Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[Sir_Leorik]

Would you like to give an example of an action which is both of great moral consequence for the person making it (no, "I'm not going to do the obvious good/evil thing" wouldn't count, and the argument that Roy's decision to abandon Elan was morally significant looks, to me, to be functionally identical to the argument that it was evil rather than neutral), and a True Neutral action? 'Cause all I'm seeing right now is you asserting that such can theoretically exist.

Here's my example:

The Domain of Vorostokov lies in a valley that is blanketed with severe winter weather 365 days a year. Because of this supernaturally inflicted winter weather (a punishment from the Dark Powers of Ravenloft for the Domain's Darklord) there is insufficient food to feed the villagers of Vorostokov. One of these villagers, let's call him Fyodor, has a wife, Lyudmilla, a daughter, Anastasia, and two sons, Dmitri and Piotr. Fyodor used to tend a plot of land and trap deer, but his plot will no longer yield crops, and a monstrous wolf has been devouring the deer (and a few of the villagers). One day while tending to his traps, Fyodor comes across a merchant who has stumbled down from the neighboring Domain of Sanguina. The merchant is feverish, raving about Vampires and some sort of plague. Fyodor notices the bulging purse tied to the merchant's belt.

If the merchant is not tended to, he will probably die of filth fever (contracted from a Vrykloka Vampire's bite) in a day or two. But Fyodor has barely enough food to feed his family, and he isn't sure he can even get back to town before nightfall if he has to carry the merchant. And in the back of his mind, Fyodor hears an unfamiliar voice: "He's rich. No one else knows he's here. Kill him, take that purse and leave him to the wolves. Your family will thrive and you'll be a hero."

The Good option would be for Fyodor to bring the merchant back to his village and try to help him. But doing so entails making sacrifices, the first of which is outrunning the Werewolves that are roaming the forests. Once he returns home, Fyodor needs to contact the village healer, and ration his family's food even more so that he can feed the merchant till he is well. He also has to make sure that his family is not infected by the merchant's Filth Fever. Perhaps the merchant will reward Fyodor with gold if he recovers, but that's not Fyodor's motive; he's helping this man because it's the right thing to do.

The True Neutral option is to leave the merchant in the woods, and report his location to the village's Rangers. True the merchant may be dead by the time the Rangers reach him (from his sickness or from the Werewolves' attack), but why should Fyodor stick his neck out for some foreigner? He's certainly not going to share his family's meagre food with that guy! It's possible that the merchant will be found by a Ranger and healed by the village healers. Rejoicing at surviving his near fatal encounter with the Vampire, the merchant showers gold on the Ranger and the Healer, but not Fyodor who didn't really do anything for him.

The Evil option is for Fyodor to murder the merchant and steal his coin purse, and flee back to the village. Vorostokov mostly uses a barter economy, but as the Sanguinians come down the mountains there are more opportunities to trade with them. And of course the Vistani always accept gold. Perhaps Fyodor might try to take his family and travel up the mountains or pay a Vistani caravan to take them far away. Of course there is a big downside to Fyodor's actions: Fyodor has failed a Dark Powers check; they reward/punish him for murdering the merchant and stealing his purse.

Does this example clarify my position? The first moral option is benevolent, the second callous, the third wicked.

[Kish]

Not really. 'Cause the "Neutral" option you describe 1) is inaction, and 2) to what extent I accept that it's True Neutral, it would therefore have no effect on Fyodor's alignment.

Note that your given reasons for it being True Neutral also highly distinguish it from Roy's action. Roy chose to lose his entire group and continue on his mission to retrieve the starmetal alone--which would, had he stuck with it and wound up facing down the young black dragon alone, incidentally have been suicide--rather than try to rescue someone who was only there because Roy asked him to be from a group of bandits who had kidnapped him from under Roy's leadership. It's not as bad as if he'd killed Elan so he could steal Elan's share of the treasure, certainly, but you don't have to be Xykon to be evil.

[Sir_Leorik]

Not really. 'Cause the "Neutral" option you describe 1) is inaction, and 2) to what extent I accept that it's True Neutral, it would therefore have no effect on Fyodor's alignment.

