Now to totally flip the tables on the alignment discussions:
A powerful Chaotic Good ranger is walking through his forests near a small town with a well-established and very capable legal system (i.e., it has a good jail). He comes across a nefarious group of bandits. A fight follows, and the ranger easily dispatches all the bandits... save one: their leader, the Bandit King. Fearing for his life, the Bandit King drops his sword, falls to his knees, and offers his seemingly totally sincere surrender to the Chaotic Good ranger.
What's Nature Boy do?
|
Talk to him for a bit and find out what kind of person he is.
Take all of his stuff and let him go. Depending on how the bandit leader has acted in the past, maybe even ask him to join up for a while.
Alternatively, if the bandit leader is a repeat offender with an evil nature, hog tie him and drop him off at the jail for the greater good. Skip town before the trial.
If he is really nasty, leave him in the woods and let the beasts have at him. Nature has its own laws after all.
Disarm him and exile him (with the understanding that if the bandit comes to ranger's attention he will be executed on the spot).
Thanks for the responses thus far. I really didn't have a point to prove in mind when I wrote this, but was curious how people would feel about the actions of a Chaotic Good character. This is, of course, in response to all the Lawful Good/paladin code threads. I just think it's about time we look at and explore the apparent opposite, Chaotic Good. So, if it's a question of which trait is more dominant, which would be more dominant for a paladin? Law or Good?
What if the situation were closer to where the paladin often finds himself in these discussions? The local town has no jail sufficient to hold the Bandit King (for whatever reason), and there's little reason to think just "banishing" him will have lasting results. So, there's a surrendered villain and no means to take care of him properly; what happens?
The quick response for the Chaotic Good character is to simply kill him. But a Good character is supposed to have respect for the life of other sentient beings. For some reason, killing a surrendered hostage strikes me not as a Chaotic act, but as an Evil one. Am I right or wrong? But then again, these arguments also often construe themselves to leave only one viable option: killing the Evil hostage, since every other alternative is worse for the Greater Good.
Perhaps a Chaotic Good character wouldn't have any problem with this. But if they don't, then a Lawful Good character shouldn't, either. I personally think that, even if the Chaotic component is equally strong, the Good component should prevent the character from quickly, hastily consigning the hostage to death and then inacting such harsh punishment. Someone who would make a quick decision like that so easily strikes me more as Chaotic Neutral, lacking that level of compassion that Good implies.
Really, this is what got me thinking about the issue. I would have previously thought that only a Lawful character would have accepted the surrender, but Elan is Chaotic. So, I began to wonder if Burlew had it right, or had Elan acted outside of his Chaotic nature? What should be the proper reaction of a Chaotic Good character in such a situation? And have people been playing Chaotic Good more lazily than they should, leaning on the Chaotic descriptor as an excuse to ignore truly playing the broad type of personality it describes?
Well, I'm off camping for the weekend now, so I'll read what you have to say next week. Have a good weekened, everyone.
Now to totally flip the tables on the alignment discussions:
A powerful Chaotic Good ranger is walking through his forests near a small town with a well-established and very capable legal system (i.e., it has a good jail). He comes across a nefarious group of bandits. A fight follows, and the ranger easily dispatches all the bandits... save one: their leader, the Bandit King. Fearing for his life, the Bandit King drops his sword, falls to his knees, and offers his seemingly totally sincere surrender to the Chaotic Good ranger.
What's Nature Boy do?
It depends on the situation: maybe let him go, maybe tie him to a tree naked and let his victims sort out the appropriate punishment, maybe put him in shackles and turn him in to the proper authorities for a reward.
He probably wouldn't do the same thing twice at any rate; if his actions were perfectly predictable he'd be Lawful, not Chaotic!
|
Well, this does kinda boil down to my question earlier. Elan has always been more Good than Chaotic. Chaotic should always mean unpredictable. I was surprised when he punched the guy. Besides, remember his conscience?
If you do that, mommy will cry.
Just remember which philosophical axis holds more weight with a character and you should have your answer.
|
|
The quick response for the Chaotic Good character is to simply kill him. But a Good character is supposed to have respect for the life of other sentient beings. For some reason, killing a surrendered hostage strikes me not as a Chaotic act, but as an Evil one. Am I right or wrong? But then again, these arguments also often construe themselves to leave only one viable option: killing the Evil hostage, since every other alternative is worse for the Greater Good.
The death penalty is not inherently Evil.
It is not even inherently not-Good."Respect for the life of other sentient beings" does not equal ahimsa in the D&D alignment system as intended by Gary Gygax.
What the ranger should do would depend on other factors of personality and background.
It should not be mandatory based exclusively on alignment.
It would also depend on the Bandit King's 'nefarious' reputation. Is it simply robbery, or does it include deaths(including weakening the population's ability to survive)? Chaotics wouldn't care so much for the law aspect of the crimes, and subsequent punishment, as they would about the danger/threat to the living.
