Tom Bombardier and Alignment, What's your opinion?

[HouseRules]

Tom Bombardier is a proven evidence that Neutral cannot exist while certain perception does not hold. If the perception that Lawful is stronger, than Neutrality in the Law-Chaos axis may exist, otherwise, only Law and Chaos exist, without Neutrality. If the perception that Good is stronger, then Neutrality in the Good-Evil axis may exist, otherwise, only Good and Evil exist, without Neutrality.

Remember it is perception not actuality that matters.

[Nifft]

Tom Bombardier

That guy was a blast.

[D+1]

Tom Bombardier is a proven evidence that Neutral cannot exist while certain perception does not hold.

"Frodo to bombardier - we're over Mount Doom. Bomb bay doors open..."

[Nifft]

"Frodo to bombardier - we're over Mount Doom. Bomb bay doors open..."

"Fire in the hole!"

[Jay R]

Tom Bombardier is a proven evidence that Neutral cannot exist while certain perception does not hold. If the perception that Lawful is stronger, than Neutrality in the Law-Chaos axis may exist, otherwise, only Law and Chaos exist, without Neutrality. If the perception that Good is stronger, then Neutrality in the Good-Evil axis may exist, otherwise, only Good and Evil exist, without Neutrality.

Remember it is perception not actuality that matters.

First of all, false perceptions cannot prevent something from existing. If Neutral exists, all the false perceptions in the world will not make it go away. [They may make it hard or impossible for the person with the false perception to believe it exists, but that's not the same thing.]

Secondly, for any immense struggle of values or sides or ideals, there can be people disinterested in the struggle. Neutral exists as long as it's possible to say, "That's not my problem."

Thirdly, Tom Bombadil's unique position is that he dos not come from that world-view, or even that world, at all. He was invented before Middle-Earth was, and does not fit into the cosmology or morality of that world.

Finally, yes, I know it's probably an auto-correct, but I couldn't resist:


Ho! Tom Bombadier, Tom Bombadiero!
By Douglas, Messerschmitt, Spitfire, and Zero,
Foes are attacking now , help us with our mission!
Come, Tom Bombadier, bomb them to perdition!

[BowStreetRunner]

First of all, false perceptions cannot prevent something from existing. If Neutral exists, all the false perceptions in the world will not make it go away. [They may make it hard or impossible for the person with the false perception to believe it exists, but that's not the same thing.]+1 this. Perception is subjective. It cannot alter an objective reality, only obscure it from your point of view.


Secondly, for any immense struggle of values or sides or ideals, there can be people disinterested in the struggle. Neutral exists as long as it's possible to say, "That's not my problem."There really should another alignment outside of the grid: unaligned. Someone who is disinterested would be unaligned. They do not really care about the struggles between good and evil or law and chaos. The balance can shift to any extreme and they would not attempt to change it.

But a truly neutral person actively seeks balance. They are unhappy both when law is predominant as well as when chaos overtakes law. They see both good and evil as necessary and will work to prevent either from eliminating the other.

[Seto]

To the OP: Neutrality is a thing. As others have said, in 3.5/PF, there are people with Neutral alignment. The much better question in my opinion is: do Neutral acts exist? Not counting essentially unaligned acts here. Are there actions that actively push you towards the Neutral alignment instead of pushing you towards Law, Chaos, Evil or Good with Neutral just being the stop in the middle?
In other words, is Neutrality something like its own objective alignment matter (as the existence of TN Exemplars would suggest), or is it only the right dosage of Law, Chaos, Evil and Good?

There really should another alignment outside of the grid: unaligned. Someone who is disinterested would be unaligned. They do not really care about the struggles between good and evil or law and chaos. The balance can shift to any extreme and they would not attempt to change it.

But a truly neutral person actively seeks balance. They are unhappy both when law is predominant as well as when chaos overtakes law. They see both good and evil as necessary and will work to prevent either from eliminating the other.