But Fyodor's decision not to save the merchant was based on a moral decision. He is refusing to take an action because doing so would risk his life (and potentially his family's). You'll note that he does tell someone else the merchant's last known location, before he heads to his hovel to wash his hands of the matter. That's the only reason the Dark Powers wouldn't notice Fyodor's actions. If Fyodor hadn't bothered to even tell the Rangers about "the Sanguinian stranger in the woods" he might have caught the DPs' attention.

Note that your given reasons for it being True Neutral also highly distinguish it from Roy's action. Roy chose to lose his entire group and continue on his mission to retrieve the starmetal alone--which would, had he stuck with it and wound up facing down the young black dragon alone, incidentally have been suicide--rather than try to rescue someone who was only there because Roy asked him to be from a group of bandits who had kidnapped him from under Roy's leadership. It's not as bad as if he'd killed Elan so he could steal Elan's share of the treasure, certainly, but you don't have to be Xykon to be evil.

How are Roy's decision to leave Elan in the Bandits' clutches and Fyodor's decision to not rescue the merchant different? Both are cases of a character making a decision not to act to save someone because of their own self-interest. Fyodor was concerned about feeding his family; Roy wanted to get a good night's rest without worrying about Elan singing or praying to Banjo, or asking for a drink of water. Neither motive is Evil, and both chose inaction rather than actively murdering someone.

[Kish]

How are Roy's decision to leave Elan in the Bandits' clutches and Fyodor's decision to not rescue the merchant different? Both are cases of a character making a decision not to act to save someone because of their own self-interest. Fyodor was concerned about feeding his family; Roy wanted to get a good night's rest without worrying about Elan singing or praying to Banjo, or asking for a drink of water. Neither motive is Evil, and both chose inaction rather than actively murdering someone.

...Wow.

You just seriously said that letting a good person die because "I want a good night's rest without him annoying me" isn't evil.

...Holy crap. Yeah, uh, I don't think any case I could make against Roy would be harsher than your defense of him.

[theNater]

On a tangent, do Paladins have to be so honest because they are so Good or because they are so Lawful?

Neither. Paladins must be truthful(but not necessarily honest) due to a clause in the Paladin code that requires it. Many Paladins see that clause as intending to encourage honesty, and so expand their personal code to include honesty(expanding on required codes is Lawful behavior). On the other hand, many Paladins believe deception is harmful, and so try to be honest in order to avoid any such harm(which is Good behavior).

So while Paladins are often honest, they only have to be truthful.

Also is Adventuring a Chaotic activity?

Like most activities, Adventuring can be done in a Lawful manner or in a Chaotic manner. It is not inherently either. Consider a well-organized band of mercenaries, who have a clear chain of command through the entire party, a series of protocols to cover most contingencies, and who review events to update their protocols every time they have a break. They would be a particularly Lawful Adventuring party.

[Reddish Mage]

...Wow.

You just seriously said that letting a good person die because "I want a good night's rest without him annoying me" isn't evil.

...Holy crap. Yeah, uh, I don't think any case I could make against Roy would be harsher than your defense of him.

Recall, Roy is being asked to risk his life for Elan (what was the first plan the group thought of?), who isn't necessarily going to be killed (in fact, he wasn't going to be), and who an adult adventurer potentially capable of taking care of himself in this sort of situation (in fact, Elan did, we can argue about the adult bit). It's not as easy or as definite a decision as flipping a switch to save a helpless Elan from being diced by the clearly labeled and functioning PC-dicing machine.

[Sir_Leorik]

You just seriously said that letting a good person die because "I want a good night's rest without him annoying me" isn't evil.

...Holy crap. Yeah, uh, I don't think any case I could make against Roy would be harsher than your defense of him.

Roy's behavior was callous disregard for Elan's plight. (He compares adventuring with Elan to having syphillis!) While talking to himself in the woods he realizes that what he did was wrong. But is callous inaction really Evil the way the D&D Alignment system defines it? I don't think so.