It would seem that a CG Ranger would be acting mostly as a protector, and doing what was required to stop further threats (ie. destroying a base of operations, taking away the means for continuance, or even executing the Bandit King.)
Either kill him or take him to the local authorities. Anything else is not really a good act.
CG players can interact with local authorities - they're just not morally bound to the same laws. The Ranger could be more of an independent bounty hunter. He doesn't need to do what he's told or follow the laws if they hinder his goals.
Kill the bandit king - he cannot be allowed to threaten and kill anyone else. He's clearly a killer threat since he would kill the ranger if had the chance. Setting him free simply endangers others.
Turn him to the authorities - let the local authorities handle it, and it's their choice what to do with him. All the ranger has done is apprehend the criminal, possibly through means unavailable to the law.
I think an over-looked aspect of the Paladin Lawful Good code of conduct would be; which Law? Law of the Town, Law of the Country, Law of the Paladin's church or his Personal Law? If this is a "Judge Dread Style" Paladin with an 'I am the Law' attitude; execution on the spot is permissible.
Same with the CG Ranger. He is Good, so he just wants the crime to stop. It would be perfectly acceptable for him to execute the Bandit King on the spot, decide to give him a chance to reform or turn him in to the authorities. The Law is just one way to support Good. But his personal judgement about how to stop the crime is permissible and just as valid as using the Law. Now if the Law should ever fail the CG Ranger, I would not expect him to give it a second chance.
The quick response for the Chaotic Good character is to simply kill him. But a Good character is supposed to have respect for the life of other sentient beings. For some reason, killing a surrendered hostage strikes me not as a Chaotic act, but as an Evil one. Am I right or wrong? But then again, these arguments also often construe themselves to leave only one viable option: killing the Evil hostage, since every other alternative is worse for the Greater Good.
I don't know if you are right or wrong, but I think we are letting our personal 'prejudice' affect us. We live in a lawful society where we are asked to let major crimes be judged by the Court. We assume the system works. And to be 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' is selfish to the point of being Evil. But if I lived in different society, or no society at all in the wilderness, I don't know what I would think.
|
Now to totally flip the tables on the alignment discussions:
A powerful Chaotic Good ranger is walking through his forests near a small town with a well-established and very capable legal system (i.e., it has a good jail). He comes across a nefarious group of bandits. A fight follows, and the ranger easily dispatches all the bandits... save one: their leader, the Bandit King. Fearing for his life, the Bandit King drops his sword, falls to his knees, and offers his seemingly totally sincere surrender to the Chaotic Good ranger.
What's Nature Boy do?
Tell said Bandit King to get back up and help him bury the dead.
If he's sincere, in handling the bodies of every single person his ways have gotten killed this day, he might learn a lesson about the wages of sin and all that. Then tell him that he's going to work with the Ranger for awhile (until the Ranger is *convinced* that he's sincere). He's got a lifetime to try and atone for what he's done wrong, and the only guarantee in life is that he'll never be able to make up for all the death he's caused, but if he doesn't give up, at least his own life won't have been as wasted as those of all of the men who followed him.
The former Bandit King gets to serve as a kind of henchman, trying to make up for his past mistakes. If he doesn't try, or the Ranger becomes convinced that he's insincere, or he tries to flee his responsibilities, he's going to learn that trying to flee a high level expert tracker who can kill people at 200 ft. range is a bad plan...
The prison / legal system thing, no matter how excellent, isn't a great option for a Chaotic Good character. 'Justice' that involves shoving someone into a dark place and forgetting about them isn't justice at all, it's just a waste of the resources expended to imprison and sustain that person, and a waste of that person's life. Either allow them to redeem themselves (which isn't something one can do with a quest, but is a *lifelong* thing), or kill them if they can't live up to the responsibilities that their past misdeeds have imposed upon them.
I see things this way (in no particular order);
1) Chaotic - imprisonment, slavery, legal systems = bad, pointless even.
2) Good - killing helpless person who seems to sincerely surrendering, not so much 'good.' About the only way it could be less 'good' is if the Ranger then animated his corpse and had sex with it.
3) Ranger - civilized concepts such as revenge, punishment or imprisonment has zero significance to the natural order. Either he spends his life attempting to make up for his past, or his blood feeds the forest. Anything else is wasteful and pointless.
Being good isn't *easy.* Running the creep through and leaving their bodies to rot is the easy morally-dubious choice. Taking responsibility for helping this man reclaim his humanity from his past is the *hard* choice, and it's also the *good* choice.
Killing him creates no net 'good.'
Helping him find his way to redemption *does* 'add good to the world.'
I don't see any particular reason why a CG wouldn't take a bandit in to town and drop him off at the jail. That doesn't mean he's signing up to join the city guard or anything!
-The Gneech
I feel a chaotic good character wouldn't go to the legal authorities by default, he shouldn't trust them up-front.