I'll join you on the Unaligned wagon, but I'd actually reserve it for beings incapable of moral or ethical choices. Babies, animals, constructs, etc. "It's not my problem" and "I want balance" are admittedly very different flavors of Neutral, you could even give them different names, but their moral choices put them in the same general cosmic position towards Evil, Law, Good and Chaos. Refusing to make a choice IS making a choice. They get a tag, and that tag is Neutral. Just like in an election, people might not vote, or people might throw in a blank vote in sign of protest - but both of them count the same towards the results. Therefore the fact that they share the same alignment is more natural to me than the fact that they share an alignment with animals.

[HouseRules]

Unaligned is not mechanically different from True Neutral, nor behaviorally different from True Neutral.

I did not say that Neutral Alignment cannot exist, but imply that if Chaotic is sufficiently stronger than Lawful, it would impact the daily lives of the Neutral, having pressure to push them towards one extreme or the other. I assume the pressure is strong enough that most people must make an decision towards Lawful or Chaotic.

A similar argument for the Good and Evil also exist. If Evil is at large, then people in their own self interest needs to defend themselves. Not attempting to defend yourself is Neutral. Defend yourself may be Neutral, or it may be Selfish Good depending on how the character is raised. It even could be Selfish Evil, if the character wants to punish others, or conditioned to like torturing since that is normal in his or her perspective.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jay R
Finally, yes, I know it's probably an auto-correct, but I couldn't resist:


Ho! Tom Bombadier, Tom Bombadiero!
By Douglas, Messerschmitt, Spitfire, and Zero,
Foes are attacking now , help us with our mission!
Come, Tom Bombadier, bomb them to perdition!

I would just like to thank you for creating something truly worthy here.


Originally Posted by Jay R
First of all, false perceptions cannot prevent something from existing.

And thank you for this as well.

[liquidformat]

To the OP: Neutrality is a thing. As others have said, in 3.5/PF, there are people with Neutral alignment. The much better question in my opinion is: do Neutral acts exist? Not counting essentially unaligned acts here. Are there actions that actively push you towards the Neutral alignment instead of pushing you towards Law, Chaos, Evil or Good with Neutral just being the stop in the middle?
In other words, is Neutrality something like its own objective alignment matter (as the existence of TN Exemplars would suggest), or is it only the right dosage of Law, Chaos, Evil and Good?

I think neutral act are a thing, choosing to be agnostic would be a neutral action you are actively choosing to do nothing about a situation. That act is neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic in and of itself.



I'll join you on the Unaligned wagon, but I'd actually reserve it for beings incapable of moral or ethical choices. Babies, animals, constructs, etc. "It's not my problem" and "I want balance" are admittedly very different flavors of Neutral, you could even give them different names, but their moral choices put them in the same general cosmic position towards Evil, Law, Good and Chaos. Refusing to make a choice IS making a choice. They get a tag, and that tag is Neutral. Just like in an election, people might not vote, or people might throw in a blank vote in sign of protest - but both of them count the same towards the results. Therefore the fact that they share the same alignment is more natural to me than the fact that they share an alignment with animals.

So in your election example, neutral are the people who choose not to vote whereas unaligned would be people who can't vote such as minors and foreigners?

[lylsyly]

It's been a long time since I last read those books but I have to ask ...

Was dear old Tom Truly (Pun Intended) Neutral? True, the ring held no sway over him, but his protection of his little slice of the world and of his beloved don't really seem the act of a "true neutral" being. All the critters setting the table and serving the meals strikes me as a "lawful" behavior as opposed to "chaotic", the fact that the One Ring held no fear for him could also be seen as He was just that "Good" - or maybe it's just me ;)

[GrayDeath]

Nah, he was the true primordial EVIL power, so old and outside the rules, they puny little ring could not faze him.

Necessary link: https://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by lylsyly
All the critters setting the table and serving the meals….