[Sir_Leorik]

Recall, Roy is being asked to risk his life for Elan (what was the first plan the group thought of?), who isn't necessarily going to be killed (in fact, he wasn't going to be), and who an adult adventurer potentially capable of taking care of himself in this sort of situation (in fact, Elan did, we can argue about the adult bit). It's not as easy or as definite a decision as flipping a switch to save a helpless Elan from being diced by the clearly labeled and functioning PC-dicing machine.

The OotS didn't know that Samantha was using her bandits to get herself dates. They thought he was in mortal peril, and Roy didn't care about saving him.

[Reddish Mage]

Like most activities, Adventuring can be done in a Lawful manner or in a Chaotic manner. It is not inherently either. Consider a well-organized band of mercenaries, who have a clear chain of command through the entire party, a series of protocols to cover most contingencies, and who review events to update their protocols every time they have a break. They would be a particularly Lawful Adventuring party.

I asked specifically about a standard adventuring type of party, think meet in a tavern go off on adventures to the dungeons for treasure. Also, I talked about the activity of adventuring, not the way you go about it or organize yourself (which in this case is a lawful means of organization, I would say the average D&D party I was in was chaotically-arranged).

I think if a bunch of colorful characters with an odd collection of skilled gained by sulking about in an ecletic-mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wilderness came to my town just to spend like very wealthy drunken sailors before heading off to next locale of known danger I would be right to label the group as "chaotic" (all the more so if they brought trouble into town or decided on their own accord to get mixed up with some drama in town).

Of course, I don't think the act of adventuring changes a Lawful character's alignment, but I think plain-vanilla adventuring is certainly a chaotic-leaning activity.

[Reddish Mage]

The OotS didn't know that Samantha was using her bandits to get herself dates. They thought he was in mortal peril, and Roy didn't care about saving him.

Thought being the operative word. I'm not saying it wasn't a dangerous situation; there was clear potential for a fatality. I'm just saying that it wasn't 100% and there was danger on both ends.

I would agree that not flipping a hypothetical kill switch to "off" is an out-and-out evil act, since it requires you literally "lift a finger." Not sticking your neck out to help a basically good guy whose is loyal to you is another matter.

The quoted strip shows Roy's disbelief at the danger the rest of the Order is putting itself and claims it is suicide. As for the danger to Roy, the final strip notes that Plan A was Operation: Send the Meat Shield in First.

[Kish]

As for the danger to Roy, the final strip notes that Plan A was Operation: Send the Meat Shield in First.

1) No, it doesn't. Haley comments that Plan: Send the Meat Shield In First is off the table; that's not the same thing. Haley would not be making plans at all if Roy was on board with rescuing Elan.
2) You speak as though continuing through the Wooden Forest, alone, toward the green hag and the black dragon, was the safer option for Roy. It's not, after all, like he started to leave the forest when he found out that sticking to the choice he'd made would mean he was on his own from then on. "It's suicide" was a weak excuse for his refusal to get involved in attacking the bandit camp, "It's for Elan and I hate him" was the obvious actual reason.

[137beth]

Besides, we already know that Plan A was "run away"

[Reddish Mage]

1) No, it doesn't. Haley comments that Plan: Send the Meat Shield In First is off the table; that's not the same thing. Haley would not be making plans at all if Roy was on board with rescuing Elan.
2) You speak as though continuing through the Wooden Forest, alone, toward the green hag and the black dragon, was the safer option for Roy. It's not, after all, like he started to leave the forest when he found out that sticking to the choice he'd made would mean he was on his own from then on. "It's suicide" was a weak excuse for his refusal to get involved in attacking the bandit camp, "It's for Elan and I hate him" was the obvious actual reason.

I agree on your account of Roy's mind-set. The danger is a mere excuse for Roy's behavior, and not one that loomed large in Roy's mind nor from out of his lips, er mouth hole. However, the fact of the danger's presence changes the objective nature of the action.

If Roy's excuse was "it's too dangerous" it would arguably be a cowardly act, not a callous one. The object fact of the presence of danger to Roy, however, changes the nature of Roy's refusal to save Elan from the EVIL "Roy was willing to effectively kill Elan through his inaction" to very NEUTRAL "Roy callously refused to stick his neck out for Elan."

