PDA

View Full Version : An Important Dilemma



Milos The Sly
2011-12-13, 03:44 PM
I am DMing a 3.5 campaign (homebrew setting), and one of the main quests is centered on an ethical dilemma concerning the politics of a state the campaign takes place in. I already have the whole concept in my head, but there is one really basic thing that is eluding me - determining the alignment of one of the most important NPCs - a politician having a (for D&D, at least) fairly unique morality system.

To cut a long story short - he is something of a nihilist, and believes that all morality is purely subjective, and dismisses any objective notions of good and evil. Still, he thinks that what really matters are freedom, choices in life and the ability of an individual to pick his own way, build his own system of morality and do good according to it. He still realizes that a certain objectification of morality is needed for the society to function - the duty of the state and the "official" idea of good is to help less fortunate citizens be able to not worry about poverty, so that they could find true freedom, through welfare and education. Everybody has his freedoms and rights, but the "official" idea of evil is taking away those same freedoms and rights from others (for example, the right to life, the right to personal integrity, the right to property, the right to truth etc), and that laws should focus on punishing the people who attempt that (usually through "an eye for an eye" methods, often quite brutally and with the goal of imposing fear), and that any lawful limitations of personal freedoms not infringing on the freedoms of others should be dealt with. He is quite fanatical about those laws meant to "protect the peoples' freedom and the ability to choose", and believes that they shouldn't be broken at any cost. The same goes for personal obligations - somebody who has voluntarily obliged to something has no excuse to not fulfill those obligations since, after all, "it is their own choice".

So, what do you guys think, into which alignment should I shoehorn this guy? This has been bugging me for some time, and I'm thankful for any help in advance.

Quellian-dyrae
2011-12-13, 04:34 PM
I'm...going to say CN. Chaotic is fairly obvious, and it sounds like he's more a law-maker type than, say, a vigilante or something, right? So he's pretty much doing his job as informed by his personal beliefs.

Now, other matters could affect this. If he got into politics because he felt it was the best way to protect and encourage the personal freedom of his people, that might push him more towards CG. Likewise if he takes personal risks or makes personal sacrifices to promote the cause of freedom. Flip side, if he takes his beliefs to an extreme that causes a lot of undue harm to promote minor freedoms, or say, retains a shadowy squad of people that go around terrorizing more lawful authorities or otherwise abuses his power, it might push him more towards CE.

But yeah, if he's mainly just a politician doing a solid job, while his policies and decisions are guided by the beliefs you listed, I'd go with CN.

kyoryu
2011-12-13, 04:43 PM
At first glance, CN, though as pointed out the devil is in the details.

Many times morality is not determined by the desired end goal, but by the means used to achieve it. Making sure that people are fed may be a noble goal, but if it is achieved by dragging them to work on forced work farms to feed themselves, it's a little closer to the Evil side of the fence than, say, opening a soup kitchen.

Frozen_Feet
2011-12-13, 05:01 PM
What has he actually done, and what is he doing in the setting? Aligment is as much about actual actions taken as it is about personality. From what I've read, I'm going to go against the grain and claim he's Lawful instead of Chaotic, as he acknowledges that certain rules are necessary to maximize "freedom" and all in all seems more like someone who works with or for the system, rather than against it. His profession as a politician seems to reinforce this.

The Boz
2011-12-13, 05:06 PM
Lawful Neutral. I can't even begin to see how anyone would imagine this guy as anything other than lawful. He was literally just described as not caring at all about good or evil as long as law is followed and everyone has an equal shot.

kyoryu
2011-12-13, 05:15 PM
Lawful Neutral. I can't even begin to see how anyone would imagine this guy as anything other than lawful. He was literally just described as not caring at all about good or evil as long as law is followed and everyone has an equal shot.

Disagree. It sounds like he's promoting an absolute *minimum* of laws, with the intent of providing maximum capabilities for individuals to determine their own courses. That sounds pretty heavily chaotic to me.

