What alignments are feasible for Enor & Ganji?

[Kish]

So, as much as we know that they were, amongst others, working at least once for at least one evil government (we don't know about how many of their contracts have been with good governments),

This is true, but how far do you suppose they'd have to travel to find a contract that wouldn't be, de facto, for Tarquin?

Unless he greatly exaggerated the success of his scheme to date, I'd say "pretty far."

So if doing nothing against evil makes me evil - does that mean that not hindering someone to do good makes me good?

No, because good and evil are fundamentally different, and you very rarely get a valid statement about one by playing fill-in-the-blank with a valid statement about the other.

[Ron Miel]

This is true, but how far do you suppose they'd have to travel to find a contract that wouldn't be, de facto, for Tarquin?

Look, in modern day USA there are real bounty hunters, who make a living by picking up criminals that skip bail, and deliver them to the US justice system for trial. Would you say that they are "working for Obama?"


Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.

[Kish]

Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.

Whether it makes them "an accomplice to Tarquin" or not, I would hope you wouldn't try to stretch so far as to claim it doesn't make them an enforcer for a fascist (and, going by the Empire of Blood, cartoonishly evil) government.

Unisus said something speculative about them working for good goverments; that was what I replied to. I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.

[zimmerwald1915]

Look, in modern day USA there are real bounty hunters, who make a living by picking up criminals that skip bail, and deliver them to the US justice system for trial. Would you say that they are "working for Obama?"

Seriously, there must be many criminals in the various empires run by Tarquin. Catching those criminals and handing them over to the justice system does not make someone an accomplice to Tarquin.

There are a couple arguments to be made against this. One is that yes, such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. The USA has a federal system which makes things more complicated, but a bounty hunter employed by the State of New York could be considered to be working for Governor Cuomo just as a bounty hunter contracted by, I don't know, the FBI could be considered to be working for Attorney General Holder and ultimately for President Obama.

Another argument hinges on the democratic republic being an impersonal type of state. It does not necessarily depend for its organizational continuity on the continued occupancy of a given office by a given person. An empire is incarnated in the person of the Emperor or Empress, and a dictatorship is incarnated in the person of the dictator. There is little in a dictatorship over which the dictator cannot, should he choose, exercise direct personal control. For the purposes of discussing the Empire of Blood, the Empress can be considered a patsy and Tarquin a dictator. Thus, someone who works for the Empire of Blood can be said to be working for Tarquin.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Ron Miel]

Whether it makes them "an accomplice to Tarquin" or not, I would hope you wouldn't try to stretch so far as to claim it doesn't make them an enforcer for a fascist (and, going by the Empire of Blood, cartoonishly evil) government.

On the contrary, I would say that. They are NOT enforcers for the government.

Their job is to bring criminals to justice, which makes the country a little safer and better to live in.

I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.

No I'm not. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that they are evil.

[Ron Miel]

There are a couple arguments to be made against this. One is that yes, such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. The USA has a federal system which makes things more complicated, but a bounty hunter employed by the State of New York could be considered to be working for Governor Cuomo just as a bounty hunter contracted by, I don't know, the FBI could be considered to be working for Attorney General Holder and ultimately for President Obama.

Okay, that's wrong. Bounty hunters in modern USA aren't employed by the government.

At least as far as I understand it. (I'm British, by the way)

There are private companies - bail bondsmen - that loan money to accused people in order to post bail. If the accused person skips town, and doesn't turn up for trial, the loan company pays a bounty hunter to track them down and bring them back.

They work for private companies, not the government.

[sims796]

Unisus said something speculative about them working for good goverments; that was what I replied to. I get that you're, for some reason, heavily invested in them being White Hats.

I don't get why you're hellbent on saying that we consider those two good. Nobody is saying that, or at the very least, very few people are saying that (and not the two that you are arguing with). If anything, the general consensus in this thread is that they're neutral, at best, with Ganji being Lawful Neutral.

[Kish]

I don't get why you're hellbent on saying that we consider those two good. Nobody is saying that, or at the very least, very few people are saying that (and not the two that you are arguing with).

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel and him saying it is why this thread was started, as you can observe by reading the first post. He backed off a little since then, to arguing that they're neutral-aligned characters who make the various dictatorships a better place by hunting criminals while totally not working for the governments(s). That's why I said "White Hats," instead of "good-aligned."

Not that "bringing 'criminals' to 'justice' in Tarquin's dictatorships makes them a little safer and better to live in" is a significantly better claim than just "Gannji is Lawful Good."

...And yes, I know the general consensus in this thread is that they're nowhere north of neutral. If that wasn't the case I would throw up my hands in despair at the entire thread.

[sims796]

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel.

Not that "bringing 'criminals' to 'justice' in Tarquin's dictatorships makes them a little safer and better to live in" is a significantly better claim than just "Gannji is Neutral Good."

Oh, I see, he said that in a different thread, and the first page quote. My bad. I've only noticed his second page comment. Coulda sworn it was someone else who claimed those two to be good.