I think you’re confusing Tom Bombadil with Beorn. The only one doing the serving for Tom Bombadil was Goldberry, while Beorn did have trained dogs who stood on their hindlegs to serve at his table.


Originally Posted by lylsyly
…his protection of his little slice of the world and of his beloved don't really seem the act of a "true neutral" being.

Very much agreed. He has withdrawn from the world, but he’s still good in his own way—remember that in the novels, it’s Tom Bombadil who rescues the younger hobbits from Old Man Willow, rather than Treebeard as was clumsily inserted into the movies.

Bombadil in general seems to be a gentle and kindly creature, and I’d say he’s more chaotic good than anything.

[HouseRules]

Beorn the Werebear. The reason why werebears are the only lawful good were-kind.

[liquidformat]

Beorn the Werebear. The reason why werebears are the only lawful good were-kind.

poor werewolves and wererats just have bad pr and get shafted with CE the evil stupid to LG's stupid good...

[Seto]

I think neutral act are a thing, choosing to be agnostic would be a neutral action you are actively choosing to do nothing about a situation. That act is neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic in and of itself.
So you would be of the opinion that there are Neutral acts and unaligned acts. For example, you would say that washing your hands of a dilemma, refusing to take a side, brings you closer to the Neutral alignment and therefore is a Neutral act, whereas picking peanut butter sandwich over tuna has no moral bearing and does not inherently bring you closer to any alignment (unaligned act)?



So in your election example, neutral are the people who choose not to vote whereas unaligned would be people who can't vote such as minors and foreigners?
Pretty much. To be more precise, Neutral type 1 ("Not my problem") are people who choose not to vote, Neutral type 2 ("Balance, no extremes") are those who actually care and go to the voting booth, but vote blank in sign of protest, and unaligned are those who can't vote.
My point was that, although all three categories are very different characters, the first two categories belong in the same boat, and the third category doesn't. That's because the first two exercise their right in a way that similarly impacts the election results (e.g. it doesn't change the result in one direction or another), while the third doesn't have this right to begin with.

Although to be even more precise, IF we accept that there are inherently Neutral acts, there are two ways to be Neutral that do not overlap with the Type 1 vs Type 2 distinction. You can be Neutral because, either through apathy or commitment to balance, you mostly commit Neutral acts. Or you can be Neutral because, either through moral indifference or commitment to balance, you commit Good, Evil, Chaotic and Lawful acts in equal measures. Both ways end up TN, but the first soul is metaphysically more "pure", so to speak.
Personally, I do not believe in a pure Neutral soul. I think Neutrality kind of HAS to be a mixture of other things, and that balance is a question of... well, dosage. Balance, between several things. Balance never exists in itself, but it appears through a particular configuration of those things that are balanced. That is why I'm tempted to reject the idea that there are purely Neutral acts, defensible and logical though it may seem.
Frankly, I'm literally the guy who cared enough about Neutrality to write the manual, and those are the questions that I haven't answered definitely. (And that thankfully nobody needs to actually answer to run any kind of game or character. I just like to idly speculate on imaginary metaphysics)



To the OP: okay, I think I get what you're saying. It's more practical than theoretical, it's a statement about Neutrality's conditions of existence. Basically, if Evil, or Law, or some aligned ideology is so pressing that your stance on it is gonna shape your life, you HAVE to take a stance, right? You can't remain Neutral?
Well, I would say that, yeah, in a sense, you would get much fewer Neutral people. But here's the caveat: only Neutral in the narrow "it's not my problem" sense would disappear. If Evil is gonna come for you, then you can't say it's not your problem, because it IS. And that might induce a lot of people to get in the game and become Good in reaction. But if you're fighting Evil solely because you have to in order to defend yourself... you're still Neutral.
So yeah, a good percentage of Neutral people might change alignement under those conditions. But those few people that are actually committed to Neutrality for balance's sake will still be there, and their mission may be more important then than ever. Diamonds are formed under pressure, after all.

