PDA

View Full Version : LG or LN?



RndmNumGen
2010-07-22, 10:35 AM
Just something I've been wondering about for a while. Say a character had a strict code of honor they followed; they always kept their word, didn't lie to others(though withholding information was allowed), found the idea of betrayal or backstabbing horrid, etc. Such a character would obviously be Lawful.

This same character believes in doing what is best for others. They are kind and courteous, not because they want to improve their own standing, but because they feel that is how people should be treated. When they see someone in need of help, they assist them. When someone asks for their advice or assistance, they usually give it, even if they don't know the person.

However, while they help others if the opportunity comes up, they do not actively seek out opportunities to help others. They rarely donate to charity or volunteer. For example, if they see trash on the side of the road, they would pick it up and throw it away, but they don't walk along roads looking for trash to pick up.

Based on the 3.5 descriptions, LG characters have a commitment to do the right thing, the discipline to serve their cause relentlessly, etc. Almost as a never-ending fight to do good. This character might not be LG because they don't actively go out of their way to do Good, they only do Good when the opportunity arises.

LN characters are generally described as favoring Good over Evil, but they lack the conviction to truly do Good and generally only help friends and family, or strangers when it would benefit them directly. This character might not be LN because he helps strangers with no expectation of getting rewarded, and occasionally does go out of his way to volunteer or donate resources if he supports the cause, but doesn't do it too often.

What do the playgrounders think?

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 10:45 AM
I'd say LG.
Think about the other way round, do you think that every evil character is actively looking to do evil?

Or what about a retired LG adventurer? He spends most of his time alone in his house/base/castle/ivory flying tower that shoots bears, yet he would still be LG, right?

Serpentine
2010-07-22, 10:58 AM
Softly LG. Lawful Lawful Good, as the emphasis seems to be on upholding Law rather than spreading Good.

Azernak0
2010-07-22, 11:04 AM
Alignment is impossible to narrow down into 9 simple stamps because very, very few things fit so neatly into it; "you mean to tell me that there are no compassionate followers of Asmodeus?" For example, Lawful Neutral characters can simply follow a strict Code of Conduct and commit all kinds of atrocities. I once played a Monk in an Evil Campaign who was LN, but followed a Code that stated that "Loyalty and Order is more important than what is right." He had no qualms about killing the innocent, but he wouldn't hurt anyone that he promised not to. In this case, LN and LE are very close, and the same is true for LG and LN.

Whenever the groups I have played with wanted to actually keep track of alignment, we always included a "With X tendencies." Basically, a "Lawful Good Rogue with Chaotic tendencies" would be willing to welch on a deal or break the law if it was the greater good. Think of this like a police officer that follows the Rule of Law strictly, but every once in a while he won't arrest someone for committing an insignificant crime. The "Chaotic Neutral Rogue with Good tendencies" is willing to steal to feed himself, but he might donate to an orphanage because they like kids.

Fiery Diamond
2010-07-22, 11:06 AM
I'd go for LG as well.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 11:07 AM
LG, but you're making a few misconceptions:

"Lawful" does not require "strict personal code." Chaotics (particularly CG) are often depicted as having strict personal codes as well - in fact, "personal codes" aren't even considered on the L/C Axis

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Secondly, there is no requirement that LG be more "active" than LN - merely that Neutrals tend not to "make personal sacrifices to protect Innocents." Good certainly requires more action than Neutral, but not to the extent of requiring Good to be proactive and Neutrals to be reactive.

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
. . .
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Telonius
2010-07-22, 11:09 AM
I'd say LG as well. Going far above and beyond the call of duty is for Exalted Deeds characters. The character you're describing wouldn't qualify for that, but I'd say would qualify as Lawful Good.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 11:13 AM
Alignment is impossible to narrow down into 9 simple stamps because very, very few things fit so neatly into it; "you mean to tell me that there are no compassionate followers of Asmodeus?" For example, Lawful Neutral characters can simply follow a strict Code of Conduct and commit all kinds of atrocities. I once played a Monk in an Evil Campaign who was LN, but followed a Code that stated that "Loyalty and Order is more important than what is right." He had no qualms about killing the innocent, but he wouldn't hurt anyone that he promised not to. In this case, LN and LE are very close, and the same is true for LG and LN.

I'd say that if he had no problems killing inocent people then he was, most likely, lawful evil. The good-evil axis is all about how lowyou are willing to go. Actually, I would say that his particualr code is pretty much the embodiment of LE.
Also, why would a compassionate guy follow Asmodeus?


Whenever the groups I have played with wanted to actually keep track of alignment, we always included a "With X tendencies." Basically, a "Lawful Good Rogue with Chaotic tendencies" would be willing to welch on a deal or break the law if it was the greater good. Think of this like a police officer that follows the Rule of Law strictly, but every once in a while he won't arrest someone for committing an insignificant crime. The "Chaotic Neutral Rogue with Good tendencies" is willing to steal to feed himself, but he might donate to an orphanage because they like kids.

Stealing is a chaotic act, it does not involve being good or evil. Stealing food to survive is a neutral act, stealing food for orphans? A good act. He is risking his neck for those poor kids, without further evidence, I would say that the guy is CG.

Psyx
2010-07-22, 11:39 AM
Lawful Neutral, with good tendencies. Or LN(g), in old money.


Certainly not good enough to be Good. They're just being a decent, productive member of society. That's not 'good' in itself.

