What's my alignment?

[tadkins]

TL;DR: A sorcerer who supports and aids the downtrodden and innocent, and seeks to torment bullies and the corrupt.

For almost all of his life, something had felt wrong. People in the kingdom, homeless and starving in the streets, with no recourse, while the elite continued to hold feasts in their massive holds every night. Folks taking advantage of others, the strong preying upon the weak, himself and his family included. He was never anything special. Not strong, fast, or clever. Not very brave, or charming. Barely scraping by in life. Not long ago, his mother had died of an illness that they could not afford to have cured.

That all changed the day his strange powers manifested, though. With them came faint whispers of change from an unknown, but sinister sounding source. He finally had the opportunity to make them all pay. He had the power to uncover the truth of things, and use that truth against them.

Through divinations, he learned that the nobleman had paid off the judge to let off his murdering cousin. He learned that taxes were raised to fund a lavish new castle for the elite and their circle of sycophants. He learned the weaknesses of certain cretins in the city with bad reputations. And so on...

He wasn't quite sure how to use this information. But he fully intended to, one way or another. He vowed to, once he got stronger and mastered these strange new powers, to help give a better life to those who deserved it, and to make sure those deserving also got their comeuppance, starting at the very top.

Kind of a rough idea I had for a character. Where on the alignment spectrum would you guys say he'd fall under?

[DeTess]

It's hard to say. I'd guess CG, but it depends on a lot of things. Are you planning on dealing vigilante justice because the victims deserve justice(Chaotic) or because you want to restore proper law and order (Lawful)?

Do you attack the opressors to stop them from hurting others, and limit the damage to what's nessecery to stop them (good)? Do you kill them and anyone else with a bit of blue blood or that ever profitted from corruption out of revenge (Evil)?

[tadkins]

It's hard to say. I'd guess CG, but ut deoebds on a lot of things. Are you planning on dealing vigilante justice because the victims deserve it (Chaotic) or because you want to restore proper law and order (Lawful)?

Do you attack the opressors to stop them from hurting others, and limit the damage to what's nessecery to stop them (good)? Do you kill them and anyone else with a bit of blue blood or tgat ever profitted from corruption out of revenge (Evil)?

Good questions. I'd say definitely the former on your first one. He's watched others suffer because of the machinations of the powerful and has always wished he could do so something about it. He holds a bit of bitterness and hatred in his heart for the elite, for their ability to get away with pretty much anything they want.

Though he doesn't hesitate to be kind and sympathetic to those who, in his eyes, genuinely deserve it (namely the innocent and downtrodden), and would likely go out of his way to help them.

As far as the corrupt elite goes, given the opportunity, he wouldn't kill such folks, but just about anything else is fair game. With magic and actual power at his disposal, his goal is to expose, humiliate, and extort those who have succeeded in life off the backs of others.

This is a person who just hates a lot of what exists in the world, including himself. He always felt pretty worthless as a person, hating himself for being unable to do anything about what's wrong in the world. The sorcerer powers he was gifted with don't really help either. He knows they're the only reason he has any sort of worth and hates himself all the more for that.

[DeTess]

Right now, your character sounds Chaotic neutral, but over the course of the campaign this could easily develop towards Good or Evil. I think a lot is going to depend on how your character is going to define 'those who have succeeded in life off the backs of others', and that doesn't have to be static. If your definition always remains firmly on the perpetrators of the crimes (Lord So-and-so, princess Ladyda, etc.) and you start behaving altruistically to those that have been wronged (not just steeling from the rich, but also giving to the poor), you could develop to be CG.

On the other hand, if your definition slips to include wide groups of people (all Nobles, including their 3-year-old kids, everyone who ever willingly worked for a noble in a position with some power, everyone who ever helped a police officer find someone who had been forced into a life of crime by these nobles, etc.) and you act indiscriminately against all of them, you'll almost definitely be Chaotic Evil.

If this is a character for a campaign, I'd definitely start at CN, and just see how he would naturally develop through the events of the campaign. Definitely talk to your DM as well,a s this is a concept that could be an incredibly memorable character if your DM works with you.