Milos The Sly
2011-12-13, 05:15 PM
What has he actually done, and what is he doing in the setting? Aligment is as much about actual actions taken as it is about personality. From what I've read, I'm going to go against the grain and claim he's Lawful instead of Chaotic, as he acknowledges that certain rules are necessary to maximize "freedom" and all in all seems more like someone who works with or for the system, rather than against it. His profession as a politician seems to reinforce this.

He's a respected scholar, academic and philosopher, and one of the members of the ruling council. Through appeals to religion and bribing several influential people, a heavily moralistic and opressive, but technically LG religious organization has managed to infiltrate the ruling structures and is slowly imposing their own law. The guy I described is preparing a coup, supported by a part of the population.

Show
2011-12-13, 05:53 PM
Say... I don't mean to be "that guy..." but why give him an alignment at all? The lawful-chaotic axis has always seemed like a strange construct to me (seeing as people who are against the rule of law can be just as routine and painstaiking as the hardcore paladins...), and good-evil is a bit skewed in dnd. I mean, it's basically a statement of whether you're with the PCs or against them...

If you're decided on shoehorning him, I'd say NG or TN. He's obviously not just out for himself, but it's a question of whether he's doing this primarily for others or himself.

pyrefiend
2011-12-13, 06:03 PM
Say... I don't mean to be "that guy..." but why give him an alignment at all? The lawful-chaotic axis has always seemed like a strange construct to me (seeing as people who are against the rule of law can be just as routine and painstaiking as the hardcore paladins...), and good-evil is a bit skewed in dnd. I mean, it's basically a statement of whether you're with the PCs or against them...

If you're decided on shoehorning him, I'd say NG or TN. He's obviously not just out for himself, but it's a question of whether he's doing this primarily for others or himself.

I agree completely. The character you've described is more complex and nuanced than the D&D morality system is equipped to handle, and it sounds like with the type of campaign you're running you'd probably be best off just scrapping it entirely. If it's important that you do use the Lawful-Chaotic-Good-Evil axis, your best bet would probably be to stick him in TN.

Rorrik
2011-12-13, 07:11 PM
While in agreement with the last two, and understanding the reasons to put him in both lawful neutral and chaotic neutral, my first instinct was to say chaotic good. He believes that a person should determine for themselves what good is and supports freedom and admits the rule of law as necessary to preserve things he believes are good. While he participates in this organization, it is primarily in order to establish an atmosphere of freedom, which he intends to maintain by confronting the LG organization.

However, as said at the beginning, I would rather see him alignmentless. If he must have an alignment for Know Alignment purposes, I'd say have the spell give a confusing signal fluctuating between CN, LN, NN, NG, and CG. Or maybe even have it register as whatever he's been most lately. Play with it, who knows what those kinds of spells are really doing.

KillianHawkeye
2011-12-13, 08:44 PM
If he must have an alignment for Know Alignment purposes, I'd say have the spell give a confusing signal fluctuating between CN, LN, NN, NG, and CG. Or maybe even have it register as whatever he's been most lately. Play with it, who knows what those kinds of spells are really doing.

PHB says that anyone who fluctuates back and forth like that should just be Neutral, since they're not really committing to one alignment at all.

Coidzor
2011-12-13, 09:04 PM
LE. Sounds just like the type that would enforce even like a contract which had fine print giving leave to the other party to murder the person signing it because "that was their choice," and other situations where coercion or duplicity were used to manipulate people into agreeing to do one thing but legally presented as another.

Not believing in objective good and evil despite it being slapped in one's face everywhere by the universe in anything using the D&D alignment system isn't so much unique as it is a hallmark of evil characters.

Howler Dagger
2011-12-13, 09:14 PM
TN, not because he is devoted to neutrality, but because he ignores good and evil and is a mix of law and chaos.

Skelengar
2011-12-13, 10:55 PM
LE. Sounds just like the type that would enforce even like a contract which had fine print giving leave to the other party to murder the person signing it because "that was their choice," and other situations where coercion or duplicity were used to manipulate people into agreeing to do one thing but legally presented as another.

Not believing in objective good and evil despite it being slapped in one's face everywhere by the universe in anything using the D&D alignment system isn't so much unique as it is a hallmark of evil characters.