Blue Ghost
2010-07-22, 11:53 AM
This guy sounds a lot like me in real life...
I would say whether they're Neutral or Good depends on how far they're willing to go out of their way or to sacrifice for the sake of doing good. Not necessarily actively seeking people to aid, but if an opportunity to do good comes up, but will require a good deal of personal sacrifice, would they do good at the cost of their own comfort?

MrGoodCat
2010-07-22, 12:28 PM
The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

I would say LG because he doesn't have to pick up the trash. It is a very small personal sacrifice but he is sacrificing his time and energy to something that he has no obligation to.

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 12:33 PM
If you take the view that Neutral is not 90%-odd of the population- but more like 1/3

(consistant with the fact that "Usually Neutral (any)" would be an "alignment tendency" and "humans tend toward no alignment")

then- would this guy fall into the roughly 1/3 of humanity that is Good by this interpretation?

I think he would.

Of course, if you ignore that PHB line, and have most of humanity be Neutral despite the fact that humans are not supposed to tend toward any alignment, then he might not qualify as Good.


The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

This. Savage Species makes a big thing out of how Evil characters can be very kind, loyal, loving, etc to members of their "group" and rationalize atrocities to those outside it.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 12:37 PM
The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

I would say LG because he doesn't have to pick up the trash. It is a very small personal sacrifice but he is sacrificing his time and energy to something that he has no obligation to.

Funny, I always read alignment like this.

Mando Knight
2010-07-22, 12:42 PM
He's like right on the edge of LG/LN, probably. Scribble one down, and play with that. If you need him to take Paladin levels, get him to act a little nicer and write down LG.

Person_Man
2010-07-22, 12:44 PM
However, while they help others if the opportunity comes up, they do not actively seek out opportunities to help others. They rarely donate to charity or volunteer. For example, if they see trash on the side of the road, they would pick it up and throw it away, but they don't walk along roads looking for trash to pick up.

On the issue of charity, I would note that many religions have mandatory tithes, and that many people donate money in order to further their pet political issues and/or to get positive PR and/or to feel good about themselves. Charity is not primarily a function altruism, it's a function of self interest. (I used to be a fundraiser for a non-profit).

But I get your general point: Is Good a verb (something you do) or a noun (something you are)?

My 2 cp is that it depends on the gods (ie, the DM) in your campaign world. Good is not a scientifically measurable phenomenon. It's a belief.

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 12:47 PM
But I get your general point: Is Good a verb (something you do) or a noun (something you are)?

It's probably a bit of both. A newborn metallic dragon is Good despite not yet having done a good act. So here, it's Good by personality.

And a Good person confronted with people in need- who passes up the opportunity to do good acts, will probably eventually cease to be Good- so here, it's Good by deed.

hamlet
2010-07-22, 12:52 PM
Character is Lawful Good, but tetering on Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral. Not good enough to be a Paladin, but generally an upstanding and good member of the community.

As was pointed out, having a strict moral code is not really neccessarily lawful. Lawful is more about respect for order imposed by society. For instance, the belief that the best general good can be had by a system of strong and well made laws imposed evenly upon the populace even if it might be somewhat inequitable in some ways. The good of the many outway the need of the few.

The alignments are poorly written in all versions of D&D, actually. Best version of them is, sadly, over on TVTropes.

Yora
2010-07-22, 12:54 PM
Funny, I always read alignment like this.
Because every other interpretation just doesn't make sense when you still want to call characters "good" or "evil".
Anything else means that there are exactly 9 types of people, which are all completely the same within their group.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 01:00 PM
Because every other interpretation just doesn't make sense when you still want to call characters "good" or "evil".
Anything else means that there are exactly 9 types of people, which are all completely the same within their group.
It also violates the RAW :smallbiggrin:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
I sometimes wonder if anyone actually bothers to read the Alignment chapter :smalltongue:

Caliphbubba
2010-07-22, 01:16 PM
Either.

without some instance that would high light the difference between LG and LN it'd be very hard to tell the difference.

As an example: A city in which it is perfectly lawful for you to beat your spouse. A LN would likely not show undo concern about witnessing such an event. While a LG person likely would.

It throws the difference into contrast.

Theodoxus
2010-07-22, 04:01 PM
The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

That's always been my issue with the Paladin of Tyranny... one good deed, like loving a wife, and he falls. Lame.

To the OP, I see it as LG (n). Kinda like the Gray Guard...

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:03 PM
That's always been my issue with the Paladin of Tyranny... one good deed, like loving a wife, and he falls. Lame.

No source explicitly states "loving someone" is a Good act.

Savage Species does mention that evil characters can love (child, spouse, sibling, friend)- and still be no less Evil.

Yora
2010-07-22, 04:10 PM
It also violates the RAW :smallbiggrin:
The RAAAAW!!!! :smallyuk:

I belong to the line of thought that RAW can not claim to be playable but only serves as a basis for dms to make good judgement calls. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:13 PM
The RAAAAW!!!! :smallyuk:

Maybe in a less RAW game, the RAW could manifest as an Inevitable for the PCs to fight?

"I am. The RAW! Drop. Your Weapons!" :smallbiggrin:

Theodoxus
2010-07-22, 04:14 PM
No source explicitly states "loving someone" is a Good act.

Savage Species does mention that evil characters can love (child, spouse, sibling, friend)- and still be no less Evil.

No less Evil is not the same as 'Can not ever do a good act, ever. Ever.'

I don't know what your definition of love is; I suppose going around beating your wife and having her wait on you hand and foot could be construed as love, but I don't. Selflessly making a meal at 2 in the morning because she's got the munchies and you've been out slaughtering Clerics of Lothander and are bone dead tired... Fall.

