Chaotic Neutral: How is it done right? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JellyPooga

2015-11-20, 10:23 PM

As you say, Chaotic Neutral has earned itself a bad reputation for all the reasons you say.

This is unfortunate, because played well it can be a constructive and fun alignment to play and play alongside.

The trick to "getting it right" (as it is with any alignment) is to break it down into its constituent parts; Chaotic and Neutral.

Let's look at the Good-Evil axis first: On this axis, it is middle of the road. You are free from the bindings of either extreme; you do not act selflessly or selfishly as a rule. You cannot be relied upon to act either way; on times, you'll help those around you and other times you'll act in your own interest. This can make you unpredictable, but largely it just makes you a normal person.

Now let's consider the Law-Chaos axis: Here we have a strong leaning towards Chaos. This means that you can be unpredictable, you follow no code, no set pattern. This does not mean you might do anything; it means you're beholden to nothing but your own conscience and whims. You rarely make vows because you know that you might have to break them in order to do what you feel is right in a given situation. You rarely stay in one place because you do not feel, or do not want to feel bound by the stability of relationships or a steady job. It's likely you follow no particular faith; not because you don't believe, but because the strictures of religion are abhorrent to your world view; you want the freedom of choice.

Add this up and what do you get? You get an alignment that looks remarkably like the actions of pretty much most Adventurers, regardless of the alignment they claim to possess. Chaotic Neutral is the archetypal adventurers alignment; he does what he wants, when he wants. He has a conscience and will do good deeds, but has no qualms about ignoring the moral choice if it gets the job done.

For example; there's a choice between saving the girl and stopping the villain.
- a Good character might try to do both (and thus have less chance of succeeding at either) or just save the girl (and let the villain get away).
- an Evil character will act in his own best interests or out of malice; he'll probably ignore the girl and stop the villain, because that's the mission, but where the Neutral character might give a thought to the girl after stopping the villain, the Evil character has no reason to unless he perceives the possibility of a reward. He might even kill the girl as unnecessary baggage or just for fun.
- a Lawful character might have promised the girls father that he'd save her or follow a code of conduct and feel bound by that vow to at least try to save her, reducing his chances of stopping the villain.
- the Chaotic Neutral character, however, can in good conscience put the priorities straight; stop the villain at all costs, but do what he can for the girl afterwards.

For me, the most iconic Chaotic Neutral character from fiction is Conan the Barbarian. He might come across as a bit of a douche-bag to many people, because he doesn't seem to care about them, but that stems from a deep lack of respect for the way they live and their culture. He does, however, help people in need; often with no thought of reward, but only when it doesn't get in the way of what he's doing, if he considers that to be more important. On the other hand, he's not bothered by serving his own needs first; he's a mighty warrior and frequently has the ability to simply take what he wants, but his wants are remarkably simple; he has no great desire to be a leader of men or hold power, though he recognises the benefits to himself of both of these things. He's just as happy, however, to be a lone wanderer exploring forgotten ruins or what have you.

Tanarii

2015-11-20, 10:25 PM

personal opinions time eh? ;)

I think of alignment as follows:

Good-evil
Good: selfless
Neutral: selfish but not at the expense of other
Evil: selfish at the expense of others

Law-chaos
Lawful: value order, organization, and society,. Probably prefers working as part of large structured groups with clear lines of command.
Chaotic: values individual freedoms. Probably prefers working working alone, or in small units of equals.
Neutral: values a balance of above as required by the situation, or just doesn't Have any preferences.

Now, I don't think these have to be carefully though out philosophical views. I think they just describe the way people are.

So Chaotic Neutral means: selfish but not at others expense/harm, prefers operating solo or in a small group of equals, values individual over society.

steppedonad4

2015-11-20, 10:29 PM

Prophet_of_Io

2015-11-20, 10:50 PM

Sure chaotic neutral is one of my favorite alignments, though I try not to play it too much since it get's too easy.

1) What 'is' Chaotic Neutral?
Chaotic Neutral is the alignment of Scoundrels. They live, or have lived, lifestyles that were against the "established order". Sometimes by choice, often by circumstance. This has left them slightly jaded and in view of a self preserving world. One where the only person fit to look after you, is you.

2) How do you play it 'right'?
When your playing a Chaotic Neutral character, or chaotic in general, the answer to most roleplay questions isn't "Why would my character do this?" it's "Why is my character doing this?". Often, when people play CN as the aggressive and often overly competitive they love to justify their actions as "It's what my character would do". Well, that's great, if we were playing GTA 5, and maybe that's your campaign but typically D&D is a story about and adventure and a TEAM game. Instead of playing Deadpool and pretending you're not Chaotic Evil, you play Han Solo and just be the slightly selfish Nerf Herder that still knows where his own code of loyalties lies and always works in favor of the group. You just complain about it a lot. Or Gamble. Or Drink. Or Sleep around. Vices are fun for CN. If you really want your character to be stand-offish than introduce them that way, but give the other players chances to get closer to you. Let the character develop. What drew you to these people, and what's making you stay? If you really can't think of a reason why you're character would like or help the rest of the party, than maybe they wouldn't but in that case you'd be better letting them go and making someone who would.

3) How does it differ from Chaotic Evil?
A Chaotic Neutral always has a reason to what they're doing. Why am I killing someone? Because I got paid to. Why did I help that kid? Aw heck, the paladin went over and I can't let him hog all the heroics to himself. Why am I with this group? I've been on my own a long time and as much as I hate to say it, no one get me like these guys. Chaotic Evil never needs a reason, and they're destructive for the sake of it. Why am I killing someone? Why not? Why did I help that kid? It was fun. The kid looked scared even after I helped him. Too bad about the people in that cart though. Why am I with this group? They go places. Get involved with Crazy things. What's not to like? It's the difference between Belkar and Haley. Haley doesn't care about the law but she won't challenge it unless it's impeding her. She doesn't want to kill and she's actually pretty good when it comes down to it. She will kill people, and she won't feel sorry about it, but never without a reason to. Belkar actively flaunts his unlawfulness. He's proud about it. He knows how to avoid being caught but he'll do everything short. Belkar kills when he feels like it, it's a perfect response to most situations. In his case it's not why he has a good reason to, it's why he has a good reason not to. I believe both can actually be played well in a party, you just have to be flexible.

4) What are some good examples of Chaotic Neutral? (from your gaming experiences or popular characters)
Oh man, I think I have a great one for this. Daria. Daria Morgendorffer was a title character of an animated comedy from the 90's/early 00's on MTV. Daria is an intensely cynical and sarcastic high school junior (and later senior). She actively doesn't care and often tries to go against conventional thinking, and has an intensely misanthropic view of the world. Daria quips and talks back and keeps herself distant but she also has her moments where she can contradict herself. She can care about people close to her, accept her own hypocrisy, even allow herself to be honest. She'll skip "mandatory" school events but she's also given opportunities to attend or even orchestrate them. She's a perfect example of not only Chaotic Neutral, but how to make it a team player.

5) Are chaotic neutral characters ONLY for themselves or can they, for example, in the grand scheme of things actually serve the higher powers of good?
Absolutely the later. I'm of the opinion any alignment can be played, you just have to have a reason to have them. A Rogue can be Lawful Good because it follows a strict Thieves Code. A Paladin of Devotion can be Chaotic Neutral because it see's the world for what it is but seeks to make it better, through any means. Think Rorschach from the Watchmen. Any character can serve the party and move the story forward. Disruptive Characters are just Disruptive Players. If your party doesn't always enjoy playing with you, don't immediately blame your character. If you want to find reasons to play nice, you will.

JakOfAllTirades

2015-11-21, 03:08 AM

Others may disagree, but my favorite example of a Chaotic Neutral character is Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Malifice

2015-11-21, 04:09 AM

Others may disagree, but my favorite example of a Chaotic Neutral character is Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Yep. He's a classic. Also Brad Pitts Achilles from the movie Troy.

Self serving, follows no rules, can't be controlled, does it his own way - not a hero, but not a villain.

Anyone who thinks murder is OK for a CN person to engage in is bat**** crazy. Murder is evil. Not neutral. Evil.

Han Solo was kinda CN with good tendencies in Episode 4 too. He changed alignment to full on CG by the end though.

rollingForInit

2015-11-21, 06:01 AM

Personally, I see Chaotic Neutral as not liking arbitrary restrictions, limitations, rules, demands or obligations. Doesn't mean they'll be difficult to work with, that they'll constantly break the laws or that they'd rather spend a night partying than doing something productive. Just that they want the choice in what they do. They don't have to act consisently. They have likes and dislikes and morals just like any other person, but they might have a much easier time changing their minds than someone who's Lawful.

Some CN qualities from everyday life:

* People who ignore laws that they feel are arbitrary and pointless. Smoking weed, pirating movies and music, speeding (in places where it's less likely to be dangerous), stealing ("borrowing") the occasional cheap office supplies, drawing/painting stuff on public property ... all things that pretty much comes from "these rules are stupid, they shouldn't apply to me, doesn't harm anyone". Whether or not those reasons are correct is besides the point. Those are very CN qualities to me.

* Office workers who refuse to work according to the established processes. If you've worked at an office, you know these people (might be one of them). The processes get in the way of my creatitivty! I didn't have time to turn in my time sheet on time, I had more important things to do! Too many meetings, I want to spend more time working on this product! I don't want to break this issue down and write up use cases and plans according to our development process, I just want to start programming! People who feel that the established rules just get in the way of what they want to do (whether they are right or not).

* People who break social norms and expectations to follow their own path. The person who drops out of college to become a struggling artist, despite loud protests from family. A person who quits their stable job at 40+ to go back to college, even though this might become more of a financial burden for the family.

* The sort of hedonistic person who's got no ambitions or goals in life. They keep a job to have a steady flow of cash to spend on travels, food, games, whatever. The type of person others might look at and wonder when he'll settle down, or why she's content doing what she's doing when she could be doing so much more.

Now, I don't think anyone is a pure D&D alignment, and playing a character that's 100% an alignment will always be a total stereotype. We'll have situations where we're Lawful rather than Chaotic, Evil (selfish) rather than Good (generous). I'd say that my above examples are as close as you get to a Chaotic Neutral character that actuallys works with all kinds of people.

That's how I'd do it if I played a CN character.

Logosloki

2015-11-21, 07:20 AM

It really depends on if you see the alignments are caricatures, blends or their own thing.

If I had to describe to someone how I see CN I would say it would be your 20s. You are still not quite integrated into general society still but general society has given you expanded powers and are giving you time to figure it out. You have resources and only some responsibilities. You don't know the right thing to do all the time but you know there are things you just don't do. You do things for you that you justify by that you aren't hurting others or that what you are doing is a drop in a bucket, that they would barely notice. You follow the general rules of society as you know that allows you to maintain your freedoms but you discard some of the minutia or what you consider frivolous.

Chaotic Neutral is in-group focused. You do right by your family (unless you have left that or burnt that bridge) and your close friends. You join up with people who share your passions or you respect but most of these links you consider either consciously or unconsciously transient. When you seek advice it will be mostly from your peers, sometimes you will reach out for an authority figure or a mentor but only one you respect and trust and only when you believe they have the leverage to help you.

Chaotic Neutral is impulsive but doesn't cling to that first thought. Under pressure you might go with your gut but if you have some time to consider your actions you will put the current situation with the past experience of either yourself or someone you trust and re-evaluate.

Theodoxus

2015-11-21, 07:43 AM

I just play a character and if alignment comes up, I let the DM figure it out.

Alignment is an archaic and useless tradition that should have remained dead on the 4th Ed dungheap. But no, grognards demanded we keep the system - so WotC did, but had the last laugh, providing zero mechanical use for alignment. Grats grognards, you got trolled. hard.

Daishain

2015-11-21, 08:03 AM

I'm guessing about 90 percent of the people in the world are chaotic neutral

OK, well, maybe not 90... But a lot. The good / evil axis determines what is most important... Evil values self, good values others.
not even close to 90% The vast majority of people follow society's rules the vast majority of the time, even if those rules conflict with their goals. Which is a good thing overall since otherwise civilization could not exist. Now, since most of this obedience is due to expediency rather than an actual dedication to order, people don't tend to qualify for lawful either. I'd estimate that the largest category out there would be true neutral, with the second largest being neutral good, third might be a tie between NE and LN

P.S. most alignments value self, evil just does so at the expense of others

You follow the general rules of society as you know that allows you to maintain your freedoms but you discard some of the minutia or what you consider frivolous.
Most of your description is almost by definition neutral on the lawful-chaotic line, this statement in particular.

JumboWheat01

2015-11-21, 09:36 AM

If you're looking for D&D-inspired characters for Chaotic Neutral, I can point you to Qara and Neeshka in Neverwinter Nights 2, even though Neeshka was labeled as True Neutral, her personality is definitely Chaotic Neutral. Both characters are generally more interested in their selves rather than some thought of doing good or evil, or following the structured law and order for either of them.

Qara, for instance, is a Sorcerer, and your first arcanist in the game. She scoffs at the idea of sitting and learning magic from a book, because to her, magic isn't something you read about, its something you just do. She makes a fine counterpoint to your other main arcanist, Sand, who is a Lawful Neutral Wizard.

Neeshka is a Rogue, and seems to have been born stealing. She makes frequent comments about taking things direct to your PC's face, no matter their alignment. She gets disappointed if there's no reward to a quest, and doesn't trust lawful groups, like the City Watch.

Inevitability

2015-11-21, 09:41 AM

To quote Sandra and Woo (http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2010/06/10/0172-not-a-role-model/):

I say as long as nobody gets hurt, everything should be allowed! Life is too short to let stupid conventions ruin all the fun!

Seems like a good example of a CN mindset to me.

MOLOKH

2015-11-21, 10:02 AM

The most perfect example of a chaotic neutral character I've ever seen was the Prince from Prince of Persia 4 (the remake.)

Mad_Saulot

2015-11-21, 11:25 AM

One of the great things about 5e I really like is they have down played alignment, it is just fluff, I let the characters chose the alignment at character gen as normal then tweek their alignment based on their actions, no longer is a paladin or cleric bound by alignment, they will keep their powers regardless so long as they stay loyal to their deity/cause then their alignment doesnt matter.

Alignment is too philosophical and open to subjective perspectives and therefore useless as a hard rule.

The only people in my games that need concern themselves with alignment are gods and celestials/fiends, and even then only in relation to each other.

For everyone else it is just a near meaningless meta that has virtually no impact on material beings.

LordBlades

2015-11-21, 12:14 PM

Anyone who thinks murder is OK for a CN person to engage in is bat**** crazy. Murder is evil. Not neutral. Evil.

On the other hand, if it's counterbalanced by enough good deeds, the character will end up neutral.

Your typical adventurer is a great example of this: they aid and defend most civilized people, but have few qualms in doing mass murder to monsters (orcs, goblins etc.)

Malifice

2015-11-21, 12:27 PM

On the other hand, if it's counterbalanced by enough good deeds, the character will end up neutral.

Your typical adventurer is a great example of this: they aid and defend most civilized people, but have few qualms in doing mass murder to monsters (orcs, goblins etc.)

Nah man. It doesn't work that way. N people don't swing betwen murder and charity. They actually don't have the convictions to engage in either.

If you're a murderer, you can also be the most loving family man the world has ever known. But you're evil.

If a CN PC in my game murdered someone, they get the N rubbed out and an E plonked on the character sheet. It takes genuine remorse and introspection (DMs call, usually taking years) to remove.

MrConsideration

2015-11-21, 12:30 PM

1) What 'is' Chaotic Neutral?

The belief that is neutral on the good-evil axis (not supporting selfishness or altruism as guiding principles) but mainly valuing personal freedom. Its an alignment with a live-and-let-live attitude which doesn't apply a strict moral code to anyone or anything. It's a somewhat amoral alignment.

2) How do you play it 'right'?

I'd say the majority of adventurers are like this - their responses to situations are varied and not particularly judgemental, but they're not above dirty acts in the face of greater evil.

3) How does it differ from Chaotic Evil?

Chaotic Evil is the Neitzchean idea of individuals endlessly competing for dominance where anything is acceptable to get ahead.

4) What are some good examples of Chaotic Neutral? (from your gaming experiences or popular characters)

Agni Ninefingers was a Dragonborn Cleric of Loki that I played. He was CN and rogueish, and felt there was nothing wrong with his previous career of piracy - stealing from rich merchants was heroic. During the game he was entirely live-and-let-live, ready to fight for his comrades but without much in the way of self-sacrifice. He felt deceit was just another weapon in his arsenal.

5) Are chaotic neutral characters ONLY for themselves or can they, for example, in the grand scheme of things actually serve the higher powers of good?

They can serve Good, although they'll likely be wanting something for themselves in the bargain.

Tanarii

2015-11-21, 12:35 PM

IMO evil is a lot more than 'selfish'. Neutral people are fairly selfish too, or at least self-oriented. Just not at the expense of, or doing harm to, others.

Only good characters aren't fairly selfish, instead being primarily altruistic or other-oriented. Meanwhile evil characters are not only selfish/self-oriented, they do so at the expense of others and are willing to inflict harm, if it benefits the self.

Mad_Saulot

2015-11-21, 01:23 PM

Murder is not necessarily evil.

For instance, is clearing out a goblin village evil?

Sure most people would agree killing a vendor just to get an over priced sword is pretty evil. But what if that same vendor was selling weapons to orcs behind peoples backs, is it evil then? How would you know?

What about in battle? You are slicing your way through the enemy (human enemy nation) when a too-young-to-be-a-soldier kid aims a crossbow at your princess, is it evil to kill him sine he's a child?

What about goblin children? If you did a really good job clearing the goblin village by surrounding it and killing literally every goblin there, how many women and children have you ended? Is that evil now?

You all get my point I am sure. Alignment is a worthless quality.

AvatarVecna

2015-11-21, 01:36 PM

Alignment can be pretty subjective; it's hardly a simple process to squeeze every combination of personality and motivation into a 3 by 3 grid. Nevertheless, I've attempted to help bring light to Chaotic Neutral in an Alignment Handbook; others have made other guides (compiled here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread)), but my Chaotic Neutral guide is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448806-We-re-Rebels-Without-A-Clue-A-Chaotic-Neutral-Handbook).

My CN guide isn't finished yet, partially because I'm taking a very lackadaisical approach to the construction schedule, but it's a good start, I think. Others may disagree, of course, and that's fine; there's all kinds of Chaotic Neutral, don't feel limited to what I've discussed.

LordBlades

2015-11-21, 01:36 PM

Nah man. It doesn't work that way. N people don't swing betwen murder and charity. They actually don't have the convictions to engage in either.

If you're a murderer, you can also be the most loving family man the world has ever known. But you're evil.

If a CN PC in my game murdered someone, they get the N rubbed out and an E plonked on the character sheet. It takes genuine remorse and introspection (DMs call, usually taking years) to remove.

You are of course entitled to rule it as you see fit in your games, but that doesn't mean it works that way per RAW or RAI. I'm not sure about 5e, but the 3.5 DMG stated pretty clearly IIRC that alignment changes require a character to consistently act in a certain way (meaning a single evil act won't turn a good/neutral character evil).

People who don't have the conviction to be good or evil are neutral, but that doesn't mean people that do both good and evil aren't neutral either.

AvatarVecna

2015-11-21, 01:43 PM

People who don't have the conviction to be good or evil are neutral, but that doesn't mean people that do both good and evil aren't neutral either.

Seconded. Being Neutral on either axis can be a lack of motivation toward either extreme, a slight lean towards either extreme, a strong lean that is never acted on, or even a complete lack of concern for the qualities that axis is concerned with (someone who will depend on traditions and laws when they're useful and will go against them when they're limiting is Neutral on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, because their actions are all over the place, but the motivation that fuels those actions is a solidly Neutral motivation).

Malifice

2015-11-21, 01:45 PM

Mad_Saulot

2015-11-21, 02:03 PM

You're equating killing with murder. They're different things. Not all killing is murder. A LG person can kill. Murder is evil though. CN peope don't conmit murder. Evil people do.

And yes. Butchering an entire goblin villiage is almost certainly evil. Just like butchering a villiage of sand peope is.

I'm going to ask you to answer an impossible question: Define Murder.

smcmike

2015-11-21, 02:12 PM

CN is its own alignment, not half of one and half of another that you flick like a switch between. You are neither evil nor good. You tend not to think about your actions but at the same time, don't have evil tendencies and so don't go around murdering people one minute and then volunteering at soup kitchens the next.

So how would you categorize a character that does go around murdering people one minute then volunteering at soup kitchens the next. (Assume for the sake of argument that the murder and the volunteer work balance each other out, approximately - it was murder, but he had reasons, and the soup was really good).

Malifice

2015-11-21, 02:26 PM

I'm going to ask you to answer an impossible question: Define Murder.

Broadly: The intentional killing of another sentient being by another sentient being. Self defence being ok.

If goblins are trying to kill you or someone else, then it's OK if it's the only way reasonably open to you to stop it. If the Goblins surrender, then killing them is evil. As is riding into their villiage and butchering noncombatants as they plea for mercy.

It's evil when they do it. It's evil when we do it. Showing the goblins mercy and compassion is a good act. Killing in self defence is a neutral act. Killing out of convenience is evil.

Mad_Saulot

2015-11-21, 02:29 PM

Broadly: The intentional killing of another sentient being by another sentient being. Self defence being ok.

If goblins are trying to kill you or someone else, then it's OK if it's the only way reasonably open to you to stop it. If the Goblins surrender, then killing them is evil. As is riding into their villiage and butchering noncombatants as they plea for mercy.

It's evil when they do it. It's evil when we do it. Showing the goblins mercy and compassion is a good act. Killing in self defence is a neutral act. Killing out of convenience is evil.

Good answer dude, I agree.

Theodoxus

2015-11-21, 02:43 PM

Malifice

2015-11-21, 02:49 PM

So, there's always an evil act when someone is killed? The dead guy might have been evil, and ended up dead via self defense. The dead guy might have been good, and ended up dead via murder - but every unnatural death has an evil component to it? Is that what you're saying?

No. I said killing is not in and of itself evil. Murder is. Killing is self defence when no other reasonable option presents itself is not.

If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, they're committing an evil act. If you are forced to kill them in self defence, you're not committing an evil act.

killing is never a good act. But it's not always evil either.

Theodoxus

2015-11-21, 02:55 PM

Right, that's what I said - one side of the equation has an evil act, when death is involved.

Tanarii

2015-11-21, 03:01 PM

That's why I love the joke implicit in the term murderhobos.

PCs absolutely can and do murder evil creatures in D&D universes, but they aren't evil for doing it. Because killing evil isn't an evil act. An alternate way of putting it: you aren't evil for cutting the head off a snake, you're always just defending yourself and everyone else from a threat.

There are a lot of ways you can intentionally kill, in a premeditated fashion, another intelligent being, which is murder. But many of them aren't evil. That's why it's a legal term, not a moral one.

On the other hand, invading the lair of a sentient creature to kill it, it's children, just to take its gold, isn't one of them. Because that's selfish, and inflicts harm on another being. Thats murder and evil.

Regardless, either way PCs are murderhobos.

Malifice

2015-11-21, 03:26 PM

Tanarii

2015-11-21, 03:52 PM

In your game perhaps. In mine, murderhobos are just as evil as they are IRL.IRL is a moot point. Good and evil don't exist IRL. They're only abstract philosophical concepts without real or concrete meaning.

But there's a point. If your D&D world, if alignment is equally meaninglessness as IRL, you might as well drop it. Then there's ...

If you run through a Kobold baby, you're evil.if alignment is meaningful, but inherent, then the baby kobold is evil, and killing it is not evil. (Original sin? Something like that.) But if alignment is meaningful and learned, yes, killing a kobold baby would be evil. It's an innocent, not evil.

Steampunkette

2015-11-21, 04:16 PM

Naaaah... the baby isn't evil. The baby is Neutral.

Alignment is the result of looking over a person's life and quantifying their actions. In the D&D universes evil and good, law and chaos, are actual opposing forces that play a part in our lives. A person's alignment becomes Evil when they repeatedly commit evil acts. And their alignment changes to Good when they repeatedly commit good acts. This is a definite confirmed absolute thing within the game's rules and design.

Thus, killing a baby can only be evil unless that baby is literal evil incarnate, a full bodied manifestation of the powers of darkness itself. In which case killing the baby is good, so long as your intent is good (Protip: Your intent in killing babies is only good within the context of this ridiculous example. Don't kill babies.)

Murder is defined as the killing of another person for personal gain, not just the killing of another person. The definition is -very- important because motivation plays into morality, as in the baby killing example above. Accidentally killing another person isn't an evil act, after all. It's a tragedy, but it doesn't reflect on the morality of the person who had no intent to kill.

Fighting and killing a group of Orcs (or Halflings or Humans or whoever) who have been attacking a nearby settlement of peaceful folk to steal, rape, and murder (evil acts) isn't an evil act. Even if you're getting paid to do it. So long as your motivation is protection of the innocent and not "Kill them and take their money." which is the difference between Heroes and Murderhobos.

It still doesn't give you carte blanche to murder innocents, and reaching some kind of peaceful resolution would be far better and should generally be the goal from the start, but there you go.

Occasional Sage

2015-11-21, 04:28 PM

if alignment is meaningful, but inherent, then the baby kobold is evil, and killing it is not evil. (Original sin? Something like that.) But if alignment is meaningful and learned, yes, killing a kobold baby would be evil. It's an innocent, not evil.

In D&D, alignment is specifically inherent ONLY for a VERY SMALL subset of creatures. Demons, archons, modron, and the like have their alignment coded into them. EVERYone else can and does learn their alignment.

A baby kobold cannot, under any circumstances, be evil.

LordBlades

2015-11-21, 04:38 PM

Fighting and killing a group of Orcs (or Halflings or Humans or whoever) who have been attacking a nearby settlement of peaceful folk to steal, rape, and murder (evil acts) isn't an evil act. Even if you're getting paid to do it. So long as your motivation is protection of the innocent and not "Kill them and take their money." which is the difference between Heroes and Murderhobos.

The extent to which the goal justifies the means is very hard to quantify IMO: when does the good justification (like protect the innocent) no longer outweigh the act you're doing (like killing the orcs). Killing a group of orcs who have been attacking a nearby peaceful settlement (even if not all orcs have engaged in the attack, they have condoned it to a degree) is not evil. What about executing a genocide of the entire orc race because in general orcs attack peaceful settlements (and those who don't condone such actions) ?

Steampunkette

2015-11-21, 04:57 PM

Obviously committing genocide because there are members of a race doing bad things is evil.

I feel like that's one of those facts that really shouldn't need explaining.

Heck, killing the members of an orcish tribe who didn't go on the raid itself is an evil act, unless you're killing them in self-defense or have another good reason. Even if they condoned the act that's not a death offense.

As to justification: It's the basis of morality. That some things are good and some things are bad and the intent mitigates both of those things.

Killing someone: Bad.
Killing someone to protect yourself or someone else: Not Bad.
Killing someone so their lover/spouse can be with you: Bad.
Killing someone through a situation that is outside of your control in some form of accident: Not Bad because you're not morally culpable for the outcome of otherwise innocent actions.

The death in all of these situations is a Bad thing. But the act itself may or may not be justified.

JoeJ

2015-11-21, 05:04 PM

(Protip: Your intent in killing babies is only good within the context of this ridiculous example. Don't kill babies.)

Unless you only kill them in self defense. Free Hat!

MaxWilson

2015-11-21, 05:42 PM

The extent to which the goal justifies the means is very hard to quantify IMO: when does the good justification (like protect the innocent) no longer outweigh the act you're doing (like killing the orcs). Killing a group of orcs who have been attacking a nearby peaceful settlement (even if not all orcs have engaged in the attack, they have condoned it to a degree) is not evil. What about executing a genocide of the entire orc race because in general orcs attack peaceful settlements (and those who don't condone such actions) ?

General Sherman would approve.

In general, societies have the ethics they can afford. Avoidable genocide is evil, if you had another feasible option. Unavoidable genocide is neutral at worst. But lying to yourself about what is unavoidable doesn't work.

Tanarii

2015-11-21, 06:18 PM

In D&D, alignment is specifically inherent ONLY for a VERY SMALL subset of creatures. Demons, archons, modron, and the like have their alignment coded into them. EVERYone else can and does learn their alignment.