It is a halmark of evil characters, but generally because it's used to justify their actions. It's kind of a Ubermensch thing in that case. Here, he seems to have a "Do what thou will, if it harm none" attitude.

As for your idea of the kind of law he would support, he might not consider it truly a choice if there was manipulation or duplicity, and he certaintly wouldn't support coercion.

Personally, I would go with NG for any situations where it matters, but otherwise, I would agree with those who say to leave him alignmentless. I would probably say something similar for any well developed character.

Coidzor
2011-12-13, 11:10 PM
It is a halmark of evil characters, but generally because it's used to justify their actions. It's kind of a Ubermensch thing in that case. Here, he seems to have a "Do what thou will, if it harm none" attitude.

It actually shows up rather a lot in WOTC's villains from what I can tell, so it's not really all that unique. Especially in settings that have the outer planes, where the sands of the Abyss are literally made of evil chaos, it's generally a sign of self-delusion which is a handy tool in justifying wrongdoing to one's self.

So it's one more thing he has more in common with villainous rather than heroic figures, if nothing else.

The weird thing is the LG organization being religious in its power base and relying upon bribery and wrong-doing in order to take power, unless it's Eberronian, in which case the actual alignment isn't important anyway, since that kind of thing, even with proxies, would generally cheese off most LG deity types since they're generally about the spirit of things as well as the letter and bribery on that kind of level runs counter to one of if not both components of that alignment.

Of course, generally, being heavily oppressive and letting moralizing get in the way of doing good drops you from LG to LN like St. Cuthbert even if what you espouse is technically Good, because of the methods tainting it.


As for your idea of the kind of law he would support, he might not consider it truly a choice if there was manipulation or duplicity, and he certaintly wouldn't support coercion.

But it was their choice to not get out a magnifying glass. :smallwink:

Ruling with Brutality and through careful cultivation and application of fear, however, is not a hallmark of Good, it is, instead, rather heavily associated with Evil.

Further, it is exceedingly "lawful," oppressive, and highly invasive to take away people's right to change their minds about doing something or to admit that they're not capable of doing something that they thought they'd be able to do and instead institute government-based punishments for such interpersonal matters. Or even desire to do so.

Person A: "Can you grab the milk on your way in?"
Person B: "Sure"
*Person B goes out, gets covered in mail and cannot grab the milk due to being overburdened and having to put the mail inside first*
Example Character: TO THE STOCKS!

Yeah. :/

Rorrik
2011-12-14, 09:26 AM
In a lot of ways I could agree with Coidzor as well. The ignoring of morality and claiming good is in oneself is very much a sign of evil as it is used to justify ones actions. He might consider himself to be lawful good, but by denying the morals that make up good, he is inherently evil.

In justification of my flip-flop, my previous comments assumed a group with a generally nihilistic or at least atheist outlook. Supposing the moral system underlying at least early D&D alignments and the gods present therein, denying morals is certainly an aspect of evil character. In the Bible at least those denying the existence of universal morals are regarded as evil, particularly when they seek to enforce it on others.

Hanuman
2011-12-14, 11:53 AM
First thing that comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vCBMqnC1Y

Existential bs isn't relevant to alignment, as alignment is about gods and magic-- protection against evil, Paladin requirements, Touch of Golden Ice, ect.

Does he value human life? If not, evil.

Does he value human life enough to be empathic, helpful, courageous? If so, probably good.

Does he have an established or definite or self-punishing sense of morals? If so lawful.

Is he highly sympathetic but will bonk someone over the head to get out of jail? Will he drop his morals if convenient? If so, chaotic.

Does he have a balanced mix of these, or selective instances? If so Neutral, if in the same instance has different results? Then probably chaotic.

Remember, GE or LC = N but G/E or L/C = C

Milos The Sly
2011-12-14, 12:52 PM
LE. Sounds just like the type that would enforce even like a contract which had fine print giving leave to the other party to murder the person signing it because "that was their choice," and other situations where coercion or duplicity were used to manipulate people into agreeing to do one thing but legally presented as another.

Not believing in objective good and evil despite it being slapped in one's face everywhere by the universe in anything using the D&D alignment system isn't so much unique as it is a hallmark of evil characters.