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't an evil character who occasionally does Good acts, be slightly less evil than an almost identical one, who doesn't, hence breaking the "not any less evil" bit?

Making an outright sacrifice for another (without thought of personal gain) is a Good act- but simply treating someone they love well, might not cause a Paladin of Tyranny to Fall.


Selflessly making a meal at 2 in the morning because she's got the munchies and you've been out slaughtering Clerics of Lothander and are bone dead tired... Fall.

This might qualify as such a sacrifice, depending on the DM. But if they do nice things for the loved one because they believe they will benefit (by ensuring that the loved one will stay loyal, and not get temperamental and touchy) it may be closer to Neutral.

Hmm- might be interesting in an Evil campaign to play a "nice to loved ones" Paladin of tyranny, who's constantly justifying his nice acts in selfish terms.

If they're always nice when not doing evil (but Nice is not Good) they'd be a bit like the Auntie Paladins in Munchkin.

Theodoxus
2010-07-22, 04:21 PM
Ok, that would be epic. +1

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 04:21 PM
The RAAAAW!!!! :smallyuk:

I belong to the line of thought that RAW can not claim to be playable but only serves as a basis for dms to make good judgement calls. :smallwink:
Even when the RAW states what your RAI-senses tell you? :smalltongue:

I like Hamishspence's Inevitable; particularly as they must have been a Gygaxian invention for forcing the PCs to toe the line :smallbiggrin:

Also: are people really arguing that a character who fails to find litter to pick up must be Neutral :smallconfused:

I mean, I've already said my piece, but there are a lot more people crying "Neutral" than I would have expected. Even on the Internet :smalleek:

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:25 PM
Also: are people really arguing that a character who fails to find litter to pick up must be Neutral :smallconfused:

I mean, I've already said my piece, but there are a lot more people crying "Neutral" than I would have expected. Even on the Internet :smalleek:

If a character who's all-around nice, but doesn't really do big Good acts- just little ones can be Good,

Then maybe a character who's all-around nasty, but doesn't really do big Evil acts, only little ones, can be Evil?

If Neutral means most of the population, maybe this guy is neutral- but if you think, as I do, that Neutral is more like a third of the population, then it's much easier to call this "ordinary decent guy" Good.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 04:28 PM
If a character who's all-around nice, but doesn't really do big Good acts- just little ones can be Good,

Then maybe a character who's all-around nasty, but doesn't really do big Evil acts, only little ones, can be Evil?
That's flipped.

Jerks can be of any Alignment; so can nice guys.

However, if you ain't protecting Innocents (or willing to make sacrifices to do so) then you ain't Good. Likewise, if you ain't debasing or destroying Innocent life (and ain't willing to do so when covenient) you ain't Evil.

So no, a Paladin that spends all day protecting babies from Rape Demons doesn't Fall because he neglected to go on trash patrol that evening.

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:33 PM
So far, we haven't seen anything suggesting this guy is "protecting innocents, or willing to make sacrifices to do so" in the OPs post:


This same character believes in doing what is best for others. They are kind and courteous, not because they want to improve their own standing, but because they feel that is how people should be treated. When they see someone in need of help, they assist them. When someone asks for their advice or assistance, they usually give it, even if they don't know the person.

However, while they help others if the opportunity comes up, they do not actively seek out opportunities to help others.

What we have seen, is comments about how the guy "helps people when he sees them in need of help"

So- based on the limited information- Neutral or Good?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 04:43 PM
A fair point. Me, I read the quote with this emphasis

This same character believes in doing what is best for others. They are kind and courteous, not because they want to improve their own standing, but because they feel that is how people should be treated. When they see someone in need of help, they assist them. When someone asks for their advice or assistance, they usually give it, even if they don't know the person.
Usually, this signifies someone who is willing to make sacrifices to help others. Importantly, this is done with strangers as well - Neutral people are committed by personal relationships, and therefore do not make sacrifices to help random strangers.

We don't know if he would make sacrifies to protect Innocents, to be sure, but there are indiciations that he would do so - and nothing to suggest otherwise. Therefore, I place him as solidly Good.

Now, if he would, say, refuse to get his clothes wet to save a drowning child, he's Neutral. But short of that, I see little to suggest he would be Neutral; as I said, there is nothing in the Alignment system that says Good characters must be proactive and Neutral characters must be reactive.

hamishspence
2010-07-22, 04:55 PM
Now, if he would, say, refuse to get his clothes wet to save a drowning child, he's Neutral. But short of that, I see little to suggest he would be Neutral; as I said, there is nothing in the Alignment system that says Good characters must be proactive and Neutral characters must be reactive.

I remember seeing (possibly in a Richard Dawkins book?) a reference to a quiz which, when done, said only 3% of people would be unwilling to save a drowning child, if they knew the consequence would be getting their clothes wet.

So, might that level of lack of concern for the lives of others, be closer to Evil than Neutral?

Of course, what people say on quizzes, isn't always the truth.

Still, "I might get my clothes wet!" in response to "A child is drowning!" does sound like a mildly Evil thing for a character to say.

Can "death by misfortune" be considered "Evil happening" but evil being cause by Fate, rather than some individual?

And if so, does Cheesegear's sig apply to that kind of situation?:


Standing by, while evil happens, is not Neutral. It's Evil.

I don't know- but in a situation where saving someone would not require any serious sacrifice (wet clothes?) it might be.

Of course, not everyone will agree that "letting bad things happen when you can stop them at no real cost to you" is evil.