[Reddish Mage]

Incidentally, I think you can argue simply refusing to help someone who is in danger is not an evil act, simply a non-good one, but I am simply willing to concede the point that it is evil, provided the danger is of the fatal variety and the help does not carry any great cost or risk.

I think the standard assumption in literature is that helping someone is a matter of going above and beyond what is required actually...

[lio45]

The difference between Neutral and Evil is as follows: A Neutral character cares only about himself (and his loved ones and friends, maybe his country); he doesn't wish ill to anyone else, and will not go out of his way to harm them, but he won't take risks to help them unless there is something in it for him.

An Evil character cares only about himself (and in some cases his family, his friends, maybe his ethnic group, nation or religion) and sees no point in doing things to help anyone else. What is more he will actively seek to harm others for his own personal gain. A Neutral character generally won't go out of his way to hurt people.

For example, Therkla was devoted to her master Daimyo Kubota and was in love with Elan. She wanted to serve Kubota faithfully and protect Elan's life. But she wasn't interested in some greater good and she would not betray her master to Lord Hinjo when given an opportunity to testify against Kubota. By Word of Giant Therkla was Neutral, as are Vaarsuvius, Gannji and Enor.

Vaarsuvius is loyal to family and friends, hostile to those wishing them harm and sought great magical power. Now V is racked with guilt for causing the deaths of an untold number of humans and Dragons. V's spouse divorced V to keep their children away from V's malign influence; V's melancholy response was to not contest the divorce to keep their family safe.

Gannji and Enor are bounty hunters. That is a violent profession, but they only pursue official bounties. They follow the rules to keep themselves out of trouble, but they acted violently to keep themselves from being bothered by Roy. Gannji's personal animus towards Roy aside, he is a businessman and there's no room for getting personal in his line of work. The sole exception is that Gannji will do anything to protect Enor, the Lenny to Gannji's George. Fortunately Gannji and Enor's story has had a happier ending than "Of Mice and Men".

Okay, but I'll have you note that (Neutral) V has been on board the "let's stick our necks out to try and rescue our team member" operation since the very first second...

The only PC for which I have no problem at all imagining that kind of behavior ("it's his problem, screw him, let's walk away, I'll finally be able to have a good night's rest now") is... Belkar.

I'll leave the conclusion to you. ;)

[theNater]

I asked specifically about a standard adventuring type of party, think meet in a tavern go off on adventures to the dungeons for treasure. Also, I talked about the activity of adventuring, not the way you go about it or organize yourself (which in this case is a lawful means of organization, I would say the average D&D party I was in was chaotically-arranged).

I think if a bunch of colorful characters with an odd collection of skilled gained by sulking about in an ecletic-mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wilderness came to my town just to spend like very wealthy drunken sailors before heading off to next locale of known danger I would be right to label the group as "chaotic" (all the more so if they brought trouble into town or decided on their own accord to get mixed up with some drama in town).

Of course, I don't think the act of adventuring changes a Lawful character's alignment, but I think plain-vanilla adventuring is certainly a chaotic-leaning activity.

The trick is that adventuring isn't an act, any more than governing or warfare is. Like those activities, it's a process, and can be approached from any point on the alignment grid. Why and how you do it is what determines how it is aligned.

I think part of the problem is what you classify as the typical adventuring party. There are adventuring parties out there which are finely-honed well-oiled dungeon-looting monster-slaying machines. If we assumed the typical army was a rampaging orcish horde, we'd surely conclude that warfare is inherently chaotic.

[SavageWombat]

Seems to me you're focusing on different aspects of the dividing line. From my D&D experience -

"I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't like" is probably neutral.

"I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't like that's here because of me, and is not in danger from his own actions" is probably over the edge into evil. Selfishness (at another's expense) is evil. In D&D at least.

As an additional note, "I'm not going to stick my neck out for a person who's signed an adventuring contract with me" is almost definitely chaotic.

