My party and I came across a goblin outpost that was selling slaves, our wizard said that we HAVE to fight the goblins to free the slaves and I just said we’ll buy them and set them free. He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character and I don’t see how freeing slaves is an evil act
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not.
Also even if it was you could still do it, just if you continually do evil acts your alignment will eventually shift.
Don't expect people to agree on alignment stuff.
"I want to buy all the slaves so I can free them."
"Repent, thou vile sinner!"
--seriously. Anyone who thinks that *technically* taking part in the slave trade *for the sole purpose of freeing them* needs to take an ethics class. Sometimes, you can overcome an evil system by working within the system. See: "A Song of Ice and Fire" for literally this exact situation.
Yeah I think Abe Lincoln was technically breaking the law when he freed slaves.
He confiscated the slaves as seized enemy property in the south (which he could do because they were at war), then he freed them as refugees in the North. This was technically illegal because they couldn't be freed if they were property, but really who cares since they were working to end slavery in the US.
*
*
Sounds about right. Of course, then there's the moral quagmire of freeing slaves as a means to achieve a corrupt end. But thankfully, D&D and Pathfinder have much simpler, more cut-and-dry morality systems than...you know. Reality.
My party and I came across a goblin outpost that was selling slaves, our wizard said that we HAVE to fight the goblins to free the slaves and I just said we’ll buy them and set them free. He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character and I don’t see how freeing slaves is an evil act
The wizard is in stupid-good mode. A CUNNING good character would point out that now that the goblins have no more slaves to hide behind, that they can now be punished for their wicked ways with no fear of collateral damage. Also, you would probably get your gold back. (:
If you spend ressources to help someone you have no connection with (family, friend, ally etc.), it's a good act. Intention (setting them free) matters as well as the act itself (taking part in slave trade).
That said, it can backfire. If you hand over a lot of gold to these goblins and let them go, they will be very motivated to take more slaves, hoping to sell them to the next naive good person. In the unlikely case that one of the goblins doubted whether it's ok to take slaves, your trade might undermine their doubt.
A chaotic neutral can be motivated to liberate people, but actually that's more typical for chaotic good. CN is a quite egocentric alignment, usually your own freedom comes first.
My party and I came across a goblin outpost that was selling slaves, our wizard said that we HAVE to fight the goblins to free the slaves and I just said we’ll buy them and set them free. He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character and I don’t see how freeing slaves is an evil act
No you do not have to attack the goblins to free the slaves. As a Chaotic Neutral you can totally ignore them if you want or free them or nothing. Alignments are strong guidelines that you should mostly stay in, not rigid controls that make you do things no matter what.
You can buy the slaves and free them, which may well be good for the slaves. But there are other factors to consider as well in that scenario.
For example, do you have a means to get the slaves to safety once they are freed? I mean what is to stop the slavers from recapturing them once your party is gone? Are you going to give the slaves food, equipment and coin to start them on their way? Have they been slaves so long that they are institutionalized and don't know how to function as free individuals? Is your character comfortable giving coin to slavers knowing it will make them richer and empower them to continue or even perhaps expand their trade and get more slaves?
Freeing slaves is not an evil act but no act occurs in a vacuum and everything a character does probably has repercussions they they will realize if they stop a moment and think.
Buying slaves gives money to slavers. That is probably somewhere on the bad action spectrum but will more than likely be overshadowed by doing it to free them, an act strong on the good spectrum.
But freeing the slaves and not making sure they have a means of survival and a chance at continued freedom once your gone may just be worse than leaving them as they are.
As a neutral you can take it or leave it but as a believer in 'chaos' as it applies to alignment you tend toward belief in personal freedom (mostly for yourself but for others too) so I would assume if you cared enough to try to free them you would at least make an attempt to do the job right. If you do buy them, try to steal the money back so the slavers don't prosper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character.