Alignment is the result of looking over a person's life and quantifying their actions. In the D&D universes evil and good, law and chaos, are actual opposing forces that play a part in our lives. A person's alignment becomes Evil when they repeatedly commit evil acts. And their alignment changes to Good when they repeatedly commit good acts. This is a definite confirmed absolute thing within the game's rules and design.citations?

Tanarii

2015-11-21, 06:25 PM

PHB 123, Alignment in the universe:
"The evil deities that created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the Orc god Gruumsh, and thus are thus are inclined towards evil. Even if an Orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies its entire life."

Turns out in 5e base rules, baby kobolds have an inborn tendency to become evil.

Steampunkette

2015-11-21, 09:47 PM

Yeah. That's the whole nature versus nurture idea.

But inborn -TENDENCY- to -BECOME- Evil doesn't say "Kobold Babies are all evil and it's totes cool to kill them and wear them as hats"

Essentially every soul in the D&D world starts out with a bunch of Good energy and a bunch of Evil energy in it. Make more evil decisions and your alignment becomes evil, the good energy weakens, the evil energy grows stronger. Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, and other species are either born with more Evil energy, less awareness of what their energies are and mean, or in societies that naturally foster evil through violence and social conditioning to make the darker choice.

Most likely a combination of all three.

That doesn't make a Kobold Baby any more "Acceptable to kill" evil than a family history of testicular cancer means you have testicular cancer. Especially since your actions are, necessarily, based on the actions of others (Heroes are Reactionary forces, not Proactive) killing someone who hasn't done anything because they might eventually do something puts you squarely in the wrong.

Don't lop 'em off until your sure.

smcmike

2015-11-21, 11:57 PM

No. I said killing is not in and of itself evil. Murder is. Killing is self defence when no other reasonable option presents itself is not.

If someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you, they're committing an evil act. If you are forced to kill them in self defence, you're not committing an evil act.

killing is never a good act. But it's not always evil either.

Killing is NEVER a good act? So the brave knight that sacrifices his own life to slay an invading demon lord and save his city, when he gets to the pearly gates, gets a big shrug for that?

Also, if every character who has committed a (serious) evil act at any point gets branded with an EVIL alignment, it seems like you could end up with a far broader range of evil characters than non-evil. By that, I mean that you could play a character that behaves and thinks in every way like a lawful good character, apart from that one incident - let's say he killed a defenseless prisoner who had just killed his best friend - and still be evil. I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, just that it leads to the conclusion that building a character based upon an alignment doesn't always work very well - my goody two-shoes hero who had one moment of weakness certainly doesn't fit any evil archetype I can think of.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 10:46 AM

IRL is a moot point. Good and evil don't exist IRL. They're only abstract philosophical concepts without real or concrete meaning.

But there's a point. If your D&D world, if alignment is equally meaninglessness as IRL, you might as well drop it. Then there's ...

if alignment is meaningful, but inherent, then the baby kobold is evil, and killing it is not evil. (Original sin? Something like that.) But if alignment is meaningful and learned, yes, killing a kobold baby would be evil. It's an innocent, not evil.

No, it's an evil act. Raping, killing or torturing is evil. It doesn't matter if your victim is good, evil or something inbetween.

Same deal with charity, mercy and compassion. It doesn't matter who the recipient of your kindness is.

It's the act that is evil or good. Judged objectively (seeing as ovjective good and evil exist in default DND).

What differentiates good and evil is not who they torture, murder and rape. It's that only evil tortures, murders and rapes.

MrConsideration

2015-11-22, 10:54 AM

D&D alignment isn't real-world morality, and has to somehow be built into the conceit of the game - killing things and taking their stuff.

Whereas in real life, I'd judge wiping out an Orc village to be an act of genocide, in the game its a different matter. An act of evil has to be pretty egregious to be noticeable in the D&D milleu.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 11:05 AM

Killing is NEVER a good act? So the brave knight that sacrifices his own life to slay an invading demon lord and save his city, when he gets to the pearly gates, gets a big shrug for that?

Also, if every character who has committed a (serious) evil act at any point gets branded with an EVIL alignment, it seems like you could end up with a far broader range of evil characters than non-evil. By that, I mean that you could play a character that behaves and thinks in every way like a lawful good character, apart from that one incident - let's say he killed a defenseless prisoner who had just killed his best friend - and still be evil. I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, just that it leads to the conclusion that building a character based upon an alignment doesn't always work very well - my goody two-shoes hero who had one moment of weakness certainly doesn't fit any evil archetype I can think of.

The brave knight who slays the demon is acting in self defence (or defence of innocents). His killing of the demon is not evil. His self sacrifice during the task is an act of good.

And yes. Every person who commits a serious act of evil is branded as evil. Murder, brutal torture, rape etc. Those acts don't happen in isolation. A person who murders, rapes or engages in brutal torture is demonstrating something seriously flawed.

That said, most evil people don't engage in murder. They have no qualms against it in certain circumstances though. They're just people who lack empathy for the suffering of others. If they had something to gain from the act, or it was convenient to do so, they might engage in murder.

Your average Joe (N) doesn't feel strongly one way or another. He lacks the convictions to go out of his way to help others (generally - he probably loves his family dearly and would die for them). He also had reservations about things like murder and torture, and finds those acts repugnant.

Your G aligned person goes out of his way to help others. He donates money and helps others in need with no thought of reward. He shows mercy and compassion, and places the wellbeing of others above his own.

Your E aligned person cares nothing about the suffering of others. He'll use others to get ahead with no concern for anyone else. He could still be a loving family man, but is generally destructive to those he cares for or who love him. He has no compunctions against murder if it's called for. He views charity and compassion as weaknesses and avoids them.

Tanarii

2015-11-22, 11:13 AM

No, it's an evil act. Raping, killing or torturing is evil. It doesn't matter if your victim is good, evil or something inbetween.killing is not an evil act in D&D. Otherwise every adventurer & every warrior would be going to the lower planes after death.

It's the act that is evil or good. Judged objectively (seeing as ovjective good and evil exist in default DND). i agree it's the objective judgement of the act. But killing is not evil in-universe.

What differentiates good and evil is not who they torture, murder and rape. It's that only evil tortures, murders and rapes.What constitutes murder does, however, depend on if your victim is objectively evil. Unlike IRL, where objectively evil doesn't exist.

You're also ignoring that some actions fall in between objectively evil and objectively good in the D&D universe. A neutral character can use more objectively 'morally gray' tactics without becoming Evil alignment. This is especially true when it comes to killing & evil enemies.

goto124

2015-11-22, 11:19 AM

Or lying, or stealing?

Malifice

2015-11-22, 11:52 AM

killing is not an evil act in D&D. Otherwise every adventurer & every warrior would be going to the lower planes after death.

i agree it's the objective judgement of the act. But killing is not evil in-universe.

What constitutes murder does, however, depend on if your victim is objectively evil. Unlike IRL, where objectively evil doesn't exist.

You're also ignoring that some actions fall in between objectively evil and objectively good in the D&D universe. A neutral character can use more objectively 'morally gray' tactics without becoming Evil alignment. This is especially true when it comes to killing & evil enemies.

Again, you're conflating killing with murder. Stop.

If orcs (or people) come to your villiage or invade your home, then you can pick up a sword and hack away. If someone kicks in your door and threatens you with a knife you can shoot them dead. If someone abducts your daughter and you track them down, you can use whatever reaonable force is needed to save her. If you're exploring ruins and some orcs who camp there decide to try and kill you, they're fair game.

Murder is different. It's evil. Stopping a murderer is a good act (respect for life and compassion and sacrifice for others). If in stopping that murder you are forced to use violence and kill the murderer, then that's not an evil act (but it's also not a good one).

Good people show mercy and kindness and charity. They only use force as a last resort and if no other option reasonably presents itself, and In pursuit of protecting or helping others.

Evil people view charity and kindness as weaknesses. They care nothing about the wellbeing of others, and have no qualms about murder if they can get away with it and the situation demands it.

Neutral people lack the convictions to go out of their way to help others, but also have enough empathy that they don't harm or hurt others.

I'f someone is bleeding out on the street, with a shady looking dude who probably did it watching on, your neutral person walks past pretending not to see anything. Your good person rushes to the aid of the bleeding person, placing their wellbeing above his own. Your evil person is the shady dude watching on who stabbed him, or someone who only walks over to steal the dying mans wallet.

Tanarii

2015-11-22, 12:09 PM

Again, you're conflating killing with murder. Stop. no I'm not. I'm directly responding to your statement that killing is evil. Now if that was a mistype on your part, and you meant murder-type killing, fair enough.

Murder is different. It's evil. Stopping a murderer is a good act (respect for life and compassion and sacrifice for others). If in stopping that murder you are forced to use violence and kill the murderer, then that's not an evil act (but it's also not a good one). In D&D, stopping an evil character by killing them, even in a premeditated and/or ambush fashion, is almost never evil. It's not always going to be a good action, but it's almost never going to be evil either. Just so long as it's a clean kill.

Edit: if you stop for a second and think about it, you'll realize that how you can react to object Evil in the D&D universe is exactly how most people that believe "evil" and "good" exists IRL want to react to people they've subjectively labeled as Evil. They believe stopping them isn't Evil it is Good, and the lengths you can go to and the methods you can use are far more lenient than normal. In D&D this is true, because Evil is objective, and stopping it *is* Good.

Even if you use what would be normally evil methods or actions to stop Evil, that is still balanced on the scale against the fact that you are already taking a Good action just by stopping it. Which holds more weight depends on the specifics of the Evil vs the specifics of the methods/action, but there's still an objective moral counter-balance to an less-than-good methods/actions.

JoeJ

2015-11-22, 12:24 PM

If orcs (or people) come to your villiage or invade your home, then you can pick up a sword and hack away...

...If you're exploring ruins and some orcs who camp there decide to try and kill you, they're fair game.

So if orcs break into your home brandishing weapons, it's okay to kill them. And if orcs resist when you break into their home (even if its a temporary one) brandishing weapons, it's also okay to kill them?

Valwyn

2015-11-22, 12:57 PM

I think a good place to find examples of CN characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral) is TVTropes. In particular, I think Lina Inverse is a good fit.

Lina Inverse from Slayers can be considered one of the best examples of this trope in a Dungeons & Dragons sense, being motivated almost entirely by self-interest and whim. While she has morals that do prevent her from going too far to the dark side, and to come off as Chaotic Good once in a while, she is extremely selfish, greedy, bad-tempered, self-centered and impulsive, and comes off as petty on occasions, as she often refuses to give any attention, never mind assistance, to people who don't offer her a reward of some kind. Notable stunts include refusing to a fight a dragon (which A: she set loose and B: happens to be tearing down the village she's in) unless the Village Headman agrees to pay her, only agreeing to help a girl whose village has been enslaved in one of the movies after recalling that said village is built near Elven ruins, saving a girl from a rampaging Golem in another movie and then harassing her for a reward, and demanding a new companion of his surrender a family heirloom of his to her after finding out it's a powerful magical weapon.

YossarianLives

2015-11-22, 01:03 PM

Don't murder babies kids, it's bad for their health.

smcmike

2015-11-22, 01:26 PM

The brave knight who slays the demon is acting in self defence (or defence of innocents). His killing of the demon is not evil. His self sacrifice during the task is an act of good.

And yes. Every person who commits a serious act of evil is branded as evil. Murder, brutal torture, rape etc. Those acts don't happen in isolation. A person who murders, rapes or engages in brutal torture is demonstrating something seriously flawed.

That said, most evil people don't engage in murder. They have no qualms against it in certain circumstances though. They're just people who lack empathy for the suffering of others. If they had something to gain from the act, or it was convenient to do so, they might engage in murder.

Your average Joe (N) doesn't feel strongly one way or another. He lacks the convictions to go out of his way to help others (generally - he probably loves his family dearly and would die for them). He also had reservations about things like murder and torture, and finds those acts repugnant.

Your G aligned person goes out of his way to help others. He donates money and helps others in need with no thought of reward. He shows mercy and compassion, and places the wellbeing of others above his own.

Your E aligned person cares nothing about the suffering of others. He'll use others to get ahead with no concern for anyone else. He could still be a loving family man, but is generally destructive to those he cares for or who love him. He has no compunctions against murder if it's called for. He views charity and compassion as weaknesses and avoids them.

What about my character who cares very much about the suffering of others, and almost always tries to be a good person, but has committed murder? Evil, right? But he doesn't fit into your description of an evil character very well.

Tanarii

2015-11-22, 01:37 PM

What about my character who cares very much about the suffering of others, and almost always tries to be a good person, but has committed murder? Evil, right? But he doesn't fit into your description of an evil character very well.
What about someone that has risen to power through repeatedly committing despicable, heinous actions. But still cares about the downtrodden, the weak, the ones the universe has ****ed over. And still will go out of their way to care for and help them, compassionately.

In D&D he has golden skin & white hair with hourglass eyes, and wears a black robe. Because he's Evil. That's how he chooses to identify. ;)

Or possibly the DM made him change his alignment :)

The Shadowdove

2015-11-22, 02:47 PM

I am having both a great learning experience AND a great time reading all of your discussions, perspectives, and debates.

ALSO thank you all for disagreeing in a mature fashion when you do. I am very happy to say I dont see people "flaming" each other on giant as much as the have intellectual debates.

I have a couple of more questions, but please dont stop responding to the first post!

For those of you who are making points on the act of murder and self defense;

What about preventative killing?

for example, a youthful paladin hears that a murderous band of (Bandits/orcs/goblins/fill in the blank)... have made a home in the nearby forest.
Now the paladin, without investigation and out of fear for his kin (maybe not even zeal) decimates this group who raises arm as soon as he approaches them (weapon unsheathed as a precaution).

also, what alignment would you place jarlaxle as？(forgotten realms)

he has a tendency to let people live or not bother assisting in life threatening situations, but also raises forces against grander evil when it threatens his livelihood. Hes toppled great evil alongside heroes and also been their greatest enemy. not out of malice, but self preservation or economical interests.

Does this make him CN/NE/etc.?

Thank you again in advance. Youre my favorite tabletop community by far!

-Dove

Sigreid

2015-11-22, 06:09 PM

ALSO thank you all for disagreeing in a mature fashion when you do. I am very happy to say I dont see people "flaming" each other on giant as much as the have intellectual debates.

-Dove

Why you dirty,no good, low down nerf herder! I'll get you for that statement!

Malifice

2015-11-22, 06:49 PM

So if orcs break into your home brandishing weapons, it's okay to kill them. And if orcs resist when you break into their home (even if its a temporary one) brandishing weapons, it's also okay to kill them?

If it's the orcs home and they aren't hurting anyone, then breaking in there and killing them is evil yes.

Just like if you broke into an elfs home and started hacking everything to death.

What about my character who cares very much about the suffering of others, and almost always tries to be a good person, but has committed murder? Evil, right? But he doesn't fit into your description of an evil character very well.

He could be good. I'm thinking of Red from Shawshavk redemption (who also committed murder, but is a good man). Of course Red has had years of reflection to reform.

I am struggling to see how a kind and caring person who avoids causing suffering can commit a premeditated murder while staying true to the Character, but it could happen I guess.

How'd it happen?

Sigreid

2015-11-22, 08:34 PM

If it's the orcs home and they aren't hurting anyone, then breaking in there and killing them is evil yes.

It would be amusing if orcs were just ordinary people of a not human looking race that things elves and humans are evil and tell human stories to their children to scare them into being good. Long ago on first contact the races had a misunderstanding and much blood was spilt. Since that time, both sides have been thoroughly convinced that the other are innately evil murdering monsters and go after them in a panic whenever discovered...perpetuating the misunderstanding.

ad_hoc

2015-11-22, 08:44 PM

I think the Dread Pirate Roberts is an example of how CN can work.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 09:07 PM

It would be amusing if orcs were just ordinary people of a not human looking race that things elves and humans are evil and tell human stories to their children to scare them into being good. Long ago on first contact the races had a misunderstanding and much blood was spilt. Since that time, both sides have been thoroughly convinced that the other are innately evil murdering monsters and go after them in a panic whenever discovered...perpetuating the misunderstanding.

You'll notice that even in Tolkien, the heroes never stormed into an Orcs house and slaughtered them for no reason. They were always fighting in response to being attacked or captured.

In Moria, the Orcs were foreign invaders and soldiers of Sauron (who were at war with Elves and Men) who had invaded and annexed the Dwarven stronghold, and even then they attacked the fellowship first. Under the mountain, they captured the Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf who had to fight their way out to safety. The Uruk Hai ambushed them after exiting Moria on Saurumans orders. The Orc army that attacked Helms Deep and Gondor were foreign invaders. The Trolls captured the companions. Bilbo and Frodo were in Mordor on a mission to end the war started by a foreign invader 'behind enemy lines' as it were etc.

I make this distinction very clear to my PC's. Riding into an Orc villiage and attacking them 'because they're Orcs' is an act of evil. Just like if a bunch of dudes from the town next to yours IRL rode into your town in pickup trucks and started shooting the place up, and killing people, or any other act of war. Its no different than if the Paladin decided to run through the local Ogre bouncer down the local tavern for no other reason than 'He's an Ogre'. He falls.

If OTOH the Orcs are raiding your villiage (and they frequently do), then you can counter attack, engage in both offensive and defensive actions, and fight for peace. This is still not a 'good' act; killing never is. It's not an evil act though. Once those Orcs offer peace and genuinely seek to negotiate a truce, a Good person will accept such terms.

Outside of in self defence or the defence of others (and when no other option reasonably presents itself) and there is an imminent and immediate risk of harm, killing is always an evil act.

Human history is littered with people who (sometimes with the best intentions) labelled another ethnicity, religion or nationality 'evil' and proceeded to kill them on those grounds. Genocide is Evil. It is wrong. It is never ever a 'Good' thing.

Good = mercy, charity, kindness, self sacrifice. Evil = murder, selfishness, cruelty, hurting of others. Neutral people are neither particularly cruel, or particularly kind. They wont put themselves out to help others, but they wont go out and harm others either.

From a commercial perspective, a 'Good' aligned buisiness is a 'not for profit' charity that seeks to help others for no gain (a soup kitchen that feeds others with no request for compensation). An 'Evil' company is one that seeks to maximise its profits at the detriment of others with little or no concern for their welfare (using slave labor, polluting the environment, or selling goods for profit that it knows harms or even kills others). A slave trader or drug kingpin are evil buisinesmen. Neutral people hand around in the (much more common) middle ground. Your bakers, butchers, traders, shopkeepers and other people just trying to make a living and get ahead in life without hurting other people.

Steampunkette

2015-11-22, 09:15 PM

He could be good. I'm thinking of Red from Shawshavk redemption (who also committed murder, but is a good man). Of course Red has had years of reflection to reform.

I am struggling to see how a kind and caring person who avoids causing suffering can commit a premeditated murder while staying true to the Character, but it could happen I guess.

How'd it happen?

Because a single act does not define you.

Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

A truly good person can do an evil thing while still being a good person, overall. This is generally referred to as a Moral Failure and it's the basis of countless stories of redemption and strife.

Red of Shawshank Redemption is a great example. But so is Hercules, who killed his own family.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 09:30 PM

Because a single act does not define you.

Aristotle: "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

A truly good person can do an evil thing while still being a good person, overall. This is generally referred to as a Moral Failure and it's the basis of countless stories of redemption and strife.

Red of Shawshank Redemption is a great example. But so is Hercules, who killed his own family.

I agree to an extent. A good person can be driven to an out of character act of cruelty, anger and malice, and an evil person can be driven to an out of character act of kindness, compassion or mercy. Alignment isnt a straight jacket, and real life is full of ordinarily good people who snap and do an act of evil, or evil people who (out of a rare sense of remorse or what have you) show an act of kindness.

But these are the exceptions to the general rule. A 'Good' PC who engages in a premeditated murder is almost certainly no longer a good person.

A Paladin who willfully murders someone (even an 'evil doer' who has engaged in horrific acts in the past) is no longer a Paladin. Thats an intentional act of evil (even one done with the best intentions).

Look at Breaking Bad for a story about a good person becoming evil. Speaking of which, Jessie Pinkman is another good example of a CN antagonist from that series. He does engage in murder (at Walters urging) to protect himself and his 'friend' Walter. The person he kills works for an 'evil' orginisation (Frings group) but is not himself evil. The murder plays heavily on his mind though, and its not who he is. He's not an evil person (he comes close, but recants everything, gives his money away and leaves the buisiness as a form of atonement).

Walt on the other hand... he's a different story. Pretty much swings from NG to N quickly and then to hard NE over the course of the series.

smcmike

2015-11-22, 09:53 PM

Yeah, there are plenty of flawed heroes that I wouldn't quite call evil. Heck, even Malifice's own examples of CN - Han Solo and Achilles - are hardly blameless. Han shot first, after all, and Achilles was kind of a monster.

Other examples - John Luther, as played by Idris Elba on "Luther," is probably too flawed to be Good - he opens the show by dropping a serial killer down an elevator shaft (followed by a nervous breakdown) - but he also is a tireless and selfless hero when it comes to tracking down and stopping the bad guys.

In Breaking Bad, Walt is clearly evil. But what about Jesse? He commits evil acts, but generally only under extreme pressure, and is consistently shown to be very upset about it. Again, I don't think you can call him "good," and and his actions are evil, but he doesn't fit the personality characteristics listed by Malifice.

Another example - the protagonists of The Americans are pretty clearly evil. No arguing out of that. But they are hardly unfeeling - they are traumatized by some of the horrors they commit, and their actions are often dictated by forces beyond their control. This doesn't let them off the hook, but, again, they don't fit the personality profile described by Malefice.

smcmike

2015-11-22, 09:54 PM

Ha, ninja'd.

Steampunkette

2015-11-22, 09:59 PM

A Paladin losing her Paladinity (I like that word) has to do specifically with her oath to not do specific things, regardless of the morality thereof. The "Don't be Evil" tenet of which was left behind in 4e.

As for premeditated murder: Again it is a single act. And as much as we might like to villify people who commit such a heinous crime as being Murderers with no redemptive qualities, 7 times out of 10 they're also Fathers. Brothers. Hard Workers. Smart and full of potential. Etc. Etc. Etc.

None of that excuses their crimes, and they should be appropriately punished for it, but it does not negate all else they've done in their lives or could do in their lives.

Now as a DM you're perfectly within your rights to say Premeditated Murder warrants an instantaneous alignment change by a step or even two steps (though two I feel would be unwarranted). But someone acting and existing as a good person before and after that Murder is still going to redeem themself through their actions, probably. With the amount of good they do in life outweighing the evil.

Of course offering themselves up for arrest would be a good first step... but sometimes you just -have- to save the world, first, and worry about being arrested after the world doesn't end.

Steampunkette

2015-11-22, 10:11 PM

Yeah, there are plenty of flawed heroes that I wouldn't quite call evil. Heck, even Malifice's own examples of CN - Han Solo and Achilles - are hardly blameless. Han shot first, after all, and Achilles was kind of a monster.

Other examples - John Luther, as played by Idris Elba on "Luther," is probably too flawed to be Good - he opens the show by dropping a serial killer down an elevator shaft (followed by a nervous breakdown) - but he also is a tireless and selfless hero when it comes to tracking down and stopping the bad guys.

In Breaking Bad, Walt is clearly evil. But what about Jesse? He commits evil acts, but generally only under extreme pressure, and is consistently shown to be very upset about it. Again, I don't think you can call him "good," and and his actions are evil, but he doesn't fit the personality characteristics listed by Malifice.

Another example - the protagonists of The Americans are pretty clearly evil. No arguing out of that. But they are hardly unfeeling - they are traumatized by some of the horrors they commit, and their actions are often dictated by forces beyond their control. This doesn't let them off the hook, but, again, they don't fit the personality profile described by Malefice.

Thank you for breaking out this argument separately. It helps!

These characters are complex individuals who exist outside of an objective moral framework. Trying to cram them into it, after the fact, is difficult at best. Especially since there are arguments over what constitutes the moral framework itself.

I used Red and Hercules as examples of Redemptive Arcs, not of Lawful Good or Chaotic Good characters.

Simply put: D&D tries to simplify morality in an objective way to manufacture an easy to work with moral framework upon which stories and characters can hang.

To give an example, allow me to describe Han Solo as Lawful Good.

Han Solo lives within the confines of the Empire. An Unjust society. Wherein those in power crush those who have no power. Having lived under the Republic as a Teenager, Han Solo remains loyal to the ideals the Republic stood for: Freedom, Justice, and Equality.

Thrown into this world, Han Solo must act against or at least outside of the Empire's interests in order to uphold his moral viewpoint of the world. And thus he Smuggles much needed goods to people in terrible situations in order to help them survive. However, acting as a criminal in the unjust Empire requires that he also work with other people acting outside the Empire's purview, including criminals.

Working with Jabba the Hutt to smuggle goods and weapons may not, in itself, be an evil act depending upon how those goods and weapons are to be used. And, on learning the evil intent for those weapons, dropping his cargo may not have been evil either.

Whenever he winds up in a situation wherein his actions impact the survival of other people, and the ideals of the Republic, he often wavers in his decisions and favors his own survival above all else. But even with those Moral Failures he eventually turns right around and helps save Luke from being killed, or evacuates Hoth.

Eventually he embraces the Rebellion as the New Republic in his life, and upholds their cause directly as General Solo.

Of course you could also argue that he is Chaotic Good, assuming that the Empire's Law represents objective law. Or Chaotic Neutral, arguing that breaking the Law is itself an inherently wrong or evil act.

Because Star Wars does not have an Objective framework of morality, we would have to all come to an agreement on what law and chaos, good and evil, mean in the Star Wars Universe and build that Objective Framework of Morality in order to determine his alignment on an Objective grid.

smcmike

2015-11-22, 10:14 PM

Right. For me, if I'm using alignments, I'd like to use them to described a person's character - not as some sort of divine judgment of their actions, but just as a tool to help figure out who the character is. Committing an evil act may reveal character traits or lead to changes in one's character, but it doesn't really have some sort of absolute effect on a character's alignment. Lawful Good on your character sheet isn't a prize to be taken away, it's just a description of how you are thinking about who he is.

But then I guess I don't have a ton of use for alignments.

GreyBlack

2015-11-22, 10:18 PM

Hey everyone,

Over the years I have the impression that Chaotic Neutral has gained quite a reputation for itself.

I think the most commonly mentioned failure to play it appropriately I've seen referred to as "Chaotic Stupid".

I've also seen it mentioned as being an excuse to play chaotic evilly while being able to avoid effects that counter "Evil" aligned targets.

In truth, the players I've experienced who chose CN used it to justify their backstabbing, murder-happy crazies with no morals.

My questions are:

1) What 'is' Chaotic Neutral?

2) How do you play it 'right'?

3) How does it differ from Chaotic Evil?

4) What are some good examples of Chaotic Neutral? (from your gaming experiences or popular characters)

5) Are chaotic neutral characters ONLY for themselves or can they, for example, in the grand scheme of things actually serve the higher powers of good?

Thank you in advance for taking the time. I look forward to hearing stories/seeing your examples.

I'd love to see how Chaotic Neutral is meant to be played/interpreted.

-Dove

One of my most (in)famous characters I've played was a bisexual Duskblade with a severe deviant streak. However, he was never actively malicious or out to harm anyone. In fact, he simply believed that his own personal freedom was the only thing worth fighting for, and would be more than willing to topple power structures he believed to be detrimental to personal freedom.

Where Chaotic Evil actively doesn't care about who or what they step over to achieve their power, the Chaotic Neutral doesn't necessarily even desire power. Their concern is more, "Is this fun for me or not? Will this limit my personal freedom?" While the Chaotic Evil character would kill someone on a whim, the Chaotic Neutral will give it a second thought. Is this really impeding my personal freedoms, or can I just ignore it? Certainly, if it can't be ignored, the CN will find a way around it, but the first response won't be "kill everything."

To me, that would be Chaotic Neutral done right: you do what you want, but you're not actively out to hurt anyone. You're more in it for the Lulz than for any sense of legitimate right and wrong.