[Reddish Mage]

Seems to me you're focusing on different aspects of the dividing line. From my D&D experience -

"I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't like" is probably neutral.

"I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't like that's here because of me, and is not in danger from his own actions" is probably over the edge into evil. Selfishness (at another's expense) is evil. In D&D at least.

As an additional note, "I'm not going to stick my neck out for a person who's signed an adventuring contract with me" is almost definitely chaotic.

Definitely Chaotic. The Angel did say he would have been thrown into the "True Neutral Bin" so we have story evidence to that degree and I'm not interested in arguing with the Giant on this point. I see the point about this being evil as well, though I see no evidence passive selfishness is evil and the PHB says evil implies (active verbs!) hurting and oppressing others.

The interesting thing is now, is why is this act non-lawful? I assume that Roy has a responsibility to his party members (whether or not it was written in their contract that Roy would do such) and responsibility is something Lawful people are big on.

Thus, I begin my nascent quest to accumulate story evidence that will force the Giant to agree his conception of Lawful in this story has not been merely obeying an arbitrary and potentially strange code of rules but following a collection of attributes (responsibility being one of them, being willing to impose your opinions on others is another) that go beyond any set of rules! To a broad conception of Social Contract and Collective Responsibility! Mwa Ha ha ha ha....*cough*

[Math_Mage]

I asked specifically about a standard adventuring type of party, think meet in a tavern go off on adventures to the dungeons for treasure. Also, I talked about the activity of adventuring, not the way you go about it or organize yourself (which in this case is a lawful means of organization, I would say the average D&D party I was in was chaotically-arranged).

I think if a bunch of colorful characters with an odd collection of skilled gained by sulking about in an ecletic-mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wilderness came to my town just to spend like very wealthy drunken sailors before heading off to next locale of known danger I would be right to label the group as "chaotic" (all the more so if they brought trouble into town or decided on their own accord to get mixed up with some drama in town).

Of course, I don't think the act of adventuring changes a Lawful character's alignment, but I think plain-vanilla adventuring is certainly a chaotic-leaning activity.

That's not plain vanilla, though. You've flavored it and then claimed the flavor is inherent to it.

Definitely Chaotic. The Angel did say he would have been thrown into the "True Neutral Bin" so we have story evidence to that degree and I'm not interested in arguing with the Giant on this point. I see the point about this being evil as well, though I see no evidence passive selfishness is evil and the PHB says evil implies (active verbs!) hurting and oppressing others.

The interesting thing is now, is why is this act non-lawful? I assume that Roy has a responsibility to his party members (whether or not it was written in their contract that Roy would do such) and responsibility is something Lawful people are big on.

Thus, I begin my nascent quest to accumulate story evidence that will force the Giant to agree his conception of Lawful in this story has not been merely obeying an arbitrary and potentially strange code of rules but following a collection of attributes (responsibility being one of them, being willing to impose your opinions on others is another) that go beyond any set of rules! To a broad conception of Social Contract and Collective Responsibility! Mwa Ha ha ha ha....*cough*

Roy was teetering on the edge of neutrality on the ethical axis already. He was otherwise solidly on the up-and-up, morally. Thus the Deva's statement does not reflect so much on the ethical axis as on the moral one.

But yes, it was a chaotic act--albeit weakly--for Roy. Lawfulness implies reliability and responsibility; chaos, the reverse. Abandoning his responsibility to his teammate out of personal dislike is thus chaotic.

And to return to the morality question, yes, abandoning a teammate to likely death for the sake of convenience is evil. It may be passive rather than active, but not all that is passive is neutral.

[Thokk_Smash]

Definitely Chaotic. The Angel did say he would have been thrown into the "True Neutral Bin" so we have story evidence to that degree and I'm not interested in arguing with the Giant on this point. I see the point about this being evil as well, though I see no evidence passive selfishness is evil and the PHB says evil implies (active verbs!) hurting and oppressing others.

The interesting thing is now, is why is this act non-lawful? I assume that Roy has a responsibility to his party members (whether or not it was written in their contract that Roy would do such) and responsibility is something Lawful people are big on.

