Double-dating - LN or what?

[ImperatorK]

Lets say that a character has two girls that he likes (and they both like him), but he can't choose between them and isn't bastard enough to go out with both. Would dating both of them simultaneously in secret for some time, but just so he can figure out which he likes more and then dump (politely of course) the other, be considered LN?
If not then what should he do in this situation?
How much does this deed stray from an LN alignment?
To which alignment does this deed correspond the strongest?

[Shadowknight12]

Lawful Neutral characters follow their own strict code, they are mindful of authority and the law, and they act (mostly) predictably. In this case, "mindful of the law" really means "mindful of the social mores." A Lawful Neutral character would do what would be socially expected of him, regardless of what's actually good or evil. He wouldn't do it because he cared too much about the girls' feelings, but more about what society would think of him if he didn't.

If the LN character is in a society where such a thing is frowned upon, he wouldn't do it. If the LN character is in a society where that is the best way to deal with such a problem, that's what he'd do.

I am not someone who endorses the concept that some acts are aligned, unless they actually channel/invoke/oppose/embody an alignment. This act isn't, to me, aligned at all. It depends on the justifications for doing it.

[Cespenar]

No offense, but I think you should worry more about roleplaying your character and less about roleplaying your alignment.

[ImperatorK]

That's not my character.
And no offense, but you should post something more useful and on-topic then call your judgments on people without knowing the context.

[Serpentine]

If anything - and in the absence of any other information - I'd call that a softly CN act. I'm honestly not sure how you could possibly justify it as Lawful.

[ImperatorK]

And what's your reasoning?

[Urpriest]

A character is LN in that they share traits with LN characters and creatures from the various sourcebooks. Almost all of these characters and creatures are described as being true to their word and/or self-disciplined. A character who not only can't make himself choose between two women but also is ok with deceiving them about it is probably not LN.

[Serpentine]

It's defying social concepts of what is right to do in that situation. It's cheating. It's lying and deceiving. It's doing what you want, and what anyone else thinks be damned. It's also wishy-washy.

[Drachasor]

Lawful Neutral characters follow their own strict code, they are mindful of authority and the law, and they act (mostly) predictably. In this case, "mindful of the law" really means "mindful of the social mores." A Lawful Neutral character would do what would be socially expected of him, regardless of what's actually good or evil. He wouldn't do it because he cared too much about the girls' feelings, but more about what society would think of him if he didn't.

If the LN character is in a society where such a thing is frowned upon, he wouldn't do it. If the LN character is in a society where that is the best way to deal with such a problem, that's what he'd do.

I am not someone who endorses the concept that some acts are aligned, unless they actually channel/invoke/oppose/embody an alignment. This act isn't, to me, aligned at all. It depends on the justifications for doing it.

That's not quite fair to the Lawful Neutrals. They can be unmindful of strangers, but Neutrals tend to be pretty nice to friends (generally speaking). As such, it is perfectly appropriate for him to consider the feelings of the two girls here, since he knows them both.

Being very deceitful though, isn't Lawful behavior, though of course a Lawful character might do that. Alignment isn't a straightjacket and you don't have to follow it 100% of the time. The average Lawful Neutral would be conflicted about keeping the dating secret though. More to the point, if he's "not enough of a bastard to date them both", how is it ok for him to be a greater bastard by dating them both in secret? (Granted, he could still do this, but I'd expect someone to call him on it).

In any case, is there good reason to assume they'd both be pissed off if he explained the situation and dated both casually?

[Cespenar]

That's not my character.
And no offense, but you should post something more useful and on-topic then call your judgments on people without knowing the context.

And you miss the point entirely because of a misplaced subject, not to mention taking unnecessary offense in the process.

The point was to not rely on alignments to determine if someone would do such an action, and rely on the actual character.

[Serpentine]

I would point out to the thread as a whole that we're discussing the alignment of an individual act, not an entire character. A single deed does not an alignment make. Moreover, he's asking for the alignment-leaning of said individual act, not whether a character of a certain alignment would do it.

[ImperatorK]

The point was to not rely on alignments to determine if someone would do such an action, and rely on the actual character.
I'm not "relying on alignment". I'm asking how much does such behavior conflict with LN alignment. Big difference.


In any case, is there good reason to assume they'd both be pissed off if he explained the situation and dated both casually?
It would be a good idea, but it's kinda counter to what I wanted to do with this situation. I'm trying to add a little dept and drama to my (maybe future) PCs backstory. A big thing for my, because mostly my chars are kinda cliche and bland and I wanted to change that.
Also the DM is very demanding. :smalltongue: I already turned on his Annoy-o-Meter for trying to play an anthro-animal in his horror game.

[Cespenar]

Alignments are not clear cut concepts, as you can see in most discussions. I can give you varying rationalizations that would make the action you described at least 4-5 different alignments, if not more.

That's why I said what I said.

[Shadowknight12]

That's not quite fair to the Lawful Neutrals. They can be unmindful of strangers, but Neutrals tend to be pretty nice to friends (generally speaking). As such, it is perfectly appropriate for him to consider the feelings of the two girls here, since he knows them both.

Being very deceitful though, isn't Lawful behavior, though of course a Lawful character might do that. Alignment isn't a straightjacket and you don't have to follow it 100% of the time. The average Lawful Neutral would be conflicted about keeping the dating secret though. More to the point, if he's "not enough of a bastard to date them both", how is it ok for him to be a greater bastard by dating them both in secret? (Granted, he could still do this, but I'd expect someone to call him on it).

In any case, is there good reason to assume they'd both be pissed off if he explained the situation and dated both casually?

You're quite right. Neutral people do care about the people close to them.

That said, being deceitful can be Lawful if that's what's socially expected of them. Case in point: white lies. In a society where niceness and politeness was heavily emphasised, it would be considered very lawful to hide one's true feelings and put on a smile. It would be quite Lawful to say "Oh, my, what a lovely dress you're wearing today, Mrs. Choppledums!" while you inwardly gag at the abomination the woman dared to call a dress. It would be actually quite Chaotic to go against social mores and spouse a "blunt honesty" philosophy.

[Serpentine]

Cheating on two girls at once isn't exactly a "white lie"...

[TheRinni]

Honestly, I'm tempted to say this is reminiscent of a CN or TN character over a LN one.

As previously stated, though his intentions may be justifiable to himself, he's still being deceptive. Lying is normally a trait I associate with the chaotic spectrum, and definitely something I'd imagine a lawful character avoiding.

[Shadowknight12]

Cheating on two girls at once isn't exactly a "white lie"...

Depends on the society, really. I don't want to break forum rules, but I know a few societies where this is, in fact, a white lie. Especially for the reasons given by ImperatorK's post.

[ImperatorK]

Don't forget the other questions I posted.

If not then what should he do in this situation?
How much does this deed stray from an LN alignment?
To which alignment does this deed correspond the strongest?

[shadow_archmagi]

Law: honor, trustworthiness, reliability

Chaos: flexibility, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility

I'd say that "Cheat on them until I can choose" is probably a CN act. Lawful Neutral would probably feel compelled to just pick one and stick with her, even if he later regretted his decision.

Alternatively, if you wanted a LN-friendly way to resolve this, he could simply not actively date and treat them both as close friends, waiting until he can choose to move the relationship up a notch.

"Oh, Katherine? Well, yes, I have been seeing a lot of her while we work together on tracking the goblin murderer."

"Oh, Susan? Well, yes, I have been in the dwarf coffee shop a lot, but it's work related, and besides, the rat pie is delicious!"

[Serpentine]

If not then what should he do in this situation?Oddly enough*, to quote a high school friend of mine: "If you love them both equally, you don't love either of them enough."^ The Lawful thing to do would be to not get involved with either of them until he sorts out his feelings for both.

How much does this deed stray from an LN alignment?Not much at all. Maybe a notch or two towards Chaotic, maybe, but we're definitely not talking immediate alignment shift.

To which alignment does this deed correspond the strongest?As I said: I think very slightly CN.

*...this would make sense if you knew her.
^ No offense intended to any polyamorous reading.

[ImperatorK]

More info:
One girl is my (maybe future) PCs childhood friend which whom he was going on hunts from the day his father died in a hunt accident. She's a great ranger and has his respect. LG.
The second girl is the princess of his tribe. Smart, charismatic, noble, has great personality and a way with words. CG.

[Serpentine]

No change to my opinions.

[Shadowknight12]

No change to my opinions.

Same here, with extra characters.

[Urpriest]

A character's personality determines their alignment, so part of the question depends on that. If the character is LN because he sticks to a code, then the character should do what the code tells him to do in this situation, or angst about the ambiguity of the code. If the character is LN because he is very self-disciplined, then he should attempt to force himself to choose.

Note that some codes would allow this, though they're not too common and if they're in place in this situation then you wouldn't be asking this question. But for example if the character follows the Code of the Woosters then this is indeed the appropriate response, though one should also try to get Jeeves to get both of the women to hate you. And yes, I did just imply that Bertie Wooster is LN. :smallbiggrin:

[Rimeheart]

The more important question...If they are both npc's... seduce them both kill them and loot them and just go evil. It will be far more entertaining! :belkar: :smallwink: Best of luck! You could even do this if they are pc's and want to have some real fun... but I suppose I am evil like that.

[Drachasor]

You're quite right. Neutral people do care about the people close to them.

That said, being deceitful can be Lawful if that's what's socially expected of them. Case in point: white lies. In a society where niceness and politeness was heavily emphasised, it would be considered very lawful to hide one's true feelings and put on a smile. It would be quite Lawful to say "Oh, my, what a lovely dress you're wearing today, Mrs. Choppledums!" while you inwardly gag at the abomination the woman dared to call a dress. It would be actually quite Chaotic to go against social mores and spouse a "blunt honesty" philosophy.