Did the Wizard say that, or did the Wizard's player say that? I presume it's the latter - in which case this is 100% wrong. The Wizard player just has an utterly f$%&ed up understanding of what alignment is. Alignment doesn't dictate how you (can) act, how you act dictates alignment! It doesn't matter if that's a good, neutral, or evil act, and it doesn't matter if your character is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Under no circumstances does a character's alignment dictate what they can or can't do, period.
"" CRB pg. 166Chaotic neutral is explicitly about doing whatever you want:
"" CRB pg. 167
There's also some more stuff on the matter regarding handling alignment (directed at GMs, because it's not for other players to decide):
""
""
CRB pg. 168
TLDR version: Tell the Wizard player to shut the f*@+ up and play their own character! No one likes a backseat driver.
------------
For the record, the CRB actually uses "a desire to liberate others" to describe what a chaotic neutral character shouldn't by driven by, as that would make for a chaotic good character, so if anything that act would make your character lean more towards CG. So basically, the Wizard player got even that utterly wrong.
My party and I came across a goblin outpost that was selling slaves, our wizard said that we HAVE to fight the goblins to free the slaves and I just said we’ll buy them and set them free. He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character and I don’t see how freeing slaves is an evil actThe wizard is in stupid-good mode. A CUNNING good character would point out that now that the goblins have no more slaves to hide behind, that they can now be punished for their wicked ways with no fear of collateral damage. Also, you would probably get your gold back. (:
I was going to say that the Wizard seems like he is playing Lawful Stupid, but did not want to seem rude. Maybe he is True Stupid?
He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character.Did the Wizard say that, or did the Wizard's player say that? I presume it's the latter - in which case this is 100% wrong. The Wizard player just has an utterly f+**ed up understanding of what alignment is. Alignment doesn't dictate how you (can) act, how you act dictates alignment! It doesn't matter if that's a good, neutral, or evil act, and it doesn't matter if your character is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Under no circumstances does a character's alignment dictate what they can or can't do, period.
"" CRB pg. 166Chaotic neutral is explicitly about doing whatever you want:
"" CRB pg. 167There's also some more stuff on the matter regarding handling alignment (directed at GMs, because it's not for other players to decide):
""
""
CRB pg. 168TLDR version: Tell the Wizard player to shut the f@+~ up and play their own character! No one likes a backseat driver.
------------
For the record, the CRB actually uses "a desire to liberate others" to describe what a chaotic neutral character shouldn't by driven by, as that would make for a chaotic good character, so if anything that act would make your character lean more towards CG. So basically, the Wizard player got even that utterly wrong.
I don’t see why not. A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.everybody should be free of all bonds, hey, if that means people suffer, so be it.
A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.
Well, if it's an occasional desire instead of a reliable one, it could still be within CN. It shouldn't be a persistent streak of their personality, because:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.
He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character
His reasoning makes little sense. It would be like you saying, "Sorry, I can't help rescue the slaves because that would be a good act, and I'm not a good-aligned character."
And in buying the slaves to free them, you would be sacrificing something (your own money) for no reason other than helping strangers who will probably be unable to reward you in any way. This is pretty much the definition of a good deed.
It may, however, be a good-stupid deed, in the sense that as soon as you leave, there's nothing to stop the slavers re-kidnapping these ex-slaves, or launching a murderous raid on a nearby village to enslave more people.
It's also worth remembering that an adventuring party needs to work together as a team if they're going to survive. If the majority wants to kill the slavers then you should probably go along with it.
I don’t see why not. A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.everybody should be free of all bonds, hey, if that means people suffer, so be it.
Yes, a chaotic neutral character could have a desire to free others of all bonds, but the motivation behind it is not neutral.
I mean, what is the motivation here? I can only see two possible motivations to free people:
a) The person sees bonds/being unfree as bad, and wants to free people to help them. This is Good.
b) The person wants to free people to takes a sadistic glee in the resulting chaos, or worse in watching the people get recaptured and punished. This is Evil.
There is no neutral motivation. You don't risk your life or spend your money if you don't care what happens to the people.