[tadkins]

If this is a character for a campaign, I'd definitely start at CN, and just see how he would naturally develop through the events of the campaign. Definitely talk to your DM as well,a s this is a concept that could be an incredibly memorable character if your DM works with you.

I'd love to play this character in a campaign one day. I just like to think of concepts beforehand if/when I join one at some point.

You're right on that point as well. Was thinking that I should kind of leave the concept as it is right now. Could be a good base to start with, and the direction it takes would pretty much entirely depend on the DM, and the party he ends up with. Would they be a good influence, or bad? I'm liking this idea more and more. xD

Thanks for your commentary!

[reddir]

Sorry to butt in but I just have to say I am almost giiddy at reading this discussion.

This is what I've hoped to see in re alignment discussion in D&D for so long. The rants and vituperitive back and forth that was the usual thing always saddened me.

It took a decade, but I finally got to see an honest take on D&D Alignments :)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Randuir
If this is a character for a campaign, I'd definitely start at CN, and just see how he would naturally develop through the events of the campaign.

Seconding this. The character sounds CN, with occasional hints of CG, but it really depends on the choices you make when playing him through a campaign.

Self-hatred itself isn’t necessarily good or evil; it’s what you do with it that matters most. And there’s no reason he needs to continue hating himself, depending on the decisions he makes.

[Nifft]

Anywhere in Good & Neutral could be justified based on specifics.

Does he smite the wicked who abuse their power because he wants to restore justice to the system as a whole? Then he might be lawful.

Does he tear down whole institutions while smiting their corrupt members? Then he might be chaotic.

Does he do a little of both? Then he might be neutral on the chaos-law scale.



Does he torture the bullies? Then he might not be good.

Does he restore wealth to the downtrodden victims at his own expense, and put himself in harm's way to protect innocents? Then he might be good.

[daremetoidareyo]

Neutral good or chaotic good depending on whether or not you work within the system sometimes or always rebuke it.

[Geddy2112]

I agree on CN, at least as a good start.

If they are disenfranchised with the system as a whole, it is certainly a chaotic alignment, but if they think it is more the corrupt exploiting the power they have instead of being good leaders/rulers they could be neutral or even lawful.

CN vs CG depends on how they define corrupt and if they believe it is morally righteous to help the downtrodden and oppose tyrants. If they lack strong moral conviction to help people and just don't like authority, it is much more neutral. If they wanna sic semper tyrannus every leader just because, they could even be evil. I agree that over time playing the character will reveal more of their good/evil leanings.

[Jay R]

I could play this character as a grumpy paladin, a laughing, devil-may-care Chaotic Good swashbuckler, a brooding Lawful Evil vigilante, or as a Chaotic Evil bully using it as an excuse to pull down any structure possible.

Will you do it to help, or to hurt? That's the Good/Evil axis. Will you follow a clear code, or make decisions on the fly? That's the Law/Chaos axis.

[tadkins]

Thanks all for your responses so far.

Admittedly, a bit of this character idea stems from some current feelings I have regarding RL issues.

Whenever I hear news about the terrible things that certain groups are doing, primarily the Trump administration, and certain evangelical christian and hate groups, I get angry, depressed, or both. I also at times think to myself things like "if I were a D&D wizard..." and the things I would potentially do to get back at them.


Self-hatred itself isn’t necessarily good or evil; it’s what you do with it that matters most. And there’s no reason he needs to continue hating himself, depending on the decisions he makes.

True. It would all depend on how the adventure/campaign goes, as well as the influences of his party and NPCs throughout the game. But the whole self-hatred thing is something I've thought about in the past. I even made a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-392103.html) a while back on a similar note. I mean, the way I see it; fighters train hard and suffer pain for their physical abilities, clerics and druids earn theirs through sheer devotion. Wizards are born genuises, they earn their power through fierce intellect and study, and are comparable to people like Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking in todays world. Meanwhile, a sorcerer is this pathetic dude who in all likelihood was never anything special until these strange powers manifested. Would it be wrong for one to feel that they're undeserving of them?
In my mind it's easy to turn an average joe into a hero through the sorcerer class. They don't need to be strong, fast, or clever. Even the charisma stat is open to interpretation, imo. They can get by through just "sheer force of will" which is what I've heard that stat defined as at times.