And, as to whether or not CN can serve a higher power, there is no higher power than the idea of self. For a Chaotic Neutral to work with a group, it has to be in his own best interest, and there must be an immediate threat to his personal freedom that would force him to take up arms. In my Duskblade's example, there was essentially a Divine Dragon who was going to turn everyone into (essentially) mindless zombies to create a world of perfect order. The Chaotic Neutral will hear this and say, "Gee, that would take away my freedom!" and take up arms against it. It's not that he doesn't care that everyone else is getting taken over, but don't you dare touch my freedom!

I guess the best way to define Chaotic Neutral would be, for me, be your stereotypical narcissist. He loves to look at himself in the mirror, but he isn't going to stab someone over their dress.

EDIT: As to the Duskblade? Eventually, he actually became CG, fighting to protect the rights of everyone's personal freedoms, with some *ahem* prodding from a goddess he may or may not have seduced. Which may or may not have resulted in little demigods.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 10:24 PM

Yeah, there are plenty of flawed heroes that I wouldn't quite call evil. Heck, even Malifice's own examples of CN - Han Solo and Achilles - are hardly blameless. Han shot first, after all, and Achilles was kind of a monster.

Han shot first, but in self defence. Greedo had just announced that 'Over his dead body' was the plan. In other words he indicated to Han that he was gonna shoot him. In that case, shooting first is an act of self defence and is morally 'neutral'.

Achillies in the Illiad is more of a monster than Brad Pitts depiction. In the movie he's CN (classic CN; fights for his own reasons, screw Agamemmnon, cant be controlled, constantly defies orders re the beach landing and holding back his troops, sleeps in on the eve of battle, flys in the face of organised religion and the rules of war and honor etc). For a good example of LG in that movie, look no further than Eric Banas depiction of Hector (a good, noble and honorable man).

In the Illiad, Achillies is more CE (in line with the Greek view of Ares).

Other examples - John Luther, as played by Idris Elba on "Luther," is probably too flawed to be Good - he opens the show by dropping a serial killer down an elevator shaft (followed by a nervous breakdown) - but he also is a tireless and selfless hero when it comes to tracking down and stopping the bad guys.

Straddles the divide between chaotic good and chaotic neutral IMO.

In Breaking Bad, Walt is clearly evil. But what about Jesse? He commits evil acts, but generally only under extreme pressure, and is consistently shown to be very upset about it. Again, I don't think you can call him "good," and and his actions are evil, but he doesn't fit the personality characteristics listed by Malifice.

CN for mine. He's a loose cannon, and Walt constantly has to manipulate him to keep him in line. He demonstrates both good and evil tendencies. He finally (subject to Walts manipulation and machniations) crosses the line when he performs a murder. For the remainder of the series, he is haunted by it and engages in a series of drastic actions to repent (he gives his money away, works for the DEA against Walt, renounces him and leaves the buisiness). His journey differs from Walts (who slides further and further into evil by choice). Jessie doesnt let Walt drag him down with him. He chooses the higher path. You know he'll struggle to live with what he's done for the rest of his life, but you know that deep down inside he's more of a good person than a bad one.

Walt on the other hand. He's irredeemable.

Another example - the protagonists of The Americans are pretty clearly evil. No arguing out of that. But they are hardly unfeeling - they are traumatized by some of the horrors they commit, and their actions are often dictated by forces beyond their control. This doesn't let them off the hook, but, again, they don't fit the personality profile described by Malefice.

Dont know it so cant comment sadly.

A Paladin losing her Paladinity (I like that word) has to do specifically with her oath to not do specific things, regardless of the morality thereof. The "Don't be Evil" tenet of which was left behind in 4e.

Yeah I was referring to the old 1-3e 'thou shalt not commit an intentional act of evil'.

As for premeditated murder: Again it is a single act. And as much as we might like to villify people who commit such a heinous crime as being Murderers with no redemptive qualities, 7 times out of 10 they're also Fathers. Brothers. Hard Workers. Smart and full of potential. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Tony Soprano was a loving family man (kinda). Mess with his family (in particular his daughter) and see what happens. Even Hitler probably loved Eva Braun to the nth degree. Walter White loved his family (even if he - and Tony Soprano -were oblivious to the damage he caused them with his evil). Dexter too was thoroughly evil, however he also tried to protect his family (from himself) however only ever caused them pain.

Being a loving family man doesnt mean you cant also be thouroughly evil. It will dictate what you do to people who you perceive as threatening them. It also generally results in pain and anguish for the very people you profess to love (see again Soprano and White. Also Dexter).

Also; evil people using evil ends can be doing so for good means. They're still (objectively) evil. For example, a LE vengance paladin who interprets his code to require him to commit acts of genocide and murder (but only on those who he deems as 'evil' such as orcs and worshippers of evil or chaotic deities) can certaily be working for a world free from monsters and unified under a single banner (of course the irony is that he is just such a monster). Dexter performs acts of extreme evil, but justifies it to himself by only performing them on people he views as 'evil' himself. He justifies and rationalises his evil.

Plently of people do evil things for the self proclamed 'greater good' all the time. In fact, its the most oft cited reason for acts of extreme evil. Look at the Nazis (No Godwin).

This is why we need to set an objective standard of Good and Evil. And it has to be contained in the act itself, and not in the subjective reasoning of the person committing the act. Luckily in DnD we can do just that (unlike IRL).

Now as a DM you're perfectly within your rights to say Premeditated Murder warrants an instantaneous alignment change by a step or even two steps (though two I feel would be unwarranted). But someone acting and existing as a good person before and after that Murder is still going to redeem themself through their actions, probably. With the amount of good they do in life outweighing the evil.

The alignment change isnt permanent though. I was clear on that. A person can work their way back from darkness and redeem themselves. Again; Jessie Pinkman is a good example of someone who slides very close to darkness, before renouncing it and redeeming himself.

steppedonad4

2015-11-22, 10:34 PM

So, is Jessica Jones good or evil?

Tanarii

2015-11-22, 11:17 PM

Since no one has posted it, this is what it means to be Chaotic Neutral in 5e (PHB 122):

Chaotic Neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

That's it. The character follows his whims and holds his personal freedom above all else. The rest of how he acts is determined by Personality, Ideal (which should match alignment), Bond and Flaw.

Because Star Wars does not have an Objective framework of morality, we would have to all come to an agreement on what law and chaos, good and evil, mean in the Star Wars Universe and build that Objective Framework of Morality in order to determine his alignment on an Objective grid.
Exactly. Real world comparisons, literary comparisons, and modern media comparisons are pointless.

D&D 5e theoretically has objective morality. But it has no in-game consequences. It's there to give you personality. That's it.

Malifice

2015-11-22, 11:39 PM

Since no one has posted it, this is what it means to be Chaotic Neutral in 5e (PHB 122):

Chaotic Neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

I'm definately CN IRL (if I had to pick one). I only follow laws out of sheer co-incidence, believe in personal liberty and oppose government tyranny. I ignore tradition (I actively buck it). I work for a charity (but I get paid), but am unfaithful in relationships, often breaking hearts and hurting those I love. Im selfish and unconventional. I always strive to be a better man, but never quite get there (at heart I'm too selfish).

If I had a code, it can be summed up as follows: 'Never mess with the Russian mafia'.

The code used to contain other rules, but I broke them all.

Weirdly, Im a lawyer. Prior to that, a soldier. Both pretty 'lawful' gigs. There is probably something in that.

ad_hoc

2015-11-23, 12:37 AM

So, is Jessica Jones good or evil?

Well I think we need to give this at least a month before discussing it.

I think she is clearly good. She goes through a ridiculous amount to try to save Kilgrave's victims. What he made her do eats her up inside too. I would say Chaotic Good though I can see an argument for Neutral Good.

Tanarii

2015-11-23, 01:45 AM

I'm definately CN IRLAlignment IRL is beside the point. That was kind of my point. (Edit: I'd probably be CN or CG by most D&D alignment definitions tho.)

I'm explicitly rolling back my posts I've made in this thread. I realized I was carrying too much of my own baggage as to what each alignment is supposed to mean, because it has nothing to do with what we think good and evil are IRL or in previous editions or in other game systems. It's not real. It's defined by each given game system that uses alignment, be it an edition of D&D or Palladium or Pathfinder or whatever. All that is relevant is what it means in 5e.

5e tells us exactly what it means for 5e. And it's a simple one liner for each alignment, described on PHB p122. 5e also tells us to pick a Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.

Between the two, that's how a CN character 'is done right'.

Prophet_of_Io

2015-11-23, 02:06 AM

So, is Jessica Jones good or evil?She's Chaotic Neutral for sure. Morally she leans good but due to her past she has lost qualms about using unethical means if it will accomplish the greater good and she certainly doesn't let the "law" get in the way.

ad_hoc

2015-11-23, 02:26 AM

She's Chaotic Neutral for sure. Morally she leans good but due to her past she has lost qualms about using unethical means if it will accomplish the greater good and she certainly doesn't let the "law" get in the way.

Almost every episode she is self-sacrificing in order to save people even at great danger and pain to herself. She is unwilling to do anything that might endanger innocents and Kilgrave exploits that. A major theme of the show is about how she is a hero because she stays instead of fleeing when she could and she repeatedly attempts to take herself out of the equation so that Kilgrave will not be incentivized to hurt more people. Another major theme is the struggle she has with needing to kill Kilgrave. She does everything she can to avoid that because of how good she is and only does so because she realizes that people are just going to keep dying. This is contrasted by Simpson who rightly realizes that he needs to be killed; however, he becomes a monster in the pursuit and she becomes a hero. She is as good as they come.

Prophet_of_Io

2015-11-23, 02:38 AM

Almost every episode she is self-sacrificing in order to save people even at great danger and pain to herself. She is unwilling to do anything that might endanger innocents and Kilgrave exploits that. A major theme of the show is about how she is a hero because she stays instead of fleeing when she could and she repeatedly attempts to take herself out of the equation so that Kilgrave will not be incentivized to hurt more people. Another major theme is the struggle she has with needing to kill Kilgrave. She does everything she can to avoid that because of how good she is and only does so because she realizes that people are just going to keep dying. This is contrasted by Simpson who rightly realizes that he needs to be killed; however, he becomes a monster in the pursuit and she becomes a hero. She is as good as they come.She definitely leans good but she also straight up tortures Kilgrave who, granted, had it coming but that's not something "Good" aligned people do. That said, I can see your point and I would rule her Chaotic Good if I had a player in a game who wanted her to be since "trying" does matter for something, but I don't think Jessica is because she doesn't try to be. She goes above and beyond where Kilgrave is concerned because he's a serious menace, or where Trish is involved for personal reasons but that could all still be a Chaotic Neutral person who leans towards good tendencies, like Haley. Ultimately I just think she is Neutral because she tries to be. Her world is full of Grays and that's how she goes through it.

steppedonad4

2015-11-23, 03:09 AM

Jessica Jones spoiler conversation:

She definitely leans good but she also straight up tortures Kilgrave who, granted, had it coming but that's not something "Good" aligned people do. That said, I can see your point and I would rule her Chaotic Good if I had a player in a game who wanted her to be since "trying" does matter for something, but I don't think Jessica is because she doesn't try to be. She goes above and beyond where Kilgrave is concerned because he's a serious menace, or where Trish is involved for personal reasons but that could all still be a Chaotic Neutral person who leans towards good tendencies, like Haley. Ultimately I just think she is Neutral because she tries to be. Her world is full of Grays and that's how she goes through it.

Well, she also straight up killed him in cold blood. Where does that put her given the context of the current conversation?

Steampunkette

2015-11-23, 03:16 AM

There are times when prison is not an option. And sedation for the rest of his life would be cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention dangerous beyond reason. The death penalty is the only reasonable option. Especially since the man could never receive a fair trial, being killed summarily became the only reasonable option. Chaotic Good.

ad_hoc

2015-11-23, 12:35 PM

Jessica Jones

" She goes above and beyond where Kilgrave is concerned because he's a serious menace, or where Trish is involved for personal reasons"

She goes above and beyond for the girl charged with murder. That is what the season is about. There is an innocent hurt by Kilgrave and she puts herself in danger and calls in favours and does jobs to help her because she is an innocent.

I do see how it is open to interpretation. I think she has suffered a lot of trauma. She has a drinking problem and struggles to find hope (the character's name is not a coincidence of course). Her ideals at the end of the day are quite good though and that comes through in stressful situations when she refuses to kill. She also doesn't lash out against those who wronged her due to their pain. She had Kilgrave and the neighbour bashed her with a board and let him go. She is quite the noble character.

"Well, she also straight up killed him in cold blood. Where does that put her given the context of the current conversation?"

Our definition of cold blood is very different. Kilgrave demonstrated time and again that he has no problem killing anyone around him. Seconds before he had a group of people killing each other. If she didn't kill him instantly when she had the chance he would have killed the group and Trish with a couple words. That isn't cold blood, that is saving a lot of people.

steppedonad4

2015-11-23, 03:11 PM

Jessica Jones

Our definition of cold blood is very different. Kilgrave demonstrated time and again that he has no problem killing anyone around him. Seconds before he had a group of people killing each other. If she didn't kill him instantly when she had the chance he would have killed the group and Trish with a couple words. That isn't cold blood, that is saving a lot of people.

She had him by the throat, forcing his mouth closed. She could've easily just KO'd him.

ad_hoc

2015-11-23, 03:30 PM

Jessica Jones

"She had him by the throat, forcing his mouth closed. She could've easily just KO'd him."

Which she did twice before and which resulted in many more deaths.

Also, the police are going to be there soon to kill her, what should she do? Pick him up and run with him? Where? It only takes a couple people to overpower her and then he is back to killing many people and he may be unstoppable at that point.

She spent the whole series stopping people from killing him.

You're basically arguing that a character who kills Demogorgon can't have a good alignment because killing is wrong.

By this definition of alignment you can't have a good character in D&D.

Steampunkette

2015-11-23, 03:31 PM

Jessica Jones

She had him by the throat, forcing his mouth closed. She could've easily just KO'd him.

A temporary solution. What do you do when he wakes up? Keep him knocked out? Keep him in a soundproof room and never allow him human contact or the ability to walk around outside for fear he'll take control of the guards or hapless passerby or other prisoners? Slit his vocal chords to keep him from speaking? Death was the best option.

GlenSmash!

2015-11-23, 04:53 PM

An interesting thread. I'd like to throw out another example of Chaotic Neutral: Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation. "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Don’t teach a man to fish…and feed yourself. He’s a grown man. And fishing’s not that hard" :smallsmile:

JellyPooga

2015-11-23, 07:51 PM

A Paladin who willfully murders someone (even an 'evil doer' who has engaged in horrific acts in the past) is no longer a Paladin. Thats an intentional act of evil (even one done with the best intentions).

You seem to be confusing "committing an evil act" with "being an evil person" and your comment here about Paladins proves your confusion.

A 3ed Paladin that commits an Evil act ceases to be a Paladin. Right there, on the spot; Divine judgement is called down and strips away all the perks and benefits of being an agent of a higher power.

That same Paladin does not immediately cease to be Lawful Good. If, over the course of time, that (now) Ex-Paladin continues to commit Evil acts, his or her alignment will slip south. If, however, our Ex-Paladin continues to act as they had up until their lapse in faith and seeks atonement (both morally and the spell), they not only retain their Lawful Good Alignment, but also regain their Paladin-hood.

A Good person that commits premeditated murder is still a Good person. Somewhat tarnished by the Evil act they've committed, certainly, but until they've walked a fair way down the slippery slope (whether intentionally or not) a single action, premeditated or otherwise, is not enough to change alignment...unless that action is putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment I guess...it takes an accumulation of deeds to change alignment.

Malifice

2015-11-23, 09:24 PM

You seem to be confusing "committing an evil act" with "being an evil person" and your comment here about Paladins proves your confusion.

A 3ed Paladin that commits an Evil act ceases to be a Paladin. Right there, on the spot; Divine judgement is called down and strips away all the perks and benefits of being an agent of a higher power.

That same Paladin does not immediately cease to be Lawful Good. If, over the course of time, that (now) Ex-Paladin continues to commit Evil acts, his or her alignment will slip south. If, however, our Ex-Paladin continues to act as they had up until their lapse in faith and seeks atonement (both morally and the spell), they not only retain their Lawful Good Alignment, but also regain their Paladin-hood.

A Good person that commits premeditated murder is still a Good person. Somewhat tarnished by the Evil act they've committed, certainly, but until they've walked a fair way down the slippery slope (whether intentionally or not) a single action, premeditated or otherwise, is not enough to change alignment...unless that action is putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment I guess...it takes an accumulation of deeds to change alignment.

'A good person who commits a premeditated murder is still a good person' said no judge ever.

While exceptions might exist, a person who commits premeditated murder is evil. If you feel differently then fine, but I dont.

JellyPooga

2015-11-23, 11:08 PM

While exceptions might exist, a person who commits premeditated murder is evil. If you feel differently then fine, but I dont.

I'm loathe to dispute your opinion, but you acknowledge that exceptions exist. If there are exceptions then the general correlation between a single Evil act and being Evil cannot be the cause. I emphasise the singular act here only; not a repeat offender or someone that has otherwise led an Evil life. I'm talking about someone that has led a good and decent life that, for whatever reason, commits murder and then returns to that good and decent life (as far as they are able, under the circumstances). That person is not Evil. They are merely a person that has committed an Evil act. I allow that the distinction might be fine and that the single Evil act might be the one defining moment in others' perception of that person, but public perceptions rarely consider all the facts.

Malifice

2015-11-23, 11:20 PM

I'm loathe to dispute your opinion, but you acknowledge that exceptions exist. If there are exceptions then the general correlation between a single Evil act and being Evil cannot be the cause. I emphasise the singular act here only; not a repeat offender or someone that has otherwise led an Evil life. I'm talking about someone that has led a good and decent life that, for whatever reason, commits murder and then returns to that good and decent life (as far as they are able, under the circumstances). That person is not Evil. They are merely a person that has committed an Evil act. I allow that the distinction might be fine and that the single Evil act might be the one defining moment in others' perception of that person, but public perceptions rarely consider all the facts.

How does a good person commit premeditated murder? Surely via the act of premeditation they demonstrate they're no longer a good person. Good people don't go around committing premeditated murders.

I'm not saying a good person can't be driven to such an act. But it's that very process that signals the change in alignment away from good.

It's like how a person that commits a pre meditated rape isn't a good person.

Sigreid

2015-11-23, 11:28 PM

How does a good person commit premeditated murder? Surely via the act of premeditation they demonstrate they're no longer a good person. Good people don't go around committing premeditated murders.

I'm not saying a good person can't be driven to such an act. But it's that very process that signals the change in alignment away from good.

It's like how a person that commits a pre meditated rape isn't a good person.

Well, this ventures into the classic question if knowing what you know now you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he caused the deaths of millions, would you? I know you are set in your opinion and that won't change, but it's way more absolute than I would be comfortable with.

Steampunkette

2015-11-23, 11:43 PM

smcmike

2015-11-23, 11:52 PM

'A good person who commits a premeditated murder is still a good person' said no judge ever.

While exceptions might exist, a person who commits premeditated murder is evil. If you feel differently then fine, but I dont.

Except you already stated that Jesse Pinkman and DCI Luther, both of whom commit murder are not evil, and may be good.

Here's a scenario that may come up in a campaign - the bad guy has hired a group of guards for his castle. The characters need to stop the bad guy from doing something awful by getting into the fortress to foil his plans. They have no reason to think that the guys manning the walls are evil - they're just hired help. What are the rules of engagement?

Malifice

2015-11-24, 12:10 AM

Well, this ventures into the classic question if knowing what you know now you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he caused the deaths of millions, would you? I know you are set in your opinion and that won't change, but it's way more absolute than I would be comfortable with.

Firstly - why kill him? He's a baby who has yet to harm anyone. A good person doesn't murder babies because of what they might do in the future. Also, is there any reson why murder is the only option in your scenario? Any reason the infant can't be redeemed or simply brought back to the future?

It might be convenient to simply murder the child, but that doesn't make the act 'good' even if done with the best intentions. Baby killing was evil when the Nazis did it, and it remains just as evil when you do it to them.

He that fights against monsters should be careful he himself does not become a monster and all that. Good people don't commit acts of evil for good ends. I'm not saying people can't commit acts of evil for good ends - im just saying that those people are almost invariably evil.

A vigilante who runs around murdering local drug dealers, pimps and gangsters is evil, even though he does these evil acts for a 'greater good'.

Steampunkette

2015-11-24, 12:32 AM

Hitler is a bad example bec-

Rusvul

2015-11-24, 01:21 AM

I play a character who I would class as being CN(E). She is ruthlessly pragmatic- She's not willing to hurt innocents for personal gain (eg. wealth, status) but she will kill those she considers enemies in cold blood if she has reason to do so. Ultimately, her goals are Good (help others), her motivation is Neutral (money and membership in a guild), and she accomplishes things by Neutral to Evil means.

As an example, our party was sent down a fairly dangerous road with a cart of goods. We spotted a goblin ambush, and intimidated them into surrender. Once we had the information we wanted, I slew two of them (after disarming them and telling them to lie flat on the ground) because we couldn't easily take three prisoners.

Similarly, I doubt she'd have any qualms about torturing a captured assassin for information, or killing an enemy general in his sleep to discombobulate an oncoming army. I suppose a good way of putting it is that she fights fire with fire- If fighting a foe with Evil tactics, she sees it as acceptable to adopt some of those strategies to better fight a devious foe. On the other hand, if she was confronted by a Good or Neutral force, she'd likely be much more judicious about her use of 'black' actions and try to stick more with the 'grey.'

On the Chaotic side, she actively rejects the social order. She doesn't like people stereotyping her (She's a Tiefling) and she likes it even less when she's told what to do. She acts independently of the law, but doesn't rebel against it (or act unpredictably) purely for the sake of it. She is quite cautious (that's partially an out of game thing, because the party is made of mostly new players and we might TPK if I nudged us towards recklessness, although she does have 19 INT and 17 WIS) and doesn't like rushing into things if she doesn't know much about the situation, but will sometimes lash out when provoked, even if it's likely to work against her.

That's my take on a form of Chaotic Neutral. I'm interested to see how other people dis/agree with me.

Sigreid

2015-11-24, 07:14 AM

Firstly - why kill him? He's a baby who has yet to harm anyone. A good person doesn't murder babies because of what they might do in the future. Also, is there any reson why murder is the only option in your scenario? Any reason the infant can't be redeemed or simply brought back to the future?

It might be convenient to simply murder the child, but that doesn't make the act 'good' even if done with the best intentions. Baby killing was evil when the Nazis did it, and it remains just as evil when you do it to them.

He that fights against monsters should be careful he himself does not become a monster and all that. Good people don't commit acts of evil for good ends. I'm not saying people can't commit acts of evil for good ends - im just saying that those people are almost invariably evil.

A vigilante who runs around murdering local drug dealers, pimps and gangsters is evil, even though he does these evil acts for a 'greater good'.

I never said baby and the classic moral quandary requires that you know with certainty what will happen if he lives.

Malifice

2015-11-24, 08:29 AM

I never said baby and the classic moral quandary requires that you know with certainty what will happen if he lives.

You cant though can you?

I play a character who I would class as being CN(E). She is ruthlessly pragmatic- She's not willing to hurt innocents for personal gain (eg. wealth, status) but she will kill those she considers enemies in cold blood if she has reason to do so. Ultimately, her goals are Good (help others), her motivation is Neutral (money and membership in a guild), and she accomplishes things by Neutral to Evil means.

As an example, our party was sent down a fairly dangerous road with a cart of goods. We spotted a goblin ambush, and intimidated them into surrender. Once we had the information we wanted, I slew two of them (after disarming them and telling them to lie flat on the ground) because we couldn't easily take three prisoners.

Similarly, I doubt she'd have any qualms about torturing a captured assassin for information, or killing an enemy general in his sleep to discombobulate an oncoming army. I suppose a good way of putting it is that she fights fire with fire- If fighting a foe with Evil tactics, she sees it as acceptable to adopt some of those strategies to better fight a devious foe. On the other hand, if she was confronted by a Good or Neutral force, she'd likely be much more judicious about her use of 'black' actions and try to stick more with the 'grey.'

On the Chaotic side, she actively rejects the social order. She doesn't like people stereotyping her (She's a Tiefling) and she likes it even less when she's told what to do. She acts independently of the law, but doesn't rebel against it (or act unpredictably) purely for the sake of it. She is quite cautious (that's partially an out of game thing, because the party is made of mostly new players and we might TPK if I nudged us towards recklessness, although she does have 19 INT and 17 WIS) and doesn't like rushing into things if she doesn't know much about the situation, but will sometimes lash out when provoked, even if it's likely to work against her.

That's my take on a form of Chaotic Neutral. I'm interested to see how other people dis/agree with me.

You actually seem very NE. Thats what I would assign to you in my campaign, and you would wind up in Hades or Carceri on death. Which is probably OK becuase Im getting somewhat of a nihilist vibe from reading the above.

You sit between the Law/ Chaos axis (outside of the social order, without working against it) and are very very very evil. Almost certainly a sociopath. Anyone with any empathy couldnt do what you do (cold blooded murder and brutal torture). Your character clearly deludes itself that its good. Murdering compliant sentient creatures out of no other reason than convenience is clearly a heniously evil act.

JellyPooga

2015-11-24, 09:08 AM

I play a character who I would class as being CN(E).

I'm going to at least partially agree with Malifice on this one. Definitely Evil the way you describe her. Killing in cold blood, killing foes that have surrendered (practical, perhaps, but definitely Evil) or unable to defend themselves and torture are all high 'pings' on the Evil-o-meter. If she's doing these things as a matter of course, on a regular basis; yeah, she's Evil. Does she do any overtly Good things on a regular basis to "balance the equation"? Having "good motivations" isn't really sufficient to balance it up to Neutral; as Malifice says, it sounds more like delusions of neutrality or good than actual motivations.

I don't think you've really given us enough information to make a solid call on the other axis; which in itself could suggest Neutral, I suppose. I might be inclined to let the player call it; if she want to be labelled Chaotic, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, but I could also see a claim for Lawful or Neutral based on what you've written.

smcmike

2015-11-24, 12:52 PM

Tanarii

2015-11-24, 01:03 PM

If you're trying to figure out your character's alignment from your actions in 5e, you're doing it backwards. Alignment is meant to be a guideline for how your character acts, along with Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Not something determined by how you act.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Those are the guidelines for how Evil act in D&D 5e. One sentence per kind of evil.

MrStabby

2015-11-24, 01:04 PM

Yeah, doing really evil things as a matter of course makes you evil. That's a pretty solid rule, I think. The questions arise when you do evil things as a matter of (perceived) necessity. Killing a sentry to sneak into the enemy camp, even though that sentry is probably just some poor sap...

This does go to show, I think, that good and evil characters should be able to coexist and share goals in a lot of situations - though good characters probably wouldn't be able to stomache the causal murder and torture.

There is an extra complicated middle ground whereby some people put themselves in positions where they are likely to need to kill out of necessity.

Insulting someone may not by itself be evil but insulting someone who can only survive inside their society through the fear and respect of their peers will require them to avenge the insult for them to survive. If they attack you self defence may not be evil but when you condemned them to death either at the hands of their peers or by your hands through your insult I would argue that you would have committed an evil act.

Rusvul

2015-11-24, 01:13 PM

Hmm, that's fair. I suppose part of my reluctance to label her as Evil stems from a view that Evil is not good for PCs. Which really isn't true, I think even as a CE character I could manage to get along just fine with the LG Sorc, as long as I downplay the ruthlessness in front of him.

LordBlades

2015-11-24, 03:29 PM

How does a good person commit premeditated murder? Surely via the act of premeditation they demonstrate they're no longer a good person. Good people don't go around committing premeditated murders.

I'm not saying a good person can't be driven to such an act. But it's that very process that signals the change in alignment away from good.

It's like how a person that commits a pre meditated rape isn't a good person.

So what alignment is a person who behaves wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have, then commits a premeditated murder, then continues to behave wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have?

Douche

2015-11-24, 04:22 PM

The problem with chaotic neutral is two-fold. Firstly, players use it as a license to do whatever they want which leads to point two, which is that players think that neutrality and chaos means flitting between good and evil.

It is not.

CN is its own alignment, not half of one and half of another that you flick like a switch between. You are neither evil nor good. You tend not to think about your actions but at the same time, don't have evil tendencies and so don't go around murdering people one minute and then volunteering at soup kitchens the next.