Still, it sounds like one of the Seven Deadly Sins- Sloth.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 05:43 PM
I agree with Oracle here, good, neutral, evil, that´s you general outlook on life.
This fellow seems like a reactive good character, meanwhile, most good adventurers and specially paladins have a proactive attitude.

:smallconfused:
:smalleek:
Oh god... I just added a new variant into the alignment system...

RndmNumGen
2010-07-22, 05:50 PM
After reading through the thread, this post seems to have struck an important point:



I would say whether they're Neutral or Good depends on how far they're willing to go out of their way or to sacrifice for the sake of doing good. Not necessarily actively seeking people to aid, but if an opportunity to do good comes up, but will require a good deal of personal sacrifice, would they do good at the cost of their own comfort?

So lets say my character witnessed a crime the day before he was going to go on a vacation. He knows that the accused is innocent, as he saw the true culprit commit the crime then run away, while the accused was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He probably wouldn't do something such as plead guilty to get the accused off the hook, but he would cancel his vacation to stay for the trial and testify on behalf of the accused.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 06:42 PM
I agree with Oracle here, good, neutral, evil, that´s you general outlook on life.
This fellow seems like a reactive good character, meanwhile, most good adventurers and specially paladins have a proactive attitude.

:smallconfused:
:smalleek:
Oh god... I just added a new variant into the alignment system...
Amusingly, I came up with that new dimension when trying to explain to someone that adding meaningless gradations to the Nine Alignment System did not make for a more intricate Alignment System. Y'see, adding an Active/Passive Axis does measure something new.

@Hamishspense: please read Neutral again

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Your answer is in the RAW - not saving drowning people is Neutral under the Nine Alignment System.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 06:46 PM
Amusingly, I came up with that new dimension when trying to explain to someone that adding meaningless gradations to the Nine Alignment System did not make for a more intricate Alignment System. Y'see, adding an Active/Passive Axis does measure something new.

@Hamishspense: please read Neutral again

Your answer is in the RAW - not saving drowning people is Neutral under the Nine Alignment System.

Adding that new dimension might make it easier and even less complicated. I might start using it at my table.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-22, 07:22 PM
Adding that new dimension might make it easier and even less complicated. I might start using it at my table.
Technically, adding more constraints to character action makes things more complicated in regard to adjudicating Alignment actions. Without the A/P Axis, characters are free to be as Active or Passive as they feel; otherwise they will be constrained to act within the base constrains of the Axis in the same way that Good characters can't go about killing Innocents and remain Good.

Coplantor
2010-07-22, 07:26 PM
Technically, adding more constraints to character action makes things more complicated in regard to adjudicating Alignment actions. Without the A/P Axis, characters are free to be as Active or Passive as they feel; otherwise they will be constrained to act within the base constrains of the Axis in the same way that Good characters can't go about killing Innocents and remain Good.

I didnt meant to add is as having people write down ANG on their char sheets, but as a way to explain what some people might call "good/evil lite"

hamishspence
2010-07-23, 02:54 AM
Your answer is in the RAW - not saving drowning people is Neutral under the Nine Alignment System.

Neutral people generally (though there are exceptions) lack the committment to make sacrifices to help others.

That doesn't mean, that standing by and letting people die is Neutral.

In fact, BoVD gives an example where standing by and letting people die is "far more evil" than preventing it happen.

I see the RAW on alignment in the PHB as general guidelines. And that the statements are generally not exclusive. "Evil debases and destroys the innocent"- what about the torturer who debases and destroys the guilty, but would not contemplate harming the innocent?

The classic example, is when prison guards conclude that because the people they are guarding are Not Innocent + Deserve It- it's OK to torture, debase, abuse them.

I won't cite any real-world examples of this- but my view is that sufficient Evil acts done to "The Evil" and "The Not Innocent" will eventually lead to an evil alignment in D&D terms- even if the character would never harm The Innocent.

The later books, which make it clear that an evil act against an evil victim, is still evil, and if you do them enough, you change to an Evil alignment, make far more sense to me.

Treating Evil and Neutral as being much more flexible than the PHB implies-

for example there are Neutral people who do have the commitment to make sacrifices for others- but do Evil acts as well- and are Neutral because they haven't done evil enough to slip into Evil alignment- such as a heroic dread necromancer from Heroes of Horror.

to me, makes more sense than treating the PHB guidelines as leading to a set of absolutely binding rules like:

"No neutral person has the commitment to make sacrifices for strangers"
"Standing by while people die when you could save them at little or no cost to yourself, is Neutral, not evil"
"No evil person is unwilling to debase or destroy the innocent"

However, that may be just me. Some people don't like Champions of Ruin, BoVD, Heroes of Horror, etc- but I think they often make more sense than the PHB.

To sum up, my view is- that while Neutral people don't make sacrifices for strangers, they do help strangers in distress- but they charge for their help. It doesn't have to be an immediate repayment- it can simply be "You owe me one favour- to be reclaimed at a later date".

This is consistant with the Easydamus Character alignment description of Neutral as typically associated with Equitism- when helping others, minimise sacrifice, and when helping themselves- minimise harming others.


It is a philosophy of pure equitistic consequentialism. This philosophy holds that people should pursue a rational self-interest while balancing the needs of the state or social order with the freedom of individuals to pursue their own agenda. True neutral can also be associated with ethical equitism and skepticism. As the philosophical "average" of altruism and egoism, equitism holds that harm to others should be minimized when advancing the self and that harm to the self should be minimized when advancing others.

