Chaotic Neutral Moral Quandry


Advice

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

I'm playing in a pirate campaign and my synthesist summoner is CN in alignment. I'm not playing CN as completely amoral or insane as I've seen some people describe the alignment. The way I play it, he's not a bad person, but he's got no use for the law, in fact it's done him more harm than good in his life, and his backstory declares him as an outlaw despite his circumstances being entirely beyond his control (pressed by pirates at a young age). On the good and evil scale, he is neither prone to altruism nor cruelty, and sees little profit in either.

Now, the situation is that an evil woman has set herself up as the pirate queen, with the means at her disposal of an entire fleet of outlaw allies. In her public identity, however, she is of noble birth, and has managed to become betrothed to a Duke who is next in line to the imperial throne. The wedding is in two days, and our party has no hope of convincing enough people that she's secretly the evil pirate queen. And she more or less told us that she's marrying to get close to the throne to kill those between her and absolute rule.

So the party has met her fiancé already, and he isn't willing to see us at this moment, but it's possible he might again. He's certainly more accessible than she is. So, while the rest of my (good and neutral) party is planning to sneak in and get close to the Duke and convince him of our testimony, which is the only evidence we have that she's the pirate queen. However, my character is planning to get close to the Duke along with the rest of the party, but is then planning to go against the party's plan and kill the Duke. No wedding, no line of ascension. He really doesn't want to do it, but doesn't see any other way of stopping the pirate queen from becoming absolute monarch over the civilized world.

Do you think a Chaotic Neutral character would have the ability to go through with this plan?


I think he'd do it if the first attempt failed. The act is definitely against the law and thus fits with chaotic. It is murder which is evil but he seeks to prevent multiple other murders which is good, between these two extremes we find neutrality so it fits there too.

Dark Archive

Sounds like the sort of "The ends justify the means, and extreme ends can justify extreme means" way of thinking I associate with CN. A Good character would find a way to avoid the killing, a Lawful character would find a way that didn't involve unlawful killing, but unlike Evil, you are doing it for what you perceive as a greater good, doing an extreme ace to stave off even more extreme consequences, rather than for selfish or immoral reasoning.

It's actually pretty similar to how I perceive Lily. She's CN, but despite the silly shoeboxing the RPG Alignment Chart tries to shove us into, she hates the theoretically closer CE far more than LG. Paladins have a stick up their bum and are fun to tease, and for most enemies she'd far rather talk her way out of the situation, but she would not hesitate for one second to murder a bound and helpless Cleric of Rovagug, because she views their very presence as an affront against existence itself.

Liberty's Edge

I don't believe this has anything to do with C vs L. C is supposed to be about intuition, not anti-legalism. L is supposed to be about the use of reason and discipline, not anti-C. These cause a tendancy for L to follow the law and C to flaunt it, but it's a weak tendancy.

In either case, the CN character does not disrepect life, but neither would they go out of their way to protect those outside whatever close group they care about (typically family and friends). As such, killing the Duke is not likely their first choice. They would try some approach that does not require killing, but would be willing to resort to killing if nothing else seemed like it would work. A CG character would refuse to kill a bystander simply for being bullheaded, but may resort to use of stall tactics like kidnapping if deemed necessary (a missing Duke can't be wed!). A CE character would shoot first and skip the questions entirely.


Christopher Dudley wrote:


Do you think a Chaotic Neutral character would have the ability to go through with this plan?

Absolutely. If I were the DM I might want to know ahead of time, but I don't see an alignment-specific problem with this course of action. Hopefully you're prepared, as a player, for the repercussions. No matter what happens, that's gonna be a great story!

Shadow Lodge

Certainly within the scope of the CN alignment, though I would advise talking not only with the GM but with your fellow players about this course of action, out of character, because some of them might be upset if you interfere with their peaceful plans. If possible they should at least get a chance to try the diplomatic solution.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Thanks, all. It might mean I have to retire the character, because we have an NPC paladin hanging around with us, and my PC would probably have to go on the run, but I'm keeping it in mind as a possible in-character resolution.

We were talking about it last night, though, and my wife, who plays a bard, was considering having her character charm him and then get him to marry her character first.

So we're keeping my idea as the nuclear option. And all of this is out-of-game knowledge. Neither of our characters knows what the other is planning. Can't wait to see how this plays out.

ETA: And we agree, telling the GM ahead of time is a good idea.

Thanks again!


Can't you just murder the pirate queen instead?


Christopher Dudley wrote:


Do you think a Chaotic Neutral character would have the ability to go through with this plan?

Selina Kyle or Jack Sparrow, no. Tyler Durden or Sandor Clegane, yes.