I disagree. You should be able to flip between the two.

I realize Fallout 3 is a bad example, cuz it just uses points based on how you complete each quest, but it still makes sense. A chaotic neutral character should be able to just follow his own whims. You may choose to do the good path when you're helping the escaped slaves, cuz you abhor slavery... But then when Harold the mutant talking tree wants you to mercy kill him without harming the tree, you may decide that's too much hassle and light him on fire for the hell of it (especially since it's a damn funny solution)
Point being, you can complete every quest in the game following your whims based on the situation at hand, rather than being an unquestioning boy scout or a dog-kicker in every quest throughout the game, and you'd end up with neutral karma at the end.

Anyway, I choose to identify as alignment-fluid.

JoeJ

2015-11-24, 04:48 PM

So what alignment is a person who behaves wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have, then commits a premeditated murder, then continues to behave wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have?

Does Poorly Written count as an alignment? That's how I would probably view that character.

Pretty much by definition, before they can commit a premeditated murder, they have to first plan that murder. Planning a murder is not behaving "wholly in agreement" with most definitions of good, unless there's some unique special circumstance that you haven't mentioned.

JumboWheat01

2015-11-24, 05:38 PM

JellyPooga

2015-11-24, 06:21 PM

Let's go with this fairly common layout.
May I expand?

The Baron has been systemically oppressing his subjects through law and power. You and your band of adventurers seek to free them because someone's paying you to. The simplest and most direct route would be to kill the Baron. You'd rather not do that, so you infiltrate his court and talk to the man, trying to reason with him to no avail. Then you try various forms of coercion to try and force him to change his ways, but he's not having any of it. You try every conceivable non-murderous plan you can think of, but none of it seems to work. So you decide to go with the "easy option" as a last resort, plan out how to break in, find him, and end his cruel life. You then enact that plan, killing the Baron and collect your reward.

By law, what you have just done is premeditated murder. But what you did as a last resort was for the good of the people, freeing them from his tyranny.

- Are you now Evil for murdering the Baron? What about your efforts not to kill him? Do they count for anything?
- Are you Good because you've liberated the people from tyranny? What about the fact that you committed an Evil act to do so?
- Are you merely Neutral because you were only in it for the money? Or does the Good of your attempts at a peaceful resolution balance out the Evil of the murder to make you Neutral?

JumboWheat01

2015-11-24, 06:32 PM

Why bring money into it at all? Money isn't always the reason adventurers adventure. Some are doing it for the coin, yes, but others are just as easily doing it as a way to improve themselves, because their code demands it, because of an altruistic sense of helping others, or even just because they can and giggle at all the other reasons.

A Paladin's code could've found said Baron's rule unjust and his treatment of the the common folk deplorable, with only one fitting punishment, death. He's not there because someone paid him, he's there for one reason and one reason only. Does that make him evil, planning out that killing?

And as a pre-emptive, before you say he wouldn't make a vary good Paladin, I would like to point out the Oath of Vengeance Paladin, who are generally not very nice people. And to quote my favorite Paladin guide, "Good is not nice."

JellyPooga

2015-11-24, 06:45 PM

Why bring money into it at all?

Largely because there was a claim earlier in the thread that if a killing is done in defence of others, it's not actually murder. Making the motivation monetary rather than moral removes the ambiguity over whether killing the Baron is murder or not.

JoeJ

2015-11-24, 06:46 PM

Let's go with this fairly common layout.

The Barron has been systemically oppressing his subjects through law and power. You and your band of adventurers seek to free them. The simplest and most direct route would be to kill the Barron. So you plan out how to break in, find him, and end his cruel life. You then enact that plan, killing the Barron.

By law, what you have just done is premeditated murder. But what you did was for the good of the people, freeing them from his tyranny.

I doubt that I would do that. The fact that assassination is the simplest and most direct route to remove the evil baron from power does not make it the right thing to do. If the baron is eliminated, what will the new government be? How will it be chosen? Who will oppose it, and how will it deal with that opposition? Who are the baron's supporters, and how will they react? What will the baron's troops do if he dies? How will outside powers try to take advantage of a power vacuum? If things are really that bad, why haven't the people fled? If they can't leave, why isn't there already a civil war going on? What else has already been tried to either change the baron's behavior or limit the amount of harm he's doing? Before I would even consider overthrowing a government I'd need to have answers to these questions. Otherwise, instead of making things better, it would be far too easy to make them much worse.

So I would say that the individual who simply murders the baron because it is simple and direct was definitely not good to begin with.

Steampunkette

2015-11-24, 07:14 PM

Powerful adventurers who are well armed bargaining or acting through diplomatic channels to have the Baron chill out would let him know that the people he is oppressing are against him to the point of hiring well armed mercenaries to oppose him and could result in a violent backlash against the populace. Potentially immediately and using the Baron's full military might.

Arguing that the resulting power change could be a problem is kind of pointless. The situation is already terrible and bad enough that the victims are willing to risk their lives and what funds they have to end their torment. The consequences of killing the baron -could- be the neighboring kingdom being so pleased they declare peace and end hundreds of years of war and buy puppies for every villager.

Since we don't know the full story we should make our decision off what we have, not argue maybes and could'ves.

Steampunkette

2015-11-24, 07:22 PM

Ending a continuing violent and destructive threat against innocents is a good deed, even if killing is required. The death penalty and killing in warfare are premeditated murders by the incredibly wide interpretation presented in this thread. Allow me to bring it back to what murder really is, premeditated or otherwise.

Killing of another sapient being for personal gain.

However, in any reality with an objective morality, this definition is too simple. Because ending an evil threat, even through killing, is still a net win for goodness, in the end, since it removes literal physical evil feom the world. The evil of the Baron's soul, and the evil he inflicts on others, isn't just an issue of a single person's ethical judgement, but the function of evil acting through its agents to increase the net amount of evil in the world.

That changes things, significantly. Murder in our world is an evil act. In a world with objective and manifest evil, the circumstances and the target must be accounted for.

Sigreid

2015-11-24, 08:05 PM

You cant though can you?

It's a hypothetical used by philosophers to debate the nature of morality. A tool meant to help provide context that allows a discussion about absolutes.

Malifice

2015-11-24, 08:12 PM

So what alignment is a person who behaves wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have, then commits a premeditated murder, then continues to behave wholly in agreement with whatever definition of 'good' alignment you may have?

Imagine watching Mary Poppins and she suddenly and for no good reason deliberately murders one of the children, before inexplicably going 'back' to being a loving manny and housekeeper for the next half hour and the movie ends.

Firstly can you even imagine it? Who exaclty does this? Evem if you can imagine such an odd thing, doesn't this demonstrate to you (the audience) that Poppins is an utter psychopath and clearly an evil monster?

Sigreid

2015-11-24, 09:03 PM

Imagine watching Mary Poppins and she suddenly and for no good reason deliberately murders one of the children, before inexplicably going 'back' to being a loving manny and housekeeper for the next half hour and the movie ends.

Firstly can you even imagine it? Who exaclty does this? Evem if you can imagine such an odd thing, doesn't this demonstrate to you (the audience) that Poppins is an utter psychopath and clearly an evil monster?

Nope. I'd be disappointed that they didn't go into why she did it. Did she know something? Was it a brief mental illness flair up? I think most people could be driven to murder. The triggers aren't the same for everyone. But that one act isn't all you are.

Malifice

2015-11-24, 11:00 PM

Nope. I'd be disappointed that they didn't go into why she did it. Did she know something? Was it a brief mental illness flair up? I think most people could be driven to murder. The triggers aren't the same for everyone. But that one act isn't all you are.

And people driven to murder are driven to evil. Good people don't go around just suddenly and for no apparent reason engaging in premeditated murder. Those that do engage in premeditated murder or rape are not (by extension) 'good' people.

And if you're out there now planning a murder, I have news for you. You're not a good person.

Tanarii

2015-11-24, 11:02 PM

Malifice, I get the feeling you strongly believe that good and evil really exist.

Malifice

2015-11-24, 11:16 PM

Malifice, I get the feeling you strongly believe that good and evil really exist.

In DND they do (objectively).

IRL I'm agnostic personally (so I view all knowledge outside of self existence as subjective) but ive seen things as both a lawyer and soldier that makes me wonder.

Look Dahmer or Manson in the face and you can't help but wonder.

Tanarii

2015-11-24, 11:22 PM

Sigreid

2015-11-24, 11:42 PM

And people driven to murder are driven to evil. Good people don't go around just suddenly and for no apparent reason engaging in premeditated murder. Those that do engage in premeditated murder or rape are not (by extension) 'good' people.

And if you're out there now planning a murder, I have news for you. You're not a good person.

Look, I've never confronted someone with deadly force, and I hope I never have to. That being said, I can imagine circumstances where premeditated murder is not an evil act. Not a good one, surely, but not evil. You know, that the local lord is a sadistic rapist and you know he's going to be drinking in your tavern sometime during the week and that you have a daughter coming into his preferred target age, for example. I don't know what would drive me to kill. I've been fortunate to not be pushed very far in that direction in my life. But apply the right kind of threats and incentives and the primal need to survive and protect your own can become very powerful.

I also think, for example that the men who bombed Germany during WWII and the generals that ordered it were not evil for doing so. Yet there is no doubt that many innocents, including children died or otherwise suffered because of it.

Prophet_of_Io

2015-11-24, 11:52 PM

First of all, D&D as it is typically played, is not real life. The rules are just different and with physical manifestations of both Good and Evil existing in the monster manual there are certain guidelines to what makes good or evil exist.

So your Paladin just disposed of an evil tyrant enslaving countless innocent men, women and children and killed thousands more but to do so he had to kill the man. Is your Paladin evil? Short Answer is, I don't know, is he?

Long Answer is, how was the Tyrant killed? Did you go into it seeking blood? For Good reason or Not? Then it was an evil act. Murder is typically an evil act and that's how I rule in my game. It doesn't make your character evil, but you should have some reaction (at least as a Paladin of some High Cause) and repent the act of it. You could have attempted to dethrone him forcefully as you let the people choose their Law. Maybe that wasn't an option. Maybe He was just too influential, or you didn't have enough time, or you just weren't strong enough to accomplish holding down him and his fort. Maybe you tried but ended up killing him in self defense. Then you regret the act and can be forgiven as you recognize the inherent evil but your god or whoever see's it as what it was. A desperate Tyrant who killed himself.

It's just my playstyle but even in our world it's not easy to Kill someone. You pay a psychological toll on yourself. PC's kill a lot of stuff on a daily basis but most of that stuff is Monster's coming out to kill them and they defend themselves. If you're PC's instead try and Save one of the Goblins so they can waterboard him until he gives up where the rest of his clan is and then go out and Slaughter the Horde, then you Player's might be a little Evil. Killing is rarely the only answer you have. Hell, you can even choose to try and Non-Lethal everything. You'd be a super Good person.

Malifice

2015-11-24, 11:53 PM

The why do you argue so forcefully what is evil, and what is not? D&D 5e has all of three lines describing how an evil character typically acts, one for each type of evil. Even previous editions rarely had more than a paragraph.

It's objective, as in it really exists, but exactly what constitutes evil actions and what doesn't typically isn't clearly defined. In 5e, murder isn't a clearly defined as evil thing.

Edit: arbritrary violence is however. It's a way that Chaotic Evil usually acts.

The 5e alignments mirror 3e. I'n 3e, good and evil were defined as:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Premeditated murder is the act of an evil person. As is rape and torture.

Good people don't enage in that stuff. They show compassion and mercy for the suffering of others.

People are suggesting rape and murder can be done by a good person as an isolated out of character act. In my view such acts go to the character of the person performing that act.

I mean - i can't imagine arguing in court 'Your Honor, my client is a good and honest man. This premeditated murder and rape of the victim was an isolated incident out of character' and having a judge in the land buying that.

The act alone shows my client is not a good man. Done and dusted.

Sigreid

2015-11-25, 12:01 AM

The 5e alignments mirror 3e. I'n 3e, good and evil were defined as:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Premeditated murder is the act of an evil person. As is rape and torture.

Good people don't enage in that stuff. They show compassion and mercy for the suffering of others.

People are suggesting rape and murder can be done by a good person as an isolated out of character act. In my view such acts go to the character of the person performing that act.

I mean - i can't imagine arguing in court 'Your Honor, my client is a good and honest man. This premeditated murder and rape of the victim was an isolated incident out of character' and having a judge in the land buying that.

The act alone shows my client is not a good man. Done and dusted.

Not in the case of rape, but in the case of murder the court most certainly does consider extenuating circumstances that make it less or more heinous under the law. The murderer, if caught will rarely be told to have a nice day, but leniency is not that uncommon.

And this brings us to my final statement. Even if a character isn't instantly and irredeemably evil for one act, that doesn't mean that he won't pay a cost in legal prosecution or social penalties. "Sir Garrik the Just, eh? I hear he's a murderer just like that bloke he's putting on trial. I'll never trust him!"

Tanarii

2015-11-25, 12:01 AM

The 5e alignments mirror 3e. I'n 3e, good and evil were defined as:5e has its own descriptions of what the alignments are and how creatures with them typically act. On Page 122 of the PHB. And in the Basic Rules.

Edit: I'm quoting you but this comment also applies to Segried and others trying to argue that some action is evil or not evil.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 12:01 AM

Look, I've never confronted someone with deadly force, and I hope I never have to. That being said, I can imagine circumstances where premeditated murder is not an evil act. Not a good one, surely, but not evil. You know, that the local lord is a sadistic rapist and you know he's going to be drinking in your tavern sometime during the week and that you have a daughter coming into his preferred target age, for example. I don't know what would drive me to kill. I've been fortunate to not be pushed very far in that direction in my life. But apply the right kind of threats and incentives and the primal need to survive and protect your own can become very powerful.

I also think, for example that the men who bombed Germany during WWII and the generals that ordered it were not evil for doing so. Yet there is no doubt that many innocents, including children died or otherwise suffered because of it.

The overthrow of a tyrant is not murder. A soldier defending his country with lethal force is not murder.

Killing in self defence or te defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself is not evil.

Re the bombings I disagree. Read about the fire bombings of Dresden or the A bombings of Japan for discussions of those war crimes. Killing is only justified when no other option reasonably presents itself, and in both those cases the bombings were not necessary and targetted non combatants directly. Whatever they were, they were not acts of 'good'.

5e has its own descriptions of what the alignments are and how creatures with them typically act. On Page 122 of the PHB. And in the Basic Rules.

Note how they mirror 3e very closely. The inference is that the same (or very similar) definitions of good and evil have carried over.

Sigreid

2015-11-25, 12:08 AM

The overthrow of a tyrant is not murder. A soldier defending his country with lethal force is not murder.

Killing in self defence or te defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself is not evil.

Re the bombings I disagree. Read about the fire bombings of Dresden or the A bombings of Japan for discussions of those war crimes. Killing is only justified when no other option reasonably presents itself, and in both those cases the bombings were not necessary and targetted non combatants directly. Whatever they were, they were not acts of 'good'.

Ok, final bite and I'm out. Very little of what happens in war is "good". It's basically a collection of horrible things on a grand scale. I do not consider the bombings you mentioned as war crimes. Their purpose was to break the enemy's will and ability to fight. My personal belief is that this falls directly under the doing what is necessary when a war is on that scale, and I have a completely untested hypothesis that the refusal to do so now is one of the reasons that wars never seem to actually end anymore.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 12:19 AM

Ok, final bite and I'm out. Very little of what happens in war is "good". It's basically a collection of horrible things on a grand scale. I do not consider the bombings you mentioned as war crimes. Their purpose was to break the enemy's will and ability to fight. My personal belief is that this falls directly under the doing what is necessary when a war is on that scale, and I have a completely untested hypothesis that the refusal to do so now is one of the reasons that wars never seem to actually end anymore.

I'm a lawyer and I can assure you the deliberate targetting of civilians via a mass bombing campaign (or via the use of WMDs) is very clearly a war crime.

You may view them as justified personally but that's irrelevant to the question of whether they were warcrimes. If the Axis powers hadve won the war and the Neurenberg trials gone the other way, rest assured Churchill and Truman/ Roosevelt would have been prosecuted.

Both sides did some truly awful and evil things, and both sides justified those actions as 'for the greater good'.

That's why when you assess good and evil to an objecrive standard (like in DND where objective good and evil exist) you have to set an objective standard. The subjective reasoning of the actor is not relevant.

Why you committed genocide is irellevant. The fact you did it gets you a one way ticket to the evil outer planes on death.

Occasional Sage

2015-11-25, 12:23 AM

Pretty much by definition, before they can commit a premeditated murder, they have to first plan that murder. Planning a murder is not behaving "wholly in agreement" with most definitions of good, unless there's some unique special circumstance that you haven't mentioned.

Tongue-in-cheek, we as role-players plan murders constantly, then go on with being (in some cases) Good people.

Steampunkette

2015-11-25, 12:25 AM

Not in the case of rape, but in the case of murder the court most certainly does consider extenuating circumstances that make it less or more heinous under the law. The murderer, if caught will rarely be told to have a nice day, but leniency is not that uncommon.

And this brings us to my final statement. Even if a character isn't instantly and irredeemably evil for one act, that doesn't mean that he won't pay a cost in legal prosecution or social penalties. "Sir Garrik the Just, eh? I hear he's a murderer just like that bloke he's putting on trial. I'll never trust him!"

The laws of man don't always match the judgement of a given idea of Heaven.

And most of the people who argue for our world's, and specifically western culture's, morality being applied to a fantasy worl with actual good and evil as external forces would find themselves at odds with that reality. With the gods and the very laws of reality.

You don't live in a world where a perfectly saintly person could literally murder someone with premeditation and torture and the whole nine yards for no apparent reason because mind control magic, demonic or specteal or angelic possession, and absolute objective and quantifiable values of good and evil exist.

As for rape and murder never being let off, look into Trans Panic, which is certainly not a good reason but still routinely excuses assault, rape, torture, and murder. I've got a scar over my heart where a good man I'd known from second grade put a knife when he found out I was trans. He never saw the inside of a Jail Cell. He still goes to the same church we went to on Sundays, and no one around him thinks what he did was wrong. He's a loving husband and father, a great friend to people we knew, and regularly donates to charities. No one in his life holds his intentional attempt to kill me against him. Most would've done the same.

Now tell me, again, how no judge will let someone off on murder, or attempted murder, or premeditated attempted murder, without a "good" reason.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 12:46 AM

The laws of man don't always match the judgement of a given idea of Heaven.

And most of the people who argue for our world's, and specifically western culture's, morality being applied to a fantasy worl with actual good and evil as external forces would find themselves at odds with that reality. With the gods and the very laws of reality.

You don't live in a world where a perfectly saintly person could literally murder someone with premeditation and torture and the whole nine yards for no apparent reason because mind control magic, demonic or specteal or angelic possession, and absolute objective and quantifiable values of good and evil exist.

As for rape and murder never being let off, look into Trans Panic, which is certainly not a good reason but still routinely excuses assault, rape, torture, and murder. I've got a scar over my heart where a good man I'd known from second grade put a knife when he found out I was trans. He never saw the inside of a Jail Cell. He still goes to the same church we went to on Sundays, and no one around him thinks what he did was wrong. He's a loving husband and father, a great friend to people we knew, and regularly donates to charities. No one in his life holds his intentional attempt to kill me against him. Most would've done the same.

Now tell me, again, how no judge will let someone off on murder, or attempted murder, or premeditated attempted murder, without a "good" reason.

Mate, thanks for sharing an awful experience, but most people certainly wouldn't have 'done the same'. Maybe we are but more liberal about that in Australia though, I don't know.

Someone who lashed out and stabbed someone in the chest on account of finding out they're transsexual would get into a lot of trouble indeed.

Steampunkette

2015-11-25, 01:23 AM

Sure. Maybe. But a judge and a jury of his peers found it justified. The trial lasted one day before the verdict was returned.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 01:26 AM

Sure. Maybe. But a judge and a jury of his peers found it justified. The trial lasted one day before the verdict was returned.

Your lawyer any good?

JoeJ

2015-11-25, 01:28 AM

Tongue-in-cheek, we as role-players plan murders constantly, then go on with being (in some cases) Good people.

Murdering imaginary people doesn't count. :smalltongue:

Steampunkette

2015-11-25, 06:19 AM

Your lawyer any good?

He made a good case, I thought, that someone who freely admitted to stabbing someone in the chest should be punished for it.

But I'm pretty biased, yknow?

That said, it's a common defense for violence against trans individuals, and it works a lot of the time thanks to endless myths about trans women, in particular, being crazy or perverse and deserving whatever happens to us.

We have to be crazy, after all, because we don't identify ourselves as the gender assigned to us at birth, and nurture must have made us bonkers since nature doesn't exist.

That last part was to bring us back around to why I said it.

smcmike

2015-11-25, 07:54 AM

I went to he movies last night, so another fiction test case - Katniss Everdeen.

Definitely chaotic. Almost a perfect example of chaotic, really - her entire story is about conflict with order.

Good and evil are a bit trickier. She is mostly dragged along by fate, and many of her choices are based upon self-preservation rather than altruism. She does, however, avoid murder when placed in a murder game. That sounds like good. On the other hand, by the final act she has chosen to become a political assassin. Evil? I don't think so, personally.

Malifice is leaning pretty hard on law - and modern law at that - to define good and evil. Murder is a legal term, more than moral. Is an executioner evil simply by the nature of his job? He's not a murderer - his killing is state-sanctioned.

Steampunkette

2015-11-25, 08:43 AM

Katniss is not chaotic.

Being against an unjust government doesn't really tell you anything except that she wants justice, either good or lawful depending on viewpoint.

And any government that requires the death of teens because teens dying is a thing that makes them evil clearly needs to be destroyed, regardless of your law and chaos leaning.

She isn't a rebel against the idea of government, or tradition, or someone who bucks against rightful authority. Only against a clearly puppy kicking evil that happens to be in governance.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 09:12 AM

I would have thought NG for herself personally.

And she's not a political assasin. She's opposong a tyrannical and murderous regime.

smcmike

2015-11-25, 09:24 AM

I don't think she's chaotic because she's a rebel. Peeta is not chaotic. She's chaotic because the chances of her following a rule just because it's a rule seem to be about zero.

Katniss - "I'll do whatever you say to help your cause."
Authority figure - "This is what I want you to do and why I think it will do the most good."
Katniss - does something else.

smcmike

2015-11-25, 09:26 AM

I would have thought NG for herself personally.

And she's not a political assasin. She's opposong a tyrannical and murderous regime.

By murdering a head of state.

LordBlades

2015-11-25, 06:14 PM

Does Poorly Written count as an alignment? That's how I would probably view that character.

Pretty much by definition, before they can commit a premeditated murder, they have to first plan that murder. Planning a murder is not behaving "wholly in agreement" with most definitions of good, unless there's some unique special circumstance that you haven't mentioned.

One has to take into account that in real life there's a clear line between human and non-human.
Premeditated killing of a human is likely 'murder' for most of us.
Premeditated killing of an animal or plant, likely not.

In D&D there's a whole lot of gray area in between:

Is killing an elf murder? Killing an orc? A minotaur? A manticore? A dragon? Where do you draw the line?

All you need is one guy that draws the line slightly to one side than most of the society and you get a guy who, by common understanding has committed murder, but according to his own moral compass he has no more evil thoughts than let's say a hunter who lays traps and plots the 'murder' of a bear because he feels like eating bear stew for dinner or simply your run-of-the-mill butcher.

Alternatively, you can have a guy who draws the line slightly to the other side than most of the society, and considers 'murder' the killing of stuff the rest of the society doesn't even care about. If you killed this guy's pet wyvern, he will feel entitled to bring you to justice and, if justice fails to punish you, exert the punishment himself.

Malifice

2015-11-25, 07:53 PM

By murdering a head of state.

The head of state is a tyrant who is actively trying to kill her (and her family). She's at war with said head of state, and it wasn't a war of her own choosing. No other reaonable option presents itself.

Killing him is those curcumstances is not evil.

One has to take into account that in real life there's a clear line between human and non-human.
Premeditated killing of a human is likely 'murder' for most of us.
Premeditated killing of an animal or plant, likely not.

In D&D there's a whole lot of gray area in between:

Is killing an elf murder? Killing an orc? A minotaur? A manticore? A dragon? Where do you draw the line?

All you need is one guy that draws the line slightly to one side than most of the society and you get a guy who, by common understanding has committed murder, but according to his own moral compass he has no more evil thoughts than let's say a hunter who lays traps and plots the 'murder' of a bear because he feels like eating bear stew for dinner or simply your run-of-the-mill butcher.

Alternatively, you can have a guy who draws the line slightly to the other side than most of the society, and considers 'murder' the killing of stuff the rest of the society doesn't even care about. If you killed this guy's pet wyvern, he will feel entitled to bring you to justice and, if justice fails to punish you, exert the punishment himself.

You keep going on about the persons moral compass as if that's relevant to objective good and evil.

If killing sentient creatures for nothing more than convenience, profit, skin (or scale) color or their own ethical beliefs is evil (and I say it is) the that's the pole the compass revolves around.

A person could engage in a pogrom of killing members of the 'Orc race' for no other reason than they scare him and he had a bad experience growing up and thinks they're all irredeemably evil. He may genuinely think he's a good man. He gets a big fat E on his character sheet though and winds up in the lower planes on death, in the same way a serial killer, member of the KKK or a Nazi does.

Occasional Sage

2015-11-25, 11:28 PM

But I'm pretty biased, yknow?

All right-minded people are similarly biased.

I'm devoted to seeing a world where stories like this are shocking and horrifying, rather than... depressingly typical.

Talakeal

2015-11-26, 12:57 AM

Xanxost am chaotic neutral done right.

Malifice

2015-11-26, 01:05 AM

Intrestingly the entry for both celestial and fiend in the 5e MM clearly infers that both can change alignment (making alignment a choice).

Its even more explicit in the Angel entry.

djreynolds

2015-11-26, 02:41 AM

Chaotic Neutral characters are not crazy, they do not suffer from a disorder. They get caught up and go with the flow or go against it. During combat, they may go against the party's tactics, but not against the party. They are just doing a thing, it can be their thing or something else.

That's a lot of wishy-wash stuff, but a wild mage sorcerer who embraces wild magic is chaotic neutral.

People may not like this, but Patton could be seen as an example of this. His tactics were often chaotic as was his reasoning behind them. He was driven by pride and ego and loved battle. Where as Bradley was perhaps your lawful good archetype, he focused on the mission (law) and the men (good). Patton was focused on himself (neutral) and victory.

Now unfortunately these individuals were generals so it is tough to whittle that down to the trooper on the battlefield.
But Patton would be Chaotic Neutral. He was not an evil man, but his ego would often get the better of him. So, that sorcerer or barbarian are driven by things personal to themselves and that is what drives them, not the party's aims or well being. But they are not out to kill their party members.

Chaotic neutral characters should be driven by their self expression and passions and freedom and do as they whim attitude. Chaotic good is driven by his heart and morale compass, he believes he is doing good not feeding his ego or expressing himself. Chaotic evil is someone just lashing out, out of fear or aggression--- they may have a disorder.

smcmike

2015-11-26, 07:57 AM

The head of state is a tyrant who is actively trying to kill her (and her family). She's at war with said head of state, and it wasn't a war of her own choosing. No other reaonable option presents itself.

Killing him is those curcumstances is not evil.

Spoilers -

That's not who she kills.

(But would it have been good if she had executed him while he was tied to a post?)

OttoT

2015-11-26, 02:17 PM

The answer is Han Solo , you act like a huge jerk but when push comes to shove the party should be able to rely upon you despite your mercenary attitude.

LordBlades

2015-11-26, 03:22 PM

The head of state is a tyrant who is actively trying to kill her (and her family). She's at war with said head of state, and it wasn't a war of her own choosing. No other reaonable option presents itself.

Killing him is those curcumstances is not evil.

You keep going on about the persons moral compass as if that's relevant to objective good and evil.

If killing sentient creatures for nothing more than convenience, profit, skin (or scale) color or their own ethical beliefs is evil (and I say it is) the that's the pole the compass revolves around.