Though this may be more for TN than LN or CN.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-23, 09:18 AM
To sum up, my view is- that while Neutral people don't make sacrifices for strangers, they do help strangers in distress- but they charge for their help. It doesn't have to be an immediate repayment- it can simply be "You owe me one favour- to be reclaimed at a later date".
My Response
(1) Where does it say anything like this in the SRD? I know I say this to you a lot, but really, anywhere? Here's the whole "Good vs. Evil" section for reference:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"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. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

(2) Charging for their help? Aside from the inherent nature of strangers (i.e. people you don't know, let alone where they live), what sort of aid could a child give? I'm not saying a Neutral guy would never save the life of a child, but arguing that he'd look for some sort of ex post price strikes me as a bit mad.

(3) Why the distinction between "strangers in need" and "strangers in distress?" Surely no stranger asks for help unless he needs it. This is just another version of the "Good people do not torture. Except for CG, and then only a little" - an attempt to place subjective morality within an objective system by using mushy language.
Pretty much what I've said before, but tl;dr - I don't see any support for this in the SRD & the Alignment Splatbooks continue to give suspect and incoherent interpretations of the Nine Alignments System.

Telonius
2010-07-23, 09:42 AM
A specific decision doesn't necessarily define things, either. In the case of a drowning child...

LG: I must save the child, my god wants me to and I must protect the weak.
NG: Of course I'll save him, wouldn't anybody?
CG: No reason not to, of course I'll save him!
LN: I'll save him so he can serve as an example to others - that "no swimming" sign is there for a reason. Besides, to do nothing would bring shame on me.
N: .... (Okay, not sure how that one would work.)
CN: Hey, I bet if I save him, those girls will be really impressed.
LE: Hmm, if I save him, he and his family will owe his life to me. I can work with that.
NE: Dammit, if that stupid kid drowns they'll probably close down the beach. All right, let me get him.
CE: Heehee, what a great way to get a kid afraid of the water! He won't drown now, but I'll get to torment him for years afterwards about it, whenever I want!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-23, 10:08 AM
A specific decision doesn't necessarily define things, either.
A fine example of various Alignments making various justifications for a single course of action. Of course, most assumes ancilliary details that cause the individual to act against their "natural" course of action.

The reason I used a drowning child is because it's one of those easy-to-understand situations:
A character is walking by a pond, alone, and sees a drowing child. He's not near a town and has no idea who the child is - but rescuing the child should be easy, though not without some amount of risk and certain (albeit small) sacrifice on their part. The character has a valuable, but not essential, appointment to keep in the next town; if late, the character may miss out on the opportunity.

Good characters pretty much have to rescue the child. An Innocent is in danger, and the character can save him! Letting him die is a Not-Good Action.

Neutral characters probably won't rescue the strange child - they don't know the child, nobody they know is around, and if they rescue the child they're going to have to sacrifice something. LN or CN characters might do so because of idiosyncratic codes (LN because of a "good samaritan" law; CN because they enjoy the sense of danger or somesuch) but their Neutral stance on G/E is not going to provide that motivation.

Evil characters probably aren't going to rescue the child unless they need a live child for their own needs. Many will probably sit and watch the child drown - enjoying the suffering of Innocents is a classic Evil activity.

Theodoriph
2010-07-23, 10:23 AM
Let's put it this way.

The LG Gods:

1. Created a race of inferior slaves to fight a war they were tired of fighting.
2. They made this race intelligent, which resulted in that race knowing just how ****** they were and sliding into corruption.
3. Tried to throw out that race of inferior slaves from Celestia for no better reason than they had become ugly and were afraid of them. Hurrah for prejudice.
4. Agreed that humans who disobeyed their commands should be punished. They essentially imposed their will upon humanity and mandated that those who didn't like them would suffer.
5. Tried to throw out that race of inferior slaves from Celestia because they didn't want to hear the screams of the people they wanted punished.
6. Consigned humanity's souls over to devils because they were too lazy to read the contract and didn't want to fight their own battles. They chose to sacrifice humanity over their own lives.

The CG Gods continue to:
7. Uphold the contract despite their chaotic nature.

If they're good....your character is good. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-07-23, 10:27 AM
BoED actually gives "what can you pay" as a typical response of the more mercenary kind of Neutral or Evil character to requests for help.

So, if both Neutral and Evil characters will "help people if they think they can profit by it" it does make sense to think of Neutral characters as "willing to risk their lives for strangers- but only for personal gain"

Enjoying the sufferings of enemies is a classic Evil activity- but it's not a given, that most evil characters will enjoy the sufferings of Innocents merely because they are innocents.

"Realistic" evil characters aren't Card Carrying Villains- they vary a great deal.

Thats why I prefer the splatbooks- because, incoherent as they can sometimes be, they make evil characters much more realistic. They aren't all either compassionless, or sadistic, as this statement:

"Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

would imply if it was assumed to cover all evil characters.


Let's put it this way.

The LG Gods:

1. Created a race of inferior slaves to fight a war they were tired of fighting.
2. They made this race intelligent, which resulted in that race knowing just how ****** they were and sliding into corruption.
3. Tried to throw out that race of inferior slaves from Celestia for no better reason than they had become ugly and were afraid of them. Hurrah for prejudice.
4. Agreed that humans who disobeyed their commands should be punished. They essentially imposed their will upon humanity and mandated that those who didn't like them would suffer.
5. Tried to throw out that race of inferior slaves from Celestia because they didn't want to hear the screams of the people they wanted punished.
6. Consigned humanity's souls over to devils because they were too lazy to read the contract and didn't want to fight their own battles. They chose to sacrifice humanity over their own lives.

