PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Disagreemen



Marigu.goke00
2015-05-24, 10:19 PM
So. Recently myself and another player have gotten into a disagreement about alignments. I play a neutral druid who is kinda an avatar of nature. His argument is that I destroy nature with fire (lots of flamestrikes) and refused to honor a truce with a drow who had been actively trying to kill us moments previously, and slaying animals who had been dominated to kill us, putting me solidly in as a chaotic and possibly evil character However my argument is that, as avatar of nature, i am not destroying nature with fire, i am turning it to a new form, as fire exists within nature. Killing the drow had been necessary because it was 1. A drow and inherently evil, 2. A caster that could try killing us very shortly after we made the truce and 3. Had been trying to murder us 30 seconds ago. Now. My other argument is that I am neither lawful, because I am the storm. I destroy as i need to. I am not chaotic because I keep my pack (the party) safe and follow my pecking order to the letter. I am not evil, because I do my best to help innocents, and heal those that I can. I am not good, because I strike my foes down by any means necessary. Any input?

Lurkmoar
2015-05-24, 10:31 PM
What are you using the Flame Strikes for? If you're causing a lot of collateral damage and not caring... you might be drifting towards evil.

The other points seem pretty weak though. Chaotics can easily have people that they care about, but they typically put themselves first above others. Not seeing your play, I can't say if you're chaotic or not, but I doubt it. There's plenty of wiggle room within the various alignments, especially neutral alignments. A Chaotic Evil person might not kill every thing he comes across and he could be perfectly friendly if it would get him something he wants. A Lawful Good person can easily be an annoying jerk, but always keeps his word and while his attitude is unpleasant, he makes great personal sacrifices for others in terms of time, money or personal work expecting nothing in return. Over all, your description seems neutral. Just watch the collateral damage.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-24, 10:37 PM
Collateral damage was fairly minimal. I was carpet bombing goblins. I did start of the repairs with magic. I am not an individual in the party. The party comes second, after nature itself. I make sure that no permanent or unnatural damage comes to the environment. The other argument he presents is my complete acceptance of civilized areas. My counter argument is that those too are just another ecosystem created by other (albeit smarter) animals.

OldTrees1
2015-05-24, 10:56 PM
I don't know. "Killing the ___ had been necessary because it was a ___ and (thus) inherently evil" is not a neutral thought. If it were a prominent part of your character's reasoning then your character would be prone to slip to realistic evil(evil that does not believe itself to be evil). So if we assume this is merely a snapshot and assume that you are likely to present things in a favorable light, then we would conclude that it is likely that your character has been closer to evil than you believe here.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-24, 11:00 PM
While the being a drow was part pf the thought process, it was not alone. Had a drow approached in a non-hostile manner and had continued to present itself as friendly, it would have met no harm. However, this drow, in presenting himself as a standard representative of the race, added his race to the equation.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-24, 11:00 PM
Wow, can't say I've ever heard the "you're not neutral enough" argument.

What's the deal with this drow -- did you make a truce with him in order to dupe him into putting down his guard so you could kill him? Definitely leaning Evil if that's the case.

Killing an evil being simply because it's evil is not in line with neutralism. RE: Flamestrike -- as long as the goblins you were flamestriking weren't standing in a pool with the last 5 members of a species of cave fish, you're probably okay.

BWR
2015-05-24, 11:08 PM
The two most important aspects of Lawful vs. Chaotic is where you stand on the belief in a system of sentients that is greater than you and belief that everyone should be subject to the same rules. Chaotics can have groups of people with rules and structures they care about and lines they don't cross but they make these decisions without much or any consideration for any people outside their group. Lawful people tend to think that laws and rules are necessary and should be universal. You could easily be chaotic and still follow the rules of whatever group belong to. Lying is generally considered to be a chaotic action. You can argue whether a single instance is enough to write C on your character sheet, but in general if it's only once, it probably isn't enough to matter. Killing surrendered foes is generally frowned upon no matter what justification you have. I'm not sure this incident would cause any alignment change at my table but I would definitely be watching you closely.

The DM's idea that druids need to hate civilization is wrong. Nowhere does it say that this is the case. There is nothing preventing druids from hating any form of civilization, and there are some that are like that but it is not a requirement. Collateral damage is an iffy thing. How much loss for how much gain? A singed bush is negligible. Burning down a tree (given that it's not a rare kind that's terribly important to the local ecosystem) to take out a couple of goblins probably isn't a problem. Making a habit of it is. Burning down a copse to flush out one is showing blatant disregard for nature. There's also the matter of ability. If you're powerful enough to throw out Flame Strikes habitually, why are you wasting your power on goblins? Don't you have better means of taking them out that won't cause so much damage? If you feel that overkill with collateral damage is better than something like SNA for killing inconsequential enemies, you might have a problem even if the collateral damage isn't great. It's not just what you do, why you do something also counts.

I think both of you would do well to seek out a copy of 2e's "The Complete Druid's Handbook" for an excellent discussion on the beliefs and strictures of the class, though it does have some slightly different assumptions than 3.x (which is what I assume you're using). Apart from that Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion" has the best druid in literature as well as the best paladin.

Marlowe
2015-05-24, 11:18 PM
Killing someone in a truce is firmly Stupid Evil behaviour-it sends a message to everyone else in the world that you're too volatile and untrustworthy to be allowed to live. Even the most sympathetic organizations should be reluctant to deal with you afterwards, since they have no way of knowing if they'll be next on your hit list and they'll have no reason to trust anything you say.

Be they good, evil, chaotic, lawful or something in between, it's a very dangerous thing to get such a reputation. This is why the totally evil guy who nonetheless always keeps their word is such a common trope--the ones that get a rep for not doing so don't tend to last very long.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-24, 11:20 PM
Wow, can't say I've ever heard the "you're not neutral enough" argument.

What's the deal with this drow -- did you make a truce with him in order to dupe him into putting down his guard so you could kill him? Definitely leaning Evil if that's the case.

