What alignment is this?

[Spacehamster]

My character will be a battlemaster, assassin with a 2 dip of monk ninja type char. He is not above stealing as long as its from higher middle class and wealthier that can handle a monetary setback. He hates criminals that hurt others to get what they want and prey on the weak and will use the 4 extra night hours(only elf in party) now and then when in a town to sneak around the rooftops looking for people needing saving from muggers, rapists and the like, and also maybe looking for somewhere interesting to break in and empty of valuables. :)

He mostly does his little heists to challenge himself not so much for the wealth.

[M Placeholder]

Chaotic Good. No respect for law......and no respect for those that have no respect for the weak and the innocent.

[themaque]

Chaotic Good. No respect for law......and no respect for those that have no respect for the weak and the innocent.

Seconded. I was at first tempted to say Neutral, but I'm gonna back the gnome on this one. Chaotic Good.

[Spacehamster]

Chaotic Good. No respect for law......and no respect for those that have no respect for the weak and the innocent.

Ok thanks thought so but were not sure since he will be stealing stuff. :)

[themaque]

Ok thanks thought so but were not sure since he will be stealing stuff. :)

He is also careful to steal from people who thinks can afford the loss. Yeah, he takes what he needs, but manages himself to inflict as little to no pain as possible. unless that person is also a jerk and well... you know what they say about payback?

EDIT: I think neutral wouldn't care so much. Poor people HAVE nothing to steal, they are poor after all, so it wouldn't be an issue. Actively avoiding them to avoid pain would be tilting towards good.

[MrStabby]

Well Chaotic certainly... If he saves people from muggers because he likes the violence and its a good excuse then chaotic neutral. If his motivations are to help people then Chaotic Good.

If on the other hand he doesn't care that the people being mugged are wealthy and the people mugging them are doing it to feed their children he may be Chaotic Hypocritical.

[kaoskonfety]

Well Chaotic certainly... If he saves people from muggers because he likes the violence and its a good excuse then chaotic neutral. If his motivations are to help people then Chaotic Good.

If on the other hand he doesn't care that the people being mugged are wealthy and the people mugging them are doing it to feed their children he may be Chaotic Hypocritical.

This.



Chaotic good leaning towards chaotic neutral or vice versa - I'd be inclined to let you write either down.
You might get away with Neutral good/ TN with a "firm personal code" idea.

Spending your spare time being a costumed hero is the only reason I'd not be nudging you solidly into Chaotic Neutral, dipping into evil. Robbing people is not a "good act" no matter how you paint it and would generally get an "evil lite" designation with no other factors involved. You are playing a flavour of anti-hero.

More often than not you'd be causing the poor less harm by robbing them directly, rather than the long chain of:
1) rich get robbed
2) rich demand more protection
3) local law enforcement costs go up
4) taxes go up
5) the poor get poorer

On the bright side higher taxes and more impoverished people is likely to drive more people to violent crime in escalation with the authorities giving you more to do with your down time - did we just explain why Gotham is awful and Batman is level "high"?

[Spacehamster]

My first thought was lawful evil. Lawful because he has rules on who he will steal from. Evil because he's being a ****.


So he hates himself? He may not be hurting other physically, but he is financially and perhaps emotionally.


Again, that would be him.


It's a technicality of course that he's the mugger!

He does not hurt helpless people tho e saves them? He steals from those that are wealthy and can afford the loss hence he is not hurting anyone?

[hawklost]

Who is he to decide they can afford the loss? My house was burglarized when I was a child and we certainly felt helpless when it happened.

Who is any character to decide someone is evil and acceptable to kill in the first place?

Because DnD hand-waves that logic specifically because everything players do for the most part is categorized as Evil in the real world.

Bandits who are starving try to get PCs to give them their items? PCs slaughter them, who is to say that they didn't do it purely out of desperation

See a random tomb? PCs loot it, robbing the dead of their items (heck, the dead might even still be wanting to use those items considering dnd)

Trying to track a spy down? Requires usually breaking and entering, thieving, usually killing and lots of PC justification.

Need to stop an 'Evil' Warlord? Break into his castle, kill or chase him away, steal all his valuables.

Heck, almost all dnd consists of at least stealing all the valuables that are not nailed down. Even if the 'bad guy' gets away, the PCs are robbers and thieves in 90+ % of the games (and at least 80+ murderers)

[Spacehamster]

Who is he to decide they can afford the loss? My house was burglarized when I was a child and we certainly felt helpless when it happened.

While I feel bad for you that that happens it's not really comparable to put a robbery in the real world I the same light as a robbery in a world with constant danger to life and limb.

In the real world ofc you get shook up from something like that, while in a world of constant danger the person owning the house would probably be annoyed/angry and most likely try to hire somebody to catch the burglar but still be relieved that nobody came to harm.

[Ralanr]

I'm honestly willing to argue lawful since he has a specific target in mind and dislikes those who target the people who are free from his aims. You don't specify if he dislikes people who use force against the wealthy, so I'm assuming he doesn't care much about those types cause the wealthy can get up easier. So he has a specific worldview that emphasizes challenge, and what challenge is it to rob poor people who can't fight back?

That's a pretty big stretch honestly. The character sounds a lot like Robin hood, but without the charm, more kleptomania, and knives (I'm assuming such, so I'm probably wrong here) instead of bows. So you could argue chaotic good or chaotic neutral.

The best way to tell if a character is good is if they go out of their way to right wrongs they see before them, even if it has no benefit or is in fact detrimental to them. Neutral characters just have their worldview and the best of them just try to not force it on others. Evil characters don't care unless the situation relates to them (I'm taking liberties.)

I'm playing a Lawful Neutral Barbarian (His morality is actually ambiguous, but he's so far showcased a neutral stance) who follows a code created by his tribe (but is not bound to it, hell the final rule pretty much says "Know when this applies and when it doesn't") and has a single goal in his mind (Finding his kidnapped siblings). Aside from that, he's not going to go out of his way to save people, he'll do it but he's not you're champion and won't put the lives of a country over those of his siblings.

