1part LE + 1 part LG = Double Lawful Neutral! Right?

[Sir Swindle89]

Ok so my Dvati thread got me thinking of an awsome character concept (IMHO)

Take a Dvati Law Incarnate and have one twin act LG and the other LE. The theory would be that they are trying to more fully understand Lawfullness by holding an elaborate roleplay, sort of like the intertwin debates Dvati some times have. (yo dawg i heard you like RP!)

Would most of you allow this in one of your games? Do you think their alignment would shift? Which way, they are of one mind and soul? (Dvati and Incarnate logistics aside)

Keep in mind the intent of the character is that he still places no real value on good or evil.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think it would be like any other character that balances Good and Evil actions. They'd end up being Neutral. The only difference is that you're splitting those tendencies between the character's two bodies.

EDIT: Cool idea btw! :smallbiggrin:

[Daremonai]

Double Neutral, all the way across! Woo!

For any other race, I'd probably have different opinions, but for Dvati if it's all in the name of understanding pure Lawfulness, and neither is really striving to be Good or Evil so much as just taking that side on a "debate"...I'd say that probably equates to Neutral so long as it remains balanced overall.

If the Evil side is burning down orphanages while the Good side just donates a few copper to beggars every now and again, I don't think that would qualify as Netural, because your balance point is off.

[Sir Swindle89]

Double Neutral, all the way across! Woo!

For any other race, I'd probably have different opinions, but for Dvati if it's all in the name of understanding pure Lawfulness, and neither is really striving to be Good or Evil so much as just taking that side on a "debate"...I'd say that probably equates to Neutral so long as it remains balanced overall.

If the Evil side is burning down orphanages while the Good side just donates a few copper to beggars every now and again, I don't think that would qualify as Netural, because your balance point is off.

Righto thats pretty much what i was thinking, generally whenever some one tries balancing into neutral as far as doing a good for every bad they usually end up throwing themselves way to one side(evil in my case). but as Dvati you can adjust in real time so it should be easier. Not to mention they technically both have the same ethical code just with different morals.

I can imagine the pair representint the prosecution and defense on the same court case just for funz.

[Coplantor]

Lawful? Certainly. Neutral? I dont think so.

Neutral in DnD is as tangible as good and evil, not quite the one in the middle between them but a whole different option. It's not about doing enough evil actions to cancel your good ones or the other way round, it's about not going into the extremes of the moral axis. There are actions that are neither good or evil, those are the neutral actions.

I think it's a cool concept though, I'd like to see something like this in my game sessions, but Lawful Bipolar would be a much more adequate tag.

[Sir Swindle89]

Lawful? Certainly. Neutral? I dont think so.

Neutral in DnD is as tangible as good and evil, not quite the one in the middle between them but a whole different option. It's not about doing enough evil actions to cancel your good ones or the other way round, it's about not going into the extremes of the moral axis. There are actions that are neither good or evil, those are the neutral actions.


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.

I feel he would fall into that category. Not dedicated to good nor evil. Maintains a balance (how much wieght is on the balance is irelevent as long as the sides are equal)

[mucat]

I think it would be like any other character that balances Good and Evil actions. They'd end up being Neutral.

Good and Evil aren't symmetric that way; if you intentionally set out to balance good and evil actions, you're most likely evil.

Or in this particular case...if the "Good Twin" is aware that the Evil Twin is harming innocents, and condones it -- in fact, approves of it, as part of their larger investigation into the Nature of Lawfulness -- then the good twin isn't actually good in the first place. He's a cold-blooded bastard who is choosing to play the role of the good guy.

I would definitely call the overall character Lawful Evil, in a mad scientist / mad philosopher sort of way. He's running an experiment to satisfy his own curiosity, at the expense of those who his "Evil Side" harms. The good deeds that he does along the way are just part of the experiment, not a genuine act of selflessness. (And yes, I know, the evil deeds are also just part of the experiment. But again, good and evil aren't symmetrical, and don't just "cancel each other out.")

Which isn't to say he's not an interesting character, or that he won't gain the insights he is looking for from his experiment. But I'd peg his actual alignment as a clear Lawful Evil.

[Sir Swindle89]

Good and Evil aren't symmetric that way;

I fundamentally disagree with your presented assumption. However i do see your point.

The thing you have to think about is, the twins effective alignments would be Lwaful evil and Lawful good. Neither really cares about good or evil, the evil twin would not be burning orphanages, thats against the law, the good twin would be obliged to capture and arrest his twin if he did.

The good twin by the same token would not be able to take action against his twin if the evil one was legally exploiting a loophole in the government welfare system. Or better yet if the evil twin moved into a political position and started enacting unfair taxes. (over throwing the government would be chaotic) The best the good twin could do is try to become a political opponent for his twin to try to mitigate the damage.

[Coplantor]

Still, why did the good twin allowed the evil one to take that course of action?

[mucat]

I fundamentally disagree with your presented assumption. However i do see your point.

The thing you have to think about is, the twins effective alignments would be Lwaful evil and Lawful good. Neither really cares about good or evil, the evil twin would not be burning orphanages, thats against the law, the good twin would be obliged to capture and arrest his twin if he did.

The good twin by the same token would not be able to take action against his twin if the evil one was legally exploiting a loophole in the government welfare system. Or better yet if the evil twin moved into a political position and started enacting unfair taxes. (over throwing the government would be chaotic) The best the good twin could do is try to become a political opponent for his twin to try to mitigate the damage.

