Roleplaying a Neutral Good Character

[TheHighWayMan]

How does everybody role-play Neutral Good Characters?

In my time playing D&D I have encountered some wildly different ways of playing Neutral Good characters (from Pacifist Healers to 'end justifies the means' murder-hobos).

Starting up a new character I was thinking of trying out NG as an alignment and I was wondering if anyone had some ideas about how best to play an NG character.

I get that everybody brings something slightly different to the table when roleplaying, but I was wondering if there are any tried and true methods of roleplaying NG characters.

Thanks

[Chronos]

You're a good guy, who's not particularly lawful or chaotic. That's all there is to it.

If you're thinking to yourself "I want to play this alignment. How should I do it?", then you're doing it backwards. There are more than nine personalities in the world. Decide how you want to roleplay, and then decide what alignment that corresponds to.

[sophontteks]

You are generally compelled to do right to others.
You don't really have any strong feelings about law, rules and institutions, in general.

There isn't much to it.

If it helps I can give some examples of alignments...

I have a tiefling noble Bard who is lawful neutral. Laws tend to favor nobility. He enjoys order, he enjoys the security, he thinks poorly of thieves, and he tend not to break the law. He's neutral simply because he's more concerned with himself then others. He's not malicious, but he's hardly generous either.

I have a tiefling druid Outlander who is chaotic good. She can not stand the rules of society, or society in general. If you tell her to do something she would likely be offended and she tends to look unfavorably towards people in positions of power. Yet, if someone is hurt, or if they need help, she would feel compelled to help them. It doesn't mean she will, but its against her nature to allow something to suffer when she could help it.

A have a friend playing a lawful evil drow ranger. Just like my tiefling noble, she enjoys the laws of society. They work for her. Unlike my tiefling, she actively seeks to cause others misery. She enjoys hurting people. Being a lawful character she will often use the laws as a tool to gain leverage over others.

[GlenSmash!]

Neutral Good characters ...'end justifies the means' murder-hobos

/facepalm

Anyway a neutral good person to me is the guy that's exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman.

Benevolent is how I would describe them.

[Keravath]

/facepalm

Anyway a neutral good person to me is the guy that's exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman.

Benevolent is how I would describe them.

I'm not sure about "exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman" since it would depend on the good and evil aspects of each :) .. a lawman who arrests folks to get tortured ... he likely wouldn't help them since it isn't a very good thing to do ... a criminal who murders innocents ... not likely to help them either.

I think Robin Hood is often considered as an example of neutral good. He obeys some laws but not others and his crimes are generally intended to be in favor of the greater good at least for the downtrodden, starving, oppressed and poor. On the other hand, the nobles he robs might consider him chaotic evil incarnate :)

[Brotherbock]

I'm not sure about "exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman" since it would depend on the good and evil aspects of each :) .. a lawman who arrests folks to get tortured ... he likely wouldn't help them since it isn't a very good thing to do ... a criminal who murders innocents ... not likely to help them either.

I think Robin Hood is often considered as an example of neutral good. He obeys some laws but not others and his crimes are generally intended to be in favor of the greater good at least for the downtrodden, starving, oppressed and poor. On the other hand, the nobles he robs might consider him chaotic evil incarnate :)

And Robin Hood didn't fight the law out of a disrespect for the law, he fought corruption out of respect for the law. I'd say he was either NG or LG. Once he wins and takes over, isn't he going to be LG, and expect people to obey his (just and fair) rules? :)

Some versions of the character make him somewhat unconcerned with his lawbreaking, others paint him as someone LG who is pushed into banditry because of the sheriff's corruption. But you're right that he isn't dedicated to chaos and lawbreaking.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not sure about "exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman" since it would depend on the good and evil aspects of each :)

Many good characters in fiction will save bag guys from death. Of course fictional bag guys are rarely as evil as D&d PCs :smallbiggrin:

Still I will amend: Ignoring other factors, a NG character is likely to help a criminal and lawman equally as Legality is not an important factor to their worldview. At least, not as important as doing good things is.

[BreaktheStatue]

To me, Neutral Good is probably the easiest alignment to RP, because I think most people irl tend to be (or were at least taught to try to be) NG, at least on an individual, interpersonal level.

For example: I try to help people when I can, and I do everything I can to live by the Golden Rule. I can't say I succeed at being "Good" all the time, but I put in the effort.

As far as Lawful-Neutral-Chaos, I believe that society would have extreme difficulties functioning without some laws, but that being "legal" doesn't automatically make something "right" - and many laws, as written and/or enforced, are incredibly unjust.

So, NG comes naturally to me (I think, it's hard to be an impartial judge of your own character); it's basically just projecting my own moral calculus onto my PC.

[PastorofMuppets]

I think of neutral good as an experienced cop. Not a corrupt Good ol Boy type but the sort that thinks about what the punishment will do to the criminal. A ten year old stealing food? Maybe going to jail for a year won’t make the city a better place and will just make the kid worse, maybe he finds the kid a apprenticeship to keep him busy and make him productive. The law may not say anything about thieves being given jobs but he feels that being flexible in a few cases like this will do more good than following the rule of the law, even if that’s what he does in most cases.

Lawful good as contrast would dutifully drag the kid the magistrate, maybe with a kind word about him just being a scared kid. Maybe the magistrate is kind in sentencing, maybe not. That’s not for the cop to decide. In any case clear application of the laws in a court of the city shows the rest of the citizens yet again that crime is never beneath the notice of the law. Perhaps the next would be thief will ask for help instead of stealing from folks that are not much better off.

[Sigreid]

The goal is to do good. A lot of times rules can help do the most good or mitigate the most harm. The rules should never get in the way of happiness and good things, and even well meaning rules that are too restrictive need to be shattered. Some people can live without a bunch of formal rules and be trusted to do the right thing. They shouldn't have rules they dont need foisted on them.

[Skylivedk]

I'm not sure about "exactly as likely to help a criminal as a lawman" since it would depend on the good and evil aspects of each :) .. a lawman who arrests folks to get tortured ... he likely wouldn't help them since it isn't a very good thing to do ... a criminal who murders innocents ... not likely to help them either.

I think Robin Hood is often considered as an example of neutral good. He obeys some laws but not others and his crimes are generally intended to be in favor of the greater good at least for the downtrodden, starving, oppressed and poor. On the other hand, the nobles he robs might consider him chaotic evil incarnate :)

Depends a lot on the fiction you are referring to. He's painted all across the good scale:
LG: the oath bound good, waiting for his true king to return upholding the Reign and it's Rules as promised.
NG: mostly rebelling because current laws are NE.
CG: band of merry men opposed to any kind of strong hierarchy and preferring King Richard because he is a king that Louvre freedom and equality (yeah, that's pretty far from history)


I think of neutral good as an experienced cop. Not a corrupt Good ol Boy type but the sort that thinks about what the punishment will do to the criminal. A ten year old stealing food? Maybe going to jail for a year won’t make the city a better place and will just make the kid worse, maybe he finds the kid a apprenticeship to keep him busy and make him productive. The law may not say anything about thieves being given jobs but he feels that being flexible in a few cases like this will do more good than following the rule of the law, even if that’s what he does in most cases.

Lawful good as contrast would dutifully drag the kid the magistrate, maybe with a kind word about him just being a scared kid. Maybe the magistrate is kind in sentencing, maybe not. That’s not for the cop to decide. In any case clear application of the laws in a court of the city shows the rest of the citizens yet again that crime is never beneath the notice of the law. Perhaps the next would be thief will ask for help instead of stealing from folks that are not much better off.

I think you are more describing two versions of LG here... Or perhaps an LG bordering NG and one LN. Being LX doesn't mean you have to obey by EVERY law, just like being good doesn't mean you save EVERYone.


The goal is to do good. A lot of times rules can help do the most good or mitigate the most harm. The rules should never get in the way of happiness and good things, and even well meaning rules that are too restrictive need to be shattered. Some people can live without a bunch of formal rules and be trusted to do the right thing. They shouldn't have rules they dont need foisted on them.

Best description so far, IMO.

I think an easy way to see it as well is:

LG: likes order, people are equal in the eyes of the law; traditions are generally thought of as good; charity is good. Prefers to work inside the system. Slow steps towards societal change.

CG: prefers freedom; regarding laws, less is more; hierarchies are generally bad; traditions are usually blinders; will trust her/his own judgement over the local law almost always.

[MagneticKitty]

I think of it as:
Neutral - what I think it means directly: equally as apt to follow rules or not on a case by case basis. Usually this is dictated by the character's values they were taught and experiences. Sometimes self preservation (ie kill of be killed) comes first.
Good - wants to actively help others when possible, even if it means I'm not always happy. Self sacrificing.

So I think ng is: Doesn't selfishly break all the rules. Follows all the rules they believe will help with the greater good and will protect them and those they care about. May break rules that "won't hurt anyone".
"If I can help people without getting myself and other innocents in trouble, I will."

Character's will vary on which is more important:
my friends/family/town/group
or the greater good.

[Brotherbock]

The goal is to do good. A lot of times rules can help do the most good or mitigate the most harm. The rules should never get in the way of happiness and good things, and even well meaning rules that are too restrictive need to be shattered. Some people can live without a bunch of formal rules and be trusted to do the right thing. They shouldn't have rules they dont need foisted on them.