Does he restore wealth to the downtrodden victims at his own expense, and put himself in harm's way to protect innocents? Then he might be good.

I think he would do it by terrifying or cursing the ones responsible. As an example, let's say someone passed a law that hurt others and benefited only them. He would perhaps teleport into their bedchambers one night, make a showing of power, promise to do far worse if they didn't repeal that law. Stuff like that.

[Bartmanhomer]

Definitely Chaotic Good.

[Bartmanhomer]

Since this is a What's My Alignment I want you to explain my character situation:

My character is s male human swordsage. He happened to be a jerk but opposed any type of evil in him. He also opposed of any type of good in him. He shows no interest of law nor chaos. He prefer to stay out of conflicts for good/evil/law/chaos axis. What alignment is he anyway?

[AMFV]

Since this is a What's My Alignment I want you to explain my character situation:

My character is s male human swordsage. He happened to be a jerk but opposed any type of evil in him. He also opposed of any type of good in him. He shows no interest of law nor chaos. He prefer to stay of conflicts for good/evil/law/chaos axis. What alignment is he anyway?

Well what is his philosophical outlook? Does he believe that moral laws are absolute or more relative? Is he more deontological or more consequentialist?

It's not just supporting the alignments on a cosmic scale that makes you aligned with them, it's who you are as a person.

Good vs. Evil (in D&D), at its most fundamental involves the argument between self-interest and altruism. If you're willing to cause other people harm to benefit yourself, that's probably Evil (at least in terms of morality as presented in D&D). If you're willing to accept harm to yourself if it benefits others, that's probably Good. Now you can do Good things and still be Evil, depending on what the core of your personal beliefs are.

As far as "being a jerk" that depends on exactly what you mean by "jerk". And what you mean by "opposed any type of evil (good) in him"? That would be necessary to solve this.

As to the OP's stuff, I would guess Chaotic, with the other axis dependent on behavior. Although it would not be impossible to have a character that is similar but lawful.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well what is his philosophical outlook? Does he believe that moral laws are absolute or more relative? Is he more deontological or more consequentialist?

It's not just supporting the alignments on a cosmic scale that makes you aligned with them, it's who you are as a person.

Good vs. Evil (in D&D), at its most fundamental involves the argument between self-interest and altruism. If you're willing to cause other people harm to benefit yourself, that's probably Evil (at least in terms of morality as presented in D&D). If you're willing to accept harm to yourself if it benefits others, that's probably Good. Now you can do Good things and still be Evil, depending on what the core of your personal beliefs are.

As far as "being a jerk" that depends on exactly what you mean by "jerk". And what you mean by "opposed any type of evil (good) in him"? That would be necessary to solve this.

As to the OP's stuff, I would guess Chaotic, with the other axis dependent on behavior. Although it would not be impossible to have a character that is similar but lawful.

His philosophical outlook is to mind his own business and to stay out of moral and ethical conflicts.

[AMFV]

His philosophical outlook is to mind his own business and to stay out of moral and ethical conflicts.

That's not really a philosophical outlook. That's a set of actions. The alignment part is WHY he chooses to do that. If it's because he thinks that it's part of a fundamental moral law and that staying out of everybody's business is the way everything should be, then he's probably more inclined towards law. If he doesn't have a structured outlook on that, and it's just what happens when he acts naturally according to his behavioral whims at the time, then he's probably leaning towards chaos.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's not really a philosophical outlook. That's a set of actions. The alignment part is WHY he chooses to do that. If it's because he thinks that it's part of a fundamental moral law and that staying out of everybody's business is the way everything should be, then he's probably more inclined towards law. If he doesn't have a structured outlook on that, and it's just what happens when he acts naturally according to his behavioral whims at the time, then he's probably leaning towards chaos.
Then he must be True Neutral then.