There are lots of ways to interpret alignments and not all lawful good people are the same at how they interpret both being lawful and good. Two different lawful good people who have massive debates against the other on the nonlawful/goodness of their actions.

[Spacehamster]

I'm honestly willing to argue lawful since he has a specific target in mind and dislikes those who target the people who are free from his aims. You don't specify if he dislikes people who use force against the wealthy, so I'm assuming he doesn't care much about those types cause the wealthy can get up easier. So he has a specific worldview that emphasizes challenge, and what challenge is it to rob poor people who can't fight back?

That's a pretty big stretch honestly. The character sounds a lot like Robin hood, but without the charm, more kleptomania, and knives (I'm assuming such, so I'm probably wrong here) instead of bows. So you could argue chaotic good or chaotic neutral.

The best way to tell if a character is good is if they go out of their way to right wrongs they see before them, even if it has no benefit or is in fact detrimental to them. Neutral characters just have their worldview and the best of them just try to not force it on others. Evil characters don't care unless the situation relates to them (I'm taking liberties.)

I'm playing a Lawful Neutral Barbarian (His morality is actually ambiguous, but he's so far showcased a neutral stance) who follows a code created by his tribe (but is not bound to it, hell the final rule pretty much says "Know when this applies and when it doesn't") and has a single goal in his mind (Finding his kidnapped siblings). Aside from that, he's not going to go out of his way to save people, he'll do it but he's not you're champion and won't put the lives of a country over those of his siblings.

There are lots of ways to interpret alignments and not all lawful good people are the same at how they interpret both being lawful and good. Two different lawful good people who have massive debates against the other on the nonlawful/goodness of their actions.

Good opinions and nope he is not cleptomanic, mostly does it for the thrill and challenge, might even have him give part of his gains to the poor.

[hawklost]

Good opinions and nope he is not cleptomanic, mostly does it for the thrill and challenge, might even have him give part of his gains to the poor.

You could definitely fit him closer to the Good category if he focused on those Rich who harmed the poor (either by direct action or their ventures). If he avoided some of the Rich who seem to go out of the way to help the poor out (That Rich Widow who gave funds to build and orphanage to help the children who lost their parents during the war.... ) then you have a decent code going around and can fit more Neutral (and possibly stretching to Lawful) on the Law/Chaos scale too.

[Easy_Lee]

Sounds chaotic - short sighted to me, for all of the reasons in this thread.

You don't actually hurt the rich by robbing them; they're rich for a reason, and will do what they have to do to maintain that status. If that means subjugating those below them that much more, then so be it. So you're still hurting others, the poor most of all, by robbing the rich. We have real world examples to show this; raising taxes on corporations only leads to them raising their prices and/or lowering their wages.

Similarly, stopping a single rapist or mugger is awesome, but it doesn't stop rape and mugging from happening. This is a bandaid; one person can only do so much in four hours a night.

Killing those who you feel are evil or abuse their power is a more reasonable fix, but runs into some problems:

1. In the real world, there's no way to tell who's evil and who's not because those concepts don't really exist. Plus the person holding the axe has more power than anyone should, because sooner or later that power will be abused.

2. That said, in D&D one can conceivably find or cast alignment- and lie-detecting effects. Thus, one can say for sure who's evil and who's not. However, the savvy DM will point out that it is the system which creates the behavior. We have all seen GIFT in play online due to lack of any penalty for being a troll. Similarly, a system of nobles and peasants lends itself to many nobles acting like evil gits. Kill one evil git, and another rises to take his place.

Upon realizing this, one can conceivably go into politics to try to create a society where evil deeds are punished and it is not possible to abuse power. Such a society might employ clerics to detect lies in courtrooms and during political debates. You then run into the problem of not knowing whether the lie detector is lying, however, and have to do regular alignment checks on him, yadda yadda. But the situation can at least be improved, up to the point of creating a city like Silverymoon.

Long story short, your character is short-sighted but his heart is in the right place. Chaotic good, chaotic dumb, etc etc. It could be a fun little personal journey.

[Spacehamster]

Like the suggestion that he should choose bad nobles and businessmen that abuse their workers/servants and so on. Mess with those that deserves it. :)

[kaoskonfety]

Who is he to decide they can afford the loss? My house was burglarized when I was a child and we certainly felt helpless when it happened.

I can see the Lawful Evil angle, but it doesn't look so much like a "code" as "rationalizing random theft"

but I do agree - people get this weird head space where people say "they can afford it (whatever that means), so its ok to steal from them".

They think Robin hood and are all "YA!".

Robin Hood was opposing a corrupt, questionably legitimate leader. He was actually fighting a guerilla war. The robbery thing was to weaken them without killing people, cover their costs and to aid the downtrodden.

They were aiming to ruin specific people with no pretence of "they can afford it", quite the opposite.

You are robbing people because you are bored - (chaotic?) evil - your targets and methods may mitigate the "how evil are you?", but ya, you may not be motivated by greed but you are still taking the stuff.
You are opposing violent crime at personal risk without recompense - neutral good
I'd net Chaotic Neutral, leaning good (good tendencies/ intent, some evil methods/ execution). I'd allow Chaotic Good on the page cause I'm not in the habit of splitting hairs with my players. I'd also allow chaotic evil (and then have several more questions about your plans).

To nudge this into "I'm the good guy testing myself" territory you'd be looking at getting the challange of theft without stealing from the people.

Leave a note outlining you method of entry, a list of valuables, their approximate fence pricing and their locations. Assess a reasonable "security consultation fee" along side a few recommendations for improvements on your note and recommend they donate the fee to local orphanages or soup kitchens.