In a lot of ways I could agree with Coidzor as well. The ignoring of morality and claiming good is in oneself is very much a sign of evil as it is used to justify ones actions. He might consider himself to be lawful good, but by denying the morals that make up good, he is inherently evil.

In justification of my flip-flop, my previous comments assumed a group with a generally nihilistic or at least atheist outlook. Supposing the moral system underlying at least early D&D alignments and the gods present therein, denying morals is certainly an aspect of evil character. In the Bible at least those denying the existence of universal morals are regarded as evil, particularly when they seek to enforce it on others.


First thing that comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vCBMqnC1Y

Existential bs isn't relevant to alignment, as alignment is about gods and magic-- protection against evil, Paladin requirements, Touch of Golden Ice, ect.

Does he value human life? If not, evil.

Does he value human life enough to be empathic, helpful, courageous? If so, probably good.

Does he have an established or definite or self-punishing sense of morals? If so lawful.

Is he highly sympathetic but will bonk someone over the head to get out of jail? Will he drop his morals if convenient? If so, chaotic.

Does he have a balanced mix of these, or selective instances? If so Neutral, if in the same instance has different results? Then probably chaotic.

Remember, GE or LC = N but G/E or L/C = C

It's a homebrew setting, where morality works without the influence of outer planes and gods, and alignment has no real practical value. I wanted to kick the alignment rule from the beginning, like many in this thread have advised me, but my players wanted to keep it for the sake of convenience, even though I think it would detract from the general experience. That's what makes it so hard to decide on it.


But it was their choice to not get out a magnifying glass.

Ruling with Brutality and through careful cultivation and application of fear, however, is not a hallmark of Good, it is, instead, rather heavily associated with Evil.

Further, it is exceedingly "lawful," oppressive, and highly invasive to take away people's right to change their minds about doing something or to admit that they're not capable of doing something that they thought they'd be able to do and instead institute government-based punishments for such interpersonal matters. Or even desire to do so.

Person A: "Can you grab the milk on your way in?"
Person B: "Sure"
*Person B goes out, gets covered in mail and cannot grab the milk due to being overburdened and having to put the mail inside first*
Example Character: TO THE STOCKS!

Yeah. :/

Coercion and manipulation are a no-no for him, as well as unvoluntary failure of pursuing an obligation. He doesn't think that voluntary ignoring of an obligation is something for the law to settle, but simply a sign of an extreme lack of integrity (this is an important for a part of the story, which is why I mentioned it).


The weird thing is the LG organization being religious in its power base and relying upon bribery and wrong-doing in order to take power, unless it's Eberronian, in which case the actual alignment isn't important anyway, since that kind of thing, even with proxies, would generally cheese off most LG deity types since they're generally about the spirit of things as well as the letter and bribery on that kind of level runs counter to one of if not both components of that alignment.

Of course, generally, being heavily oppressive and letting moralizing get in the way of doing good drops you from LG to LN like St. Cuthbert even if what you espouse is technically Good, because of the methods tainting it.

Here's a short retelling of the campaign idea:

Strange things happen across the land, and the religious organization I'm talking about is absolutely convinced that those are premonitions for their version of the Apocalypse. They are genuinely well-meaning, wishing for as many people as possible to avoid eternal punishment, but are quite ruthless in pursuing that goal. They inflitrate the government structures in order to prevent to try to prevent all forms of immoral or "sinful" behaviour through opressive policies (not opressive in the sense of "tortures and kills protestors", more like "puts arcane eyes in your house, arrests you for sexual deviancy and sends you for moral reeducation"). Their methods of reeducation are quite gentle and non-forceful, although mind-numbing. On second thought, maybe LN is indeed a better idea (even though I'd prefer to get rid of alignments whatsoever). The party is a team of government agents who are caught in a net of political intrigue, and the turning point of the campaign is when the conspiracy is discovered and they are sent to liquidate the councilor who is the subject of this thread. That's when they get a choice whether to change their allegiance, which completely changes the course of the second part of the campaign. He is supposed to represent something of a philosophical antithesis to the religious order.