Killing an evil being simply because it's evil is not in line with neutralism. RE: Flamestrike -- as long as the goblins you were flamestriking weren't standing in a pool with the last 5 members of a species of cave fish, you're probably okay.

Okay. On a PC now, so I can type. So, basically, the drow had been trying to murderkill the ever living buhjeezus out of us. We were trying to assault a pyramid temple, and they were preventing us from doing so. I had rushed into the temple alone (I know. Bad idea. Turned out fine), while the party mopped up outside. I came back up to see the drow cornered by the party. I, being in gorrila from at this point, pounced him an literally ripped him to pieces. It was more the method the other player was questioning than the actual doing of it.

The cave fish thing. Unless it were really and truly necessary, I would not kill the fish. If it were for my or my "pack's" survival and there was no other way, I would do it without hesitation. The wolf does not care if it kill the last of another creature's kind. Just that it survives.

Next guy.

The Greenwitch DOES try to follow laws of others. But the laws of nature come first. If a law is unjust (All druids must wear manacles), it is sooooo not happening. If a law says "Yo. Don't steal stuff." she's more than happy to oblige. Unless she truly must (to survive). I actually did not know of the truce IC, until I had started ripping the guy up.

I was dropping Flamestrikes on the goblins because it was 1. a village, so concentration of foes. (The cleric did send a message saying to clear out non-combatants, and I agreed, while most of the party didn't) 2. They were more powerful than ordinary goblins (had class levels) and 3. It was the most efficient way to do things. Were it a single goblin, I would likely toss a bolt from Call Lightning, or even just swoop in as a dire bird and drop him *splat*

Marlowe, see above. I didn't know about the truce until after I'd started. It was a mercy killing at that point.

Marlowe
2015-05-24, 11:22 PM
Sorry, how was that a "truce?":smallconfused:

EDIT: 'K. That changes things a lot.

OldTrees1
2015-05-24, 11:50 PM
Sounds like you are True Neutral with more evil leanings than other leanings. NPCs would probably label your behavior as CE(since they would probably see an uncontrolled killer gorrila from these episodes).

Hawkstar
2015-05-25, 12:15 AM
Nothing away from True Neutral that I'm seeing. Some people think anything that isn't Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-25, 01:25 AM
The greenwitch is decidely a more destructive aspect of nature, admittedly.

goto124
2015-05-25, 05:20 AM
Nothing away from True Neutral that I'm seeing. Some people think anything that isn't Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil.

something something Paladins.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-25, 08:03 AM
Okay. On a PC now, so I can type. So, basically, the drow had been trying to murderkill the ever living buhjeezus out of us. We were trying to assault a pyramid temple, and they were preventing us from doing so. I had rushed into the temple alone (I know. Bad idea. Turned out fine), while the party mopped up outside. I came back up to see the drow cornered by the party. I, being in gorrila from at this point, pounced him an literally ripped him to pieces. It was more the method the other player was questioning than the actual doing of it.

The cave fish thing. Unless it were really and truly necessary, I would not kill the fish. If it were for my or my "pack's" survival and there was no other way, I would do it without hesitation. The wolf does not care if it kill the last of another creature's kind. Just that it survives.

Next guy.

The Greenwitch DOES try to follow laws of others. But the laws of nature come first. If a law is unjust (All druids must wear manacles), it is sooooo not happening. If a law says "Yo. Don't steal stuff." she's more than happy to oblige. Unless she truly must (to survive). I actually did not know of the truce IC, until I had started ripping the guy up.

I was dropping Flamestrikes on the goblins because it was 1. a village, so concentration of foes. (The cleric did send a message saying to clear out non-combatants, and I agreed, while most of the party didn't) 2. They were more powerful than ordinary goblins (had class levels) and 3. It was the most efficient way to do things. Were it a single goblin, I would likely toss a bolt from Call Lightning, or even just swoop in as a dire bird and drop him *splat*

Marlowe, see above. I didn't know about the truce until after I'd started. It was a mercy killing at that point.

Sounds like you've got your motivations worked out pretty well. For some reason I was reading "avatar of nature" as "protector of nature". But you're right -- as a force of nature you don't need to worry about the cave fish (poor little guy, last of his kind, cruelly parbroiled in a flamestrike :smalleek:).

Objecting to the method of killing your foe is sort of silly in a fantasy campaign. I can't imagine that being burned alive by magical fire, being repeatedly sliced by a 3' razor blade, or having your throat ripped out by an animal companion is any more pleasant than being dismembered by a gorilla. There is no Geneva Convention in the Underdark. As long as you use the most expeditious method possible to disable your opponent's ability to harm you and your friends, it's all good.

Anyway, I really, really dislike D&D alignments. Having arguments about actions and morality is one thing. Having arguments about artificial, arbitrarily-defined outlooks that are supposed to define a person is dumb.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-25, 11:59 AM
So. Recently myself and another player have gotten into a disagreement about alignments. I play a neutral druid who is kinda an avatar of nature. His argument is that I destroy nature with fire (lots of flamestrikes) and refused to honor a truce with a drow who had been actively trying to kill us moments previously, and slaying animals who had been dominated to kill us, putting me solidly in as a chaotic and possibly evil character. However my argument is that, as avatar of nature, i am not destroying nature with fire, i am turning it to a new form, as fire exists within nature. Killing the drow had been necessary because it was 1. A drow and inherently evil, 2. A caster that could try killing us very shortly after we made the truce and 3. Had been trying to murder us 30 seconds ago. Now.

Lets see:

1.Nature destroys Nature all the time. The idea of ''nature as utopia'' is a very misdirected idea. Destruction is not by itself good or evil or lawful or chaotic, but the reason for doing so very often are. So if your causing destruction to further good, evil, chaotic or lawful ideas, then it's not a neutral act.

2. A truce is a lawful concept. Honor and mercy are good ones. Vengeance is evil. Judging someone is lawful. And doing whatever you want and ignoring anything else is chaotic.



My other argument is that I am neither lawful, because I am the storm. I destroy as i need to. I am not chaotic because I keep my pack (the party) safe and follow my pecking order to the letter. I am not evil, because I do my best to help innocents, and heal those that I can. I am not good, because I strike my foes down by any means necessary. Any input?