You can be Lawful and have a "screw the unwritten (or even written) rules of society" attitude. There's no necessity to give a darn about them. And yeah, if you are the type that cares, you'd have a potential conflict when those go against being honest. I don't think it would be a chaotic act, generally speaking, to be honest even if it wasn't polite. Lawful Good is NOT (necessarily) nice.


The more important question...If they are both npc's... seduce them both kill them and loot them and just go evil. It will be far more entertaining! :belkar: :smallwink: Best of luck! You could even do this if they are pc's and want to have some real fun... but I suppose I am evil like that.

How's that entertaining?

Personally, I'm in favor of going the victorious childhood friend route, but that's neither here nor there.

[Rimeheart]

Evil is always entertaining! It is entertaining in the sense that it turns a relatively tame character into a serial killer almost. The just dramatic shift in focus and goals I find to be funny. However my sense of humor is rather warped.

[Slipperychicken]

Neutral, or unaligned. Like eating a sandwich. The character in the situation you describe seeks personal gain, but does not want to do harm to his dates, and will use politeness and discretion to minimize any harm inherent in the act.

[Zaq]

I just can't think of Archie as LN. Sorry

[ImperatorK]

What if he acted on someone else's suggestion? Because of his life being mainly about training and hunting and working he didn't have any love experience. This feelings where new to him, so he asked for advice one of his close friends which happened to be CN and a would-be playboy (:smallbiggrin:).

[Urpriest]

Is he LN because of his loyalty to and trust in his friends? Then yeah, that would be consistent.

You still haven't told us why he's LN.

[OldFart]

If not then what should he do in this situation?
I'm w/ Rimeheart on this one. Kill 'em both, take their stuff, get an Atonement. Problem solved.

How's that entertaining?It brings even moar funneh to a thread like this in a gaming forum?

[Greenish]

What if he acted on someone else's suggestion? Because of his life being mainly about training and hunting and working he didn't have any love experience. This feelings where new to him, so he asked for advice one of his close friends which happened to be CN and a would-be playboy (:smallbiggrin:)."Naïve" isn't alignment specific. If he honestly didn't know any better, it's not really aligned. But that would involve not even trying to hide it from the women.

[Shadowknight12]

You can be Lawful and have a "screw the unwritten (or even written) rules of society" attitude. There's no necessity to give a darn about them. And yeah, if you are the type that cares, you'd have a potential conflict when those go against being honest. I don't think it would be a chaotic act, generally speaking, to be honest even if it wasn't polite. Lawful Good is NOT (necessarily) nice.

What's chaotic and what's lawful depend on whether the character has a strict moral code that allows for no exceptions, and on the prevalent laws, authorities and social mores of the region he is currently in or the one he was raised in.

Deception and honesty aren't innately chaotic or lawful.

[thompur]

Your situation reminds me of this (http://youtu.be/NGzvGSijWFM) song.

[Drachasor]

What's chaotic and what's lawful depend on whether the character has a strict moral code that allows for no exceptions, and on the prevalent laws, authorities and social mores of the region he is currently in or the one he was raised in.

Deception and honesty aren't innately chaotic or lawful.

Well, I'd say it depends on the situation.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Trustworthiness is pretty key there, so certain sorts of deception are definitely not lawful behavior.

[Shadowknight12]

Trustworthiness is pretty key there, so certain sorts of deception are definitely not lawful behavior.

Not true, actually. Trustworthiness merely means that you can be trusted. Deception doesn't need to act against this, and can in fact serve to support your trustworthiness. If we're both in the Thieves' Guild and I know you're a great liar (and that you hold the Guild's tennets at heart, because you're Lawful), I can put you in charge of misdirecting the authorities precisely because you're so good at all kinds of deception.

[Drachasor]

Not true, actually. Trustworthiness merely means that you can be trusted. Deception doesn't need to act against this, and can in fact serve to support your trustworthiness. If we're both in the Thieves' Guild and I know you're a great liar (and that you hold the Guild's tennets at heart, because you're Lawful), I can put you in charge of misdirecting the authorities precisely because you're so good at all kinds of deception.

That's why I said some sorts.

Deceiving the girls would go into the "untrustworthy" category.

[Shadowknight12]

That's why I said some sorts.

Deceiving the girls would go into the "untrustworthy" category.

Unless that's what society expects of him. In which case, doing what's expected of him would make him trustworthy.

[Partysan]

^ No offense intended to any polyamorous reading.

You know, until I read that I had a growing urge to come down on this thread. Heavily.

[Shadowknight12]

You know, until I read that I had a growing urge to come down on this thread. Heavily.

Amusing, since nothing said here (to my knowledge) could be offensive to people on polyamorous relationships, except perhaps, for the very post you quoted.

EDIT: Which had the addendum you also quoted. Hence my mild amusement at your comment.

[ImperatorK]

You know, until I read that I had a growing urge to come down on this thread. Heavily.
It wouldn't end for you well, so good that you didn't.

[Greenish]

Amusing, since nothing said here (to my knowledge) could be offensive to people on polyamorous relationships, except perhaps, for the very post you quoted.Well, suggesting that dating two girls simultaneously automatically makes one a "bastard" in the OP could offend someone.

[Shadowknight12]

Well, suggesting that dating two girls simultaneously automatically makes one a "bastard" in the OP could offend someone.

No, the implications were not those. The implications were that he was dating the two girls simultaneously and keeping it a secret, thereby hurting their feelings.

There was more to it than simply "dating two girls simultaneously."

Or at least, that was my interpretation of the OP.

[Frozen_Feet]

Is the honor of any party at risk by this? If yes, then it's not Lawful.

The act is very close to being completely neutral. It might have minor inclination to Chaos, but overall not enough to be significant for the purposes of defining or redifining the character's alignment.

I don't think there's any better way for the character to approach the situation.

[Godskook]

It depends on what you're doing on these 'dates', and what you're telling either girl.

If you're admitting to both exactly what's happening, what your intentions are, and you're not over-developing either relationship(read: things like sex, which tend to imply that monogamous people are 'together', and this is in their opinions, not yours), then there's not really anything blatantly unlawful about it.

The problem comes when you're:
-Being dishonest
-Getting more benefits than your commitment warrants

[Coidzor]

Cheating on two girls at once isn't exactly a "white lie"...

Especially if it's possible to spend time with both of them in order to gather more data before formally establishing a relationship with either/both.

Of course, this is a fantasy universe, so maximum benefit is marrying the princess for status first and then the ranger.

[Friv]

I just can't think of Archie as LN. Sorry

Archie wasn't cheating on anyone, though. Betty and Veronica were both well aware that he was also dating the other one. He was just a guy who wasn't committing.

I'm going to chime in and agree that the key to whether this is a lawful or chaotic act is how honest and direct he's being. If the girls he is dating are both aware that he's not going steady with them, then he's just wishy-washy. I mean, he runs the risk of losing one or both of them because of it, but he's being honest.

If he's dating them both without telling the other, it's more chaotic. If he's deliberately taking advantage of them by doing this, it would be evil, but it doesn't sound like he is.

[Greenish]

No, the implications were not those.Really, you see no way anyone could interpret it like that?

When the OP says that the character isn't bastard enough to go out with both of them, and thus will be secretly going out with both them?

[Soranar]

What makes a character of a certain alignment is subjective but there are some standards you can usually rely on.

-Lawful characters tend to be predictable (most characters with a strict code of conduct are quite easy to pin down once you know that code, you may not understand their motivations but you usually know where they stand without them needing to speak after a while)

note: this may not be true if the character is much much smarter than you are (the main villain in Watchmen is arguably Lawful Good, at least in his mind)

-Neutral characters tend to avoid conflicts unless it comes directly to the benefit of themselves (neutral evil) or their friends (neutral good). It doesn't mean they're cowardly mind but they rarely see the need to be inflexible (like a Lawful character) or totally unreliable (like a chaotic one)

note: a good example of a neutral character are Ents in the LOTR, they only get involved when they run out of options

-Chaotic characters are usually unpredictable/unreliable and often do things because they felt like it at the time

note : Belkar, Belkar , Belkar

So, would a Lawful character double date

yes, if his personal code of honor permitted it (he or she is polyamorous and/or polygamous)

Note that the people involved would be AWARE of the situation. He wouldn't simply tell them the truth if asked either, he'd volunteer the information upfront.

No, if it (his code) did not permit it. And , again, he'd volunteer the reason as to why not : ''sorry but I'm also interested in this other girl and I can't choose.''

Basically, Lawful and chaotic characters tend to get themselves in trouble all the time, if for different reasons while neutral characters usually get in trouble by tagging along extremists or because the other part of their alignment (Good or Evil) does so.

[Tvtyrant]

This is how I think of the three lawful sets:

LG: Follows the spirit of the law, but will deviate from the wording if it causes harm to people. Note OotS where Durkon tells Miko the exact truth in a way that diffuses the situation.

LN: Follows the spirit and the letter of the law. Think Data.

LE: Follows the letter of the law and breaks its spirit in half. Think police officers that don't give lawyers to minors while questioning them.

[Shadowknight12]

Really, you see no way anyone could interpret it like that?

When the OP says that the character isn't bastard enough to go out with both of them, and thus will be secretly going out with both them?

Yeah, like I said, that's not what I'm reading from the OP. What I'm reading from the OP is that polyamory is not a valid option (for whatever reason) and that instead of secretly going out with them for an extended period of time, he's going to secretly go out with them until he makes up his mind of who to keep.

As I read it, secrecy was the default in the "bastard" option and the proposed option. I did not read an implication of bastardry in polyamory in any way.

[Frozen_Feet]

What makes a character of a certain alignment is subjective but there are some standards you can usually rely on.