Rorrik
2011-12-14, 02:15 PM
It's a homebrew setting, where morality works without the influence of outer planes and gods, and alignment has no real practical value. I wanted to kick the alignment rule from the beginning, like many in this thread have advised me, but my players wanted to keep it for the sake of convenience, even though I think it would detract from the general experience. That's what makes it so hard to decide on it.

Oh, then I stand by my first comments, if anything CG or LN.

Skelengar
2011-12-14, 04:00 PM
It's a homebrew setting, where morality works without the influence of outer planes and gods, and alignment has no real practical value. I wanted to kick the alignment rule from the beginning, like many in this thread have advised me, but my players wanted to keep it for the sake of convenience, even though I think it would detract from the general experience. That's what makes it so hard to decide on it.

In that case, my previous advice stands. Don't bother with alignemnt until it actually makes a difference. Alternatively, talk to your players about dropping the alignment system. What's convenient about it?

Milos The Sly
2011-12-14, 04:04 PM
They say that don't want to be overwhelmed, and that they'd like to be reminded who's good and who's bad, although I think that ruins the whole point of the campaign. I'll try to persuade them some more.

Skelengar
2011-12-14, 04:43 PM
They say that don't want to be overwhelmed, and that they'd like to be reminded who's good and who's bad, although I think that ruins the whole point of the campaign. I'll try to persuade them some more.

I'm not sure that this group of players is the best group for this campaign.

Show
2011-12-14, 07:04 PM
I really like your campaign premise... it gives me a happy feeling inside. :smalltongue:


First thing that comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vCBMqnC1Y

SMBC Theater ftw. But... really? Do you really need to go there?


Existential bs isn't relevant to alignment, as alignment is about gods and magic-- protection against evil, Paladin requirements, Touch of Golden Ice, ect.

I'll ignore your comment on "Existential bs," despite its hurtful nature. :smallamused: Assuming you're advocating that morals are entirely objective, I'll deal with that later.
The problem is that even in core dnd, alignment isn't based on magic or religion, at least as far as I can tell. I just don't see the connection between immensely powerful beings and whether or not a character kicks puppies.


Does he value human life? If not, evil.

Does he value human life enough to be empathic, helpful, courageous? If so, probably good.

Does he have an established or definite or self-punishing sense of morals? If so lawful.

Is he highly sympathetic but will bonk someone over the head to get out of jail? Will he drop his morals if convenient? If so, chaotic.

Does he have a balanced mix of these, or selective instances? If so Neutral, if in the same instance has different results? Then probably chaotic.

This is a great system, but I don't think that it really fits in with the actuality of either alignment axis. Is "good" determined by ends or means? What is "good?" Is it happiness? Fulfillment of divine duty? Fulfillment? Freedom of expression? (The Will to Power?) Adding in that there are so many different races and types of creature in dnd (aberrations, anyone?), it's too difficult to pin down any objective one "good." You could make a case for an empathy/sadism or respect for freedom/enslavement basis, but seriously? Let's even take one more step further: is a person good because he/she believes he/she is or because he/she objectively is? Is there any objectivity in the dnd world besides DM/player bias?

In the meantime, law vs. chaos is an even more skewed system! I could almost see it working as a glorified spontaneity/rigidity or dogma/free-thought system, but by that point this axis is superfluous as well. Let a player's actions speak for themselves, or just describe their personality in two sentences. "Jim is an excitable, emotional, and caring person," gives a lot more than "Jim is CG."

The realistic downfall of the law/chaos axis is that many anarchists are both lawful and chaotic. They are obviously chaotic because of their desire to see a lack of rules, but at the same time believe that people are responsible and clear-headed (lawful) enough to keep society from collapsing without governments. And that's only one example!

Unless you want to reduce it to a likes laws/doesn't like laws stat, it is way too obtuse to use in any real play. If you were willing to reduce it, what mechanical purpose does liking laws play? Nothing, unless you're a grayguard... *grumble*

/end unintentional rant

Alignment tries to fill too many roles and fails. That's all there is to it. Give the players token alignment if they want or if they'll be relying on paladins and detect [alignment] spells, or just tell them to describe their characters rather than indoctrinating them into the cult of alignment.
Vive la Revolution!