Chaotic because you haven't started a consulting firm/ that whole unlawful entry thing, a touch lawful because you actually refuse to rob people. A bit evil because you are still tramatizing people, in part for the laughs (for the challange, to test yourself - whatever you call it, it is in fact "because I was bored") - I'm still seeing a net chaotic neutral with a good "leaning". So I'd have to drag that up to good with the rest of the actual character... I probably run/finance the soup kitchens.
And I've just written my next character.



As for robbing from people who abuse their underlings... who do you think is getting beaten for allowing the masters bedchambers to be robbed? Cause its not the master of the house or his darling children. If he is so reprehensable that stealing from him is just? Kill him, or find some other way to actually take them out of the picture.

[Spacehamster]

I can see the Lawful Evil angle, but it doesn't look so much like a "code" as "rationalizing random theft"

but I do agree - people get this weird head space where people say "they can afford it (whatever that means), so its ok to steal from them".

They think Robin hood and are all "YA!".

Robin Hood was opposing a corrupt, questionably legitimate leader. He was actually fighting a guerilla war. The robbery thing was to weaken them without killing people, cover their costs and to aid the downtrodden.

They were aiming to ruin specific people with no pretence of "they can afford it", quite the opposite.

You are robbing people because you are bored - (chaotic?) evil - your targets and methods may mitigate the "how evil are you?", but ya, you may not be motivated by greed but you are still taking the stuff.
You are opposing violent crime at personal risk without recompense - neutral good
I'd net Chaotic Neutral, leaning good (good tendencies/ intent, some evil methods/ execution). I'd allow Chaotic Good on the page cause I'm not in the habit of splitting hairs with my players. I'd also allow chaotic evil (and then have several more questions about your plans).

To nudge this into "I'm the good guy testing myself" territory you'd be looking at getting the challange of theft without stealing from the people.

Leave a note outlining you method of entry, a list of valuables, their approximate fence pricing and their locations. Assess a reasonable "security consultation fee" along side a few recommendations for improvements on your note and recommend they donate the fee to local orphanages or soup kitchens.

Chaotic because you haven't started a consulting firm/ that whole unlawful entry thing, a touch lawful because you actually refuse to rob people. A bit evil because you are still tramatizing people, in part for the laughs (for the challange, to test yourself - whatever you call it, it is in fact "because I was bored") - I'm still seeing a net chaotic neutral with a good "leaning". So I'd have to drag that up to good with the rest of the actual character... I probably run/finance the soup kitchens.
And I've just written my next character.



As for robbing from people who abuse their underlings... who do you think is getting beaten for allowing the masters bedchambers to be robbed? Cause its not the master of the house or his darling children. If he is so reprehensable that stealing from him is just? Kill him, or find some other way to actually take them out of the picture.

The last part, would probably be bit evil to kill somebody in their sleep even if he is an ass but gave me the idea of knocking him out, abducting him and send him in a crate to some deserted island or something! xD

[Myzz]

I would actually say Neutral Good.

Good because he is helping those in need (as long as its not to satisfy his murder hobo instincts)

NOT Lawfull because he is willingly breaking established laws.

NOT Chaotic because he does have his own set of laws and rules to live by. Those rules are just a little contrary to what society has set.

IF he is more self serving than good... I'd argue True Neutral.

IF he's more whimsical than having a set moral/honor system then defineately Chaotic..

[themaque]

I would actually say Neutral Good.

Good because he is helping those in need (as long as its not to satisfy his murder hobo instincts)

NOT Lawfull because he is willingly breaking established laws.

NOT Chaotic because he does have his own set of laws and rules to live by. Those rules are just a little contrary to what society has set.

IF he is more self serving than good... I'd argue True Neutral.

IF he's more whimsical than having a set moral/honor system then defineately Chaotic..

Even a chaotic person would have SOME rules they live by. the question is how fluid are they? How much would they let society vs their own opinions influence them?

I'm sticking with chaotic good.

[rollingForInit]

Sounds a bit like the Gentlemen Bastards. Locke Lamora, and those people.

I'd say Chaotic good, maybe.

[Myzz]

Even a chaotic person would have SOME rules they live by. the question is how fluid are they? How much would they let society vs their own opinions influence them?

I'm sticking with chaotic good.

if the honor system is pretty set, and not fluid... it wouldn't be that chaotic. If it's more... I do what I want to have fun... yeah that'd be chaotic. Having a rigid code of ethics is definately lawful, that code flying in the face of nearly all established societies skews it to the chaotic side... but I view it as stopping right in the middle, on Neutral.

[themaque]

if the honor system is pretty set, and not fluid... it wouldn't be that chaotic. If it's more... I do what I want to have fun... yeah that'd be chaotic. Having a rigid code of ethics is definately lawful, that code flying in the face of nearly all established societies skews it to the chaotic side... but I view it as stopping right in the middle, on Neutral.

Well alignment has brought up more rules debates than literally ANYTHING in D&D.

with that in mind.. :-) It's a Being Good or Evil affects that as well. If you're good you would NEVER sacrifice an innocent to save yourself, right? well that's a pretty rigid rule, doesn't mean your lawful.

I always saw Chaos vs. Law for characters as an individualist vs Society issue.

[SowZ]

The fact that he is willing to attack thieves/muggers even though that is his vocation and that he thinks he can draw arbitrary lines in the sand about how much pain you can cause someone before it is going to far, (the lines just happen to be perfectly convenient and allow him to do whatever he wants!) makes him a terrible hypocrite.

Such a character can be interesting, to be sure, and being a self-deluded anti-hero can be fun to play. But I wouldn't call such a person a Good person. He has a flexible code that he interprets in a way that benefits him the most, even though he soothes his conscience via good deeds because he does have a warped sense of justice. I wouldn't say Evil, though.

[Ralanr]

Well alignment has brought up more rules debates than literally ANYTHING in D&D.



Glad to see this alignment thread has stayed pretty civil so far. Usually they get out of hand.

[themaque]

Glad to see this alignment thread has stayed pretty civil so far. Usually they get out of hand.