CG: prefers freedom; regarding laws, less is more; hierarchies are generally bad; traditions are usually blinders; will trust her/his own judgement over the local law almost always.

What's the difference between these two descriptions? I think saying "rules should never get in the way of happiness" sounds more CG. If you're NG, you're going to think that some rules are in fact going to be very good things, even if in the moment they are seeming to restrict happiness. Take taxes as an example--very rarely are people made to feel actually happy about the things their tax money buys. Even people who intellectually recognize the importance of taxes still complain about them more often than feel good about them.

It's a subtle difference, but important. Here's my go at it, very briefly:

-All G Alignments: The goal is to do good.

-LG: The best way to accomplish doing good is to have clear and just rules. Those rules should be followed, even when they don't seem to you to be doing good--your view is limited, you probably can't see the whole picture, so follow the rules. The exceptions will be extreme and usually obvious--the nazis executing your neighbor in the street is not a just law, you can break those. But understand that, if you stay in that society, you will be facing the punishments. Think Socrates.

-NG: Both rules and breaking rules are effective at accomplishing good, in perhaps equal measure. Rules are made by fallible people, and they will be as likely to cause damage as not. But the ones that are good need to be respected. But be discerning, and trust your own moral compass. "The only thing I have any obligation to do at any time is what I think is right." But often the laws will be in line with what I think is right, and if I'm benefiting from society, I need to follow those just laws. And I shouldn't fly off half-cocked when I think a law is bad--I need to find out first if I'm right. Think Henry David Thoreau.

-CG: Laws almost always serve to do more harm than good. People are naturally decent, and if left to their own devices, will be able to create a pretty good world. Governments are sometimes necessary evils that serve to corrupt our good natures, and while there are some benefits, good people can achieve even more by throwing off laws. Chaos is valuable--the only way that claim makes sense is with the belief that people outside of laws will generally be good. So in fact break the laws when you can, but not so as to cause harm--break the laws so as to free people from the tyranny of their limited freedom. Think Rosseau.


So that's my take. 'Chaotic' isn't just 'eh, laws are okay'. Chaotics are anarchists--they approve of chaos, they actually think chaos is better than having rules.

[Jophiel]

Neutral Good: Balance should be maintained between order and freedom. Too much law leads to tyranny and too much freedom leads to anarchy -- and both lead to harm. The best way to preserve safety & welfare for the people and help them is to ensure that neither side takes root too deeply.

Neutral Good: Your first concern is for the welfare of others. Sometimes this means working within the system, other times it may mean subverting or avoiding the law. Either path can be the right one, provided it leads to the betterment of the people.

[Sigreid]

What's the difference between these two descriptions? I think saying "rules should never get in the way of happiness" sounds more CG. If you're NG, you're going to think that some rules are in fact going to be very good things, even if in the moment they are seeming to restrict happiness. Take taxes as an example--very rarely are people made to feel actually happy about the things their tax money buys. Even people who intellectually recognize the importance of taxes still complain about them more often than feel good about them.

It's a subtle difference, but important. Here's my go at it, very briefly:

-All G Alignments: The goal is to do good.

-LG: The best way to accomplish doing good is to have clear and just rules. Those rules should be followed, even when they don't seem to you to be doing good--your view is limited, you probably can't see the whole picture, so follow the rules. The exceptions will be extreme and usually obvious--the nazis executing your neighbor in the street is not a just law, you can break those. But understand that, if you stay in that society, you will be facing the punishments. Think Socrates.

-NG: Both rules and breaking rules are effective at accomplishing good, in perhaps equal measure. Rules are made by fallible people, and they will be as likely to cause damage as not. But the ones that are good need to be respected. But be discerning, and trust your own moral compass. "The only thing I have any obligation to do at any time is what I think is right." But often the laws will be in line with what I think is right, and if I'm benefiting from society, I need to follow those just laws. And I shouldn't fly off half-cocked when I think a law is bad--I need to find out first if I'm right. Think Henry David Thoreau.

-CG: Laws almost always serve to do more harm than good. People are naturally decent, and if left to their own devices, will be able to create a pretty good world. Governments are sometimes necessary evils that serve to corrupt our good natures, and while there are some benefits, good people can achieve even more by throwing off laws. Chaos is valuable--the only way that claim makes sense is with the belief that people outside of laws will generally be good. So in fact break the laws when you can, but not so as to cause harm--break the laws so as to free people from the tyranny of their limited freedom. Think Rosseau.


So that's my take. 'Chaotic' isn't just 'eh, laws are okay'. Chaotics are anarchists--they approve of chaos, they actually think chaos is better than having rules.

