Lawful Good character in Neutral party

[whiteShadow]

Hello,

I'd like some advice on how to play a Lawful Good Aasimar character in a True Neutral party. In our party we have 3 True Neutral, 1 Chaotic Good and me (Lawful Good).

Just to summarize quickly, my goal (it's a secret one) is to try to lead my companions to take the right decisions (from my point of view, but as I have a connection to the God, my character is confident about what is right and wrong).

But on our first session, we encountered an NPC that lied to us. One of the character noticed a signed that could have let us know that she was evil, but by lack of experience (it's his first D&D ever), he didn't share that detail with us.

However, the Chaotic Good character detected that she was lying about why the NPC was there, so she threaten her, and a fight started. We succeeded to control the NPC without hurting her, and we wanted to question her. I tried to make her talk but she wasn't going to say anything (the DM admitted it).
However, at some point they wanted to torture her. I said no (not because I'm Lawful Good and I'm against torture, but I just don't want my companion to take that road, I want them to become better persons), and they didn't understand why (I couldn't tell them that I'm doing that for them, because it's a secret).

At some point the Chaotic Good character wanted to kill the NPC (while she was tied on the floor), and I put myself between them.

But then, players started to say that I'm going to far in the Lawful Good side, and that they won't be able to do anything if I always intervene like that.

I'd like your opinion on if I'm right to play it like that, or not. And if not, what can I change so It goes smoothly with other players. The thing is my goal is to intervene as less as possible, and just try to talk them into doing the right thing, but when they start pointing a crossbow on a tied person lying on the floor (that I didn't know was evil, neither did they, except for one but he never mentioned it to us), I think I had to do something, right ?

Thank you.

[Tanarii]

One anecdote isn't enough to peg alignments, but are you sure you're not with a party of evils who like to torture an kill the people they've captured?

[TheYell]

Going too far would be something like destroying the other party members for assaulting a prisoner.

You showed restraint and limited your objection to specific conducts.

I agree with Tanarii that this smells a little south of Neutral behavior.

You need to have an OOC discussion of your character. Not to give away any secrets, but tell them he's on a holy quest and will comment on their choices.

I don't think that should be objectionable to real Neutrals.

[Kish]

Yes, that. Indeed, my question is: Why didn't your character choke on "now we're going to torture a prisoner"? This makes your character sound, not like someone actually Lawful Good, but like a Lawful Neutral character who has no actual morals but would like the whole group to Follow The Rules, the rules in question coincidentally looking like what a good character's moral sense might point to.

[sophontteks]

You are good. You have empathy for your fellow man and actively try to make the world a bit better.
You are lawful, you tend to follow the law of the land.
Who said you can't kill, main, and torture? You're an adventurer!

Your alignment is a general moral compass, but you are a dynamic character. Plenty of good people do really terrible things because they believe it will help make the world a better place.
Your character, of course, may be against torture, but you are not against torture because you are lawful good. You'll get yourself trapped with that thinking, especially when the law insists that a criminal should be tortured. What then?

[willdaBEAST]

From what the OP wrote, these don't sound like True Neutral characters and I think generally that's probably the hardest alignment to accurately capture. Being all about balance, almost requires an aloof and detached perspective. Rather than torture someone for information that serves your character, you might torture a torturer to give them the insight into how damaging their behavior is.

That may be a simplified view of True Neutral, but I discourage any new player from trying to use that as their first alignment. What you described sounds like Chaotic Neutral at best to me.

[whiteShadow]

Thank you for your comments.

I actually said something when they wanted to torture her, I ask them to let me talk to her first, which they agreed. But I couldn't get anything out of her, so they told me "we tried your method, now let try ours".

But I thought about an idea to solve this kind of situations:

If they want to kill an innocent ( = somebody not evil. Even if some people could lie to us, to be manipulated by others, I still consider them innocent), I will intervene directly. However, if this is evil, I won't care.
For other situation like torture, I will make a persuasion throw against them (my teammate) to persuade them not to do it. If I fail, I won't do anything to stop them, but if I succeed, they will have to reconsider.

What do you think? Is that fair?

Because I don't want to be the one everytime that take these decision, but I want them to do the right thing. Does this still fall under lawful good ?

[Teaguethebean]

Personally I feel like you as a lawful good are being more than fair to your party. If you feel your character would intervene you should talk with the party in character don't just roll a dice or OOC tell your party for the flow of the game they should just try to go behind your back leading to good in character drama if your table is cool with that

[guachi]

There are two things I won't put up with in my D&D games - torture and rape.

If other PCs in the party wanted to commit torture, I'd leave the game. So that's my advice - quit.

[Sigreid]

Sounds like you have a good character, but not for that group. One of 3 things will need to happen. They will need to moderate their behavior, at least when your character is around. You will need to have your character drift away from the light. Or you will need a new character. Other than leaving the group, I don't see another option.

[whiteShadow]

Personally I feel like you as a lawful good are being more than fair to your party. If you feel your character would intervene you should talk with the party in character don't just roll a dice or OOC tell your party for the flow of the game they should just try to go behind your back leading to good in character drama if your table is cool with that

Actually, this is a bit what happened. The NPC was in a room, and when I couldn't get anything out of her, they told me they would do it their way. I told them I won't let them interrogate her. One of the True Neutral told me to trust them, that they only want to scare her, then they told me to chose if I was in or out (of the room). I thought that I could trust them see if they take the right decision, but I had to decide fast before they close the door. And as I just met them (in RP) I decided I couldn't trust them yet, so that I will go in the room with them, and see what happen, and as long as they just try to scare her, I wouldn't do anything.

Though, the Chaotic Good with us, decided that we needed to kill her because she lied to us about why she was here (the NPC). Though, I think she was taking care of the information that the NPC was evil, while at this point, on RP, we weren't suppose to know, but the player knew it.

But after I intervened and put myself between her and the NPC, she still shot (taking the chance to hit me), and I think this was not very RP, because she was good, she is not supposed to take the risk to shoot me to kill a NPC tied on the floor. But I think the player was just mad that I intervene like that and disagree with her.

[whiteShadow]

Sounds like you have a good character, but not for that group. One of 3 things will need to happen. They will need to moderate their behavior, at least when your character is around. You will need to have your character drift away from the light. Or you will need a new character. Other than leaving the group, I don't see another option.

Yes, that's what I thought too. But then I think we could also let the dice speak. I try to persuade them to do the right thing (possibly by suggesting an alternative method to theirs), and if they agree with that right away, then nice. If not, I do a persuasion check against them to be a bit more persuasive. If I succeed, they have to go my way, if not I 'close my eyes'.

Because I don't want to force them to go my way, I want to lead them to decide to go my way. If they don't, there isn't much I can do.

And this way, we don't argue for hours about a decision, and nobody get pissed.

[Teaguethebean]

But after I intervened and put myself between her and the NPC, she still shot (taking the chance to hit me), and I think this was not very RP, because she was good, she is not supposed to take the risk to shoot me to kill a NPC tied on the floor. But I think the player was just mad that I intervene like that and disagree with her.

I think you are treating alignment as too prescriptive instead of descriptive as it should be in 5e. Remember your character sees them as all just people not a chaotic good person and neutral people so it should usually just be your character tries to talk it out and if they get violent it needs to be handled as they are criminals and your character wont stand for it. If your character truly harms the game maybe a character change is needed.

[JackPhoenix]

From what the OP wrote, these don't sound like True Neutral characters and I think generally that's probably the hardest alignment to accurately capture. Being all about balance, almost requires an aloof and detached perspective. Rather than torture someone for information that serves your character, you might torture a torturer to give them the insight into how damaging their behavior is.