[zimmerwald1915]

They work for private companies, not the government.

Read the qualifier. What I said was if they are employed by a government agency, then through the principle of chain of command they can be said to be working for the chief executive. What I did not say was that all bounty hunters were employed by government agencies and thus could all be said to be working for the chief executive. And that's not the only bit of intellectual dishonesty involved here. The American situation you're describing and the situation in the Empire of Blood are very different, and the analogy not sound. The bounty on Nale was posted by the Empire of Blood itself, not by a private company. It was paid by the Empire of Blood itself, not by a private company. Ganjii and Enor are freelance bounty hunters, not bail bondsmen.

Furthermore, you've done nothing to address my other point about the dissimilarity of democratic republics and dictatorships in regard to the importance of the person of the chief executive.

[Ron Miel]

Actually, I've seen exactly one person say that. That person's posting name was Ron Miel and him saying it is why this thread was started, as you can observe by reading the first post.

My statement was that they are "neutral at minimum"

See my first post on the subject.


I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

[Ron Miel]

Read the qualifier. What I said was if they are employed by a government agency ...

What you said was "such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. "

And it was that specific statement that I disagreed with.

[zimmerwald1915]

What you said was "such a bounty hunter, or any employee of the government of a given democratic republic, could be considered to be working for the chief executive of that democratic republic. "

And it was that specific statement that I disagreed with.

And it was that specific state that I then qualified. Cherrypicking sentences out of paragraphs, short paragraphs at that, isn't that intellectually honest either.

[Ron Miel]

I'm not going to exchange insults with you. Either stick to the topic or leave the thread.

[bronnt]

Okay, that's wrong. Bounty hunters in modern USA aren't employed by the government.

At least as far as I understand it. (I'm British, by the way)

There are private companies - bail bondsmen - that loan money to accused people in order to post bail. If the accused person skips town, and doesn't turn up for trial, the loan company pays a bounty hunter to track them down and bring them back.

They work for private companies, not the government.

As an American citizen with a passing understanding of the legalities, that sounds entirely accurate. A bounty hunter is a private employee, not at all a servant of the head of state.

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage, no one is directly employed by the head of state. Public employees don't work for anyone except the people of their jurisdiction. It's the most basic of civics concepts.

[Kish]

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage,

You know, I didn't respond to the question about whether bounty hunters in the United States are "working for Obama" for at least two reasons. One was the no-politics rule, but the other was that you'd have to move way beyond Tarquin's influence to find a democracy or republic with universal suffrage.

[thereaper]

My statement was that they are "neutral at minimum"

See my first post on the subject.


I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Let's do a checklist.

- They do not appear to care about the guilt or innocence of the people they capture. <--- Indicates neutral or worse

- They do not appear to care about making the world better by capturing criminals. <--- Indicates neutral or worse

- They care about themselves. <--- Inconclusive, as all alignments are capable of this

- They care about each other, to the point that they are willing to die for one another. <--- Inconclusive, as all alignments are capable of this, so long as it is for someone very close to them (Good characters extend this behavior beyond those they are close to)

- They care about money, and it appears to be the driving force behind all that they do. <--- Leans neutral, though any alignment can make it work.

- They take jobs for an obviously evil empire. <--- Indicates neutral at best. Good characters would not work for an evil empire, unless it was for a good cause (money typically does not count, and it is Enor and Gannji's only known motive).

- Sympathizing with slave drivers. <--- Clearly a joke, so does not necessarily indicate evil. However, one would not expect such a joke to be made using a Good character.

- They allow targets to get away because the money to danger ratio isn't high enough <---Normally means nothing, but kills any hope of their bounty hunting being for the Goodness (since a bounty hunter who hunts criminals for the good of the community wouldn't be stopped for such a reason)

- Does not like fraud. <--- Indicates lawfulness.

- Attacks people with little to no provocation. <--- Indicates neutral at best, leans towards evil.

We have exactly 0 Goods, 0 "neutrals at minimum", a couple inconclusives, and a bunch of "neutral at best"s.

So, unless there's something I'm missing, that indicates Neutral at best, not Neutral at minimum.

[hamishspence]

I think that Ganji MIGHT be good. See the word MIGHT there. But I agree with the consensus that they are more likely neutral.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Actually, it was the second post I was thinking of- that doesn't have a "might" in it:

Based on this, I think Ganji is Lawful Good, and Enor is True Neutral, but mostly does LG actions under Ganji's influence.

[Narren]

As an American citizen with a passing understanding of the legalities, that sounds entirely accurate. A bounty hunter is a private employee, not at all a servant of the head of state.

Of course, in any democracy or republic with universal suffrage, no one is directly employed by the head of state. Public employees don't work for anyone except the people of their jurisdiction. It's the most basic of civics concepts.

Bounty hunters are employed by bail bondsman (actually, they usually ARE the bail bondsman) but their authority to take the person into custody and turn them over to the local authorities comes from the courts. Just wanted to muddy up the analogy a bit more.