Like, perhaps, the Alignment descriptions in the actual rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm)? :smalltongue::smallwink:

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

If the double-dating somehow makes the character to lie, break his promises, or go against the societal norms of his place of residence, then the act is not Lawful.

[Greenish]

I did not read an implication of bastardry in polyamory in any way.And you're certain no one else could do that, either? :smallamused:

[Shadowknight12]

And you're certain no one else could do that, either? :smallamused:

No, but I would disagree with them just as I'm disagreeing with you. :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

No, but I would disagree with them just as I'm disagreeing with you. :smalltongue:You're not disagreeing with me, you're not even reading what I'm saying. I'm not claiming that the OP necessarily is insulting to polyamorous people, I'm saying that someone might be insulted by it. :smallamused:

[Othniel Edden]

If he was honest with both that he's seeing other women, and that he wants to make sure he chooses whats best for him and the women he cares about, that seems more like a LN act.

[Shadowknight12]

You're not disagreeing with me, you're not even reading what I'm saying. I'm not claiming that the OP necessarily is insulting to polyamorous people, I'm saying that someone might be insulted by it. :smallamused:

No, I was correcting you on the implications you drew from the post. Then you changed your argument to "Well, still! Someone could be offended!"

This is the internet. I could say "2 H2 + O2 ==> 2 H2O" and I would still offend someone somewhere.

[Greenish]

No, I was correcting you on the implications you drew from the post. Then you changed your argument to "Well, still! Someone could be offended!"I did not change my argument at any point.


This is the internet. I could say "2 H2 + O2 ==> 2 H2O" and I would still offend someone somewhere.Dihydrogen monoxide has very serious effects on your health and on the environment.

[Shadowknight12]

I did not change my argument at any point.


Well, suggesting that dating two girls simultaneously automatically makes one a "bastard" in the OP could offend someone.

I corrected your erroneous interpretation. Then you suggested that others might have the same erroneous interpretation. To me, that's shifting the argument.


Dihydrogen monoxide has very serious effects on your health and on the environment.

It is found in countless hazardous substances!

[neoseph7]

How dare you shadowknight12! That reaction goes both ways for a number of circumstances. I have never been so angry in my entire...

Actually I hate chemistry.

There is "going on a date", and "dating". Since one of the discussions is about the lawfulness, different cultures have different rules about when you can do what with regards to romantic relationships. Taking a girl on a date does not mean you two are "official" anymore than it means that if a girl is taken out on a date she has to put out. There are socially accepted "points of no return" when it comes to dating, and they change from culture to culture. For some, it's not official until there is a ring on her finger. For others, a kiss on the lips might seal the deal, or a second date could do it. Also, it might be expected to not schedule dates with another girl for at least a week, to ensure you don't go out with girl 'A' on tuesday, fall in love with her by friday, but have a scheduled date on saturday with girl 'B' that you shouldn't cancel on because you are a lawful person.

To generalize between Lawful and Lawful Good, the lawful good person takes into account not simply the rules of society with regards to when it is and is not acceptable to go about breaking hearts, but also takes into account the feelings of the girls, beyond whether its right or wrong (or more specifically, regardless of social acceptance, if someone goes home crying that isn't you, you failed). The lawful neutral is simply going to worry about social acceptance, and if a girl goes home crying for some reason, life sucks and then you pay taxes. As far as plots go, especially for character plot regarding alignment shifts, the twinges of guilt a lawful neutral character might feel as a result of following the law but not the heart resulting in becoming good would be interesting. If it hadn't been done a thousand times over.

Finally, with regards to chaos and society, as has been mentioned before, going against social rules is considered chaotic for most purposes. Social acceptance tends to rely on "polite fictions". You don't tell the 2nd girl you went out with the first, unless you are asked. She doesn't ask b/c she doesn't want to know, and you don't say it because this is one of those situations where ignorance is bliss. A little don't-ask-don't-tell action. This all relies on a fairly strong western culture though, from what I've seen. The fact is, it's the lawful stupid paladin that is up front and then wonders why he never got a second date from either girl.

Love is a battlefield. Following the rules of combat for any battle isn't going to turn the bad parts pleasant.

[Partysan]

Lets say that a character has two girls that he likes (and they both like him), but he can't choose between them and isn't bastard enough to go out with both. Would dating both of them simultaneously in secret for some time, but just so he can figure out which he likes more and then dump (politely of course) the other, be considered LN?
If not then what should he do in this situation?
How much does this deed stray from an LN alignment?
To which alignment does this deed correspond the strongest?

It's defying social concepts of what is right to do in that situation. It's cheating. It's lying and deceiving. It's doing what you want, and what anyone else thinks be damned. It's also wishy-washy.

Cheating on two girls at once isn't exactly a "white lie"...

What does "dating" or "going out" mean? Spending time? Having sex? And why does it automatically entail exclusivity?
If I promise someone I'm not going to meet/sleep with anyone but them, them I should keep that promise (whyever I made it), but I can't see why just seeing a girl you're interested in makes you a bastard if you're seeing another girl you're also legitimately interested in or why you should be compelled to tell them (although telling them IS preferrable in my opinion).
And he isn't lying to them either, except if he says he isn't interested in any other girl. And I didn't read that from the OP. And it's only wishy-washy if you for some reason believe that one can't actually be in love with more than one person.
You might consider it dishonest though, if the girls in question strongly assume that by dating them you will not see any other woman. (although again, what does "see" or "date" entail? And what part of it makes it what you call "cheating"?) In that case, dishonesty brings it into chaotic territorry.


Yeah, like I said, that's not what I'm reading from the OP. What I'm reading from the OP is that polyamory is not a valid option (for whatever reason) and that instead of secretly going out with them for an extended period of time, he's going to secretly go out with them until he makes up his mind of who to keep.

As I read it, secrecy was the default in the "bastard" option and the proposed option. I did not read an implication of bastardry in polyamory in any way.

Actually, the secrecy was only mentioned in the "testing" option, but it might be that the OP did assume it was obligatory.
And while we're at it, why does he have to do it secretly? I mean, even if there are some things he wouldn't be able to do with both simultaneously because of societal norms (like, for example, have sex), I don't think that's what the OP meant by finding out with whom he wants to stay in the end because for some stupid reason he has to abandon one. And just spending time to get to know each other (presumably the princess, since he knows his childhood friend rather well I suppose) wouldn't be something you have to keep secret except in very special societies.
It might be possible that one or both of the girls are incredibly jealous and won't have him meet another girl, even if he doesn't get too close. In that case, well for me that means I won't date such a person.
And about hurting their feelings: well, if he tells them that he does really like her a lot, but there is another person who he also likes a lot, then if one instead of being happy because of being loved gets hurt because they aren't the only person in that other person's universe... Well, you might have to decide then if it's worse to be honest and possibly hurt someone or to lie to them (which, incidentally, might cause them to be even more hurt if it conmes out). I'd opt for honesty, but apparently liking two people makes you a bastard, so others might see it differently.

I'm sure I forgot something important, but I'm going to post that as is now.

Oh and that
It wouldn't end for you well, so good that you didn't. was completely unnecessary. It's not as if I'm starting a flamewar here, this IS already an ethical discussion.

[Coidzor]

What does "dating" or "going out" mean?

Generally it means a formal relationship, especially if it is extant for any real length of time.

As was stated, there's a difference between dating someone and going out on a date with them.


And about hurting their feelings: well, if he tells them that he does really like her a lot, but there is another person who he also likes a lot, then if one instead of being happy because of being loved gets hurt because they aren't the only person in that other person's universe...

Wow. Just. Wow.

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, the secrecy was only mentioned in the "testing" option, but it might be that the OP did assume it was obligatory.

It was implied, yes.


And while we're at it, why does he have to do it secretly?

Because there wouldn't be a dilemma in the first place if polyamory was an option.


I mean, even if there are some things he wouldn't be able to do with both simultaneously because of societal norms (like, for example, have sex), I don't think that's what the OP meant by finding out with whom he wants to stay in the end because for some stupid reason he has to abandon one. And just spending time to get to know each other (presumably the princess, since he knows his childhood friend rather well I suppose) wouldn't be something you have to keep secret except in very special societies.
It might be possible that one or both of the girls are incredibly jealous and won't have him meet another girl, even if he doesn't get too close. In that case, well for me that means I won't date such a person.

And about hurting their feelings: well, if he tells them that he does really like her a lot, but there is another person who he also likes a lot, then if one instead of being happy because of being loved gets hurt because they aren't the only person in that other person's universe... Well, you might have to decide then if it's worse to be honest and possibly hurt someone or to lie to them (which, incidentally, might cause them to be even more hurt if it conmes out).

I have no idea what you're saying here.


I'd opt for honesty, but apparently liking two people makes you a bastard, so others might see it differently.

So apparently you read my posts where it was explained that such a misconception was erroneous and you chose to ignore them. Okay. That doesn't make you any less wrong, by the way.

[Partysan]

Because there wouldn't be a dilemma in the first place if polyamory was an option.
I guess our problem here is that I don't interpret the "dating" the OP wanted to do for some time as a comitted relationship and you do.


I have no idea what you're saying here.
:smallannoyed: Ok. Basically I'm saying these:
- I don't think what the character needs to do with the girls to find out who he prefers is having a comitted relationship with both. Going on "dates" instead of "dating" I guess.
-- Because of that there shouldn't be a need for secrecy out of societal pressure.
- It might be that even just "dates" with the other would offend one girl.
-- In that case the girl's jealousy is a problem per se.
- Really liking another girl does not diminish the value of really liking the first.
-- However a girl might consider the love for her worthless if she isn't the only one
--- In that case only, a decision between lying and not hurting her feelings but taking a risk of greater hurt, or being honest and possibly hurting her feelings has to be made.
---- I personally prefer honesty here. However if liking two girls is somehow seen as bad (e.g. by the girl) one might think differently.