[AMFV]

Then he must be True Neutral then.

Probably not. Because what you're describing tends to stem from a philosophical outlook. True neutral involves one of two outlooks, neither of which fit here. One is the obsession with balance, which would require a LOT of getting in other people's business. The other involves not having the intellect or capacity to make moral decisions, and from what you're describing that isn't the case here.

[Bartmanhomer]

Probably not. Because what you're describing tends to stem from a philosophical outlook. True neutral involves one of two outlooks, neither of which fit here. One is the obsession with balance, which would require a LOT of getting in other people's business. The other involves not having the intellect or capacity to make moral decisions, and from what you're describing that isn't the case here.
Ok he's a jerk but believes in law and order regardless of good and evil extremes.

[AMFV]

Ok he's a jerk but believes in law and order regardless of good and evil extremes.

Well if he believes in conceptual law and order, that would probably make him lawful. There are chaotic viewpoints that might believe in "legal" law but not necessarily in a cosmic law in that way or in a moral law. It's difficult here because you're not really delving into the character, into his actual beliefs. Believing in law and order doesn't mean that much, you have to go deeper, into the whys and hows of his belief.

Let's take this as an example.

In FR,

A Paladin of Ilmater, who is Lawful Good, would probably believe that allowing himself to indulge in physical pleasures or amorous encounters would be wrong, morally for him.

A Paladin of Sune, who would again be Lawful Good (not the deity but the Paladin) would believe that denying herself those very types of encounters would be wrong, morally for her.

So you can get to different viewpoints from the same kind of reasoning, that's what alignment best describes your characters philosophy of reasoning.

You could have, as I pointed out, a chaotic character who minds his own business (and one who doesn't), and a lawful character who minds his won business (and one who doesn't). The actions themselves don't dictate the alignment in this case, it's what their reasoning and methodology are.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well if he believes in conceptual law and order, that would probably make him lawful. There are chaotic viewpoints that might believe in "legal" law but not necessarily in a cosmic law in that way or in a moral law. It's difficult here because you're not really delving into the character, into his actual beliefs. Believing in law and order doesn't mean that much, you have to go deeper, into the whys and hows of his belief.

Let's take this as an example.

In FR,

A Paladin of Ilmater, who is Lawful Good, would probably believe that allowing himself to indulge in physical pleasures or amorous encounters would be wrong, morally for him.

A Paladin of Sune, who would again be Lawful Good (not the deity but the Paladin) would believe that denying herself those very types of encounters would be wrong, morally for her.

So you can get to different viewpoints from the same kind of reasoning, that's what alignment best describes your characters philosophy of reasoning.

You could have, as I pointed out, a chaotic character who minds his own business (and one who doesn't), and a lawful character who minds his won business (and one who doesn't). The actions themselves don't dictate the alignment in this case, it's what their reasoning and methodology are.

Ok I get it now.

[Pleh]

Probably not. Because what you're describing tends to stem from a philosophical outlook. True neutral involves one of two outlooks, neither of which fit here. One is the obsession with balance, which would require a LOT of getting in other people's business. The other involves not having the intellect or capacity to make moral decisions, and from what you're describing that isn't the case here.

No, there's also Neutral in the Apathy. 3.5 predates the Unaligned option in later editions. True neutral characters can be capable of alignment and still be neutral through passive apathetic conduct seek only self interest not at the expense of others (nor to their benefit) and act in accordance to only the laws they feel they will be held accountable to (thus neither lawful nor chaotic).


Ok he's a jerk but believes in law and order regardless of good and evil extremes.

That's the oversimplified motto of LN

[AMFV]

No, there's also Neutral in the Apathy. 3.5 predates the Unaligned option in later editions. True neutral characters can be capable of alignment and still be neutral through passive apathetic conduct seek only self interest not at the expense of others (nor to their benefit) and act in accordance to only the laws they feel they will be held accountable to (thus neither lawful nor chaotic).