[hamishspence]

In fiction settings (Star Wars in particular) they tend to be closer to professional kidnappers.

Who sometimes target people "Wanted by the law" but as often, target people on behalf of various criminal organizations.

Or simply those who have ticked somebody off enough to have them "post a bounty" about them.

[Ron Miel]

They do not appear to care about the guilt or innocence of the people they capture.

Simply wrong. Ganji explicitly refuses to make his living by taking innocent people.

They do not appear to care about making the world better by capturing criminals ... They care about money, and it appears to be the driving force behind all that they do.

Compare Haley and treasure.

You agree that Haley is Chaotic Good, right?

- They take jobs for an obviously evil empire.

No they don't. This has been explained to you at length. Collecting a reward is NOT the same as working for the empire, or showing any support for it.

- Sympathizing with slave drivers.

No proof of that.

The guard, who is actually Sabine in disguise if you noticed, expresses sympathy for the slave drivers. Some people keep attributing her words to Ganji for some reason.

Ganji only says that the situation is unfair. There's no indication what he means by this, he might mean that the strikers are unfair.

You are reading far too much into a single line, where it isn't even clear what he meant.

And finally, compare Haley on slavery panel 5. Haley is still Chaotic Good, right?

- Attacks people with little to no provocation. <--- Indicates neutral at best, leans towards evil.

Go back and look at the actual strip.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html

They were trying to enjoy a nice quiet meal after a hard day, they got hassled by a complete stranger who wouldn't leave them alone. They gave him a mild electric shock, that didn't even hurt hi, and then tried to leave. "Come on, out the back door"

It's perfectly clear that Roy is more to blame for the fight than either Enor of Ganji. He even admits that he is the one that caused it to spiral out of control.

[hamishspence]

5d6 lethal electrical damage (standard for a half-dragon) is not exactly a "mild shock, that didn't even hurt"- it's simply Roy's extreme toughness (from being a high level character) that protects him).

It's about half as much damage as lightning bolts from a thunderstorm do in D&D.

[Ancalagon]

Their job is to bring criminals to justice, which makes the country a little safer and better to live in.

Criminals, sure. Or freedom fighters, rebells, intellectuals, critics, people who are related the just named, everyone someone powerful does not like and pays for, ...

You did not get their job right. It is not to "bring criminals", it is to "bring everyone someone pays for, for whatever reason".

Also your RL example is a rather bad one: the US is basically the only country on this blue planet that has official, government-approved private bounty hunters. *yuck*

Enough of this illegal RL comparison, as it is not bringing us any further anyway.

Enor and Ganji are dragging anyone to everyone as long as it gives enough shinies and does not involve too many pointies.

[Ron Miel]

Roy caused the situation to escalate out of control. He admits as much. Enor and Ganji were trying to slip out the back door.

This is not much of an indication that they are evil.

[hamishspence]

Roy admitted (by responding to violence with violence) he caused the situation to escalate out of control- thus drawing in third parties.

But the ones initiating the violence, were Enor & Ganji.

While it could be claimed "Man, that is so unfair, I hope it works out for them" is about the slaves, in-context, it seems more plausible that it's about the slave drivers.

[Ancalagon]

We are actually not talking about "initiating violence", they tried to kill Roy.

How likely is it some "Average Joe" survives 5d6? Zero? Close to that, yes.

[Ron Miel]

And a third possibility is that he thinks thae unionh is being unfair by delaying the building, and hopes that it all works out for the builders.

In context that seems a good possibility of what he meant. Although it's still ambiguous.

And Haley was much more explicitly willing to sell Samantha into slavery. Haley is Good, isn't she? One line, one single offhand remark, from either Haley or Ganji does not make a good indicator of alignment.

[Kish]

Roy admitted (by responding to violence with violence) he caused the situation to escalate out of control- thus drawing in third parties.

But the ones initiating the violence, were Enor & Ganji.

There is no ambiguity about what happened in the inn. Roy asked a perfectly reasonable question, to which Enor and Gannji responded with violence. This is agreed on by Roy and Gannji.

[Ancalagon]

And Haley was much more explicitly willing to sell Samantha into slavery. Haley is Good, isn't she? One line, one single offhand remark, from either Haley or Ganji does not make a good indicator of alignment.

Haley, especically in the beginning, has always shown some neutral or even evil tendencies when it comes to money she could claim as her own and if it was not confirmed she was good, we could surely argue if she was neutral. And that remark would be a big case here. We also know she is pretty snarky, so we do not know if she really was serious (I think she was).

In regard to the NPCs we argue about here there are very few good indicators, some neutral, some evil. So it still seems the verdict "evil or dark side of neutral" isn't that bad.

[hamishspence]

We are actually not talking about "initiating violence", they tried to kill Roy.

How likely is it some "Average Joe" survives 5d6? Zero? Close to that, yes.

I actually said something along those lines about V's use of Explosive Runes on various people, including the half-orc looking after the horses.