So apparently you read my posts where it was explained that such a misconception was erroneous and you chose to ignore them. Okay. That doesn't make you any less wrong, by the way.
That wasn't specifically directed at you, but at the reasons for secrecy when I was talking about jealousy in the part of my post that you had no idea of what I was saying in.

[Shadowknight12]

I guess our problem here is that I don't interpret the "dating" the OP wanted to do for some time as a comitted relationship and you do.

You misunderstand. If polyamory was an option, this thread wouldn't exist. If this thread exists, polyamory must somehow not be an option.

In modus tollendo tollens form:

A --> -B.
B.
Therefore, -A.


:smallannoyed: Ok. Basically I'm saying these:
- I don't think what the character needs to do with the girls to find out who he prefers isn't having a comitted relationship with both. Going on "dates" instead of "dating" I guess.
-- Because of that there shouldn't be a need for secrecy out of societal pressure.
- It might be that even just "dates" with the other would offend one girl.
-- In that case the girl's jealousy is a problem per se.
- Really liking another girl does not diminish the value of really liking the first.
-- However a girl might consider the love for her worthless if she isn't the only one
--- In that case only, a decision between lying and not hurting her feelings but taking a risk of greater hurt, or being honest and possibly hurting her feelings has to be made.
---- I personally prefer honesty here. However if liking two girls is somehow seen as bad (e.g. by the girl) one might think differently.

The double negative in the first item makes it hard to understand what you're really trying to say. It doesn't matter, because, at the end of the day, that's just a suggestion of what you'd do and not actually whether the proposed solution is LN or not, and what other proposed solution would be LN.

I can't comment on it.


That wasn't specifically directed at you, but at the reasons for secrecy when I was talking about jealousy in the part of my post that you had no idea of what I was saying in.

No, you said "apparently liking two people makes you a bastard." That was never implied in any way in the entirety of this thread. What the OP said as "being a bastard" was secretly going out with both girls simultaneously for as long as he pleased. The alternative he offered was doing so only until he decided which to keep.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

You know, looking at the original post, hard-coded straitjacket alignments would be a hilarious plot device for a sitcom.

I would love to see a sitcom where there was an apartment complex populated by one character from each alignment.

[Coidzor]

- Really liking another girl does not diminish the value of really liking the first.
-- However a girl might consider the love for her worthless if she isn't the only one

Is there a reason you're expressing open hostility towards the idea that some people are monogamous here?

[Partysan]

You misunderstand. If polyamory was an option, this thread wouldn't exist. If this thread exists, polyamory must somehow not be an option.
Yes. But monogamy does only prevent "dating" multiple persons, not going on "dates" with more than one as long as you aren't "dating anyone.


The double negative in the first item makes it hard to understand what you're really trying to say. It doesn't matter, because, at the end of the day, that's just a suggestion of what you'd do and not actually whether the proposed solution is LN or not, and what other proposed solution would be LN.

I can't comment on it.
The double negative was unintentional, I'll correct it.
To be fair, I didn't adress a lot of the alignment problems, but I did say that the proposed action was chaotic rather than lawful, as long as the circumstances would qualify it as dishonest (which I assume they do).
Now what course of action actually IS LN is highly dependent on the society this plays in.


No, you said "apparently liking two people makes you a bastard." That was never implied in any way in the entirety of this thread. What the OP said as "being a bastard" was secretly going out with both girls simultaneously for as long as he pleased. The alternative he offered was doing so only until he decided which to keep.
I guess using this expression that was so prevalent in the thread was a mistake, here, because I didn't really want to refer to that. My "bastard" was rather about this:

Is there a reason you're expressing open hostility towards the idea that some people are monogamous here?
No, I'm expressing hostility at the idea that non-monogamous feelings are somehow worthless. Which is not an idea implied by the posters but by the fictual situation presented.

[Quietus]

You know, looking at the original post, hard-coded straitjacket alignments would be a hilarious plot device for a sitcom.

I would love to see a sitcom where there was an apartment complex populated by one character from each alignment.

"He's Lawful Evil. She's Chaotic Good. The fights over the shower in the morning are awesome!"


Slightly off-topic : Lawful does not necessarily mean following the law. It tends to refer more to an ordered method of thinking and acting. A Lawful person might balk at the law that every Monday morning at 8 AM, you have to stab the nearest person with a sharp object. A Chaotic person might love it because that one guy really has it coming to him. The example is obviously extreme, but the general point stands.

Now, on the OP : I think the most lawful thing to do here would be to let both women know the situation, and let it sort itself out from there. "Look, I really like you, but I also really like her. I'd like to date both of you for a while, get to know each of you, let you get to know me, so that I can decide."

[Coidzor]

No, I'm expressing hostility at the idea that non-monogamous feelings are somehow worthless. Which is not an idea implied by the posters but by the fictual situation presented.

That's not how your tone and word choice are coming across then.

And the fictional situation presented is one wherein, real or perceived, marrying both is not an option, which does not, in fact, state anything about the worth of non-monogamous feelings. The most likely and practical explanation being the necessary time devoted to it in a game of having to juggle two NPC spouses vs. a single NPC spouse that could be spent on other aspects of the game, like, say, the other players, which has nothing to do with value judgments about the relative worth of either.

Your comments, on the other hand, amount to "**** people who would mind finding out they were in this scenario, as their feelings are invalid."

[Shadowknight12]

Yes. But monogamy does only prevent "dating" multiple persons, not going on "dates" with more than one as long as you aren't "dating anyone.

You continue to miss my point. If that was an option, the OP would have already thought of it. If he insists on the secrecy, there must be a reason for it.


The double negative was unintentional, I'll correct it.
To be fair, I didn't adress a lot of the alignment problems, but I did say that the proposed action was chaotic rather than lawful, as long as the circumstances would qualify it as dishonest (which I assume they do).
Now what course of action actually IS LN is highly dependent on the society this plays in.

Yeah, the bolded part is precisely my point.


I guess using this expression that was so prevalent in the thread was a mistake, here, because I didn't really want to refer to that. My "bastard" was rather about this:

No, I'm expressing hostility at the idea that non-monogamous feelings are somehow worthless. Which is not an idea implied by the posters but by the fictual situation presented.

Right, because someone asking how would a LN character choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream is deeming "eat both" worthless. It can't possibly be the simple desire to eat just one.

[Partysan]

That's not how your tone and word choice are coming across then.

And the fictional situation presented is one wherein, real or perceived, marrying both is not an option, which does not, in fact, state anything about the worth of non-monogamous feelings. The most likely and practical explanation being the necessary time devoted to it in a game of having to juggle two NPC spouses vs. a single NPC spouse that could be spent on other aspects of the game, like, say, the other players, which has nothing to do with value judgments about the relative worth of either.

Your comments, on the other hand, amount to "**** people who would mind finding out they were in this scenario, as their feelings are invalid."

Only that the OP never said anything about secretly marrying both. He said going out with both for a while so he can find out who would be better for him to marry.
And I never said to **** anyone (yes, I'm manually typing stars here) or that anyone's feelings are invalid. Actually, the character in question is in love with two women, thus having polyamorous tendencies, but cannot be with both because society (and possibly the women) would not accept that, or, which I admit can be true, he accepts the monogamous norm and thinks for himself that is't bad to be in love with both and because of this seeks a way to decide.
What my post amounted to and I haven't gotten an answer for that yet, is why secrecy is paramount in that situation, because contrary to you I don't think that what the OP meant was marrying both women.

EDIT:


You continue to miss my point. If that was an option, the OP would have already thought of it. If he insists on the secrecy, there must be a reason for it.
Which is why I'm asking for the reason for secrecy.


Right, because someone asking how would a LN character choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream is deeming "eat both" worthless. It can't possibly be the simple desire to eat just one.
Being in love with two women somehow implies the desire to be with both. And the point at which the worthlessness came in was where I speculated that the reason for secrecy might not be society but the jealousy of one or both partners.

[Shadowknight12]

Which is why I'm asking for the reason for secrecy.

Um. None of our business much?


Being in love with two women somehow implies the desire to be with both. And the point at which the worthlessness came in was where I speculated that the reason for secrecy might not be society but the jealousy of one or both partners.

Incorrect. I can well be in love with two women and desire to be just with one because I could find this specific situation highly inequal for them. Empathy and all that.

[Partysan]

Um. None of our business much?

?! When analyzing possible alignments for a situation then significant information is not the business of the person doing the analyzing? Sure, if you say so...


Incorrect. I can well be in love with two women and desire to be just with one because I could find this specific situation highly inequal for them. Empathy and all that.

Thanks for implying I have no empathy. And in this specific situation, which of course relies in monogamy being the enforced standard, your "desire" is more of an intellectual decision. I'm not saying a bad one, it may fit the situation, but it's not what I'd call a desire.

[Shadowknight12]

?! When analyzing possible alignments for a situation then significant information is not the business of the person doing the analyzing? Sure, if you say so...


It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter why there's a need for secrecy. What matters is that there is. Would knowing why change anything? Presumably if it wasn't necessary, a lawful character wouldn't have even considered it. Again, unless that's what society expected of him.


Thanks for implying I have no empathy. And in this specific situation, which of course relies in monogamy being the enforced standard, your "desire" is more of an intellectual decision. I'm not saying a bad one, it may fit the situation, but it's not what I'd call a desire.

Nnnno, that's not what I'm implying. You challenged my assertion and I gave you an example. This has absolutely nothing to do with you. I simply gave you an example of a reason why I could be in love with two people and still desire to be with simply one of them. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It remains a desire because it observes the definition of the word.

[Greenish]

I corrected your erroneous interpretation.By "Erroneous", you obviously mean different than yours.


You know, looking at the original post, hard-coded straitjacket alignments would be a hilarious plot device for a sitcom.