A person could engage in a pogrom of killing members of the 'Orc race' for no other reason than they scare him and he had a bad experience growing up and thinks they're all irredeemably evil. He may genuinely think he's a good man. He gets a big fat E on his character sheet though and winds up in the lower planes on death, in the same way a serial killer, member of the KKK or a Nazi does.

You might want to, you know, maybe read the whole idea I was replying to before posting?

It was argued that a character who is good and commits a murder then goes back to being good is poorly written. I disagree, and a person's moral compass is fully relevant on this matter, because there's a ton of ways for a good person to justify a 'murder' not being against his own personal (objectively good aligned) code of conduct. Disagreement on (objectively defined by RAW but subjectively defined in the world) of what's sentient and what's not is just one of the easiest.

Malifice

2015-11-26, 09:05 PM

It was argued that a character who is good and commits a murder then goes back to being good is poorly written. I disagree, and a person's moral compass is fully relevant on this matter, because there's a ton of ways for a good person to justify a 'murder' not being against his own personal (objectively good aligned) code of conduct. Disagreement on (objectively defined by RAW but subjectively defined in the world) of what's sentient and what's not is just one of the easiest.

I disagree. All that 'good' person is doing is lying to themselves. They may still think they're good, but the very act of premeditating an intentional murder (and the act of performing said murder) makes the person no longer a good person.

How many murderers would you call 'good people'? Seriously. Pop down your local prison and find me a few.

Imagine I am playing a Paladin. I could honestly think that I am the holiest and most decent person in the world by murdering local drug lords, criminals, pimps and so forth when the police fail. I might genuinely believe that Im doing the right thing, and Im acting for the greater good. But (objectively) Im evil. When I stand in front of my victims and they beg for mercy and sob, and I pull the trigger on my crossbow, or swing my axe into their skull splattering brains all over the floor, and then head home for a quiet cup of tea and some family time, I am committing an evil act. My subjective intentions (or even how I subjectively view my actions) are not relevant one iota. On my death, I go to a lower plane (most likely in this case the nine hells).

The answer is Han Solo , you act like a huge jerky but when push comes to shove the party should be able to rely upon you despite your mercenary attitude.

In the early part of Episode IV for sure. By the end of that film, and for the remainder of the OT, he is clearly CG.

JumboWheat01

2015-11-26, 09:55 PM

But (objectively) Im evil.

One problem though is that I don't think we can OBJECTIVELY call something good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Such things require subjective approaches, and are more often than not based on the opinions of others.

Something like killing off criminals may be, by written law, illegal and evil, but by the survivors of or the victims of said criminals, proper justice and good.

Malifice

2015-11-26, 10:27 PM

One problem though is that I don't think we can OBJECTIVELY call something good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Such things require subjective approaches, and are more often than not based on the opinions of others.

We can't in real life (cogito ergo sum and all that). We can in DnD because the game happens in our imagination. Only a subjective world can contain objective truths. A DM can say 'in this universe, good = X and evil = Y. He can set the objective reality of the universe, just like he can set any other parameters of it.

If the DM says objectively [murder = evil] then objectively [murder = evil].

Something like killing off criminals may be, by written law, illegal and evil, but by the survivors of or the victims of said criminals, proper justice and good.

I'm sure many people view acts of abhorrent evil as subjectively good acts. Even things like genocide. Most evil people dont actually acknowledge to themselves they are evil.

Its irrelevant what your character thinks is good and evil. If he performs an objectively evil act, he goes to a lower plane on death, and his character sheet gets a big fat 'E' on it (which he may very well be in denial about like most evil people are) untill and unless he atones for his evil. Redemption is a thing after all.

I stick to the DnD paradigm of 'good' = mercy, compassion, redemption, self sacrifice; and 'evil' = harming or opressing others. No 'good' person commits an act of intentional murder, torture or rape (no matter how good they think they are). Such an act gets the 'G' rubbed off their character sheet and most likely replaced with an 'E'. If they die unrepentant (or even ignorant), they get judged accordingly and their soul gets sent to the lower planes.

Note there is a distinction between intentional murder and killing. No killing is a good act, but not all killings are evil acts. Killing in self defence or the defence of others (when no other option reasonably presents itself) is a neutral act. Note that killing prisoners of war who have surrendered is evil. If they take up arms against you in a war of agression then all bets are off.

The context the act happens in is important (determined objectively by the DM). The subjective justification of the actor is not.

LordBlades

2015-11-27, 01:45 PM

I disagree. All that 'good' person is doing is lying to themselves. They may still think they're good, but the very act of premeditating an intentional murder (and the act of performing said murder) makes the person no longer a good person.

Citation needed.

To my knowledge there isn't a single rule anywhere, in any edition of D&D that supports the stance that a person doing a lifetime of Good deeds and one Evil deed of similar magnitude is anything else but Good in alignment.

Malifice

2015-11-27, 02:31 PM

Citation needed.

To my knowledge there isn't a single rule anywhere, in any edition of D&D that supports the stance that a person doing a lifetime of Good deeds and one Evil deed of similar magnitude is anything else but Good in alignment.

I dont need a citation. Show me a single person who has engaged in premeditated murder or rape that you consider to be a good person.

LordBlades

2015-11-27, 04:04 PM

I dont need a citation. Show me a single person who has engaged in premeditated murder or rape that you consider to be a good person.

I don't need to.

Either we're talking D&D world, where Good and Evil objectively exist but where also any one who does more Good than Evil is Good, whatever the nature of his Evil might be (murder, rape or anything else) or we're talking RL, where morality is subjective (one man's 'good person' can easily be another's villain) so any good and evil argument is largely meaningless (since there's not much common ground to stand on). Even so, in my book, quite a few of the freedom fighters who have violently toppled and/or assassinated tyrants were pretty good people.

Trickshaw

2015-11-27, 04:41 PM

georgie_leech

2015-11-27, 04:46 PM

The 5e alignments mirror 3e.

I'm going to caution strongly against viewing earlier editions as having any say on how alignment is defined. Otherwise you get True Neutral switching to the losing side in a conflict repeatedly to better preserve balance and Chaotic Neutrals deciding what to do based on a flip of a coin or whichever would cause more chaos.

smcmike

2015-11-27, 05:03 PM

I dont need a citation. Show me a single person who has engaged in premeditated murder or rape that you consider to be a good person.

I've mentioned some that you classified as good -

Katniss Everdeen
John Luther

The trick is your actual line seems to be just defining any killing that you think is ok as "not murder." This doesn't really clarifying anything, particularly considering that most PC killings will be done outside the reach of modern law and its definitions.

RedMage125

2015-11-27, 09:52 PM

One of the most important things to remember is that CN people are not "random". They are NOT just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it.

The problems people have with Chaotic Neutral is that some people want to play it as "Evil Lite" in a campaign where the DM forbids Evil characters.

Chaotic Neutral characters do not just do whatever they want as whimsy strikes them. They (and this applies to ALL Chaotic alignments) are under no compulsion to reject authority or disobey laws or authority figures.

I've had 2 good CN characters over the years. Both of which would function well in a classic "heroic" adventuring party.

Clain Windsong (CN Elf Bard) has always been a free spirit. His life's ambition is to write the greatest heroic ballad ever. To that end, he likes to adventure with champions of Good. He has no true inclination towards Good himself. truthfully, he does not care about helping others or doing the right thing. But he knows that heroes triumphing over Evil make for the best tales of grand adventure, and so he likes to associate with those who do. Clain travels the world, living by his wits and seeking excitement and exploits of daring-do. He does have a weakness for the fairer sex, and loves to challenge himself by wooing ladies who are "unobtainable". When I DM, Clain exists as an NPC in my world. In that world, he is middle-aged for a elf (approx 500 years old), and he is unusually fertile for an elf. If you count his children, grandchildren, great-, and great-great-chranchildren, he is personally responsible for almost 5% of the half-elves in my campaign setting. Clain knows full well that he has littered the world with his illegitimate offspring, and he does not care. "No one writes epic tales of responsible fathers who stayed at home raising children" he would say.

Krug Bonebreaker (CN Half-Ogre Barbarian) was raised among a tribe of ogres. Violence was a way of life for him, and though he was dim by human standards, he was much smarter than his kin. He eventually left the tribe and traveled the north, participating in pit fighting and crude arena matches. When he helped defend one such arena from an attack by monsters, he realized that he enjoyed fighting such powerful foes, so he became an adventurer. Krug's outlook on life is simple, and he enjoys having the freedom to do what he wants. He prefers bivouacking in the woods to staying in cities. He dislikes larger cities with laws and restrictions, but that doesn't mean he ignores them. He chafes at restrictions being imposed upon him. Krug has a kind of "might makes right" attitude, but he also fears and respects those who can use magic, even if they are not physically strong. He also likes making money, and is somewhat of a mercenary, although he will refuse jobs that involve only harming those who are weak. His adventuring party is his new adopted tribe, and to them he is loyal. Just the same, he'd always much prefer that he and his friends were out in the wilderness, slaying fearsome monsters and looting their lairs, rather than spending one more day in a city. But cities DO have beer...

So you see, two characters who are certainly Chaotic, and absolutely neither Good nor Evil.

Now, the OP asked about the distinction between CN and CE. Neutral on the Good/Evil (Moral) axis is still kind of self-serving. The difference being that Evil has no compunction against hurting others to get what it wants. Morally Neutral characters mostly look out for themselves, but also for those to whom they have close personal ties. A CN character might in many respects resemble a CG one at times (like the bard example I gave). But something about them does not meet the definition of "Good". The bard, for example, may do "Good" deeds, but his heart is not in it. He is always motivated only by the fame and renown that such deeds accrue.

If you want to make a Chaotic Neutral character, important steps are, I think, to ask yourself "why". Better instead to make a character and decide what alignment fits them AFTER you develop their personality.

Malifice

2015-11-27, 11:30 PM

I don't need to.

You mean to say 'I cant'.

Either we're talking D&D world, where Good and Evil objectively exist but where also any one who does more Good than Evil is Good,

Orly? Where is your citation for this argument?

In the real world it doesnt work that way (you cant find me a single example of a 'good' person engaging in premeditated murder or rape). Where in the book does it say that I should deviate from how good and evil work IRL?

in my book, quite a few of the freedom fighters who have violently toppled and/or assassinated tyrants were pretty good people.

And I would agree. Look no further than Robin Hood, a clearly 'good' person who is a freedom fighter.

You could also have a person that engages in evil means against a tyrannical government (fighting fire with fire as it where). Terrorist acts, torture and murder, genocide etc. They might have the 'greater good' in mind, but theyre still evil.

One of the most important things to remember is that CN people are not "random". They are NOT just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it.

The problems people have with Chaotic Neutral is that some people want to play it as "Evil Lite" in a campaign where the DM forbids Evil characters.

Chaotic Neutral characters do not just do whatever they want as whimsy strikes them. They (and this applies to ALL Chaotic alignments) are under no compulsion to reject authority or disobey laws or authority figures.

I've had 2 good CN characters over the years. Both of which would function well in a classic "heroic" adventuring party.

Clain Windsong (CN Elf Bard) has always been a free spirit. His life's ambition is to write the greatest heroic ballad ever. To that end, he likes to adventure with champions of Good. He has no true inclination towards Good himself. truthfully, he does not care about helping others or doing the right thing. But he knows that heroes triumphing over Evil make for the best tales of grand adventure, and so he likes to associate with those who do. Clain travels the world, living by his wits and seeking excitement and exploits of daring-do. He does have a weakness for the fairer sex, and loves to challenge himself by wooing ladies who are "unobtainable". When I DM, Clain exists as an NPC in my world. In that world, he is middle-aged for a elf (approx 500 years old), and he is unusually fertile for an elf. If you count his children, grandchildren, great-, and great-great-chranchildren, he is personally responsible for almost 5% of the half-elves in my campaign setting. Clain knows full well that he has littered the world with his illegitimate offspring, and he does not care. "No one writes epic tales of responsible fathers who stayed at home raising children" he would say.

Krug Bonebreaker (CN Half-Ogre Barbarian) was raised among a tribe of ogres. Violence was a way of life for him, and though he was dim by human standards, he was much smarter than his kin. He eventually left the tribe and traveled the north, participating in pit fighting and crude arena matches. When he helped defend one such arena from an attack by monsters, he realized that he enjoyed fighting such powerful foes, so he became an adventurer. Krug's outlook on life is simple, and he enjoys having the freedom to do what he wants. He prefers bivouacking in the woods to staying in cities. He dislikes larger cities with laws and restrictions, but that doesn't mean he ignores them. He chafes at restrictions being imposed upon him. Krug has a kind of "might makes right" attitude, but he also fears and respects those who can use magic, even if they are not physically strong. He also likes making money, and is somewhat of a mercenary, although he will refuse jobs that involve only harming those who are weak. His adventuring party is his new adopted tribe, and to them he is loyal. Just the same, he'd always much prefer that he and his friends were out in the wilderness, slaying fearsome monsters and looting their lairs, rather than spending one more day in a city. But cities DO have beer...

So you see, two characters who are certainly Chaotic, and absolutely neither Good nor Evil.

Now, the OP asked about the distinction between CN and CE. Neutral on the Good/Evil (Moral) axis is still kind of self-serving. The difference being that Evil has no compunction against hurting others to get what it wants. Morally Neutral characters mostly look out for themselves, but also for those to whom they have close personal ties. A CN character might in many respects resemble a CG one at times (like the bard example I gave). But something about them does not meet the definition of "Good". The bard, for example, may do "Good" deeds, but his heart is not in it. He is always motivated only by the fame and renown that such deeds accrue.

If you want to make a Chaotic Neutral character, important steps are, I think, to ask yourself "why". Better instead to make a character and decide what alignment fits them AFTER you develop their personality.

Well said. I agree with the alignments of each PC listed.

Sigreid

2015-11-28, 12:15 AM

In the real world it doesnt work that way (you cant find me a single example of a 'good' person engaging in premeditated murder or rape). Where in the book does it say that I should deviate from how good and evil work IRL?

What about the state executioner? Executions are clearly the premeditated murder of a prisoner to the end of enforcing the laws of the country. Even non tyrannical societies can have defined points where you are simply considered too great a threat to leave be.

Malifice

2015-11-28, 12:55 AM

What about the state executioner? Executions are clearly the premeditated murder of a prisoner to the end of enforcing the laws of the country.

No good person can be a state executioner. Most likely LN (in the absence of other factors)

Even non tyrannical societies can have defined points where you are simply considered too great a threat to leave be.

I can only think of one 'non tyrannical' nation that practices the death penalty at present, and its an outlier in a great many ways.

RedMage125

2015-11-28, 01:43 AM

Speaking as a DM, I don't believe in alignment.

People are far too complex to label them as such. A person could be a republican one day, have a personal experience, and decide they're a democrat the next. Values change over time and one man's "evil" is another man's "good".

The world, humanity specifically, is far more complex than good vs evil.

To me, evil, *real* evil, is elemental. There's no mistaking it. Torturing for the sheer pleasure of the experience, rape, bigotry and the capacity to betray with zero remorse are acts of evil in varying degrees. People who conduct themselves in such a fashion regularly are "evil" in my mind.
I understand your point, but allow me to highlight something that I think you are losing track of.

Everything you have said applies to Real Life, and D&D is a fantasy world, much different from our own.

Yes, complexity of people does not change, ad you may have people who do things that they genuinely believe are Good that others find abhorrent. But in the D&D world, those actions-REGARDLESS of what any individual believes- are judged objectively. Good and Evil in a D&D world are not just points of view. The "elemental evil" you speak of is a cosmic force of the multiverse, and it can manifest physically and have direct impact upon the world. It can be objectively observed, manipulated, and protected against.

This is because D&D is fantasy and not Real Life. There are dragons, wizards, pantheons of divine entities, and objective Good and Evil. A man who believes that a prophecy regarding an orphan child destined to bring about the apocalypse may BELIEVE that he is doing Good by engaging in a crusade to wipe out all orphanages and kill the orphans, but that doesn't make his actions not Evil, and his alignment will reflect it.

A politician who lies habitually is not evil.

A man serving in a war who kills in his nation's name is not evil.

A woman who spanks her child is not evil.
None of these are evil in the Real World or D&D.

Lying isn't Good, but it's not NECESSARILY evil, either.

Serving in war is not "murder" (not by Judeo-Christian mores, which specify the relevant Commandment as "Thou Shall Not Commit Murder" and not "Thou Shall Not Kill". Want proof? After giving the Hebrews the 10 Commandments, they were sent into WAR with the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan. You think no one was killed when the walls of Jericho fell?). A Soldier is not committing murder by serving his nation. MURDER is Evil by D&D standards, not "killing".

And the last is discipline, which is for the good of the child. There are lines that cannot be crossed in order to not be child abuse, but an open-handed, not-as-hard-as-you-can spanking when the child has misbehaved is not abuse.

While they may be distasteful acts to some, the people themselves are not evil. My mother slapped the **** out of me as a child. To this day, I don't fault her. She was a single mother working two jobs and I... was a handful. Fast forward to today's social landscape and if you so much as speak harshly to your kids you get thrown in jail and your kids go to foster homes. To me, THAT's evil.
I hear you. At 18, I thanked my mother for spanking me when I was a kid. I have seen too many people in my own and following generations that seem over-priviliged and under-disciplined.

The world isn't black and white and Mother Earth could give two flying ****s about morals. It's eat or be eaten. So if something is evil, truly evil, it has to be something that wouldn't exist in the natural world. A corruption that twists order into chaos. An elemental force that perverts what *should* be.
And this is why I said something.

In D&D it IS that way. You have whole planes of existence that are suffused with these energies. You have beings LITERALLY made out of them.

It's fantasy, and if that's too much for your suspension of disbelief, I don't understand. I don't understand why anyone can accept wizards, goblins, dragons, undead, angels, demons, and more...but objective forces of Good and Evil is "too much"?

A thief, no matter how selfish, isn't evil. Jack the Ripper... that's evil. So when a pally would detect evil in my games, and he felt something, my players knew, "oh sh..."

A thief MAY well be evil. Someone who just takes from others because they want it, and never has any concern for others at all, only thinking of themselves...that's a lesser evil than Jack the Ripper, to be sure, but that kind of selfishness is still evil.

However, I do understand about detecting evil. That is, I feel, the one VALID indictment of the 3.xe alignment mechanic system I have ever heard from alignment detractors. I like how 5e only made SUPERNATURAL evil detectable. So while a demon cults rituals from decades ago may leave a lingering taint of evil on a place, a human mass-murderer would radiate nothing. I dig it.

RedMage125

2015-11-28, 01:50 AM

What about the state executioner? Executions are clearly the premeditated murder of a prisoner to the end of enforcing the laws of the country. Even non tyrannical societies can have defined points where you are simply considered too great a threat to leave be.

Point of order, by definition of "murder" a "state execution" can NEVER be murder.

mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

You may be a person who feels that the death penalty is an "always wrong" kind of thing, but that is your OPINION (which you are certainly entitled to). I'm not saying I agree or disagree, b/c I don't want to go down that road, but TECHNICALLY it is not "murder".

No good person can be a state executioner. Most likely LN (in the absence of other factors)
Not true, neither.

A Good person could very well live in a society which has promoted the idea that death penalties are for the good of the rest of society, and a person who genuinely believes in their society who only executes people who have been tried and found guilty may very well believe that what they are doing is for the betterment of all, making their society safer, better, happier. Such a person could enact a "state execution" with the same moral righteousness with which an adventuring paladin slays an orc, or a dragon, or a demon.

Tanarii

2015-11-28, 02:09 AM

I'm going to caution strongly against viewing earlier editions as having any say on how alignment is defined. Otherwise you get True Neutral switching to the losing side in a conflict repeatedly to better preserve balance and Chaotic Neutrals deciding what to do based on a flip of a coin or whichever would cause more chaos.That's what I've said a few times.

5e has its own definitions of what each alignment entails. It's a grand total of one sentence each on Page 122. And that one sentence is a simple role playing aid for how your character might typically act. They're broad concepts, not specific strictures.

Everything that's being argued in this thread about what is a good or evil seems to be either from other editions or their own personal concepts of good and evil. Not the straightforward 5e descriptions, which are about a general way of behaving, not specific cases.

georgie_leech

2015-11-28, 02:21 AM

That's what I've said a few times.

5e has its own definitions of what each alignment entails. It's a grand total of one sentence each on Page 122. And that one sentence is a simple role playing aid for how your character might typically act. They're broad concepts, not specific strictures.

Everything that's being argued in this thread about what is a good or evil seems to be either from other editions or their own personal concepts of good and evil. Not the straightforward 5e descriptions, which are about a general way of behaving, not specific cases.

Mm, it's important to read what the book actually has written in it. I just like to caution against letting earlier editions have any say at all, because seriously, Early D&D had some bonkers alignment. Their example of proper TN Druid behavior was joining a defending force against a band of gnoll raiders, only to switch sides once the gnolls started losing, because TN meant you had a mandate to preserve balance.

Malifice

2015-11-28, 02:38 AM

Not true, neither.

A Good person could very well live in a society which has promoted the idea that death penalties are for the good of the rest of society, and a person who genuinely believes in their society who only executes people who have been tried and found guilty may very well believe that what they are doing is for the betterment of all, making their society safer, better, happier.

No, youre straying into subjective belief again.

It doesnt matter if they think executing a helpless person is OK. Either executing a helpless person at the command of the State is objectively morally good, or its not.

Such a person could enact a "state execution" with the same moral righteousness with which an adventuring paladin slays an orc, or a dragon, or a demon.

No, they may have a subjective moral righteousness; the same subjective moral righteousness that has religious zealots throwing athiests or apostates on the pyre (while they beg for mercy) to ensure 'the greater good' prevails. Your subjective opinion on the righteousness of state killings, still doesnt make the act itself objectively morally good.

If we support state sanctioned executions for law breakers, then things like 'death to apostates' becomes OK.

Objective moral good is absolute, and to be determined objectively. If good = [mercy, compassion, kindness and charity] and evil = [harming, opressing or killing others] then killing another person (when another option reasonably presents itself; in this case simply saying 'No') is the morally good thing to do. You put down the axe and walk away, or offer them a chance at reform and redemption. You take the option with the least harm, that avoids killing, and gives them a chance to reform. A good person couldnt live with the killing on his consience and still remain good.

State sanctioned executions are never 'good' things, and are never part of the law of 'good' nations. They are not examples of 'mercy, compassion, kindness and charity'. Quite the opposite in most regards. They may not be evil (but far more often than not are), but no person who is morally OK with execution, and performs them regularly can be a good person. Neutral at best.

Tanarii

2015-11-28, 02:43 AM

I just like to caution against letting earlier editions have any say at all, because seriously, Early D&D had some bonkers alignment. Their example of proper TN Druid behavior was joining a defending force against a band of gnoll raiders, only to switch sides once the gnolls started losing, because TN meant you had a mandate to preserve balance.
Gotcha, you're giving a specific example. That's not one I remember, but it sounds sufficiently bonkers. :)

Malifice

2015-11-28, 02:45 AM

Gotcha, you're giving a specific example. That's not one I remember, but it sounds sufficiently bonkers. :)

Gygax had some twisted opinions on 'LG' as well back in AD+D.

He flat out endorsed child murder, genocide and worse (as long as your victim was 'evil').

Which is totally bonkers. Here we go:

"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

To be fair Garys views on the righteousness of 'an eye for an eye' stem from his own religious beliefs, which I wont go into.

But yeah. According to Gary in OD+D, a Paladin can brutally strangle a person to death, even if they honestly repent and change alignment to LG, simply on account that they were evilly aligned to begin with. He tacitly approves disfigurement and torture beforehand as well, and also OK's flat out genocide (nits make lice).

I couldnt disagree with him more, his argucment is clearly flawed.

djreynolds

2015-11-28, 03:12 AM

I like my example of Patton, he could be considered Chaotic Neutral. I tend to think of chaotic, not as crazy but more self-centered and self motivated. They use the law as it suits them, or go against it to succeed.

Bradley could be considered Lawful Good, he still obeyed and completed missions but was very conscious of his men.

georgie_leech

2015-11-28, 03:46 AM

Gotcha, you're giving a specific example. That's not one I remember, but it sounds sufficiently bonkers. :)

AD&D was mildly notorious for having bonkers alignment alright. Let me see if I can dig up their language on Chaotic Neutral while I'm thinking about it...

Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything,
including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever
whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been
known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on
the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing
about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most
difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

My, how far we've come, eh? :smallbiggrin:

LordBlades

2015-11-28, 04:19 AM

You mean to say 'I cant'.

I mean to say exactly what I said. I think I know that better than you, thank you.

Most murderers and assasins I would consider good/neutral are connected to rather controversial political characters, and I'd rather not open that can of worms here.

Orly? Where is your citation for this argument?

On the one hand, looking at alignment across multiple editions, the 3.5 DMG did have a paragraph stating alignment change is gradual, so in order for a good character to become evil he would have to consistently perform evil deedsover an extended period of time.

On the other hand, speaking strictly 5e, all the text relating to alignment in the rulebooks is to my knowledge only one sentence describing how characters of each alignment act. Now, you can interpret it as 'generally' (a character is good if he generally acts as described, even if he occasionally doesn't), or absolutely (a good character that does one non-good deed ceases to be good) but IMO it should be interpreted consistently.

So, if a good character that commits a murder becomes evil (even if he keeps acting asva good character afterward), the reverse should also be true (an evil character that commits a grand good deed becomes good, even if he keeps acting evil afterward).

djreynolds

2015-11-28, 05:00 AM

What about the state executioner? Executions are clearly the premeditated murder of a prisoner to the end of enforcing the laws of the country. Even non tyrannical societies can have defined points where you are simply considered too great a threat to leave be.

That is a good point. Members of firing squad, some members may be given, unknowingly, blank ammunition. Often state executioner(s) turn keys.

Now obviously any sane participant in an execution, understands that have been involved in the ending of a life. These folks, I'm quite sure, receive regular couch sessions and such with doctors, not just for a particular execution but for future executions as well. I'm sure these people have issues with stuff that they see or do. Even hospice nurses have issues, and need breaks and therapy from even a noble practice.

A good example of alignment can be found in a lot of literary sources. Classics, like Lord of the Flies and the Naked and the Dead, all showcase people under severe strain.

I think for any good character, killing takes a toll. Look at Drizzt's discussion with his wife and friend about the true evil nature of orcs and goblins, one that is important to him because of his heritage. Saying it is okay to kill evil undead and demons, is not the same as killing infant goblins. Look at MacBeth, he is pushed to kill until it is his only solution to problems. The drow live in constant fear of one another. Killing breeds this.

There should be a toll for a paladin fulfilling his god's desires on earth. If a paladin was directed by his faith to perform a task others deem as wrong or extreme, his character should experience that in a profound way. And if he decides not to do his task, he also experiences this in a negative way. Paladins are tortured souls.

Trickshaw

2015-11-28, 09:25 AM

Trying to use modern terms of law to define morality is moot.

An abused woman who kills her husband is sentenced for murder. Is she evil? It was an unlawful killing? A kid who kills the man who raped his little brother. Murder. Is he evil?

Further more, good people can do evil things; That doesn't make them evil.

Evil is a term used too flippantly by table top gamers and I blame TSR for that. People are far too complex to be stringently defined by gaming parameters. For example:

That barmaid that just brought you and your company their dinner. She just so happens to be the person murdering local nobles you were hired to investigate. Why? Because those very same nobles were directly responsible for the deaths of her family and village ten years ago to make way for new mining rights in the region with the territory's baron. Cleverly disguised as an Orc raiding party. But she survived.

Is she evil? Would she radiate evil? I would argue no.

Aside from her drive for vengeance she's never harmed anyone or anything. For all intents and purposes she's no different than hundreds and thousands of adventurers played by people just like you and me. I'm not excusing vengeance or saying vengeance is inherently good.

I'm simply saying evil, EVIL, is more than just acts. It's a taint in one's soul. A person can commit an unlawful act and not be evil. Likewise unlawful acts need not be necessarily evil.

Law is upheld to keep order not to dictate morality.