1.A storm destroys at random and does not ''care'' about anything. If your a ''targeted storm'' then that is lawful(if you do it not to waste or accomplish a goal) or good(if your avoiding hurting innocents or non combatants).

2.A ''pack/party'' is a lawful concept, as is the idea of the pecking order. And following anything to the letter is very lawful.

3.Helping innocents and healing are both very good acts.

4.Striking down foes by ''any'' means is a bit vague. If you will do ''anything'', that is evil. If you do have limits, like if you would not use innocents as bait, then that is good.




The Greenwitch DOES try to follow laws of others. But the laws of nature come first. If a law is unjust (All druids must wear manacles), it is sooooo not happening. If a law says "Yo. Don't steal stuff." she's more than happy to oblige. Unless she truly must (to survive). I actually did not know of the truce IC, until I had started ripping the guy up.


1.To follow the laws of others is a lawful act. Unjust, is a good idea. And your example of ''I don't like a law that effects me'' is chaotic. Not stealing is going good and lawful.


Over all, your character simply cares too much and that makes them good. And your character sure has a lot of lawfulness in them. It does not look like you'd move much on the good part, but you might not be pure lawful. So this would make you Neutral Good.

Note to be True Neutral you need to drop all the ideas of ''good''. Nature and pure neutral does not have ''friends''. Two random lone wolves would never meet in the wild and just ''become a pack/friends'', for example. The same way very few animals that are not related ''help'' each other. Also animals only act out of basic needs, like hunger or self defense. So if your attack is for any other reason, your not being very animal like.

neonchameleon
2015-05-25, 12:33 PM
Aaaggghhh!!! Alignment.

The first thing to realise is that Alignment makes almost no sense as it's presented. You have two alignment systems forced into each other.

oD&D only had three alignments. Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic. The Gods of Law were urban and in favour of urban development and growth. The Gods of Chaos were the Gods of the Wilderness and trying to keep civilisation back to allow nature to thrive. And the Neutrals were stuck in the middle of this cosmological battle and trying to survive. The whole thing worked and added massively to the setting.

There is also another alignment system, Good vs Evil. Due to the moral weight on those words, the whole thing is a mess. But it's what people want to play. (4e has probably the best implementation of that with a generally benevolent cabal of powerful Gods, considered good, neutrals who mostly side with the good cabal because they want to get on with their own projects, and evil deities that think they should be the ones in charge. And two other alignments: Lawful Good who are idealists who strive to fight the unbeatable foe, to right the unwritable wrong, and who are ready to fight for the right without question or pause, to march into hell for heavenly cause (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow), and Chaotic Evil who just want to watch the world burn). Of the two the Lawful Good are scarier.

So it's one good alignment system stuck to one evocative but suspect one - and with very little thought for how the two mesh. The main thing alignment does is creates arguments, and the second thing it does is to create memes.

Vitruviansquid
2015-05-25, 01:01 PM
The DnD alignments system is good at telling simple stories where everybody already knows who is the villain, who is the hero, who is where in-between.

The DnD alignments system is not good at handling moral complexity, which is what we have here.

Thus, I would say just let the player decide what his/her character is. It's not a big deal, you won't ever figure out a definitive answer, so I think it's just better to err on the side of appeasing the player who has to roleplay the damn character.

TheOOB
2015-05-25, 01:43 PM
Alignment is a measure of general tendencies and not specific acts, though the description you gave points to chaotic with perhaps evil leanings. Note that someone who does both evil and good for to purpose of balance is evil not neutral.

That said, it's mostly irrelevant, alignment is purely a measure of how certain supernatural effects affect you.

Honest Tiefling
2015-05-25, 01:49 PM
Unless you happen to worship a tree god who isn't fond of fire, I don't really see the fire argument. I mean, how many fire spells do druids have, and how many species have adapted to wildfires? Fire is a part of nature, as you have pointed out.

If the player keeps complaining, pointing out that magically healing is further removed from nature(few things in nature regenerates like that after all), and refuse to use these spells, even in the form of scrolls/wands because it is far less natural then fire.

Hawkstar
2015-05-25, 04:22 PM
Note that someone who does both evil and good for to purpose of balance is evil not neutral.
This is incorrect, and merely stems from the belief that "Anything that isn't Lawful or Good is Chaotic or Evil"

Neutral is not nice when it is proactive.

AzraelX
2015-05-25, 06:07 PM
Nothing away from True Neutral that I'm seeing. Some people think anything that isn't Lawful Good is Chaotic Evil.
Yeah, this is the short version.


If the player keeps complaining, ...
If the player keeps complaining, I think it's time to stop trying to justify yourself. Objectively speaking, your interpretation of alignment is far closer to any official definition than his. The problem isn't that you're playing your character "wrong", as per any actual rules, but that you're not playing it the way he would play it. That's entirely on him, and not worth your time or energy worrying about.

Ralanr
2015-05-25, 07:49 PM
You are an avatar of nature. You are not lawful, you are not chaotic. You don't care between those or good and evil.

Not caring seems neutral

Hawkstar
2015-05-25, 08:32 PM
You are an avatar of nature. You are not lawful, you are not chaotic. You don't care between those or good and evil.

A big problem with this line of thought is Nature isn't Sapient, nor does it have an agenda. People, including druids, are and do.

goto124
2015-05-25, 10:22 PM
Yep, druids can think for real. This means they will be somewhat less neutral than non-sapient animals. Would a GM make a druid fall for doing 'too much good'? I also don't see anything that pushes the druid toward Lawful or Chaotic.

The druid hasn't caused needless harm. She's used Flamestrike because it was the most efficient method, and she's careful enough not to destroy or kill more than necessary.

