Alignment questions - I make them

[Jon_Dahl]

A character belongs to an organization. All members of the organization work in small groups, and so does the character. Every year the best members of each group are awarded. The character hungers for glory for his team. One of his team members could be eligible for an award, but there is another character in another group who has more credentials for the award. Let's call her Mary. As long as Mary lives, awards seem but a distant dream. This pisses the character off immensely.

The character spends a lot of time and energy investigating Mary. He finds out that Mary once used undead servants that rescued dozens of villagers while she fought against an evil wizard who had been hiding in the village. The use of undead is punishable by death (in the law of the King, not in the law of the organization). The character reveals all this to the authorities with witness statements and undeniable proof. Mary becomes an outlaw and now the character's team has some hope. The leader of the organization is furious with the character, since loyalty among members is one of the principal rules of the organization. The character receives no punishment, however, since the leader doesn't have courage to punish someone for aiding the law.

The character doesn't actually care that much of anyone, but his loyalty is first to his group and second to the organization, and he is willing to sacrifice himself for either if needed. When the group receives honor and glory, his efforts become a lot more visible than when the organization succeeds as a whole. This is one of the primary reasons why he likes his group more than the whole organization; he doesn't want to fade into the background.

[hamishspence]

Getting people outlawed who didn't really deserve to be outlawed, just because they want to personally "stand out" and were feeling upstaged - seems to me at least a step in the Evil direction.

Basically they're harming the many (organization as a whole) to benefit the few (them personally, plus their team).

Sounds like classic Lawful Evil - using laws to benefit the few - and making things worse for the many as a result.

[BaronDoctor]

With characters like this, with the using the law for self-aggrandizing reasons? I default to WWRFS. What Would Red Fel Say? The answer, of course, is Lawful Evil.

[Red Fel]

With characters like this, with the using the law for self-aggrandizing reasons? I default to WWRFS. What Would Red Fel Say? The answer, of course, is Lawful Evil.

It's true. Let's review.

1. What did he do? He reported a law-violator to the lawful authorities. Did he do so for his own personal gain? Absolutely. Was it wrong? Certainly not. But it was selfish, after a fashion.

2. How did he do it? Excessively. Self-promotion isn't Evil. Self-promotion through needless cruelty, however, is. Are there other ways he could have achieved his goal? Possibly. But he decided he could only do it if this person was out of the way. And he did it in such a manner that it hurt the organization as a whole, because one of its principle members has become an outlaw. That reflects a "whatever it takes, whoever it hurts" method of thinking.

3. Why did he do it? Because he wanted to benefit his team. Did it violate the trust of his superiors? Yes. Did it violate the organization's principles? Yes. But he did it out of selfishness and loyalty. Selfishness because the benefits to his team benefit him, loyalty because he wanted to benefit his team.

So, in summary: He used the law to his advantage, in a needlessly cruel and excessive way, out of selfishness and loyalty. Those tell me LE.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm with Hamishspence and Red Fel. This definitely reads as lawful and evil to me. Not necessarily either to a particularly strong degree but definitely that way.

Point against lawful; he betrayed the organization by eliminating a productive member.

Point against evil; he ran his rival off instead of just butchering her and making up a believable story about how she attacked him for discovering her secret.

He could be leaning a lot heavier in both of those directions.

On a personal note, and I think Red Fel will agree, his half-assery in this matter was a mistake. She's not dead and she knows who betrayed her. This -will- come back to bite him.

[Jon_Dahl]

I have to say that I don't agree that the act was evil, but I'm grateful for all the replies so far. Thank you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I have to say that I don't agree that the act was evil, but I'm grateful for all the replies so far. Thank you.

It was a betrayal of someone's trust for personal gain with expected dire, if not deadly, consequences. :smallconfused: how is that -not- evil? It's not puppy-kicking, baby-eating evil but it's still leaning in that general direction.

[Jon_Dahl]

It was a betrayal of someone's trust for personal gain with expected dire, if not deadly, consequences. :smallconfused: how is that -not- evil? It's not puppy-kicking, baby-eating evil but it's still leaning in that general direction.