You WOULD say that you big ol bedwetting doodie head. :smallwink:

[Lost in Hyrule]

To nudge this into "I'm the good guy testing myself" territory you'd be looking at getting the challange of theft without stealing from the people.

Leave a note outlining you method of entry, a list of valuables, their approximate fence pricing and their locations. Assess a reasonable "security consultation fee" along side a few recommendations for improvements on your note and recommend they donate the fee to local orphanages or soup kitchens.

This is an awesome idea. I would love to have a rogue doing 'security assessments' on the unaware! I would very much like to take this for my next game!

[supergoji18]

This thread is proof that the D&D alignment system is bs

[BurgerBeast]

This thread is proof that the D&D alignment system is bs

I took it as evidence that the D&D alignment system is often terribly misunderstood. But then again maybe am the one who completely misunderstands it.

To me this is Chaotic Good. I think of the alignment components (and this isn't my idea - it was part of official D&D canon at some point, I'm told) as having two axes: ethical (first part) and moral (second part).

Ethical: Chaotic (I would accept neutral but not lawful). As has been pointed out before, it's hard to call a character lawful who doesn't respect the laws. For me the argument that "he has his own code" can generally be applied to anyone, and this can be conflated by the fact that there are both ethical and moral codes (and it's implicit in the alignment system that they're mutually exclusive), not to mention other cultural and personal codes of conduct that don't necessarily come to bear on alignment.

Moral: Good (I'd not accept evil, and possible but probably not accept neutral). This character spends some of his "downtime" looking for evil to thwart. That is not something that motivates evil people, nor generally does it motivate neutral people. That's enough for me.

The comments about hypocrisy are ill-guided in my view. G.R.R. Martin has become famous by pointing out all of the hypocrisies inherent in a fantasy trope when you try to make it realistic. At the end of the day orcs and goblins have children and innocents too, but fantasy doesn't work without buy-in to the good-evil dichotomy, and frankly works best if all orcs are evil monsters spawned magically from nothing, because orcs with parents and children and real needs present a serious dilemma. So I call bogus on all of that.

The comment about thievery being inherently evil or non-good also doesn't match my view. In my mind, theft is an ethical behaviour, the same with lying and cheating. All can be done for moral or immoral reasons, hence they're not moral determinants.

My two cents.

[TheOOB]

Honestly, I don't think I have enough data to figure out the characters alignment. Good is probably the case, they are not really harming any innocent people, yet they are willing to take risks to help innocent people, which is a pretty good sign for good alignment. For the ethical axis it could be any alignment, even lawful, as you're alignment really has little to do with actual laws. Many iterations of Robin Hood, for example, would be Lawful. it has more to do with your respect for tradition and your code and how wide and broad you consider when thinking of the consequences of your actions. Neutral Good would be a good starting point and see where it goes from there.

Remember that all alignment is in D&D is a quality that determines how certain magic affects you. Nothing more, nothing less. That means that a)it's objective, above any sort of laws or personal justification, and b)it's not that important for roleplay.

[goto124]

I personally treat Theft as Chaotic not Evil, because ... really... if even stealing is Evil in and of itself, it's near impossible to have a Chaotic Good. Stealing is a less violent way of obtaining an item, and if that option is closed the players will have to find REALLY roundabout ways of obtaining what they need. Not all players have the mental capacity for that.

[Malifice]

Chaotic Neutral.

With Good tendencies.

Robbing people for no other reason than 'theyre rich' isn't 'good'. Might be a better argument if you only robbed from 'evil' wealthy people to give to the poor and down trodden (Robin Hood style).

[hamishspence]

Moral: Good (I'd not accept evil, and possible but probably not accept neutral). This character spends some of his "downtime" looking for evil to thwart. That is not something that motivates evil people, nor generally does it motivate neutral people. That's enough for me.

I would accept nonGood alignments - but, it takes a strong pattern of evil behaviour, to outweigh a mild pattern of Good ("self-sacrificingly altruistic toward strangers") behaviour.

Theft, when portrayed as evil, is generally shown as only mildly so - "outweighable" by other, Good, behavioural patterns.

[Crake]

He is not above stealing as long as its from higher middle class and wealthier that can handle a monetary setback.

You know why the rich can handle a monetary setback? Because they can afford to fire a few servants to account for loss of wealth. So what you're REALLY stealing is the job away from that lower class servant.

You monster.

[Spacehamster]

You know why the rich can handle a monetary setback? Because they can afford to fire a few servants to account for loss of wealth. So what you're REALLY stealing is the job away from that lower class servant.

You monster.

Doubt that a wealthy noble with hundreds of thousands gold have to fire anyone for loosing a few hundred or thousand gold. ;)

[kaoskonfety]

This thread is proof that the D&D alignment system is bs

It mostly shows where each of us has decided "good and evil" and "Law and Chaos" fall. And no - we will not all agree.

Some are going to have strong views on theft as an evil, some see it as simple "Wealth redistribution" and chaotic. Is stopping muggers "more good" or "more lawful" than theft? How much theft? If they can afford it is it "less evil"? If they can afford it and are awful people, do they deserve it? Can it be right and just? - can it be lawful good?

I'm sure we could all pour over the alignment rules and come up with a reason to put many characters basically anywhere on the chart. This specific character can land in a few places - the consensus appears to be the good side of chaotic - well intentioned but reckless? Seems fair. Its mostly a role play guide with some bleed over into the mechanical rules (a bleed over I always felt a bit odd, but hey, its D&D). At the end of the day the player tells the DM his characters alignment, explains why and plays it.

[gooddragon1]

I agree, chaotic good. It's the intent that matters here. Order of the stick has this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) which illustrates this perspective.

[goto124]

Problem is that Chaotic acts tend to be easily viewed as Evil, especially if we take RL logic. Which leads to the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil axis being not so separated.

Actually, just show the character sheet to your DM, and then ask her for his alignment.

[gooddragon1]

I love that one. I think he's trying to be Lawful Evil and achieving it.