So while there can be neutral characters that habitually free slaves (either because they do that in a bad way like by killing all the slavers and their families, or by doing otherwise evil acts), the OP's character's motivation to free the slaves was Good, as explicitly said so in the CRB. At best, what the character proposed was commiting a minor Evil to archieve a greater Good. That could make the act in its entirety non-good (which is why I used the phrase "if anything"), but there is no way that it's evil as per how the CRB describes alignment.
A chaotic neutral character does what he wants because he wants to. I don’t see a problem with a chaotic neutral character deciding to free all slaves. When the chaotic good character dedicates themselves to freeing all slaves it is because they believe everyone should be free. When the chaotic neutral character does so it could be a desire to rebel against authority. The difference is the chaotic good character is going to try and help the freed slave after they are free. The chaotic neutral character probably will not unless there is something in it for them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how CN characters act. That's how problem players you've played with who use whatever alignment they are as a defense act.
For the OP, buying with the intent to free them isn't Evil but as Sheepish points out you are validating the slaver's behaviour, who will just go kidnap more people for slaves to sell to make a profit.
A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.Well, if it's an occasional desire instead of a reliable one, it could still be within CN. It shouldn't be a persistent streak of their personality, because:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.
Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But a chaotic Neutral character wouldn't really care. Not in his alignment.
Unless he does. He's free to do so, if he wishes.
The alignment is one step above Chaotic Evil.
It's also one step away from Chaotic Good. As is LN from LE and LG, and N is from NE and NG.
Reread it, it's meant for insane people.
I'm pretty sure insanity is for insane people, where as the chaotic neutral alignment is meant for people who are chaotic and either uninterested in good or evil or dedicated to a deliberate balance between the two. Nothing more.
Using the chaotic neutral alignment to act like a bafoon and deliberately spike other player's/the GM's wheel is a jerk move, and anyone who tries it is not welcome at my table, even if they agree to play something else. If they're willing to pull that crap, they're willing to pull other crap. I don't want to spend my precious free time hanging out with such.
|
Really doesn't matter what we say here, your GM has the final word on alignment. So, take all the commentary for what its worth, present your case and hope for the best. If the GM agrees with the wizard, than that is how it works in your campaign.
The only thing about alignment discussions that is definitive is anyone who says anything to the effect of "<alignment> works <this way>" as if to imply it is universally true, is wrong, always wrong. Alignment works however your GM decides it works, even if you disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah people have a misunderstanding of what alignment is.
It's totally acceptable to have a Lawful Evil character who hates slavery. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you go along with all evil tropes: "Well I'm evil so I steal from my party, I murder puppies and I'm a cannibal. What, you're evil too? That must mean you also like the exact same things I do because reasons."
What you should do is play a character with a consistent set of values, and then work out shich alignment fits those values the closest. I'm currently playing a Bloodrager who abhors slavery, but thinks that the people should be able to solve their own problems. The way he'd solve this problem is to try to talk the slaves into overthrowing their masters (and he'd totay join in if a fight broke out). But if they're not willing to help themselves why should he bother? That's his values, and based on those I made him Chaotic Neutral. However I wouldn't rule out rescuing slaves, or buying some slaves to free them if there were too many guards, or even just walking on by if the moment called for it. Restricting yourself due to your alignment is not really how alignment is supposed to work.
The exception to this is of course if you're playing a class with alignment restrictions. Most of these are divine classes, so it's more a roleplay aid to say: "you might WANT to be chaotic, but your devotion to Irori is such that you've learned to ignore your impulses". As a general rule though your gameplay should inform your alignment, not the other way around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In defense of a Chaotic Neutral character they are anarchists.
"A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy." CRB pg. 167
But a chaotic Neutral character wouldn't really care. Not in his alignment. He could easily flip a coin
"A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random." Ibid.
Your understanding of chaotic neutral completly clashes with what the CRB says, making it wrong.
Reread it
Oh, the irony!
Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.
They can, but it undermines their official alignment. To make the official alignment believable again, the character would have to show a lot of aligment typical behavior to compensate.