[Ellrin]

I don’t even care that much about trying to figure out non-D&D characters’ alignments, but I just want to say thank you to this thread for being absolutely delightful.

[HouseRules]

I don’t even care that much about trying to figure out non-D&D characters’ alignments, but I just want to say thank you to this thread for being absolutely delightful.

The title of the thread is one subtopic, and the discussion between myself and Seto is the other subtopic.

[Talverin]

Personally, I don't find alignment to be a 'right now anyway' sort of thing. You're not 'normally neutral, but right now I'm being Lawful-Good.' That doesn't make your alignment LG. It makes your alignment Neutral. What matters for Alignment is intent.

"I want to be a good person" is a good thing. "I want to follow the rules" is a lawful thing. "I want to follow the rules because I'm not a fan of prison" is not inherently lawful. "I want to break the rules " is chaotic. "I break the rules that are inconvenient for me, because I know I won't get in trouble" isn't necessarily chaotic. It's still 'enlightened self-interest' in the sense that a neutral character does not have regard for laws or morality in making their actions, only in the effect of their actions on themselves.

Correction: This is just one type of neutral character.

If there is a lot of evil in the world and it's really pushing on my life? It doesn't force me to become good. It forces me to play by evil's rules for my own good. I may go along with it, and follow the rules of this evil society, without being lawful, or evil. I'd break the rules if it didn't mean being publicly executed and probably enslaved to a demon. Do I want to be evil? Nope. But you have to go along to get along.

Now, D&D has some acts actually tied to the Evil descriptor. If I worship at Evil Church to help bring a Demon into the world? That is an Evil act, because the act itself is tainted by Evil. It is literally tapping into the Abyss. Those are the 'edge case' situations, where the Planes are involved.

Day to day actions, however, don't change one's alignment. Only intent and choice can do so.

Caveat: This only applies to PCs and creatures with free will. Some things are literally slaves to their alignment.

[liquidformat]

So you would be of the opinion that there are Neutral acts and unaligned acts. For example, you would say that washing your hands of a dilemma, refusing to take a side, brings you closer to the Neutral alignment and therefore is a Neutral act, whereas picking peanut butter sandwich over tuna has no moral bearing and does not inherently bring you closer to any alignment (unaligned act)?

I would say 90% of a person's day to day actions are unaligned in and of themselves. My decision to have leftovers for lunch or to go out for lunch has no baring on if I am good or evil, lawful and chaotic. Or similar if I as an adventurer choose to buy a sword with +2 enhancement bonus or +1 and flaming, they make no difference to alignment in any way and therefore most actions should fall under unaligned.

Neutral actions are actions that specifically deal with finding a middle ground in a choice between extremes. I would also agree with Talverin's synopsis of intent. Say I am a merchant, I am neutral because I do not choose a side and hold money above good or evil and as such sell my wares to both sides. My focus is making money and I don't care about the greater struggle going on between good and evil, however, at times I will adjust my prices to help one side over the other because they are loosing ground and keeping the war in a stalemate is best for profits.


Pretty much. To be more precise, Neutral type 1 ("Not my problem") are people who choose not to vote, Neutral type 2 ("Balance, no extremes") are those who actually care and go to the voting booth, but vote blank in sign of protest, and unaligned are those who can't vote.
My point was that, although all three categories are very different characters, the first two categories belong in the same boat, and the third category doesn't. That's because the first two exercise their right in a way that similarly impacts the election results (e.g. it doesn't change the result in one direction or another), while the third doesn't have this right to begin with.