Thus, I begin my nascent quest to accumulate story evidence that will force the Giant to agree his conception of Lawful in this story has not been merely obeying an arbitrary and potentially strange code of rules but following a collection of attributes (responsibility being one of them, being willing to impose your opinions on others is another) that go beyond any set of rules! To a broad conception of Social Contract and Collective Responsibility! Mwa Ha ha ha ha....*cough*

The bolded part is incorrect. She said he would be kicked over to the Neutral Good afterlife, not True Neutral.

[ti'esar]

The bolded part is incorrect. She said he would be kicked over to the Neutral Good afterlife, not True Neutral.

Wrong strip. The incident with Elan and the bandits is discussed in 488, where the deva says:

"I'll tell you, if you hadn't gone back, then whether he lived or died, I would be chucking your file into the True Neutral bin right now."

[allenw]

The True Neutral option is to leave the merchant in the woods, and report his location to the village's Rangers. True the merchant may be dead by the time the Rangers reach him (from his sickness or from the Werewolves' attack), but why should Fyodor stick his neck out for some foreigner? He's certainly not going to share his family's meagre food with that guy! It's possible that the merchant will be found by a Ranger and healed by the village healers. Rejoicing at surviving his near fatal encounter with the Vampire, the merchant showers gold on the Ranger and the Healer, but not Fyodor who didn't really do anything for him.

I prefer the Neutral Good(ish) option: Take the merchant home (at some personal risk), pay for his healing with his own gold, and possibly keep the rest for your troubles.

[Thokk_Smash]

Wrong strip. The incident with Elan and the bandits is discussed in 488, where the deva says:

"I'll tell you, if you hadn't gone back, then whether he lived or died, I would be chucking your file into the True Neutral bin right now."

Son of a bugger. My apologies, then.

[Reddish Mage]

The trick is that adventuring isn't an act, any more than governing or warfare is. Like those activities, it's a process, and can be approached from any point on the alignment grid. Why and how you do it is what determines how it is aligned.

I think part of the problem is what you classify as the typical adventuring party. There are adventuring parties out there which are finely-honed well-oiled dungeon-looting monster-slaying machines. If we assumed the typical army was a rampaging orcish horde, we'd surely conclude that warfare is inherently chaotic.

That's not plain vanilla, though. You've flavored it and then claimed the flavor is inherent to it.

I was under the impression that the sort of tavern-formed, dungeon-delving, motley-crew, that somehow makes up a well-balanced party despite consisting of a variety of alignments and personalities, was THE classic adventure party. I know at least one of my favorite D&D authors invokes it in forming his party

Anyway, um, yes. I think violence is inherently Chaotic, and an Evil activity at that. Without any justification or rational behind it what would you call an act of violence? What would you call engaging in violent acts intermittently in the absence of justification? I have to admit Warfare sounds a bit more lawful, still I'd say its chaotic in itself, I'd get some authors quote about chaos and the battlefield...but its late, so instead I will suggest asking your non-D&D playing friend whether War or violence is Chaotic. Indeed, I think violence-related activities are one of the clearest displays of "Chaos" out there.

I think you can put an alignment on a lot of activities similarly, even if they are generally found in the game on all sides. Many activities are inherently good (kindness for example), lawful, chaotic, or evil. By which I mean is that, absent context proving otherwise, such activities lend themselves to these characterizations. I don't mean to suggest that this should shift any characters alignment, however, merely that it is something to be aware of.

[Math_Mage]

I was under the impression that the sort of tavern-formed, dungeon-delving, motley-crew, that somehow makes up a well-balanced party despite consisting of a variety of alignments and personalities, was THE classic adventure party. I know at least one of my favorite D&D authors invokes it in forming his party

*shrug* If you want to define adventuring by the single snapshot of adventuring you carry around in your head and claim that's the only meaningful context in which to have this discussion, don't bother having a discussion. When you ask, "Is Adventuring a Chaotic activity?", you are not just asking about the snapshot in your head.

Anyway, um, yes. I think violence is inherently Chaotic, and an Evil activity at that.

