. Beliefs are only meaningful to a player when they impact the decision making process, which means they are going to affect behavior and actions the character takes.

It may have been included as a sacred cow, but that doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. If we use it, we need to define it, it needs to be consistent and make sense and enforced logically. If you don't want people feeling limited or being influenced in their decisions by alignment, then we can take alignment out of the game. It's there to influence behavior.

How you end up acting might be the same for different alignments in any given situation, but it might not, and it certainly couldn't always end up being the case, if the contrasting alignment beliefs are actually being considered as part of the character. Just because in one case, a LG and CG would do the same thing, that doesn't mean they will always do the same thing. The times they won't do the same thing are the times that the contrasting parts of their alignment influence them toward different decisions.

It cannot be the case that all possible actions are excused under any alignment. If you knowingly let an innocent person get killed because you had your hands full of treasure and wanted to sneak away, Good does not describe your character. If that was written on there before, it is gone now and replaced with Neutral or Evil. If you refuse the summons of your liege lord and decide to ride off to save your friend without permission instead, Lawful does not describe you. Maybe this one thing isn't enough to say you aren't lawful anymore, but if you regularly choose personal desire over duty and responsibility, you aren't Lawful, you're Chaotic. Words with opposite meanings can't be used to describe the same beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. If we call the character who values the sanctity of life and will make sacrifices to help others "good", then the character who believes that anything is permissible, including killing others, in pursuit of their own comfort and desires cannot be called "good". And those two characters are not going to make the same decisions about a lot of things. These are the sorts of thing that alignment describes. It is designed to say something important and integral to the character's beliefs and behavior.

furby076

2018-08-19, 10:02 PM

i shall hold my, lofty, opinion until the OP responds with more detail about the character and those that imprisoned him/her, and why they did so

Mjolnirbear

2018-08-20, 09:25 AM

hamishspence

2018-08-20, 09:44 AM

"Lawful" is something of a misnomer - "Ordered" would be a more accurate description. What defines a Lawful person is that they put considerable effort into leading an orderly life.

Lawful crimelords impose their sense of order, on the criminal organizations they lead.

Thrudd

2018-08-20, 04:36 PM

Ack.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. It can't prevent you from doing anything at all.

A lawful character can break the law. They usually don't which is why they're described as lawful. They need incentive to break the law. But with the right incentive, there is no restriction.

Alignment describes how you act, usually. If you put lawful on your sheet you're saying you usually do the legal thing. If you then murder hobo your way across fifteen counties, well, the DM needs to have a chat with you about how you're not acting lawful, and either act properly or change alignment.

They can, but if they do it often then they aren't actually lawful, are they?
If you don't usually act lawful then you aren't lawful. That's what I'm saying. It IS affected by what you do, it has to be. You don't have to follow your alignment like a religion, it can be descriptive. Being descriptive means it can and will change if your behavior is no longer described by the alignment words. Somebody, usually the DM, needs to judge your behavior and decide if your alignment actually describes how you usually act.

hamishspence

2018-08-20, 04:45 PM

The Giant had some pretty logical things to say on the subject.

While "Lawful" doesn't have to be "legal":

To think that Lawful always means "obeying the written law" is a gross misunderstanding of the D&D definition of the term.

For example, think of formal duels—the "pistols at dawn" kind. Such events are undoubtedly Lawful affairs—they have strict codes, elaborate rules, and concern themselves mostly with symbolic honor. All hallmarks of Lawful behavior when contrasted with, say, a drunken brawl. However, at the time Aaron Burr shot Hamilton, they were illegal in the United States. People who participated in such duels were abiding by a formal code of ethics and behavior that was in opposition to democratically passed law. Lawful behavior can be made illegal in a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't spontaneously change the nature of the act in a cosmological sense.

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

I've often said that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if they had simply called it Ordered instead of Lawful. "Ordered Good" leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation.

Lawful characters using "personal code" for Lawfulness, should need to be very strict about it:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

Tanarii

2018-08-21, 09:05 AM

There's a reason: it's a roleplaying aid.
It's amazing how many people can look at the idea of "treat the Alignment behavior sentence just like the Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw sentences" and come away with that making Alignment have no reason.

KorvinStarmast

2018-08-21, 09:16 AM

A lawful/ good who was unjustly arrested can escape from prison?

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

Dungeons and Dragons is a game where adventurers do daring things; any adventurer who is thrown into prison will try and break out because That's Part of How The Game Is Played. This game isn't called "Convicts and Confinement" it is called Dungeons and Dragons. Being jailed presents a challenge to the player: how do I get out of this? There is more than one way to get out of jail, to include bribing a guard, persuading a guard that you need to be free, charming a guard, picking a lock ... alignment may inform which of these choices may be preferred though.