He did what normal people are expected to do: reveal a heinous crime. 99% of the people would do the same. He just did it for personal gain. A neutral person could do that without being evil. Neutral people should have some leverage to do cloak 'n dagger stuff too!

Listen, if you had two colleagues: one that burdens you a lot and prevents you from pursuing your dreams and another who is ok enough, and you suspected both of embezzlement, and you made a lot of effort to catch the annoying person, would that make you evil? Of course innocent people were involved in the story, but he hurt no one directly. Being a good guy doesn't make one immune to harassment from neutral guys.

What I have learned from this thread is that neutral guys can't fight against good. It's evil. I don't agree, but I'm happy to see that consensus.

[Thaneus]

It is, as always, a mindset which make this guy evil.

Had he uncovered the break of law accidentally while investigating? No, he eagerly searched a way to plum this individual in a worse spot to get the better.
Uncovering the break of law is a lawful act, but what would have been happened when he did not find anything? Murder her?
IMHO a neutral character even a lawful one would first reports this finding to his Superior in the organisation but he choose the best way to let the heads role, which is evil.
How does he feel about this action? Remorse? Certainly not. He laughs, because now his Team has the upper hand.

If it had been a guy without being in the organisation, who find this info and reports this with no further gain or loss, it would have been a jackass lawful act but nonetheless not evil, except he did it out of some sadistic motive to cause individual misery and being happy about this (evil).

In your example the mindset of the character is evil.

[hamishspence]

He did what normal people are expected to do: reveal a heinous crime. 99% of the people would do the same. He just did it for personal gain.

The difference is that the crime is not considered a crime by the organization - only by the kingdom.


The implication is that "use of undead" being punishable by death, is an extremely repressive and unreasonable law - especially when you consider what they were being used for - carrying out a rescue.

The character themselves may not have crossed the line into evil-aligned - but the act fits the definition of betrayal given in BOVD pretty comfortably - and the "for gain" is clear.

[Elkad]

He did what normal people are expected to do: reveal a heinous crime.

There was no crime. There was a law broken, but that isn't the same thing.
If I see a burning orphanage and rush across a street mid-block to save the children, non-evil people don't report me for jaywalking.

[hamishspence]

Or, if your rival in the organization is a Jedi, and you're living under the Galactic Empire - but everyone else in the organization knows it - you shouldn't be turning them in - especially when your only real reason is "they're upstaging me".

[Jon_Dahl]

There was no crime. There was a law broken, but that isn't the same thing.
If I see a burning orphanage and rush across a street mid-block to save the children, non-evil people don't report me for jaywalking.

But it's not jaywalking; it's one if the worst crimes imaginable. The fact that the use of undead is a capital offense is that the immortatily of one's soul is a lot more important that life itself. The character agrees but he really doesn't care that much. Animate Dead is evil. Even though he saved innocent people, undeniable evil was in play. Doesn't that mean anything?

[Keltest]

But it's not jaywalking; it's one if the worst crimes imaginable. The fact that the use of undead is a capital offense is that the immortatily of one's soul is a lot more important that life itself. The character agrees but he really doesn't care that much. Animate Dead is evil. Even though he saved innocent people, undeniable evil was in play. Doesn't that mean anything?

Not really. Per his stated motivations, he didn't do it out of a sense of justice, he did it because he stood to benefit from them being taken out of the picture by the authorities. Whether or not there was actually something wrong with what she did is immaterial, he ratted her out because he stood to gain from it.

[Segev]

Honestly, I'd put this as True Neutral. He used the law of the land to further his own ends, while violating the rules of his organization. He is generally loyal to the organization and specifically loyal to his own group within the organization. He was cruel to Mary, harming her for his own benefit, which IS an evil act, but neutral people can and do perform evil acts. They just don't make a habit of it overall, and they keep their evil within certain bounds. "Reporting somebody's crime when you know it will hurt them" is within those bounds, because it falls into the category of harm you can only cause somebody because they opened themselves up to it with their own "wrong" actions. ("Wrong" here is defined loosely; I am fairly sure you know what I mean, so I won't try to overcorrect with hedging the definition.)

Would an LE person do this? Maybe. But the fact that he had to betray his organization to use the laws of the land against Mary puts a strike against "L" for me. He could be LE and do this, but he'd have to have a greater pattern of legalism and adherence to rules and procedures than is evident here. "Loyalty" is neither Lawful nor Chaotic. It is its own trait, not a factor of any alignment. CE people can be loyal. They just express it in...creative...ways.

The overall pattern and motivations strike me as "selfish, and willing to be mean, but not reveling in cruelty nor stooping to it as a first and primary resort" level of moral alignment. His loyalty is expressed in an appreciation for the rules, and a willingness to use the ones that are most convenient to him while being fast and loose with those less convenient. He hasn't quite shown a willingness to disregard them entirely, so I think he also falls neutral on the ethical axis.

Again, he could slip to NE or LE with a repeated pattern of behaviors like this, but this alone combined with what has been said about his overall tendencies strikes me as a TN individual who has done one of the more reprehensible things that a TN person is wont to do. But just as performing great deeds of noble heroism wouldn't shove him towards Good (even if he means well by them) when he does stuff like this, too... this alone won't shove him towards Evil.

[Pleh]

But it's not jaywalking; it's one if the worst crimes imaginable. The fact that the use of undead is a capital offense is that the immortatily of one's soul is a lot more important that life itself. The character agrees but he really doesn't care that much. Animate Dead is evil. Even though he saved innocent people, undeniable evil was in play. Doesn't that mean anything?

I was trying to type this and was finding it too much work to distinguish between the two characters. I think it could cause confusion, so I'm giving him a fake name for clarity.

Jack is the character in question that reported Mary, the rival who used necromancy.

The real question here is: if we're defining necromancy that you are tormenting or destroying the immortal souls of the dead to animate their corpses, why did Mary inflicting harm on dead people in order to save living people? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a rescue to harm other people to achieve your goal?

That's a bit like shoving an old lady in front of a bus to stop the bus from running over a child.

Exactly what was Mary trying to do or accomplish by hurting some people to spare some other people?

Was Mary just trying to complete their Guild Mission at any cost? "Who cares about the dead souls we're tormenting? We were hired to save these other people. These dead souls trying to rest in peace can suck a lemon."

I'm still trying to get my head around that character's motivations. It still could have been a neutral aligned action if Mary was a good character who felt compelled that there were NO other viable methods for saving the village. She might have been reluctant and/or apologetic, but felt resolved that her use of undead was a less terrible crime than allowing the villagers to die. Whether or not the kingdom agrees with this decision doesn't affect the fact that her alignment depends greatly on whether or not she cared even in the slightest about what she was doing to the dead people she was animating.

It also determines a great deal about whether or not what Jack did to her was just or spiteful. No doubt it was meant spitefully in either case, but punishing her for doing her best in an impossible moral conundrum is a low blow by any standards. She may deserve it, but that doesn't mean she doesn't also deserve leniency from the law or at least to have her judges know the full facts to her case before rendering a sentence.

If she was malicious or even simply callus in her use of Undead, then Jack was doing the Kingdom (and to an extent, the guild) a favor getting rid of someone who commits atrocities in the name of doing good.

However, by your telling of the story, Jack was not doing this as a favor to the Kingdom or to the Guild (even if they might have incidentally benefited from it as well). Jack's motivation was the direct profit of himself and his team. Regardless Mary's motivations, Jack's primary motivation was finding an excuse to get his rival out of his way, regardless of the cost to his rival, his guild, and the kingdom (the fact that his solution happened to benefit others was just a perk that made it easier to pull off). This was still self-advancement at the expense of others, no matter how legal or how much good it accomplishes in the world.

His motives were evil, even if his methods were good and just. He lacked any kind of empathy with the people he was harming, just in the same way that Mary lacked sufficient empathy with the dead people that she was harming by commanding them to rescue the villagers.

You are within the bounds of reason to rule that Jack's behavior falls within the True Neutral description based on a balance of good and evil/law and chaos, but most people would argue that this activity leans very strongly in the evil and lawful behavior.

[hamishspence]

But it's not jaywalking; it's one if the worst crimes imaginable.

To that king, yes - but not to the organization, and possibly not to the Cosmic Forces of the Alignments, either. It may be "undeniably evil, but low level evil".

Presumably Mary, committing the [evil] act of animating undead, for Good reasons, is Neutral (we know that even Dread Necromancers, a class specialising in undead-related [Evil] spells, can be Neutral, from Heroes of Horror).

[Barstro]

If are looking at just the fact that he turned in another player to the authorities for his own personal gain, against the edicts of his organization, that I go with;

Chaotic. Either Neutral or Evil. With everything else he does, it's probably on the Evil side.

Using the law does not make someone Lawful. Instead, a particular law was a tool that he used in order to circumvent the other laws that he holds more dearly.


his loyalty is first to his group and second to the organization
If the group has a rule among themselves that they will do everything possible to help each other, and he was relying on that for his action, I'd almost argue lawful. But that was not the case.
His next loyalty is to the organization. That organization has a seemingly set stricture that would have rewarded Mary. Rather than allow this, the person hurt the organization by effectively removing a valuable member for his own personal gains. I can think of very little that is more chaotic than harming others and hurting the net value of something you claim to be part of just for personal gain.

The above argument is based on my personal view that Intent is paramount in alignment. It has been stated in the past that D&D is about Action and not Intent and, thus, my arguments are invalid.

[Schattenbach]

I would say Neutral (leaning more towards Chaotic than Lawful, though) Evil due to excessive pragmatism and shacky moral standards.

[hamishspence]

The above argument is based on my personal view that Intent is paramount in alignment. It has been stated in the past that D&D is about Action and not Intent and, thus, my arguments are invalid.

Intent may not be paramount - but it does matter. [Evil] acts with Good intentions, according to Heroes of Horror, fit with the "flexible Neutral" sort of character.

And going by BOED, a normally good act, that is done with the intent of profiting from it, becomes Neutral.

[Falcon X]

Obviously in the Lawful realm, though not an extremist. With everything else you've said, I'm going to go with Lawful Evil, but not not an extremist.

Lawful Evil is defined by having rules but actively trying to find the loopholes.
A few quotes:
From mimir.net (http://mimir.net/essays/morals.html), a planescape site.
Work to advance yourself in society. Use the laws to aid you, and punish those who do you wrong. Look after number one, and use any means you can to further your own interests. Break laws if you dare, for there are others like you who will use whatever they can against you. Conform, and make sure others do as well, for your own good. If they cheat, make sure you catch them first! Grind them beneath your feet once you have finished with them. Follow your laws to the letter, not the spirit - so long as you do not break them you are safe. There is an advantage in every situation, and every law has its loophole. Find them!

From Salvatore's "Homeland (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50027.Homeland)" on the most famous LE society:
“Station is the paradox of the world of my people, the limitation of our power within the hunger for power. It is gained through treachery and invites treachery against those who gain it. Those most powerful in Menzoberranzan spend their days watching over their shoulders, defending against the daggers that would find their backs. Their deaths usually come from the front." -Drizzt Do'Urden”
Or the full poem called "Station" on about page 7 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=5ZooHN4bxVIC&pg=PT7&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Barstro]

Lawful Evil is defined by having rules but actively trying to find the loopholes.
If that's RAW, then I can back Lawful Evil.

I suppose he IS trying to have the rules help him. As opposed to a purely Chaotic person who's mantra is "it never matters what the law says".

I suppose that in the universal view, he is Chaotic, but to himself he is lawful. Like a Kender who believes that if it isn't nailed down then it is up for grabs.

[Pleh]

I suppose that in the universal view, he is Chaotic, but to himself he is lawful. Like a Kender who believes that if it isn't nailed down then it is up for grabs.

... Eh.

I understand the appeal of argument for chaos since he went against his Guild leaders and marches to the beat of his own drum.

But arguing that a character that follows their own personal code to the disregard of common laws among the people makes him chaotic is a bit shady in logic. The fact that a person devotes themselves to ANY code of conduct or philosophy of life rather indicates a healthy degree of lawfulness to their alignment.

True chaotic alignments do not concern themselves with codes of conduct and just follow their whims and intuition. They are free spirits who do good as an overflow of the goodness within themselves and they do evil to indulge in their darker desires. They don't go out of their way to manipulate systems of governance to advance themselves. They'd be more likely to strike out on their own and make things happen with their own hands.

Because chaotic characters tend to worry less about the system or consequences of their actions and tend to do what they feel is best in whatever context they happen to find themselves in. It's the lawful characters who carefully analyze their situations and try to develop solutions to their problems separate from their instinctive impulses.

I should think that MOST lawful evil characters march to the beat of their own drum. They obey the laws in as much as it profits them to do so and break them in as far as they can get away with it, because ultimately their greatest law they follow is "look out for number 1." Any law they can break to advance themselves isn't a demonstration of chaotic behavior, because they take the time to justify their subversion of the system.

This is different from Neutral characters, who might typically follow laws because it is the path of least resistance and then break them when compelled to do so, citing their only justification being their lack of alternative, while chaotic characters would commonly cite their justification being that they are free beings that have no need to observe the arbitrary restrictions of society.

Lawful characters justify breaking rules as a means to a greater end.

[Karl Aegis]

Chaotic Stupid. You haven't gotten closer to your goal of someone else within your group being awarded by removing someone not competing for "Best Member(s) within the Group". They aren't within your group so they cannot be a "Best Member within the Group". You've gone out of your way to make someone look bad (to the point they may be killed) and maybe you've gone out of your way to make yourself look bad. It's a complicated scheme to drag yourself down in the rankings (without moving your team member up) at best, or a pointless endeavor at worst. You may have dragged your entire team down with you in the group's rankings with you, making the entire thing counter-productive.

You need to have your team member move up in the group's rankings to "Best" if you want to accomplish your goal. Becoming "Worst" does not help you do that. Think your plans through more thoroughly next time.

Unless the entire organization is a complicated scheme by a lich or a dragon or something to get paladins to fall. Then you should probably get out of there as fast as you can.

[Coidzor]

...I feel like I'm noticing a theme in your player's characters and your NPCs here, Jon_Dahl.

Might be time for some variety instead of just having a lot of wormy ***** running around in your campaign world(s).


But it's not jaywalking; it's one if the worst crimes imaginable.

lolwut.

No, no it isn't. Torturing a living person is far worse than animating a corpse as a mindless undead, even if you're going with the Crawling Darkness interpretation of necromancy or casting Command Undead to hoist a necromancer by his own petard by having his own minions act against him.

Animating a zombie and then destroying it once you're done with it doesn't even register in the same ballpark of harm without some seriously silly and deliberate setting construction.


He did what normal people are expected to do: reveal a heinous crime. 99% of the people would do the same. He just did it for personal gain. A neutral person could do that without being evil. Neutral people should have some leverage to do cloak 'n dagger stuff too!

Cloak and dagger, sure. Frivolously betray one's organization for accolades by proxy that are unlikely to actually come your way due to your actions being connected to you. Being a **** who disrupts team hero and makes it less able to do its job moves one away from wearing a white hat.


Listen, if you had two colleagues: one that burdens you a lot and prevents you from pursuing your dreams and another who is ok enough, and you suspected both of embezzlement, and you made a lot of effort to catch the annoying person, would that make you evil? Of course innocent people were involved in the story, but he hurt no one directly. Being a good guy doesn't make one immune to harassment from neutral guys.

That's what we like to call a false equivalence. The situation in the OP and the situation you're presenting here are fundamentally different.


What I have learned from this thread is that neutral guys can't fight against good. It's evil. I don't agree, but I'm happy to see that consensus.

That's on you if that's your takeaway.

[Falcon X]

If that's RAW, then I can back Lawful Evil.

I suppose he IS trying to have the rules help him. As opposed to a purely Chaotic person who's mantra is "it never matters what the law says".

I suppose that in the universal view, he is Chaotic, but to himself he is lawful. Like a Kender who believes that if it isn't nailed down then it is up for grabs.
I'm not sure it is said explicitely, but every bit of anecdotal evidence of LE societies points towards it. Drow society is the most famous, but it's also how the devils work.
Ever hear a story about a person summoning and making a contract with a devil. 9/10ths of the time it backfires because of some wording in the contract. Devils follow the law to the letter, not the spirit of the law. That's how LE devils are presented in D&D too.

The most classic (Gygaxian) view of the chaotic alignment has very little to do with stealing.
The lawful-chaotic spectrum is about where you put your focus. Lawful people hold that structure and order to society are necessary to survive, while chaotic people focus on the rights of individuals.
This article (http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step004.html#Alignment) is from AD&D, but Gygax was known to link to it.

In that sense, I think a Kender could be lawful, within their own society, if thier thievish actions were part of a formalized way that the Kender run their societies (I don't know if that is the case).
- To counter this, someone might say "Kender are presented as CG in the monster manual." To which I would reply, "It's all about perspective. The Monster Manual is written from the perspective of a True Neutral adventurer in a normal, human society. To us, and most of the universe, they are chaotic."

[Beneath]

First off, I'm surprised that an organization that clearly demands loyalty from its members and differs with the crown on some major points of law doesn't punish snitches.

Second, the "is snitching a lawful or chaotic act" question is probably unanswerable. It's pretty clearly betraying someone for his own personal glory (or, okay, that of someone close to him, but close enough), so if you define Lawful as acting cohesively then it's chaotic. If you define it as acting consistently then it can be chaotic or lawful depending on whether the character tends to snitch, but considering that he probably would have kept quiet if this weren't in the way of getting his friend an award I'd say it's chaotic too. If you define lawful as acting in accord with some form of big-L Law, then it's probably lawful unless the organization is more Lawful than the crown.

Personally, if I were writing a campaign where whether someone's aligned with law or chaos was important, I'd have some kind of fundamental cosmic law, and lawful actions would be in accord with that. I'd probably use a literal divine right of kings there (as in, the cosmic law that defines the lawful alignment has specific laws defining the rights and responsibilities of a king and who qualifies to be one) if I wanted a monarchy. At least that way alignment questions have a clear-ish answer. Under that system snitching is a Lawful act as long as the small-l law in question was Lawfully made.

Undoubtedly, I'd say that since he can't claim moral outrage over the necromancy, he hurt someone who was helping other people for selfish reasons, which means it is probably evil.

Though I tend to favor alignment systems that are either "who are you trying to be" or "whose side are you on" (which is what the word "alignment" actually means) than individually morally weighing each action, and I'd be more concerned immediately about how the organization reacts to a snitch in their ranks who neutralized their top operative (even in the absence of formal punishment she's gotta have friends, or the organization leaders must be upset that they've lost an operative even if they're not willing to directly oppose the crown, and the entire rest of the organization will probably at least distrust him over this) than consequences for this person's alignment. Even governments that make the law tend not to have a very high tolerance for snitches in their ranks.

[hamishspence]

I'd be more concerned immediately about how the organization reacts to a snitch in their ranks who neutralized their top operative (even in the absence of formal punishment she's gotta have friends, or the organization leaders must be upset that they've lost an operative even if they're not willing to directly oppose the crown, and the entire rest of the organization will probably at least distrust him over this) than consequences for this person's alignment. Even governments that make the law tend not to have a very high tolerance for snitches in their ranks.

Wouldn't surprise me if the "team member who is now in line for the award" is the most outraged- if they know it's themselves that the snitch's snitching is intended to benefit - feeling that they'd rather lose than "win by default".

Reaction would be typical for those discovering their friend is a Poisonous Friend (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoisonousFriend).

[Flickerdart]

I would go for Chaotic Evil. This guy clearly doesn't give a damn about his organization - Mary wasn't just good, she was clearly the best, and he threw her under the bus. He weakened the organization just so one of his friends could get a shiny trophy for the mantel.

[Keltest]

I'm not sure it is said explicitely, but every bit of anecdotal evidence of LE societies points towards it. Drow society is the most famous, but it's also how the devils work.

Unless youre thinking of different Drow than I am, Drow Society is chaotic evil, held together by threat of violence from significantly more powerful beings who enjoy watching it teeter on the edge of oblivion at any given moment, without falling off entirely.

[Pleh]

Unless youre thinking of different Drow than I am, Drow Society is chaotic evil, held together by threat of violence from significantly more powerful beings who enjoy watching it teeter on the edge of oblivion at any given moment, without falling off entirely.

Dunno about that. Probably the quint essential definitions of CE and LE societies are found in demon and devil culture. CE demons have no organization or structure and are in perpetual free for all war with themselves and everyone else both for the reward to do whatever they want and the reward that the fight is exactly what they want. LE devil society forms a hierarchy and lower rank Devils are subservient to the higher rank masters, but are always looking to stab someone in the back to climb the ranks.

In chaotic society, anarchy reigns amd each citizen is king of all that they can forcefully maintain control of.

In lawful society, authority is recognized and exploited to gain favor or influence without necessarily applying force.

[Red Fel]

Dunno about that. Probably the quint essential definitions of CE and LE societies are found in demon and devil culture. CE demons have no organization or structure and are in perpetual free for all war with themselves and everyone else both for the reward to do whatever they want and the reward that the fight is exactly what they want. LE devil society forms a hierarchy and lower rank Devils are subservient to the higher rank masters, but are always looking to stab someone in the back to climb the ranks.

In chaotic society, anarchy reigns amd each citizen is king of all that they can forcefully maintain control of.

In lawful society, authority is recognized and exploited to gain favor or influence without necessarily applying force.

Keltest is right, though. Despite being an absolutely terrible example of CE, Drow society is explicitly CE.

It makes about as much sense as the Succubus Paladin. But it's RAW.

Drow live in a rigidly matriarchal, ruthlessly opportunistic society full of inflexible rules and boundaries, where the strong and cunning exploit the weak and stupid for their personal gain, in a system designed to cultivate precisely that behavior. And they are explicitly, generally, CE. (Oddly, the sample Drow Warrior on the SRD is listed as "usually neutral evil." But as a race, generally CE.)

My point - RAW also says that drowning people heals them. It makes no sense and is a bad example.

[Flickerdart]

Drow live in a rigidly matriarchal, ruthlessly opportunistic society full of inflexible rules and boundaries, where the strong and cunning exploit the weak and stupid for their personal gain, in a system designed to cultivate precisely that behavior. And they are explicitly, generally, CE.
Drow live in a rigidly matriarchal, ruthlessly opportunistic society full of inflexible rules and boundaries forced onto them by Lolth because she finds it amusing. That's a very different kettle of fish than a "true" LE society that creates and perpetuates its own law.

[Coidzor]

On second thought, let's not go to MenzoBerenstainBearzan, 'tis a silly place.

[Keltest]

Dunno about that. Probably the quint essential definitions of CE and LE societies are found in demon and devil culture. CE demons have no organization or structure and are in perpetual free for all war with themselves and everyone else both for the reward to do whatever they want and the reward that the fight is exactly what they want. LE devil society forms a hierarchy and lower rank Devils are subservient to the higher rank masters, but are always looking to stab someone in the back to climb the ranks.

In chaotic society, anarchy reigns amd each citizen is king of all that they can forcefully maintain control of.

In lawful society, authority is recognized and exploited to gain favor or influence without necessarily applying force.

Drow society is pretty definitely in favor of the 'you have as much power as you can maintain control of" approach. The fact that there is a small subset of individuals within that society who maintain enough power to slap down people who get more than they approve of doesn't really affect that. Or rather, it does affect that, but not the underlying society that structure is built on. Heck, its even explicitly in their laws that anything you can get away with is perfectly legal, even if everyone and their cats know you did it.


Drow live in a rigidly matriarchal, ruthlessly opportunistic society full of inflexible rules and boundaries forced onto them by Lolth because she finds it amusing. That's a very different kettle of fish than a "true" LE society that creates and perpetuates its own law.

Indeed. In a couple books, Lolth has to go so far as to say "Thou Shalt Not Kill, because there aren't enough of you left to afford that" while they rebuild their infrastructure from a rather disastrous war. Drow society explicitly only holds together because Lolth puts effort into holding it together.

[Segev]

Keltest is right, though. Despite being an absolutely terrible example of CE, Drow society is explicitly CE.

It makes about as much sense as the Succubus Paladin. But it's RAW.

Drow live in a rigidly matriarchal, ruthlessly opportunistic society full of inflexible rules and boundaries, where the strong and cunning exploit the weak and stupid for their personal gain, in a system designed to cultivate precisely that behavior. And they are explicitly, generally, CE. (Oddly, the sample Drow Warrior on the SRD is listed as "usually neutral evil." But as a race, generally CE.)

My point - RAW also says that drowning people heals them. It makes no sense and is a bad example.

Honestly, I view the "rigid rules" as utterly hypocritical. They are enforced only when somebody can do so. The rules include a massive (barely unspoken) caveat of "if you get caught." If you can wink-and-nod that "everyone knows" that House Backstabbitoir broke every single rule Lolth laid out to claim an extra seat on the Matriarchs' Council, but nobody can prove it (and anybody who tries mysteriously winds up dying of natural causes - like a dagger in the back), nothing will be done about it. In fact, they will be a feared and respected House. If Lolth knows you cheated, but she decides she likes you, you will be rewarded for it. If she decides she doesn't, you will be punished. So the rule there really is "get on Lolth's favored side." (It's questionable if she has a 'good' side.)

The only rules that actually matter are that you LOOK like you're following the rules, and that you don't piss off Lolth. Appease Lolth, or better yet, please Lolth, and you can get away with anything you like, as long as nobody has the guts to call you on it.

In fact, I think their rigid rules have deliberate catch-22s in them. It is literally impossible to follow all of them. That way, everybody is guilty of something and there's always an excuse to murder them "in the name of Lolth." All you have to do is figure out which mutually contradictory rule they're breaking (hint: it's probably both of them, but good luck finding enough proof if you're not able to already beat them).

Put another way: the rules are there to justify the CE infighting after the fact. The winner names the "crimes" the loser committed to justify their actions. It is only a particularly STUPID drow (or House) which does something that provides a rival an excuse to call out a broken rule so undeniably that they can gather allies based solely on it. More likely, if a House is calling another out on that, they're extremely confident in their pre-announcement negotiations with the other Houses, and that they've got agreement that this charge is what they're all using as their fig leaf to violate Lolth's stricture against inter-House warfare.

[Pleh]

Okay, so Drow society is a generally CE population being compelled to conduct themselves in a pseudo lawful manner because

A. They're mortal and can't just do the demon thing and survive.

B. Lolth is sadistic as well as shrewd and enjoys perverting both the nature of the Drow as well as mocking the concept of Justice and morality.

They are the world’s most cultured and refined form of CE.

[Jon_Dahl]

What if the character (Jack) had been LN or NE? What would have he done then?

[Barstro]

What if the character (Jack) had been LN or NE? What would have he done then?

LN: Probably nothing. The rules of his organization would have rewarded the person they were established to reward.
NE: I think he would have behaved as he did. Or perhaps done something that would not have hurt the organization quite so much as losing one of its best members. I see more of a blackmail situation than what actually occurred.

[Pleh]

Alignments and behaviors are a bit flexible, so a LN or NE character could have done everything Jack did. It might have been more fringe behavior for such characters.

But to answer the question, a more traditional LN character might have taken the case to his Guild leaders instead of to the crown (assuming they didn't already know). The Guild could then be legally compelled to report the member themselves. If they refuse, Jack might feel compelled to then take it to the crown, depending on if the guild leaders tried to forbid him from doing so. At the point of conflict, it would come down to which law takes precedence, the crown or the guild.

NE fits the behavior just fine, as some laws were ignored in favor of more profitable laws, but a stronger NE mentality might have gone the extra step to really stick it to Mary, setting her up to get caught so she doesn't escape.

[Novolin]

Okay, so Drow society is a generally CE population being compelled to conduct themselves in a pseudo lawful manner because

A. They're mortal and can't just do the demon thing and survive.

B. Lolth is sadistic as well as shrewd and enjoys perverting both the nature of the Drow as well as mocking the concept of Justice and morality.

They are the world’s most cultured and refined form of CE.

What is the demon thing?

[Pleh]

What is the demon thing?

Demon society in their layer of hell.