PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Help?



Bladesinger
2010-12-10, 06:38 AM
Hey, guys. I have this human sorcerer I made recently, and although I have his personality all planned out, I don't really know a what alignment he should be. Here's the deal:

He's a man of morals. He does his best to keep his word and act honorably in all situations. He also does his best to help others whenever possible, and is more than willing to put others before himself. One main defining factor about him, however, is his idea of chivalry. This isn't like whole knightly idea of chivalry--he has no allegiance to any particular god or church (although he greatly respects both Heironeous and Pelor for their moral teachings), and local lords and magistrates have no particular hold on him--he just really, really, REALLY respects women. So much so, that he has on more than one occasion put himself in harm's way for a woman he's never met before. He doesn't do it because he feels that women are weaker than he is; he just loves women so much that he can't stand to see anything happen to them, and would much rather get hurt himself than have them come to harm. This whole moral code is a defining factor in his life, and if he broke it, he'd regret it for a long time; if he had to make a decision between doing what's best for the Greater Good and upholding his code, there would be more than a bit of hesitation on his part. He is a rather likable guy who has an abundance of friends whom he relies on heavily, and he would never betray their trust. He also likes to bow (especially to women).

On the other hand...
When it comes to laws, rules, and traditions, he is indifferent at best, and downright antagonistic at worst. By his beliefs, if a law doesn't do good for the people, it doesn't deserve to be a law, and thus doesn't deserve his allegiance to it. This is especially true for laws that he feels could be twisted by corrupt officials into controlling people. This is not to suggest that he subscribes to the philosophy that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Rather, he believes that absolutely corrupt people are drawn to absolute power. He isn't against laws and regulations themselves, but if he disagrees with them, he usually disagrees with them a LOT. He is also a big proponent of personal freedom, and doesn't try to force others to adopt his own moral code. Indeed, he has often said that he wouldn't wish it on anyone else, as it has more than once brought him nothing but grief. He also becomes extremely angry when people try to push their beliefs on others who don't want them, and will defend the rights of others in a heartbeat.

Now, understand that he is a highly intelligent and wise person (I got pretty good rolls overall), so he completely understands that some aspects of his personality seem to contradict each other. This confuses him, as well, and I foresee that his clash of Lawful and Chaotic traits will have characters of both types angry at him.

So, now that that's all out of the way, what's the verdict? My first instinct is to slap Neutral Good on him and be done with it, as a mix of Law and Chaos seems that it would naturally breed something in the middle. However, his distinct code of chivalry and honor fits Lawful Good very well. In fact, he would probably make the qualifications for Paladin with no problem (aside from the "respect legitimate authority" thing, but that's so ambiguous that I could probably get most DMs to let it slide on a "higher law over earthly law" technicality). On the other side, his chaotic traits fit the description for Chaotic Good almost exactly. I guess the problem is that I don't know if it's right to give this character NG, when he is so extremely Lawful in some ways and Chaotic in others. It kind of feels like a cop-out.

Sorry about the wall of text; I appreciate whatever feedback you all are able to give me.

Yora
2010-12-10, 06:45 AM
Neutral Good. Easy. :smallwink:

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-12-10, 06:49 AM
Sounds to me like he's lawful good.
He may not be a rigid law bringer, but he's got honour and natural justice at heart, and is willing to champion the oppressed.

See, "Lawful" does not necessarily mean a follower of the laws of the land.
If the laws and traditions of the land are corrupt and serve chaos, then a lawful person might oppose them.

Example: a chaotic king declares that all beer in the land is property of the monarchy. This is a law, but it's not Lawful, it's arbitrary and maybe a bit oppressive.

Arkeht
2010-12-10, 07:22 AM
He sounds Chaotic Good to me.

"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him...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..." (PHP pg105).

Your chivalry to women reflects your own moral code. You stated your character has no love for laws and rules and is a big proponent of personal freedom. He also gets angry when other try to push their beliefs on him or other people. A neutral good character wouldn't feel as strongly about this assuming he feels anything about it at all.

Edit: Re-read your post and I feel my statement that your character has no love for laws and rules is a bit off, but still the fact that he is indifferent at best and antagonistic at worst lends to my argument.