Alignment is not a straitjacket.

Liberty's Edge

Whether they were CN beforehand or not, killing because it's convenient is literally in the definition for evil:

CRB wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

A character that wants to stay CN instead of going CE needs to at least try to find a solution that doesn't require killing. They don't have to stick their neck out onto the chopping block to do it, but a token effort must be made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
It's actually pretty similar to how I perceive Lily. She's CN, but despite the silly shoeboxing the RPG Alignment Chart tries to shove us into, she hates the theoretically closer CE far more than LG. Paladins have a stick up their bum and are fun to tease, and for most enemies she'd far rather talk her way out of the situation, but she would not hesitate for one second to murder a bound and helpless Cleric of Rovagug, because she views their very presence as an affront against existence itself.

She does seem to have some CG tendencies.

The biggest disagreement I have with Pathfinder alignment is that its to a large degree a wargame with lots of combat. And the idea is often that good PCs roam around defeating evil. Thereby racking up a body count that dwarfs the worst real life serial killers.
This isn't helped by the fact monsters have, normally fixed alignments or GMs who turn mercy to evil into a costly mistake too often.
CN gets a bad reputation becuase Pathfinder Society won't allow evil PCs, so people play CN and behave how they want i.e. evil.
And its hard to come up with a believable villain. Its beyond a lot of writers of fiction, even the good villains are vile but not believable with sensible motives.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

Whether they were CN beforehand or not, killing because it's convenient is literally in the definition for evil:

CRB wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
A character that wants to stay CN instead of going CE needs to at least try to find a solution that doesn't require killing. They don't have to stick their neck out onto the chopping block to do it, but a token effort must be made.

Even supposing it were an evil act, one act alone isn't going to completely change a character's alignment. And the OP's story sounds like "Operation Ferdinand" is his last ditch plan--he's not gung ho about it, but he did not see another way to do it, and when another solution was presented by his wife in the follow-up post, he went along with it. The murder would certainly have been an uproarious act, but I don't think it would have caused an alignment shift for a CN character.

Liberty's Edge

It's a hard line to walk w/r/t to your standard campaign, but I typically follow a pattern like so:

Killing a creature that is non-evil and does not have active evil intend: Evil.

Killing an evil creature or a non-evil creature with active evil intent: Neutral.

Killing an inherently evil creature that even the gods might have trouble redeeming: Neutral.

Note that the above only applies to the killing part. Other circumstances surrounding it might also count as the opposite, or as the same direction, etc, and the effects would stack/oppose to form the final tally for the act. Killing an evil creature 'cause you're bored is still evil, while killing a non-evil creature at great risk to yourself because it would save many others (whom you don't even know) might bump up to neutral.

The only reason most PCs can stay good is that they don't just kill evil creatures, they do so at risk to themselves in order to save/protect people they don't even know and may not have even met. But it isn't really the killing that gives them the +good, it's the fact that they stopped the bad guy, or even just that they tried to.

Marco Polaris wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:

Whether they were CN beforehand or not, killing because it's convenient is literally in the definition for evil:

CRB wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
A character that wants to stay CN instead of going CE needs to at least try to find a solution that doesn't require killing. They don't have to stick their neck out onto the chopping block to do it, but a token effort must be made.
Even supposing it were an evil act, one act alone isn't going to completely change a character's alignment. And the OP's story sounds like "Operation Ferdinand" is his last ditch plan--he's not gung ho about it, but he did not see another way to do it, and when another solution was presented by his wife in the follow-up post, he went along with it. The murder would certainly have been an uproarious act, but I don't think it would have caused an alignment shift for a CN character.

A single particularly egregious act can cause a shift, but I agree that in this case, so long as another route it attempted first, no shift is needed. Since the Duke himself isn't in any way evil (that we've been told) it would still be a step in that direction, but not enough to shift. And while he was on the way to commit the act he would ping under Detect Evil (it pings on intent as well as long-term alignment).

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The comparison of Pathfinder characters' bodycount to serial killer bodycounts is misguided. It misunderstands why serial killers are appropriately hated and obscures moral distinctions that most people--especially in ancient societies--made regarding various forms of killing.

Serial killers in general don't have the bodycount of warriors. Jeffrey Dahmer (according to a brief internet search) killed 17 people. I'm sure there are serial killers who killed more but that most serial killers don't reach that bodycount.

However, bodycount is not the reason that serial killers are thought of as evil, hated, and feared. What makes them unusual is the lack of a commonly understandable motive. A hit man might murder people for money. A criminal might murder in order to avoid capture, for revenge, or for the hope of gain (insurance fraud, etc). All of those things are motives that most people can understand, if not condone. The stereotypical serial killer, on the other hand kills for personal reasons which most ordinary people do not share or understand. That is why they are frequent villains in media: they are by definition, different and frightening. One of the more conventionally motivated killers could have a higher bodycount but still not inspire the same fear and loathing.

