Pathfinder What alignment is this? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JeenLeen

2018-04-11, 04:03 PM

Since goals are geared towards eroding the social norms, I would argue against lawful. They are willing to work within lawful constructs, but in the end want to do away with them.

"Maximize own welfare within social norms" seems nongood, with evil limited only by social norms. I would say lawful except for the already stated endgoal.

CN or CE seem possible, although being willing to adhere to the societal norms probably rules out the Chaotic.

So, in the end, I think N or NE.

Zombulian

2018-04-11, 04:12 PM

Sounds Lawful Neutral/Evil to me. It would really depend on your actions from there.

Psyren

2018-04-11, 05:01 PM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.

So "I follow the letter of the law until I can get it changed for my benefit?"

Sounds LN/LE depending on how far you're willing to go for your own benefit.

Segev

2018-04-11, 05:09 PM

IS this erosion meant to make room to alter them into laws/norms he likes better, or is it meant to strip them away and make for a less hidebound/conservative society?

denthor

2018-04-11, 05:11 PM

PacMan2247

2018-04-11, 05:44 PM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.

Not really enough here to put a label other than "free-market capitalist" on it.

Are you willing to cause harm to other people in pursuit of your own welfare? That'd be evil. Are you willing to accept that in your pursuit, but attempt to avoid it? Pretty neutral. Do you seek to maximize your personal welfare by improving the situation of everyone in your society? That's good.

Are you eroding those norms with the intent of developing others, more suitable to you, to take their place? Probably lawful. Are you doing it because you think the resulting instability will suit you better? Chaotic. Since this is an active decision to break down the existing social structure, I don't think there's likely to be neutrality on the law/chaos axis.

Zhentarim

2018-04-11, 06:00 PM

Not really enough here to put a label other than "free-market capitalist" on it.

Are you willing to cause harm to other people in pursuit of your own welfare? That'd be evil. Are you willing to accept that in your pursuit, but attempt to avoid it? Pretty neutral. Do you seek to maximize your personal welfare by improving the situation of everyone in your society? That's good.

Are you eroding those norms with the intent of developing others, more suitable to you, to take their place? Probably lawful. Are you doing it because you think the resulting instability will suit you better? Chaotic. Since this is an active decision to break down the existing social structure, I don't think there's likely to be neutrality on the law/chaos axis.

lawful good in that case.

I think the only sustainable way for me to build mountains of wealth is to do it in a way thats win-win for both me and society at large. Also, while my ideal laws are going to be fewer in number and simpler, I would create new laws, albeit laws that are fewer in number and less likely to get in the way of what I want for myself and society. Really, the only laws this character accepts are those that prevent citizens killing each other on purpose without cause, prevent theft, and prevent vandalism of the property of others. And thats the entire legal code...no need for lawyers.

Zhentarim

2018-04-11, 06:10 PM

Ok questions

If a small but wealthy village is under attack. There defense is holding but slowly going away.

Do you :

A. Help?
1. If you help. Do you ask for the moon before doing so?
2. Go forth thinking they will be fair?

3. Demand a contract with spelled out terms and payment? Then keep only to the contract

a. The contract calls for the general to be killed head returned. You kill general collect payment while the army proceeds to dismantle the gate

B. You are in a tavern you are done and find no one has taken your coin. How do you react.

C. Will give mercy if asked?

D. Will you help someone working with if you can not stand them

A) I’ll help, but will accept no less than a platinum per hour of service. If I know they can afford it, you bet I’m getting my money. Also, I will demand that binding contract before starting.

B) I’d sense somebody may be watching. Better safe than sorry.

C) It depends. What did they do and can I use them?

D) Yes, mutual aid and assistance is part of any deal.

PacMan2247

2018-04-11, 06:20 PM

lawful good in that case.

I think the only sustainable way for me to build mountains of wealth is to do it in a way thats win-win for both me and society at large. Also, while my ideal laws are going to be fewer in number and simpler, I would create new laws, albeit laws that are fewer in number and less likely to get in the way of what I want for myself and society. Really, the only laws this character accepts are those that prevent citizens killing each other on purpose without cause, prevent theft, and prevent vandalism of the property of others. And thats the entire legal code...no need for lawyers.

A) I’ll help, but will accept no less than a platinum per hour of service. If I know they can afford it, you bet I’m getting my money. Also, I will demand that binding contract before starting.

B) I’d sense somebody may be watching. Better safe than sorry.

C) It depends. What did they do and can I use them?

D) Yes, mutual aid and assistance is part of any deal.

These two responses are directly at odds with one another. Based on your answers to denthor's questions, we're talking about an aggressively mercenary character (with what appear to be deeply unreasonable economic expectations). Lawful is not out of the question, but usurious rates for assistance definitely push this from neutral into evil.

Kelb_Panthera

2018-04-11, 06:24 PM

lawful good in that case.

I think the only sustainable way for me to build mountains of wealth is to do it in a way thats win-win for both me and society at large. Also, while my ideal laws are going to be fewer in number and simpler, I would create new laws, albeit laws that are fewer in number and less likely to get in the way of what I want for myself and society. Really, the only laws this character accepts are those that prevent citizens killing each other on purpose without cause, prevent theft, and prevent vandalism of the property of others. And thats the entire legal code...no need for lawyers.

A) I’ll help, but will accept no less than a platinum per hour of service. If I know they can afford it, you bet I’m getting my money. Also, I will demand that binding contract before starting.

B) I’d sense somebody may be watching. Better safe than sorry.

C) It depends. What did they do and can I use them?

D) Yes, mutual aid and assistance is part of any deal.

Sounds pretty firmly LN now.

The character clearly respects the rule of law as a concept and while you very clearly have a "lookin' out for number one" attitude you're trying not to stomp on anyone else to get ahead. That's lawful neutral to a T.

Zhentarim

2018-04-11, 06:43 PM

These two responses are directly at odds with one another. Based on your answers to denthor's questions, we're talking about an aggressively mercenary character (with what appear to be deeply unreasonable economic expectations). Lawful is not out of the question, but usurious rates for assistance definitely push this from neutral into evil.

“a platinum is too high? hmmm...I’m feeling generous. How is 5 gold a day? Take it or leave it.”

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/goods-and-services/hirelings-servants-services/

Zombulian

2018-04-11, 06:47 PM

A) I’ll help, but will accept no less than a platinum per hour of service. If I know they can afford it, you bet I’m getting my money. Also, I will demand that binding contract before starting.

B) I’d sense somebody may be watching. Better safe than sorry.

C) It depends. What did they do and can I use them?

D) Yes, mutual aid and assistance is part of any deal.

I'm not sure you know what Good means.

Zhentarim

2018-04-11, 06:48 PM

I'm not sure you know what Good means.

I’m not willing to lower my standard of living.

Zombulian

2018-04-11, 06:50 PM

I’m not willing to lower my standard of living.

Then you are neutral.

Zhentarim

2018-04-11, 06:52 PM

Then you are neutral.

thats fine

axis seems lovely

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-11, 07:35 PM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.

Lacks pertinent data.

-Do you seek to maximize at the expense of others?
-Do you want to replace social norms with a system of your choosing?
-Do you want to prove that social norms only hold people back?
-Is it only cheating if you get caught?

As written, this character could be literally any non-lawful alignment.

DMVerdandi

2018-04-11, 09:31 PM

Chaotic Neutral.

Here is my reasoning. Generally your character wants Liberties over Structure. The freedom to exercise your own will over the world with the least limits possible. THAT is chaotic. Now what is it you want to do with those liberties

Help others first, be morally upstanding, socially positive [Good]

Hurt others, disenfranchise, Socially negative(Antagonistic or predatory) [Evil]

Enrich oneself; Egoism, self-fulfilling, socially moderate [Neutral]

Now, even though the veneer of being "win-win" for you and society is the justification for attemtping to abolish the law, nothing has said or proven that the laws being in place are at any point unjust, or that society isn't comfortable with those laws.
In a fallen state with tyrannical and hated laws, you would be seen as a vanguard and revolutionary for liberty.
In a secure and relatively happy state, you would be seen as a rabble-rouser, and possibly partisan psychopath since the supermajority is comfortable with the rule. These factors also change with:

1. The level of technological advancement in the state. [Magic being a supernaturally fueled technology; How common is it/What is the level of the general user]
2.The level of possible risk and crime in the state, especially with a barebones legal system
3.The density of the population
4.The amount of laws that interfere with personal liberty/autonomy, the scope of the laws, and the harshness of the punishments.
5. The Economic and Political system of that government/Age of the regime

He is not "good", since altruism isn't the primary drive, nor does it seem even secondary, but tertiary. Social good being a justification for attitude rather than reason.

He is not "lawful", since even while he "obeys" the law, it is out of convenience, rather than having an affinity for infrastructure, rule, or laws. In fact, character wants a minimalist state, which again focuses on liberty, which is chaotic.

So depending on how much the public loves the state as is, he is either chaotic neutral at best, and chaotic evil at worst.

Elkad

2018-04-11, 09:45 PM

Do you stay within social norms because you feel it's right? Or because you fear getting caught? (even if it's not illegal, it may have social consequences)

Example.
Driving the speed limit, while advocating for higher speed limits.
Do you do the speed limit out of fear of citations? Or because it's the law (which probably makes you one of those terrible people who deliberately block the fast lane to keep anyone else from speeding either), and it's safer for everyone to go the same speed.

Fear of consequences is probably chaotic still. Following the law because it's the law (or worse, imposing the law on everyone) is lawful.

Zombulian

2018-04-11, 09:59 PM

He is not "good", since altruism isn't the primary drive, nor does it seem even secondary, but tertiary. Social good being a justification for attitude rather than reason.

He is not "lawful", since even while he "obeys" the law, it is out of convenience, rather than having an affinity for infrastructure, rule, or laws. In fact, character wants a minimalist state, which again focuses on liberty, which is chaotic.

So depending on how much the public loves the state as is, he is either chaotic neutral at best, and chaotic evil at worst.

This is a good case. Eroding social norms within socially sanctioned methods does seem a bit tricky on the law/chaos axis though.

DMVerdandi

2018-04-11, 11:04 PM

This is a good case. Eroding social norms within socially sanctioned methods does seem a bit tricky on the law/chaos axis though.

I think it seems tricky, but it's just long game politics being played.
One can be within a system, and do everything to reduce it to only the sparsest of constituent parts.
For example, some people buy companies just to shut them down.

It's the same. He is only temporarily working within the system to cause it to fall. His Short term actions "seem" lawful, but his long term actions and intentions are anything but. Or rather, the description would be "Systems/traditions/infrastructure oriented".

Lawful as an alignment term is kind of wonky. The thought that they are trying to evoke is Order. I can break the law and create order, or I can cause disorder by manipulating/abusing the law. It makes for an idea that someone who is chaotic is Criminal, but that isn't necessarily the case. They aren't inherently stupid. Perhaps they simply act within all degrees of their freedom, and want more, but don't HAVE more, so they only act within those degrees.

Feantar

2018-04-11, 11:10 PM

This is a good case. Eroding social norms within socially sanctioned methods does seem a bit tricky on the law/chaos axis though.

The most important question here is why. Does he erode social norms to bring about a different structured society, because he thinks these specific norms are harmful, or because he believes that social norms, in and of themselves, are harmful? In the first case, that's lawful, in the second that's neutral and in the third, that's chaotic. Intent is fundamental to understand alignment.

Also, pretty important. Does he just wish to do these things or does he actually attempt them? If he's just daydreaming, he's probably true neutral.

From your above responses, he is either neutral or evil in the good/evil axis. He is not good because he seems to refuse self-sacrifice (See your living standards comment). I don't know if you'd go far enough to be evil though.

jqavins

2018-04-12, 12:11 AM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.1) Squeezes own benefit out of existing law, and benefitting others on the way is good too, but secondary. 2) Seeks to change law so as to increase benefit to self while adhering to 1.

Republican.

Nightcanon

2018-04-12, 05:16 PM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.
Depends what the social norms are, and who agreed them. A slave in a LE society who seeks to erode slavery motivated primarily by self-interest, and does so within the law, could be described in such a way. Covert magic user in a society in which magic is feared and distrusted. Gay character in a homophobic but otherwise relatively progressive d20 modern setting working within the rules of that society to change things, primarily for himself. Or indeed as others have suggested, the classic scheming LE Grand Vizier type undermining a just, LG King.

Zhentarim

2018-04-12, 05:43 PM

Depends what the social norms are, and who agreed them. A slave in a LE society who seeks to erode slavery motivated primarily by self-interest, and does so within the law, could be described in such a way. Covert magic user in a society in which magic is feared and distrusted. Gay character in a homophobic but otherwise relatively progressive d20 modern setting working within the rules of that society to change things, primarily for himself. Or indeed as others have suggested, the classic scheming LE Grand Vizier type undermining a just, LG King.

The way I imagine the character, he just plain wants to get rid of as much of the ruling class as possible. He is VERY ambitious, drawing from Magic the Gathering’s “Black”, but he does not enjoy seeing others suffer and is chiefly preoccupied with laws he views as more oppressive and useless, and working his way down from there. Note that my character can do this in a kingdom or a democracy, but there is more trickery and intrigue going on in less democratic settings.

Doctor Awkward

2018-04-12, 05:54 PM

The way I imagine the character, he just plain wants to get rid of as much of the ruling class as possible. He is VERY ambitious, drawing from Magic the Gathering’s “Black”, but he does not enjoy seeing others suffer and is chiefly preoccupied with laws he views as more oppressive and useless, and working his way down from there. Note that my character can do this in a kingdom or a democracy, but there is more trickery and intrigue going on in less democratic settings.

Chaotic good

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

jqavins

2018-04-12, 11:13 PM

Chaotic good
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
No, I don't think that fits at all. Consider:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him
He acts as a self interest, or even greed directs him
with little regard for what others expect of him.
with adherence to law and custom.
He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent.
There is scant evidence for this, on either count.
He believes in goodness and right
There is equally scant evidence of this.
but has little use for laws and regulations.
He works within the law to change the law.
He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do.
Again, this is not evident.
He follows his own moral compass,
I'll give you this one.
which, although good,
Only maybe. He does believe in raising up others, but only because it is the best way to raise himself.
may not agree with that of society.
Alright, if he agreed with society he wouldn't be trying to change it, but then he does want to change rather than ignore it.
I've talked myself into either True Neutral or Neutral Greedy.

denthor

2018-04-12, 11:51 PM

Red Fel

2018-04-13, 08:57 AM

I am not worthy to judge a Lawful Evil. Red fel is the goto on that.

I will say red fel will somehow say I got it wrong.

RED FEL. I denthor the chaotic request your help and guidance.

I say he is one of yours.

Lawful Evil - oh, wha? I'm here. What's up?

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.

... Huh. I was right.

Look, chief, it's very simple. You can look at it on two axes for clarity.

First, moral. You seek to benefit yourself ("maximize my own welfare") while actively harming others ("erode those social norms"). That suggests Evil.

Next, ethical. You seek to use or exploit an existing structure ("within agreed social norms") to your own benefit, and seek to implement your goals using or exploiting an existing social structure ("using socially sanctioned methods"). That suggests Lawful.

Okay, I'm done making crap up. This character is whatever you want it to be, chief. I go with Lawful Evil because - and I've said this before - as a rule, if you don't know your character's alignment, it's Lawful Evil. It just is.

What you've described could be Good or Evil. He could be eroding social norms because he's a nasty little troll, or because those social norms include things like oppression, hatred, or slavery. What you've described could be Lawful or Chaotic. He could be exploiting socially sanctioned methods because he prefers to work within a hierarchical structure, or he could be eroding social norms because rules suck, man.

Your responses in the thread have been all over the map. Could be this. Could be that. Wanting to maintain your comfortable lifestyle is neither inherently Good nor inherently Evil. Wanting to topple the ruling class may appear Chaotic, but having the ambition to raise himself up might be Lawful. It varies and it's an incomplete picture.

So Lawful Evil, because why not.

GreatWyrmGold

2018-04-13, 01:34 PM

I seek to maximize my own welfare within agreed social norms, while also attempting to erode those social norms using socially sanctioned methods.
This highlights one of the limitations of the alignment system: It's vaguer than the Flat Earth cosmology. This makes sense when you consider what (I assume) it was meant to do (ie, encourage new roleplayers to think about their character's personality and how they are different from the player themself), but it makes questions like this...difficult to answer. After all, only the flattest characters fit the descriptions of any alignment (or any alignment element) perfectly. Even a paladin wants to maximize their own welfare, and even a dictator wants the world to be a good place. This question is difficult to answer for characters about whom we know everything (https://web.archive.org/web/20160809002003if_/http://seekersofthebat.com/wp-content/uploads/TWbMo.jpg)*. When you combine vague categories with a vague character...well, it's hopeless.

If I were to try to judge this character's alignment, I would need more details. For instance:

What are the character's priorities? If they had to choose between maximizing their welfare and eroding social norms, which would they choose? Why?
Why is your character eroding social norms? Is it just another way to maximize personal welfare, or is it an end in and of itself?
What social norms are they eroding? And for that matter, what socially-sanctioned methods are they using? In D&D, slavery and genocide are evil even if they're socially-sanctioned norms.
What would make your character break these rules? Everyone has something that would make them cross those lines.

Without that, all I can say for sure is that they probably aren't chaotic. (It's hard to justify "chaotic" applying to someone whose most well-defined characteristic is that they stick to societal norms.)

* In this case, it doesn't help that there are dozens of different incarnations written by even more writers. However, the principle still applies (to a lesser extent) to characters who have only one incarnation and only one author (e.g, Taylor Hebert, who makes a strong case for being basically every alignment except LG or CE).

Zhentarim

2018-04-13, 01:49 PM

This highlights one of the limitations of the alignment system: It's vaguer than the Flat Earth cosmology. This makes sense when you consider what (I assume) it was meant to do (ie, encourage new roleplayers to think about their character's personality and how they are different from the player themself), but it makes questions like this...difficult to answer. After all, only the flattest characters fit the descriptions of any alignment (or any alignment element) perfectly. Even a paladin wants to maximize their own welfare, and even a dictator wants the world to be a good place. This question is difficult to answer for characters about whom we know everything (https://web.archive.org/web/20160809002003if_/http://seekersofthebat.com/wp-content/uploads/TWbMo.jpg)*. When you combine vague categories with a vague character...well, it's hopeless.

If I were to try to judge this character's alignment, I would need more details. For instance:

What are the character's priorities? If they had to choose between maximizing their welfare and eroding social norms, which would they choose? Why?
Why is your character eroding social norms? Is it just another way to maximize personal welfare, or is it an end in and of itself?
What social norms are they eroding? And for that matter, what socially-sanctioned methods are they using? In D&D, slavery and genocide are evil even if they're socially-sanctioned norms.
What would make your character break these rules? Everyone has something that would make them cross those lines.

Without that, all I can say for sure is that they probably aren't chaotic. (It's hard to justify "chaotic" applying to someone whose most well-defined characteristic is that they stick to societal norms.)

* In this case, it doesn't help that there are dozens of different incarnations written by even more writers. However, the principle still applies (to a lesser extent) to characters who have only one incarnation and only one author (e.g, Taylor Hebert, who makes a strong case for being basically every alignment except LG or CE).

I’m going to be busy, but I’ll get to this.