Way of the Closed Fist

[Sylivin]

So I've been wanting to make a character for awhile now based on the way of the closed fist as discussed in Jade Empire by Bioware. Note: The game itself did a horrible job as it simply became the "evil" option instead of the way it was described at the beginning of the game. Paraphrased:

The way of the closed fist is based on personal power. A follower of it desires to become the most powerful person in existence. In addition, he rarely helps people that ask for assistance since doing a difficult task for someone else does not encourage them to be strong, instead it shows their weakness - one should solve one's own problems.

For example: If a follower of the closed fist sees a man being harassed by a bandit he would likely keep on walking even after the man asks for his help. The man will never become more powerful unless he stands up for himself. However, if the situation was instead 5 armed bandits against the one unarmed man then the follower of the closed fist might interfere since the fight is no longer even remotely fair. The man will likely die no matter what unless he is helped.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of alignment this would be in D&D. Is it evil or neutral to ignore suffering? The character in question would likely not intentionally cause much suffering - rather he wouldn't go out of his way to do so. However, he will likely try to convince the party to not help random people unless the reward is meaningful or the odds weighed too highly to one side.

[RaggedAngel]

The convention that my group uses to determine if someone is evil or not is simple: are they malicious?

This covers a few situations that are morally grey:

1. A necromancer who raises the undead is casting an evil spell. However, he is not evil unless he uses those undead to wantonly kill and maim; if he uses them like tools, it's fairly neutral. If he uses them to help others, then it begins to lean towards good.

2. A bloodthirsty barbarian. He may delight in killing, but until he starts killing people for no cause but enjoyment he's not evil.

3. Your example. He may leave the man to be beaten and die, but he's not doing it out of amusement or personal profit; he thinks that he's doing the right thing. Therefore, my group would label that philosophy as neutral.

[holywhippet]

I'd say neutral - it's like a neutral country during a war. They aren't helping or hindering. Evil would be if he was attacking the man (without cause) or aiding the bandits.

[Thurbane]

Within the framework of D&D alignment, I'd say Lawful Neutral, leaning toward Lawful Evil. (Note: to me, Lawful implies more of following a personal code or prescribed set of actions than to being a slavish adherent to whatever the local laws are).

[Z3ro]

I'd say neutral - it's like a neutral country during a war. They aren't helping or hindering. Evil would be if he was attacking the man (without cause) or aiding the bandits.

A case could be made that he was aiding the bandits by not helping. One of my favorite sayings is that a man is responsible for all the good he did not do.

[Greenish]

I'd say evil. That's a fellow human being there, if you can help (without risking life or limb), you should. To ignore it is evil, no matter your justification. If there's a great personal risk involved in helping, I might let it slip as neutral, but you should feel bad. :smalltongue:

But of course this is completely subjective.

[Veyr]

I'd say it's pretty solidly Neutral. Somebody around here's got a sig that says "Looking out for number one isn't evil, it's neutral. Evil is looking out for number one by crushing number two."

Plus, it's really hard to argue that someone is morally required to get into a fight (at potential risk to himself) in order to aid another he has no responsibility for. Supererogatory action, and all that.

[Knaight]

Plus, it's really hard to argue that someone is morally required to get into a fight (at potential risk to himself) in order to aid another he has no responsibility for. Supererogatory action, and all that.

Given that we are operating on the assumption that he can safely take down four people, its not as if he is actually risking anything.

[Eldan]

Jade Empire may be about kung fu warriors able to shoot fire from their fists, hack down elephants with one blow of their swords, summon dragons and transform into golems, but that isn't necessarily a requirement for the philosophy. Whether or not he's that powerful, he's still taking a risk, or at least spending time helping someone else. Even if it's a minor inconvenience as he could slay the bandit with a glance: he's not supposed to help.
Helping others makes them weak. We become stronger through overcoming adversity, not by being coddled by the strong.

[J.Gellert]

So I've been wanting to make a character for awhile now based on the way of the closed fist as discussed in Jade Empire by Bioware. Note: The game itself did a horrible job as it simply became the "evil" option instead of the way it was described at the beginning of the game. Paraphrased:

The way of the closed fist is based on personal power. A follower of it desires to become the most powerful person in existence. In addition, he rarely helps people that ask for assistance since doing a difficult task for someone else does not encourage them to be strong, instead it shows their weakness - one should solve one's own problems.

For example: If a follower of the closed fist sees a man being harassed by a bandit he would likely keep on walking even after the man asks for his help. The man will never become more powerful unless he stands up for himself. However, if the situation was instead 5 armed bandits against the one unarmed man then the follower of the closed fist might interfere since the fight is no longer even remotely fair. The man will likely die no matter what unless he is helped.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of alignment this would be in D&D. Is it evil or neutral to ignore suffering? The character in question would likely not intentionally cause much suffering - rather he wouldn't go out of his way to do so. However, he will likely try to convince the party to not help random people unless the reward is meaningful or the odds weighed too highly to one side.

To me, Jade Empire's alignments were more about how one fits in with the rest of society.

Open Palm understands everyone's place in the strict hierarchy - It respects all positions, but at the same time is strict, and lacks all ambition. Lawful Neutral, as it is beyond good and evil (Lawful Evil is also this, for example)

Closed Fist believes challenges this hierarchy - It promotes ambition, and simultaneously the "might makes right" dogma. Chaotic Neutral, as this also is beyond good and evil.

I actually liked how the game handled things, maybe except for the character portrait turning obviously evil / obviously good in the process :D Though it was awesome, seeing all the flames in the background...

(Incidentally, I prefer this definition of CN, to the "crazy person" character. But I also dislike D&D alignments in general, so take it all with a grain of salt.)