Using modern law definitions to define morality is obtuse to say the least.

smcmike

2015-11-28, 09:59 AM

Tanarii

2015-11-28, 10:30 AM

On the other hand, speaking strictly 5e, all the text relating to alignment in the rulebooks is to my knowledge only one sentence describing how characters of each alignment act. Now, you can interpret it as 'generally' (a character is good if he generally acts as described, even if he occasionally doesn't), or absolutely (a good character that does one non-good deed ceases to be good) but IMO it should be interpreted consistently.Its kind of hard to interpret it as anything other than generally. It doesn't even have to be consistently.

Basic Guide, Chapter 4: Personality and Background, Alignment (pg 34)
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."

5e doesn't have good and evil actions. Nor lawful and chaotic. It has a single sentence descriptor of alignments, that is their typical, but not necessarily guaranteed or consistent, behavior.

It's a simple, broad, and not binding descriptor, that is one piece of a package of tools to help determine how your character might act.

Tanarii

2015-11-28, 10:31 AM

AD&D was mildly notorious for having bonkers alignment alright. Let me see if I can dig up their language on Chaotic Neutral while I'm thinking about it...

My, how far we've come, eh? :smallbiggrin:haha yup. Thanks for digging out these old versions for comparison. :)

Sigreid

2015-11-28, 10:51 AM

No good person can be a state executioner. Most likely LN (in the absence of other factors)

I can only think of one 'non tyrannical' nation that practices the death penalty at present, and its an outlier in a great many ways.

Thanks for the reply. That's the most ground I have seen you give on these boards, and I would assess, at least your web presence as lawful.

Three points:
1. In D&D we are generally talking about mid evil societies that probably don't have the resources to sustain an extensive prison system in a humane manor and say a prison that is self sustaining through involuntary prison labor is essentially a slave camp.

2. Personally I think that lifetime imprisonment without possibility of getting out is more cruel than execution. Admittedly I don't ever intend to be in a position to find out if I feel the same way when staring at the gallows.

3. There are many records of executioners that performed their duties with compassion for the condemned, going out of their way to minimize the fear and and pain. I think those executioners count as good men.

I don't think you'll be persuaded, but maybe you can see how others view it differently.

Sigreid

2015-11-28, 10:54 AM

Point of order, by definition of "murder" a "state execution" can NEVER be murder.

It specifically met the definition of murder given by Malfice.

Trickshaw

2015-11-28, 11:16 AM

It specifically met the definition of murder given by Malfice.

Wasn't Malfice's definition of Murder an unlawful killing?

Execution is a lawful killing.

Malifice

2015-11-28, 12:25 PM

Ok, time for another example - what alignment is Ned Stark?

Lawful good.

His execution of the deserter was a LN act.

Trying to use modern terms of law to define morality is moot.

An abused woman who kills her husband is sentenced for murder. Is she evil? It was an unlawful killing? A kid who kills the man who raped his little brother. Murder. Is he evil?

The law is irrelevant. If she killed her abusive husband in self defence, this is not an evil act. Its neutral at worst.

Her husbands actions are evil though.

And to your second question, yes. His murder is as evil as the rape of his brother. A 3.5 Paladin who murders a rapist, falls.

smcmike

2015-11-28, 02:10 PM

So a state executioner cannot be good, unless it is Ned Stark, in which case he is.

There seems to be a pattern here.

Gloomster

2015-11-28, 02:33 PM

I think Rand Paul or any other strong Libertarian would be chaotic neutral.

RedMage125

2015-11-28, 03:03 PM

No, youre straying into subjective belief again.
Yes, but you said a Good person could never do such a job, which paints alignment as PRESCRIPTIVE, when it is DESCRIPTIVE. Alignment stems FROM actions and outlooks, it does not DICTATE them.

My point about the Good State Executioner is subjective, yes, but it shows how a Good person could still carry out such a job. The objective morality stems from the act itself.

It doesnt matter if they think executing a helpless person is OK. Either executing a helpless person at the command of the State is objectively morally good, or its not.
Incorrect.

You are putting things into a black&white "Good or Evil" dichotomy that does not exist. State Executions are morally Neutral. A State Execution is not murder, ergo is not "clearly" an evil act

EDIT: just noticed you called Ned Stark's opening action in GoT "Lawful Neutral". A State Execution is no different.

No, they may have a subjective moral righteousness; the same subjective moral righteousness that has religious zealots throwing athiests or apostates on the pyre (while they beg for mercy) to ensure 'the greater good' prevails. Your subjective opinion on the righteousness of state killings, still doesnt make the act itself objectively morally good.
Re-read what I said. I NEVER said "state executions are morally GOOD". I just pointed out that they are not MURDER. Which is 2 different things.

If we support state sanctioned executions for law breakers, then things like 'death to apostates' becomes OK.
That is your opinion.

Objective moral good is absolute, and to be determined objectively. If good = [mercy, compassion, kindness and charity] and evil = [harming, opressing or killing others] then killing another person (when another option reasonably presents itself; in this case simply saying 'No') is the morally good thing to do. You put down the axe and walk away, or offer them a chance at reform and redemption. You take the option with the least harm, that avoids killing, and gives them a chance to reform. A good person couldnt live with the killing on his consience and still remain good.
Not true. People aren't perfect, even in a D&D world with absolute values of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Those absolutes are the cosmic forces of the multiverse, not in individuals. A Good person COULD perform an Evil act. Their conscience could (and probably would) torment them, but they could also try and reform and atone for their actions.

Now that's a general statement. In the "Good State Executioner" example, the execution of a criminal is morally Neutral. A Good person COULD, in fact, perform that job with a clean conscience, because he believes in the justification of what he is doing. His belief is subjective, yes, but it affects his conscience more than the objective moral weight of his actions does. Now, one could argue that behaving in a Lawful Neutral manner over a long enough period of time could change his alignment to Lawful Neutral. Which is only a valid point if this job of his is the only action he takes. If he is-as we have established-Good in alignment then his life is full of other beliefs, outlooks, and even actions which make him Good, right? Let's say twice a week he donates food and time to local orphanges, helping repair their buildings, playing with and teaching the children, and so on. So, since we are clear that this execution is not "Evil", but morally Neutral, how can you argue that a Good person who commits other Good acts, but has a profession (that he uses to earn a wage to feed his family and have enough left over to donate to orphanages) which is morally Neutral -by your statement- "no longer remain Good"? He absolutely can.

State sanctioned executions are never 'good' things, and are never part of the law of 'good' nations. They are not examples of 'mercy, compassion, kindness and charity'. Quite the opposite in most regards. They may not be evil (but far more often than not are), but no person who is morally OK with execution, and performs them regularly can be a good person. Neutral at best.
The bolded part is your opinion, and it colors your perspective. I'm sorry, I'm not getting into a debate about what I believe i regards to death penalties, but your opinion is apparent. I just want you to know that your objectivity in debating this matter has been compromised, and it is affecting the arguments that you posit. I'm not saying your points are not well put-together and coherent, because they are. But you are definitely arguing from a perspective that considers death penalties a Bad Thing, as if that were a proven "given". It is not.

Trying to use modern terms of law to define morality is moot.

An abused woman who kills her husband is sentenced for murder. Is she evil? It was an unlawful killing?
Are we talking D&D objective morality or Real World? In D&D, no. It was self-defense, so no. Even if she killed him while he was eating dinner or sleeping. By D&D morality, she was killing him to prevent him from hurting her or anyone else again. Not necessarily a Good act, and certainly a Chaotic one, but not objectively Evil.
In the Real World, a psychologist would interview her and likely state that the abuse affected her mental state, so she would be charged with Manslaughter at the most. Unless there was a host of evidence that she pre-meditated it and enacted it in cold blood, a jury would likely sympathize enough to lessen the charge.

A kid who kills the man who raped his little brother. Murder. Is he evil?
Circumstances. Did the kid enter this man's home long after the crime in question and kill him while he was helpless? Let's assume he did, and that it was premeditated, thus meeting all the definitions for "murder".
In D&D morality, he has committed an Evil act, and a (lesser) Chaotic one. Vigilantism creates a lot of controversy with alignment issues, but ultimately, this kid acted on the belief that his vengeance was more important than any kind of due process, and that he should be able to enact it, and he did. Slight gray area, because the 3e Book of Vile Darkness establishes that in D&D murder has an addendum to the definition "for a nefarious purpose, such as personal gain....etc.". But there was a personal reason, that being vengeance.

In the Real World...murder, plain ad simple. Character testimony and demonstrating how horrible the child-molester was would probably lighten his sentence, though.

Further more, good people can do evil things; That doesn't make them evil.
Correct. A point I make often. Alignment stems FROM what people do, it does not DICTATE it.

Evil is a term used too flippantly by table top gamers and I blame TSR for that. People are far too complex to be stringently defined by gaming parameters. For example:

That barmaid that just brought you and your company their dinner. She just so happens to be the person murdering local nobles you were hired to investigate. Why? Because those very same nobles were directly responsible for the deaths of her family and village ten years ago to make way for new mining rights in the region with the territory's baron. Cleverly disguised as an Orc raiding party. But she survived.

Is she evil? Would she radiate evil? I would argue no.
I'll play your game. Also, due to the way you asked your questions, I'll be using 3e definitions and mechanics, because in 5e, she would not radiate Evil unless she was undead or a disguised demon.

Let's assume that everything you have said about this example can be taken at face value to be true, because it is your example. So she's sneaking into these nobles' houses at night and killing them. Let's further assume that she is doing research ahead of time and being 100% sure that these are the people responsible, as well as only using on-lethal means on these people's families, servants, and friends. So she is ONLY killing those guilty of the crime against her family, keeping other innocent people out of harm's way, and once her task is complete, she intends to never kill anyone again. Sound about right? Moving on.

What she is doing is vengeance, pure and simple. She may tell herself it is justice, but if her concern was justice, she would be seeking out others who similarly prey on the weak and stopping them, publically revealing their crimes. In feudal systems like most D&D settings, the word of one commoner girl is insufficient evidence to indict a noble, so she can't go to the courts for HER case. But we've established that she's just interested in killing those responsible for HER family. Which is revenge. The reason vigilantism is so controversial is that many standard D&D parties engage in quests that are also essentially vigilantism. However, she is engaging in unlawful, premeditated killings to satisfy a personal desire. But these men ARE evil, because they slaughtered a bunch of commoners for their own selfish gain. But even by 3e definitions, killing an evil creature is only a Good act if it is a creature of "irredeemable evil" like a demon or a dragon. But killing known evil men is probably not Evil or Good in and of itself. But the premeditated, unlawful killing of those Evil men, not for justice, but for vengeance, is still an Evil act, albeit a lesser evil than killing innocents.

So is she Evil? Hard to say, but she is not Good. She's likely Chaotic, because she values her own freedom to do what she wants over any kind of ethical code against doing those acts. I would say she is either Chaotic Neutral (because she accepts the lesser Evil act of killing these men as acceptable) or Chaotic Evil (because her concern for life as opposed to her own desires is so slim). And whether she radiates Evil or not depends on what her final alignment eds up being. I guess the question is: what would she do if a Good person (say the wife of one of these nobles), who was ignorant of what these men had done, tried to defend one of them? And when she told said wife, the woman tearfully said "I'm sorry, I understand you want vengeance, but he is my husband and I love him, I can't let you kill him"? If she kills other people like that who get in her way, the the barmaid is definitely Evil. If she subdues such a person non-lethally ad still pursues her vengeance, then she is likely more Neutral.

Aside from her drive for vengeance she's never harmed anyone or anything. For all intents and purposes she's no different than hundreds and thousands of adventurers played by people just like you and me. I'm not excusing vengeance or saying vengeance is inherently good.
Wow, I apologize, I must've skipped this paragraph when I was reading your post before. I apologize for repeating so much of what you already said, lol. I'm not gonna delete what I wrote because it took me so long, but looks like you get a lot of my point.

I'm simply saying evil, EVIL, is more than just acts. It's a taint in one's soul. A person can commit an unlawful act and not be evil. Likewise unlawful acts need not be necessarily evil.
Correct. I agree.

Law is upheld to keep order not to dictate morality.

Using modern law definitions to define morality is obtuse to say the least.
This is one of the reasons I delineate the difference between ETHICAL (Law vs Chaos) and MORAL (Good vs Evil) definitions. The two axis of D&D morality are usually referred to as such. What is unethical may be morally neutral, or even Good, and what is ethical may be morally Evil.

It all comes down to the distinction between what is JUST and what is RIGHT.

And to tie it all back to the Original Topic, a Chaotic Neutral person has zero concern for what is JUST, and an only passing concern for what is RIGHT (mainly as it pertains to them and those close to them), but is still more or less a decent person, not slipping into outright Evil.

Trickshaw

2015-11-28, 03:04 PM

And to your second question, yes. His murder is as evil as the rape of his brother. A 3.5 Paladin who murders a rapist, falls.

There's an older movie out there called the Prince of Tides starring Nick Nolte. In that film Nolte's character shares a recounting of when he was a child and two drifters broke into his home. The film cuts to a flash back to a woman and a young boy who are both brutally raped by two men with his older brother watching the scene unfold outside the house through the kitchen window.

The older brother, probably early to mid teens, walks into the kitchen with his father's shotgun and unloads into both men.

Now, while I understand rules are rules, the very first rule of D&D is rules are meant to be broken. Alignment is a system of fallible guidelines written by fallible men to help intelligent human beings discern how a game should be governed. Reasonable players and DM's should dictate what is or is not evil. Not a 3 line paragraph.

Is the boy in Prince of Tides evil? I say no.

Is your pally evil or commiting an evil act? Again, I say no.

We can debate morality all day long as to WHAT is evil and what constitutes BEING evil and the distinctions between the two but at the end of the day it's just a game and the actual question should be:

Is the DM's, or player's, decision REASONABLE?

You can disagree with the details but is it reasonable? Would a paladin's deity strike down a paladin for enacting retribution on a serial rapist? I say no. And if that god DOES then I say **** that god I'ma find me one who doesn't have his head up his ***.

Would a paladin be struck down by his deity if he knowingly allowed children to come under harm because the rapist happens to be the local magistrate's son, essentially making him above the law? Yes, I say that God would probably be pissed about that.

Is it reasonable?

That's all I'm saying.

smcmike

2015-11-28, 03:10 PM

Another example:

What alignment is Inigo Montoya?

Trickshaw

2015-11-28, 03:13 PM

I think RedMage and I are pretty much on the same page here.

RedMage125

2015-11-28, 03:29 PM

I think RedMage and I are pretty much on the same page here.

I some ways, but, ironically, I disagree with your final assertion.

I DO believe alignment works, on the caveat that it is used RAW and people do NOT substitute their own opinions on Good/Evil/Law/Chaos into the mix. Even the way 3.x alignment worked was fine. It was coherent, it was consistent (internally), and it had mechanics which supported the fluff.

Objective alignment works in D&D because it is FANTASY, and not Real Life. However, since it if FANTASY, the designers have the freedom-and the RIGHT- to say "in D&D X is Evil, and Y is not", and that is true (at least for RAW gameplay). They are not saying that "X is Evil and Y is not" in the real world, but only in a RAW-adherent D&D game. As long as RAW are adhered to, the system works.

When DMs input their own definitions of Good/Evil, and use the game mechanics (designed for the game's definitions) to enforce them, there is often conflict. When DMs try to insist that a PC "cannot do x action" because of alignment, they are deviating from RAW. When DMs try and change someone's alignment after one act, they are deviating from RAW.

I have been in a lot of alignment debates over the years, and in my experience 100% of the "problems" people have faced with alignment, 100% of the examples they give of why "alignment is bad" stem from people (players or DMs) who deviated from RAW. If a system breaks down when people deviate from the rules, but still try and use it, it does not reflect that the system is flawed, only that those people were the problem.

When I DM, I set aside my own OPINIONS on morality and stick to what the RAW gives me when adjudicating alignment related issues. My PCs, therefore, can look into RAW sources to know what to expect from my rulings. It's fair, and it works.

Aelyn

2015-11-28, 04:15 PM

Another example:

What alignment is Inigo Montoya?

Are you by any chance in the UK?

Because I've just been watching Princess Bride on TV...

(Also, CN, arguably CE. His motives were pretty much entirely selfish but he also wanted to help Buttercup, who he had no great reason to help. He was part of a mercenary band hired to kill an innocent and start a war for profit, even if he never liked it, and he only followed the Man in Black because he beat Vizzini. But he's an example on CN/CE who plays well with a party.)

Morty

2015-11-28, 05:07 PM

I was going to say "just play someone who tends to be spontaneous and doesn't like following rules if they can help it". But it seems that'd be way too simple.

LordBlades

2015-11-28, 05:34 PM

ad_hoc

2015-11-28, 05:53 PM

Are you by any chance in the UK?

Because I've just been watching Princess Bride on TV...

(Also, CN, arguably CE. His motives were pretty much entirely selfish but he also wanted to help Buttercup, who he had no great reason to help. He was part of a mercenary band hired to kill an innocent and start a war for profit, even if he never liked it, and he only followed the Man in Black because he beat Vizzini. But he's an example on CN/CE who plays well with a party.)

Inigo is lawful.

There is nothing more important to him than his word and the word of others. He has sworn an oath of vengeance against the man who broke his word to his father (and subsequently killed him) because it was wrong and he must have justice.

Helping to start a war is a prestigious line of work with a long and glorious tradition, but he only does it to pay the bills so that he can continue to do the thing he has sworn to do - find and kill the 6 fingered man.

georgie_leech

2015-11-28, 07:59 PM

Inigo is lawful.

There is nothing more important to him than his word and the word of others. He has sworn an oath of vengeance against the man who broke his word to his father (and subsequently killed him) because it was wrong and he must have justice.

Helping to start a war is a prestigious line of work with a long and glorious tradition, but he only does it to pay the bills so that he can continue to do the thing he has sworn to do - find and kill the 6 fingered man.

Don't forget the whole actively aiding an enemy and allowing them rest in the interest of a fair fight. That's right up there with the most Lawful Stupid things stereotypical Paladins will do.

Tanarii

2015-11-28, 08:50 PM

I don't think alugment can be run RAW in any edition, simply because there aren't any clear cut rules regarding how good and how evil a deed is.You've got that backwards. It works best when there aren't any clear-cut rules regarding how good or evil a deed is. And is instead a simple personality defining guideline for how a creature of that alignment typically, but not perfectly or consistently, acts. Specific deeds don't matter for alignment when it's used this way.

That's what we've got with 5e. Having looked at it closely as a result of this thread, I'm of the opinion it's one of the better D&D alignment systems so far.

djreynolds

2015-11-29, 01:41 AM

Holy Hatfield's and McCoy's, Batman. Paladins are not James Bond with a license to kill. I'm sure "temporary" insanity is no longer a plea in the law system.

This is a difficult thing, to compare D&D to any real world stuff. We don't have legal duels anymore. So I have to use a Star Wars comparison, I'm sorry. So lets say Anakin was a paladin, and they are Jedi, just for argument's sake, and sand people are orcs. Are orcs animal-like savages? Do all there offspring have genetic wired evil aggression or natural aggressive tendencies? Is Anakin justified in killing the whole village of them. No. This is his first big turn towards the dark side, where his emotions took control and he lashed out. This was Padme's first big sign to give him the boot.

Lawful good, means you have are good. Obi One would never have killed a whole village of sand people, that's lawful good. Anakin lashing out, was his first look at what it is to be chaotic evil. He did not subjugate these people, or turn them to slavery, he just lashed out. There was no profit from this. He didn't make sand people scarecrows. Were the sand people evil or just surviving? The was no trial or anything.

Now in the game, no one forces us to walk into dungeons and kill everything and loot it. And sometimes in that party is a paladin saying, "Why am I here? How does looting or just adventuring in this dungeon help my god's cause? Did you just select me because of my awesome spells and smiting, and didn't care that I need a back story?"

D&D is a strange world, where real people play in a fantasy world of perils and adventure. If you play a paladin, I think you need a real motive to be there in that group. Perhaps your woodland ranger doesn't want to go into the dungeon, its an alien world to him or it just disgusts him. Perhaps your cleric says, "If you don't go into the dungeon to loot and plunder, you won't need my god's healing spells and I can go do some humanitarian mission"

I think to play chaotic alignments, you should play off of things personal to the character. If you are driven by your morals and wants you are chaotic. If you are driven by what the world thinks or what others think you should do, you are lawful. If you don't care and do what you see as proper or go with the flow you are neutral.

Steampunkette

2015-11-29, 02:12 AM

djreynolds

2015-11-29, 03:27 AM

Anakin slaughtering the Sand People could just as easily be LE or NE. Once you get to the point of dehumanizing someone to the degree that they're just a sack of meat your stance on personal freedoms and responsibilities is kind of a secondary concern.

Based on the interpretation of Anakin's thought process, I mean. Whether it was wild abandon, complete disregard for the sanctity of life, or the cold methodical murder of each member of the tribe it's all evil.

A fine point.

But it was evil. So slaying an orc village is evil. I think a playing a good aligned character, you have to stop and at least think or pause.

As for chaotic neutral, I think you have to play someone, who just gets caught up "it". The flow of battle, and victory. It is a tough alignment to play, but you're not crazy. If the party is getting whooped, it may take someone to drag you off or a pause to stop your actions and bring you to your senses.

Not a great reference, but in the movie "Alexander" at the battle with the Persians, he was ready to chase after the Persian King until someone persuaded him that his flank would fold. A chaotic neutral behaved player having to be "reeled in" by his party.

Steampunkette

2015-11-29, 04:03 AM

Definitely agreed. Slaughtering innocents, regardless of their race or alignment, is evil.

And odd as that sounds you CAN have an evil person who is innocent. Not just of any given crime, but any crime at all.

The jerky and cruel tax collector who never attacks anyone or does anything wrong can still be evil when he refuses any excuses or delays and takes great pleasure in tearing parents from children to hurl them into debtor's prisons.

Tanarii

2015-11-29, 10:18 AM

Definitely agreed. Slaughtering innocents, regardless of their race or alignment, is evil.not in 5e. Unless you count it as "arbitrary violence", in which case it's Chaotic Evil. No other alignments make any reference to any kinds of killing or violence as appropriate or inappropriate, except possibly indirectly (via societal expectation, laws, traditions, or personal conscience) which may vary.

Seriously, all you folks arguing this or that action/deed is "evil" or "good" need to crack open your PHB or Basic Rules and actually read what the alignments are in 5e. And how they work, which is not perfectly or consistently on an action by action basis. You're bringing an awful of the lot of personal interpretation of the terms good/evil that isn't backed up by the rules to the table.

Malifice

2015-11-29, 10:28 AM

So a state executioner cannot be good, unless it is Ned Stark, in which case he is.

There seems to be a pattern here.

No, I said the act cannot be called good - neutral at best. I also said it is unlikely that a state executioner could be good aligned.

RedMage125

2015-11-29, 06:25 PM

I don't think alugment can be run RAW in any edition, simply because there aren't any clear cut rules regarding how good and how evil a deed is.

If a campaign is underway for a while and Average Joe of NG alignment has commited good deeds A, B and C and non-good deeds X,Y and Z, it's 100% DM ruling to decide if hus alignment changes or not.

Not really true.

In 2e, yes, it was pretty much 100% up to the DM

In 3.5e, there were guidelines on page 134 of the DMG that stated that a character's alignment changes when he/she exhibits behavior more in keeping with an alignment change other than his own. it must be a pattern of consistent behavior to that effect over a period of time to be no less than one week of in-game time.

In 4e there weren't any actual rules regarding changing of alignment. If you look, there is nowhere that says that one's alignment EVER changes.

In 5e things are put more into the hands of the DM, but there are very few mechanics that relate to alignment at all, so the effect is muted.

Also, on the note of orcs/sand people that people brought up, I will point out that in 5e, orcs ARE inherently evil. Evil humanoids do not possess the same level of free will as other races, and their is something inherent in the orc condition that creates Chaotic Evil behavior. There was an implication that this was SOMEWHAT true in 3e, but it was never explicitly stated like it is in 5e. No more moral crises regarding the slaying of orc noncombatants. They're evil to the core, just like the warriors.

Trickshaw

2015-11-30, 09:29 AM

Not really true.

In 2e, yes, it was pretty much 100% up to the DM

In 3.5e, there were guidelines on page 134 of the DMG that stated that a character's alignment changes when he/she exhibits behavior more in keeping with an alignment change other than his own. it must be a pattern of consistent behavior to that effect over a period of time to be no less than one week of in-game time.

In 4e there weren't any actual rules regarding changing of alignment. If you look, there is nowhere that says that one's alignment EVER changes.

In 5e things are put more into the hands of the DM, but there are very few mechanics that relate to alignment at all, so the effect is muted.

Also, on the note of orcs/sand people that people brought up, I will point out that in 5e, orcs ARE inherently evil. Evil humanoids do not possess the same level of free will as other races, and their is something inherent in the orc condition that creates Chaotic Evil behavior. There was an implication that this was SOMEWHAT true in 3e, but it was never explicitly stated like it is in 5e. No more moral crises regarding the slaying of orc noncombatants. They're evil to the core, just like the warriors.

I would draw the line at children.

All children are evil to some degree, regardless of species, and it takes a cold heart to wholesale slaughter children. We're not talking about baby black dragons here that could easily rip a cow in 1/2. Slaughtering of children, specifically toddlers is ****ing evil no matter how you cut it.

I see zero issue with players, specifically paladins or honor bound warriors (solamnics, purple dragons etc.), staying their hand and allowing the rest of an Orc village to survive. Even knowing that they could one day seek retribution. Maybe even expect it. Because that's what honor bound characters do. As unlikely as it might be, an Orc could fight past his heritage (Gruumsh) and become something more and lead his people down a better path.

Hope.

Conversely I'd see zero issue with LN, TN, CN or even CG characters (specifically those with a deep seated hatred of Orcs) taking a torch to the village and killing the inhabitants. I mean I WOULD take issue but I could understand their frame of mind being, "they're evil, they'll always be evil, better to put them down while they're young so they can't hurt anyone else later."

I mean, it's still an evil act but they're still essential good people doing what they believe is inherently good for the world.

Knaight

2015-11-30, 10:03 AM

Holy Hatfield's and McCoy's, Batman. Paladins are not James Bond with a license to kill. I'm sure "temporary" insanity is no longer a plea in the law system.

It depend son the law system, but as "insanity" defenses are generally more about provocation, they tend to stick around. It's just that it's a lot harder to convince a modern jury that a reasonable person would be provoked to violence in some situation than it was 200 years ago.

Malifice

2015-11-30, 08:43 PM

Not really true.

In 2e, yes, it was pretty much 100% up to the DM

In 3.5e, there were guidelines on page 134 of the DMG that stated that a character's alignment changes when he/she exhibits behavior more in keeping with an alignment change other than his own. it must be a pattern of consistent behavior to that effect over a period of time to be no less than one week of in-game time.

Premeditated murder certainly fills that critereon.

Good people dont just engage in premeditated murder. If they do, theyre not good people.

I cant think of a single example IRL or in literature of such a thing. And if I could, it would certainly be the exception.

Also, on the note of orcs/sand people that people brought up, I will point out that in 5e, orcs ARE inherently evil.

No, theyre not. Orcs can be LG in alignment. They can be pious do gooders who refrain from killing, and dontate to charity.

Even Angels, Demons and Devils can change alignment and they are literally made up of the alignment 'stuff' of the outer planes.

Acts are more important than origin. Nature might push you in a certain direction, but your own choices are paramount. Just like a halfling child could grow up to be a cold blooded murderer, an orc child could grow up to be a loving and kind pacifist.

Evil humanoids do not possess the same level of free will as other races, and their is something inherent in the orc condition that creates Chaotic Evil behavior. There was an implication that this was SOMEWHAT true in 3e, but it was never explicitly stated like it is in 5e. No more moral crises regarding the slaying of orc noncombatants. They're evil to the core, just like the warriors.

This is not true. There is an inlination for Orcs towards evil, but that doesnt mean that all Orcs are evil. Open your PHB to the Paladin entry and look at the picture.

Conversely I'd see zero issue with LN, TN, CN or even CG characters (specifically those with a deep seated hatred of Orcs) taking a torch to the village and killing the inhabitants. I mean I WOULD take issue but I could understand their frame of mind being, "they're evil, they'll always be evil, better to put them down while they're young so they can't hurt anyone else later."

I mean, it's still an evil act but they're still essential good people doing what they believe is inherently good for the world.

No Godwin, but isnt that exactly what the Nazis said (and thought) also?