Hanuman
2010-12-10, 07:32 AM
He's a man of morals. He does his best to keep his word and act honorably in all situations.Strongly Lawful


He also does his best to help others whenever possible, and is more than willing to put others before himself.Strongly Good


One main defining factor about him, however, is his idea of chivalry. This isn't like whole knightly idea of chivalry--he has no allegiance to any particular god or church (although he greatly respects both Heironeous and Pelor for their moral teachings), and local lords and magistrates have no particular hold on him--he just really, really, REALLY respects women. So much so, that he has on more than one occasion put himself in harm's way for a woman he's never met before. He doesn't do it because he feels that women are weaker than he is; he just loves women so much that he can't stand to see anything happen to them, and would much rather get hurt himself than have them come to harm. This whole moral code is a defining factor in his life, and if he broke it, he'd regret it for a long time; if he had to make a decision between doing what's best for the Greater Good and upholding his code, there would be more than a bit of hesitation on his part. He is a rather likable guy who has an abundance of friends whom he relies on heavily, and he would never betray their trust. He also likes to bow (especially to women).Strongly Lawful


On the other hand...
When it comes to laws, rules, and traditions, he is indifferent at best, and downright antagonistic at worst. By his beliefs, if a law doesn't do good for the people, it doesn't deserve to be a law, and thus doesn't deserve his allegiance to it. This is especially true for laws that he feels could be twisted by corrupt officials into controlling people. This is not to suggest that he subscribes to the philosophy that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Rather, he believes that absolutely corrupt people are drawn to absolute power. He isn't against laws and regulations themselves, but if he disagrees with them, he usually disagrees with them a LOT. He is also a big proponent of personal freedom, and doesn't try to force others to adopt his own moral code. Indeed, he has often said that he wouldn't wish it on anyone else, as it has more than once brought him nothing but grief. He also becomes extremely angry when people try to push their beliefs on others who don't want them, and will defend the rights of others in a heartbeat.Believing in laws is one thing, being Lawful doesn't mean you agree with every silly law every town and tyrant dreams up, but it does mean that if the system is workable that one should try and disagree with the system by using the system as a lawyer would, instead of a terrorist.
In this case the alignment would be highly due to HOW he acts instead of what he thinks.


Now, understand that he is a highly intelligent and wise person (I got pretty good rolls overall), so he completely understands that some aspects of his personality seem to contradict each other. This confuses him, as well, and I foresee that his clash of Lawful and Chaotic traits will have characters of both types angry at him.
I don't see any contradictions, he has his beliefs, opinions and feelings and only one who devalues his own ideas would be insecure. Though, one who devalues his morality is a chaotic trait, or neutral if you think of a taoist monk who devalues his belief yet still strongly holds bias to it.


So, now that that's all out of the way, what's the verdict? My first instinct is to slap Neutral Good on him and be done with it, as a mix of Law and Chaos seems that it would naturally breed something in the middle. However, his distinct code of chivalry and honor fits Lawful Good very well. In fact, he would probably make the qualifications for Paladin with no problem (aside from the "respect legitimate authority" thing, but that's so ambiguous that I could probably get most DMs to let it slide on a "higher law over earthly law" technicality). On the other side, his chaotic traits fit the description for Chaotic Good almost exactly. I guess the problem is that I don't know if it's right to give this character NG, when he is so extremely Lawful in some ways and Chaotic in others. It kind of feels like a cop-out.

I would personally vouch for LG, but possibly LN in the future as righteousness quickly overtakes benevolence in a footrace.

Callista
2010-12-10, 07:57 AM
Neutral Good. There's nothing non-Good about him, so the G axis is easy; but his idea that laws are useless if they don't help people seems to me to be a NG attitude. He doesn't like law for law's sake; nor does he prefer chaos for chaos's sake. He looks at tradition, honor, and government entirely from the perspective of good or evil. Therefore, Law/Chaos simply isn't a priority for him. That's NG.

I think if you look more closely at him, you'll discover that his Lawful and Chaotic traits actually come from his Good side, rather than any inherent allegiance to Law or Chaos. He protects women because he cares about them, so he's naturally attracted to the idea of chivalry. He keeps his word because he cares about the people he makes promises to. He doesn't like big concentrations of power because he's worried that the wrong kind of person will take advantage of them to hurt others.

NG doesn't have to be a refusal to take L/C sides at all; it can be a mix of traits that come mostly from the character's priorities--in your character's case, his Good alignment means that his priorities are basically altruistic and he's taking things from both the Lawful and Chaotic sides entirely for the purpose of Good.