I think you're misreading it. Intent matters. The part where the angel shows that Roy died with the intent to complete the blood oath whereas his father gave up on it. Efficiency was hand waved because the intent was there. The intent to be chaotic good is what matters here.

[Ralanr]

Problem is that Chaotic acts tend to be easily viewed as Evil, especially if we take RL logic. Which leads to the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil axis being not so separated.

Actually, just show the character sheet to your DM, and then ask her for his alignment.

Without meaning to be insulting, but there is your problem. RL logic is not used fully in D&D (generally anyway, many other DM's may use it more). Real world morality is complicated, a web of discussions littered across the vast timeline of humanity through the greatest minds on the subject.

D&D has actual demons/devils who want to burn you and/or enslave you, and actual gods who can imprint a concept of morality. By actual I mean there are stories where the gods walk the mortal plane (Please do not use a real world religion counter argument. In the real world, religious debates tend to focus on the existence of a deity, these worlds have that fact down usually.)

Also there is magic. Which we don't have (We have science, but that involves explaining stuff).

Plus in 5e alignment isn't much of a big deal. For the past few months I've been playing my character with a blank alignment (I've labeled him "Ambiguous" and I'm leaving it up to the DM to interpret his alignment. So far she has not said anything, so either she isn't bothering to or it's unnecessary, and she's done alignment based stuff in pathfinder) and so far it's been great. It's actually fun playing a character when I don't have to worry about if this falls into his alignment (I mean, it's fun in general. But I hate the line of "That's not something a character of your morality would allow" type responses).

[TrollCapAmerica]

Alignment is meant as a guideline for what you choose for the character. It's not meant to be an afterthought for morally ambiguous characters

The OP being an example of how it's not meant to be used. A lot of people could choose to define that character in different ways from lovable Robin hood to low life punishing people for daring to be more successful than others and making cheap justifications for being the very definition of greedy Ahole he claims to be against

[NotVeryBatman]

I think I'd need to see some stats, particularly Int, Wis, Cha; because, this guy/gal sounds like a lunatic. But this may just be one those storytelling issues that come up when you describe what a character does as opposed to who a character is.

[Occasional Sage]

Is there an alignment you're wanting this character to model? If so, a few more details would help steer this.

For instance: "I want to be sure my character really will be CG." "Oh well then, since your campaign well be taking place in the Realms, make sure all your targets are members or allies of the Zhenterim. It won't ensure a retirement, but your afterlife will be safe!"


I think I'd need to see some stats, particularly Int, Wis, Cha; because, this guy/gal sounds like a lunatic. But this may just be one those storytelling issues that come up when you describe what a character does as opposed to who a character is.

Neither Intelligence nor Wisdom are indicators of alignment.

[JAL_1138]

Like someone said earlier, if you rule theft as automatically evil, there's probably no "good" PCs. Best you'd get is neutral.

[Finieous]

I don't think stealing property is a good act, though I respect the opinions of those in this thread that think it is.

I dunno, it was when the underground railroad did it.

Which is to say, "stealing property" isn't necessarily good, but it's not necessarily not-good either.

[Finieous]

When they decided to walk, they were no longer property, so no theft was involved.

Wow, that's not true at all! In fact, the Fugitive Slave Act required that escaped slaves must be returned to their owners, even when captured on free soil. They were property and "deciding to walk" did nothing to change that legal status.

[EvanescentHero]

They were no longer property in the sense that they were saying "Hands off." It would be evil (oppressive/hurtful) to capture or return them regardless of what laws were in place.

Well...yes. But they were still legally property. Laws may be evil, but it's still unlawful to break them, and in this case, the law was that slaves were property. Don't you think if it were as easy as saying "Nah, I'm not your property," slavery would've ended a lot sooner?

[Finieous]

A country's law has zero impact on whether something is good or evil. Some things are true regardless of laws. A person is always the ultimate owner of himself. Even if he voluntarily enters a relationship as a "slave", he can always reverse course at any time and tell the "owner" to get lost. That's why hurting/oppressing an individual, whether that person is considered property by Country X or not, is evil.

The underground railroad may have involved "stealing folks" according to Country X, but that doesn't mean that theft is sometimes good. Country X can't dictate what is good and evil, only what is lawful or not. Those leaving via the railroad claimed their own freedom. There was no theft involved in terms of good and evil.

Your logic is glaringly circular, but in any case, most of us would agree this is a perfectly good position for a chaotic good person to take.

[calebrus]

and will use the 4 extra night hours(only elf in party) now and then when in a town to sneak around the rooftops looking for people needing saving from muggers, rapists and the like,

What 4 extra hours?
He only needs 4 hours of trance.
A long rest still requires 8 hours.
The elven trance doesn't change a long rest to 4 hours, it simply means that only 4 of those 8 hours during a long rest need to be the equivalent of sleep. The other 4 hours need to be light duty (the equivalent of what happens on a short rest). Your DM may rule otherwise, but the rules for a long rest haven't changed at all just because you chose a certain race. He needs to rest for 8 hours, just like everyone else. But 4 of those hours can be waking rest, like a 4 hour short rest and a 4 hour nap.
If he spends 4 of those 8 hours sneaking around rooftops and the like, he didn't get a long rest.

Quick Sage snippets here, (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/12/1612/) here, (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/11/elves-trance/) and here. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/elf-rest/)
Full twitter discussion found here. (https://twitter.com/imnotasnowflake/status/531645458750267392)

[Finieous]

How so?


You: Theft is never good.
Me: It was when the underground railroad did it.
You: Those actions weren't "theft," regardless of the law, because those actions were good and theft is never good.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I agree that's circular, but I don't think I said those exact words!

I guess what I was trying to say is that the slave's decision to run away (I consent to fleeing to the north) trumps the owner's lack of consent (I do not consent to my property fleeing to the north). So there was ultimately mutual consent between the aiders and the slave, thus no theft.