I mean, youve just green lit a CG person to engage in a policy of scorched earth and even outright genocide. Such an act (even when done for 'the greater good') pushes you towards evil for mine, no ifs, buts or maybes.

RedMage125

2015-11-30, 09:34 PM

Premeditated murder certainly fills that critereon.

Good people dont just engage in premeditated murder. If they do, theyre not good people.

I cant think of a single example IRL or in literature of such a thing. And if I could, it would certainly be the exception.
One instance of premeditated murder, especially if motivated by something like revenge, does not necessarily change a person's whole outlook though.

Now, during the time they are thinking about and planning this murder, they may find themselves hardening their heart in order to steel themselves against what they are going to do, and it may affect their future behavior after the incident as well, which would result in a change of alignment. But (and there are exceptions) one act does not predicate an entire alignment shift.

No, theyre not. Orcs can be LG in alignment. They can be pious do gooders who refrain from killing, and dontate to charity.
You need to re-read your 5e sourcebooks again. Orcs are BORN with an inherent drive to fulfill gruumsh's dark will. It is a RARE orc that breaks the mold, and even then, that orc must constantly struggle against the urgings of his blood.

Even Angels, Demons and Devils can change alignment and they are literally made up of the alignment 'stuff' of the outer planes.
I know that was true in 3.xe. Is it still? In 3.x, it was SUPER rare (like 0.01%, tops). I haven't seen mention of it in 5e.

Acts are more important than origin. Nature might push you in a certain direction, but your own choices are paramount. Just like a halfling child could grow up to be a cold blooded murderer, an orc child could grow up to be a loving and kind pacifist.
That's a modern, real-world concept you're dealing with. Nurture>Nature. 5e EXPLICITLY says that orcs, goblinoids, gnolls and such do NOT have the same level of free will as a human/dwarf/Halfling. So a Halfling may grow up to be a cold-blooded murderer, but that Halfling as a child was a blank canvas, shaped by his circumstances and the choices he made of his own free will. An Orc child is BORN with Gruumsh's voice in his head, and even in the possible but UNLIKELY event that he rejects it, he is still constantly subject to those urgings in his head.

This is not true. There is an inlination for Orcs towards evil, but that doesnt mean that all Orcs are evil. Open your PHB to the Paladin entry and look at the picture.
That's a Half-Orc, not an Orc, which an important distinction.

Open YOUR PHb to the Half-Orc racial description and read it. Half-Orcs STILL struggle with the urgings and inclinations towards violence and savagery, every one of them. Since their orc blood is diluted, it is EASIER for a Half-Orc to resist the calling than it is for a full-blooded Orc. But even they still feel the call.

I'm sorry dude, but you are WRONG on your 5e facts. I understand where you come from, and as far as your POV applies to Real World, I am in agreement. But D&D is not like that. And 5e is the first edition to flat-out say that the "evil races" do not have the same kind of free will and are, in fact, inherently evil. The RAW say that in black and white. Disagree all you like but it's in the RAW, so as far as arguing a fact of RAW you are objectively wrong.

Malifice

2015-11-30, 10:44 PM

One instance of premeditated murder, especially if motivated by something like revenge, does not necessarily change a person's whole outlook though.

No, one instance of premeditated murder based on revenge is the persons whole outlook.

You cant engage in premeditated murder and be a good person. The premeditated murder itself is evidence that you were probably never a truly good person to begin with.

If Mary Poppins (halfway through the movie) just brutally stabbed the children to death, in line with her plan to wreak misery on the family [on account of some greivance she held against them] she is clearly not a good person. The 'good' you saw for the first half of the movie was a facade.

Im not saying a person who engages in premediated murder cant still think they're a good person, or feel justified in their actions. In fact, most murderers blame the victim, and very few admit they are evil (not even Charles Manson).

Im telling you I have yet to meet a person who has engaged in premeditated murder that I (or you) would consider a 'good' person. As far as I am aware, such people dont exist. Good people dont plan out murders, and they certainly dont execute murders.

If Mary Poppins planned to infiltrate that house, gain the trust of those children with song, and then brutally kill them out of an act of vengance, she ceased being a 'good' person a long time before the first scene of that movie.

You need to re-read your 5e sourcebooks again. Orcs are BORN with an inherent drive to fulfill gruumsh's dark will. It is a RARE orc that breaks the mold, and even then, that orc must constantly struggle against the urgings of his blood.

So Orcs are not irrevocably evil? An Orc could rise up to be a LG paladin and be a kind and caring advocate for peace even though its more of a struggle than it would be for a human or an elf?

I know that was true in 3.xe. Is it still? In 3.x, it was SUPER rare (like 0.01%, tops). I haven't seen mention of it in 5e.

Yes. Read the Angel entry in the MM, and the entry for fiends and celestials generally in the MM. Its expressly called out that they can (rarely) change alignment. Fiends can be reformed. Angels can fall. Graazzt used to be a Devil (now a Demon). Erinyes are expressly all ex-angels. Asmodeus too. There is a Succubus who is LG in the cannon also.

Actions speak louder than anything else.

Nurture (actions, choice, free will and environment) trumps Nature (inherent makeup) in DnD. Creatures are ultimately evil or good because of what they do, not because of who they are.

That's a modern, real-world concept you're dealing with. Nurture>Nature. 5e EXPLICITLY says that orcs, goblinoids, gnolls and such do NOT have the same level of free will as a human/dwarf/Halfling.

So a Halfling may grow up to be a cold-blooded murderer, but that Halfling as a child was a blank canvas, shaped by his circumstances and the choices he made of his own free will. An Orc child is BORN with Gruumsh's voice in his head, and even in the possible but UNLIKELY event that he rejects it, he is still constantly subject to those urgings in his head.

So freaking what? He has those urgings. He is not compelled to act on them. A Paladin can really desperately want to kill someone. He can be tempted to evil. It doesnt mean **** if he doesnt act on that urging. Acts cause a Paladin to fall; not desire.

He rises above his base desires. He doesnt act out of anger, hatred and vengance. He stays his hand and offers redemption, mercy and charity to even his greatest enemies. Because he's good.

'You have failed your highness. I am a Jedi like my father before me [tosses lightsaber aside].'

That's a Half-Orc, not an Orc, which an important distinction.

Open YOUR PHb to the Half-Orc racial description and read it. Half-Orcs STILL struggle with the urgings and inclinations towards violence and savagery, every one of them. Since their orc blood is diluted, it is EASIER for a Half-Orc to resist the calling than it is for a full-blooded Orc. But even they still feel the call.

Exactly. Even though the half orc has the same inherent 'urging towards evil', he has the choice to resist the urging and be LG.

You would have rounded up the orc children in a villiage, and in the process thrown that LG half orc paladin on the pyre as a baby and claimed to be a 'good' person and a 'good' act. I reject that assertion. Good people dont kill children.

I'm sorry dude, but you are WRONG on your 5e facts.

No man, you are. An Orc can be LG. They are not by RAW or RAI irrevocably evil. An Orc that resists his primal urges, engages in charity and goodwill, ad renounces violence is LG. And all Orcs have that choice (as difficult as it might be for them).

You taking that choice from them, and tossing them as babes on the pyre is an act of Evil.

RedMage125

2015-12-01, 12:35 AM

I'm not quoting and individually responding because so much of your whole argument is predicated on me saying that Orcs are "irrevocably" Evil, which is not what I said at all. I said "inherently" Evil.

An Orc baby raised from infancy in a loving human community will, more likely than not, still end up being Chaotic Evil.

Nurture DOES NOT ALWAYS trump Nature in D&D. Especially not in 5e. Those rare orcs that end up fighting those urges and being non-CE? No one said anything about it being based on how they were raised. They could be Driz'zt-like and just ended up fighting against the way they were raised.

And Demons are literally MADE OF EVIL. I know a few exceptions exist (The LG succubus was 3e, btw, not 5e), but they are still made of evil. That 3e LG succubus Paladin? She's still an outsider with the Extraplanar, Evil, Chaotic, and Tanar'ri subtypes. Which means she still registers on a Detect Evil spell as an outsider of her Hit Dice. As a paladin (with the Aura of Good class feature) she also registers on a Detect Good spell. And she would be subject to the negative effects of both Holy Smite and Unholy Blight. And when she dies, the energies which comprise her being will return to the ABYSS, and form a new succubus, who will likely NOT be Lawful Good. The only way to fix that is to undergo one of the rituals in Savage Species which would remove one of her subtypes. She could go through several of them and remove the Chaos, Evil, and Tanar'ri subtypes and give herself the Good one. if she did that, then when she died her energies would instead go to a Good-aligned plane and form a celestial of some kind.

And as for your first point, the "premeditated murder" one...
An otherwise Good person can be motivated by personal feeling of vengeance to kill. Perhaps he wants to set the souls of his murdered family members to rest by slaying the one who killed them. He discovers the man's location, goes there, confronts and slays him. That's premeditated. After which he resumes being the Good person he was. An alignment shift indicates that they way the person views the world and how they think has changed. Evil acts weigh on people, and otherwise Good people DO shift to neutral if they commit a lot of them. but that's because in order to continue doing said acts, something about what they think or feel makes those acts seem justified, which is a slippery slope, and why otherwise Good people who regularly do Bad things are usually Neutral on the Moral (Good/Evil) axis.

However, to quote from a past edition here because it's relevant. The 3e PHB said, in regards to alignment (Chapter 6) that people sometimes do things that may seem outside their normal alignment. A LG person may have a greedy streak that occasionally prompts them to take things. An Evil person may perform a selfless act. People are not always consistent from day to day. Now, I'm AFB, so I'm paraphrasing, but I've quoted that section a lot, so I remember most of it. ONE ACT does not AUTOMATICALLY necessitate a change in alignment. And your maxim of "Good people don't do this" is a common error about alignment that people tend to make. That is, that alignment is somehow PREscriptive and not DEscriptive. You seem to think that if a Good-aligned person is contemplating something that YOU believe no Good-aligned person would do, they must not be Good aligned. That is not the case. It is NOT in keeping with RAW for a DM to ever tell a player "your alignment is X, you can't do that" (except in rare corner cases of, say, a magical aura that physically repels people of certain alignments). And THAT is why I maintain that "alignment problems" all stem from people who don't use alignment within the bounds of RAW.

Is it the "premeditated" part? When you say that, do you ONLY envision someone carefully planning out a cold-blooded murder over the course of several weeks? And why are you only focusing on the murder of innocents? I suggest you read the 3e Book Of Vile Darkness, Chapter 2 "Defining Evil". Most of the crunchy game mechanics in that book are garbage, and the artwork is MOSTLY abhorrent, but that Chapter has some very good stuff about the nature of Evil in a D&D world. I especially love the section on how action, inaction, and intent play into it.

At any rate, bottom line, is that one Evil act in an otherwise Good person does not necessarily merit an alignment shift (although there are exceptions, acts of such heinousness that a person's soul is twisted by them). But generally no. And your statement of "the person who enacts a premeditated killing was probably never Good to begin with" is a cop-out, because we are only talking about a GOOD person. It's moving the goalposts to argue that the hypothetical person about whom we are discussing was never Good to begin with. It's dishonest debating.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 01:43 AM

I'm not quoting and individually responding because so much of your whole argument is predicated on me saying that Orcs are "irrevocably" Evil, which is not what I said at all. I said "inherently" Evil.

Yeah, and youre wrong. Theyre inherently drawn towards evil, but they are not inherently evil unless they act on those urges.

Actions dictate alignment. Not urges.

An Orc baby raised from infancy in a loving human community will, more likely than not, still end up being Chaotic Evil.

Or it could end up being LG. Like the half orc in the PHB, or like Drizzt did when he rejected the lure of Lolth.

You murdering Orc or Drow children because 'theyre probably gonna turn out to be evil bastards later on' makes you the very evil monster youre trying to stop.

Nurture DOES NOT ALWAYS trump Nature in D&D. Especially not in 5e. Those rare orcs that end up fighting those urges and being non-CE? No one said anything about it being based on how they were raised. They could be Driz'zt-like and just ended up fighting against the way they were raised.

Not when your CG 'heroes' are murdering them in their cribs they wont.

And Demons are literally MADE OF EVIL. I know a few exceptions exist (The LG succubus was 3e, btw, not 5e), but they are still made of evil.

So even a being who is literally physcially made of evil can still (via actions and choice) be LG?

An otherwise Good person can be motivated by personal feeling of vengeance to kill. Perhaps he wants to set the souls of his murdered family members to rest by slaying the one who killed them. He discovers the man's location, goes there, confronts and slays him. That's premeditated.

He's so consumed by vengance that he tracks down the murderer of his family [who has possibly reformed, has a family of his own and is now LG], and murders him in return.

See where your logic takes you? Murder is either evil, or its not.

After which he resumes being the Good person he was.

And the LG wife or children of the person he just murdered, consumed by revenge, tracks down your LG murderer, and kills him.

At no stage has anyones alignment shifted during these muiltiple premeditated murders, and everyone is (to them) completely justified in thier actions, and performing good deeds because 'vengance' or because 'its OK to murder murderers... becuase murder is wrong (???)'

An alignment shift indicates that they way the person views the world and how they think has changed.

Yes. Good people dont murder. The dont rape. They dont torture. If they do so, their world view has changed to accept them performing these actions. In other words, theyve either already 'changed alignment', or are well on the way,

If youre in the middle of planning a premeditated murder, I have news for you - youre not a good person.

However, to quote from a past edition here because it's relevant. The 3e PHB said, in regards to alignment (Chapter 6) that people sometimes do things that may seem outside their normal alignment. A LG person may have a greedy streak that occasionally prompts them to take things. An Evil person may perform a selfless act. People are not always consistent from day to day. Now, I'm AFB, so I'm paraphrasing, but I've quoted that section a lot, so I remember most of it. ONE ACT does not AUTOMATICALLY necessitate a change in alignment.

One act of greed does not indicate an alignment shift. Lashing out and striking a helpless person in anger doesnt either. One act of extreme evil (murder, torture or rape) certainly does though. It demonstrates that you are not (and have likely not been for some time) 'good'.

You seem to think that if a Good-aligned person is contemplating something that YOU believe no Good-aligned person would do, they must not be Good aligned. That is not the case. It is NOT in keeping with RAW for a DM to ever tell a player "your alignment is X, you can't do that" (except in rare corner cases of, say, a magical aura that physically repels people of certain alignments). And THAT is why I maintain that "alignment problems" all stem from people who don't use alignment within the bounds of RAW.

Mate, I dont tell players what they cant do; I tell them what the consequences of their actions will be.

If youre a good aligned PC and you murder, rape or torture someone, you're no longer a good aligned PC (and likely have not been for some time). If you do such a henious and evilact, I will pick up an eraser, walk over to your character sheet, rub out the 'G' and likely write an 'E' in its place.

You are now a murdering, raping or torturing monster.

Although, you can be redeemed, and work your way back to the light. This is much harder to do than falling from grace though.

Is it the "premeditated" part? When you say that, do you ONLY envision someone carefully planning out a cold-blooded murder over the course of several weeks? And why are you only focusing on the murder of innocents? I suggest you read the 3e Book Of Vile Darkness, Chapter 2 "Defining Evil". Most of the crunchy game mechanics in that book are garbage, and the artwork is MOSTLY abhorrent, but that Chapter has some very good stuff about the nature of Evil in a D&D world. I especially love the section on how action, inaction, and intent play into it.

No mate, Good people dont murder people. Head down your local prison and find me one person who is a 'good' person who has engaged in willfull murder.

At any rate, bottom line, is that one Evil act in an otherwise Good person does not necessarily merit an alignment shift (although there are exceptions, acts of such heinousness that a person's soul is twisted by them). But generally no. And your statement of "the person who enacts a premeditated killing was probably never Good to begin with" is a cop-out, because we are only talking about a GOOD person. It's moving the goalposts to argue that the hypothetical person about whom we are discussing was never Good to begin with. It's dishonest debating.

I am not moving the goal posts. Image a good person that experiences something awful (his wife gets murdered) and is then driven over the space of months to kill the murderer himself. That anguish over those months (his withdrawal, the nightmares, thinking what would have been unthinkable months ago, and then finally his resolve to commit the unthinkable) is his alignment shifting away from good. He would never have even contemplated this clearly evil act months ago. It is events in his life (and his own choice and rationalisation) that pushes him towards evil. His final act of the murder itself just seals the deal.

Now, his victims family is experiencing the exact same anguish he felt. He is now the murdering monster.

A good person turns the other cheek. They do not engage in an eye for an eye. Evil only begets more evil. Im not a Christian, but that Jesus fella was pretty solid on this point.

Tony Soprano was Evil. Ditto Dexter. And the Hound. Walter White was at the end too.

Speaking of Breaking Bad, did you watch it? At what point did Walt become 'E' to you?

RedMage125

2015-12-01, 02:37 AM

Actions dictate alignment, yes*.

*For mortal races with a normal (i.e. comparable to Real World Humans) level of free will.

Beings to whom alignment is innate or inherent are exceptions. Which is why, even the 3e BoVD explicitly states that killing certain evil creatures to whom Evil is a PART OF THEIR NATURE like Fiends or Chromatic Dragons is almost always a Good act. That's right, sneaking up on an Ancient Red Dragon who has been terrorizing the countryside for centuries while he's sleeping and having a Dragonbane Stalker use Hunter's Aim and a Greater Arrow of Dragon Slaying to deliver a coup de grace on him, slaying or mortally wounding him in his sleep is a NON-EVIL act, by RAW.

D&D is FANTASY, not Real Life. Why is that hard for you to wrap your mind around? The 5e RAW CLEARLY state that some races (such as orcs) are born inherently Evil. This isn't Real Life where all sentient beings have the free will to make their own choices. It's a fantasy setting, and since the devs can pretty much say "here's how this works in THIS setting", what they say is RAW true. You may prefer it to be different in your world, but since all possible houserules are impossible to account for in a discussion about D&D, only the RAW default can be considered "fact".

Sorry, you're wrong.

Also, it was another poster, not me, advocating CG people murdering orc babies. I just said the inherent Evil of Orcs makes killing orcs less morally questionable than previous editions.

And your "premeditated murder" thing, you ARE, in fact, moving the goalposts because you are now saying A) That the premeditation has been happening for months (which was NOT specified before) and B) You now insist that this person has not been Good for some time. Which is now a separate discussion. You are moving the goalposts in the hopes of somehow "winning" the argument.

But Yes, Murder is an Evil act. Never said it wasn't. You seem to be of the "Alignment Dictates Action" frame of mind (which is completely WRONG by RAW), because you insist that someone of Good alignment would "never" commit such an act in the first place.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

If good people could NEVER commit an Evil act, there would be ZERO stories of paladins falling from grace. Even 3e paladins didn't auto-change alignment. If they committed an Evil act, they lost their powers, yes, but they still likely remained LG. Miko Miyazaki, for example, never shifted alignment. She fell from grace, yes. She died an ex-paladin. But she REMAINED Lawful Good. And furthermore, she executed an unarmed elderly man TO WHOM SHE OWED ALLEGIANCE after he begged her not to. What she did was an EVIL act. But she continued to believe in the gods. She believed that they were showing her the path to redemption when she shattered the gem. And she asked if she would see Windstriker again (who, as a paladin's celestial steed, was from a LG plane) in the afterlife, and Soon told her yes, directly implying that she was going to a LG afterlife.

Point is, Good people sometimes do Bad things, even Evil ones. Rape is less likely without something affecting their judgment, such as drugs or alcohol, but murder is sometimes done in the heat of the moment. And sometimes the heat can last a little longer. When I gave my example for the "premeditated murder by a Good person", I was thinking a day or two after the Good man's family was killed that he, still in a state of grief and rage, tracks down the murderer and kills him. That is STILL premeditated. He had to find the guy. It's STILL Murder, and it is STILL an Evil act. Does that mean that said person is 100% guaranteed to have his whole outlook be affected and adopt a more morally callous outlook from now on? Of course not. Ergo, you are wrong.

You are speaking in absolutes "Good people do not do this or that" "A Good person cannot X and remain Good", which is a surefire way to be proven wrong, because all it takes is ONE example to deflate your theory.

Do Good people REGULARLY engage in premeditated murder and remain Good? No. That is consistent behavior over a span of time, which dictates an alignment shift. But ONE incident (which is all I have been saying) does not cause a shift. You said "one act of extreme evil 'certainly' dictates a shift in alignment". This is wrong. not according to the last edition that gave us hard and fast rules on how to handle alignment shifts (3.5e, DMG page 134). There are RARE, corner cases where one act can be so vile that it shifts one's alignment, yes. Even for redemption of Evil. but GENERALLY, one act does not cause one. Miko Miyazaki remains a prime example. The woman murdered in cold blood, and remained Lawful Good. She was mistaken, and she was arrogant, self-righteous and deluded, but she still murdered an unarmed man in cold blood. And remained Lawful Good.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 03:06 AM

Actions dictate alignment, yes.

Beings to whom alignment is innate or inherent are exceptions.

Point me to that exception.

Are you saying that the evil actions of beings who are innately drawn to evil are less evil, or that the good actions of beings who are innately drawn to evil are less good?

Why dont their actions count?

Which is why, even the 3e BoVD explicitly states that killing certain evil creatures to whom Evil is a PART OF THEIR NATURE like Fiends or Chromatic Dragons is almost always a Good act. That's right, sneaking up on an Ancient Red Dragon who has been terrorizing the countryside for centuries while he's sleeping and having a Dragonbane Stalker use Hunter's Aim and a Greater Arrow of Dragon Slaying to deliver a coup de grace on him, slaying or mortally wounding him in his sleep is a NON-EVIL act, by RAW.

Attacking the ancient red dragon who has been terrorizing the country and killing people, in order to stop it and save lives when no other option reasonably presents itself, is not an evil act, I agree.

D&D is FANTASY, not Real Life.

So what? Good and Evil dont have have different meanings in fantasy than they do in real life. Neither does up or down, left or right or black or white.

The 5e RAW CLEARLY state that some races (such as orcs) are born inherently Evil.

No it doesnt. It CLEARLY states that some races such as orcs are drawn towards evil. Not that they are inherently evil. That they are inherently drawn towards evil and committing evil acts. This is a massive distinction that you keep missing.

A baby cant be evil as it hasnt committed any evil acts. It would be born unaligned.

Its no different to a person (like Drizzt) born into a CE society. You are most likely going to be molded by your environment and come out the other side evil. An Orc has the same problems (by virtue of his very essense). He is drawn towards evil. But this does not make him inherently evil - it makes him inherently more likely to engage in evil acts and wind up evil.

An Orc can resist his evil urgings and be a thoroughly good person who has never committed an evil act, or ever been evilly aligned. Thay are not inherently evil; they are just drawn to it and more likely to grow into evil, and perform evil acts.

This isn't Real Life where all sentient beings have the free will to make their own choices.

Yes it really is. Even beings that are created out of the stuff of pure good or evil (demons and angels) can exersize free will and either fall or be redeemed and change alignment through actions. A Demon can be LG. An angel can be CE.

Thats RAW.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Nah brah. You are.

Also, it was another poster, not me, advocating CG people murdering orc babies. I just said the inherent Evil of Orcs makes killing orcs less morally questionable than previous editions.

No it doesnt. Murdering Orc babies is evil. If you think baby murder isnt evil and is only 'morally questionable' then we come from very different moral viewpoints indeed.

And your "premeditated murder" thing, you ARE, in fact, moving the goalposts because you are now saying A) That the premeditation has been happening for months (which was NOT specified before) and B) You now insist that this person has not been Good for some time. Which is now a separate discussion. You are moving the goalposts in the hopes of somehow "winning" the argument.

Months, weeks, days, it doesnt matter. The moment murder of someone becomes morally OK to you, is the moment you are on the precipice of evil. Pull the trigger, and you cross the line.

But Yes, Murder is an Evil act. Never said it wasn't. You seem to be of the "Alignment Dictates Action" frame of mind (which is completely WRONG by RAW), because you insist that someone of Good alignment would "never" commit such an act in the first place.

Read my posts bro. I said the opposite above.

I wouldnt stop a 'CG' character from murdering a baby. I would simply rub out the 'G' after the C on the character sheet, and write an 'E' after it.

Even 3e paladins didn't auto-change alignment. If they committed an Evil act, they lost their powers, yes, but they still likely remained LG.

Whats your evidence for this?

Miko Miyazaki, for example, never shifted alignment.

http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Miko_Miyazaki
(http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Miko_Miyazaki)

Rich Burlew, has made the comment that Miko is one of the worst ways to play a paladin. Since self-righteousness and arrogance are both traits traditionally connected with evil and generally the opposite of orderliness, this makes Miko's personality not consistent with a person devoted to Law and Good.

She fell from grace, yes. She died an ex-paladin. But she REMAINED Lawful Good. And furthermore, she executed an unarmed elderly man TO WHOM SHE OWED ALLEGIANCE after he begged her not to. What she did was an EVIL act. But she continued to believe in the gods. She believed that they were showing her the path to redemption when she shattered the gem. And she asked if she would see Windstriker again (who, as a paladin's celestial steed, was from a LG plane) in the afterlife, and Soon told her yes, directly implying that she was going to a LG afterlife.

Mate, I dont read it, but even if true, that's only Rich's idea of LG and Paladinhood and redemption.

He seems to have been quoted that it's not exactly true what youre saying though and that this character is not an example of someone who is both lawful and good at all.

Its really his call though. He sets objective alignment in his campaigns. I would be shocked if the character you put forward as an example of a 'LG' person is really LG though.

Point is, Good people sometimes do Bad things, even Evil ones. Rape is less likely without something affecting their judgment, such as drugs or alcohol, but murder is sometimes done in the heat of the moment.

No, good people do not rape and murder. If they do, they are no longer good people. Name me one 'good' rapist or murderer. Just one.

Im not saying they cany be redeemed though.

And sometimes the heat can last a little longer. When I gave my example for the "premeditated murder by a Good person", I was thinking a day or two after the Good man's family was killed that he, still in a state of grief and rage, tracks down the murderer and kills him. That is STILL premeditated. He had to find the guy. It's STILL Murder, and it is STILL an Evil act. Does that mean that said person is 100% guaranteed to have his whole outlook be affected and adopt a more morally callous outlook from now on? Of course not. Ergo, you are wrong.

This dude gets the 'G' rubbed out and gets a 'N' placed on his character sheet, if there isnt one there already. He has just committed a deliberate act of evil (even though his complcitness in this act is far more questionable than the person who plots it out for some time).

His hightened duress would mitigate his willfullness in the act of choosing to murder. He hasnt exactly had time to dwell on the awful nature of the thing he is about to perform, and to demonstrate full intent to do it anyway. He's straddling the line between acting without thinking and murder here.

You are speaking in absolutes "Good people do not do this or that" "A Good person cannot X and remain Good", which is a surefire way to be proven wrong, because all it takes is ONE example to deflate your theory.

Again; find me one example of a 'good' rapist and murderer.

Take your time. I want just the one.

Tanarii

2015-12-01, 03:28 AM

So what? Good and Evil dont have have different meanings in fantasy than they do in real life.They do if the fantasy rules game define them differently. For example, nowhere does 5e explicitly say any kind of killing is any kind of alignment action.

Indirectly though: Arbitrary violence (fatal or not), is part of the way chaotic evil acts. Lawful good/neutral alignments would avoid murder, since not murdering is usually a societal expectation / law code thing. And it would probably be avoided by neutral good (who help people) and chaotic good (who act as their conscience dictates).

Yes it really is. Even beings that are created out of the stuff of pure good or evil (demons and angels) can exersize free will and either fall or be redeemed.

Thats RAW.I disagree. Here's what 5e has to say about such creatures:
"Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

They don't have free will. They get no choice.

In fact, only the PC races, other than half-orcs, are *explicitly* stated to have free will. Evil humanoids are contrasted against that free will, instead having innate/inborn tendencies to evil. Although since it also says they can choose to be good (fighting their nature to do so), that implies that free will really means: choose without having to fight against your nature / being divinely coerced . ;)

Malifice

2015-12-01, 03:49 AM

Indirectly though: Arbitrary violence (fatal or not), is part of the way chaotic evil acts. Lawful good/neutral alignments would avoid murder, since not murdering is usually a societal expectation / law code thing. And it would probably be avoided by neutral good (who help people) and chaotic good (who act as their conscience dictates).