Tzevash
2011-12-15, 08:12 AM
TN, not because he is devoted to neutrality, but because he ignores good and evil and is a mix of law and chaos.

This one.
In fact, N aren't just "I couldn't give a damn about" type of character I'm so woefully used to see in my campaigns T^T"""

Urpriest
2011-12-15, 12:54 PM
If the players wanted you to keep alignment so they could tell who's good and who's bad, and you gave in to this, then you're ok with them knowing who's good and who's bad. So the relevant question: are the PCs supposed to oppose this guy, or work with him?

The Glyphstone
2011-12-15, 01:27 PM
The realistic downfall of the law/chaos axis is that many anarchists are both lawful and chaotic. They are obviously chaotic because of their desire to see a lack of rules, but at the same time believe that people are responsible and clear-headed (lawful) enough to keep society from collapsing without governments. And that's only one example!


Just to point out, that's not what the law/chaos divide is. Chaotic behavior is obeying your own rules and codes, not someone else's forced upon you. Anarchy as a concept is purely Chaotic, because it champions internally chosen laws over externally applied laws.

kyoryu
2011-12-15, 02:46 PM
This is a great system, but I don't think that it really fits in with the actuality of either alignment axis. Is "good" determined by ends or means? What is "good?" Is it happiness? Fulfillment of divine duty? Fulfillment? Freedom of expression? (The Will to Power?) Adding in that there are so many different races and types of creature in dnd (aberrations, anyone?), it's too difficult to pin down any objective one "good." You could make a case for an empathy/sadism or respect for freedom/enslavement basis, but seriously? Let's even take one more step further: is a person good because he/she believes he/she is or because he/she objectively is? Is there any objectivity in the dnd world besides DM/player bias?

I have pretty simple definitions for good/evil. Evil will further its own ends, regardless of whether it must infringe upon the rights of others to do so (I use "rights" instead of "harm", as competition is not inherently evil, though losing a competition may cause "harm" to the loser.)

A neutral being will seek to further its own benefit, but will not casually disregard the rights of others in the process. The VAST majority of people are neutral on the good/evil axis.

A good being will seek to help others, even at their own personal cost.

Now, it's actually easier to classify an act as one of these three than an individual. Individuals vary, and even the most Good person may find themselves in a position where they are willing to commit a minor Evil act (say, the stereotypical Good parent stealing bread from a local merchant to feed their family). This is normal - what still defines them as Good is that they do so only as a last resort, seek to minimize the harm to others, and feel guilt/remorse over their actions.

The fact that a Good person can do Evil (or vice versa) leads me also to kyoryu's first law of alignments:

Alignments are not personality disorders


The realistic downfall of the law/chaos axis is that many anarchists are both lawful and chaotic. They are obviously chaotic because of their desire to see a lack of rules, but at the same time believe that people are responsible and clear-headed (lawful) enough to keep society from collapsing without governments. And that's only one example!

Again, refer to my first law of alignments. Being chaotic does not mean that you have an immediate impulse to break any law just because it's there.

I actually think that lawful shouldn't be called lawful. It should be called ordered. That's how I view the law/chaos axis. Lawful individuals prefer orderly, regimented, centrally controlled lives. They believe that things work best when there is centralized control, and a plan. Sure, they acknowledge that you need to give *some* freedom to the people executing the plan, as situations can change, but they view this typically as a sign that further planning is needed, or that the knowledge from the judgement call should be codified into an additional rule/plan/etc.

OTOH, a Chaotic individual believes that giving maximum freedom and flexibility to the individual is the way to achieve superior results. Some centralized coordination and planning may be necessary, but it should be kept as minimal as possible.

Or to put it even more simply, a Lawful person requires justification for every deviation from a plan. A Chaotic person would require justification for every planned detail.

Libertarians (minus the crazies) are very Chaotic in terms of political parties - and even Libertarians acknowledge the need for *some* level of government, and do not randomly jaywalk just because the law annoys them.


