We're starting a new campaign and I need some advice on the proper alignment for this character. He's a Titan Mauler Barbarian(usually a bad plan, but our GM has allowed me to use the clarification found here). He's a former slave who, after his master killed his family, killed his master with his & his father's scythes. The idea is for him to wield two scythes and maybe later on one bigger scythe. Also not the best mechanically, but imagine the cool factor.
My question involves his alignment. I originally thought CG would do it since he hates slavery and wants to free every slave he sees, and also wants to be a good person, but I'm unsure since he also hates slave owners and doesn't hesitate to kill them on sight. They're his Berserk Button. So should he be CN maybe?
A "Good" person would free the slaves and killing the masters wouldn't automatically be a part of their solution.
Any alignment could work.
Lawful would focus on abolition of slavery in general.
Chaotic would seek to free individual slaves.
Good does all this out of concern for the slaves.
Evil just wants bloody revenge.
Id say chaotic neutral, he has "good" intentions, just not "good" methods unless you're the type that says the ends justifies the means. Keep in mind though that not all slave owners are evil. Someone.e can technically own another person and still treat them with human decency and respect. Killing this type of slave owner would definitely be an evil act
All good points. Maybe he wouldn't automatically kill them, but give them the oppurtunity to free their slaves first and spare them should they comply. Or just say CN and have him go with the most direct method of freeing slaves. "No masters makes them free," is how he could put it.
Chaotic good, as long as he's not taking out kids for inheriting the slaves or something.
All good points. Maybe he wouldn't automatically kill them, but give them the oppurtunity to free their slaves first and spare them should they comply. Or just say CN and have him go with the most direct method of freeing slaves. "No masters makes them free," is how he could put it.
This would then be CG
RP question though, would a barbarian that goes bezerk when he sees slavery in action have the self control to stop himself and give the owner the chance?
RP question though, would a barbarian that goes bezerk when he sees slavery in action have the self control to stop himself and give the owner the chance?
He could confront the slave owner using Diplomacy or (more likely) Intimidate without going into Rage-mode. If that didn't work, then I would think that Rage-mode would be pretty automatic. As for what alignment that is, I'd say he tries to do the Good thing first and then falls back on the Kill thing second. That sounds CN to me.
All good points. Maybe he wouldn't automatically kill them, but give them the oppurtunity to free their slaves first and spare them should they comply. Or just say CN and have him go with the most direct method of freeing slaves. "No masters makes them free," is how he could put it.This would then be CG
RP question though, would a barbarian that goes bezerk when he sees slavery in action have the self control to stop himself and give the owner the chance?
Owner a chance to do what?
Repentance at the point of an axe isn't repentance. You kept people as slaves for decades, and all of a sudden they're seeing the errors of their ways...
You don't let a murderer repent on the block where he's been lawfully sent by the lawful king to have his head struck off by the duly appointed headsman. If you've decided that the treatment inflicted on others by the slave owners calls for death well then your judgement is just as good as any magistrates.
There DOES need to be some leeway for slave owners that don't treat them harshly if you want to keep the G though.
Being good doesn't mean being a saint, and it doesn't mean that you don't have issues or that you don't make mistakes. A big part of being good is simply about feeling guilty when you screw up, or do something that you regret.
A good character who fights slavers with the best of intentions may wind up struggling with these morally grey areas, and with the necessary evils (or those he feels are necessary, at least) of the task.
The difference here between good, neutral, and evil could also be a measure of how far the character is willing to go out of his way to kill the slavers, how much he prefers to do so over less violent means of ending slavery, and how much he feels he must punish the slavers (with cruelty) in addition to merely stopping them.
So, for example, a good character might struggle with killing, even though he knows rationally that it's ultimately for the greater good, and would prefer to find more peaceful, amicable solutions (capture, sneaking around, etc) whenever realistically possible, but not if it meant a greater risk to the slaves themselves. The freedom of the slaves is what's really important. It's all about them and their best interests.
A neutral character may act as much on a grudge against slavers than for the well being of the slaves themselves, and may sleep better at night after putting his enemies to the sword. He may not go out of his way to be cruel, especially not if it wastes time or puts the mission at risk, but he may justify violent deaths as "fitting".
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Chaotic Evil. Killing slave owners on sight is both chaotic and evil.
Good characters would ask for extenuating circumstances, explanations, and provide a chance for explanation rather than immediately killing on sight.
Lawful characters would attempt to bring the slave owners to justice, punish within the laws of the land (or his/her own moral code), and seek an explanation rather than immediately killing on sight.
Neutral characters would weigh the pros and cons of killing the individual before doing so, or letting him/her live.
Honestly, anyone who kills someone of a type on sight is Chaotic Evil to me.
YMMV.
Question; is this guy looking for a long-term solution (meaning legally abolishing slavery) or is he more into the instant gratification of freeing slaves directly (at night, busting 'em out etc.)?
WormcallerChaotic Evil. Killing slave owners on sight is both chaotic and evil.
So when CAN you kill them?
To loaba, I would say he's looking to free slaves directly. He knows that he might never abolish it completely, but he wants to make as big a difference as he can with the time he has. i doubt he'd get very far legally as he himself is an escaped slave, and will likely have a bounty on his head if he harrasses slavers enough.
To Chris P., I'd say his parents raised him to be good in general, but his grudge against slavery makes it hard for him to not get angry when he knows how it can end up. He's seen the extreme that owning slaves can be taken to, and doesn't want it to happen to others. He knws killing others is wrong, but sees it as sometimes neccessary.
P.S. This is all great feedback guys, thank you.
Next question: is this gonna be a campaign focus, or is this strictly a side-line thing that may or my not get any play?
If it's gonna be a campaign-driver - then I say go full-on Sparticus with this guy.
If it's gonna be more of a side thing - then I think you're okay with going on side-missions around town when the opportunity arises. You're never in one area long enough to effect a major change, so you free as many slaves as you can, as quickly as you can and move on.
For alignment, I'd say it heavily depends on the campaign.
It's not a campaign focus, but one of the regions we'll be in does allow slavery, and mostly doesn't care where the slaves come from. The setting was built by our GM over the last couple of years and this is our first foray into it.
I imagined that if he came across such practices in his travels, he'd go out of the way to make it right(or his version of right). The RP's going to be interesting as one of the other characters is a former noble whose family owned slaves before disowning her for being a thief.