Dropping on and killing the drow who tried to kill the party? Also the most efficient method of taking out someone with murderous attempt. It's not like the druid had slowly pulled out the drow's flesh to torture her victim. Just drop, claw, done.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-25, 10:30 PM
My "agenda" is to keep the demonic dragon god Marnasu from rising and consuming the world. I might save countless lives doing so. That isn't the point. The point is to allow the world to do its thing. If, the next day, the workd starts to burn by natural means, I will try to stop it (it is only natural for the deer to kick the wolf). I am what nature is. Uncaring. If my pack is struk down, I will not aim for vengeance. Nature is not vengeful. But I will fight to save them. I will provide sustenance for woodland creatures- or I will eat them. Nature giveth and nature taketh.

Ralanr
2015-05-26, 08:38 AM
My "agenda" is to keep the demonic dragon god Marnasu from rising and consuming the world. I might save countless lives doing so. That isn't the point. The point is to allow the world to do its thing. If, the next day, the workd starts to burn by natural means, I will try to stop it (it is only natural for the deer to kick the wolf). I am what nature is. Uncaring. If my pack is struk down, I will not aim for vengeance. Nature is not vengeful. But I will fight to save them. I will provide sustenance for woodland creatures- or I will eat them. Nature giveth and nature taketh.

Yeah. True neutral. As long as it doesn't go against you in some way (which in your case is the natural order) then you'll probably let it happen. You won't impede it or improve it.

Lawful neutral makes this towards laws. Chaotic neutral has no ties to anything or its ties aren't strong enough to predict its actions.

You're pragmatic. Pragmatism can belong to any alignment. It's taking a gun to a sword fight. If you know the guy will betray you, then you don't run the risk of betrayal.

And nature destroys nature all the time. Trees strangle each other.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-26, 10:14 AM
The thing about being neutral is that it's really hard, out of only a few incidents, to make the argument that you're not neutral. Even if you're being chaotic or evil IN THOSE SITUATIONS, the totality of your actions can slide you the other way, and Neutral is a pretty big tent.

Ralanr
2015-05-26, 11:50 AM
The thing about being neutral is that it's really hard, out of only a few incidents, to make the argument that you're not neutral. Even if you're being chaotic or evil IN THOSE SITUATIONS, the totality of your actions can slide you the other way, and Neutral is a pretty big tent.

Which is why grey is such a muddled color. Black and white keep sticking their fingers in it. Without washing.

That could have been worded better.

Hawkstar
2015-05-26, 12:33 PM
The thing about being neutral is that it's really hard, out of only a few incidents, to make the argument that you're not neutral. Even if you're being chaotic or evil IN THOSE SITUATIONS, the totality of your actions can slide you the other way, and Neutral is a pretty big tent.

If you commit ANY Evil act and are not repentant about it, you are Evil. Non-evil alignments require penance and regret for Evil actions!

LibraryOgre
2015-05-26, 12:37 PM
If you commit ANY Evil act and are not repentant about it, you are Evil. Non-evil alignments require penance and regret for Evil actions!

Not particularly, no. Neutral can do a number of minor evils without issue.

AzraelX
2015-05-26, 02:03 PM
The thing about being neutral is that it's really hard, out of only a few incidents, to make the argument that you're not neutral. Even if you're being chaotic or evil IN THOSE SITUATIONS, the totality of your actions can slide you the other way, and Neutral is a pretty big tent.
Yeah, exactly. It's easy to make determinations about the extremes, but Neutral characters have by far the greatest range of actions that any alignment allows for.


Which is why grey is such a muddled color. Black and white keep sticking their fingers in it. Without washing.
I think that's worded perfectly :smalltongue:


If you commit ANY Evil act and are not repentant about it, you are Evil. Non-evil alignments require penance and regret for Evil actions!
Lmfao :smallbiggrin:

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-26, 02:12 PM
If you commit ANY Evil act and are not repentant about it, you are Evil. Non-evil alignments require penance and regret for Evil actions!

Why should I feel any regret or perform any demeaning penance when all I have done was ensure my and my packs continued existence as efficiently as possible? Or is this one of those silly text color things?

Segev
2015-05-26, 02:53 PM
You sound pretty neutral to me. Not particularly enjoying hurting others, and avoiding it where possible, but more than willing to engage in it where necessary for the benefit of your personal well-being and that of your allies (and particularly when it is directed at the immediate source of harm to yourself or your allies)... morally neutral.

Willing to break agreements, but keeping a solid code of ethics regarding how you interact with allies... ethically neutral.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-26, 03:08 PM
I felt so. Mostly it comes down to "does this keep me and/or my pack breathing?"

The other hilarious issue the guy has is my lack of issue with temporarily destroying nature. You know. With a lightning strike. Or sone other natural phenomenon.

Ralanr
2015-05-26, 03:24 PM
I felt so. Mostly it comes down to "does this keep me and/or my pack breathing?"

The other hilarious issue the guy has is my lack of issue with temporarily destroying nature. You know. With a lightning strike. Or sone other natural phenomenon.

That sounds like a personal gripe. I'd talk it out, out of character.

AzraelX
2015-05-26, 05:37 PM
If you commit ANY Evil act and are not repentant about it, you are Evil. Non-evil alignments require penance and regret for Evil actions!

Not particularly, no. Neutral can do a number of minor evils without issue.

Why should I feel any regret or perform any demeaning penance when all I have done was ensure my and my packs continued existence as efficiently as possible?
His posts in this thread have been among the most accurate and reasonable. Based on that: He's kidding, it's satire. It's meant to (apparently too convincingly) demonstrate the seriously flawed way some people misconceive the alignment system.

ClockShock
2015-05-26, 05:48 PM
I don't think the problem is that the character isn't neutral, so much as the character isn't defined. Combine that with the character taking some fairly drastic actions, and I'm not surprised that another player has started to question things (whether they're questioning the right things or not is a different matter).

A force of nature says "This is what is happening", and then everything in the way gets torn asunder, whether that was the plan or not.

A nurturing guardian of nature has a goal, and does everything it can to achieve that goal without disrupting the local environment.

From the descriptions, your character is in between the two, depending on which seems most convenient. When you want to be in a city, it's a local ecosystem that's totally cool, but when you want to carpet bomb some goblins, their city is getting razed to the -ing ground.