It's possible, but I think that's actually the more difficult position to hold. Because alignment isn't just the sum of outlooks. And you also have to have apathy of outlook. So while you might find a stoner in some city somewhere who really doesn't care about their philosophical position, even somebody who doesn't act in a way that's strongly aligned with a particular cosmic value will likely be aligned to that value because their beliefs are such.

I mean most people aren't adventurers and don't have the option to do a bunch of really heavy alignment stuff. But most of them still have alignments. Shopkeepers, aren't all TN. Merchants, aren't all TN. Most nobles in most sourcebooks aren't. The idea that "good and evil" are rare because they involve direct action, is not borne out in the system material.

So while I would agree it might be possible, it's important to remember that alignment doesn't factor only conduct into it, but also outlook.

[Pleh]

It's possible, but I think that's actually the more difficult position to hold. Because alignment isn't just the sum of outlooks. And you also have to have apathy of outlook. So while you might find a stoner in some city somewhere who really doesn't care about their philosophical position, even somebody who doesn't act in a way that's strongly aligned with a particular cosmic value will likely be aligned to that value because their beliefs are such.

I mean most people aren't adventurers and don't have the option to do a bunch of really heavy alignment stuff. But most of them still have alignments. Shopkeepers, aren't all TN. Merchants, aren't all TN. Most nobles in most sourcebooks aren't. The idea that "good and evil" are rare because they involve direct action, is not borne out in the system material.

So while I would agree it might be possible, it's important to remember that alignment doesn't factor only conduct into it, but also outlook.

But alignment is also a matter of balance at certain points. You can rigorously and religiously seek balance, or you can just wind up neutral by following the path of least resistance, occasionally being evil and occasionally good, both in action and in outlook.

It's not all that hard to think of examples. You volunteer at an orphanage because you were an orphan yourself once and you want to help others. But you're cruel to grown women because the female monks that ran your orphanage were harsh and even abusive at times. To this day it brings catharsis to make every woman you see suffer.

Ultimately, a balance of good and evil outlooks not predicated on the intent to balance cosmic forces. Just a passive, reactionary outlook that makes you treat some people well and others poorly.

Likewise, it's not that uncommon to just meet Apathy. "I'm a merc and I'm just doing a job." Hero to some, villain to others, and it only depends on who is paying them. If it feels too callous to be neutral, suppose they're mercenaries who only slay monsters, so they avoid assassin work of butchering innocents. Not good, not evil, possibly lawful of their business is legal, but quite chaotic if not.

[AMFV]

But alignment is also a matter of balance at certain points. You can rigorously and religiously seek balance, or you can just wind up neutral by following the path of least resistance, occasionally being evil and occasionally good, both in action and in outlook.

I think that that would be pretty uncommon. I mean not impossible, but to have somebody who doesn't care at all about anything they believe in either action or outlook is going to require a pretty significant divestment of attention. Because to be TN you have to be neutral outlook and action. Which is not impossible. The merchant who charges a fair price because it's "the right thing to do" is already out of Neutral, and into lawful or good depending on why he does that. Even if it's the same action as the merchant who charges a fair price because otherwise he will lose money. To be TN, you have to be overwhelmingly passive, not just a little passive.



It's not all that hard to think of examples. You volunteer at an orphanage because you were an orphan yourself once and you want to help others. But you're cruel to grown women because the female monks that ran your orphanage were harsh and even abusive at times. To this day it brings catharsis to make every woman you see suffer.

That is Evil. Period. The Good actions the person is taking (helping at an orphanage) they're doing because they get something out of it (emotional catharsis). And the rest is pretty much stock evil. Now the character might not be Evil, though, if there's more to their outlook.



Ultimately, a balance of good and evil outlooks not predicated on the intent to balance cosmic forces. Just a passive, reactionary outlook that makes you treat some people well and others poorly.

And that outlook is very difficult to have. If you're treating people well and others poorly out of a sense of fairness, then you are going to be lawful in outlook. If you're treating people well and others poorly out of your own gut feelings, probably chaotic. If you're doing so with any kind of structure, lawful. If you're doing so at random, chaotic. Even treating people differently in any way is going to push you towards an alignment, especially if your other alignment stuff isn't that important. And to find somebody who treats all people the same out of apathy, is really rare, but again not impossible.