That may be a simplified view of True Neutral, but I discourage any new player from trying to use that as their first alignment. What you described sounds like Chaotic Neutral at best to me.

That's not TN. TN means the characters do whatever sounds like a good idea at the time, and don't care about morality.

[Lunali]

First, don't make decisions based on your alignment, base your alignment on your decisions. For starting out, decide what it is that makes your character lawful good and follow that instead of trying to follow the alignment.

Second, a LG character could be in favor of torture and/or murder if they felt it was the best way to protect people.

Third, willdaBEAST said that neutral is about balance, which isn't exactly true. Someone who cares about the balance between the extremes would be neutral, but they aren't the only ones that would be. The average alignment in most settings is neutral.

[whiteShadow]

Second, a LG character could be in favor of torture and/or murder if they felt it was the best way to protect people.


Are you sure of that? Because I read almost everywhere that lawful good will NEVER allow torture.

[Malifice]

Hahaha. These threads man. These threads.

[MoiMagnus]

Are you sure of that? Because I read almost everywhere that lawful good will NEVER allow torture.

Some LG will never allow torture. Every LG should prefer way other than torture if they give the same result.

Torture, as long as it is legal (and not in contradiction with the vow the paladin has taken), is not a problem for LN. And its not unusual for LG character to oscillate between LN, LG and NG behaviors depending on the situation. (alignment is a compass, not a restriction).

Though, torture isn't really something you want to talk about in rpg. So please, if you have to RP such a thing "I intimidate the guy until he talk" is enough as a description.

[Angelalex242]

That's not TN. TN means the characters do whatever sounds like a good idea at the time, and don't care about morality.

That idea slips into NE REAL quick, more often than not.

[ImproperJustice]

One of my biggest issues with the alignment system is how Neutral often ends up as “evil but I don’t want to own up to it.”

I played in an AL game where we were set upon by bandits during an escort mission. My PC, a Paladin, stepped forth and offered the bandits an option to surrender or flee, for though they may have the advantage of having us surrounded, we are skilled, well armed adventurers and not all of them would survive taking us. We would even be willing to pay a bribe to pass through without violence.

They persisted anyways, so we did battle.
I ended up fighting the leader a d decided to “Smite Evil” on him (this is back in the 3.5 days.

GM says: “Hold up!” He’s not evil.
Me: Excuse me?
GM: Yeah, He’s neutral. Just like a wolf or wild animal trying to get his next meal.
Me: No, he’s not. He is murdering other people to take their stuff. If he was like a wolf he would grow potatoes or offer to buy our rations, or even tell us he was hungry and ask about getting food. But let’s be clear that he is practicing to art of murdering people by stabbing them to death and taking their things for personal gain. That’s evil in probably it’s simplest and most clearest form.
GM: Whatever, your Smite doesn’t work.

Yeah, long story to say I think your buds are evil, they just don’t like the label.

Play your alignment. Be a decent person and don’t murder and torture people. It’s ok to take those kind of stands for the sake of human decency. In the real world and in imaginary space.

[Galadhrim]

You need to talk to your GM and your friends out of character. Is role-playing torture something they really want?

If they really do just want to scare or intimidate people to get information, that is fine and I don't see why your character couldn't allow that even if he doesn't participate (not innocent town folk, but certainly combatants). If the DM is going to have a bunch of npc's that won't give up information unless tortured, you might want to think about what game you are playing.

[Sigreid]

You need to talk to your GM and your friends out of character. Is role-playing torture something they really want?

If they really do just want to scare or intimidate people to get information, that is fine and I don't see why your character couldn't allow that even if he doesn't participate (not innocent town folk, but certainly combatants). If the DM is going to have a bunch of npc's that won't give up information unless tortured, you might want to think about what game you are playing.

I would bet most groups that do torture just resolve it with rolls instead of graphic descriptions.

[whiteShadow]

I would bet most groups that do torture just resolve it with rolls instead of graphic descriptions.

Yes, I mean nobody from our group take pleasure in torture. But usually when you find 'evil' characters, even when captured they refuse to give up informations and you don't necessarily have the time (or the opportunity) to find leverage. You could try intimidation, but from the few games I played, this doesn't work very often. And then the question, what do you do with an evil NPC that doesn't want to talk? Do you leave it there? Alive? Do you take it with you? Because there's almost no chance to flip him.

In the situation we were, it was more like a spy we caught, waiting for reinforcements, so he didn't have any reason to give us information.
And we talk about torture, we just say something like "I shoot him in the leg" or something like that, we don't go into gory details, there no point in doing that, and I'm sure nobody in the group would go further than that.

And personnally, as long as it doesn't go further than that, I don't really have problem with torture in an RPG (we all know it's not real, and we impersonate characters that might not agree with our own personal values. But that's also part of the fun, try to play somebody different, that you might not necessarily agree with).

[dmteeter]

If i'm the DM in this game every single one of them would be changing their alignment.( I personally never allow true neutral because a lot of players use it as an excuse to be rampantly evil).

But torture is evil period, kidnapping and holding someone hostage also is evil.

The other players saying they can't play their characters because you are playing true to your alignment shows that your party doesn't want to play neutral they want to be evil without the drawbacks and that's unfair to you. And anyone else at the table.

i'd talk to them ooc and explain that you want everyone to have a good time but your character is unwavering in his ideals. That's not saying they can't do evil stuff they just have to find a way in game to hide it from your character.

[Keravath]

Alignment is an Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole in terms of the places it can lead and how to justify character actions because it opens a huge can of moral ambiguity.

Taking the idealized version of behaviour in D&D into account and that most people would accept torture, rape and murder to be evil acts .. then characters who demonstrate those behaviours are also tending towards an evil outlook on the world where the lives, pain and suffering of others have little value.

Killing a prisoner could be considered evil. On the other hand, if the prisoner is likely to cause further mayhem, perhaps torturing and murdering others if released, and there are no authorities to whom the person can be remanded ... then in many societies like those depicted in D&D, the character might feel like they have no choice but to take justice into their own hands. Which creates a morally grey area in some cases.

[Asmotherion]

The Chaotic Good guy wanted to Kill someone in cold blood?

Sure... Seems legit.

Did the Lawful Good Demon whispering to his ear tell him to? :P

I'm not one to be strict with alignments, but if you want to be called a good guy, at least make an effort. "I am chaotic" is not an excuse to kill someone for lying to you.

I am chaotic means I don't follow order and hierarchy, and act on my own gut feeling. The character you're describing was either possesed, or Chaotic Neutral at best (Unless he was pretending to obtain some information).

Now, about your RP;

Try smart, don't try hard. If you see that what you're doing is more of a bother to the others than fun, tone it down, and let them play their character.

Go more "Spiritual Guide" than "Don't do that or I'll be really mad"; Nobody likes to be patronised, especially during a D&D game were the point is to relax and have fun.

Be more oppen about your mission; secrets among the players are an anoying thing that end up making you the outcast of the party. You don't have to tell them everything, but give them something.

You can guide them through Example, and tell them that the evils they do will come back to haunt them one day; Kill a guy, and his family will look to avenge him. Spare a guy's life, and one day the same guy may save your life in battle.

[MagneticKitty]

Yes, that's what I thought too. But then I think we could also let the dice speak. I try to persuade them to do the right thing (possibly by suggesting an alternative method to theirs), and if they agree with that right away, then nice. If not, I do a persuasion check against them to be a bit more persuasive. If I succeed, they have to go my way, if not I 'close my eyes'.

Because I don't want to force them to go my way, I want to lead them to decide to go my way. If they don't, there isn't much I can do.

And this way, we don't argue for hours about a decision, and nobody get pissed.

I whole heartedly disagree with rolling persuasion checks against pcs. Unless they're charmed maybe. It takes player initiative away.

Anyway, in this situation of a table full of newbs I don't think you should have picked this (changing other pcs alignment or actions) as your goal. New players need to make choices and live with the consequences the dm throws at them. You might say: "if we kill this person without proof the town guards might come after us." A very neutral self preserving sentence that will make them think twice.
In all honestly this just might not be the table or group of characters for your Character to meld with and should have been addressed at session 0 if you've never played with this group or dm.

I'd make a new one that melds better probably. Or perhaps link them to an alignment video that explains evil vs neutral

I'm playing in a group that's largely neutral and no lawful, few good. No actual evil.
After I saw we had a half orc, shadow bard, necromancer, and lycan blood hunter I decided to make a true nuetral kobold ranger/rogue , and she fits in pretty well. My group really only tortured one person ever when we had this cult leader who saw blowing up a town square full of innocents as a distraction to "free" her people who lived in the sewer as the greater good... my character, who is an adult by kobold standards (physically mature) is still very much a child mentally (she's 8), left and walked around elsewhere when my group decided to torture the evil cult leader. My character is kinda.. murdery? So she's not really innocent either. She does assassinate evil people too. I should be clear with that I suppose. She just has boundaries. XD

[whiteShadow]

But torture is evil period, kidnapping and holding someone hostage also is evil.


Ok, but if we capture somebody that isn't willing to give us information, and want to potentially (or definitively) harm us, what can we do? If we cannot kill it or make it prisoner? If we release him, there's very few chances that it will say "Oh, thanks, now I will tell you what you want to know", instead it's probably gonna run to his friends to get back at us.

I made a goblin we captured swear that if he run away and never come back, we could leave, and.....he went to warn some friends that ambushed us. But if I keep putting other players in situation where it often come back to bite us, they won't listen to me anymore.

Should I talk to the DM so he will be more careful with people we decide to release (so they don't always come back), or would that be too much to ask?

[whiteShadow]

I whole heartedly disagree with rolling persuasion checks against pcs. Unless they're charmed maybe. It takes player initiative away.


In a sense I agree, but we cannot spend hours to discuss on every decision because nobody wants to move from their positions. It has to stay fun, and dynamic.

I'm not saying we go straight to a dice roll. I say that I will try to explain my point of view, eventually propose an alternative, or explain why I think they shouldn't do this.
If they agree, fine. If not, then I'd like to persuade more aggressively (I'm not saying being aggressive towards them, but explain to them that their actions might have consequences that could come back at us at some point), and roll a persuasion check.

I'm not saying definitive thing like "if I win they have to do what I say", but more like "If I win, what I just say has an impact on them, they have to consider and cannot neglect it", if I lose, then they can decide that I'm talking non-sense and do as they please. Doing it this way, I don't feel like we're removing players initiative, they still have freedom to decide, but they just cannot completely ignore what I say all the time under the pretext that they are neutral, and they don't have to listen to me.

It's more a way to tip the balance one way or another, because if nobody wants to change their mind, it's not gonna be fun. I'm willing to make some 'sacrifice' on my alignment, but I don't want to be the only one. My goal is to try to make them come to the 'Good' side (alignment) but if at every decision they say: "I don't do that because I'm neutral", then I won't ever be able to make them change.

[Kish]

Ok, but if we capture somebody that isn't willing to give us information, and want to potentially (or definitively) harm us, what can we do?
How does that lead to torture?

You torture someone, you may or may not get them to tell you something (it'll only be anything useful if your GM has no idea how torture actually works), but you'll still have a prisoner who wants to hurt you, even more than before.

If you were questioning the "it's wrong to kill a helpless prisoner" rule, that would make sense to dispute here, but how does torture come into it?

[whiteShadow]

How does that lead to torture?

You torture someone, you may or may not get them to tell you something (it'll only be anything useful if your GM has no idea how torture actually works), but you'll still have a prisoner who wants to hurt you, even more than before.

If you were questioning the "it's wrong to kill a helpless prisoner" rule, that would make sense to dispute here, but how does torture come into it?

I'm not saying it leads to torture.

I'm asking what should be do. We could take the risk to let him/her go with a great chance we will regret it later, we could kill him/her (not wanted, but it might happen), or...... ?

(I forgot to precise, we're in a small farming village and everybody is gone, so we cannot turn them to the guards, or whatever. I'm not even sure they're guards or a prison.).

[MagneticKitty]

Ok, but if we capture somebody that isn't willing to give us information, and want to potentially (or definitively) harm us, what can we do? If we cannot kill it or make it prisoner? If we release him, there's very few chances that it will say "Oh, thanks, now I will tell you what you want to know", instead it's probably gonna run to his friends to get back at us.

I made a goblin we captured swear that if he run away and never come back, we could leave, and.....he went to warn some friends that ambushed us. But if I keep putting other players in situation where it often come back to bite us, they won't listen to me anymore.

Should I talk to the DM so he will be more careful with people we decide to release (so they don't always come back), or would that be too much to ask?

Goblins are naturally evil in their stat block and will say whatever they think will save them. Not to say there are no good goblins.. But good goblins would probably not appear evil... You can be good in wishing to not torture the goblin but instead swiftly end its suffering if your allies start to torture it. You can't always get things from npcs. You're going to have to accept that. Some may not even tell you if you torture them anyway. Your dm should do whatever he thinks a goblin will do. And goblins are deceptive pack oriented critters, so what he did made sense. What you might do is ask for a history / nature / insight or whatever check to see if you remember how goblins behave, can tell if he's lying, ect. Unless the goblin is acting uncharacteristically ungoblinish then I would assume he's probably evil...... you might ask your dm if he will subvert creature alignments sometimes. Some do some don't. In a case where you don't k ow a creatures alignment I'd always insight their phases that you can learn something on. If he says he's not going to attack insight. But also don't meta game. Like don't look up creature alignments. You might ask if your character has read about or heard about if creature x to see if you can get guidance on if they're normally evil.

[ImproperJustice]

Ok, but if we capture somebody that isn't willing to give us information, and want to potentially (or definitively) harm us, what can we do? If we cannot kill it or make it prisoner? If we release him, there's very few chances that it will say "Oh, thanks, now I will tell you what you want to know", instead it's probably gonna run to his friends to get back at us.

I made a goblin we captured swear that if he run away and never come back, we could leave, and.....he went to warn some friends that ambushed us. But if I keep putting other players in situation where it often come back to bite us, they won't listen to me anymore.

Should I talk to the DM so he will be more careful with people we decide to release (so they don't always come back), or would that be too much to ask?

Things to do with prisoners without torturing them:

1. Treat them well, then release them quickly. Heal their wounds, clean their clothes, feed them, put a few coins in their pocket. Make a big show that you will return them unharmed so all their friends know just how cooperative they have been. (Whether they have or not). Likely, their friends will want to kill them for being a snitch. Once they understand their situation, offer protection in exchange for information.

2. Allow them to escape and follow them to their leadership. The old Arcane Mark was great for this one. Hunter’s Mark is the closest equivalent here. Familiars are also useful with this one, or using suggestion to tell them to walk slowly.

3. Give em a chance. Develop a reputation for mercy and diplomacy and you may be suprised how future villains are more likely to surrender or trade information and favors.

4. Feed them false information. Stage a conversation about a proposed weakness or your next whereabouts. Then set an ambush accordingly, after “allowing” them to escape.


I will admit, that we have been blessed to have a GM where our enemies often have complex motivations for their actions. In our current Against the Giants campaign, because of our dealings with non-combatants and prisoners we have made contact with a resistance movement within the Giants who have provided us aid by diverting patrols and resources so we have a better shot at removing their current evil leadership.

[Angelalex242]

I'm not saying it leads to torture.

I'm asking what should be do. We could take the risk to let him/her go with a great chance we will regret it later, we could kill him/her (not wanted, but it might happen), or...... ?

(I forgot to precise, we're in a small farming village and everybody is gone, so we cannot turn them to the guards, or whatever. I'm not even sure they're guards or a prison.).

Paladins in particular usually have preprogrammed rules about this.

"Well, according to the handbook, taking an evil being into custody way out in the boondocks is problematic, so don't take prisoners."

Or

"According to the handbook, all life is sacred, so we must bind him and take him to prison, no matter how annoying or out of the way it is."

Mostly depends on the Oath.

[MagneticKitty]

In a sense I agree, but we cannot spend hours to discuss on every decision because nobody wants to move from their positions. It has to stay fun, and dynamic.

I'm not saying we go straight to a dice roll. I say that I will try to explain my point of view, eventually propose an alternative, or explain why I think they shouldn't do this.
If they agree, fine. If not, then I'd like to persuade more aggressively (I'm not saying being aggressive towards them, but explain to them that their actions might have consequences that could come back at us at some point), and roll a persuasion check.

I'm not saying definitive thing like "if I win they have to do what I say", but more like "If I win, what I just say has an impact on them, they have to consider and cannot neglect it", if I lose, then they can decide that I'm talking non-sense and do as they please. Doing it this way, I don't feel like we're removing players initiative, they still have freedom to decide, but they just cannot completely ignore what I say all the time under the pretext that they are neutral, and they don't have to listen to me.

It's more a way to tip the balance one way or another, because if nobody wants to change their mind, it's not gonna be fun. I'm willing to make some 'sacrifice' on my alignment, but I don't want to be the only one. My goal is to try to make them come to the 'Good' side (alignment) but if at every decision they say: "I don't do that because I'm neutral", then I won't ever be able to make them change.

Your groups must be darasticly different then mine. We never really deadlock that hard. If theres two equally good choices we vote. If there's one outlandish opinion we reason with them. Once we voted almost all for one choice, talked a bit more then all flopped to the other choice xD

[whiteShadow]

Your groups must be darasticly different then mine. We never really deadlock that hard. If theres two equally good choices we vote. If there's one outlandish opinion we reason with them. Once we voted almost all for one choice, talked a bit more then all flopped to the other choice xD

Yes, but our group is kind of unbalanced. We have 3 True Neutral, 1 Chaotic good and Lawful Good. If we're up for a vote, I will mostly likely lose everytime. Especially if our Chaotic Good have some evil behavior. One other solution would be to talk to the other good player (Chaotic Good), so he will revise his behavior, and start being more on my side, so vote will be more balanced.

[KorvinStarmast]

You need to talk to your GM and your friends out of character. Is role-playing torture something they really want? Yeah, the OP apparently doesn't go for that but the other players seem to.
The Chaotic Good guy wanted to Kill someone in cold blood? Yeah, I guess some people have different ideas of what's good and bad.

So, how old is everybody at this table?

[Malifice]

I'm playing with a party of characters that are morally Neutral, and one that is morally Good.

I'm not sure if I should join in on the gang rapes, brutal torture and murder of NPCs or not?

Can someone please help?

These threads man. These threads.

[whiteShadow]

Yeah, the OP apparently doesn't go for that but the other players seem to. Yeah, I guess some people have different ideas of what's good and bad.

So, how old is everybody at this table?

Everybody is in their mid-20s.

The Chaotic Good player wanted to kill the NPC because she estimated that it was a menace to other people. Although he wasn't suppose to have this info.

As for me, I played it like I didn't have the info. So although we were both 'good', we didn't RP with the same info, leading him wanting to kill the NPC, not me.

I think if I knew that she was Evil, and a menace for others, I wouldn't mind killing her. I think it would still be in my alignment, doesn't it?

[whiteShadow]

I'm playing with a party of characters that are morally Neutral, and one that is morally Good.

I'm not sure if I should join in on the gang rapes, brutal torture and murder of NPCs or not?

Can someone please help?

These threads man. These threads.

No, my question is "how could I drive them away from that logic?". Because if it works once, they will tell me "you see, it works" and justify it for the next times (if there are next times). But I'd like to avoid having a first time at all.

[Malifice]

No, my question is "how could I drive them away from that logic?". Because if it works once, they will tell me "you see, it works" and justify it for the next times (if there are next times). But I'd like to avoid having a first time at all.

Mate you have far bigger problems seeing as you're in a group who (despite being morally neutral to good aligned) are perfectly OK with murder and torture.

Murder and torture are not morally good. They're not morally neutral. They're morally evil.

Why does this even have to be explained to them, or to you? How is this question even being asked for ****s sake?

If your character Is a lawful and morally good man, he doesnt torture defenceless prisoners, nor does he sit idly by while others do do. He also doesnt willingly hang around with evil monsters who do so.

This is your DMs fault by the way. Murder hobism always is. I'd as DM advise the players that murder and torture is not morally good, nor is it morally neutral. Its ****ing evil. I'd also advise them that I'd be fixing the mistake they made on their character sheets when they wrote the wrong alignments down during character creation, and writing a NE there instead of the N that's there at present.

****s sake, a good person treats their prisoner well, ensures they're treated kindly, fed and looked after and retain their dignity. A morally neutral person wont treat them particularly kindly but nor will they harm them. A morally evil person mistreats them and tortures them.

How is this even up for debate?

[Hooligan]

****s sake, a good person treats their prisoner well, ensures they're treated kindly, fed and looked after and retain their dignity. A morally neutral person wont treat them particularly kindly but nor will they harm them. A morally evil person mistreats them and tortures them.

How is this even up for debate?

while I agree with your sentiment of "these threads *shakes head*" I think you're a bit off the mark with this last bit, which you deliver with an air of finality.

A morally neutral person does not know exactly what they will do in a given situation without taking context and personal factors into account. They do not intend to treat a prisoner kindly anymore than they seek to torture that prisoner, rather they consider those aforementioned factors, weigh their options, and then choose one or more based on whatever their desired outcomes(s) might be.

[Hooligan]

From what the OP wrote, these don't sound like True Neutral characters and I think generally that's probably the hardest alignment to accurately capture. Being all about balance, almost requires an aloof and detached perspective. Rather than torture someone for information that serves your character, you might torture a torturer to give them the insight into how damaging their behavior is.

That may be a simplified view of True Neutral, but I discourage any new player from trying to use that as their first alignment. What you described sounds like Chaotic Neutral at best to me.

This is a terribly boring interpretation of TN.

It is also not what true neutrality is about.

[Malifice]

while I agree with your sentiment of "these threads *shakes head*" I think you're a bit off the mark with this last bit, which you deliver with an air of finality.

A morally neutral person does not know exactly what they will do in a given situation without taking context and personal factors into account. They do not intend to treat a prisoner kindly anymore than they seek to torture that prisoner, rather they consider those aforementioned factors, weigh their options, and then choose one or more based on whatever their desired outcomes(s) might be.

No, that person isnt morally neutral. A morally neutral person lacks the convictions to go out of their way to either harm or help people. Generally speaking. They dont bounce between hurting people one minute and helping them the next minute.

If your 'morally neutral' person weighs their options, considers the context and the situation, and then engages in murder and torture, they are not morally neutral.

A morally good person treats his prisoners kindly, respecting their dignity as living creatures. He ensures they are fed, looked after, and not mistreated.

A morally evil person mistreats his prisoners (killing or torturing them, or simply neglecting them and letting them suffer), generally to extract information, as a form of punishment, or simply out of convenience, prejudice or even enjoyment.

A morally neutral person doesnt treat his prisoners particularly kindly, but he also doesnt treat them with cruelty or capriciousness. He doesnt go out of his way to help or harm them.

In extreme situations the morally neutral person might resort to torture or execution. They'd be outliers though or else he isnt morally neutral (instead being morally evil). Just like he might have extreme situations where he would treat a prisoner with grace and kindness (generally if there is something in it for him to justify the extra effort, such as the prisoner being an important figure that the morally neutral peson needs something from later on).

You're not 'morally neutral' if you only murder, torture and rape 'every now and then'. You're evil.

[whiteShadow]

Murder and torture are not morally good. They're not morally neutral. They're morally evil.


I think your vision is a bit too simplistic. Good people act for the greater good and to save innocents, that doesn't mean they are goody-goody.

If I follow what you say, somebody murdering Hitler would be an evil person. I don't know about you, but I disagree with that.

[hamishspence]

I think your vision is a bit too simplistic. Good people act for the greater good and to save innocents, that doesn't mean they are goody-goody.

If I follow what you say, somebody murdering Hitler would be an evil person.

Not really:



In extreme situations the morally neutral person might resort to torture or execution. They'd be outliers though or else he isnt morally neutral (instead being morally evil). Just like he might have extreme situations where he would treat a prisoner with grace and kindness (generally if there is something in it for him to justify the extra effort, such as the prisoner being an important figure that the morally neutral peson needs something from later on).

[whiteShadow]

You are talking about neutral persons. I talk about good persons.

As I said, good persons will act for the greater good, no matter if they have to do things they don't want to.

They will put people before themselves. If they have to kill, they will, even if they have to live with it, for the greater good.
They are ready to sacrifice their peace of mind if it can save dozens or hundreds of people.

For me, this is the definition of good / neutral / evil.

Good will put people before them, neutral will do what they estimate they have to do, evil will do what they please no matter if they harm people in the way.

[hamishspence]

As I said, good persons will act for the greater good, no matter if they have to do things they don't want to.

They will put people before themselves. If they have to kill, they will, even if they have to live with it, for the greater good.
They are ready to sacrifice their peace of mind if it can save dozens or hundreds of people.

"For the Greater Good" is a common motivation of LE characters. Such characters often begin as LG but are rapidly corrupted by their acts, into LE.

"For Freedom" is the CE counterpart - the character who commits atrocities "for freedom's sake".

As Unoriginal once put it:


You can't commit torture, genocide and other atrocities and be acting "as your conscience directs".

Conscience would prevent you from doing those things if you listened to it, by the very definition of the concept.

[Galadhrim]

No, my question is "how could I drive them away from that logic?". Because if it works once, they will tell me "you see, it works" and justify it for the next times (if there are next times). But I'd like to avoid having a first time at all.

If in your DM's mind torture is an effective tool that yields useful information, I doubt you will be able to drive them away from that logic. If the results of morally good acts are always bad and the results of morally evil acts are always good, neutral characters are going to steer toward the latter, and no amount of pontificating on your part will change that.

Dnd is a world where there is prescribed good and evil in some creatures. An evil goblin is likely to lie to you whether you torture him or not. The torture is in the end generally fruitless, but speaks to the character of those doing the torturing. That is unless the dm wants to play a game of torture, wherein the goblin gives up no information but then when tortured gives you all the key info you needed. If the opposite lesion is also, letting him go leads to
you being ambushed, well...You end up right where you are now.

The above posts with ways to turn this discussion on its head was useful I think, in that you can behave in a good manner, but the neutral characters also see what's in it for then. If the players aren't willing to try some of those, then...perhaps they aren't truly nuetral.

I still think the biggest problem with this whole situation was that you felt one of the other players had her character assassinate the prisoner because you thought she was mad at you the player. That is a huge red flag for continuing in this group with this character. It's going to less to out of character conflict very shortly.

[whiteShadow]

Conscience would prevent you from doing those things if you listened to it, by the very definition of the concept.

I disagree with it. Because conscience works both way. You know if you don't do "it" people will suffer and/or die because of your actions (or inactions). And your conscience is supposed to tell you that you cannot let it happen, even if it's something that goes against your values.

Because you don't put your well being before others people lives. You would prefer carying this on your shoulder, than to let people die because you couldn't do it.
Does mean you have to enjoy it, to agree with it, but you do what you have to do to save people, and in that, I don't think that makes you evil.

[whiteShadow]

If in your DM's mind torture is an effective tool that yields useful information, I doubt you will be able to drive them away from that logic. If the results of morally good acts are always bad and the results of morally evil acts are always good, neutral characters are going to steer toward the latter, and no amount of pontificating on your part will change that.

Dnd is a world where there is prescribed good and evil in some creatures. An evil goblin is likely to lie to you whether you torture him or not. The torture is in the end generally fruitless, but speaks to the character of those doing the torturing. That is unless the dm wants to play a game of torture, wherein the goblin gives up no information but then when tortured gives you all the key info you needed. If the opposite lesion is also, letting him go leads to
you being ambushed, well...You end up right where you are now.

The above posts with ways to turn this discussion on its head was useful I think, in that you can behave in a good manner, but the neutral characters also see what's in it for then. If the players aren't willing to try some of those, then...perhaps they aren't truly nuetral.

I still think the biggest problem with this whole situation was that you felt one of the other players had her character assassinate the prisoner because you thought she was mad at you the player. That is a huge red flag for continuing in this group with this character. It's going to less to out of character conflict very shortly.

That's why I though puting some dice roll in there and acting on the results would remove some of these conflicts, because we wouldn't be arguing against each other, but put some part of randomness in there and acting according to it. (Again I'm not saying let's just roll dice for everything because we can't make a decision, but use it as a referee when facing an issue that leads to conflit where none of the players want to change their mind).

[hamishspence]

you do what you have to do to save people, and in that, I don't think that makes you evil.

In D&D, it can, if "what you have to do" is sufficiently evil, and done sufficiently often that it's "from time to time" rather than "extreme outlier".

[MThurston]

You are good. You have empathy for your fellow man and actively try to make the world a bit better.
You are lawful, you tend to follow the law of the land.
Who said you can't kill, main, and torture? You're an adventurer!

Your alignment is a general moral compass, but you are a dynamic character. Plenty of good people do really terrible things because they believe it will help make the world a better place.
Your character, of course, may be against torture, but you are not against torture because you are lawful good. You'll get yourself trapped with that thinking, especially when the law insists that a criminal should be tortured. What then?

I'm not sure you understand the alignments very well.

Lawful is to follow the laws. Yes it might be lawful to torture but that is up to a person of authority and not a group of people. It is unlawful to torture.

Good means that you don't want to harm others for no good reason.

So it is 100% a Lawful Good character move to stop a murder. True neutral is the hardest to play. Turning this person over to the authorities would be better than killing them. If you don't have enough proof then you just have to let them go.

[hamishspence]

You'll get yourself trapped with that thinking, especially when the law insists that a criminal should be tortured. What then?

Then the law in that particular case is an Evil law. LG characters are not required to obey Evil laws to keep their alignment.


Plenty of good people do really terrible things because they believe it will help make the world a better place.

Then they are not, by D&D standards (in any edition, not just 5e) Good. They are at best Neutral and at worst Evil, regardless of how genuine their altruism is.

[whiteShadow]

"When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation."

Source: http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

I know the alignment system is somewhat subjective, but some rules says that if it's for the greater good, then it can be done in respect with the alignment.


"A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good."

Source: Wikipedia (Lawful Good) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Lawful_good)

As I said, some lawful good would take some dramatic action if they think it's for the greater good, and whether it might be against their values, because their ultimate value is saving innocent lives. They prefer to take that burden on their shoulder than to let people die because they didn't do anything.

[hamishspence]

"When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation."

Source: http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

I know the alignment system is somewhat subjective, but some rules says that if it's for the greater good, then it can be done in respect with the alignment.


Killing, out of context, is not an act specifically called out as Evil, in the way murder, torture, etc are. No context can turn those into nonevil acts.

[MThurston]

As I said, some lawful good would take some dramatic action if they think it's for the greater good, and whether it might be against their values, because their ultimate value is saving innocent lives. They prefer to take that burden on their shoulder than to let people die because they didn't do anything.

This just isn't true.

A Paladin is sent back in time. An evil enemy is 4 years old. The Paladin doesn't kill the 4 year old for the greater good. He teaches the kid the value of life and a honorable view of life.

For example: A Paladin uses detect lie on a suspect. Him detecting it doesn't prove to the law that the suspect is guilty. The Paladin can't just kill the suspect for the greater good. He would turn the suspect over to the authorities.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Different edition, different take on what alignment means.


This just isn't true.

A Paladin is sent back in time. An evil enemy is 4 years old. The Paladin doesn't kill the 4 year old for the greater good. He teaches the kid the value of life and a honorable view of life.

For example: A Paladin uses detect lie on a suspect. Him detecting it doesn't prove to the law that the suspect is guilty. The Paladin can't just kill the suspect for the greater good. He would turn the suspect over to the authorities.

That depends entirely on the individual in question. The paladin risks falling if he's Vengeance paladin and shows mercy to his sworn enemy. Even if that enemy is 4-year old.

There's no "detect lie". Zone of Truth makes the character incapable of lying.

[KorvinStarmast]

Everybody is in their mid-20s. Got it. Arrested development is a thing, as is exploring the dark side.

The Chaotic Good player wanted to kill the NPC because she estimated that it was a menace to other people. Although he wasn't suppose to have this info. Did the DM intervene with "how did you know that" or did the DM just let it roll?

As for me, I played it like I didn't have the info. So although we were both 'good', we didn't RP with the same info, leading him wanting to kill the NPC, not me.
Interesting disconnect, and I've seen that before. Time to get everyone on the same page.

I think if I knew that she was Evil, and a menace for others, I wouldn't mind killing her. I think it would still be in my alignment, doesn't it? Here is my suggestion to you.
Stop Treating Alignment as Prescriptive! Treat it as Descriptive.
Focus on your character's motives, goals, and values.
Warning: If you let alignment stuff its hand up your butt and move you around like a puppet, you will never be able to role play your character. D&D 5e tries, in its own awkward way, to get people to stop using alignment as a crutch and as an excuse.

Mate you have far bigger problems seeing as you're in a group who (despite being morally neutral to good aligned) are perfectly OK with murder and torture. Yeah.

Why does this even have to be explained to them, or to you? How is this question even being asked for ****s sake? Here's the issue. This player isn't cool with torture, and is As A Player trying to play a game with friends. The friends seem to have a different view on what's fun. Rather than be self ostracized, this player is trying to find a way forward to still play the game, and deal with this mismatch.

The solution to the problem has nothing to do with alignment. It has to do with players having fun for different reasons and in different ways, and a DM who is clueless.

For the OP: Please read up the rules in the combat section for Knocking Someone Out. That provides a way to (in the short tem) disable an opponent and render them unconscious. It won't solve your fellow players' "edginess, we tortured someone, we are sooooo dark!" impulses, but it allows you to have a discussion about an NPC's fate while the opponent is knocked out.

[hamishspence]

Source: http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

I know the alignment system is somewhat subjective, but some rules says that if it's for the greater good, then it can be done in respect with the alignment.



Different edition, different take on what alignment means.

Plus that very same page lists a bunch of things a LG character will not do, with no "for the greater good" exceptions specified:


He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime.
Nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing.
He never kills for treasure or personal gain.
He never knowingly kills an innocent being.
A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie.
He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent.
He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure.
He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others.
A lawful good character will never use poison.
He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person).



5e may be less restrictive, but not to the point of "torture For The Greater Good" not eventually resulting in changing the character's alignment.

[whiteShadow]

Plus that very same page lists a bunch of things a LG character will not do, with no "for the greater good" exceptions specified:


He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime.
Nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing.
He never kills for treasure or personal gain.
He never knowingly kills an innocent being.
A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie.
He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent.
He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure.
He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others.
A lawful good character will never use poison.
He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person).



5e may be less restrictive, but not to the point of "torture For The Greater Good" not eventually resulting in changing the character's alignment.

I agree with you. Although what you quote is for LG (which is me here, and I opposed it), but the other player was Chaotic Good. But I'm pretty sure it's about the same thing concerning torture and so on.

[whiteShadow]

a DM who is clueless.

Yes, but for his defense, it's the first time he is DM (he played DnD and other RPG, but never DM).

But thanks for your advices, I appreciate it.

[hamishspence]

the other player was Chaotic Good. But I'm pretty sure it's about the same thing concerning torture and so on.

The CG version:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

*A chaotic good character will keep his word to those who are not evil and will lie only to evil-doers.
*He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent.
*He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure, but he may "rough up" someone to get information.
*He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others.
*A chaotic good character will never use poison.
*He will help those in need and he prefers to work alone, as he values his freedom.
*He does not respond well to higher authority, is distrustful of organizations, and will disregard the law in his fight against evil.
*He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend.

[Beelzebubba]

Hello,

I'd like some advice on how to play a Lawful Good Aasimar character in a True Neutral party. In our party we have 3 True Neutral, 1 Chaotic Good and me (Lawful Good).

Just to summarize quickly, my goal (it's a secret one) is to try to lead my companions to take the right decisions (from my point of view, but as I have a connection to the God, my character is confident about what is right and wrong).

Thank you.

That is a VERY difficult role play task to take on.

It means the other players have to be on the same 'level' as you, as in - they are playing 'real' people that have 'real' reasons to be bad people, and you need to win them over gradually.

It also means the DM has to have a very specific play style in mind - one where actions have consequences, and the way the PCs act will be reliably reflected in the world around them as others react. That means setting up situations where information can get around, or put them in contact with creatures who can 'see' who they really are and the way they react to the party is a direct result of what they've done so far.

And, even then, you have to be patient, subtle, and be very good about picking the times and places to make your points. Confronting them directly won't work; you have to be indirect about it, and 'prove' why your way is better by the way you act, and showing them it is a better way to go.

It's a VERY hard thing to do. Everything has to be right for it to work. One thing missing and it falls apart.

I'd be hesitant to try it now, and I've been playing a HELL of a long time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, but for his defense, it's the first time he is DM (he played DnD and other RPG, but never DM). Not rare for a new DM to not know how to get the table to gel on the first try.

I strongly recommend that your whole table have a Session 0.
No play, but a candid and honest conversation about what it is you want out of this game. The good news is that you are all adults. (yay!)
As it stands right now, I'd say the players as a group are not interested in being a team. If you are going to have interparty tension, you all need to be on board with that as players.

Secondly, have a discussion about alignment so that you all have a similar view of it. It seems right now that some players are being very careless about their professed alignment versus their actions.

Torture as fun in role playing: ask about that. This seems to be a core issue in terms of differences in fun.

If everyone else wants to be evil like that, it's not all bad to embrace the dark side and join into the murderhobo fun. For a beginner DM, it might be the simplest way to play. (Not IMO the best, but tastes vary)

[whiteShadow]

Not rare for a new DM to not know how to get the table to gel on the first try.

I strongly recommend that your whole table have a Session 0.
No play, but a candid and honest conversation about what it is you want out of this game. The good news is that you are all adults. (yay!)
As it stands right now, I'd say the players as a group are not interested in being a team. If you are going to have interparty tension, you all need to be on board with that as players.

Secondly, have a discussion about alignment so that you all have a similar view of it. It seems right now that some players are being very careless about their professed alignment versus their actions.

Torture as fun in role playing: ask about that. This seems to be a core issue in terms of differences in fun.

If everyone else wants to be evil like that, it's not all bad to embrace the dark side and join into the murderhobo fun. For a beginner DM, it might be the simplest way to play. (Not IMO the best, but tastes vary)

Yes, actually we will have a session 1.5 to debrief what happened there. The DM has been surprised it turned that way, and has been a bit overwhelmed. I'm sure it's not an easy situation to handle when this is your first session ad DM.

Other players are good friends, so we will be able to talk about it, and we already did, but we still need to clarify few things (especially about some alignment).

Although I want to mention it has NEVER been question to torture for fun here. At worst it was to extract information, but for sure nobody took pleasure in it. I think otherwise DM would had intervene.

But after taking to the DM, he told me that he thought the Chaotic Good player was actually Chaotic Neutral playing with the Chaotic Evil line. But I confirmed that the player told me he was Chaotic Good, so I think the DM will have to clarify things.

Also, from what I heard from him, he prepared quests related to each of our characters, that will help other better understand the others, and create a group, but unfortunately, we didn't get there yet :P

So, hopefully we'll be able to get through this.

Also, one other factor is that we played another game for almost 2 years together with different characters, and we might still have some old habits from our previous characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

But after taking to the DM, he told me that he thought the Chaotic Good player was actually Chaotic Neutral playing with the Chaotic Evil line. But I confirmed that the player told me he was Chaotic Good, so I think the DM will have to clarify things.
If one professes an alignment but their behavior is not in general keeping with that alignment, it is important to address that. The DM needs to address this.
As a DM, when I found the delta to be too large, I would begin signaling that an alignment change was coming. If no course correction was made, it matters not what alignment someone claims or writes down on their character sheet. Look at their whole body of work. I typically used visions and dreams as ways that, in character, the character would become internally aware that there was a mismatch. I found that the DM technique of one day getting fed up and saying "OK, you have a new alignment" with no foreshadowing much less effective at the table. Seen that done too. (And usually with decent justification).

Beyond that, if the Devil told you he was really a good guy, should you believe him? I mean, he professes to be good. :smallwink:

Again, alignment is to be descriptive, not prescriptive in this edition. DM and players need to communicate when there's a mismatch.

In re "torture for fun" I meant in D&D we are playing a game. Escapism is an element of that. If someone's escapist fun is "we tortured this dude since it was necessary" (TV series, 24, a graphic case of that) it is bound to be a problem if not all of the players feel good about that as their escapist fun.

I'm not going to go full Malifice here, but there is some merit in his position of why role playing torture is a problem for the players, particularly if they then try to hide behind an alignment they are not actually role playing close to.

[Aimeryan]

Here is what the alignments mean as my group plays with them:

Good-Evil

Good means to desire a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Good will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pain and misery, and/or, attempt to increase overall pleasure and joy.

Neutral (Good-Evil) means to either have no desire in particular for a world full of pleasure and joy, or pain and misery, or has the desire to keep these in as equal balanced as possible. Someone who is Neutral in this regard will make no actively consistent attempt to drive the world towards one or the other, although they may passively or inconsistently do so.

Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Evil will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pleasure and joy, and/or, attempt to increase overall pain and misery.


It should be noted that such alignments refer only to how such an entity treats the world and other entities in general. Those that the entity considers themselves personally close to may get very different treatment - this is why most people would not be Good, because while most people want pleasure and joy for themselves and their family and friends, they generally don't care enough to actively and consistently desire and take action to bring this about for everyone.

If the scale was instead continuous, most people would fall somewhere between Neutral and Good since most do have some desire and take some action to help others find pleasure and joy and avoid pain and misery.

It should probably also be noted that actions that bring about pleasure and joy or pain and misery without desire would not in itself make for a Good/Evil entity; an example here would be a wild animal looking to survive - it may kill and eat villagers, but it is not Evil unless it also desires the pain and misery that it causes. Of course, as desire can be difficult to determine while actions are usually more obvious, it tends to be only practical to make decisions about such an entity from its actions alone. However, learning what motivates the entity often leads to a solution that is more Good in the long term (in this case, providing a natural habitat for the animal that is sectioned off from population centres, rather than hunting the animals into extinction).



Lawful-Chaotic

Lawful means to be strongly ordered, to strongly follow patterns and structures, to have a routine and remain disciplined enough to keep to it, to have a code. It does not mean necessarily to follow the laws of the land, although most Lawful entities will likely attempt to do so if they have no particular reason not to out of respect for the general principle. Someone who is Lawful will not easily change their actions once they have committed themselves to following through if it follows their code, even if they currently dislike it.

Neutral (Lawful-Chaotic) means to generally have order and routine, however, such things remain flexible and breakable with some motivation. Someone who is Neutral in this regard likes and sees the benefit of being organised and having plans, but also sees the benefit of being adaptable to the situation at hand. Someone who is Neutral in this regard will tend to think somewhat ahead and make some consideration of possible future outcomes, but will not dedicate themselves to doing so.

Chaotic means to be lack order and routine, to do whatever seems best at the time without taking the time or effort to think ahead. Someone who is Chaotic will easily break oaths and promises, probably without thinking about it.


It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that someone who is Lawful will be strongly disciplined, and with such ordered minds they must be someone who thinks far ahead and sees the big picture, forming grand plans and strategies and coming up with the best solutions. However, someone who is Lawful can very easily be closed-minded and refuse to consider other opinions - strong-willed and adamant are words that come to mind. Hence, a Lawful entity can be a master strategist, but they need not be.

Likewise, it is easy to think someone who is Chaotic would always be very unpredictable, however, since they will generally do what they think is best in the moment it is possible to make them very predictable - as long as you know what they would consider is best at any particular juncture. This means leading a Chaotic entity a specific path through a cleverly-crafted maze could be easier than that of a Lawful entity, who may think things through and consider it is being lead. Similarly, with propaganda. However, for the most part, lacking a specific routine means a Chaotic entity will be unpredictable.

[whiteShadow]

The thing is we were not really prepare to play our characters.

The Chaotic Good made a mistake by willing to kill the prisoner, which forced me to go full frontal to avoid it.

My plan is to be more subtle than that, and try to help them see the right path, not walk it for them.

Unfortunately here, it was too 'evil' for me to allow it, and I had to jump right in, which I didn't really 'want' because I didn't want to start with a confrontation, but....

We will have a discussion in session 1.5, and will try to avoid that kind of ****ty situations, by reminding everyone their alignment, and the possible consequences of their acts. Hopefully after that, I won't have to intervene so brutally.

Maybe we should also notify the DM that such behavior cannot be rewarded (or not systematically) and that it could / should have consequences in the long run.
Because if other players see that they can get information that way without consequences, I don't see how I could convince them not to do it.

[MoiMagnus]

"For the Greater Good" is a common motivation of LE characters.

Seems dubious to me. Aren't neutral character not supposed to be aligned at all in Good vs Evil fight?
So if you fight for the Greater Good, you are LG by default because no other alignment correspond better to you?

[Hooligan]

-snip-

Personal/Table definitions are not useful as different people's/table's definitions will vary greatly.

[denthor]

There are two things I won't put up with in my D&D games - torture and rape.

If other PCs in the party wanted to commit torture, I'd leave the game. So that's my advice - quit.

Ok so would you permit the capture of people to sell into slavery?

[Malifice]

Here is what the alignments mean as my group plays with them:

Good-Evil

Good means to desire a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Good will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pain and misery, and/or, attempt to increase overall pleasure and joy.

Neutral (Good-Evil) means to either have no desire in particular for a world full of pleasure and joy, or pain and misery, or has the desire to keep these in as equal balanced as possible. Someone who is Neutral in this regard will make no actively consistent attempt to drive the world towards one or the other, although they may passively or inconsistently do so.

Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Evil will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pleasure and joy, and/or, attempt to increase overall pain and misery..

Wut?

So if my PC desires a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible (in his mind this is achieved via the impostion of a racially plural theocratic state, with him as a benevolent dictator - thus ending all wars, racism and ushering in golden age for mankind) but uses extreme violence to achieve that end (genocide, holy wars, pogroms, murder, torture) he's... 'Good'?

Hitler approves of your reasoning.

[Beelzebubba]

The thing is we were not really prepare to play our characters.

The Chaotic Good made a mistake by willing to kill the prisoner, which forced me to go full frontal to avoid it.

My plan is to be more subtle than that, and try to help them see the right path, not walk it for them.

Unfortunately here, it was too 'evil' for me to allow it, and I had to jump right in, which I didn't really 'want' because I didn't want to start with a confrontation, but....

We will have a discussion in session 1.5, and will try to avoid that kind of ****ty situations, by reminding everyone their alignment, and the possible consequences of their acts. Hopefully after that, I won't have to intervene so brutally.

Maybe we should also notify the DM that such behavior cannot be rewarded (or not systematically) and that it could / should have consequences in the long run.
Because if other players see that they can get information that way without consequences, I don't see how I could convince them not to do it.

Your group sounds awesome, and has a solid relationship and good communication habits.

You sound like you'll work it out just fine, it'll just take a few rounds of conversation to untangle it all.

So, I guess I'm saying - I don't think I can offer any advice. You sound like you're doing all the right things.

[Magzimum]

But then, players started to say that I'm going to far in the Lawful Good side, and that they won't be able to do anything if I always intervene like that.

Players make the party work: Session zero
The other players cannot get anything done if you intervene. And likewise, you cannot get anything done if they murderhobo everyone they encounter. (It goes two ways).
It is your responsibility as a group of players to talk this out - preferably in a "session zero". Make sure your fellow players and DM understand whether the Lawful Good side of your character is a really fundamental aspect, or just a starting point. And make sure you understand the consequences of your position on this too. Perhaps you are the main problem, and the party just does not work with a Lawful Good character. Or perhaps the party can be a little more lawful or good, and explore ways to get information without being a bunch of murderhobos.

DM sets boundary conditions for the campaign: Session zero
If torture / bribery or other foul behavior is the only way to extract information, then players should move towards evil to get anything done. A DM shouldn't do that to a party with a Lawful Good character, because it sidelines that character, and creates a rift within the party. It is always fun to have some tension between players in a party, but this is very fundamental and cannot be resolved through roleplay.
The DM should tell players up front whether some alignments will cause problems in the campaign. It can happen that Lawful Good just doesn't work in this campaign. A good DM tells the players before they even start to explore character ideas.

Change alignment during the campaign
If however the campaign is already under way, and the campaign just does not work for your character: The rules do not say that you should stick to the alignment, or that you cannot change your alignment. Alignment is just a little indicator of how your character behaves.
You could allow your character to "evolve" to other alignments. Choose whether the lawful or the good side is strongest, and move towards Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good.

[MoiMagnus]

Wut?

So if my PC desires a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible (in his mind this is achieved via the impostion of a racially plural theocratic state, with him as a benevolent dictator - thus ending all wars, racism and ushering in golden age for mankind) but uses extreme violence to achieve that end (genocide, holy wars, pogroms, murder, torture) he's... 'Good'?

Hitler approves of your reasoning.

I've seen some alignment system where it is indeed correct (and where a well-intentioned Hitler would be Good aligned).
This is not possible in "old D&D", where alignment is absolute (see smite evil and other similar spells) and decided by an absolute entity that classify everyone into 9 alignment.

However, having a subjective alignment system allow more "realistic alignment", since nobody is correct (or at least, there is no magical proof that someone is morally correct). Multiple "Good peoples" can be in an horrible war because their vision of Good are contradictory, and each of them consider the other side as evil and themselves as good.

This is also much more adequate (in my mind) for character building:

Absolute alignment is restrictive on your way of playing the character. If you don't follow it, you lose it. It leads to questions like "should a LG character do this?", which ultimately reduce character behavior to the stereotype of their alignment.

Subjective alignment is descriptive, it just show what are the motivation of your character, and allow any interpretation from the player on what mean are adequate for the motivations. It leads to questions like "are the action of my character adequate with its goal and motivations?"

Though, if you want a stereotyped 'good vs evil' (which is what a lot of people want when playing D&D, and is more consistent with D&D official lore, even is 5e), absolute alignment is the way to go.

[whiteShadow]

I've seen some alignment system where it is indeed correct (and where a well-intentioned Hitler would be Good aligned).
This is not possible in "old D&D", where alignment is absolute (see smite evil and other similar spells) and decided by an absolute entity that classify everyone into 9 alignment.

However, having a subjective alignment system allow more "realistic alignment", since nobody is correct (or at least, there is no magical proof that someone is morally correct). Multiple "Good peoples" can be in an horrible war because their vision of Good are contradictory, and each of them consider the other side as evil and themselves as good.

This is also much more adequate (in my mind) for character building:

Absolute alignment is restrictive on your way of playing the character. If you don't follow it, you lose it. It leads to questions like "should a LG character do this?", which ultimately reduce character behavior to the stereotype of their alignment.

Subjective alignment is descriptive, it just show what are the motivation of your character, and allow any interpretation from the player on what mean are adequate for the motivations. It leads to questions like "are the action of my character adequate with its goal and motivations?"

Though, if you want a stereotyped 'good vs evil' (which is what a lot of people want when playing D&D, and is more consistent with D&D official lore, even is 5e), absolute alignment is the way to go.

From what I understood (from this discussion and other videos about alignment) is that, it is useful if your character doesn't have a strong background, so in some situations you might not know what he/she will do, and then you can refer to your alignment to have a coherence in your decisions.

However, I spent quite a lot of time building my character's background, her motivations, what she is or not ready to do or sacrifice, and what is her goal. So I feel in this case, alignment is not so important, because I already decided what kind of character she is. (That's also why I don't really want to start a new character to fit in, because it took me quite some time to figure it all. If I have no other choices I will, but I would prefer not to.)
And I would still consider her lawful, because she is following her principles and the limits she fixed herself.

[Aimeryan]

Wut?

So if my PC desires a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible (in his mind this is achieved via the impostion of a racially plural theocratic state, with him as a benevolent dictator - thus ending all wars, racism and ushering in golden age for mankind) but uses extreme violence to achieve that end (genocide, holy wars, pogroms, murder, torture) he's... 'Good'?

Hitler approves of your reasoning.

In the very long term it may be the result that such a person is deemed Good, if truly that was the desire and is successful in bringing it about (this is subject to the end-state here being truly a place of greater pleasure and joy and lesser pain and misery than the original state). However, in any term other than that he would be deemed Evil because he is actively and consistently desiring and causing pain and misery (even if the desire is born out of eventually not doing that).

This is not an unknown or original thought; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Since alignments can and will change, I see no problem in this.

The flaw with your Hitler metaphor is that such an end-state is very highly unlikely to have been brought about even if he was successful - his goals and desires did not merit that being the likely as the end result. It is similar to theorising that hitting a little girl with a basketball as hard as you can will bring about a world of great happiness - possibly somehow, but highly highly unlikely. Well that and the whole Good-Evil scale is super simplified and 2D.


Edit: It probably should be noted that in real life I would ascribe to far more meaningful measures of morality than a Good-Evil system based on simplified definitions - the definitions given here are what my group uses for D&D 5e.