But that is just discussing criminal killing. Most people throughout history have drawn a clear moral distinction between murder--as evil, unjustified killing--and other forms of killing which are acceptable or even to be celebrated. The executioner or hangman might make people uncomfortable, but most people have not considered them evil regardless of how often they ply their trade. Their killing is approved and acceptable in a way that criminal murders are not. (Hence why the executioner is not considered a murderer). The warrior, on the other hand frequently celebrated for his skill and effectiveness in killing. (Though they might be excoriated if their cause is especially unjust or--even more so--their methods are seen as underhanded or out of bounds. The Red Baron has a generally positive cultural reputation even in the countries that opposed him. Erwin Rommel managed to gain a positive reputation even though he fought for the Nazis. On the other hand, Oliver Cromwell still inspires intense hatred among many Irishmen and General Sherman has quite a few detractors). For warriors, the how and why of killing has generally been held to be morally important but not the number. Their bodycount has generally been thought to be a matter for admiration if acquired in a good cause and a good way.

Even if you don't agree, it's easy to understand why pretty much everyone before the last 100 years or so felt that way: Most people lived under the constant threat that some people from the neighboring nation or barony might invade their land, kill them, and take their stuff, so having someone on your side who killed a lot of those people when they tried--or even did to those others before they could do to you--would be a rather nice person to have around, especially if he behaved himself in an ordinary and civilized manner when he wasn't killing your enemies. How much more would you expect people whose neighbors are not human but, as often as not, are a variety of monsters and demons with "usually NE" or "always CE" in their statblocks to appreciate having an expert killer in their neighborhood. I would expect their attitude to be, "the more kills the better, as long as they're all monsters or people who needed killing." And I would question the validity of any moral system that can't understand and accommodate that point of view. (Torag, Iomedae, and Erastil's alignment indicate that Pathfinder at least shares the general outline of their perspective).


I would be leery of planning to kill the duke unless you started the assassination attempt after the negotiations failed (to be fair it could be seconds after the failure). Probably more from a party unity perspective than an alignment one. Depending on the party, someone might invested some resources in diplomacy, and this could be their chance to shine out of combat....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So killing an innocent should basically always be an Evil act, especially if there's other things you can do. Not an immediate alignment shift per se, but it's definitely Evil. In this specific case you're not telling your party anything and they're probably going to catch just as much flak as you (since you're a known associate) and your plan may not do what you want. What's stopping the pirate queen from taking over after the Duke's death? If they're already engaged she has a legitimate claim to the throne. Plus the chaos of the ruler suddenly dying is the perfect time for a strong-arm tyrant to seize power, even if she didn't have any kind of claim.

Personally I'd kidnap the Duke. Not Evil, stalls everything until the Duke comes back (because he's still rightful ruler), gives you time to make your case, and he might change his mind if his beloved fiancee: doesn't care if he comes back, actively tries to prevent him from coming back, or attempts to murder him.


Grokk_Bloodfist wrote:
Can't you just murder the pirate queen instead?

^This.

This would be perfectly in character for any CN, really.

"Kill the Duke because his wife is a problem" edges more into "pragmatic evil" territory, and isn't really an effective plan to begin with...even if she's not a duchess, she's still a noble in her own right, and commands a fleet of pirate ships. You've pissed her off and delivered a setback, not removed her from the board.

"Kill the pirate queen because there's no way to remove her from within the system" is much easier to justify as a morally neutral act, or even a GOOD one if she's a large threat, and removes her from the board entirely.


Question: What stops them from just raising the duke? It sounds like the pirate queen is too strong to be directly opposed, which means she might have the resources to bring the duke back herself.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are not confined by your alignment.

Your actions and intentions, determine your alignment.

Not the other way around.

Your alignment does not prevent you from taking actions, that may be considered "against your alignment", but if you do enough of these, your alignment may shift.

You should always ask "Is this what my character would do?", and never "Is this what my alignment would do?".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are not confined by your alignment.

Your actions and intentions, determine your alignment.

Not the other way around.

Your alignment does not prevent you from taking actions, that may be considered "against your alignment", but if you do enough of these, your alignment may shift.

You should always ask "Is this what my character would do?", and never "Is this what my alignment would do?".

+1 to all that.

It's easy to forget this because once your alignment and personality match it becomes impossible to tell which comes from which, but it was always that your actions and intentions determined your alignment, never the other way around. So much so, in fact, that intentions alone are enough to trigger alignment detection spells (even if they do not cause an alignment shift).