And then how you are treating people "well" or "poorly" has a lot of alignment connotations as well. If you're more kind to the people you're treating well, then you might be good, especially if you're doing it with no thought of reward. If you're harming people egregiously, or taking perverse pleasure in it, then you're probably towards evil. Again it's really hard to be that apathetic.



Likewise, it's not that uncommon to just meet Apathy. "I'm a merc and I'm just doing a job." Hero to some, villain to others, and it only depends on who is paying them. If it feels too callous to be neutral, suppose they're mercenaries who only slay monsters, so they avoid assassin work of butchering innocents. Not good, not evil, possibly lawful of their business is legal, but quite chaotic if not.

I've never seen a "merc just doing a job" who was actively apathetic in their outlook. Not in fiction. Not in D&D. They might not have a lot of values, but they always have some, and if there's not a lot there then it'll push them one direction or another. And again, there's a lot of outlook stuff that you're glossing over here. You're still only focused on the actions, not the reasons why.

[Katie Boundary]

This character SCREAMS Chaotic Good. Your character might as well run around in a Guy Fawkes mask reciting rhymes about the fifth of November, that's how chaotic good he is. Your character is so chaotic good, his best friends are Friar Tuck and Maid Marian.


Admittedly, a bit of this character idea stems from some current feelings I have regarding RL issues.

Whenever I hear news about the terrible things that certain groups are doing, primarily the Trump administration, and certain evangelical christian and hate groups, I get angry, depressed, or both. I also at times think to myself things like "if I were a D&D wizard..." and the things I would potentially do to get back at them.

The irony is that your description of in-game events is much more reminiscent of socialism than of anything that the Trump administration or evangelicals have ever done... especially the "taxes were raised" part. If you really hated bullying and corruption, you'd hate the democrats and republicans equally, and be a libertarian :)

[tadkins]

This character SCREAMS Chaotic Good. Your character might as well run around in a Guy Fawkes mask reciting rhymes about the fifth of November, that's how chaotic good he is. Your character is so chaotic good, his best friends are Friar Tuck and Maid Marian.

I suppose I really need to see that movie sometime, lol.


The irony is that your description of in-game events is much more reminiscent of socialism than of anything that the Trump administration or evangelicals have ever done... especially the "taxes were raised" part. If you really hated bullying and corruption, you'd hate the democrats and republicans equally, and be a libertarian :)

I agree, partially. Except I could never be a libertarian because I believe in helping people. I also believe in regulation and having a social safety net. I consider myself a progressive and it makes me sad to see us go backward, and not forward. Trump is a moron, his administration is genuinely hurting people, and evangelicals are trying to turn us into a theocracy. I do hate both sides, at least as they are right now. I was, (still am), a big Bernie Bro and am loving the hell out of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing.

[AMFV]

Just as a friendly reminder (which we're allowed to do) real world politics is really discouraged here. It's just that I think there's a lot of good discussion here and I don't want it lost to the thread locking down in its infancy.

[tadkins]

Just as a friendly reminder (which we're allowed to do) real world politics is really discouraged here. It's just that I think there's a lot of good discussion here and I don't want it lost to the thread locking down in its infancy.

I know. I only mentioned it because it served as a real-world inspiration for a character concept. I really am trying not to make the thread blow up with that.

[Katie Boundary]

More political nonsense:


I could never be a libertarian because I believe in helping people.

Libertarians believe in helping people. They also acknowledge that government is the worst possible way of helping people - literally even worse than thoughts and prayers, because while thoughts and prayers do absolutely nothing, most government programs only worsen the very problems that they're supposed to solve.


I was, (still am), a big Bernie Bro and am loving the hell out of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing.

Cortez is the dumbest person to run for public office in the entire history of the US. George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are geniuses compared to her.