Tell it to Malack and his long-term plan, which is both very Lawful and gruesomely violent. Also, those two claims are very different, and if you want to have both of those arguments, you'd do well to separate them.

I think you can put an alignment on a lot of activities similarly, even if they are generally found in the game on all sides. Many activities are inherently good (kindness for example), lawful, chaotic, or evil. By which I mean is that, absent context proving otherwise, such activities lend themselves to these characterizations. I don't mean to suggest that this should shift any characters alignment, however, merely that it is something to be aware of.

Define the alignment of vague generalities in a vacuum however you like, but be prepared to discard those definitions the second you enter an actual situation. Also, 'kindness' is not an activity.

[theNater]

Anyway, um, yes. I think violence is inherently Chaotic, and an Evil activity at that. Without any justification or rational behind it what would you call an act of violence?

I'd call it meaningless, literally. A volcanic eruption on an uninhabited planet is an incredibly violent event, but trying to assign alignment to it would be misguided. You'll also note that, by D&D rules, a tiger violently killing a gazelle is a neutral activity, specifically because the tiger is not able to rationalize its behavior. An act of violence only has any weight in the alignment system when it is performed by a being with a motivation.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Motivation to commit violence is aligned; the violence itself is not. Samurai, for example, are extremely Lawful, and violence is sort of their job.

[Reddish Mage]

*shrug* If you want to define adventuring by the single snapshot of adventuring you carry around in your head and claim that's the only meaningful context in which to have this discussion, don't bother having a discussion. When you ask, "Is Adventuring a Chaotic activity?", you are not just asking about the snapshot in your head.

Shall we use the adventuring parties in Lord of the Rings and their adventures as a model? Or how about the adventures in any dozen of your favorite movies? I think the case of the methodological and orderly party is an outlier, and even so, I don't think its really "adventuring" unless there's a significant element of "something is both very dangerous and demands spontaneous reactions."

Define the alignment of vague generalities in a vacuum however you like, but be prepared to discard those definitions the second you enter an actual situation. Also, 'kindness' is not an activity.

Got me there, kindness is a characterization, as is "chaotic." Actually, metaphysical forces behind "alignment" only act in a context, so my view can only be expressed in the alignment system in that the Lawful forces would generally view those with the label adventurer with suspicion (the way the Deva doesn't like what Roy is doing with Belkar even if Roy is justified) as would, say, local authorities.

[veti]

The Good option would be for Fyodor to bring the merchant back to his village and try to help him. But doing so entails making sacrifices, the first of which is outrunning the Werewolves that are roaming the forests. Once he returns home, Fyodor needs to contact the village healer, and ration his family's food even more so that he can feed the merchant till he is well. He also has to make sure that his family is not infected by the merchant's Filth Fever. Perhaps the merchant will reward Fyodor with gold if he recovers, but that's not Fyodor's motive; he's helping this man because it's the right thing to do.

I would seriously question Fyodor's 'goodness' if he's not expecting at least some reward for that action. Taking food out of the mouths of starving children to give to a rich stranger is not my idea of 'good'. The fact that the children concerned are your own - doesn't seem like much of a mitigation.

"The right thing to do"? If it was only Fyodor's own life he was risking, then sure. But he's also jeopardising his whole family, and that makes the moral equation much murkier.

[theNater]

Shall we use the adventuring parties in Lord of the Rings and their adventures as a model? Or how about the adventures in any dozen of your favorite movies? I think the case of the methodological and orderly party is an outlier, and even so, I don't think its really "adventuring" unless there's a significant element of "something is both very dangerous and demands spontaneous reactions."

The Enterprise crews in Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation seem to be adventurers by your definition. Colorful characters, eclectic skills, visiting an ecletic mix of disreputable places, warzones, and unsettled wildernesses, often being in danger, and having to adapt to changing situations. And yet they do it all Lawfully. Their travel is directed by a higher authority and often planned out weeks in advance. They have protocols for just about every situation, and maintain a clear chain of command. Even their spontaneous reactions usually take the form of developing and deploying a new plan, rather than just trying whatever comes to mind and seeing what shakes out.