I would love to see a sitcom where there was an apartment complex populated by one character from each alignment.Chaotic "Neutral" would burn the place to ground sooner or later. Probably sooner. Season 1 finale at the very least.


"He's Lawful Evil. She's Chaotic Good. The fights over the shower in the morning are awesome!"How about "He's Lawful Evil. She's Chaotic Good. Together they fight crime!"

Or "He's Lawful Evil. She's Chaotic Good. Together they rule Karrnath!"

[Shadowknight12]

By "Erroneous", you obviously mean different than yours.

No, more like "incorrect." The odds of a person seriously saying* that engaging in polyamory is being a bastard are astronomically low.

EDIT: * in these forums.

[Greenish]

No, more like "incorrect." The odds of a person seriously saying that engaging in polyamory is being a bastard are astronomically low.As you pointed out, this is the internet. :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Chaotic "Neutral" would burn the place to ground sooner or later. Probably sooner. Season 1 finale at the very least.

That was a pretty wild party, after all. :smallbiggrin:


As you pointed out, this is the internet. :smallamused:

Indeed, assuming things without asking for clarification is our bread and butter pickles.

[Greenish]

Indeed, assuming things without asking for clarification is our bread and butter pickles.You callin' me a pickle? Thems the fightin' words!

I warn you, I'm a tough guy!

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg194/backwoodz_tuner/internet_tough_guys.jpg

[Shadowknight12]

As you pointed out, this is the internet. :smallamused:

*shrug* I suppose.

I think the sit com would be even funnier if they were all outsiders.

A modron, a slaad, a rilmani, an eladrin, an archon, a guardinal, a baatezu, a tanar'ri and a yugoloth! They fight crime each other!

[Serpentine]

I'd opt for honesty, but apparently liking two people makes you a bastard, so others might see it differently.You're sticking words in our mouth none of us have said. The "liking two people" doesn't make you a bastard, the pursuing both of those attractions in secret makes you a bastard.
Lets say that a character has two girls that he likes (and they both like him), but he can't choose between them and isn't bastard enough to go out with both. Would dating both of them simultaneously in secret for some time, but just so he can figure out which he likes more and then dump (politely of course) the other, be considered LN?Also, the use of the word "dating", in addition to the "in secret" qualifier suggests a pursuit of a relationship each object of his affection could reasonably assume to be exclusive.
If he were open about the situation, told them about it, that would be - in absence of any qualifiers or context - a lightly Lawful act, and the honourable thing to do.

Being in love with two women somehow implies the desire to be with both. And the point at which the worthlessness came in was where I speculated that the reason for secrecy might not be society but the jealousy of one or both partners.Do you really not see how judgemental you're coming across when you say things like this? You talk about the partners' "jealousy" as though that's not a legitimate thing for them to feel. Most people expect exclusivity from their relationships. Just because you do not, doesn't mean everyone else is just "jealous", and that any issue with their partners cheating on them is theirs.

[Drachasor]

Eh, the polygamy talk has no place here, imho. It was pretty clear that the OP is referring to a monogamous scenario. We have also already brought up casual dating in the first page, and that doesn't seem to be an option either. I find this understandable -- IRL, I wouldn't be comfortable dating two different people at once. We can assume the OP's character (and the ladies) is the same as someone like me in this regard or that casual dating simply isn't an option and we are talking about courtship. Anyhow, this is derailing the thread.

ShadowKnight, I concede I was wrong earlier. A Lawful Neutral guy could go either way if society expects him to keep such a thing secret (I do not think it would be Lawful Good behavior to go either way though). That said, I expect it probably isn't the case here. Then again, since he thought keeping it secret was less bastardy, perhaps it is the case -- or perhaps he's assuming it is ok if he doesn't get caught.

Of course, there's another option for the OP that I am not sure has been brought up. He could not date either one for the time being until he can make a proper decision.

[Shadowknight12]

ShadowKnight, I concede I was wrong earlier. A Lawful Neutral guy could go either way if society expects him to keep such a thing secret (I do not think it would be Lawful Good behavior to go either way though). That said, I expect it probably isn't the case here. Then again, since he thought keeping it secret was less bastardy, perhaps it is the case -- or perhaps he's assuming it is ok if he doesn't get caught.

Thanks for that, but I have to disagree again. I think it would be very Lawful Good to lie about such a thing. If the girls expect such a thing to be kept secret, and would feel awkward/embarrassed if it was brought up (and so would be the families of all involved), then it would be for the greater good to avoid hurting everyone's feelings, bring shame and dishonour to those involved, and instead keep everything nice, polite and hidden.

Now, I want to clarify that in this specific example I'm giving, it's not the act itself that's seen as dishonourable, it's the act of making it public, of failing to keep it a secret. Perhaps courting is done as a very secret and private affair, and the shame comes in allowing others to learn of one's private life. Lawful Neutral would keep it a secret because it's what society expects of him. Lawful Good would keep it a secret for that AND because the greater good indicates that he minimises the suffering of all involved.


Of course, there's another option for the OP that I am not sure has been brought up. He could not date either one for the time being until he can make a proper decision.

If society demands that he date someone (what with him being a young man in his prime) that might not be feasible for a LN character.

[Rimeheart]

Given how the OP's character is probably in generic fantasy setting, it is more like courtship than dating as it were. At least that is my understanding

That most likely being the case it is often the case that courtship it undertaken in the manner that it is one person seeking some sort of contract law bond to another person. This typically occurs by one party expressing interest in spending time with the other party and and they build a relationship of some sort that leads both parties to agree to a contract of some sorts binding them together generally speaking finanically under the law of the state they live in.

From a Lawful Neutral perspective I see nothing out of the ordinary with regard to alignment if he persues information gathering on these two potential contract partners as long as no local traditions are broken during this process of information gathering.
I see Lawful Neutral in this case to act more like an anthropologist in the sense that they will respect local customs and do their best to abide by them with regard to courtship of the local women folk. If this means during courtship it is ok to bed them then he can do it free and clear within his alignment with both of them and have not done any harm. Unless the local customs also imply you should not be bedding more than one woman.

Now all that being said... it is entirely up to the world builder to establish that sort of context. However the world builder does it in this case should not be taken as an implied message of distaste for another value system that is different from the one within the world. I say this because some times people take things far to personally.

TL;DR: I still love my my evil plan :smallsmile: . Really you should just ask your DM about the local customs regarding courtship since that seems to be more of what you are implying OP and then based on that information procced as I have suggested in the manner that an anthropologist would to best fit your LN status.

[Serpentine]

Of course, there's another option for the OP that I am not sure has been brought up. He could not date either one for the time being until he can make a proper decision.That was my suggestion in response to one of the questions in the OP.

Problem: On the one hand, taken in isolation I would consider "lying" to be a Chaotic act*. On the other, "deception" is a trait associated with, among other things, Devils.
Overall, I could consider lying and deception to be Chaotically-aligned deeds, which are commonly used for overall Lawful purposes.

*Note, again: not necessarily a strongly Chaotic act, in the absence of any context, and a single lie does not make someone's alignment Chaotic.

[Drachasor]

Thanks for that, but I have to disagree again. I think it would be very Lawful Good to lie about such a thing. If the girls expect such a thing to be kept secret, and would feel awkward/embarrassed if it was brought up (and so would be the families of all involved), then it would be for the greater good to avoid hurting everyone's feelings, bring shame and dishonour to those involved, and instead keep everything nice, polite and hidden.

Except there's no way he can actually keep it secret. That's just not realistic. A painful truth people pretend is secret is still painful. I'm not saying he yell about what is going on in public, but part of being Lawful Good is being honest. That's in the description for the alignment (unlike Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil or even just the description on Lawful).

There are plenty of both good and honorable ways for a Lawful Good character to handle the situation. He could date neither. He could pick one (even if it is at random or otherwise arbitrary). He could discuss the matter with both of them and see if they are ok with him dating both. Dating both in secret isn't an option as a Lawful Good decision, but of course that doesn't mean a Lawful Good character couldn't do it.


Now, I want to clarify that in this specific example I'm giving, it's not the act itself that's seen as dishonourable, it's the act of making it public, of failing to keep it a secret. Perhaps courting is done as a very secret and private affair, and the shame comes in allowing others to learn of one's private life. Lawful Neutral would keep it a secret because it's what society expects of him. Lawful Good would keep it a secret for that AND because the greater good indicates that he minimises the suffering of all involved.

Minimizing the suffering of all involved would include not dating them both, since inevitably he can't continue to date both in secret until the end of time given the OP's description. It would be a rationalization on the good side of things to ignore this.


If society demands that he date someone (what with him being a young man in his prime) that might not be feasible for a LN character.

While it might be somewhat expected, I don't see how a society can feasibly DEMAND it.

More to the point, can society demand he be courting someone and also expect it to be kept secret? At that point he could easily just make it seem like he's courting someone if both are somehow true (and certainly this would be a common enough practice). Otherwise he has an out.

[Partysan]

You're sticking words in our mouth none of us have said. The "liking two people" doesn't make you a bastard, the pursuing both of those attractions in secret makes you a bastard

I already explained how I meant that and yes, it was phrased too agressively. I'm posting in a somewhat aggressive way the last weeks, don't know why that is.


Do you really not see how judgemental you're coming across when you say things like this? You talk about the partners' "jealousy" as though that's not a legitimate thing for them to feel. Most people expect exclusivity from their relationships. Just because you do not, doesn't mean everyone else is just "jealous", and that any issue with their partners cheating on them is theirs.