Congrats your Chaotic Good now. Enjoy your afterlife in Valhalla

[JAL_1138]

Example: 12-year-old Jewish child in Auschwitz concentration camp steals bread from a kitchen that supplies the guards and only the guards, in order to avoid her own imminent death from starvation. The Nazis never notice the missing bread.

Think about that one for a minute and tell me with a straight face theft is always evil.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Example: 12-year-old Jewish child in Auschwitz concentration camp steals bread from a kitchen that supplies the guards and only the guards, in order to avoid her own imminent death from starvation. The Nazis never notice the missing bread.

Think about that one for a minute and tell me with a straight face theft is always evil.

Grotesquely out of context of the conversation

Your trying way to hard and reaching way past the OP who had a character that was obviously CN with thinly veiled justifications for his character to rob rich people because the 1% deserves it

[BurgerBeast]

[edit: I made some changes here, to eliminate a mistake (I mistakenly said I agreed with the first statement) and to add clarity.]

On the topic of stealing, I think the original statement was that "stealing is never good." Strictly speaking, this is a very different statement than "stealing is always evil." It's possible to believe that stealing is neutral, and you would then agree with the first and disagree with the second. I would say that both are wrong, however.

Robin Hood is a specific counterexample. He definitely stole, he definitely was good, and he definitely stole for (morally) good reasons. To say that stealing is never good strikes me as indicative of not having thought hard enough. Indeed, I think most people can, if they try, think of situations in which murder is good.

The problem is, and I think it is objectively so, that morality always comes down to intention. You can steal for evil reasons and you can steal for good reasons. In the absence of a strong reason to steal, whether or not you steal comes down to your ethical stance on whether stealing is ill-advised behaviour (and this often specifically because to do so would create chaos - see what I did there?). Granted, as some people have pointed out, it is possible that there are societies in which the ethical framework is such that stealing isn't even an ethical question, but in modern capitalist North American society and in the fantasy settings in which most D&D campaigns occur, property is a real thing, and therefore stealing is in general unethical (read: chaotic) in the same way that lying or cheating is unethical (read: chaotic).

Ethical behaviour can largely be summed up as preservation of, or respect for, the social contract (read: law) in the absence of more pressing moral (good/evil) considerations.

[Easy_Lee]

Alignment discussions in D&D are a bit different from real life since it's really the gods who decide, within the context of their own religion, what is and is not ethical. A chaotic good god may indeed approve of some forms of thievery. His followers would be chaotic good by definition if they followed his rules; none could say otherwise to any meaningful degree. On the other hand, a lawful good god would most definitely disapprove.

Were I the thief in question, trying to justify my own behavior, I would use my chosen god's tenets to do so.

[BurgerBeast]

Alignment discussions in D&D are a bit different from real life since it's really the gods who decide, within the context of their own religion, what is and is not ethical.

I want to emphasize that I agree with the spirit of what you're saying before I show where my disagreement lies, because my disagreement is probably unimportant to our final stances, but I think there is an important distinction to be made nonetheless.

I don't think the D&D gods decide what is ethical. I think they are subject to alignments. I think that the gods have their outlooks, and these outlooks determine their alignments.

I don't want to speak for you and say that you agree, but I will point out that your comment about how a Lawful Good deity would view theft as almost certainly being unethical is sort of my point. If he or she started promoting theft, we would see his or her alignment change, and therefore how they interact with magic would change.

To me the idea that chaotic beings have "chaotic codes of behaviour" is off the mark. To me the chaotic ethical stance is specifically the disdain of, or rebellion against, codes of behaviour. Concern with codes of behaviour is, for me, what defines the lawful ethical stance. (And lack of concern defines the neutral ethical stance.)

It occurs to me as I write this that I may be in the wrong. I'll read a few chaotic deity descriptions and see what their "codes" are. If the codes are ethical, then I will be wrong. If they are moral, it will support my stance.

[BurgerBeast]

Were I the thief in question, trying to justify my own behavior, I would use my chosen god's tenets to do so.

On this point, it can get a bit weird. If you're following a moral code (which I maintain is the only sort of code a chaotic god can, in principle, have) that is prescribed by your god, you're then effectively appealing to good, neutrality, or evil (whichever your god stands for). I don't think there is any illusion in the mind of a fantasy character that what they're doing is good or right (since a spell could reveal the truth of this pretty easily) when it's evil or wrong. On the other hand, if the character is following an ethical code that is prescribed by his or her god, then I think this in itself is a lawful act. In other words, if you ascribe to any type of ethical code, you're lawful.

Note I'm distinguishing between moral and ethical codes in a way that might seem subjective, but it's not really. Rules (elements of a code) that are necessitated by a moral stance are not ethical by nature. For example, worshipping a god who sacrifices innocents necessitates a non-good alignment. Participating in the sacrifices is an ethical (non-chaotic) behaviour.

The strongest argument I can think of against me would be: Consider the conundrum "You must always lie." Is following this code lawful or chaotic? But I would say it's not actually a code at all.

The more I talk about it, the more confused I realize I am...

[JAL_1138]

A strong argument could be made that alignment is subject to multiversal consensus--in old-school Planescape, the planes run on belief, generally speaking, and so do deities. There's the issue of the Hardheads (Harmonium) having caused part of Arcadia (I think) to fall into Mechanus due to being so a**hole-ishly lawful that they forgot to be "good" back in 2e, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen because they were at odds about what the rest of the multiverse collectively thought Lawful Good was.

[BurgerBeast]

A strong argument could be made that alignment is subject to multiversal consensus...

It would seem to me that there are pretty strong counterexamples to this. If the whole multiverse developed the majority opinion that rape and torture are good, for example… I don't think that would change the definition of good.

[JAL_1138]

It would seem to me that there are pretty strong counterexamples to this. If the whole multiverse developed the majority opinion that rape and torture are good, for example… I don't think that would change the definition of good.