Although to be even more precise, IF we accept that there are inherently Neutral acts, there are two ways to be Neutral that do not overlap with the Type 1 vs Type 2 distinction. You can be Neutral because, either through apathy or commitment to balance, you mostly commit Neutral acts. Or you can be Neutral because, either through moral indifference or commitment to balance, you commit Good, Evil, Chaotic and Lawful acts in equal measures. Both ways end up TN, but the first soul is metaphysically more "pure", so to speak.
Personally, I do not believe in a pure Neutral soul. I think Neutrality kind of HAS to be a mixture of other things, and that balance is a question of... well, dosage. Balance, between several things. Balance never exists in itself, but it appears through a particular configuration of those things that are balanced. That is why I'm tempted to reject the idea that there are purely Neutral acts, defensible and logical though it may seem.
Frankly, I'm literally the guy who cared enough about Neutrality to write the manual, and those are the questions that I haven't answered definitely. (And that thankfully nobody needs to actually answer to run any kind of game or character. I just like to idly speculate on imaginary metaphysics)

I am not sure if I see the argument for the 3rd and 4th types of neutrality, they strike me as subsets of 1 and 2. It seems like there are type 1s that seek a neutral path and type 2s who seek balance. Again as Talverin points out it strikes me that intent is just as important as the act itself. In pure DnD terms killing a demon is a good act period; however, by that logic all devils who take part in the war between demons and devils and never have interactions without side forces should inherently be considered 'good'.

Similarly me as a TN adventurer could be confronted by a CE deranged psychopathic serial murderer in a game. I did not seek him out, I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and must defend myself in order to live. Killing said serial killer would be considered a 'good' act but I only did it to defend myself and no other reason. Is this then a good act?

Like wise having neutral type 2 character who performs Good, Evil, Chaotic and Lawful acts in order to maintain the balance is questionably performing neutral acts do to the intent behind said acts.

[HouseRules]

I would say 90% of a person's day to day actions are unaligned in and of themselves. My decision to have leftovers for lunch or to go out for lunch has no baring on if I am good or evil, lawful and chaotic. Or similar if I as an adventurer choose to buy a sword with +2 enhancement bonus or +1 and flaming, they make no difference to alignment in any way and therefore most actions should fall under unaligned.

Neutral actions are actions that specifically deal with finding a middle ground in a choice between extremes. I would also agree with Talverin's synopsis of intent. Say I am a merchant, I am neutral because I do not choose a side and hold money above good or evil and as such sell my wares to both sides. My focus is making money and I don't care about the greater struggle going on between good and evil, however, at times I will adjust my prices to help one side over the other because they are loosing ground and keeping the war in a stalemate is best for profits.



I am not sure if I see the argument for the 3rd and 4th types of neutrality, they strike me as subsets of 1 and 2. It seems like there are type 1s that seek a neutral path and type 2s who seek balance. Again as Talverin points out it strikes me that intent is just as important as the act itself. In pure DnD terms killing a demon is a good act period; however, by that logic all devils who take part in the war between demons and devils and never have interactions without side forces should inherently be considered 'good'.

Similarly me as a TN adventurer could be confronted by a CE deranged psychopathic serial murderer in a game. I did not seek him out, I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and must defend myself in order to live. Killing said serial killer would be considered a 'good' act but I only did it to defend myself and no other reason. Is this then a good act?

Like wise having neutral type 2 character who performs Good, Evil, Chaotic and Lawful acts in order to maintain the balance is questionably performing neutral acts do to the intent behind said acts.

Several judgements needs to be made. (1) the act alone without intent, (2) the intent alone without the act.

A paladin murders a whole village with Lawful Good intent is Lawful Good act otherwise.

[Luccan]

Several judgements needs to be made. (1) the act alone without intent, (2) the intent alone without the act.

A paladin murders a whole village with Lawful Good intent is Lawful Good act otherwise.

Um... What?

[HouseRules]

Um... What?

Acts must be judged alone without intent is one of my emphasis on the alignment of actions.


First Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target and successfully kill the target.
Second Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target, but successfully kill someone else.
Third Degree Murder (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Fourth Degree Murder (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Legal Homicide - Self Defense or the Defense of Others

[liquidformat]

Several judgements needs to be made. (1) the act alone without intent, (2) the intent alone without the act.