Alignment tries to fill too many roles and fails. That's all there is to it. Give the players token alignment if they want or if they'll be relying on paladins and detect [alignment] spells, or just tell them to describe their characters rather than indoctrinating them into the cult of alignment.
Vive la Revolution!

I'm not sure I agree with that. What I do agree with is the idea that alignment is insufficient to describe a character. But it is useful in a lot of scenarios, to gauge how a person will, in large, behave. Are they put into a group that doesn't have clear leadership or strong planning? A Chaotic individual will say "At last! A group that lets me perform at my peak!" A Lawful individual will, on hte other hand, try to lead (by example if they're Good), and try to organize the group for greater efficiency.

Milos The Sly
2011-12-15, 02:49 PM
If the players wanted you to keep alignment so they could tell who's good and who's bad, and you gave in to this, then you're ok with them knowing who's good and who's bad. So the relevant question: are the PCs supposed to oppose this guy, or work with him?

Like I said, he's initially on the same side as they are, then starts a conspiracy against the government and the players get to decide which side they pick. But, like Skelengar pointed out, they may not be the best kind of players for this campaign. I'll have to think of something.


I really like your campaign premise... it gives me a happy feeling inside.


Thanks! I'm flattered.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their feedback. I'm still not entirely sure what to do, but I'll consider every advice. That said, I'll probably kick alignments from the campaign. You've been a big help.

LibraryOgre
2011-12-15, 03:26 PM
To cut a long story short - he is something of a nihilist, and believes that all morality is purely subjective, and dismisses any objective notions of good and evil. Still, he thinks that what really matters are freedom, choices in life and the ability of an individual to pick his own way, build his own system of morality and do good according to it. He still realizes that a certain objectification of morality is needed for the society to function - the duty of the state and the "official" idea of good is to help less fortunate citizens be able to not worry about poverty, so that they could find true freedom, through welfare and education. Everybody has his freedoms and rights, but the "official" idea of evil is taking away those same freedoms and rights from others (for example, the right to life, the right to personal integrity, the right to property, the right to truth etc), and that laws should focus on punishing the people who attempt that (usually through "an eye for an eye" methods, often quite brutally and with the goal of imposing fear), and that any lawful limitations of personal freedoms not infringing on the freedoms of others should be dealt with. He is quite fanatical about those laws meant to "protect the peoples' freedom and the ability to choose", and believes that they shouldn't be broken at any cost. The same goes for personal obligations - somebody who has voluntarily obliged to something has no excuse to not fulfill those obligations since, after all, "it is their own choice".

Chaotic Good, with the highlights leaning towards why. He's not a utopian anarchist, but assuming his definition of good largely matches with the conventional definition (and the other stuff tends to say it does), his emphasis on laws being present to protect freedoms, opposition to those who try to take freedoms away from people. His fanatical adherence to those rules doesn't prevent his chaotic morality... his laws are not highly dependent upon Order, just the maintenance of people's rights and freedoms to be good people.

Hanuman
2011-12-16, 12:37 AM
I really like your campaign premise... it gives me a happy feeling inside. :smalltongue:



SMBC Theater ftw. But... really? Do you really need to go there?



I'll ignore your comment on "Existential bs," despite its hurtful nature. :smallamused: Assuming you're advocating that morals are entirely objective, I'll deal with that later.
The problem is that even in core dnd, alignment isn't based on magic or religion, at least as far as I can tell. I just don't see the connection between immensely powerful beings and whether or not a character kicks puppies.



This is a great system, but I don't think that it really fits in with the actuality of either alignment axis. Is "good" determined by ends or means? What is "good?" Is it happiness? Fulfillment of divine duty? Fulfillment? Freedom of expression? (The Will to Power?) Adding in that there are so many different races and types of creature in dnd (aberrations, anyone?), it's too difficult to pin down any objective one "good." You could make a case for an empathy/sadism or respect for freedom/enslavement basis, but seriously? Let's even take one more step further: is a person good because he/she believes he/she is or because he/she objectively is? Is there any objectivity in the dnd world besides DM/player bias?