Normally cave fish are a precious aspect of life that of course you wouldn't hurt, unless one of your party is poisoned and their blood is the antidote, in which case you'll squeeze every last one of them dry.

Something else to note. The more extreme your actions are, the more likely other players will consider them something other than neutral. It takes a very clear set of motives/intentions (and a good deal of appreciation from all involved) to wield True Neutral like a jackhammer.

Hawkstar
2015-05-26, 08:30 PM
His posts in this thread have been among the most accurate and reasonable. Based on that: He's kidding, it's satire. It's meant to (apparently too convincingly) demonstrate the seriously flawed way some people misconceive the alignment system.

Hence the bluetext.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-27, 11:11 AM
Hence the bluetext.

The Mod Wonder: For reference, while some people try to make bluetext a thing, it is not an official thing, and not everyone views it as "automatically sarcasm"... especially since there's at least one poster who sets everything in a shade of blue.

ClockShock
2015-05-27, 11:29 AM
The Mod Wonder: For reference, while some people try to make bluetext a thing, it is not an official thing, and not everyone views it as "automatically sarcasm"... especially since there's at least one poster who sets everything in a shade of blue.

But redtext is official, right? Or were you being sarcastic?

Zale
2015-05-27, 12:53 PM
Sometimes I feel that Druids are too forest-centric.

I could totally see a Druid that doesn't get along with trees (A druid who's trying to stop people from making forests in the middle of their desert where they don't go.) or a druid who deliberately starts a forest fire to clear out strangling underbrush that's stagnating the local ecosystem.

There's many ways to care for ecosystems and the environment.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-27, 01:19 PM
But redtext is official, right? Or were you being sarcastic?

The Mod Wonder: Redtext, especially when preceded by the Mod Name, is official; see the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) under Moderators (Ctrl+F for "red").


Sometimes I feel that Druids are too forest-centric.

I could totally see a Druid that doesn't get along with trees (A druid who's trying to stop people from making forests in the middle of their desert where they don't go.) or a druid who deliberately starts a forest fire to clear out strangling underbrush that's stagnating the local ecosystem.

There's many ways to care for ecosystems and the environment.

Yeah, and I think earlier D&D druids had that more, with a lot more tree-focused spells (and 1e druids even needing specifically harvested mistletoe as a material component).

Heh. Just thought of a saguaro cactus turned into a Treant.

rafet
2015-05-27, 01:45 PM
I don't think the problem is that the character isn't neutral, so much as the character isn't defined. Combine that with the character taking some fairly drastic actions, and I'm not surprised that another player has started to question things (whether they're questioning the right things or not is a different matter).

A force of nature says "This is what is happening", and then everything in the way gets torn asunder, whether that was the plan or not.

A nurturing guardian of nature has a goal, and does everything it can to achieve that goal without disrupting the local environment.

From the descriptions, your character is in between the two, depending on which seems most convenient. When you want to be in a city, it's a local ecosystem that's totally cool, but when you want to carpet bomb some goblins, their city is getting razed to the -ing ground.

Normally cave fish are a precious aspect of life that of course you wouldn't hurt, unless one of your party is poisoned and their blood is the antidote, in which case you'll squeeze every last one of them dry.

Something else to note. The more extreme your actions are, the more likely other players will consider them something other than neutral. It takes a very clear set of motives/intentions (and a good deal of appreciation from all involved) to wield True Neutral like a jackhammer.

This is my thoughts, even more so if you want to claim being lawful. If balance is your law, you have to always ask yourself, is this action keeping the balance or distorting it? Burning down an entire village when only a few of the goblins are the problem seems to be an over-stretch that only causes more unbalance. Killing every last fish when only 1 or 2 are needed also seems more chaotic. If its a rare fish and these are the last 5, maybe killing even one isn't worth your friend's life.

Essentially to be lawful, the law comes before yourself and allies.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-27, 08:06 PM
My pack comes first, even before me. If i need all five of those fish dead, they die. If the goblins are a threat, they die. Things fall into easy categories; allies, superiors, threats and bystanders. I help allies, obey superiors, eliminate threats, and if a few bystanders get saved, cool.

goto124
2015-05-27, 10:29 PM
'My pack comes first' is a good way to play, because it's intentionally making sure you never become a disruptive player.

Imagine if you refuse to kill a fish to make an antidote for your friend because 'that's what my character would do'. Sure you may be following RP, but it's not fun for the rest of your group.

OP has a very good reason to go with that particular view of Neutral, and it does nothing for a Druid to lose powers over something that makes the game fun for everyone.

rafet
2015-05-28, 07:53 AM
My pack comes first, even before me. If i need all five of those fish dead, they die. If the goblins are a threat, they die. Things fall into easy categories; allies, superiors, threats and bystanders. I help allies, obey superiors, eliminate threats, and if a few bystanders get saved, cool.

Clearly not lawful. Not chaotic evil either. But certainly not lawful. True Neutral or chaotic neutral is where I place that character.

As for "disruptiveness" by letting another player die, when you could of helped, depends on the table. Some tables are very heavy role play, and breaking from alignment can be very disruptive. "Not taking the game seriously." That of course varies per group.

Marigu.goke00
2015-05-28, 08:39 PM
The most disruptive i have been is to Entangle the party when I was introduced. It was appropriate to the character and caused zero harm.

Cealocanth
2015-06-01, 05:23 PM
Alignment is more about intent than the actual action itself. People make mistakes all the time and those don't (read: shouldn't) affect their alignment. The only reason some acts are inherently evil or good are because the intents that may cause someone to perform that act are pretty much universally one way or the other. If you killed that drow because he is clearly an evil and harmful force on the world and it is your moral duty to slay him to protect those that he may harm in the future, then it was an act of good. If you killed the drow because he had slighted you in the past and you want him to suffer as much as he made you suffer, then it is an evil act. By the sound of it you killed him to protect your friends with little regard of what killing the drow would mean to the world, which is a Neutral motivation with some leaning towards Good.