The CG Gods continue to:
7. Uphold the contract despite their chaotic nature.

If they're good....your character is good. :smalltongue:

Alternatively- the Pact Primeval story is massively propaganda-istic- it's the devils' side of the story, and not 100% reliable.

Theodoriph
2010-07-23, 10:34 AM
Alternatively- the Pact Primeval story is massively propaganda-istic- it's the devils' side of the story, and not 100% reliable.


Part of it is confirmed by excerpts from the book about demons. And it pretty much is the only real story out there for creation that makes an ounce of sense. Actuall you can argue it's all true simply based on a knowledge of how the world works. And you'd think given people's close communion with Gods, if there were a story that explained everything and made the gods look much, much better, it'd be out there.

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-24, 01:42 AM
That creation myth doesn't even seem to account for Chaotic Good deities and celestials at all. Given that these entities exist, it seems like there are at least a few missing details, if nothing else.


do you think that every evil character is actively looking to do evil?
An Evil-aligned individual is on the lookout for opportunities to exploit other sentient beings. Well, the relatively nice ones are. The rest are worse.

But it depends on what you mean. Is "actively looking" being on the alert for opportunities, or is it seeking out? That seems to be the relevant distinction here.


"Lawful" does not require "strict personal code." Chaotics (particularly CG) are often depicted as having strict personal codes as well - in fact, "personal codes" aren't even considered on the L/C Axis
Well, there is the bit that says "A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments) And that bit that you quoted for Lawful characters sounds a lot more like a strict personal code than the following bit for Chaotic characters. Also, a strict personal code could be seen as at odds with "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility".

I find the distinction between Chaotic and non-Chaotic characters to be far less clear than the distinction between Lawful and non-Lawful characters, but it seems to be that Chaotic characters resist being controlled. Extending this to self-control is perhaps understandable and probably where a lot of stereotypes about Chaotic characters come from. But the notion that "true liberty" means blindly following one's whims seems as dubious as the notion that it means blindly following a rigid set of principles. It's also unclear how such whimsicality is different from being driven entirely by instinct -- and isn't that why animals are Neutral?

Perhaps Chaos, then, is distinguished by refusal to blindly follow anything. In which case a Chaotic character could certainly have principles, but would be willing to question them and to change them. That sounds about right.


Secondly, there is no requirement that LG be more "active" than LN - merely that Neutrals tend not to "make personal sacrifices to protect Innocents." Good certainly requires more action than Neutral, but not to the extent of requiring Good to be proactive
How do you interpret "commitment" in this context, then? The crux of the issue seems to be that the character lacks a commitment to helping others. He has a tendency, but I wouldn't call the tendency so strong as to qualify as a commitment.


Also, why would a compassionate guy follow Asmodeus?
Well, I hear that he has a fairly hardline anti-demon policy. And that the demons want to tear apart the multiverse and pee on the shreds.

And if he's opposed to something really bad, that means that he must be really good, right? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever)


Is Good a verb (something you do) or a noun (something you are)?
"A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos). I don't think that the alignment section of the PHB even puts forth the notion that individual acts can be aligned; that's implied elsewhere, like in the Paladin class description. We aren't told (that I know of) what it's supposed to mean for an act to have an alignment, but we are told that a Paladin falls for willfully committing an Evil act. A bit problematic, that.


And a Good person confronted with people in need- who passes up the opportunity to do good acts, will probably eventually cease to be Good- so here, it's Good by deed.
A Good person unwilling to help others is a contradiction in terms. A person might become less Good and help others less over time, but it's the change in alignment that causes the change in behavior, not vice versa. (Well, not necessarily. One's behavior can wind up influencing one's attitudes, too, in a more roundabout sort of way.)


This might qualify as such a sacrifice, depending on the DM. But if they do nice things for the loved one because they believe they will benefit (by ensuring that the loved one will stay loyal, and not get temperamental and touchy) it may be closer to Neutral.
A sacrifice is giving up something you'd rather not give up in order to achieve something that you want to achieve. In the case of a benevolent sacrifice, you want to achieve something good for someone else. Possibly, this is to achieve some benefit for yourself in turn; no reason Good characters can't be driven by enlightened self-interest.

Granted, we might in theory distinguish between deeds done for their own sake and deeds done as means to ends. In practice, however, I would expect that such an analysis -- if it involved enough participants, at any rate -- would inevitably end in a psychoanalytical wankfest about what a person's ZOMG TRUE ULTIMATE MOTIVATIONS!!! really are, with participants shouting unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable, but nevertheless "intuitively obvious" claims at each other.


Hmm- might be interesting in an Evil campaign to play a "nice to loved ones" Paladin of tyranny, who's constantly justifying his nice acts in selfish terms.
It's actually been a pretty long while since I've read Sluggy Freelance, so I dunno how true this is now, but Bun-Bun almost always seemed to have rather convenient selfish, petty reasons for helping his friends acquaintances when they really needed help. To the extent that he was hiding his genuine motives, I suspect that he was mostly hiding them from himself.

... You see what I mean about dubious psychological theories? :smalltongue:


So, might that level of lack of concern for the lives of others, be closer to Evil than Neutral?
It's both Neutral and indicative of Evil alignment. And no, that's not a contradiction. You see, someone who is unwilling to help others in a way that most people are is also far more likely to be willing to hurt others in ways that most people are not. But a normal Good tendency is not itself Neutral for being normal, nor is the lack of that tendency Evil.

