Help on alignment

[theflyingkitty]

My group is currently having a heated discussion on alignment.

The character in question claims to be lawful good.

In this scenerio, there are two potion shops. Shop #1 invented a new potion. Shop #2 'improved' on the potion. Shop #1 tells our hero he can have a 2000g discount on something if he can get a sample of this mystery potion from shop #2. Our hero agrees and heads to shop #2. At this point, he has no idea what this mystery potion (Potion 19) does.

Our hero is wishing to purchase 20 fire and blindness potions for the groups use and thinks that the 2k gold he will save can go to help others and not himself. I am very sure he does not have 2000g to give to the poor. And as I type this, he is price comparing his blind fire potions and taking in account who's potion is the most dangerous.

We've been discussing the philosphy for a while. What is GITP think of this situation? Is he acting out of his alignment? If so, which alignment do you think he is behaving as?

[NecroRebel]

The character is presumably breaking the law in acquiring the sample from shop 2, else there's really no moral quandary here. This goes against Lawful Good characters' respect for law, but such characters also have codes of conduct, and if that code both allows him to break the law for some purposes (such as helping others) and the character honestly believes that this action will advance one of those purposes, it could be consistent with a Lawful Good character.

Otherwise, this is probably more similar to the actions an unaligned character. Corporate espionage, or at least mercantile espionage, isn't surely going to harm anyone majorly, so you can't really say that it's an evil act, but it's certainly not a good one either due to harming the presumably guilt-free keepers of shop 2.

In short, he's probably behaving Unaligned here. Note that this doesn't really mean anything, though, and certainly wouldn't require an alignment change. Unless the character is making a pattern of such behavior, a single act means nothing.

[neonchameleon]

That's not Lawful Good in either the AD&D or the 4E sense of the word.

In AD&D Lawful Good means following the law. That was not a Lawful act.

In 4e Lawful Good means basically being Don Quixote (www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjsqHtwDBA0). It means imagining a better world and a mix of being the change you wish to see in the world and eliminating things that prevent the world from measuring up (Lawful Good is scary in 4E).

If his argument is correct and he is genuinely planning on giving the 2000GP to the poor, that's just about in line with 4e's Good or AD&D's Chaotic Good. If not ... it depends how he does it, but deception for personal gain is generally an evil act.

[Laserlight]

Shop #1 tells our hero he can have a 2000g discount on something if he can get a sample of this mystery potion from shop #2. Our hero agrees

You haven't said how he's planning to get the sample. I assume Shop 2 is willing to sell the stuff. If he just walks in and buys a pint of potion, and the seller doesn't make "we'll sell it as long as you don't give any to Shop 1" a condition of the sale, then that's not incompatible with LG.

[Leewei]

The entire point of 4E alignments is to be a roleplaying guideline. Alignment no longer has any sort of mechanical impact on play. In short, don't go looking for trouble. Blow this off and move on.

[obryn]

The entire point of 4E alignments is to be a roleplaying guideline. Alignment no longer has any sort of mechanical impact on play. In short, don't go looking for trouble. Blow this off and move on.
This x100.

If my player wanted to write-in "Socialist," that'd be a perfectly fine 4e alignment.

[Kimera757]

This doesn't seem like a 4e question.


My group is currently having a heated discussion on alignment.

The character in question claims to be lawful good.

In this scenerio, there are two potion shops. Shop #1 invented a new potion. Shop #2 'improved' on the potion. Shop #1 tells our hero he can have a 2000g discount on something if he can get a sample of this mystery potion from shop #2. Our hero agrees and heads to shop #2. At this point, he has no idea what this mystery potion (Potion 19) does.

Our hero is wishing to purchase 20 fire and blindness potions for the groups use and thinks that the 2k gold he will save can go to help others and not himself. I am very sure he does not have 2000g to give to the poor. And as I type this, he is price comparing his blind fire potions and taking in account who's potion is the most dangerous.

We've been discussing the philosphy for a while. What is GITP think of this situation? Is he acting out of his alignment? If so, which alignment do you think he is behaving as?