This means that your true neutral character could 'ping' as any alignment depending on their current actions or intentions even if those acts do not cause a shift. Even a good character can show up under detect evil if they let their passions get the best of them and commit straight murder, while an evil character might ping as good if they protect the life of a stranger.

For extra fun, an LE character could theoretically ping as all four alignments simultaneously if they stuck their neck out for a stranger in defiance of the authority to whom they are sworn.

EDIT: Also worth noting is that not all characters necessarily have stable alignments. A character that floats between alignments due to changing circumstances is perfectly valid and though it is a bit odd, adventurers in general are odd, so it might not be so rare among PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elder Basilisk wrote:
The comparison of Pathfinder characters' bodycount to serial killer bodycounts is misguided. It misunderstands why serial killers are appropriately hated and obscures moral distinctions that most people--especially in ancient societies--made regarding various forms of killing.

Elder Basilisk- you say a lot, most of which I, perhaps surprisingly, think is sensible.

However, in the real world, a lot of the most dangerous people are those so convinced they are right they think killing is justified or even holy. Osama Bin Laden is responsible for far more deaths than Jeffrey Dahmer, indirectly it is true, and is much more dangerous. The people blowing up civilians and themselves in Israel are Shahid, holy martyrs, to themselves and those they agree with. This is likely a better metaphor for "good" murder hobos than serial killers.

Don't get me wrong, Pathfinder and D & D are fun games. But the sort of moral framework in Pathfinder [at least as it is usually played]is... not to be taken seriously.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Quote:
Quote:
Can't you just murder the pirate queen instead?

^This.

This would be perfectly in character for any CN, really.

That's the problem, though. We CAN'T just murder the pirate queen. That is our ultimate objective, though. At this point, she's a little out of reach.

As someone else pointed out, the Duke would be the victim here. He doesn't seem to know about his fiancée's alter ego. Kidnapping is certainly a more humane solution, but we're not sure we could get him out of town. Taking him to sea with us would be a great idea, though, if we can get hold of him.

Some very good food for thought here. Thanks, everyone.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Killing him probably is an evil act but don't think it's sufficient to cause an alignment shift for a CN character.

Kidnap him but frame the pirates that work for the pirates queen for it would probably be the solution my CN characters would come up with.

Liberty's Edge

I feel going straight to murder would be evil; you are taking the easiest approach to a difficult problem and resorting to violence without exploring the alternatives.

Talking to the Duke is good; trying Diplomacy first as you have already stated you are going to do; that is the right and “good” thing to do. But jumping straight to murder when that fails lacks forward thinking … Which is a very Chaotic action. Planning is for Lawfull stupid types after all.

I would think kidnapping the Duke would be a viable plan however; Prevents the marriage and might draw out the Pirate Queen allowing you to murder her most horrifically. Also has the added benefit of saving lives of the innocent and uncovering her dastardly plot; even better if you can show her as the evil Pirate Queen that she is to the Duke before you kill her in the most gruesome way. If you manage to just draw out her First mate or crew and show them to be murder hobo’s then you at least can plant the doubt in the Duke’s mind and with your bard you should be able to convince him you are doing this all for his well being.

Rewards all round for you party from a very thankful though somewhat disturbed Duke who is now in Debt to those who kidnapped him … Letters of Marque, cash rewards or the favour of someone powerful and maybe the impending marriage of your party bard to the Duke at a later date. …

All in a win win situation.

Regards

Sic


Zhangar wrote:
Question: What stops them from just raising the duke? It sounds like the pirate queen is too strong to be directly opposed, which means she might have the resources to bring the duke back herself.

Not to mention... the pirate queen could just let the party think they got away with it, then raise the Duke who will likely become even more enamoured of her as a result.

So then the outcome for the heroes is that the plan fails completely, AND with backlash that may as well end their campaign. Thus, the nuclear option of killing the Duke is a non-starter for anyone who doesn't bend his knee to Rovagug.

Shadow Lodge

It's a non-starter only if the appropriate resurrection magic is available - and it's not that difficult to make sure Resurrection is required. Removing the head will do it since Raise can't re-grow parts. If you want to get fancy Nature's Ravages is designed for this. If you can take the body with you, you not only prevent any attempt at restoring the duke short of True Resurrection, but can also keep it intact enough for Raise to be successful later. This may be tricky, but perhaps easier than kidnapping him.

I'd still expect serious consequences but it could work as a last-ditch effort. If the GM's in the loop then it won't be campaign-endingly bad, though that doesn't mean the party will like the results.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Chaotic Neutral Moral Quandry All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice