The infinite obsession of the alignment system (behavioural response chart).

[CNdruid]

Dear all, I was going through my d&d files the other day and found an alignment chart I made months ago based on how characters of different alignments would respond to certain situations. Obviously, a level of class, racial, cultural context would be considered, but here's some of my work.

"A rust monster has gotten into a dwarven armory and is eating all of their smithed weaponry and armor. An adventuring party is asked to slay the beast and save as much of the produced metal goods in exchange for gold."

Lawful good
Follow the orders of apprehending the monster, however remaining reluctant to slay it. Perhaps finding an appropriate use for the monster within the rule of law.

Neutral good
Consider both the side of the dwarf and the monster. Act in consideration of such questions as; is the dwarf poor and struggling to survive without the armoury? Does the monster have ill intent? What is an ideal outcome that will suit all parties?

Chaotic good
Rescue the monster threatened with death by relocating it to an environment where it will receive no immediate harm.

Lawful neutral
Follow the orders and conditions of the contract. Slay the monster and receive the gold.

True Neutral
Consider is the payment worth the trouble?

Chaotic neutral
Relocate the monster to somewhere else beneficial to one’s interests yet perhaps dangerous to all others involved.

Lawful evil
Do as the contract states, even torturing the monster. Observe anything that could cause the dwarf to become vulnerable to legal action in favour of addition profit through blackmail or coercion.

Neutral evil
Slay the monster and take any personal possessions that appeal. Leaving before the discovery is made by the dwarf.

Chaotic evil
Slay the monster than receive the gold than slay the dwarves who may prevent the taking of the spared weaponry and armor.

Disagreement on my views of alignment? Too much time on my hands, or perhaps another comment to make?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Cute as they are, rust monsters are nonsentient animals - unless they're endangered or something, there's no moral reason why a good character should have any more problem with killing one than they do with having chicken for dinner. That's not to say that no good character would have a problem killing it (any more than no good character would have a problem having chicken for dinner), but your average goody-two-shoes Paladin isn't going to be troubled by pest control.

[Foxhound438]

you might want to hide this, the shapeshifting moon lizards might use it as a guide to basic human interaction in order to blend in with our kind. Don't want that to happen, do you?

[Inevitability]

you might want to hide this, the shapeshifting moon lizards might use it as a guide to basic human interaction in order to blend in with our kind. Don't want that to happen, do you?

Please ignore this foolish person, fellow humans. Do we not all know there are no such things as shapeshifting moon lizards? Now, lets talk about how great it is to be warm-blooded.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Please ignore this foolish person, fellow humans. Do we not all know there are no such things as shapeshifting moon lizards? Now, lets talk about how great it is to be warm-blooded.

Indeed, it is so great.

CNdruid, I find your post to be very instructive regarding human morality. Thank you for posting it.

But, seriously, rust monsters are mindless monsters. Unless they're endangered or vital to the local ecosystem, killing this one isn't offensive. Going out and hunting its family in case they break into the armoury later is harder for a good character to justify, but the scenario as-presented is not enough of a quandary to be useful.

[Spiritchaser]

Cute as they are, rust monsters are nonsentient animals


But... Its Edgar, the exceptionally intelligent seeing-eye rust monster!

[Forum Explorer]

Really poor test case. I imagine Rust Monsters are like giant mice to the D&D world. Sure, they're cute and relatively harmless to you physically, but they are still vermin that are a pest to deal with. They might have an important role in the ecosystem, but killing one in an armory isn't really a moral decision at all. Not anymore then putting down a mousetrap is.

[Shaofoo]

Quite frankly trying to think "What would XY alignment do?" is always a bad way to look at things because it is horribly misguided because it only gives you a very narrow scope as to what to do.

Unless the person in the example finds rust monsters to be sacred or is adverse to killing non-evil life then he should have no problems killing a rust monster at all. You seem to be taking the side of the rust monster in consideration for what is good and evil and not the dwarves where killing him will not only stop that rust monster from eatting that armory but also other armories and places filled with metal. You are basically doing the lesser good by letting the rust monster go. (Also it might be less risk for you since you also spare the possibility of your equipment being turned to rust).

In fact I would consider your chaotic neutral example to be the worst kind of evil, because he is basically perpetuating a scam by letting the rust monster go around and eat and then driving him off when there is a bounty and collecting the reward. Sure not as evil as murdering the dwarves but he at least calls himself evil, chaotic neutral guy is ruining people's livelihoods and thinking he is okay.

Also I would like to say that just because a person is of an alignment doesn't mean that he will always act like it. A Chaotic Evil person might kill the dwarves to get their stuff if he could but might not do so because the dwarves can take him on plus the guards and the law coming in. Basically chaotic evil is not stupid evil, if you do anything because of your alignment and only your alignment then you have a poorly made character.


you might want to hide this, the shapeshifting moon lizards might use it as a guide to basic human interaction in order to blend in with our kind. Don't want that to happen, do you?

If the entire human interaction could be summarized in a single page on a fantasy elf game then I say let the lizards take us over, cause we definitely failed as intelligent beings.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Quite frankly trying to think "What would XY alignment do?" is always a bad way to look at things because it is horribly misguided because it only gives you a very narrow scope as to what to do.

That is very true. None of the alignments constrain you to one allowable path. Maybe you could devise a phrasing that is like "a lawful good character is most likely to do X or Y and would feel particularly uncomfortable with Z"?

[RickAllison]

Here's an alternative alignment grid to consider:

NG Fighter: Help the dwarves retain their livelihood while eradicating a pest for others.