Good points. I would point out, though, that Lawful alignment doesn't necessarily mean "obeys the law of the land." The Mafia, for example, would be a Lawful Evil organization (and to avoid real-world politics, I'm talking about the Mafia as commonly presented in film and fiction, not as a real-world organization.)

It sounds like for your proposed pair of twins, though, part of their code is that they obey the law. Which, I agree, makes it easier to justify that Lawful Neutral alignment for the pair of them; it places limits on how much harm the evil twin can do.

I still maintain that if the damage the Evil twin is doing becomes severe enough -- even if he manages to pull it off by perfectly legal means -- then the pair as a whole would lose their claim to Lawful Neutral alignment. By continuing to participate in the experiment, the "Good Twin" would become complicit in his counterpart's acts.

This is part of the asymmetry I was talking about. An evil person can condone, encourage, and approve of good acts in others, while remaining entirely evil. A good person who regularly condones or encourages evil acts, is no longer good.

[Sir Swindle89]

This is part of the asymmetry I was talking about. An evil person can condone, encourage, and approve of good acts in others, while remaining entirely evil. A good person who regularly condones or encourages evil acts, is no longer good.

But they only condone good acts that are not harmful to their evilnes. An evil overlord does not fund soup kitchens without having an alterior motive, that would move his alignment towards good. I do think that they would eventually fall one way or the other (probably towards evil because evil is way easier).

However they are perfectly matched opponents, no matter what angle the evil one is trying the good one can perfectly counter, evil starts exploiting the poor/ good starts a charity, evil becomes evil democratic dictator/ good becomes political opponent. But they would have to have an agreement to stop once one twin cannot stop the other one. Thats the only real way they could keep going at it like that and maintain their neutrality.

[Fiery Diamond]

But they only condone good acts that are not harmful to their evilnes. An evil overlord does not fund soup kitchens without having an alterior motive, that would move his alignment towards good. I do think that they would eventually fall one way or the other (probably towards evil because evil is way easier).

However they are perfectly matched opponents, no matter what angle the evil one is trying the good one can perfectly counter, evil starts exploiting the poor/ good starts a charity, evil becomes evil democratic dictator/ good becomes political opponent. But they would have to have an agreement to stop once one twin cannot stop the other one. Thats the only real way they could keep going at it like that and maintain their neutrality.

I'm in agreement with mucat on this one. I actually disagree with your first paragraph. You say

"An evil overlord does not fund soup kitchens without having an ulterior motive; that would move his alignment towards good."

I disagree with this statement. An evil overlord can say, "hm... I've got some extra money to throw around after pillaging the neighboring country. My people are hungry. You know what, I think I'll fund a soup kitchen with those funds. Starvation is an issue. I had some friends who died of it back before I became overlord."

That's not very altruistic (I wouldn't call it altruistic at all), but neither are his motivations "so I has more workers who don't complain about food" or something like that. It's a rather neutral reason for funding a soup kitchen - he's got extra money, he might as well spend it on getting rid of starvation because hey, starvation is not cool.

ALSO, you say

"But they only condone good acts that are not harmful to their evilness."

This I also disagree with. What about the idea of an evil character allowing a good character to do things that make it harder for him to succeed at his evilness because he likes the challenge? He lets the situation gimp him because it's more fun when it's hard to get what he wants than when it's easy?

[Morquard]

The problem with canceling good and evil actions is that evil actions usually tend to be alot more evil than good actions are good.

Example:
Today the character walks down the street, some small children is crying for his mommy and drives him nuts. So he pulls his dagger and stabs it into the kids neck. Ah silence finally. Evil, without a doubt.
Now what does he have to do the next day to balance this evil deed? Not kill a kid? No not killing someone is not a good deed, that's merly not an evil one. It's not even really a deed at all. Safe a kid? Maybe good, but as good as killing one was evil? I don't think so. Sacrificing his own life to safe a kid? Yeah, I guess that could sort of balance it out. But then, you know he's dead too, so its really a moot point.

Sure it was an extreme example, but you get the point evil deeds are often way more evil than good deeds are good.

As for the OP question. It's really just one being. It has two bodies but you said yourself same mind and soul. So it's one being doing good and evil actions. It's like you say "But I only use my right hand to do good things and my left hand to do evil, you can't throw me in jail, my right hand is innocent!"

[Grelna the Blue]

I disagree with this statement. An evil overlord can say, "hm... I've got some extra money to throw around after pillaging the neighboring country. My people are hungry. You know what, I think I'll fund a soup kitchen with those funds. Starvation is an issue. I had some friends who died of it back before I became overlord."

That's not very altruistic (I wouldn't call it altruistic at all), but neither are his motivations "so I has more workers who don't complain about food" or something like that. It's a rather neutral reason for funding a soup kitchen - he's got extra money, he might as well spend it on getting rid of starvation because hey, starvation is not cool.

+1.

Without sacrifice involved, "good" actions are rather cheap for the actors, even though the consequences might be profound for those acted upon. It is relatively easy to be a philanthropist if you have tens or hundreds of millions in the bank. And there is certainly absolutely nothing to condemn in being one. It's nice. But it is not as praiseworthy as devoting your life to unpaid or illpaid work in service. Someone like the leader listed above could have selfish motivations (desirous of healthier workers, more and stronger army recruits, or just less unrest) or could genuinely want a happier populace. But the real test of peoples' souls isn't what they do with "extra" money (in this particular case not even personally his), but what they do when they have little enough for themselves.

Edit: Note that a wealthy person who devotes significant portions of his or her time to philanthropic enterprises is, in fact, devoting something precious to them. I certainly did not mean to disparage philanthropists for doing the right thing.