Once again: This is an adventure game. Jail breaks are a daring and adventurous things to do to have fun when playing this game.

Unoriginal

2018-08-21, 09:23 AM

It's amazing how many people can look at the idea of "treat the Alignment behavior sentence just like the Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw sentences" and come away with that making Alignment have no reason.

It's amazing that so many threads can be filled talking about something that is no more or less important than Bonds, Ideals or Flaws.

I think most people just don't to admit the framework changed to make alignment less important but not useless. And a lot of people are also dragging past editions into this.

Which is like asking what is Tiamat's THAC0 in 5e.

hamishspence

2018-08-21, 09:33 AM

It's amazing that so many threads can be filled talking about something that is no more or less important than Bonds, Ideals or Flaws.

The difference is a monster's statblock will never have its bonds, ideals, and flaws listed (you have to make them up yourself). But it will always have alignment listed.

MoiMagnus

2018-08-21, 09:34 AM

One word answer: Yes.
Short answer: Talk to your DM.
Long answer:

Up to my knowledge, 5e does not have "absolute alignement" for most races.
Some edition have "detect alignement" stuff, but I've not seen any in 5e (even Protection from Evil and Good disregard the alignement of the creatures)

Which mean that alignement is as subjective as in the real world. The gods probably have a point of view on that, but they may even disagree with what should be the LG behavior in some situations.

Alignement constraint does not exist, they are guideline to help you to have a coherent charaters, which is the things you should aim for.
Your character is probably pondering the consequences of its act:
+ He was unjustly emprisoned, but can he expect a fair trial to correct that? Maybe he could break the rules just to send a letter to a lawer?
+ Does anything will happens if he remain in prison? Is there any urgency?
+ Are there many injustice and he should put an end to the corrumpted judge as soon as possible?
+ Or at the contrary, does breaking out will discredite a justice system that works most of the time (ending up in more bad than goods)?
+ Will its escape cause bad stuff to the honest guards? (Maybe some of them will get hurt or killed in the evasion? Think to their family!)

Maybe the goal of your character is to face a fair trial, should he have to break from prison to obtain it (and surrender once he will have obtained the promise of such a fair trial).

And also, talk to your DM. A "too well" role-played LG character can destroy a campaign if done unproperly. Most D&D games assume you kill uncountable nameless innocents (or not innocent, but not deserving death either) peoples and annimals, for personnal gain (or a greater cause). Some Loyal Good characters might find this unacceptable. And other players (including the DM) might find annoying and unfun if you care about nameless ennemies.

Tanarii

2018-08-21, 09:44 AM

The difference is a monster's statblock will never have its bonds, ideals, and flaws listed (you have to make them up yourself). But it will always have alignment listed.
Yes. Because a two word descriptor associated with a single sentence summary of a creatures typica, but it required nor consistent, behavior is incredibly helpful to a DM. Especially in a game like a typical adventure in D&D.

Obviously more characterization of specific NPCs, be they monster or not, is to be encouraged. Which is why both the DMG and MM do exactly that, through personality traits (DMG) and detailed description (MM).

And I the case of PCs, the PHB explicitly encourages Personalization of Personality through Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.

There are several ways for tables to use Alignment (see sig) within that structure provide. And one of them is to treat it just like any other personality trait, and use them to answer the question "what's my motivation?" You can even treat it as the least of them, the fallback one when a more specific trait doesn't apply.

#pedanticmorningcoffeeramble

It's amazing that so many threads can be filled talking about something that is no more or less important than Bonds, Ideals or Flaws.

I think most people just don't to admit the framework changed to make alignment less important but not useless. And a lot of people are also dragging past editions into this.

Which is like asking what is Tiamat's THAC0 in 5e.Also #truth

And personal definitions of Law, Good, and in other threads in the past Chaos and Evil. As opposed to sticking to what the PHB has to say about each, which is a grand total of one sentence.

It's even possible (but not required) to view Alignments as inseparable. Lawful or Good have no specific meaning as separate concepts, only Lawful Good. And this is technically true, as they are undefined as separate concepts. (That doesn't mean that cosmologically in a given DMs campaign they can't have some meaning, of course.)

hamishspence

2018-08-21, 09:46 AM

Unoriginal

2018-08-21, 09:57 AM

The difference is a monster's statblock will never have its bonds, ideals, and flaws listed (you have to make them up yourself). But it will always have alignment listed.

Characters have traits, statblocks are meant to represent the average/typical unless they're for named characters.

ACERERAK'S TRAITS:
Ideal "Why be a god when I can be a creator of gods?"
Bond "I build dungeons to trap and slay powerful adventurers. Their deaths and souls are my nourishment."
Flaw "I underestimate the resolve of my enemies."
Tomb of Annihilation p. 209.