Well, on the one hand I consider this expectation of exclusivity a largely societal thing. Furthermore jealousy is a solely destructive emotion, thus I don't appreciate it very much. I realize that probably sounded even more judgemental, but I don't know how to phrase it differently, so please forgive me for that. (no sarcasm here, I mean that)
I don't however think that cheating is ok, I just don't define cheating automatically as pursuing someone else. For me cheating means betraying the other's trust e.g. by breaking a promise. If two people did agree on an exclusive relationship then they should by all means hold the promise or change it, but not break it. I just don't think that kind of promise is or should be obligatory.

[hamishspence]

A Lawful Neutral character would do what would be socially expected of him, regardless of what's actually good or evil. He wouldn't do it because he cared too much about the girls' feelings, but more about what society would think of him if he didn't.

If the LN character is in a society where such a thing is frowned upon, he wouldn't do it. If the LN character is in a society where that is the best way to deal with such a problem, that's what he'd do.

I tend to disagree- law isn't all about "what's socially expected". There are Chaotic societies in D&D (elves, for example). And within those societies, there could be Lawful characters who don't do what's "socially expected" of them- because they're keen on making the world a more orderly place.


I am not someone who endorses the concept that some acts are aligned, unless they actually channel/invoke/oppose/embody an alignment. This act isn't, to me, aligned at all. It depends on the justifications for doing it.

WOTC appears to disagree- in Fiendish Codex 2 with its Corrupt acts and Obesiant acts, not all of which are supernatural. "Stealing from the needy" is a corrupt act, regardless of justifications for it, like "to feed the even more needy".

[Serpentine]

Well, on the one hand I consider this expectation of exclusivity a largely societal thing.I have seen little or no convincing evidence for this, and appears to be pretty much just wishful thinking on the part of some polyamorous people.

Furthermore jealousy is a solely destructive emotion, thus I don't appreciate it very much. I realize that probably sounded even more judgemental, but I don't know how to phrase it differently, so please forgive me for that.A bit of jealousy is natural, normal, and yes even healthy. Monogomous couples expect their partners to be monogamous. That falls under "jealousy", but it's also totally reasonable, no matter your own preferences.

I don't however think that cheating is ok, I just don't define cheating automatically as pursuing someone else. For me cheating means betraying the other's trust e.g. by breaking a promise. If two people did agree on an exclusive relationship then they should by all means hold the promise or change it, but not break it. I just don't think that kind of promise is or should be obligatory.Unless both of these girls have explicitly said they're fine with the OP's character pursuing both of them - and the "secret" bit says they have not - and unless the OP means "casually going on dates" by "dating" - and again, context suggests this is not so - the situation described in the original post is betraying the other's trust. Without explicit permission to do so, "pursuing someone else" is absolutely cheating. Without explicit permission, the promise is implicit.
You may not like it, but too bad. This is the way most relationships work, whether you like it or not.

Frankly, as far as antagonism in this thread goes, you are making far more of a victim of monogamy than anyone here was making of polyamory.

[ImperatorK]

More info:
The PC was very popular by ladies, but back then wasn't interested, so he shoot down their advances. Now he started to feel something to those two girls, but doesn't want to hurt those other girls that he refused to go out with.

Huh... If I think about it, it's more LG then LN... :smallconfused:

[Serpentine]

No, that's someone convincing themselves that their selfish act is really quite selfless when you think about it!

[Partysan]

I have seen little or no convincing evidence for this, and appears to be pretty much just wishful thinking on the part of some polyamorous people.
Well, polygamy isn't exactly unheard of in human history, and then there's the (largely extinct) matriarchal societies.


A bit of jealousy is natural, normal, and yes even healthy. Monogomous couples expect their partners to be monogamous. That falls under "jealousy", but it's also totally reasonable, no matter your own preferences.
I'd debate you on parts of that, but that would be going too far in derailing this thread and I'm too far out on that anyway.


Unless both of these girls have explicitly said they're fine with the OP's character pursuing both of them - and the "secret" bit says they have not - and unless the OP means "casually going on dates" by "dating" - and again, context suggests this is not so - the situation described in the original post is betraying the other's trust.
As I've said multiple times, I've interpreted the OP differently. I'm not debating what you say here.

Without explicit permission to do so, "pursuing someone else" is absolutely cheating. Without explicit permission, the promise is implicit.
This on the other hand I'm reluctant to accept in general, but lets assume it for the OP.


Frankly, as far as antagonism in this thread goes, you are making far more of a victim of monogamy than anyone here was making of polyamory.
Personal trauma I guess, and I was riled up anyway.

[Serpentine]

This on the other hand I'm reluctant to accept in general, but lets assume it for the OP.The default for relationships is monogamy. Even in polygamous relationships, a big point - from what I've seen - is made of making sure that everyone in the relationship is definitively and explicitly aware of what everyone is and is not okay with. In the absence of this explicit permission to "do whatever you like", the default assumption is "I expect you to stick with me and only me".
Again: your own personal preferences are pretty much irrelevant here. We're not talking about your preferred relationships, nor whether or not you're immune to perfectly normal emotions. We're talking about this relationship, and general expectations and acceptability.

edit: Let me put it this way. Are you aware that your insistances here are of a kind to, and about as offensive as: a heterosexual insisting that homosexuals should just be straight and vice-versa; sexual people telling asexual people that they just need to get laid; bisexuals claiming that all monosexuals are just repressed; and, indeed, monogymous people insisting that you, as a polyamorous person, clearly simply have never really been in love and that if you had, you'd stop being so promiscuous and would just settle down with one person? Food for thought.

[Drachasor]

More info:
The PC was very popular by ladies, but back then wasn't interested, so he shoot down their advances. Now he started to feel something to those two girls, but doesn't want to hurt those other girls that he refused to go out with.

Huh... If I think about it, it's more LG then LN... :smallconfused:

That's an untenable position for many reasons.

First, those other girls aren't going to get you either way. By pretending you are still available, you are in fact giving them false hope. The responsible thing is to not keep a secret here.

Secondly, it isn't feasible to live one's life trying to never inadvertently cause offense to anyone else regardless of the unreasonableness of their feelings. Yes, going out with someone else might hurt them, but by that you can NEVER date anyone. Heck, nor can anyone else if you apply this principle universally, for their might be someone in secret that secretly likes them. The net result of trying to apply this rationale is that everyone suffers.

Thirdly, this places the idle fantasies of others above and beyond your very real desires for happiness, as well as the very realistic wants of the person you like. That's simply the wrong way around, and considering point one and two would result in your suffering and the suffering of the person you care about while trying to maintain this secret.

Fourthly, you do a potential disservice to the other women by assuming they are so emotionally fragile that they can't handle you going out with someone else.

[Partysan]

The default for relationships is monogamy. Even in polygamous relationships, a big point - from what I've seen - is made of making sure that everyone in the relationship is definitively and explicitly aware of what everyone is and is not okay with. In the absence of this explicit permission to "do whatever you like", the default assumption is "I expect you to stick with me and only me".
Again: your own personal preferences are pretty much irrelevant here. We're not talking about your preferred relationships, nor whether or not you're immune to perfectly normal emotions. We're talking about this relationship, and general expectations and acceptability.

edit: Let me put it this way. Are you aware that your insistances here are of a kind to, and about as offensive as: a heterosexual insisting that homosexuals should just be straight and vice-versa; sexual people telling asexual people that they just need to get laid; bisexuals claiming that all monosexuals are just repressed; and, indeed, monogymous people insisting that you, as a polyamorous person, clearly simply have never really been in love and that if you had, you'd stop being so promiscuous and would just settle down with one person? Food for thought.

I am aware that one might read it that way but I am not saying that anyone should be polyamorous. What I am disputing is your claim in the first part, that every relationship is intrinsicly monoamorous, except in very special and explicit cases. That's just a majority convention.
Assuming monoamory unless a special permission is given is not an inherently better concept than assuming polyamory unless a promise of exclusive commitment is made. The fact that everyone, including me, has to assume monoamory because that's what society teaches does not change that. I do not have anything against monoamory. (I do have my beef with jealousy though. And even if it's a perfectly natural feeling that does not make it a good one.)

To come back to the specific scenario. Even in my first post I did ask what exactly the OP meant by "dating" and why the character would have to do it in secrecy. If the answer would have been "by dating I mean having a comitted relationship and society and the women would both object to him having two" then I would have accepted that. I also detailed my assumption that this might not be the case (specifically, that he did not talk about having comitted relationships), on which parts of my arguments base. The answer I got for my questions about the scenario was "none of your business."

You might accuse me of having been overly defensive (which in that case is practically the same as aggressive, funny somehow), because I have. But I didn't make the arguments people say I did.

[Serpentine]

It's not just a majority convention, it's a majority reality. To assume monogamy unless determined otherwise results in... missed opportunities, at worst. To assume polygamy unless determined otherwise results in, not just at worst but quite likely, hurt feelings, confusion and probably the end of the relationship, and in my opinion is somewhat of a jerk move. Even if it is "just what society teaches", it is also overwhelmingly what people expect, to the point where it is assumed unless said otherwise. However you prefer it to be is irrelevant.

That "none of your business" bit was weirdly inappropriate, particularly considering your question was relevant.

[Partysan]

It's not just a majority convention, it's a majority reality. To assume monogamy unless determined otherwise results in... missed opportunities, at worst. To assume polygamy unless determined otherwise results in, not just at worst but quite likely, hurt feelings, confusion and probably the end of the relationship, and in my opinion is somewhat of a jerk move. Even if it is "just what society teaches", it is also overwhelmingly what people expect, to the point where it is assumed unless said otherwise. However you prefer it to be is irrelevant.

That "none of your business" bit was weirdly inappropriate, particularly considering your question was relevant.

That's why I said that everyone including me has to and does assume monogamy. But an is does not a should make.
And I think with that we can end this discussion or at least move it to a private medium.

[Knaight]

Assuming monoamory unless a special permission is given is not an inherently better concept than assuming polyamory unless a promise of exclusive commitment is made. The fact that everyone, including me, has to assume monoamory because that's what society teaches does not change that. I do not have anything against monoamory. (I do have my beef with jealousy though. And even if it's a perfectly natural feeling that does not make it a good one.)