Jornophelanthas
2010-12-10, 08:06 AM
I would argue Lawful Good, with some tendencies towards Neutral Good. Please bear with me.

* The Good part seems clear and needs no explanation.

* To me, the central aspect of Lawfulness is not blind adherence to authority (which is more Lawful Neutral), but adherence to a personal code rather than whims or intuition (which is more Chaotic). The difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that Lawful Good characters can reason why they consider their actions to be Good, by comparing them to their code, while Chaotic Good characters just have gut feelings about what would be the right thing to do in specific circumstances and follow through with them. Neutral Good holds the middle ground between these extremes.

* Because your character has such a detailed personal code, I would conclude that he is Lawful Good, although the Good trumps the Lawful if they ever conflict. This makes your character more like Roy than like Durkon (even though both are Lawful Good, Roy favours Good and Durkon favours Law).

* Lawful Good characters may still disagree with laws, because laws can be either unjust (un-Lawful) or cruel (un-Good). Yes, not all laws are necessarily Lawful; note the use of capital letters.

* Being Lawful (Good) does not mean you have to impose your personal morals onto others. This is the difference between the typical Paladin and the typical Lawful Good non-Paladin. It is a part of the Paladin code to not associate with Evil, not part of the alignment. A Lawful Good non-Paladin may reason (arrogantly) that their personal standards are so demanding, that only one so pure of heart such as themselves will be able to live up to them. Or, less arrogantly, argue that it is a heavy burden, like you do.
On a sidenote, imposing one's morality on others is not the privilege of Lawful Good. Chaotic (Good) characters also tend to do this, especially when "freedom" comes up.

Serpentine
2010-12-10, 08:10 AM
I'm gonna try something.

Good (weakly/extra-subjectively)
Evil (weakly/extra-subjectively)
Chaotic (weakly/extra-subjectively)
Lawful (weakly/extra-subjectively)
Neutral/unaligned/ambiguous

Actions
does his best to keep his word and in all situations
does his best to help others whenever possible
more than willing to put others before himself
has on more than one occasion put himself in harm's way for a woman he's never met before
if he had to make a decision between doing what's best for the Greater Good and upholding his code, there would be more than a bit of hesitation on his part.
He also likes to bow (especially to women)
becomes extremely angry when people try to push their beliefs on others who don't want them
will defend the rights of others in a heartbeat

Philosophy
man of morals
act honorably
idea of chivalry
no allegiance to any particular god or church
respects both Heironeous and Pelor for their moral teachings
really, really, REALLY respects women
doesn't do it because he feels that women are weaker than he is
just loves women so much that he can't stand to see anything happen to them
would much rather get hurt himself than have them come to harm.
This whole moral code is a defining factor in his life, and if he broke it, he'd regret it for a long time
would never betray their trust
When it comes to laws, rules, and traditions, he is indifferent at best, and downright antagonistic at worst.
if a law doesn't do good for the people, it doesn't deserve to be a law, and thus doesn't deserve his allegiance to it
especially true for laws that he feels could be twisted by corrupt officials into controlling people
believes that absolutely corrupt people are drawn to absolute power
He isn't against laws and regulations themselves, but if he disagrees with them, he usually disagrees with them a LOT
He is also a big proponent of personal freedom
doesn't try to force others to adopt his own moral code
has often said that he wouldn't wish it on anyone else, as it has more than once brought him nothing but grief

Personal
a rather likable guy who has an abundance of friends whom he relies on heavily
highly intelligent and wise person
completely understands that some aspects of his personality seem to contradict each other

Sooooo... No red and quite a lot of blue, so pretty definitely Good.
You say that his "chivalry" (which I would like to point out seems to pretty much consist of "females are precious flowers that need protecting at all cost", so you might like to expand on that somewhat) is a major defining feature, and it is Lawfully leaning, but only slightly so. The Lawful stuff does mostly seem to be of internal origin, which makes me lean towards Chaos.

So, pretty much, I'm going with Neutral (conflicted) Good. I think he believes in Law, but practices Chaos.

Heksefatter
2010-12-10, 08:16 AM
Neutral good.

He has a strong personal code of honour, which points towards lawful. However, as I see lawful people, they also believe in external standards. Ie. there should be a system of laws/traditions/taboos that are the basis of the order that should exist for the greater good.