Even an evil person can have some consistent behaviors which can be called good. No reason a neutral one cannot.They can, but it undermines their official alignment. To make the official alignment believable again, the character would have to show a lot of aligment typical behavior to compensate.
There is no reason disliking slavery has to sit on the good evil axis. You can be disliking slavery for moral reasons. But you could also dislike it for ethical reasons. For practical reasons. For personal reasons because you were once enslaved and you hate the institution, you don’t necessarily care at all about the slaves themselves, but you sure want to knock down the thing that tormented you wherever you can. Motivations matter.
A chaotic neutral could have a desire to free others of all bonds regardless of the moral and ethical consequences.Well, if it's an occasional desire instead of a reliable one, it could still be within CN. It shouldn't be a persistent streak of their personality, because:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.
It assuredly can be. A person is a composite of a large number of different beliefs and behaviors. Your alignment is what quadrant the average of that composite puts you in, not a list of things all of which must be accounted for and none of which can be from outside that box.
If I'm causing confusion I apologize. I'm actually defending the Chaotic Neutral character here. I'm not fond of the alignment and reread it again last night. His choice to free slaves is his own. He values freedom however he values his own about others. Almost a direct quote.
I'm question what alignment is the wizard and he's logic for telling the chaotic Neutral character he's in the wrong. It's his actions and alignment I'm curious about and am calling into question.
To be fair to you, you might be an AD&D veteran; Chaotic Neutral, true to its name, has had the most shift in definition over the years.
In First Edition, they were anarchists who saw the struggle between good and evil as a tool of chaos and sought to maintain it:
Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.
In Second, they were loony bins:
Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
And Pathfinder retains the definition of Third, which mainly serves to deny both of the preceding definitions:
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Or, in short:
1E = "CHAOS! DISORDER! ANARCHY!"
2E = rolls a d12 at the fast food joint, orders that value meal
3E = "But Uncle Owen... I was going to the Tosche station...!"
I would like to point out that I’m also a druid and even if buying them to free them isn’t as “chaotic” as most of my acts, it allows all of my party members to leave with their lives. There’s 5 of us and about 40 goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s 5 of us and about 40 goblins.
That doesn't mean you can't take them. It sounds like they're not treating you as hostile. So you can strike them while they're sleeping, or wait for them to split up into smaller groups and take them down a few at a time, or buy up all the slaves and arm them and work with them to kill the goblins and take your money back.
Of course, this all depends somewhat on character levels. If you're level 1, it would be difficult. If you're level 5+, a single well placed fireball could annihilate the lot of them, unless they also have class levels...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that I’m also a druid and even if buying them to free them isn’t as “chaotic” as most of my acts, it allows all of my party members to leave with their lives. There’s 5 of us and about 40 goblins.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Chaotic does not mean stupid. Maybe it chafed to be forced into "taking part" in the system, but that doesn't mean you can't do it.
Characters do stuff outside of their alignment all the time. That's partof compelling storytelling, of conflict and of growth.
What it's evil in the first place.
Is they are slaves how can you know if the "slaves" are convicted for a crime or are murder.
Even if a paladin it's against of slavery it's can't go against the law of the region so in this case a paladin must be neutral until he find a way to they freedom o check why are they chained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that "Lawful", doesn't mean following the law, it means following a code. It would be better to rename the "Lawful"alignment to "Axiomatic" or "Ordered".
Now Paladins DO have to follow the law, but that's because they have a class feature that specifically says so. But anyone who thinks a Paladin would have to respect slavers clearly doesn't understand tbis either.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The actual wording (bolded above) is "respect legitimate authority". This is fairly broadly interpreted, but since slaves would count as "those in need" and a slaver is almost certainly someone who would "harm or threaten innocents" they likely don't fall within a Paladin's ideals of "legitimate authority" and would therefore be valid targets for a smiting.
So no, a Paladin isn't required to deal with a slaver, but if it were the most efficient way to help the slaves it shouldn't be barred either.