It might change which plane gets what. The gods are so dependent on belief that if everyone stops believing in a god, that particular god will vanish in the proverbial puff of logic. The Outer Planes change based on the beliefs of the people in them (again, the Harmonium knocked a whole layer of Arcadia into Mechanus just by being there in sufficient numbers, although they don't like to talk about it). If belief shapes the gods themselves, and the planes themselves, it could make sense that it shapes alignments too. (The Harmonium example can actually go either way, as it could have happened because they were at odds with some objective alignment principles or at odds with the multiverse's collective opinion. The point is, the planes themselves can be changed on an utterly massive scale by the beliefs of those on them.)

You and I, *WE* wouldn't conclude those acts are "good," and the very idea is repugnant to our consciences, but that doesn't mean a wonky, mutable, belief-powered multiverse *couldn't,* in theory, if it runs on pure moral relativism. Consider that Lawful Good actively encourages killing evildoers in certain circumstances as a Good act, which a lot of people on IRL Earth disagree with, considering it a regrettable but sometimes necessary evil, or even unacceptable in any circumstances for the most devoutly pacifistic.

Of course, as a player, if that happened, the only answers would be a) find a new DM, or b) change the multiverse's opinion.

[BurgerBeast]

You and I, *WE* wouldn't conclude those acts are "good," and the very idea is repugnant to our consciences, but that doesn't mean a wonky, mutable, belief-powered multiverse *couldn't,* in theory, if it runs on pure moral relativism.

I think that this drives at my point. If it runs on moral relativism, then it can't have definitions for good/evil. But it does have definitions for good and evil (the spells are detecting something) so it can't be relativist.

To put in another way, when the whole layer of Arcadia got knocked, then how was it determined to where it would be knocked? Why Mechanus? Surely not because Mechanus was Mechanus, but because Mechanus was LN (or whatever alignment Mechanus is).

Or am I missing something?

[Giant2005]

I think any discussion on alignment in 5e is irrelevant considering the mechanic has been removed from the game in any mechanical sense.
One of my companions used to spend his nights going around town, murdering every commoner that was unfortunate to be out at night. when my character found out about him, he turned him into the authorities. The DM decided that because I turned in my companion, my alignment dropped from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral.
To me that sounds like poor judgment but I didn't bother debating it because I didn't care - it doesn't matter what is written on a piece of paper that character will continue to act by his own standards and what he believes to be the right thing. Unless he finds a magic item with an alignment requirement, what is written on the piece of paper will have no bearing on the character whatsoever.

[JAL_1138]

I think that this drives at my point. If it runs on moral relativism, then it can't have definitions for good/evil. But it does have definitions for good and evil (the spells are detecting something) so it can't be relativist.

To put in another way, when the whole layer of Arcadia got knocked, then how was it determined to where it would be knocked? Why Mechanus? Surely not because Mechanus was Mechanus, but because Mechanus was LN (or whatever alignment Mechanus is).

Or am I missing something?

That's not how moral relativism works. Relativism doesn't say there are no definitions of good and evil *at all,* just that moral judgments are not absolutely true or false independently; that they're only true or false in relation to some particular standpoint (historical period, culture, etc.). The frame of reference here is multiversal consensus large enough to have a tangible effect.

Sort of like when a cleric gets spells from their god, they're getting magic from an entity that enough people prayed to to cause the entity to both actually exist and to have the powers of a deity (and the entity fizzles out of existence if nobody believes in them).

If the gods and their very existences are based on belief, and the planes are based on belief, it's at least plausible that alignments themselves are based on belief.

Why Mechanus? Yes, because it's the LN plane. What I'm saying is that it could be that it's the LN plane because enough people in the multiverse believe it is. What's LN? What enough people in the multiverse believe LN means.

[EvanescentHero]

One of my companions used to spend his nights going around town, murdering every commoner that was unfortunate to be out at night. when my character found out about him, he turned him into the authorities. The DM decided that because I turned in my companion, my alignment dropped from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral.

...what? What the hell kind of ruling is that? You turn in an evil character who had committed numerous murders, and your DM decides you're not Good anymore? Did s/he at least force the murderer's alignment to change too?

[JAL_1138]

...what? What the hell kind of ruling is that? You turn in an evil character who had committed numerous murders, and your DM decides you're not Good anymore? Did s/he at least force the murderer's alignment to change too?

Agreed, this is a bonkers ruling. The DM should probably reread the bit in the book where it talks about "good." And then go read it in all the other editions (except 4th--not a jab against 4th; it just used a different alignment axis. Early non-advanced D&D just had Law and Chaos before the whole good/evil thing got going too, so skip that bit too. Stick to AD&D. Except that 3rd D&D was 3rd AD&D because they dropped the A from the name and then canceled D&D, leaving only an A-less AD&D and nevermind I'll shut up now. You know what I meant.)

[Giant2005]

...what? What the hell kind of ruling is that? You turn in an evil character who had committed numerous murders, and your DM decides you're not Good anymore? Did s/he at least force the murderer's alignment to change too?

The murderer is a thing of the past - he had to make a new character after being arrested and I don't think his alignment would have dropped anyway, it was probably evil to begin with.
Either way, the point of my post was that it doesn't really matter what alignment others perceive my actions to be - their perceptions can't change the characters own beliefs and actions.

[JAL_1138]

The murderer is a thing of the past - he had to make a new character after being arrested and I don't think his alignment would have dropped anyway, it was probably evil to begin with.
Either way, the point of my post was that it doesn't really matter what alignment others perceive my actions to be - their perceptions can't change the characters own beliefs and actions.

Still doesn't mean the DM's ruling wasn't bonkers.

[Giant2005]

Still doesn't mean the DM's ruling wasn't bonkers.

I thought it was bonkers too. I just decided that in my own head-canon that the reason for the alignment drop was because I waited too long to tell the authorities.

[kaoskonfety]

I thought it was bonkers too. I just decided that in my own head-canon that the reason for the alignment drop was because I waited too long to tell the authorities.

"He hadn't done enough murder yet officer, needed to make sure you had a solid case to get him the death penalty and save more lives in the long run."