As far as the Law vs. Chaos thing goes, it's more about how much respect are you willing to give to other people's rules. A Lawful character will obey any rules given to them by a respected superior, as they believe that rules are inherent to reality. A Chaotic character will obey nobody's rules but their own, regardless of whether or not those rules sync up with the rules of society, and often will work to circumvent existing rules. A Neutral character leans both ways, following their gut by default, but also recognizing that they are not perfect and that laws are there for a reason, thus respecting existing laws but always questioning them.
As far as your character goes, they seem to be on the more Neutral side of Chaotic. They follow their own rules (or more specifically, what you believe to be Nature's rules), and often change them to suit their situation. They rationalize their actions afterwards and does not feel remorse at having broken an existing rule, mostly because the rule is theirs to begin with.

Chaotic Neutral is actually a normal position for a druid, as Nature tends to be pretty chaotic when it comes right down to it. Nature doesn't care if a human lives or dies. Nature doesn't care if someone creates an abomination and releases it into the wild. Nature doesn't care if an entire continent burns and everything alive on it dies. Nature doesn't care. After even the worst disasters all Nature does is pick up the pieces and start over from scratch. In its ordinary state, it follows its own agenda and doesn't care whether or not another's agenda coincides with it or not. Nature does not stoop to serve man by any degree, man can only force Nature to serve him at his own expense. If in your game universe it is a being at all, it would be the most ambivalent being in the world.

Reltzik
2015-06-01, 05:35 PM
1) So what if drow are inherently evil? There's room for good AND evil in nature. I figure if a paladin goes around murdering people based on a detect evil ping, they're riding for a fall, so how much more evil is someone killing just because the victim's race is evil, WITHOUT the detection spell? (Also, I thought all drow were chaotic good rebelling against their evil kindred.)

2) ANYONE can kill you within 30 seconds of making a truce. They don't need to be casters. They can be rogues with daggers or fighters with glaives or rangers with bows or barbarians with axes.... or, you know, druids with flamestrike...

3) Be fair. You were trying to murder HIM 30 seconds ago, too. THAT'S THE POINT OF A TRUCE.

Now I agree that singular acts, unless they are extremely severe, should not cause an alignment shift, and that the totality of one's character should be considered. This is especially true for neutral characters who will be a mix. So no, I don't think your alignment should change just from this.

That said? This was definitely a chaotic-evil act. There are few acts more evil in their nature (scale, maybe, but not nature) than outright killing a dude based on little but his race. There are few acts more chaotic -- especially in a medieval setting, where codes of honor are much more concrete than in a modern era -- than swearing truce and promptly betraying it.

Toasting nature is all well and good, though. How else are the fire poppies going to bloom?

EDIT: And reading up through the thread, it's a different story if you didn't know about the truce and thought he was a combatant.

goto124
2015-06-01, 09:30 PM
Favored Enemy (Drizzt Clones)

Wait, wrong class/system/something.


EDIT: And reading up through the thread, it's a different story if you didn't know about the truce and thought he was a combatant.

Was thinking mostly from this point of view.

It's probably a good idea to discard the racism though, otherwise it'll be a bit of a stretch to be Neutral instead of Evil.

Cealocanth
2015-06-02, 10:30 AM
It's probably a good idea to discard the racism though, otherwise it'll be a bit of a stretch to be Neutral instead of Evil.

That's a good point. Aren't most characters in D&D pretty racist, even the LG ones? That is, if you assume, that the term 'race' means the same thing in the game as it does in real life, which it doesn't. D&D races are closer to nationalities or even different species than they are to IRL races.

I guess that's pretty close to real medieval viewpoints as well. This game is based on a culture where 'let's go burn those people because they're a different religion' was acceptable.

Keltest
2015-06-02, 10:35 AM
That's a good point. Aren't most characters in D&D pretty racist, even the LG ones? That is, if you assume, that the term 'race' means the same thing in the game as it does in real life, which it doesn't. D&D races are closer to nationalities or even different species than they are to IRL races.

I guess that's pretty close to real medieval viewpoints as well. This game is based on a culture where 'let's go burn those people because they're a different religion' was acceptable.

I think it varies wildly from culture to culture, even in universe. And heck, from subculture to subculture even. Muddling the issue more is that a lot of it has a legitimate basis in game factors (ie always-evil non-outsiders existing as a thing).

Hawkstar
2015-06-02, 09:09 PM
Also - on a fundamental level, the racists are right in D&D.

LibraryOgre
2015-06-03, 03:15 PM
That's a good point. Aren't most characters in D&D pretty racist, even the LG ones? That is, if you assume, that the term 'race' means the same thing in the game as it does in real life, which it doesn't. D&D races are closer to nationalities or even different species than they are to IRL races.

I guess that's pretty close to real medieval viewpoints as well. This game is based on a culture where 'let's go burn those people because they're a different religion' was acceptable.

Part of the assumption that race roughly equals alignment in D&D is that most races are special creations of deities. When the soul objectively exists, and comes from a deity, then that deity is going to influence the likely alignment of whoever gets it. Thus, orcs are usually Evil, because their souls come from Luthic or Gruumsh; the rare non-evil orc is an exception, and representative of something like insanity.

The metaphysics of D&D are pretty disturbing.

goto124
2015-06-04, 03:13 AM
Change 'race' to 'species'. Is it less disturbing? :smalltongue:

To be honest, IMHO, your deity explanation makes it less disturbing that different races species = different morality

Zale
2015-06-04, 05:20 PM
There are plenty of times in D&D where racism is justified.

After all, dark elves are conniving untrustworthy bastards like water is wet. Saying that they are isn't some deluded and incorrect stereotype- it's a fact.

You can't really afford to give dark elves chances to show that they aren't like the rest of their people because nine times out of ten, giving dark elves a chance results in them stabbing you in the back and murdering everyone you love and hold dear.

Because dark elves are untrustworthy backstabbers who totally would let you think they're really nice people before flaying you alive and nailing your skin the wall because dark elves are terrible people.