NG Druid: Help the rust monster conform to the cycle of nature by eliminating the dependence of dwarves on their metal equipment.

NG Rogue: Befriend the monster and put it in a portable hole to take it somewhere until you can leverage it to better the people through threats to the king.

Same alignment, 3 radically different courses of action because of other character qualities.

[CNdruid]

Cute as they are, rust monsters are nonsentient animals - unless they're endangered or something, there's no moral reason why a good character should have any more problem with killing one than they do with having chicken for dinner. That's not to say that no good character would have a problem killing it (any more than no good character would have a problem having chicken for dinner), but your average goody-two-shoes Paladin isn't going to be troubled by pest control.

I've been thinking lately not so much about dilemmas about killing through not so much a good/evil but but maybe law/chaos dichotomy.

I always thought of lawful, especially lawful good characters as generally being far more open to killing through focus if what they're killing is for a 'good cause' or for the good of society. An enemy that is justified in hating and killing would be the first to go. I also though chaos had a live and let live thing going on, unless something invades their liberties and freedom of expression.

Paladins always make me uncomfortable, I've always felt they personify the judge and execution and will more quickly kill on some moral and social highground then say a true neutral character.

[CNdruid]

Really poor test case. I imagine Rust Monsters are like giant mice to the D&D world. Sure, they're cute and relatively harmless to you physically, but they are still vermin that are a pest to deal with. They might have an important role in the ecosystem, but killing one in an armory isn't really a moral decision at all. Not anymore then putting down a mousetrap is.

Yes I know, I went for the one on the top of the list, I have a few others, a bit less murky and casual.

In reading consideration of that, I get this weird lawful neutral druid vibe going on.

[CNdruid]

Here's an alternative alignment grid to consider:

NG Fighter: Help the dwarves retain their livelihood while eradicating a pest for others.

NG Druid: Help the rust monster conform to the cycle of nature by eliminating the dependence of dwarves on their metal equipment.

NG Rogue: Befriend the monster and put it in a portable hole to take it somewhere until you can leverage it to better the people through threats to the king.

Same alignment, 3 radically different courses of action because of other character qualities.

Yep absolutely, not to even get started on clerics or religious types. Like an NG cleric of Moradin being morereligious aggressive, meanwhile, a NG cleric of selune maybe being more sympathy.. and even then it's a stab in the dark.......

[CNdruid]

Quite frankly trying to think "What would XY alignment do?" is always a bad way to look at things because it is horribly misguided because it only gives you a very narrow scope as to what to do.

Unless the person in the example finds rust monsters to be sacred or is adverse to killing non-evil life then he should have no problems killing a rust monster at all. You seem to be taking the side of the rust monster in consideration for what is good and evil and not the dwarves where killing him will not only stop that rust monster from eatting that armory but also other armories and places filled with metal. You are basically doing the lesser good by letting the rust monster go. (Also it might be less risk for you since you also spare the possibility of your equipment being turned to rust).

In fact I would consider your chaotic neutral example to be the worst kind of evil, because he is basically perpetuating a scam by letting the rust monster go around and eat and then driving him off when there is a bounty and collecting the reward. Sure not as evil as murdering the dwarves but he at least calls himself evil, chaotic neutral guy is ruining people's livelihoods and thinking he is okay.

Also I would like to say that just because a person is of an alignment doesn't mean that he will always act like it. A Chaotic Evil person might kill the dwarves to get their stuff if he could but might not do so because the dwarves can take him on plus the guards and the law coming in. Basically chaotic evil is not stupid evil, if you do anything because of your alignment and only your alignment then you have a poorly made character.



If the entire human interaction could be summarized in a single page on a fantasy elf game then I say let the lizards take us over, cause we definitely failed as intelligent beings.

I've been trying to ponder that for years, is the alignment system more intrinsic or extrinsic, for game purposes clearly it's easier to be extrinsically chaotic evil by acting that way. It seems it becomes a complete caricature of itself. Rather then the character perhaps discovering their alignment (i.e the lawful evil noble that doesn't worship Bane as such but gets a thrill in being a tyrant and but hails Tyr, even though to this character Tyr doesn't suit them. Or the chaotic evil wizard's apprentice, who is a huge fan of his/her master/mistresses intellect and does everything they command out of respect and admiration.

[CNdruid]

Indeed, it is so great.

CNdruid, I find your post to be very instructive regarding human morality. Thank you for posting it.

But, seriously, rust monsters are mindless monsters. Unless they're endangered or vital to the local ecosystem, killing this one isn't offensive. Going out and hunting its family in case they break into the armoury later is harder for a good character to justify, but the scenario as-presented is not enough of a quandary to be useful.

I see, interesting point. I can almost see abilities coming in there, like a lawful character with high Wisdom might be more compelled to do that, then one with low wisdom that is genuinely interested in ending the threat.

[CNdruid]

I can see this getting very philosophical, I read some of my other ones, and they apply alignment as a guideline (as alignment is anyway) and I can almost see them stepping into consideration of the character's race, class etc, then even moving into abilities, for example a LG character with high intelligence would act differently to a LG character with low intelligence, I'd imagine that would be quite a dangerous character.

Meanwhile I can almost see two characters of different alignments acting very similarly, relevant to abilities, for example for whatever circumstances, a chaotic neutral barbarian and a neutral evil druid acting both quite aggressively, but for different underlining reasons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Killing termites, who destroy that which is constructed by humans, is not an evil act.

Killing a rust monster in the context given is a case of calling in your local exterminator to get rid of termites.

Poor test case, and I agree with Shaofoo: using alignment like that is a great way to abuse and misuse alignment in game. Recommend against.