There are a bunch of possible answers, and one act usually isn't enough to form a complete basis for alignment anyway.
More importantly though, I think you, the other players and your GM need to have a talk about alignment out of character. Make sure everyone is clear on how alignment and prisoners works together, make sure all the characters have compatible enough alignments to work together to build up a kingdom, and decide how much, if any, you want PC alignment conflicts to play in your game (some groups enjoy different characters pressuring each other on alignment in game, while others consider it annoying and leading to PvP.)
Figuring out how your group will deal with alignment is probably especially important in a kingmaker campaign where the group will actually be setting up a society and will have law enforcement powers. You will deal with prisoners that have committed a variety crimes. Making sure everyone is clear how you will deal with these issues ahead of time will probably save you a lot of future angst.
Big Picture here: You're helping Oleg against the bandits, without pay. You're not breaking any laws, because there are no laws to break.
The Abadar priest is totally justified in wanting all the bandits dead. You are totally justified in wanting to inflict a less final punishment.
If you're asking what alignment the characters should be, I'm going to echo Dave Justus and say you can rarely base a character's alignment on a single action.
If you're asking what alignment the actions themselves are...
Defending yourself against lethal force by using lethal force is Neutral.
Defending innocent people from violent aggressors without pay is Good.
Trying not to cause any more death than necessary is generally Good, if often impractical and risky.
Torturing and mutilating a compliant captive on a whim or assumption, however, is pretty damn Evil, and doing it without group consent is mildly Chaotic.
Like I said before, you can't really judge a character's alignment on one thing, but if we were playing a guessing game of "Who has what Alignment?" then...
The other three PCs: I have no idea. There's not much indicative of their alignments.
The Abadar priestess: maybe leaning towards Good and/or Lawful?
Your character: Probably Chaotic; If this sort of thing is an extreme situation and is irregular, then Chaotic Neutral (which is fine), but if this is part of a trend or is normal for your character, then I'd say Chaotic Evil (meaning you shouldn't be able to be a Druid).
Because it is a lawless region, there is no authority to provide protection, no authority that can pass proper judgment, and no authority with the resources to jail all the bandits. Right now, the only law you have is the law you yourselves enforce.
In such a situation, it is typically best to execute bandits. Just think of them as wild beasts that purposefully attack humans- they have to be put down for the good of the innocent. They have too much of a taste for blood to be reformed with your abilities. As such, your abadar priest is fairly justified.
I can understand the desire to use mercy for their lives, but you need to wait until you have more resources and personnel before you can use modern sensibilities (and start to question the abadar priest's thirst for blood, if that persists)
This is particularly true because you were dealing with the leader. He has shown the ability to gather and control a force of bandits before, adn there is little reason to believe he wouldn't try again. As such, he is a particular threat. If it was just a minor mook, then it is much, much more likely you can scare him straight, especially since you are establishing yourselves as a permanent fixture in the area, and he wouldn't want you coming after him again.
For the torture bit...I...I can understand how it can be useful in a lawless region. Kinda evil/asmodeus-y, but it can be important to show displays of force and will in order to establish your prescience and decisions. I would have made it a choice though- your head or your....head. Die as a man, or live as less as a man. That could have the immediate advantage of making sure that he can never try to commit that crime again if you let him go, and the embarassment might ruin his reputation, and prevent him from effectively getting another group of bandits (although he could try SUPER hard to get another group, and bring their full force on you as a reocurring villain).
I won't judge your decision though. I just advise you to talk it out with everyone else first, and maybe try...not to be that immediately dark.
Mutilating someone is usually pretty wrong... but what would his punishment have been had he been brought to justice?
I always have my characters ask the questgiver about legal issues before LEAVING wherever the quest starts.
If you are effectively deputized, you can act as judge, jury and executioner.
The GM might even like that, it gives him a chance to come up with some local laws.
This way, even the Paladin can worry less. If the penalty for banditry is death, then death it is!
Take no prisoners. :D
Mutilating someone is usually pretty wrong... but what would his punishment have been had he been brought to justice?
Yeah, given how medieval justice usually works the punishment probably would be considered "fitting" in certain quarters.
|
1: Dave Justus is right that the most important thing is whether your character can work with the other characters over the long run of a campaign. IMO, the available evidence is not favorable.
2: As to what alignments? What matters is what your GM thinks, not what you or I think. That said, and working only from the evidence of fight and aftermath: Fighting to the death in a fight to the death is practical and would not affect alignment. This includes the use of god-granted powers. Mutilating a prisoner, especially in the heat of anger and with an arrow, is evil. With the other parts of the description, and assuming this typical of the way you intend to play the character, I'd make your character NE. (Not controlled enough for LE; too evil for N.)
But I've yet to meet two gamers who truly agree on alignment definitions enough to reliably assign values to questionable acts, so YMMV.
|
It's difficult for me to respond to your post. I don't mean to be a jerk but your writing could be a bit more articulate, in which case I'd understand the situation much better. That said, and based on the best understanding I have after rereading your post 4 times; I'd say as others have said that 'alignment' is not based on a single action or just the actions over a single encounter. If I were forced to say what alignment you were I'd have to say Chaotic Neutral. You did your best not to kill anyone during combat, then you cut someone up making sure they didn't actually die!
While I'm trying to guess your character's alignment, it would be easy to say he has committed both good and evil acts (bringing us to neutral), and that those acts where initially based on principle (not harming needlessly) and emotion/passion (harming those that harmed us) bringing us to chaos.
Again, I"m not at all sure I'm reading you correctly. The main thing, as others have pointed out, is that you cooperate and get along with other party members, both in- and out- of game.