I disagree with the inferences you draw (or miss) from the phrase 'acting as their conscience dictates = CG'.

Godwin time, but Hitler acted as his conscience dictated. He certainly wasnt CG.

Conscience (of a CG person) is defined as 'good' [dont harm, murder and kill, engage in charity, mercy and compassion]. He just doesnt let laws, honor, or social norms of conduct get in his way in engaging in charity, mercy and compassion. He does whats good and right because its good and right, regardless of what he is legally obliged to do.

"Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

They don't have free will. They get no choice.

Here is what it actually says:

Celestials are creatures native to the Upper Planes.
Many of them are the servants of deities, employed
as messengers or agents in the mortal realm and
throughout the planes. Celestials are good by nature,
so the exceptional celestial who strays from a good
alignment is a horrifying rarity.

Fiends are creatures of wickedness that are native
to the Lower Planes. A few are the servants of deities,
but many more labor under the leadership of archdevils
and demon princes. Evil priests and mages sometimes
summon fiends to the material world to do their bidding.
If an evil celestial is a rarity, a good fiend is almost
inconceivable.

So exceptions exist. Celestials fall and change alignment (based on their actions). Demons repent and can be redeemed (based on their actions). A rarity indeed but not impossible.

Again via published canon, Grazzt changed alignment from LE to CE. He also at this time ceased being a Bateezu and became a Tanaari. Much the same how Erinyes and Asmodeus ceased being Angels and became Bateezu when they changed alignment from LG to LE.

Read the MM entry on Angels. Read it.

In fact, only the PC races, other than half-orcs, are *explicitly* stated to have free will. Evil humanoids are contrasted against that free will, instead having innate/inborn tendencies to evil.

Im not arguing that Orcs are not drawn to evil. I am arguing that they are not inherently evil. There is a difference.

Being drawn to evil is not the same thing as being inherently and irrevocably evil. Barring undead, nothing in DND (to my knowledge) has that quality, and everything that has a free will can change alignment.

An Orc is no different from a human raised in an Evil society (Thay for example) or an Elf raised in Menzoberazzan. Odds are that both will turn out evil (the Orc by virtue of his natural inclination; the human and the elf by virtue of their environment). But all three have free will and ultimately choose. They all can choose not to be evil. Drizzt has to overcome the evil of his society to overcome being evil (at great personal cost). An orc fights a battle within himself. But at the end of the day; its the actions of these people - either resisting the lure of evil, or embracing it, that makes them evil.

A good aligned Drow or Tiefling is just as much of an aberration as a good aligned Orc; but for very different reasons. All only got to where they are by the exersize of free will and the choice to renounce the easy lure of evil and follow a more difficult path.

Although since it also says they can choose to be good (fighting their nature to do so), that implies that free will really means: choose without having to fight against your nature / being divinely coerced

No-one makes decisions in a vaccum. Free will is largely illusiory, but it exists. Just like a person brought up in an evil society is more likely to view evil as 'morally OK' that doesnt absolve them of free will. Evil orcs are not blameless in their evil acts either. They might have an easier time rationalising evil, but they still choose to follow that path over the harder path of mercy, compassion and kindness.

For what its worth, a creature that lacks free will to make decisions on its own cant be aligned (or at least its actions cant be judged on moral grounds). An automaton, a creature magically controlled, a creature with no control over its own actions etc cant be held responsible for the morality of their actions. They cant choose evil, any more than they can choose good.

And yes; this means that a creauture that cannot be good even if it tried to, arguably is not evil.

Look at the 'walkers' on the WD. I would have them as 'unaligned' personally. From memory the only thing that makes unintelligent undead like Zombies 'evil' in DnD is that the evil necromatic energy that empowers them also grants them some small element of free will.

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 04:49 AM

In fact, only the PC races, other than half-orcs, are *explicitly* stated to have free will. Evil humanoids are contrasted against that free will, instead having innate/inborn tendencies to evil. Although since it also says they can choose to be good (fighting their nature to do so), that implies that free will really means: choose without having to fight against your nature / being divinely coerced . ;)

True, but it also means that the listed alignement is typical but not an absolute.

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 05:00 AM

I Im not arguing that Orcs are not drawn to evil. I am arguing that they are not inherently evil. There is a difference.

Being drawn to evil is not the same thing as being inherently and irrevocably evil. Barring undead, nothing in DND (to my knowledge) has that quality, and everything that has a free will can change alignment.

For what its worth, a creature that lacks free will to make decisions on its own cant be aligned (or at least its actions cant be judged on moral grounds). An automaton, a creature magically controlled, a creature with no control over its own actions etc cant be held responsible for the morality of their actions. They cant choose evil, any more than they can choose good.

And yes; this means that a creauture that cannot be good even if it tried to, arguably is not evil.

Look at the 'walkers' on the WD. I would have them as 'unaligned' personally. From memory the only thing that makes unintelligent undead like Zombies 'evil' in DnD is that the evil necromatic energy that empowers them also grants them some small element of free will.

Actually, the PHB does restrict the will of the evil-aligned races.

According to myth, the good-aligned
gods who created these races gave them free will to
choose their moral paths, knowing that good without
free will is slavery.
The evil deities who created other races, though, made
those races to serve them. Those races have strong
inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 05:20 AM

Actually, the PHB does restrict the will of the evil-aligned races.

Dude. This has been covered already.

Being inclined to evil acts does not make one inherently evil or remove the free will of the so called evil races to choose.

Just like Drizzt can rebell against his evil society so can Orcs (and tieflings) rebel against their inherent urges to kill and harm others.

It's more difficult for your average tiefling or orcs than it is for your average human to refrain from evil acts (all else being equal) but it's still down to the individuals choice. They're not born inherently evil, just with an inherent urge to commit evil acts.

Killing orc babies is an evil act, just like killing Drizzts children would be.

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 05:30 AM

I think you are overestimating the amount of free will given, since the PHB quote above contrasts the situation for the good-aligned gods vs the others.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 06:08 AM

I think you are overestimating the amount of free will given, since the PHB quote above contrasts the situation for the good-aligned gods vs the others.

All that happens to an Orc is it gets the urge to act violently. Evil thoughts do not make one evil. Only evil actions. Orcs are smart enough to know what is evil and what is not. It's hard for them to rebell against those urges but it's not impossible.

When an orc kills or tortures it is making a choice. A choice that seems much more natural and easy to the Orc than showing mercy and compassion, but a choice none the less. Ditto tieflings. To a lesser extent ditto half orcs.

An Orc can be a Paladin and be LG. It's a struggle against his constant urges to kill but he could exercise the willpower to do it.

A good person recognises this fact and doesn't kill an Orc out of hand.

A person could very well butcher Orc children on these grounds (they'll most likely turn out evil later on without a lot of work reforming them and guiding them towards the light, so I'm really just saving innocent lives or some other utilitarian answer), claiming to be doing so for the 'greater good.'

I would have absolutely no hesitation in placing a big fat E on his character sheet the instant he did it.

The character himself probably thinks he's a good person or that it was justified for the greater good. Most genocidal mass murderers do.

He gets a rude shock when he dies and winds up in the Nine Hells though.

JumboWheat01

2015-12-01, 08:51 AM

This argument is starting to get out of hand. Either admit that you're both wrong AND right based on your OWN PERSONAL D&D WORLDS or take it to the private messages.

Let's re-start the original question here - Chaotic Neutral: How is it done right?

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 09:16 AM

I tend to view CN as anarchists. Indifferent to morality but a strong conviction to go against law, order, society, norms, etc.

smcmike

2015-12-01, 09:40 AM

Malafice - I find it surprising that you keep saying that good characters cannot commit evil acts, and use Mary Poppins, child murderer, as your test case, when I believe you've already told me that Katniss Everdeen (murderer) and John Luther (murderer) are good. Murdering innocent children for no apparent reason is not what anyone is talking about when we suggest that good people can do bad things.

As an example of a fictional character who kills inherently evil sentient creatures, how about Buffy. Good, right? There's no moral quandary when she stakes an average vamp, because they are evil. I'm not saying that orcs (or anything with children) should be treated the same way, just that there is a paradigm for inherently evil sentient beings.

There is an initial, definitional question here. Killing is something that happens in context - it can be good, or evil, or anywhere in between. Squishing a bug is meaningless in most moral systems. Killing in self defense is generally considered to be neutral. Killing in defense of others may be good.

Murder is unlawful, intentional killing of a human. Leaving aside that last bit for the moment, the key here is that murder is a legal term, not a moral one. Murder can be good. For example, killing to prevent terrible future harm - killing a serial abuser before he can strike again. Lawful killing can be evil.

Getting past this definitional question, there remains a secondary argument - can a character intentionally perform a terribly evil act without writing "evil" on their character sheet. On that, I guess I'm on your side. Rapists and torturers (and most murderers) are evil.

As for the original question, a chaotic neutral character is done "right" as long as he or she makes some sense as a person and is best classified as chaotic neutral. It's better to start with the person and their situation.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 09:43 AM

Erk

2015-12-01, 10:11 AM

So I... I just came in to tell you guys about a great chaotic neutral player in my game. Is this a good time maybe, if Mal is done?

My campaign's rogue is CN.

Neutral: She is generally quite selfish and a lone wolf, but she does seem to care for her companions and has put her life on the line for the paladin repeatedly. She doesn't really care about the greater good, but she does help strangers if it's no skin off her back or if she likes the stranger. She certainly doesn't bear any ill will to those who haven't wronged her.

Chaotic: However, she's a professional criminal (smuggler). She cares little or nothing for the rule of law, and wants to go about her life doing what she wants. She knows she's not going to really harm anyone who doesn't want to harm her and she doesn't get why all the lawmen gotta get on her case about it.

I think she's the best CN I've seen in a while.

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 10:18 AM

How does that make her chaotic? Sounds like TN to me. She takes advantage of order to make a living, not working actively to upset order.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 10:23 AM

How does that make her chaotic? Sounds like TN to me. She takes advantage of order to make a living, not working actively to upset order.

Chaotic people don't have to actively work to advance chaos. Just like a lawful person plays by the rules (a personal code of Honor, the legal system, social norms etc) but doesn't have to enforce those laws on others.

A Chaotic neutral person can just be a 'no rules, screw authority' kind of guy, a loner and not much of a team player, a selfish individual, a criminal (but not a violent one) or whatever.

Erk

2015-12-01, 10:27 AM

How does that make her chaotic? Sounds like TN to me. She takes advantage of order to make a living, not working actively to upset order.
She's a professional smuggler, living in constant defiance of the law. Her actions also fit (for example, she is on the lam because she stole an item from her previous employer when he pissed her off). If chaotic people had to live their lives constantly in active conflict with the law there wouldn't be much civilization.

Tanarii

2015-12-01, 10:30 AM

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 10:33 AM

She's a professional smuggler, living in constant defiance of the law. Her actions also fit (for example, she is on the lam because she stole an item from her previous employer when he pissed her off). If chaotic people had to live their lives constantly in active conflict with the law there wouldn't be much civilization.

Ok, in that case it's clearer. Just being a smuggler does not imply a chaotic alignment.

Finieous

2015-12-01, 10:37 AM

I tend to view CN as anarchists. Indifferent to morality but a strong conviction to go against law, order, society, norms, etc.

Pretty much my take too for a classic CN.

A few literary examples I can think of:

Han Solo (early episode IV)
Brad Pitts Achillies
Jack Sparrow

How is Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirate Lord of the Brethren Court, an "anarchist"? His titles and way of life suggest he's not exactly dedicated to non-hierarchical free association -- he's committed to traditional hierarchical organizations with himself in the position of power. Presumably he did not support the mutiny that removed him from command of the Black Pearl on ideological grounds...

IMHO, "alignment" becomes a problem when it is played as an extremist ideology (or psychosis) that more or less entirely defines the character's personality. Some alignments are more prone to this than others -- LG, CN, and any evil being the usual suspects. The Law (pro-civilization), Chaos (anti-civilization), and Neutrality of Classic D&D worked better as extremist ideology, because it was more a mutually exclusive social philosophy than moral philosophy and left plenty of room to otherwise define the character's personality, commitments and moral code.

So to me, "chaotic neutral" just means, all else being equal, you typically place your interests before others', though you'll try to avoid harming others in pursuit of your interests. Beyond that, you can still be a devoted father, son, mother, daughter, brother or sister, a loyal friend, a monarchist or ship captain. By most social standards, you probably have some virtues and some vices. You are capable of both kindness and cruelty. You needn't be a "lone wolf" or act randomly as if you were brain damaged or otherwise mentally unstable.

Gwendol

2015-12-01, 10:37 AM

Chaotic people don't have to actively work to advance chaos. Just like a lawful person plays by the rules (a personal code of Honor, the legal system, social norms etc) but doesn't have to enforce those laws on others.

A Chaotic neutral person can just be a 'no rules, screw authority' kind of guy, a loner and not much of a team player, a selfish individual, a criminal (but not a violent one) or whatever.

I believe a Lawful character will likely actively oppose chaos, just as a Chaotic character will be actively opposing law. But that seems to be the case with the present example, so...

LordBlades

2015-12-01, 10:42 AM

Yeah, and you're wrong. They're inherently drawn towards evil, but they are not inherently evil unless they act on those urges.

Actions dictate alignment. Not urges.

Yes. Good people don't murder. The don't rape. They don't torture. If they do so, their world view has changed to accept them performing these actions. In other words, they've either already 'changed alignment', or are well on the way,

If action dictate alignment, not urges, by your statement a person can be good his whole life and still have 'urges' (or rather be OK with committing some objectively evil acts under certain circumstances). When the circumstances occur, the person commits the objectively evil deed and his/her world view doesn't change an inch (Regardless whether his/her alignment has), because he/she was OK with doing the deed under those circumstances anyway.

Malifice

2015-12-01, 10:50 AM

@Malafice you're bringing in so much personal beliefs on the meaning of good, evil, law and chaos that it's become impossible to respond to you in a meaningful way. All I can suggest is trying to put aside your personal definitions for a minute, and just read the 5e alignment section with an open mind, and take the words at their simple and straightforward meaning, without trying to read so much into it.

thats easy. The way you do it right, is to typically, but not perfectly or consistently, act as follows:
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Then pick a Personality, Ideal (that matches alignment), Bond and Flaw. And also act according to those.

Again, I'm not bothering with the debate. My issue was with erroneous assertions like 'orcs are inherently evil' or 'outsiders have fixed alignments and can't change'.

I also took umbrage at people asserting that genocide of Orc villiages is morally OK for a good person to engage in. It worries me when peeps start raising 'Genocide can be a good act' or 'a good person can willfilly murder a person and stay good' arguments. Those very arguments have been raised in real life to justify every genocide and murder ever, and have always been wrong. Every single time.

Guess it comes from my time as a soldier (and dealing with survivors of genocide and people who kill 'for the greater good' first hand) and then switching to law (and dealing with both murderers and refugees who flee genocide first hand). I can't see how anyone can call either act 'good' or make the claim that a person that engages in either is (or can remain) objectively a 'good person'.

Every DM has to draw on his personal experiences in some manner I guess. Gary Gygax certainly did (his religious and personal beliefs re an 'eye for an eye' and Anglo Saxon laws influenced his views on good and evil).

I probably need to chill a bit and take it with a grain of salt.

Erk

2015-12-01, 11:01 AM

I believe a Lawful character will likely actively oppose chaos, just as a Chaotic character will be actively opposing law. But that seems to be the case with the present example, so...
I disagree, or at least I disagree with the scope you seem to require. Plenty of lawful people may despise chaos but simply not have time nor means to do so on a grand scale. An accountant may see her job as a stand against chaos. A smuggler may see his job as a stick in the eye of the Man. Certainly you're unlikely to be lawful and be a professional criminal. I'd say you're also unlikely to be neutral, although you certainly could be. Choosing to live against the rule of law implies a less than centrist opinion of the importance of Order.

Tanarii

2015-12-01, 11:02 AM

Again, I'm not bothering with the debate. My issue was with erroneous assertions like 'orcs are inherently evil' or 'outsiders have fixed alignments and can't change'.the orcs thing is certainly an interesting point of debate in regards to free will. You've made me reconsider my own point of view on what it means to have an inborn tendency towards evil.

I probably need to chill a bit and take it with a grain of salt.Ha! If we weren't passionate, we wouldn't be here debating minutia of the rules. Needing to chill a bit is another thing I need to remind myself constantly while on the forums. ;)

smcmike

2015-12-01, 11:20 AM

Certainly you're unlikely to be lawful and be a professional criminal.

What about organized crime? A strict company man who lives his life by a code and believes strongly in hierarchy and order sounds lawful on a personal level, even if the laws he is following are quite different from the laws of the state.

Of course, maybe he's just faking it. Maybe he's a lying rat with no respect for anything but himself. A chaotic character can pretend to be lawful.

To take it a step deeper, are alignments a description of how a person is or of how they see themselves? How many "codes" are really post hoc justifications?

Malifice

2015-12-01, 11:29 AM

the orcs thing is certainly an interesting point of debate in regards to free will. You've made me reconsider my own point of view on what it means to have an inborn tendency towards evil.

Ha! If we weren't passionate, we wouldn't be here debating minutia of the rules. Needing to chill a bit is another thing I need to remind myself constantly while on the forums. ;)

Yeah - I view Orcs and Tieflings as dudes who have dark urges. The urge to kill or harm others. Barring a level of insight into their own behaviour (an Orc could - like Drizzt - see Orc society for what it is and reject it, or be inspired to good deeds via the acts or guidance of others) they're most likely gonna end up hurting people and justifying dark deeds like murder, child liking and genocide.

It's why when I see solutions to 'Orcish evil' such as the murder of orcs, the killing of Orc children and outright genocide put forward as a solution to end Orc 'evil' by the forces of 'good' I raise an eyebrow. Two of them in fact.

Orcs kinda can't help it. They're inclined towards murder and genocide. Humans can help it however. They can choose the higher path and lead by example.

Whose more evil? The critters that kill babies because they must, or the ones that can just as easily choose a higher path - but kill the babies anyway?

-Jynx-

2015-12-01, 11:52 AM

Malifice

2015-12-01, 11:55 AM

I agree very much with this. In fact I would have pegged Jack as LN.

Because he's a 'captain?' Really? The dude is as chaotic as it comes.

But you gave your word!

JS: Yeah... (Shrugs) Pirate! (Proceeds to do the opposite).

He never keeps his word, does what he wants, is a criminal of the highest order (literally a pirate). Aside from accepting a 'pirate captain' rank - what exactly makes Sparrow 'lawful'?

Sith Lords accept a title (Darth) and they're chaptic evil. Clerics of the church of Cyric also. How does a title alone make you 'lawful'?

Joe the Rat

2015-12-01, 12:02 PM

How is Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirate Lord of the Brethren Court, an "anarchist"? His titles and way of life suggest he's not exactly dedicated to non-hierarchical free association -- he's committed to traditional hierarchical organizations with himself in the position of power. Presumably he did not support the mutiny that removed him from command of the Black Pearl on ideological grounds...

You've seen the movies, right? He's not committed to anything, save himself. Hell, none of the Pirate Lords are committed to anything besides their own interests. The impression is that the only reason they follow the Code is because it keeps them from killing each other off, and Keith Richards is that scary. And there may be some influence in the magic tchotchkies binding a sea spirit to their benefit that may require it. How does one become Pirate Lord? Get a Piece of Eight and claim it. Power by acquisition - and by token acquisition (though a magical one) - is fairly chaotic. Order of succession? Command structure beyond what the Lord chooses to enforce? The ability to organize for their greater good? Nope. Catch as catch can. The Captain's authority is the rule, so long as he can hold it, and a bad captain can be ejected by mutiny. Perfectly acceptable.

The thing to keep in mind is that Chaotic Rule, or Chaotic Law, is not an oxymoron. No more than Lawful Decisions or Ordered Change. The order of the day for Chaos is every being for himself, with tradition, or tacit understandings, or a big book of "more like guidelines, really" that gives you a common ground on which to come to terms, however you see fit. Crime and Punishment is more "person we are considering in charge decides who lives and who dies" than "30 talents of silver for an injured servant." Or "what the majority decides" in more democratic formations.

Erk

2015-12-01, 12:06 PM

I think the bottom line is that different people have profoundly different ideas of what defines chaos.

I think you can play a chaotic character who is deeply chaotic yet still adheres to some rules and standards of behaviour, whether it's as a pirate king or an organised criminal, although I'll give you that a lawful character could also get on there.

Basically, I don't think I'm going to find common ground with anyone who could argue jack sparrow is lawful.

-Jynx-

2015-12-01, 12:10 PM

Because he's a 'captain?' Really? The dude is as chaotic as it comes.

But you gave your word!

JS: Yeah... (Shrugs) Pirate! (Proceeds to do the opposite).

He never keeps his word, does what he wants, is a criminal of the highest order (literally a pirate). Aside from accepting a 'pirate captain' rank - what exactly makes Sparrow 'lawful'?

Sith Lords accept a title (Darth) and they're chaptic evil. Clerics of the church of Cyric also. How does a title alone make you 'lawful'?

His strict adherence to the pirate code throughout each movie stands out first. Every mutiny, parley, convening of the pirate lords etc all shows that he follows the code of piracy very much by the letter. The pirate profession itself is a selfish one, but its his choice to stick to the pirate code above all else is what makes him lawful in my mind. His rank has nothing to do with it, however being captain and sticking to the responsibilities that it entails (looking out for crew, going down with the ship, etc.) are all things that Jack does consistently through the movie. Thus lawful, by pirate standards.

Finieous

2015-12-01, 12:19 PM

I agree very much with this. In fact I would have pegged Jack as LN.

I don't think I'd go that far, really, but it's no more a stretch than calling him an "anarchist."

Malifice

2015-12-01, 12:21 PM

His strict adherence to the pirate code throughout each movie stands out first. Every mutiny, parley, convening of the pirate lords etc all shows that he follows the code of piracy very much by the letter. The pirate profession itself is a selfish one, but its his choice to stick to the pirate code above all else is what makes him lawful in my mind. His rank has nothing to do with it, however being captain and sticking to the responsibilities that it entails (looking out for crew, going down with the ship, etc.) are all things that Jack does consistently through the movie. Thus lawful, by pirate standards.

Lawful by pirate standards is chaotic.

Just like Vader (who follows the Sith 'code' of 'do what your anger, fear and hate tell you to do) is chaotic, or a cleric of Cyric is chaotic.

if your code is pretty much 'do what you want, and break every law but this one - don't stitch up other members' (the pirate 'code') or 'do what you want including killing your master which is mandatory - but don't train an apprentice, as there can only ever be two of us (unless I secretly train more myself)' and then you pretty much break those 'rules' anyway, you know what side of the law/ chaos spectrum you're on!

Finieous

2015-12-01, 12:32 PM

Just like Vader (who follows the Sith 'code' of 'do what your anger, fear and hate tell you to do) is chaotic, or a cleric of Cyric is chaotic.

Vader is obviously LE. He serves the Empire. He does what the Emperor tells him to do, though he has considerable latitude to execute his orders as he sees fit. His objective is to crush the (chaotic good) Rebellion as the last resistance to the regime in the galaxy.

KorvinStarmast

2015-12-01, 12:37 PM

alignment change solars and demons Solars and fiends are created a certain way vis a vis good and evil, law and chaos. You are not correct about them being of indeterminate alignment. See the description of alignment in the books for 5e. That one will occasionally change is a rare choice, a non trivial choice, and tends to be associated with a significant emotional event.

As to Chaotic Neutral, let us examine the alignment axis for some insights:

Law-Chaos, Chaotic: laws are for other people. I make my own rules.

Good-Evil: Neutral I'll kill when I need to, and I'll kill for pay in some cases, but I'll choose those cases based on my own rules, my own gut feeling. I take no pleasure in it.

I'll steal sometimes too, but I may also help someone recover stolen goods. Depends on how that feels in my gut. I do what's necessary, but I also don't go out of my way to cause hate and discontent. There's enough of that without me.

A Chatotic Neutral character may have a code, it just doesn't necessarily fit with the code of society in general, or a number of societies.

Again, for CN, rules are for other people.

This makes a CN a good bounty hunter, among other things.

CN probably would make a poor Assassin, as a profession, since turning down some jobs would get the CN a rep as being unreliable in the underground world of murder for hire. Also not gonna be a Guild member. Rules are for other people.

CN makes a good thief who does the occasional bit of wet work. CN isn't a member of the Thieve's Guild, since "rules are for other people" and the Guild wants me to toe the line.

CN makes a GREAT warlock, IMO, spirit of the Fey. CN can make a great sorcerer, in pursuit of raw power. I think V's close to CN, though there was some slip toward evil with that whole make a deal with the fiends for the purposes of revenge/preemption.

CN: look out for number one, means can justify the ends, rules are for other people.

smcmike

2015-12-01, 12:41 PM

If Jack Sparrow is lawful, I hate to imagine someone chaotic.

KorvinStarmast

2015-12-01, 12:41 PM

If Jack Sparrow is lawful, I hate to imagine someone chaotic.Guidelines, not rules. I'd say he cannot be lawful by virtue of his profession.

-Jynx-

2015-12-01, 12:48 PM

Lawful by pirate standards is chaotic.

No, chaotic by pirate standards is chaotic. Lawful pirates are only chaotic by your definition of society.

Just like Vader (who follows the Sith 'code' of 'do what your anger, fear and hate tell you to do) is chaotic, or a cleric of Cyric is chaotic.

Vader acts on his whims. He does not adhere to any code of conduct like Jack does. Does jack still act on impulse? Sure. Put technically everyone does whether they're lawful unlawful good or evil. Vader is top of the food chain though, and he doesn't answer to anyone he makes the rules, calls the shots and does not answer to any preset rules. Jack (and his brother, and I believe their father as well?) all grew up adhering to the pirate code and following it despite their whims.

if your code is pretty much 'do what you want, and break every law but this one - don't stitch up other members' (the pirate 'code') or 'do what you want including killing your master which is mandatory - but don't train an apprentice, as there can only ever be two of us (unless I secretly train more myself)' and then you pretty much break those 'rules' anyway, you know what side of the law/ chaos spectrum you're on!

The pirate code of conduct is definitely a more barbaric one. However just because they don't have tons of laws doesn't mean they don't have their own set of laws that they expect each other to uphold. Rules on becoming captain, mutiny cases, pirate lord meetings, parley, tenants such as "a captain should go down with his ship" and the like do point to at least a foundation of laws that all pirates are expected to uphold.

In fact they have a whole codex (that is fairly large mind you) that you see holding each law kept under the pirate code during the pirate lord meeting. A code that should you break is punishable by death if I'm correct? His brother and father both uphold the pirate code very strictly (according to the movie, in fact Jacks brother is the one in charge of managing the codex of laws) and as evident throughout the movies Jack does as well.

Your mistake is assuming that because its society is different than say a traditional society, and because that societies set of laws is different than what you think a society should uphold that is inherently unlawful. In fact weren't you saying that all Orcs aren't inherently evil? All pirates aren't inherently chaotic. Just chaotic urges. Jack however has always stuck to the pirate code

Edit: A quick google search rendered these known pirate laws according to the codex: Known rules and guidelines of code from the Pirata Codex:

Rule one, befriend others wisely.
The Right of Parlay[1]
Artycle II, Section I, Paragraph VIII (sharing of the spoils)[1]
Artycle II, Section II, Paragraph I (whoever first spotted a treasure-laden ship could choose the best pistol for themselves)[1]
Every crew member is to have an equal share in any treasure found[2]
Any man who falls behind is left behind[2]
An act of war can only be declared by the Pirate King, who would parley with shared adversaries. The King could only be elected by popular vote by all nine Pirate Lords.[6]
Any person who refuses to serve aboard a pirate's ship must die.[8]
Trading for products fair and square mean the seller can do as they like, including resell at profit.[9]
The Code calls for pirates to respect their fellows on the account. Knowingly targeting and sinking other pirate ships is strictly forbidden.[10]
Killing a surrendered enemy is not allowed.[11]

You see contrast in someone like Barbosa who views the laws as more of a guideline (evident by his words). He is a better example of a pirate who is chaotic, Jack has shown much closer adherence to the tenants and follows them as law not guidelines as his family traditionally has.