A paladin murders a whole village with Lawful Good intent is Lawful Good act otherwise.

On the flip side a devil who spends its whole life killing demons in the abyss is still evil even though killing a demon is defined by dnd as always a good act. Similarly a paladin massacring a 'village' of demons or other select 'always evil' creatures is by definition a lawful good act. There are situations in DnD that fall into weird alignment zones because of the way that the rules interact with each other. Beyond those I think you need to weigh the intent of the act as much as you weigh the act itself.


Acts must be judged alone without intent is one of my emphasis on the alignment of actions.

First Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target and successfully kill the target.
Second Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target, but successfully kill someone else.
Third Degree Murder (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Fourth Degree Murder (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Legal Homicide - Self Defense or the Defense of Others.

Again I point to above, according to the way the game works if there is a envoy of evil drow that come to a LN city to form a nonaggression pact and establish trade relationship you fall into lawful stupid LG conundrum where the order of paladins is obliged to kill the drow envoy and questionably also the rulers of the LN city for their knowing fraternization with evil in order to stay Lawful Good.... This according to your statement would be first degree murder but in DnD it would still be in a LG alignment.

[hamishspence]

Second Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target, but successfully kill someone else.


Nope - Second Degree Murder means - intent to murder but no premeditation.

[HouseRules]

Nope - Second Degree Murder means - intent to murder but no premeditation.

Premeditation refers to intend to kill the target. So killing the wrong target is also considered not premeditation.

[liquidformat]

Acts must be judged alone without intent is one of my emphasis on the alignment of actions.


First Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target and successfully kill the target.
Second Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target, but successfully kill someone else.
Third Degree Murder (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Fourth Degree Murder (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Legal Homicide - Self Defense or the Defense of Others


So every dungeon raid is first degree murder, or second degree for the lazy adventurer, that kind of puts a damper on the whole DnD alignment system...

[HouseRules]

So every dungeon raid is first degree murder, or second degree for the lazy adventurer, that kind of puts a damper on the whole DnD alignment system...

Yeap. Every dungeon raid is murder unless it is war against different races.

[liquidformat]

Yeap. Every dungeon raid is murder unless it is war against different races.

Is that like the war on terrorism, or an actual war?

[hamishspence]

Premeditation refers to intend to kill the target. So killing the wrong target is also considered not premeditation.

Nope - I'm certain that if the wrong person is killed in a premeditated murder - the premeditation component is not lost.


Premeditation simply means that the murder was planned. Second degree murder applies if someone simply loses their temper, with no reasonable provocation, and attacks with intent to kill.


Super-touchy gunslinger takes offence at an innocent comment and immediately draws his gun and shoots the unlucky offender - 2nd degree.

Assassin lies in wait for his target - and shoots - but it turns out that he shot somebody who just looked very like his target (or for that matter, his target's bodyguard, who saw the gun and jumped in the way) - 1st degree.

[liquidformat]

Premeditation refers to intend to kill the target. So killing the wrong target is also considered not premeditation.

Killing of bystanders is typically 3rd degree murder unless you are doing something like a school shooting or drive by in which case they normally go with first degree.

Things get a bit goofy in situations where you are say defending yourself from someone robbing you and you miss when shooting them. Depending on the state you can be charged with attempted murder or reckless endangerment for each shot missed...

[hamishspence]

Killing of bystanders is typically 3rd degree murder unless you are doing something like a school shooting or drive by in which case they normally go with first degree.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html

Intent

In terms of willfulness, first degree murderers must have the specific intent to end a human life. This intent does not necessarily have to correspond to the actual victim. A murder in which the killer intends to kill but kills the wrong person or a random person would still constitute first degree murder.

[Keltest]

Talking about the legal definition of murder seems like a great way to get a very entertaining thread locked.

[hamishspence]

Talking about the legal definition of murder seems like a great way to get a very entertaining thread locked.