Lawful Neutral for the win.

[BurgerBeast]

That's not how moral relativism works. Relativism doesn't say there are no definitions of good and evil *at all,* just that moral judgments are not absolutely true or false independently; that they're only true or false in relation to some particular standpoint (historical period, culture, etc.). The frame of reference here is multiversal consensus large enough to have a tangible effect.

This is splitting hairs. If something's truth value can change, based specifically on the point of view, then you can change it's truth value by changing your point of view. So thousands of different definitions are equally acceptable. This is logically not much different than saying it has no definition. Even moreso when you consider that competing definitions are contradictory, so it can't simultaneously be defined by both.


Sort of like when a cleric gets spells from their god, they're getting magic from an entity that enough people prayed to to cause the entity to both actually exist and to have the powers of a deity (and the entity fizzles out of existence if nobody believes in them).

Yeah this idea of the planes/cosmos/deities is inherently incoherent, which is why I don't use it. Why would you worship a god if you knew that the Lawful Good values he stood for could become Chaotic Evil tomorrow, if enough people changed their minds? It's absurd.


If the gods and their very existences are based on belief, and the planes are based on belief, it's at least plausible that alignments themselves are based on belief.

As I said, this is why I think this explanation is nonsense. Why worship Helm is he could blink out of existence tomorrow? What's to worship?

It is important to point out, however, that if alignments are not based on belief but all the rest are, this makes a more valid system than the one in which alignments are also based on belief.


Why Mechanus? Yes, because it's the LN plane. What I'm saying is that it could be that it's the LN plane because enough people in the multiverse believe it is. What's LN? What enough people in the multiverse believe LN means.

I don't know what else I can say to this. You are saying this isn't what relativism is, but it's exactly what relativism is. Relativism is the idea that you can choose your own reality. Whether that means individually or collectively is of little significance to me. It also raises the question: why wouldn't evil gods just work toward shifting popular opinion of what good is, so that they could win the majority worship and rule the multiverse?

[JAL_1138]

This is splitting hairs. If something's truth value can change, based specifically on the point of view, then you can change it's truth value by changing your point of view. So thousands of different definitions are equally acceptable. This is logically not much different than saying it has no definition. Even moreso when you consider that competing definitions are contradictory, so it can't simultaneously be defined by both.



Yeah this idea of the planes/cosmos/deities is inherently incoherent, which is why I don't use it. Why would you worship a god if you knew that the Lawful Good values he stood for could become Chaotic Evil tomorrow, if enough people changed their minds? It's absurd.



As I said, this is why I think this explanation is nonsense. Why worship Helm is he could blink out of existence tomorrow? What's to worship?

It is important to point out, however, that if alignments are not based on belief but all the rest are, this makes a more valid system than the one in which alignments are also based on belief.



I don't know what else I can say to this. You are saying this isn't what relativism is, but it's exactly what relativism is. Relativism is the idea that you can choose your own reality. Whether that means individually or collectively is of little significance to me. It also raises the question: why wouldn't evil gods just work toward shifting popular opinion of what good is, so that they could win the majority worship and rule the multiverse?

I'd encourage you to read up on moral relativism even though you disagree with it. The wikipedia article isn't great but it's an ok primer. Interesting stuff. Then again, I'm a philosophy geek, so it might be mind-numbingly dull to anybody else. Actually I know it is, because my gaming group kept telling me to shut up :smalltongue:

I'm not saying is that moral relativism is actually true. Whether it applies in the game universe has no bearing IRL, and I'm only raising the possibility of it in-game rather than stating it's fact.

More of an Aristotle fan, personally, if you cut out the horribly sexist bits of his work (i.e., about 1/2 of it). Rawls is a good one too, with the veil-of-ignorance theory.

But anyway, we can agree to disagree on this.

As for gods going foom if nobody believes in them; that's what my Planescape box set said they do. There's a faction in Sigil that thinks the gods are all frauds because of it. If you don't use that because you object to it, that's fine.

[BurgerBeast]

I'd encourage you to read up on moral relativism even though you disagree with it. The wikipedia article isn't great but it's an ok primer. Interesting stuff. Then again, I'm a philosophy geek, so it might be mind-numbingly dull to anybody else. Actually I know it is, because my gaming group kept telling me to shut up :small tongue:

I am a philosophy geek, too. I think you're misunderstanding my point. You are correct to say that I am not a moral relativist, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it.


I'm not saying is that moral relativism is actually true. Whether it applies in the game universe has no bearing IRL, and I'm only raising the possibility of it in-game rather than stating it's fact.

I get that. My claim is that if the game in question uses an alignment system, then either the game is not morally relativistic or its alignment system is incoherent. The fact that you can define a character as "neutral good" implies that there is a universal means of determination. Magic that interacts with alignment, such as "detect good" or "protection from evil," implies a universal determination.

So I'm saying that while there may be fantasy worlds in which alignments are relative, the D&D worlds which employ the alignment system cannot be that type of world. If each character in the world has an objectively-defined universal alignment (which D&D has [or had]), alignment is universal.


… As for gods going foom if nobody believes in them; that's what my Planescape box set said they do. There's a faction in Sigil that thinks the gods are all frauds because of it. If you don't use that because you object to it, that's fine.

I get that. As I stated above, this could make sense. I don't think Planescape says that alignments can change or go foom if popular opinion changes. If it does say so, then it is incoherent. This is, I think, where we disagree: on whether it's coherent.

If the gods can go poof based on belief, that's one case, and it can make sense. I don't personally like it but that's just my opinion.

If alignments can change based on popular opinion, thats a different case, and it's incoherent. This isn't merely my opinion. This is logically deduced from the principle that alignments are universal in the world in question. If the "detect evil" spell can detect evil with reliability, then on what criteria does it do so?" On the criterion that evil is universal. If not, it is unreliable. So a system that employs alignment in this way is universal (i.e. not relative) by definition.