VoP and complicated alignment?

[Hiro Quester]

Playing a forest gnome druid6/Monk1 of Obad-Hai who has been learning some life lessons, and is contemplating a second alignment change.


TLDR version: Can a druid character be Lawful Neutral with respect to natural systems, but Neutral Good with respect to relations among intelligent creatures and persons?

We are playing a mostly-core game (with items or feats from other books at DM discretion, and only for good character-driven reasons). No wilding clasps.

I'm considering making a case to be allowed to take Vow of Poverty.

I'll start a different thread about this soon. Best not to debate that part here.

I know that VoP is not usually a good option for a player, because gear will do you much better. But in this case I think it might be good. My reasons are these


Druid is relatively gear-independent. Most of the things you need gear to be able to do a druid can do naturally(!).
the rest of my party is not terribly optimized (eg. two charisma-dependent characters--sorcerer and knight-- are Dwarves).
it is difficult to use or reapply items in wildshape (e.g. DM ruled that a monk's belt that fits a 2 1/2 foot forest gnome would not instantly resize itself to be worn by a large-girthed brown bear in wildshape; that's why he already took a level in Monk). He spends a lot of time in wildshape.
we are not able to acquire or enhance many items except for treasure (we are on a long quest into uncivilized territory, with few chances to buy items).



My druid started life as true neutral (was raised by pirates privateers on a sailing ship from a young age).

At 5th level had a small epiphany about the Law of Nature being important, and shifted to Lawful Neutral. Metagame: this was to take a level of Monk, because monk's belt was hobbled (see spoiler) so +Wis to AC in wildshape and out, for IAS adding iterative attacks to natural weapons, and for Improved Grapple.

On converting to Lawful Neutral, he ranted to his party members about the Law of Nature, in which he said things like this:


Nature is exploitation, the strong using the weak for their own purposes. Everything in the Great Cycle of Life is a matter of living creatures using (often eating) other living creatures, and eventually being used themselves. The most powerful predator will eventually be old and weak, and will become food for others. In the meantime, he will use his power to exploit others.

And this:

Everything uses other things, and this is as Natural as can be. Nature is teeth and claws, disease and parasites, tsunamis and forest fires.

Nature is not nice. And neither should Druids be. The Laws of Nature are not Good. They are fiercely, coldly, terribly, brutally, Neutral.

And a druid respects that sacred system, and would not presume to undermine the Law of the Jungle.


However, at the time he didn't distinguish that natural system of creatures eating one another as part of the Cycle of Life, from strong people exploiting weak people.

In a recent encounter with a particularly vile character, he learned further about the need to stop bad people from exploiting innocent weak people. A lion eating a gazelle is vastly different in moral character from a slaver raiding villages to collect people to sell at the slave market.

Furthermore, now seems like a good time for another moral epiphany. We are currently on a (themed like Alice in Wonderland) hallucinatory dream-quest. With elders of an island-dwelling tribe we have taken part in a ritual that has taken us into a dream-world that the elder says will help us learn some valuable life lessons. After a couple of adventuring sessions in this dream-world the elder is going to be asking our characters what we have learned about ourselves.

This seems a good time to bring up with the DM the prospect of becoming Neutral Good (Instead of Lawful Neutral). And the possibility of taking Vow of Poverty.

So now my character is in a weird alignment position. He needs to walk back from that rant about Nature not being good, but "fiercely ruthlessly neutral". He needs to become Neutral Good.

I think the way to do it is to try to divide my alignment between Lawful Neutral when it comes to Nature (as that rant tried to justify), but Neutral Good when it comes to people (having learned about the terrible and preventable evil that people do to one another).

I might need to retrain my 3rd level feat from Augment Summons to Sacred Vow, so I could take VOP at 9th level. That would also give me two further levels to make use of any tomes etc to augment stats before foreswearing material possessions and magical items. (And if I did that, retrain 1st level feat from spell focus: conj to natural bond).

The question is how complicated/difficult is this going to be to explain/justify to my DM? Would you allow it?

Edit: a further justification for this schizoid alignment is that he is also rather dual-peraonalitied in social interaction. He has the "uncivilized" trait that makes him worse (-2) at social interactions with people, but better (+2) at them with animals and other natural systems.

[Red Fel]

It's complicated, but yes. In effect, he is simply one alignment, that being NG. Let me explain.

You are describing two alignments. The first, with respect to nature, is LN, because nature itself creates a ruthless form of order. The second, with respect to people, is NG, because there are good and bad people, and the former need protection from the latter.