They'd stab themselves in the back if they could find a way. And while you can't slaughter them and be ok 100% of the time, you can be as untrusting and disliking of them as you like and be completely 100% justified. Because 99.9% of all dark elves are terrible, terrible people who deserve to be dropped into volcanoes to rid the world of their evil.

This is why it always confused me in That Series Of Books where the struggles Drizzy has with people assuming he's a horrible evil person. The story indicates that he is totally in the right and those people are stupid bigots for not embracing with open arms a man from a race of people who would happily slaughter and enslave their entire family.

Sure a PC can probably afford to give dark elves a chance, since they're capable of dealing with the consequences- Commoner #36 won't survive if the dark elves turn on him.

It's a manner of practicality.

Keltest
2015-06-04, 05:23 PM
There are plenty of times in D&D where racism is justified.

After all, dark elves are conniving untrustworthy bastards like water is wet. Saying that they are isn't some deluded and incorrect stereotype- it's a fact.

You can't really afford to give dark elves chances to show that they aren't like the rest of their people because nine times out of ten, giving dark elves a chance results in them stabbing you in the back and murdering everyone you love and hold dear.

Because dark elves are untrustworthy backstabbers who totally would let you think they're really nice people before flaying you alive and nailing your skin the wall because dark elves are terrible people.

They'd stab themselves in the back if they could find a way. And while you can't slaughter them and be ok 100% of the time, you can be as untrusting and disliking of them as you like and be completely 100% justified. Because 99.9% of all dark elves are terrible, terrible people who deserve to be dropped into volcanoes to rid the world of their evil.

This is why it always confused me in That Series Of Books where the struggles Drizzy has with people assuming he's a horrible evil person. The story indicates that he is totally in the right and those people are stupid bigots for not embracing with open arms a man from a race of people who would happily slaughter and enslave their entire family.

Sure a PC can probably afford to give dark elves a chance, since they're capable of dealing with the consequences- Commoner #36 won't survive if the dark elves turn on him.

It's a manner of practicality.

It reminds me of the X-men comics. Sure, the parallels of real life racism are there, but they sort of fall apart when that little girl could legitimately nuke half a town out of reflex if she trips and skins her knee.

Segev
2015-06-08, 04:20 PM
It reminds me of the X-men comics. Sure, the parallels of real life racism are there, but they sort of fall apart when that little girl could legitimately nuke half a town out of reflex if she trips and skins her knee.

Yeah, it's interesting that they don't actually respond in the first X-Men movie to the comments about a little girl who can walk through walls.

The closest they come is saying, "You don't need a license to be alive." And that's true, you don't and you shouldn't. But straw man has a point when a wheelchair-bound rich man can put on a helmet and take over all of the Senate and Congress and the President at the same time, if he wanted to. (Prof. X is terrifying if you think about it.)

Having "unlicensed use of mutant powers" be an illegal act is not unreasonable.

Being concerned because the kid next to you can literally play with fire is not unreasonable. (Especially if he doesn't seem to think it's anything but "awesome.")

Spewing hateful rhetoric at them? That's unreasonable. Attacking them physically or emotionally? That's both wrong and stupid. Because you're relying on them being exactly the kind of good and self-controlled person you are insinuating they're not to keep from using their scary powers on you. It's like making fun of Shaquile O'Neil for being so huge and accusing him of being a violent, dangerous man. Do you WANT him to prove you right? Really?

(I chose Shaq because from what I know, he's the last person in the world who'd likely do so; he seems a nice, laid-back guy from what I know of him. Also, he's very tall.)

hamishspence
2015-06-08, 04:42 PM
Because 99.9% of all dark elves are terrible, terrible people who deserve to be dropped into volcanoes to rid the world of their evil.

While more than 50% of Drow are NE (and some are CE or LE) - that doesn't rule out a fair portion being some kind of Neutral.

Keltest
2015-06-08, 04:49 PM
While more than 50% of Drow are NE (and some are CE or LE) - that doesn't rule out a fair portion being some kind of Neutral.

As editions have gone on the prevalence of non-evil drow has grown, but unless youre in a region known to have peaceful drow, you still shouldn't turn your back on them. Even the neutral drow are not nice by any means.

hamishspence
2015-06-08, 04:53 PM
Even the neutral drow are not nice by any means.Neither are neutral lizardfolk - or neutral humans.

That said - Salvatore tended to flip-flop a bit on how redeemable "monster races" were.

LibraryOgre
2015-06-08, 05:39 PM
Neither are neutral lizardfolk - or neutral humans.

That said - Salvatore tended to flip-flop a bit on how redeemable "monster races" were.

He flip-flopped because the fashions change. It's become unpopular to have evil races that are simply evil, and more popular to have outsiders, persecuted by their evil kin. (http://www.goblinscomic.org/07112005/)

A lot depends on what game you want. While the possibility of redemption makes for a more complex game, sometimes you just wanna stomp some orcs, ya know?

hamishspence
2015-06-08, 05:44 PM
In the fairly early short story Dark Mirror, he had a nonevil goblin - but in the much later book Sea of Swords, he had Drizzt decide that the goblin was completely unique, and stop worrying about "giving them a chance to prove their natures".

Then, there was a switch toward redeemability with The Orc King. With Drizzt hunting down racists for hate crimes against orcs - in the "flashforward" scenes set 100 years after the main narrative.

anti-ninja
2015-06-08, 05:50 PM
In the fairly early short story Dark Mirror, he had a nonevil goblin - but in the much later book Sea of Swords, he had Drizzt decide that the goblin was completely unique, and stop worrying about "giving them a chance to prove their natures".

Then, there was a switch toward redeemability with The Orc King. With Drizzt hunting down racists for hate crimes against orcs - in the "flashforward" scenes set 100 years after the main narrative. so basically his position on evil races is whatever is convenient for drizzit

hamishspence
2015-06-08, 05:53 PM
Or at least, what's convenient for the plot.

Recently, the apparently redeemed drow from The Orc King - Tos'un, has turned out to be not so redeemed after all, in the comics.