My party and I came across a goblin outpost that was selling slaves, our wizard said that we HAVE to fight the goblins to free the slaves and I just said we’ll buy them and set them free. He said I could not do that because slave trade is an evil act and I’m not an evil character. Thoughts? Currently I’m a chaotic neutral character and I don’t see how freeing slaves is an evil act
This would technically be a lawful god act in my opinion, as your working within the existing legal system to obtain the change you're after, which is freeing the slaves. You're doing so without fighting or killing and doing so within the law. To me this screams lawful good.
And any character can do anything they want, regardless of alignment. It just might happen to have repercussion on your long time alignment, which might affect your abilities if your class is alignment dependent, like Cleric or Paladin.
Actually, the thing I'm confused about is why a chaotic neutral character would care. I guess just because your party mate cares, and your method is just the easiest method to free them (easy as you wont get resistance or cause yourself trouble).
A quick word about anarchy: It's not necessarily the chaos and uprising people associate with it. Technically it's just the absence of set roles. For example there is no leader, but if needed, someone will take the role - only to give it up once the issue is resolved. For next issue someone else might take the role. An anarchy will usually have rules - the absence of rules is called anomie.
Most friendships are actually anarchy - officially nobody governs someone else. If you share a flat, that's anarchy in action, usually without cars on fire or stones thrown. The largest group of people currently living in anarchy (to my knowledge) is Freetown Christiania - close to 1,000 people in Denmark.
So a CN person might indeed favor anarchy, but it means something else than commonly thought.
Although, an absence of rules does seem like it would also be anarchy, and in the way people usually envision it.
Although, an absence of rules does seem like it would also be anarchy, and in the way people usually envision it.
My gut feeling is that a political scientist would object, but personally I'd accept the absence of rules as a special case of anarchy, yes.
Technically Anarchy is a term used when talking about political and government systems, with Anarchy being None. If nobody is responsible for enforcing laws (rules, customs, whatever you want to rebrand it), you live in Anarchy.
Ok, that seems to be a more robust definition.
A quick word about anarchy: It's not necessarily the chaos and uprising people associate with it. Technically it's just the absence of set roles. For example there is no leader, but if needed, someone will take the role - only to give it up once the issue is resolved. For next issue someone else might take the role. An anarchy will usually have rules - the absence of rules is called anomie.
Most friendships are actually anarchy - officially nobody governs someone else. If you share a flat, that's anarchy in action, usually without cars on fire or stones thrown. The largest group of people currently living in anarchy (to my knowledge) is Freetown Christiania - close to 1,000 people in Denmark.
So a CN person might indeed favor anarchy, but it means something else than commonly thought.
What you're describing sounds more like a commune style of government. Where individuals are called to take on roles by mandate and those individuals can be recalled at any time.
I would say it isn't evil. The intent for freeing slaves is only good.
The wizard is however half right because by buying the slaves you are supporting the slave trade, which is in itself not a good thing to do.
Alignments are funny and full of grey areas. In this case, taking part in slave trade in order to free slaves, is closer to a neutral approach in my book. Ending the slave trade is the good thing to do... and, off course, simply buying the slaves to have slaves would be the evil thing to do.
The other neutral approach would be to do nothing.
hurray for endless alignment discussions
Mental illness as an alignment is rather distasteful. But that's a much bigger and stinkier can of rotten fish.
The wizard is however half right because by buying the slaves you are supporting the slave trade, which is in itself not a good thing to do.
If I push someone to prevent them from being hit by a car, is it evil because I pushed them?
If the car, driven by someone who is currently having a heart attack, hits me, are they evil because they hit me with their car?| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing alignment as a result of your actions rather than the other way around always makes things easier for me. Just have a character concept for how you want your PC to act, and then let that determine what your alignment is. It shouldn't be a set of guidelines, it should be a consequence of your actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing alignment as a result of your actions rather than the other way around always makes things easier for me. Just have a character concept for how you want your PC to act, and then let that determine what your alignment is. It shouldn't be a set of guidelines, it should be a consequence of your actions.
+1