In the meantime, law vs. chaos is an even more skewed system! I could almost see it working as a glorified spontaneity/rigidity or dogma/free-thought system, but by that point this axis is superfluous as well. Let a player's actions speak for themselves, or just describe their personality in two sentences. "Jim is an excitable, emotional, and caring person," gives a lot more than "Jim is CG."

The realistic downfall of the law/chaos axis is that many anarchists are both lawful and chaotic. They are obviously chaotic because of their desire to see a lack of rules, but at the same time believe that people are responsible and clear-headed (lawful) enough to keep society from collapsing without governments. And that's only one example!

Unless you want to reduce it to a likes laws/doesn't like laws stat, it is way too obtuse to use in any real play. If you were willing to reduce it, what mechanical purpose does liking laws play? Nothing, unless you're a grayguard... *grumble*

/end unintentional rant

Alignment tries to fill too many roles and fails. That's all there is to it. Give the players token alignment if they want or if they'll be relying on paladins and detect [alignment] spells, or just tell them to describe their characters rather than indoctrinating them into the cult of alignment.
Vive la Revolution!
Yes, alignments are objective. They are set as a physically real force as much as thought or the weave is in DnD. Copping out alignment as some intangible idea like you could picture magic would be without Mystra is not valid or subjective, it's a mechanical system introduced into DnD to work with other mechanical systems as I mentioned in my first post. Humans are not in control of how this works unless they specifically alter it's functionality or detectability through mechanical means.
If your DM is subjectifying alignments, it's a homebrew but generally lawful means honor and honor means sticking to your morals, the reason L=/=G is that your morality may value the disrespect for life, and there's nothing "wrong" with that, but it is evil. Animals, including humans are naturally N, they are N because they are both evil and good, they love and take care of their own and kill and hunt other species. Goblins are both good and evil but they eat other sentient species, which is what pushes them over the line-- in fact changing goblins genes to make them incapable of digesting meat could easily make their race N.


It's a homebrew setting, where morality works without the influence of outer planes and gods, and alignment has no real practical value. I wanted to kick the alignment rule from the beginning, like many in this thread have advised me, but my players wanted to keep it for the sake of convenience, even though I think it would detract from the general experience. That's what makes it so hard to decide on it.
Dispose of the system, there is no such thing in your campaign.
Detect alignment and such do not interact with a relative system.

I suggest creating a new homebrew spell, modify Detect Thoughts to Detect Personality and make it one spell or power level higher.

hewhosaysfish
2011-12-16, 08:01 AM
Yes, alignments are objective. They are set as a physically real force as much as thought or the weave is in DnD. Copping out alignment as some intangible idea like you could picture magic would be without Mystra is not valid or subjective, it's a mechanical system introduced into DnD to work with other mechanical systems as I mentioned in my first post.

Erm, I think you've chosen the wrong example for your analogy: the Weave is a Forgotten Realms thing and Mystra is a Forgotten Realms deity.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-16, 09:06 AM
Yes, alignments are objective. They are set as a physically real force as much as thought or the weave is in DnD. Copping out alignment as some intangible idea like you could picture magic would be without Mystra is not valid or subjective, it's a mechanical system introduced into DnD to work with other mechanical systems as I mentioned in my first post.

Is that sarcasm?

Because the weave is not intrinsic to D&D magic. Mystra is limited to Faerun, and she, er, died. So, I'm pretty sure that this viewpoint IS valid, given that it's canon.

Coidzor
2011-12-16, 05:55 PM
Is that sarcasm?

Because the weave is not intrinsic to D&D magic. Mystra is limited to Faerun, and she, er, died. So, I'm pretty sure that this viewpoint IS valid, given that it's canon.

Yeah, she dies whenever there's an edition change.

Hanuman
2011-12-17, 02:49 PM
Erm, I think you've chosen the wrong example for your analogy: the Weave is a Forgotten Realms thing and Mystra is a Forgotten Realms deity.
FR hate?


Yeah, she dies whenever there's an edition change.
+rep

Haarkla
2011-12-24, 10:31 AM
He is clearly neutral on the good-evil scale.

With his mix of chaotic and lawful ideas, I would say True Neutral.