I don't know what a potion of fire and blindness (or even as separate potions) go, or how much they cost. I think the character isn't lawful good, definitely not lawful, but it's not going to cost him mechanically. (You can be a chaotic evil paladin in 4e, if you really want to be.)

His alignment might shift for doing that. As there's no mechanical effect, let the PC know their alignment might shift, and then decide if the shift will happen or not. The thing about alignment is that the DM "always wins" the argument. Fortunately in 4e it doesn't matter who wins the argument. The DM is more concerned about controlling bad behavior at the table than whether someone is "lawful good" rather than "true neutral".

[theflyingkitty]

Yeah, sorry. It;s more of a general dnd question, but we're playing 4th so figured here was good.

The problem is that the character aparently thinks he's being good because he's saving money that could go to others than himself (of which he does not have that much to give away anyway), and lawful because he's not breaking any laws exactly.

On the flip side, it IS a bit underhanded, and he's working to get a sample of unknown illegal potion without knowing what shop 1 actualy wants with it, in order to buy potions in which to fire up and blind people that he believes will help the groups cause and maybe save whatever.

The player did save himself in the end by making it a ruse with a few white lies and such, but he's also one we have to keep an eye on as his real person personality and general play style does not fit in lawful good at all. He really stuck to his guns tyhat his character was being good and lawful by the story/actions however.

[NecroRebel]

On the flip side, it IS a bit underhanded...

Underhandedness isn't really relevant to alignment, though. You could have a Lawful Good rogue who runs around as basically a con artist if you wanted.


...and he's working to get a sample of unknown illegal potion without knowing what shop 1 actualy wants with it...

The potion itself is illegal? That's a detail that wasn't present in the OP, though I'm not sure how relevant it actually is.


...in order to buy potions in which to fire up and blind people that he believes will help the groups cause and maybe save whatever.

This motivation is consistent with a Lawful Good or Good character.


The player . . . he's also one we have to keep an eye on as his real person personality and general play style does not fit in lawful good at all. He really stuck to his guns tyhat his character was being good and lawful by the story/actions however.

If he's struggling to play Lawful Good by the rest of your standards, perhaps you should talk to him and give him some pointers, make it more clear what the rest of you think Lawful Good is, and hopefully help him do better. He might honestly feel that he's being entirely consistent with Lawful Good as written in the books, which are quite open to interpretation.

[Daracaex]

lawful because he's not breaking any laws exactly.

The lawful character is lawful because they want to be. They follow the spirit of whatever laws guide them, not just the letter. The player should not be able to justify based on a technicality.

Though if they're lawful because they follow a code and not just the law of whatever land they're from and his actions are consistent with that code, it might be justifiable. I'm just saying that "Not technically illegal" is not a good enough excuse for a lawful character's actions.

[Epinephrine]

I'm just saying that "Not technically illegal" is not a good enough excuse for a lawful character's actions.

What alignment is someone then that follows the laws, using such an approach? The old LN would work. "Not technically illegal" is a subset of "not illegal."

[NecroRebel]

What alignment is someone then that follows the laws, using such an approach? The old LN would work. "Not technically illegal" is a subset of "not illegal."

Probably Unaligned, but possibly LG, G, E, or CE (if there were other alignments, it might be those, too). Remember, being Lawful isn't about following the law. Someone who insisted on always following the letter of the law would have been Lawful Neutral in earlier editions, and that alignment was mostly rolled into Unaligned.

Then again, a Chaotic Evil character could follow the letter of the law while violating their spirit to screw people over or hurt them, using the fact that they're "following the law" as a defense against prosecution. Nothing stops chaotic characters from following the law, they just don't care if they break it.

[Kane0]

As many have said, luckily when it comes to 4e it really doesnt matter. Your player can think and act pretty much how he wants, alignment is just another guideline, which was less the case in other editions which had more alignment related mechanics. Besides, one grey act shouldnt be enough to tip him over to another alignment unless its major and/or consistent.

I've been playing my character for over a year and between the whole group we still can't figure out what alignment I should write down. Until we do, it's being left blank and it has not impacted gameplay one smidgen.