Fair enough - the post that started the digression was this one:


Acts must be judged alone without intent is one of my emphasis on the alignment of actions.


First Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target and successfully kill the target.
Second Degree Murder - Intend to kill a target, but successfully kill someone else.
Third Degree Murder (Voluntary Manslaughter)
Fourth Degree Murder (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Legal Homicide - Self Defense or the Defense of Others


I was trying to correct what I believed to be a misconception.

[Remuko]

Fair enough - the post that started the digression was this one:



I was trying to correct what I believed to be a misconception.

maybe it wasnt a misconception. It was just HouseRules!

[HouseRules]

It's just house rules.

Trying to talk about modern laws for good and evil is not so good since the standard for good is harder, and the standard for evil is much easier.

[Knaight]

Talking about the legal definition of murder seems like a great way to get a very entertaining thread locked.

We're probably safe. It's one of fairly few legal topics that definitely isn't legal advice.

[Duelpersonality]

Nah, he was the true primordial EVIL power, so old and outside the rules, they puny little ring could not faze him.

Necessary link: https://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html

Now, now. Everyone knows he's the Witch King.

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

[Remuko]

Now, now. Everyone knows he's the Witch King.

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

That was an interesting read up until the transphobia at the end.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Duelpersonality
Now, now. Everyone knows he's the Witch King.

For a moment I thought this was a Game of Thrones reference. Witch King, Night King, whatever. :smalltongue:

[Saintheart]

For a moment I thought this was a Game of Thrones reference. Witch King, Night King, whatever. :smalltongue:

Wait, which king are we talking about?

[Luccan]

Wait, which king are we talking about?

King Who attacked first

[Nifft]

King Who attacked first

What's the name of his second-in-command?

[Saintheart]

What's the name of his second-in-command?

I just told you that. Why?

[HouseRules]

Ah, a discussion of the Game of Thrones. A very Chaotic dominated setting. How does Lawfulness and Neutrality holds up in this setting?

[Luccan]

Ah, a discussion of the Game of Thrones. A very Chaotic dominated setting. How does Lawfulness and Neutrality holds up in this setting?

Hmm... I'll admit to only having watched the show and not read the books. By my reckoning, GoT mostly has Neutral characters living in a Lawful society. Most characters realize that the Lawful society won't hold everyone together, but people will hold to their oaths enough that they can still be relied upon. The problem is you have wild cards like Circe, who is definitely Chaotic, in places of influence.

[HouseRules]

Hmm... I'll admit to only having watched the show and not read the books. By my reckoning, GoT mostly has Neutral characters living in a Lawful society. Most characters realize that the Lawful society won't hold everyone together, but people will hold to their oaths enough that they can still be relied upon. The problem is you have wild cards like Circe, who is definitely Chaotic, in places of influence.

So only the Thrones are Chaotic, while the Society is still Lawful.

[Nifft]

Hmm... I'll admit to only having watched the show and not read the books. By my reckoning, GoT mostly has Neutral characters living in a Lawful society. Most characters realize that the Lawful society won't hold everyone together, but people will hold to their oaths enough that they can still be relied upon. The problem is you have wild cards like Circe, who is definitely Chaotic, in places of influence.

Circe Lannister is Chaotic Incestuous, while Jamie Lannister is Lawful Incestuous.

Daenerys Targaryen is Chaotic Motherly, while Catelyn Stark is Lawful Motherly.

Eddard Stark is Lawful Grumpy, while the Hound is Chaotic Grumpy.

Petyr Baelish is Lawful Sneaky, while Arya Stark is Chaotic Sneaky.


My feeling is that there is no over-arching good vs. evil in that story, just the collective inhumanity of man rolling around to bite mankind in the butt.

[HouseRules]

Circe Lannister is Chaotic Incestuous, while Jamie Lannister is Lawful Incestuous.

Craster is the mos Chaotic Incestuous.


Daughter-Wife
Granddaughter-Daughter-Wife