This assumption doesn't have to exist. What matters is whether or not people romantically entangled with someone have the right to know about other people romantically entangles with the same person. That is very much the default, and for good reason, as it affects the person in question, and assumptions can't just be made.

This is what makes the secrecy involved in the hypothetical situation as a problem. Keeping secrets is often reasonable, but in this case it is highly pertinent information, and keeping it makes some specific statements about the characters belief. One of these is that the character beliefs his privilege of dating one of the two long term is more important to this character than being honest with either of these people. "My right to date you trumps your right to understand our relationship" is not a tenable position. What it is is an inherently unbalanced, inherently objectifying position wherein one elevates their own emotions over those of other people in a hostile manner.

I wouldn't necessarily call this evil, but it certainly isn't good. Using D&D terms, this is CN, and it would be CE if this sort of stuff wasn't as typical as it is.

[hamishspence]

In the context of D&D- polyamory can be compatible with Lawful Goodness (gold and/or silver dragons in Draconomicon mention something along those lines).

"Betrayal" is traditionally Evil in BoVD (though a case could be made that betraying an evil faction for purely Good reasons is not evil).

So- as long as "betrayal" is scrupulously avoided, it may not be as problematic.

[Drachasor]

Assuming monoamory unless a special permission is given is not an inherently better concept than assuming polyamory unless a promise of exclusive commitment is made. The fact that everyone, including me, has to assume monoamory because that's what society teaches does not change that. I do not have anything against monoamory. (I do have my beef with jealousy though. And even if it's a perfectly natural feeling that does not make it a good one.)

If you assume you are living in our society or something like it, then one is definitely a superior way to approach things than another. I'd also add that there's no reason that jealousy need exist in a monogamous relationship, nor any reason a polyamorous relationship would inherently avoid it.

Anyhow, this IS derailing the thread. It risks turning the thread into a debate about polyamory, which I think we are just barely avoiding (kinda).

[Serpentine]

Yeah, that, Knaight.

And I'd like to repeat that I'm not talking about the alignment of polyamory (the same as any other type of love, I expect). I'm talking about the alignment of deceiving your partner about the nature of your relationship, aka cheating. Having two partners is not necessarily cheating. Having two partners without both of them knowing you have two partners is cheating.

[Wings of Peace]

I have seen little or no convincing evidence for this, and appears to be pretty much just wishful thinking on the part of some polyamorous people.



While not without their own guidelines Mormons and the swingers would like to say hello. I think it would be more accurate to say that around the world socially accepted polygamy is a statistically deviant behavior rather than a norm.

[Serpentine]

Mormons and swingers aren't exactly in the majority, and at least in the case of swingers they generally have a monogamous core - that is, it would be more accurate to call them open monogamous relationships than polygamous ones.

[Partysan]

Yeah, that, Knaight.

And I'd like to repeat that I'm not talking about the alignment of polyamory (the same as any other type of love, I expect). I'm talking about the alignment of deceiving your partner about the nature of your relationship, aka cheating. Having two partners is not necessarily cheating. Having two partners without both of them knowing you have two partners is cheating.

But I'm not disputing that! What Knaight said is obviously correct. That is why I asked for the reason the character intended to do it in secret in the first place.

[Drachasor]

But I'm not disputing that! What Knaight said is obviously correct. That is why I asked for the reason the character intended to do it in secret in the first place.

The guy has a wisdom of 6, cut the character some slack.

[Wings of Peace]

Mormons and swingers aren't exactly in the majority, and at least in the case of swingers they generally have a monogamous core - that is, it would be more accurate to call them open monogamous relationships than polygamous ones.

I definitely agree, my point was more so that these subcultures are examples of how monogamy vs. polygamy are societal. Just because the vast majority of societies favor monogamy doesn't mean that it's not a societal thing, it just means that wherever you are it's more likely a deviant behavior than a norm.

[ImperatorK]

Hm...
So how do you guys (and girls) think would a 22 Wis character deal with such a situation? Wait with asking one of the girls out until he is sure?
And BTW, by "dating" I mean a committed relationship. Not "I pledge my loyalty and soul to only you!", but more like "We stick together if there's no major problems with our relationship on either side". So they will pursue more romantic endeavors (like kissing, giving gifts, supporting each other, etc.).
Also lets forget about the LN alignment and change to LG. From how the backstory that I have written looks like, he is more good then neutral and I like that version more.

More additional info:
Swift Ghosts are a tribe of anthropomorphic leopards that lives somewhere on Maztica. The tribesmen are mostly NG. The PC is too young to pursue any sexual activities yet, but old enough to already think about girls.

[Serpentine]

So how do you guys (and girls) think would a 22 Wis character deal with such a situation?Well, Wisdom incorporates "knowledge of the self" (though perhaps not to the same extent as Charisma, or maybe just in different ways), so one might argue that he would already know which one he really wants.

Wait with asking one of the girls out until he is sure?I think he'd foresee the probability of greater hurt and conflict further down the line, and would see that being honest now, although likely unpleasant for all involved, would be ultimately the kinder route. Whether he chose to take his own advice... That's a different matter.

Also lets forget about the LN alignment and change to LG. From how the backstory that I have written looks like, he is more good then neutral and I like that version more.In that case, I'd probably expect him to feel guilty about the deception, at least. If he didn't feel bad about it, I'd be more likely to nudge him a point or two towards Chaotic and/or Neutral.

[ImperatorK]

In that case, I'd probably expect him to feel guilty about the deception, at least. If he didn't feel bad about it, I'd be more likely to nudge him a point or two towards Chaotic and/or Neutral.
No, no. You misunderstood. I've scraped that deception idea. Now I'm asking what could he do instead dating both in secrecy. For now I've written that he waits to see if he can make his mind, but I'm open to ideas.

[Urpriest]

Ok, now I fully support being the Bertie Wooster of Aztec Leopard-People.

"Shaman Jeeves, I need your help! The huntress is convinced that my gift of quetzal feathers was for her! I can't tell her it's for the princess instead, but if the princess doesn't get it then Priestess Agatha will cut out my heart with an obsidian dagger! What do I do?"

[Serpentine]

No, no. You misunderstood. I've scraped that deception idea. Now I'm asking what could he do instead dating both in secrecy. For now I've written that he waits to see if he can make his mind, but I'm open to ideas.Ah, I see. Well, first I'd like to do a call-back to an early post in this thread: play a character, not an alignment. If you've decided that doing anything deceptive would be out of character, then... either just keep going as is, getting to know both of them and being a good friend but not taking it to the next step or bringing it up in any way; or take each of them aside separately, tell them both he has deep feelings for them but does not yet understand his own heart and must first grow as a person before knowing whether he can be with her or somesuch soppy nonsense.

[Frozen_Feet]

Slightly off-topic : Lawful does not necessarily mean following the law.

Lawful characters usually do, though. Authority and tradition are what most laws are about, and Lawful characters tend towards obeying and respecting those.

[hamishspence]

That said, might a particular authority be very Chaotic, and encourage somewhat Chaotic traditions?

If so, a lawful person might have a Lawful reason, to avoid complying with that authority and participating in those traditions.

[Drachasor]

Lawful characters usually do, though. Authority and tradition are what most laws are about, and Lawful characters tend towards obeying and respecting those.

That's just the Lawful people who are SJs.


That said, might a particular authority be very Chaotic, and encourage somewhat Chaotic traditions?

If so, a lawful person might have a Lawful reason, to avoid complying with that authority and participating in those traditions.

Example of a "chaotic tradition"? Sounds a bit like an evil good deed.


No, no. You misunderstood. I've scraped that deception idea. Now I'm asking what could he do instead dating both in secrecy. For now I've written that he waits to see if he can make his mind, but I'm open to ideas.

It's pretty much that or choose, or you could roleplay out being indecisive and talking to the two about it or something. What exactly is your character's personality like?

[Malimar]

If not then what should he do in this situation?http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3994760996_397771d6dd.jpg

[hamishspence]

Example of a "chaotic tradition"? Sounds a bit like an evil good deed.

"Misrule" or "Saturnalia" might be a good example- a yearly celebration where all the normal rules are relaxed and people cut loose.

[ImperatorK]

It's pretty much that or choose, or you could roleplay out being indecisive and talking to the two about it or something.
There won't be an occasion for that. The game will start in Cormyr and his tribe lives in Maztica, so...


What exactly is your character's personality like?
Loyal, caring, disciplined, hard worker, honest, ambitious, holds friends and allies worth respect in high regards, you can count on him in need. That's at least how he is now, after I've changed his alignment to LG and after he became more mature (he could be considered LN in his younger years, because he was born under a full moon and that a big thing in his tribe).

[Drachasor]

"Misrule" or "Saturnalia" might be a good example- a yearly celebration where all the normal rules are relaxed and people cut loose.

That's pretty superficial chaos.

[hamishspence]

True- but if arguably Chaotic behaviour becomes traditional- that's the closest we have.

Elves might have traditions along those lines. Or the Diaboli- chaotic-subtype outsiders who live in a benevolent anarchy held together by traditions.

[Drachasor]

True- but if arguably Chaotic behaviour becomes traditional- that's the closest we have.

Elves might have traditions along those lines. Or the Diaboli- chaotic-subtype outsiders who live in a benevolent anarchy held together by traditions.

Yeah, but essentially having a party or holiday isn't CHAOS. Nor do I think an annual party is LAWFUL. Seems to be irrelevant to alignment.

I would say, that by the rules anyhow, chaotics tend not to put much stock in tradition. So a chaotic society held together by tradition doesn't make a whole lot of sense in D&D terms.