Someone unwilling to help others in any way could be Neutral, were he also unwilling to harm others in any way. Indeed, that would be pure, dedicated Neutrality. Now, you're unlikely to find a human being like that, but D&D campaign worlds are inhabited by creatures that are far from human. And in any event, it's a convenient baseline to contrast to. Certainly conceptually simpler than "the average person".

Directly defining non-Neutral alignments in contrast to the average person means that creatures are only "Good", "Evil", "Lawful", or "Chaotic" relative to a given population. It also means that a model of an average person is required in order to adjudicate alignment. This has never struck me as anything but needlessly convoluted. And frankly, it would be nice to be able to discuss e.g. whether Good or Evil is more prominent in the world without the answer being "There are equal amounts of both. By definitional fiat. HA!" :smallsigh:

Not saving a life is not an Evil act because it isn't an act. That the lack of an act may also be referred to using a verb should not be used to engage in verbal trickery. "Nothing is better than God. A cheeseburger is better than nothing. Therefore, a cheeseburger is better than God." Cute, but quite reliant on equivocation.


Can "death by misfortune" be considered "Evil happening" but evil being cause by Fate, rather than some individual?
Well, for Fate's actions to be Evil, Fate must be a moral agent. It could conceivably be a moral agent without being an "individual", I suppose.


This is consistant with the Easydamus Character alignment description of Neutral as typically associated with Equitism- when helping others, minimise sacrifice, and when helping themselves- minimise harming others.
I'm not sure how to interpret that. :smallconfused: Minimizing sacrifice, as an unqualified absolute, means avoiding any sacrifice at all whenever possible; likewise, minimizing harm to others means refraining from inflicting it. On the other hand, seeking to minimize total harm is negative utilitarianism, which I'm hardly ready to write off as Neutral. It seems way too benevolent for that. Sure, it may mandate instantaneously destroying all of existence should you ever be in the position to do that, but, see, you'd be destroying it out of compassion. :smallcool:

Googling "Equitism" got me this (http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Equitism-entry.htm). Um...


N: .... (Okay, not sure how that one would work.)
It is possible that one day I will be drowning and that a potential rescuer will be present. And while a sample size of one is by no means well-representative of the general population, my potential rescuer is nevertheless slightly more likely to choose similarly to me than differently. Therefore, I should save the child in order to increase my own probability of rescue.

(This is assuming that the Neutral individual in question is the sort to take the "I'd rather have a million dollars than a thousand, kthx" approach to Newcomb's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox), understands anthropic and probabilistic reasoning, and so on.)

Lord Raziere
2010-07-24, 01:48 AM
I sometimes wonder if anyone actually bothers to read the Alignment chapter :smalltongue:

heh, in my experience people don't even use alignment, they just fill out the rest of the character sheet, assume they are heroes and roleplay.

Serpentine
2010-07-24, 02:31 AM
Amusingly, I came up with that new dimension when trying to explain to someone that adding meaningless gradations to the Nine Alignment System did not make for a more intricate Alignment System. Y'see, adding an Active/Passive Axis does measure something new.Is that my thingy, that didn't really go very far?

Anyways, I still think Lawful Lawful Good*, a character that is Good but for whom Law is more important and a more defining part of their personality.


*If you imagine the alignment grid as, instead, a compass:
http://www.writerspatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/compass_rose.png
in which North = Lawful, South = Chaotic, East = Good and West = Evil, this character would be around the NNE (aka LLG) point. Contrarywise, most people seem to be basically arguing either North East or North.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-24, 02:49 AM
Is that my thingy, that didn't really go very far?

Anyways, I still think Lawful Lawful Good*, a character that is Good but for whom Law is more important and a more defining part of their personality.


*If you imagine the alignment grid as, instead, a compass:
http://www.writerspatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/compass_rose.png
in which North = Lawful, South = Chaotic, East = Good and West = Evil, this character would be around the NNE (aka LLG) point. Contrarywise, most people seem to be basically arguing either North East or North.
This is the Great Ring (Note: Huge Image) (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/182/0/8/The_Planescape_Multiverse_by_zen79.jpg), and has always been a favored way of mine to refer to alignments when you want a little more detail of the steps 'between', define which plane your character would end up on if deities and anything else were out of the picture.

In this case, I would say this guy would end up on Arcadia, which is between Lawful Neutral Mechanus, and Lawful Good Celestia. In the Planescape Campaign Setting (2nd Edition) each of these planes is given a three-part alignment, and Arcadia's is Lawful Neutral Good.

However, I don't feel going to this extent is necessary most of the time. It can be useful when measuring whether someone is more committed to one axis of their alignment than the other, but it might add an unnecessary complication. Still, since we do already have the Great Ring, it's easy enough to just use the planes and alignments interchangeably in this sort of description.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-24, 11:38 AM
Well, there is the bit that says "A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments) And that bit that you quoted for Lawful characters sounds a lot more like a strict personal code than the following bit for Chaotic characters. Also, a strict personal code could be seen as at odds with "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility".
Consider that in its full context:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

and then in relation with CG


A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
The "personal code" is just an example of something that LN can follow. More importantly "order and organization are paramount to her;" so it's important that she follow her life by some code, whether she makes it or someone else does. The proof that "personal code" is not strictly Lawful lies in the emphasis in CG on a Chaotic Good's devotion to their personal moral compass. Said compass need not spin randomly - it can have points defined by a personal moral code. The main difference is CG codes made irrespective of "society's" beliefs regarding what-is-best-in-life - CGs are individualists first and foremost. LN characters always get their personal codes from some external authority.