The second one is the only one that counts. Here's why: Your Druid, despite being an emissary of nature, is not responsible for what nature does. When the jaguarundi cracks the open a tortoise's shell to eat the meaty center of the still-living creature, it's cruel, but it's nature; it's not your PC's fault. When the young goat falls into a crevasse and breaks his leg, and is abandoned by the rest of the herd and dies of starvation and exposure, it's cruel, but it's nature; it's not your PC's fault. And while a compassionate person's heart might bleed for the suffering of creatures of nature at the hands of forces of nature, it's neither your place nor your obligation - even as a Good creature - to change those rules.

Your moral obligation arises when it comes to needless, mortal cruelty. Not the jaguarundi devouring the turtle, but the heartless children beating a cat in an alleyway. Not the abandoned goat in the crevasse, but the abandoned orphan on the side of the road. If your character feels a moral obligation towards these creatures - a desire to protect people from intelligent, mortal cruelty, instead of the dispassionate cruelty of nature, then your character is Good. This is so even if he respects the fact that nature itself operates by a savage and alien logic.

Make sense?

That said, there is a but, and it is this: Vow of Poverty is an Exalted feat. Exalted feats require you to be more Good than Good. And there's the rub. An NG character could be compassionate towards his fellow man but be indifferent towards the brutality of nature; an Exalted character is supposed to be the superlative of Good. I'm not saying that requires you to be a perpetual bleeding heart, but it's much harder to justify being Exalted and being willing to see a creature in nature suffer, even if that is nature's way. That's the part you have to address, and in all likelihood that depends on how heavily your DM enforces Exalted alignment requirements.

[Crake]

Take monk at level 1, take your exalted feats after level 1, make the change to NG at level 2, keep your monk abilities, have no worry about an alignment conflict due to classes.

[Hiro Quester]

I took Monk at level 6, mostly because DM ruled that monk's belt wouldn't fit both my forest gnome and his brown bear wildshape form. IUS and Improved Grapple don't hurt either.

But the reasons Red Fel mention are what indeed to focus on in rectifying my moral lapse in justifying the exploitation of the weak by the strong. That distinction between unthinking doesn't-know-any-better exploitation in nature, and intelligently inflicted evil was what I was thinking, but had not quite expressed so persuasively. Thanks, Red Fel.


Edit: I'll re read BoED on exalted. I hadn't thought of it as anything other than good.

I swung lawful because I was thinking about the order of Nature that depends on predation, etc.

But intelligent deliberately inflicted evil, that is a moral problem I need to rectify.

And donating my share of treasure to help victims of evil put their lives back together is something I can get behind.

[danzibr]

I just realized... LN to NG is a double shift. Quite extreme.

[geekintheground]

I took Monk at level 6, mostly because DM ruled that monk's belt wouldn't fit both my forest gnome and his brown bear wildshape form.

but... magic gear (other than weapons and armor) resize to fit the wearer. thats why prices are standardized across sizes (a large monk's belt cost the same as a diminutive one)

[Hiro Quester]

but... magic gear (other than weapons and armor) resize to fit the wearer. thats why prices are standardized across sizes (a large monk's belt cost the same as a diminutive one)

DM says it can be resized easily. But not immediately back and forth.

[Eloel]

He could also have started a LG exalted monk, then realized trying to uphold law is preventing him from dedicating himself to Good, dropped to NG, and went Druid to keep himself impartial to law and chaos, since both are equally valuable to nature and Good is all that matters.

That way you only have 1 alignment shift instead of 2.

Though with OP's example, he has 3(.5) shifts - TN -> LN -> TN -> NG -> NG(exalted). While possible, that needs a lot of justification.

[Hiro Quester]

I think of it as swinging from true neutral to lawful neutral, which I justified as adhering strictly to the Law of the Jungle, and to loyalty to one's pack.

The idea now is a second swing as I realize that I had my priorities mixed up. It's the law/chaos dimension that needs neutrality, while being neutral on the Good/evil dimension justifies further exploitation and oppression of the weak but the strong.

So the second (two step) swing is from lawful neutral to neutral good. Deciding to actively combat evil and to support victims of evil (including the kinds of exploitation I once tolerated and participated in as cabin boy on a pirate ship).


Edit: I didn't see NG to NG (exalted) as a separate swing, but just a very enthusiastic and effective swing towards good.

Since we are ona finding yourself and learning about who you really are dream-quest right now, I think I'll be able to justify having had this revelation as part of that quest.

[atemu1234]

I just realized... LN to NG is a double shift. Quite extreme.

Eh, not really.