Loyal, caring, disciplined, hard worker, honest, ambitious, holds friends and allies worth respect in high regards, you can count on him in need. That's at least how he is now, after I've changed his alignment to LG and after he became more mature (he could be considered LN in his younger years, because he was born under a full moon and that a big thing in his tribe).

Seems like the "don't worry about it for now, but stay good friends" type.

[Serpentine]

That's pretty superficial chaos.Not really. In fact, such festivals where the normal rules were relaxed were a major function of ancient society. Hell, there's a couple of cases recorded where men have been murdered by women for intruding on their secret rituals at those times, and the killing was seen as pretty justified.
Basically, I think you're underestimating just how brutally and ridiculously chaotic those times were, and how important they were for the people who practiced them.

[hamishspence]

Maybe "tradition" is superficial on the law/chaos axis- with CE and CG societies alike having their own traditions (which lean toward evil and good respectively).

Thus "respect for tradition" becomes fairly unimportant as a way of assessing alignment.

[Drachasor]

Not really. In fact, such festivals where the normal rules were relaxed were a major function of ancient society. Hell, there's a couple of cases recorded where men have been murdered by women for intruding on their secret rituals at those times, and the killing was seen as pretty justified.
Basically, I think you're underestimating just how brutally and ridiculously chaotic those times were, and how important they were for the people who practiced them.

From what I've read, it was not particularly more brutal or chaotic than normal (beyond the superficial chaos). Intruding on secret rituals or other religious activities in general was a pretty bad idea back then.

[ImperatorK]

Thus "respect for tradition" becomes fairly unimportant as a way of assessing alignment.
Hm. "Respect for tradition" and "always following tradition" are two different things, IMO. The first is irrelevant to alignment, but the second can be considered Lawful.

[Serpentine]

I would tentatively suggest that it's the difference between tradition as nostalgia and regularity, and tradition as a constant feature of everyday life and dictator of behaviour.

[Serpentine]

From what I've read, it was not particularly more brutal or chaotic than normal (beyond the superficial chaos). Intruding on secret rituals or other religious activities in general was a pretty bad idea back then.It's not just that.
Put it this way: one of my lecturers suggested that they were pretty much crucial to the maintenance of their society, because the rest of their lives were so ridiculously structured that if they didn't have these intense periods to break out they'd all go insane.

To reiterate: these are not just "parties" and "holidays". They're intense periods of socially acceptable anarchy and total breakdown of normal rules.

[Drachasor]

It's not just that.
Put it this way: one of my lecturers suggested that they were pretty much crucial to the maintenance of their society, because the rest of their lives were so ridiculously structured that if they didn't have these intense periods to break out they'd all go insane.

To reiterate: these are not just "parties" and "holidays". They're intense periods of socially acceptable anarchy and total breakdown of normal rules.

It wasn't a total breakdown of rules. A lot of it WAS superficial. For instance, slaves were still slaves. At best they made a pretense of backtalk, but they still had to do all the normal chores. Same with other role reversals.

I think your lecturer was misrepresenting things.

[Serpentine]

I think you're completely underestimating the importance and anarchy of these events.

[Drachasor]

I think you're completely underestimating the importance and anarchy of these events.

I think you are completely misconstruing "anarchy". It isn't like they went around burning government buildings and the like. It was largely superficial anarchy and a lot of partying.

[Serpentine]

It's been so long since I did these classes that I can't remember the detail to argue this properly, but it was not "just" partying. You think it was "superficial partying" because you have things like "weekends" and "leisure time" and "the ability to speak your mind" and "the option to drink as much as you want whenever you want" and, if you're a woman, things like "the ability to say much of anything" and "going outside alone" and things like that. And then, for just one day every several months, all that was wiped off the map. And then it all came back again, until the next Just One Day.

[hamishspence]

Its medieval successor, the Feast of Fools, eventually ended up being banned, because the powers that be thought it was too subversive.

[Frozen_Feet]

Hm. "Respect for tradition" and "always following tradition" are two different things, IMO. The first is irrelevant to alignment, but the second can be considered Lawful.

By the definition of alignment in the rules, Lawful people lean towards respecting tradition, so I'd say it's safe to state that tradition (and respecting it thereof) are Lawful traits.

But it's good to remember that Law and Chaos are not 100% mutually exclusive, and aren't meant to be. A person can commit acts of both alignments, and there's neutral in between. It's which traits he has more of that determine his alignment. So a Chaotic person might respect tradition out of their own reasons, but overall act in Chaotic rather than Lawful manner.

[Drachasor]

It's been so long since I did these classes that I can't remember the detail to argue this properly, but it was not "just" partying. You think it was "superficial partying" because you have things like "weekends" and "leisure time" and "the ability to speak your mind" and "the option to drink as much as you want whenever you want" and, if you're a woman, things like "the ability to say much of anything" and "going outside alone" and things like that. And then, for just one day every several months, all that was wiped off the map. And then it all came back again, until the next Just One Day.

There was partying and some superficial overturning over normal social rules, but it WAS largely superficial celebration lasting a week.

[gkathellar]

Careful with that thread title. "Double-dating" has an established meaning, and that meaning is different than "cheating on someone," or "in an open relationship."

At the very least, it's not a Good act. It's a deeply selfish, emotionally manipulative course to take, arguably so even if all parties are informed beforehand — which makes me think it really has more to do with precedent than the Law-Chaos axis.

[Serpentine]

There was partying and some superficial overturning over normal social rules, but it WAS largely superficial celebration lasting a week.I can only say "no it wasn't" so many times, and unfortunately I don't have the memory - nor the inclination to look it up in my notes - to argue it properly, so how about we get on with the actual topic of this thread, eh?

[Coidzor]

I definitely agree, my point was more so that these subcultures are examples of how monogamy vs. polygamy are societal. Just because the vast majority of societies favor monogamy doesn't mean that it's not a societal thing, it just means that wherever you are it's more likely a deviant behavior than a norm.

That sort of polygamy is a bad example of anything having to do with polyamory by its very nature and foundation, and swingers would be more an example that non-monogamous tendencies will find expression even in a generally monogamous society than that swingers are raised within a separate society than fully monogamous couples.


Ok, now I fully support being the Bertie Wooster of Aztec Leopard-People.

"Shaman Jeeves, I need your help! The huntress is convinced that my gift of quetzal feathers was for her! I can't tell her it's for the princess instead, but if the princess doesn't get it then Priestess Agatha will cut out my heart with an obsidian dagger! What do I do?"

...Sweet! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Tertius Wands in some Faerun short stories, was very Wooster-ish- right down to having a Jeeves-style butler (a genie).

Applying the same concepts to more exotic cultures, could be pretty entertaining.

[Vandicus]

No, no. You misunderstood. I've scraped that deception idea. Now I'm asking what could he do instead dating both in secrecy. For now I've written that he waits to see if he can make his mind, but I'm open to ideas.

Option C. fall in love with someone else during his travels. Return to tribe to announce wedding and ask the two to serve as bridesmaids. Hilarity ensues.

[Drachasor]

Option C. fall in love with someone else during his travels. Return to tribe to announce wedding and ask the two to serve as bridesmaids. Hilarity ensues.

Your attempts to turn his life into a romantic comedy will fail.

He'll die while adventuring and save the world in the process. Then both girls will be SAD AND CRY AT HIS FUNERAL!

[Hiro Protagonest]

Option C. fall in love with someone else during his travels. Return to tribe to announce wedding and ask the two to serve as bridesmaids. Hilarity ensues.

There's a trope for that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThirdOptionLoveInterest)

[Partysan]

For his current personality I'd say he becomes a close friend to both but restrains himself from any romantic activity until he can decide.
Comedy nonwithstanding I actually like the idea of him visiting the shaman/his mother/any wise person for advice.

[Knaight]

So they will pursue more romantic endeavors (like kissing, giving gifts, supporting each other, etc.). Also lets forget about the LN alignment and change to LG. From how the backstory that I have written looks like, he is more good then neutral and I like that version more.

Wait. Giving gifts and supporting each other are viewed as romantic? I'd view both of those as close friendship, nothing more, and while close friendship is necessary for a romantic relationship that actually works, it also exists outside that context.

As for a lawful good character, informing both people of the other and the characters feelings for them is the right thing to do. Sure, maybe this causes both of them to lose romantic interest in him, but their understanding of the situation is far more important than his right to date one of them.

[JaronK]

Lets say that a character has two girls that he likes (and they both like him), but he can't choose between them and isn't bastard enough to go out with both. Would dating both of them simultaneously in secret for some time, but just so he can figure out which he likes more and then dump (politely of course) the other, be considered LN?
If not then what should he do in this situation?
How much does this deed stray from an LN alignment?
To which alignment does this deed correspond the strongest?

If he's lawful, he should consider becoming polyamorous, which is far less of "being a bastard" than lying and secretly going after both at once. Either that or he should stop being a tool. Certainly, I find the idea that going out with both of them makes him a bastard if done openly but is somehow more okay if it's deceptive to be rather offensive.

The other possibility is that instead of dating them he gets to know them as friends first, and then decides what to do. Heck, I recommend doing that even if you're not interested in anyone else. It avoids a lot of heartbreak in the long run.

JaronK

[Acanous]

Honestly, if all parties are aware of it, there's nothing good or evil about polyamory. It can be lawful or chaotic depending on where the character lives, but the good or evil in a relationship is entirely dependant on the respect and care one shows thier partner(s).

We've mostly all been brought up in a society that demonizes polygamy as promoting inequality, but there are and have been societies that function just fine while allowing for multiple partners.

This also works the same for a reverse triad, where there's a female and two males, although it's harder to cite historical precidence.

TLDR: in the society your character is in, dating both openly would be a neutral act. Doing so in secret would be chaotic. Doing so without either of the ladies knowing about the other would also be evil.