It's not on the statblock, but it's in Acererak's entry. Alignnemt is on the statblock because like the rest of the statblock, it's about about the generic/typical/most common thing about X creature/individual.

Nothing wrong with having a chaotic evil hobgoblin, but most aren't. Acererak might be neutral evil, it doesn't mean he won't fly into a rage and impulsively try to exterminate someone who pissed him enough once in a while.

Also #truth

And personal definitions of Law, Good, and in other threads in the past Chaos and Evil. As opposed to sticking to what the PHB has to say about each, which is a grand total of one sentence.

It's even possible (but not required) to view Alignments as inseparable. Lawful or Good have no specific meaning as separate concepts, only Lawful Good. And this is technically true, as they are undefined as separate concepts. (That doesn't mean that cosmologically in a given DMs campaign they can't have some meaning, of course.)

Amen.

Mjolnirbear

2018-08-21, 11:23 AM

They can, but if they do it often then they aren't actually lawful, are they?
If you don't usually act lawful then you aren't lawful. That's what I'm saying. It IS affected by what you do, it has to be. You don't have to follow your alignment like a religion, it can be descriptive. Being descriptive means it can and will change if your behavior is no longer described by the alignment words. Somebody, usually the DM, needs to judge your behavior and decide if your alignment actually describes how you usually act.

Yes. And if they do one unlawful act but otherwise act lawful, they're still lawful. If they're Chaosing all over the place, then the DM has to pipe up and say "this isn't lawful. Your alignment is going to change if you keep this up."

It's a descriptive role-play tool. You can do *whatever* your character wants and is willing to suffer in-game consequences for no matter what alignment it says on your sheet. The DM is the one that says "look, when you wrote up Lawful McLawface, you indicated you wanted to play lawful. This isn't that. Youre currently playing pretty chaotic. It's fine, but I'm letting you know if you want to stay lawful you'd better start having McLawface act like it."

Thrudd

2018-08-21, 12:30 PM

Say you had the ideal: charity, I always help those in need

But your character usually chooses not to help anyone in need when they have a chance to. That ideal doesn't describe your character. At some point you need to be held accountable for the fact that your character doesn't match the description of that you wrote on your sheet.

If all the personality traits are things you may optionally portray but which bear no consequences for failing to portray,that you may even act in contradiction to without any consequence- then I'd say those traits are meaningless for the game. This has nothing to do with alignment being more or less relevant than other traits. If it is relevant at all, then it needs to describe something about the character. If you're going to bother having traits, then they should affect how you play the character. We can disagree about what lawful good means, but whatever it means in your game, characters in that game who include lawful good as a part of their traits would be expected to act in accord with their chosen trait most of the time, Right?
The one sentence descriptions in the book have a lot of room for interpretation, and I know I'm bringing interpretation over from older versions- but they are using the same words, the same cosmology, etc.

Lord Vukodlak

2018-08-21, 12:37 PM

A fun the thematic way to handle this would be for The lawful good character to elect to stay in jail to prove his innocence but his nonlawful friends come break him out anyways.

Unoriginal

2018-08-21, 01:01 PM

A fun the thematic way to handle this would be for The lawful good character to elect to stay in jail to prove his innocence but his nonlawful friends come break him out anyways.

It happened in one comic book I've read.

Also in the Sinbad animation movie, but that was more a case a "lawful good character who trust his roguish friend to save him the lawful way elect to stay in jail when his lawful good father don't."

stoutstien

2018-08-21, 07:13 PM

And this is why I write cheese in my alignment slot

FieserMoep

2018-08-21, 07:50 PM

And this is why I write cheese in my alignment slot

Only reasonable answer.

Keravath

2018-08-22, 04:03 PM

Lots of reasonable opinions in the thread. Everyone sees and interprets alignment differently. In general, it is not a prescription on how a character must play but an indicator of how the character perceives and interacts with the world.

"Would a lawful good character break out of jail?"

Unfortunately, the actual answer would depend on context that we don't actually have from the OPs first post.

The closest character class in the PHB to defining one take on a lawful good alignment is the Oath of Devotion paladin ... and even in that context it states:

"Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you."

The tenet of the lawful good oath of devotion includes obeying those who have just authority over you. The corollary being that they would not be expected to obey those without just authority. If the paladin's organization arrested him and unjustly charged him with treason due to false evidence then he might decide that honor and duty require him to remain in jail until he clears his name. However, if a traitorous faction within his organization had him jailed due to false evidence then he might decide that those who put him in jail are themselves traitors and although part of his organization do not have the just authority to imprison him so he might decide to escape.

It is a roleplaying decision based on the context of the character and the specifics of the situation.