I would expect him to go to the closest wise-person he knows in the community be it the Good Priestess, the smith he met to have his horse reshoed and seemed fair or even the captain of the guard who gave him a tough time but seems to care for the people. I would expect him to hand the bound-bandit over without asking for a reward and accepting one only if he feels it's not a burden on the community.
For comparison I would expect a Lawful good character to hand the prisoner over to a trusted or well-reputed member of the authorities. I wouldn't expect him to ask for a reward but if one is given I expect him to accept it (to save the honour of the locals) and, if he feels its' to much of a burden for the community, spend it on a gift for the community or give it to a deserving person or organisation.
I also feel that any good character could kill an “extremely evil” individual instead of handing him over. The Lawful one would explain what’s going to happen to the foe before the execution and face him as he executes him and the chaotic one would make it “quick and painless”.
As a side note: I award XPs to players (usually the whole party) who spend money in the proper alignment axis, so far only good characters helping their community. It's a shameless copy from the video game (the name escapes me now) but my players love it and not just for the extra XPs!
The bounty-hunter persona strikes me more like a Lawful character, neutral or evil since the fee is important and the guilt of the quarry doesn't necessarily come in the equation and they answer to the authorities. Vigilante seems more in-character for a chaotic character (good, neutral or evil).
I never really envisioned Chaotic Good as completely lawless which goes to the point Cato Novus was making. When I played Chaotic Good characters I generally stayed within the law, but willing to break it when the ends justified the means.
I could see a Chaotic Good Ranger punishing the Bandit King; short of execution. I could also see the Ranger turning the Bandit King over to the authorities. He may not trust the authorities or even agree with all of their laws. On the other hand, why should he have to babysit this Bandit King to ensure he has changed his ways? I could also see the Ranger releasing the Bandit King. It is a risk, but people deserve a second chance, right?
I disagree that killing him or taking him to the local authorities are the only good acts.
Too bad Zone of Truth isn't handy to see if the surrender and any promises were sincere. Taking him to the town for one isn't worth it, since if the ranger does that he may as well simply turn the bandit into the law.
But does a CG ranger care about the law that much? I mean, he's not even NG he's chaotic. Acion likely would be determined by a sense motive roll. If he believes the surrender/promises is/are sincere, or the opposite, the ranger's conscience/alignment drives the solution. Further threat to life - death. Sincere remorse to loss of life - life, albeit stripped of possessions in excess of what's needed to survive.
|
|
But does a CG ranger care about the law that much? I mean, he's not even NG he's chaotic. Acion likely would be determined by a sense motive roll. If he believes the surrender/promises is/are sincere, or the opposite, the ranger's conscience/alignment drives the solution. Further threat to life - death. Sincere remorse to loss of life - life, albeit stripped of possessions in excess of what's needed to survive.
Very practical sounding, and I like it. If he thinks the dude is sincere, he should definitely abide by his good alignment.
I think an over-looked aspect of the Paladin Lawful Good code of conduct would be; which Law? Law of the Town, Law of the Country, Law of the Paladin's church or his Personal Law? If this is a "Judge Dread Style" Paladin with an 'I am the Law' attitude; execution on the spot is permissible.
Same with the CG Ranger. He is Good, so he just wants the crime to stop. It would be perfectly acceptable for him to execute the Bandit King on the spot, decide to give him a chance to reform or turn him in to the authorities. The Law is just one way to support Good. But his personal judgement about how to stop the crime is permissible and just as valid as using the Law. Now if the Law should ever fail the CG Ranger, I would not expect him to give it a second chance.
My take on this question with the paladin and which laws is: all of them. It's only when they directly conflict that the paladin has trouble and must prioritize. How he prioritizes will depend on, probably, his training and a bias toward which law is "more good". But NOT personal law. His personal laws are derived from the external groups he belongs to. Or I suppose his personal law would be to obey them all when possible.
The chaotic character is the one who relies on personal law, the freedom to choose the best way to fit his conscience. If the laws are good, decent, well-administered, he'll probably take the bandit to the law since he knows they'll do a good job of it (and probably give him a reward to boot). If the laws aren't good or well-administered, he takes the law into his own hands. But it's ultimately his own personal decision which directives to follow. His own personal law.
I think an over-looked aspect of the Paladin Lawful Good code of conduct would be; which Law? Law of the Town, Law of the Country, Law of the Paladin's church or his Personal Law? If this is a "Judge Dread Style" Paladin with an 'I am the Law' attitude; execution on the spot is permissible.
Same with the CG Ranger. He is Good, so he just wants the crime to stop. It would be perfectly acceptable for him to execute the Bandit King on the spot, decide to give him a chance to reform or turn him in to the authorities. The Law is just one way to support Good. But his personal judgement about how to stop the crime is permissible and just as valid as using the Law. Now if the Law should ever fail the CG Ranger, I would not expect him to give it a second chance.
This is a good point. Another point is this--why is the character chaotic good? Let's say this ranger operates in an area that IS lawless--in a way he's like the stereotypical marshal in the wild west, it's more about practicality balanced with what's good.