Regarding Active/Passive: while it is clear that Good requires action that Neutral does not (i.e. protecting Innocents) it is still not at all clear that being Good requires you to go out and find "things to do" or that being Neutral means staying at home. You can still be Good if you're tending a monastery on top of a mountain, blissfully unaware of the Evils outside; likewise a Neutral character that gets off the couch does not lose his Neutrality. There's just no support in the text to draw such a conclusion.

Ormur
2010-07-24, 08:42 PM
Using the drowning baby example to determine alignments in my view falls in the trap of defining people by their alignments by saying that neutral people would do this, evil that and good something else.

Acerack the bloody, chief architect of the gnome holocaust (from behind a desk) might very well rescue a human baby from drowning despite being horrifically evil, heck he might even save a gnome child (only to approve of the death list it's on later) because that's just what you do.Sigh, the hoops I jump through to avoid Godwin's law.

Also I don't really think there are many specific ethically neutral actions. If an action is neutral it's mostly because it's devoid of an ethical quality, like buttering your toast (unless it's with the blood of orphans or something).

Not saving a drowning baby because of a minor inconvenience is an evil act of negligence. A neutral alignment is the result of a balance between good an evil actions or simply a complete lack of actions with an ethical character.

There might well be characters that manage to qualify as neutral despite not saving drowning kids but still, picturing a scene like that in a film. Can you honestly think of such a character as just neutral? I can really only see it as revealing a hidden, extremely dark and callous, side to an outwardly normal character if it's not a kick the dog moment.

Gnomo
2010-07-24, 09:23 PM
I go with a simple rule of thumb when defining alignment: "Neutral is common; Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are the exception".

This means that most characters are simply neutral, to be of some other alignment they have to be extreme, or have a perk related to an alignment that trumps all other traits of his personality.

Good characters can be kind, generous and or protective, they are able to make sacrifices for others, they respect life and many other fundamental values disregarding creature, they are usually forgiving and emphatic. They worry about the rest and make decisions that are usually best for everybody. If the character doesn't have a handful of this traits he's not Good.

Evil characters are vile, selfish and/or abusive, they do not respect life or values, the are usually ambitious and look for gaining in every turn despite the consequences. They can betray and abuse anybody and anything as long as it serves his purposes. If the character doesn't have a handful of this traits he's not Evil (the line between Neutral and Evil is the thinest one).

Chaotic characters are impulsive, radical and/or pushy, they are usually undisciplined and loud, with strong personalities because they don't accept any kind of limits to their freedom and normally rebel against those limits. They can act without constraints more easily and hastily make decisions without meditating. If the character doesn't have a handful of this traits he's not Chaotic.

Lawful characters are disciplined, assertive and/or honorable, they usually uphold ideals or morals that gives them a motive to follow a path, they respect ideals above most other values, normally above other more basic values, they are dependable, trustworthy and normally hard workers. They can delegate their emotional growth in favor for their duty more easily than characters with other alignments. If the character doesn't have a handful of this traits he's not Lawful.

So, according to my way of seeing things, the OP's character is Lawful Neutral.

Haarkla
2010-07-25, 08:24 AM
Your character, definately lawful good.


I go with a simple rule of thumb when defining alignment: "Neutral is common; Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are the exception".

This means that most characters are simply neutral, to be of some other alignment they have to be extreme, or have a perk related to an alignment that trumps all other traits of his personality.
I go with the opposite. I think your way is unreallistic. People have to make moral decisions all the time, to rip people off or not, to earn an honest living, to look after their families properly. Your system ignores the many moral descisions people have to make in everyday life, and in my opinion, makes the alignment system meaningless in most circumstances.

hamishspence
2010-07-25, 01:13 PM
Using the drowning baby example to determine alignments in my view falls in the trap of defining people by their alignments by saying that neutral people would do this, evil that and good something else.

Acerack the bloody, chief architect of the gnome holocaust (from behind a desk) might very well rescue a human baby from drowning despite being horrifically evil, heck he might even save a gnome child (only to approve of the death list it's on later) because that's just what you do.[/COLOR]

Also I don't really think there are many specific ethically neutral actions. If an action is neutral it's mostly because it's devoid of an ethical quality, like buttering your toast (unless it's with the blood of orphans or something).

Not saving a drowning baby because of a minor inconvenience is an evil act of negligence. A neutral alignment is the result of a balance between good an evil actions or simply a complete lack of actions with an ethical character.


I tend to agree with this- but then, my definition of Evil alignment is based a bit more on acts, than who the acts are done to. A person who tortures the guilty horribly, at least partly for their own pleasure, is evil even if they "have qualms about hurting the innocent"

In my view, D&D alignments are supposed to be fairly flexible. There are Evil guys who protect the innocent regularly. And harm other innocents- because they're of a different species, or of "the enemy" group.

Conversely, there are neutral characters who don't have any problem making sacrifices for others- Good trait- but commit evil acts as well. This is what Heroes of Horror calls "a flexible Neutral" - such a Neutral character escapes being Evil because their evil acts tend to be minor and rare- like casting Evil spells.

Evil characters don't all conform to a "delights in hurting the innocent/hurts the innocent for profit- and never protect the innocent" stereotype. As written in the splatbooks and D&D novels, Evil D&D characters can be much like many real people"

Similarly, Neutral characters don't always "lack the commitment to help others"

Even the PHB calls its descriptions of alignment generalizations- and points out most people don't follow the stereotype all the time.