If he is indefferent and sometimes hostile to such laws/traditions/taboos, it strikes me as a chaotic thing. However, he has some lawful tendencies too, so I think that he's neutral on the law-chaos scale.

It strikes me as pretty clear that he's good, so in summary: Neutral good.

Mordokai
2010-12-10, 08:18 AM
I'll lend another vote of support to Neutral Good.

hamishspence
2010-12-10, 08:52 AM
Either Lawful Good with NG tendencies, or Neutral Good with LG tendencies.

At the moment I'd say NG with LG tendencies.

obliged_salmon
2010-12-10, 09:15 AM
In my opinion, OP's description establishes his character's "alignment" quite nicely. Why does he need two letters to encapsulate him?

Alternately: TN, because he's presumably human or a different non-celestial/infernal being, with no paladin or cleric levels.

Burner28
2010-12-10, 09:16 AM
He also has chaotic tendencies hamishpence, so i'd say Neutral good as he has lawful and chaotic tendencies.

hamishspence
2010-12-10, 09:24 AM
I figured the Lawful tendencies were larger. Being someone who strongly disapproves of bad laws, is not inconsistant with a Lawful alignment.

The strongest Chaotic tendency, seems to be a distrust of authority in general- a default assumption that the corrupt tend to be drawn to a position of authority.

Hence, the Lawful traits weigh slightly more (for me) than the Chaotic ones- though not necessarily enough to move him out of NG.

Serpentine
2010-12-10, 09:33 AM
He has a strict but purely internal moral code, and only very conditional trust in authority and tradition. Seems pretty solidly Neutral Good to me, really.

And I wouldn't agree that the distrust for authority is the strongest Chaotic tendency. The aversion to foisting one's beliefs on another, the refusal to expect others to follow one's own code, and the emphasis on personal freedom is pretty much the epitome of Chaos.

Eldonauran
2010-12-10, 01:24 PM
I am most confident about Neutral Good because this gives the character leeway to have strong properties of both Law and Chaos. This would be the 'safest' alignment to peg him (safest meaning lesser restrictions on how he might act).

I do see more 'Law' than 'Chaos' in his alignment, so a Lawful/Neutral Good would be the best fit.

Hanuman
2010-12-10, 01:35 PM
I figured the Lawful tendencies were larger. Being someone who strongly disapproves of bad laws, is not inconsistant with a Lawful alignment.

The strongest Chaotic tendency, seems to be a distrust of authority in general- a default assumption that the corrupt tend to be drawn to a position of authority.

Hence, the Lawful traits weigh slightly more (for me) than the Chaotic ones- though not necessarily enough to move him out of NG.
Leave it to a marut to give a good call about lawfulness.

hamishspence
2010-12-10, 02:54 PM
I do see more 'Law' than 'Chaos' in his alignment, so a Lawful/Neutral Good would be the best fit.

That's pretty much what I'm going for- NG with mild LG tendencies.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-10, 03:01 PM
If an formian catches him in the periphery of Order's Wrath, do you think he should be immune? If so, then he's lawful. If an inquisitor in a country he's almost certainly going to have issues with is scanning for him with Detect Chaos, do you think he should be caught? If so, then he's chaotic.

Ruinix
2010-12-10, 03:24 PM
the description of Bladesinger plus the first post of serpentine left me tingling with some sort of "Elric of Melniboné", specially on the book "the revenge of the rose"

i put a LG-NG constant shift depending on his last deed.

Callista
2010-12-10, 03:25 PM
How about you just start him off at NG and see which way he drifts in play, or whether he just stays pretty much the same? You really only get to know them once they've had a chance to do some stuff. You've got a theoretical background here--let's see how he responds to things that you don't control.

Since you don't have any alignment-restricted classes involved, the mechanical impact of your alignment won't be extremely strong. You can delay putting down a solid alignment for a while with no trouble.

I should take my own advice on that one--my latest character's alignment flipped between LG and LN four times before I finally settled on LN. Better just to put down a provisional alignment for mechanical purposes and wait until you get to know the character better before you declare a permanent one (barring character development that changes it again, of course). Just don't conveniently change it just as you're being hit with an alignment-related spell. :P

Apophis
2010-12-10, 03:38 PM
I would say NG. He does seem to favor law over chaos, but not enough to put him at LG.