[Pleh]

I think that that would be pretty uncommon. I mean not impossible, but to have somebody who doesn't care at all about anything they believe in either action or outlook is going to require a pretty significant divestment of attention. Because to be TN you have to be neutral outlook and action. Which is not impossible.

OR you can be weakly aligned, which is very common, because it requires little initiative and responsiveness from the person.


The merchant who charges a fair price because it's "the right thing to do" is already out of Neutral, and into lawful or good depending on why he does that. Even if it's the same action as the merchant who charges a fair price because otherwise he will lose money. To be TN, you have to be overwhelmingly passive, not just a little passive.

Nah. You're just changing the standards of what qualifies as Neutral. 3.5 PHB doesn't describe Neutral as you do. It's almost more common than any other alignment by virtue of being the easiest alignment to fall into.


That is Evil. Period. The Good actions the person is taking (helping at an orphanage) they're doing because they get something out of it (emotional catharsis). And the rest is pretty much stock evil. Now the character might not be Evil, though, if there's more to their outlook.

No, you misread it. The example Empathizes with one people group and sacrifices of their own resources to benefit those individuals. There is no catharsis present beyond whatever EVERY good creature feels for doing something good. Helping Orphans because you empathize with their troubles is Good.

So we have a mix of good and evil, which should balance out to neutral.


And that outlook is very difficult to have. If you're treating people well and others poorly out of a sense of fairness, then you are going to be lawful in outlook. If you're treating people well and others poorly out of your own gut feelings, probably chaotic. If you're doing so with any kind of structure, lawful. If you're doing so at random, chaotic. Even treating people differently in any way is going to push you towards an alignment, especially if your other alignment stuff isn't that important. And to find somebody who treats all people the same out of apathy, is really rare, but again not impossible.

Or you just follow your gut or a sense of fairness in a intermittent manner only loosely based on your context or outlook because you aren't tied to any particular responses.


And then how you are treating people "well" or "poorly" has a lot of alignment connotations as well. If you're more kind to the people you're treating well, then you might be good, especially if you're doing it with no thought of reward. If you're harming people egregiously, or taking perverse pleasure in it, then you're probably towards evil. Again it's really hard to be that apathetic.

Or you feel things naturally, like giving some groups your compassionate support and others your discrimination mostly because you're too apathetic towards internal consistency to be guided to do otherwise.


I've never seen a "merc just doing a job" who was actively apathetic in their outlook. Not in fiction.

Jayne. The man they call Jayne.

Remember, Good creatures don't have to be Good at every moment, evil creatures can so good things.

Neutral creatures don't have to be neutral at every moment. They'll have good moments, evil moments, chaotic moments, and lawful moments.

Jayne is just a merc doing a job. He'll feel bad for people and help them occasionally, but he actively surpresses that empathic instinct because it's bad for business. He legitimately feels bad for the people of Canton when they keep pouring affection on him when he knows he doesn't deserve it and they can't afford it.

He's greedy and likes causing pain ("I was gonna get me an ear, too.") But again, he recognizes the value of working with a team and he knows to balance the sadist elements of himself so as to make himself employable.

He's a criminal and almost definitively chaotic as a result, but he follows the Chain of Command without much more than some snide complaints. He really kind of evens out on this axis, too.


Not in D&D. They might not have a lot of values, but they always have some, and if there's not a lot there then it'll push them one direction or another. And again, there's a lot of outlook stuff that you're glossing over here. You're still only focused on the actions, not the reasons why.

You're lowering the standards of alignment way below what they're intended to be.

Alignment means that you're actively oriented in a particular direction.

In D&D, it tends to be
1) if you seek the interest of others above yourself, then you're probably good.
2) if you seek self interest, but not at the expense of others, probably neutral.
3) if you seek self interest at any (or especially maximum) expense of others, probably evil.
And if it's a pretty even distribution of these, you're probably neutral.

Same for law and chaos with how much you tend to submit to external authority.

[AMFV]

OR you can be weakly aligned, which is very common, because it requires little initiative and responsiveness from the person.