Could just be that, in 3.5, goblins are usually NE - whereas orcs are only often CE - so more redeemable.

Keltest
2015-06-08, 06:20 PM
Or at least, what's convenient for the plot.

Recently, the apparently redeemed drow from The Orc King - Tos'un, has turned out to be not so redeemed after all, in the comics.

Could just be that, in 3.5, goblins are usually NE - whereas orcs are only often CE - so more redeemable.

I don't think there's been much flip flop. Drizzt is just unconsciously racist, and he tries to catch himself when he does it. Given the environment he was raised in its not unreasonable, and he's copped to it before in other circumstances.

Wardog
2015-06-18, 05:29 PM
Yeah, it's interesting that they don't actually respond in the first X-Men movie to the comments about a little girl who can walk through walls.

The closest they come is saying, "You don't need a license to be alive." And that's true, you don't and you shouldn't. But straw man has a point when a wheelchair-bound rich man can put on a helmet and take over all of the Senate and Congress and the President at the same time, if he wanted to. (Prof. X is terrifying if you think about it.)



Likewise, the issue with the "cure" in the third film, and whether it was reasonable to take it, which I once saw summed up as:

"I just want to be normal", says girl who could kill anyone she touched.
"Shut up - we're perfect", says woman who can make clouds.

Segev
2015-06-19, 03:17 PM
Y'know, regarding Rogue in the cartoon/comics continuity with Genosha... why didn't Forge ever adapt one of those Genoshan collars into an armband or something, with an on/off switch, so Rogue could use it the way Cyclops uses his visor? Heck, why not give Scott one, so he doesn't have to see everything through specialized glasses all the time?

The things may have been built by bad people for bad reasons, but they really could do a lot of good for some mutants with particularly troublesome powers, if properly adapted to be used at the convenience of the wearer.

Steampunkette
2015-06-19, 03:23 PM
You are not a single action. Making Hamburgers for dinner on a Tuesday doesn't make you a Burger Flipper.

We are what we repeatedly do. Good and Evil are Habits, not individual acts.

If you act Chaotic one day and Lawful the next, Good and Evil at dawn and dusk, you are neutral.

SowZ
2015-06-19, 03:27 PM
I don't like it when DMs are hamfisted about changing a players alignment. He is being far too nosy into your character and trying to change the way you are playing despite your play style not seeming to be disruptive. Which is a problem.


Y'know, regarding Rogue in the cartoon/comics continuity with Genosha... why didn't Forge ever adapt one of those Genoshan collars into an armband or something, with an on/off switch, so Rogue could use it the way Cyclops uses his visor? Heck, why not give Scott one, so he doesn't have to see everything through specialized glasses all the time?

The things may have been built by bad people for bad reasons, but they really could do a lot of good for some mutants with particularly troublesome powers, if properly adapted to be used at the convenience of the wearer.

Huh. This is a very good point.


Also - on a fundamental level, the racists are right in D&D.

I'm not convinced. If it is justified to kill Orcs on site because most likely they are going to kill you, it is equally justified for Orcs to attack adventurers on site because the adventurer is like to kill them. Leading to self-fulfilling prophecy where even the adventurers who have a policy of not attacking first might feel justified in killing Orcs that attack them in the wild, even though that Orc might actually be a decent guy who is terrified for his life because his parents have told him boogie man stories about adventurers.

And Orcs raiding human caravans is far less evil than humans tracking down goblins to their villages and killing them, and both the former and the latter happen, so an Orc might feel totally justified in raiding a human caravan. The humans do worse to them, right? And then some survivor of the raid ends up joining an attack on an Orc village. Round and round it goes.

goto124
2015-06-20, 01:26 AM
I suppose that's what happens? People, orcs or humans, will act that way, and it's at least reasonable enough to not count as an Evil act.

hamishspence
2015-06-20, 03:23 AM
Context probably matters. If you meet an orc, the orc does not react belligerently to you, but you attack them anyway - then that's not so reasonable.

Example - you're in a city, you see a couple of orcs acting as hired guards, or an orc shopkeeper, or an orc barman - and you attack them anyway because you, unlike most others in that society, think orcs are "fair game.

Even in the wilderness, a case can be made that "the first one to be aggressive, forfeits the moral high ground". You meet a random orc cooking food over a campfire. He looks up at you, shrugs, ignores you - and you attack him anyway.

And so on.

SowZ
2015-06-20, 11:53 AM
Context probably matters. If you meet an orc, the orc does not react belligerently to you, but you attack them anyway - then that's not so reasonable.

Example - you're in a city, you see a couple of orcs acting as hired guards, or an orc shopkeeper, or an orc barman - and you attack them anyway because you, unlike most others in that society, think orcs are "fair game.

Even in the wilderness, a case can be made that "the first one to be aggressive, forfeits the moral high ground". You meet a random orc cooking food over a campfire. He looks up at you, shrugs, ignores you - and you attack him anyway.

And so on.

In your examples, the adventurer is clearly taking an evil act, as one person has shown they aren't hostile. Where it gets muddy is when both species are basically at war and the person spots the orc without the orc spotting them yet, but the orcs outnumber them and there is no way to reasonably sneak away. (That is, the orcs will spot the humans soon.) Attacking is an evil act, but one that might come from desperation. An Orc in the same situation might attack an adventuring party unprovoked and still be an okay guy who made an evil choice. This kind of thing happens all the time in real life.

hamishspence
2015-06-21, 04:28 AM
In the middle of an actual war, ambushing enemy troops is something even a paladin can do and not Fall.

For an "undeclared war" it might be a bit muddier.

SowZ
2015-06-21, 05:30 PM
In the middle of an actual war, ambushing enemy troops is something even a paladin can do and not Fall.

For an "undeclared war" it might be a bit muddier.

Yeah, where two countries are not actively at war but are known to skirmish or fight each other near the borders. My point is that even when a monster attacks you, they may not be an Evil person. That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself, mind, but just that typical adventurer modus operandi is only going to increase the frequency of such events, barring successful genocide on the race in question. Which is clearly Evil with a capital E.