There's no "you must be this Good to enter" requirement. If you are more Good than Evil, you're Good, period. That's how alignments work, if it were otherwise the DMG would have TN as being the most common alignment, and it isn't. And most NPCs in setting and source work and adventures would be TN and they aren't. Including those who are not strongly aligned with any particular alignment related cause.



Nah. You're just changing the standards of what qualifies as Neutral. 3.5 PHB doesn't describe Neutral as you do. It's almost more common than any other alignment by virtue of being the easiest alignment to fall into.

Actually the DMG DOES describe the commonality of alignments and TN is not more common than any of the others. It's exactly as common as any of the others. And then you'd still have to exclude the people who are making a deliberate choice towards neutrality.




No, you misread it. The example Empathizes with one people group and sacrifices of their own resources to benefit those individuals. There is no catharsis present beyond whatever EVERY good creature feels for doing something good. Helping Orphans because you empathize with their troubles is Good.

That could be Good, yes. And I said as much, if you'd read the post. I specifically examined the importance of the actual motive here.



So we have a mix of good and evil, which should balance out to neutral.

Not necessarily. Only if they do both in exactly equal amounts or very close, and only if that's the only part of their character that exists.



Or you just follow your gut or a sense of fairness in a intermittent manner only loosely based on your context or outlook because you aren't tied to any particular responses.

But unless those ratios are very nearly exact you aren't going to be TN. Or unless you really lack the capacity for moral agency.



Or you feel things naturally, like giving some groups your compassionate support and others your discrimination mostly because you're too apathetic towards internal consistency to be guided to do otherwise.


[QUOTE=Pleh;23527213]
Jayne. The man they call Jayne.

Not even close. Jayne is 100% NE, possibly CE. He violates contracts and shoots his teammates for a better bed for himself, that's not really even close to any kind of TN alignment.



Remember, Good creatures don't have to be Good at every moment, evil creatures can so good things.

True, and I've said as much, multiple times, in the last post, the one you're quoting.




Neutral creatures don't have to be neutral at every moment. They'll have good moments, evil moments, chaotic moments, and lawful moments.

True, but to fall into neutral they have to be roughly balanced along those axis. Jayne is absolutely not.



Jayne is just a merc doing a job. He'll feel bad for people and help them occasionally, but he actively surpresses that empathic instinct because it's bad for business. He legitimately feels bad for the people of Canton when they keep pouring affection on him when he knows he doesn't deserve it and they can't afford it.

Jayne helps people whenever it wouldn't benefit him to screw them over. That's still in Evil territory, like really firmly there.



He's greedy and likes causing pain ("I was gonna get me an ear, too.") But again, he recognizes the value of working with a team and he knows to balance the sadist elements of himself so as to make himself employable.

He's a criminal and almost definitively chaotic as a result, but he follows the Chain of Command without much more than some snide complaints. He really kind of evens out on this axis, too.



[QUOTE=Pleh;23527213]
You're lowering the standards of alignment way below what they're intended to be.

Alignment means that you're actively oriented in a particular direction.

Again if that were the case then in the DMG there would be more people as TN when you're coming up with demographics and that is not the case, in fact for random NPCs it's about a complete even split. Even for a level 1 commoner.



In D&D, it tends to be
1) if you seek the interest of others above yourself, then you're probably good.
2) if you seek self interest, but not at the expense of others, probably neutral.
3) if you seek self interest at any (or especially maximum) expense of others, probably evil.
And if it's a pretty even distribution of these, you're probably neutral.

That's a gross oversimplification of what we see in terms of alignment, but I would agree that Good-Evil has a lot more room for neutrality in the axis, but I would also argue that TN is probably pretty rare when that occurs.



Same for law and chaos with how much you tend to submit to external authority.

Law and Chaos are NOT only relevant in how one responds to external authority. It's about how one's moral outlook is.

[Pleh]

That could be Good, yes. And I said as much, if you'd read the post. I specifically examined the importance of the actual motive here.

I gave you the motive. Empathy. That is the motive. You're trying to redefine the motive because it undermines your argument.

This unfortunately feels like the most unhelpful argument alignment I've ever had. I think I'll leave it there for now.