From where I sit, CG views every law, because all laws come with a threat of force and a potential step towards tyranny. NG thinks laws can be a benefit but even the best intentioned lawmakers need to be watched like a hawk because there is a natural tendency to go too far.

[Brotherbock]

From where I sit, CG views every law, because all laws come with a threat of force and a potential step towards tyranny. NG thinks laws can be a benefit but even the best intentioned lawmakers need to be watched like a hawk because there is a natural tendency to go too far.

Yes, that's the idea. :)

But I do think the CG character really does need to believe that, in general, people are good and will get along if left alone. Without that belief--or with the belief that people are horrible naturally--a world without laws wouldn't lead to goodness for all of those people. CN would be someone who thinks laws lead to tyranny, that chaos and pure freedom are better...and oh well if many people will end up dead as a result. At least they were free. CG would want those people to not be dead. :)

[Sigreid]

Yes, that's the idea. :)

But I do think the CG character really does need to believe that, in general, people are good and will get along if left alone. Without that belief--or with the belief that people are horrible naturally--a world without laws wouldn't lead to goodness for all of those people. CN would be someone who thinks laws lead to tyranny, that chaos and pure freedom are better...and oh well if many people will end up dead as a result. At least they were free. CG would want those people to not be dead. :)

Yes. CG believes that people are basically decent and while they may not all strive for good, the vast majority at least mean no harm.

[Jophiel]

From where I sit, CG views every law, because all laws come with a threat of force and a potential step towards tyranny.
This is true, although I think it should be tempered by the fact that any society is going to have some laws/rules/traditions because that's what makes it a society. Forest elves and tundra barbarians and orc warbands are all going to have some form of structure because otherwise it would just be a bunch of random individuals. They just keep it to a minimum either intentionally to preserve freedom & liberty or because it's just not in their nature to develop anything more complex than "You listen to Chief Spirit Talker or we kill you"

[Sigreid]

This is true, although I think it should be tempered by the fact that any society is going to have some laws/rules/traditions because that's what makes it a society. Forest elves and tundra barbarians and orc warbands are all going to have some form of structure because otherwise it would just be a bunch of random individuals. They just keep it to a minimum either intentionally to preserve freedom & liberty or because it's just not in their nature to develop anything more complex than "You listen to Chief Spirit Talker or we kill you"

There's a huge difference between social pressure and leading through respect and armed officials enforcing compliance.

[Jophiel]

There's a huge difference between social pressure and leading through respect and armed officials enforcing compliance.
The "Armed official" in a chaotic society is often the guy at the top (and maybe a layer below). A tribe listens to the war chief because otherwise the war chief will kill the dissenter, either directly or having his most powerful followers doing it or telling the tribe as a whole to do it and the tribe listens.

An elf settlement generally allows people to have freedom and doesn't mess with day to day business or place many demands on the populace but still has strict rules against acts like murder, rape, theft, etc. You don't just not steal because people will frown sternly at you and think unhappy thoughts, you will be actively expelled from the settlement.

These things don't make them "Lawful" but being chaotic isn't necessarily pure anarchy either because pure anarchists don't form societies.

[Sigreid]

The "Armed official" in a chaotic society is often the guy at the top (and maybe a layer below). A tribe listens to the war chief because otherwise the war chief will kill the dissenter, either directly or having his most powerful followers doing it or telling the tribe as a whole to do it and the tribe listens.

An elf settlement generally allows people to have freedom and doesn't mess with day to day business or place many demands on the populace but still has strict rules against acts like murder, rape, theft, etc. You don't just not steal because people will frown sternly at you and think unhappy thoughts, you will be actively expelled from the settlement.

These things don't make them "Lawful" but being chaotic isn't necessarily pure anarchy either because pure anarchists don't form societies.

We are officially talking past each other. I dont think we are in much disagreement at all. Though the CG war chief isn't going to murder you for disobedience. CN war chief, maybe. CE war chief, yep.

[Jophiel]

We are officially talking past each other. I dont think we are in much disagreement at all.
Probably not. I was responding more to...

So that's my take. 'Chaotic' isn't just 'eh, laws are okay'. Chaotics are anarchists--they approve of chaos, they actually think chaos is better than having rules.
...than I was to anything you said at first. Specifically the part about anarchy which works for individuals but not great for societies/cultures along the chaotic spectrum. Chaotic societies will definitely prefer or tend towards a minimum amount of law but won't necessarily promote pure anarchy.

[Randomthom]

I tend to find NG can often be described very well as Pragmatic Good.

Both LG and CG tend to have a dogmatic or moralistic opposition to each other's methods for doing good where NG will just go along with whichever looks most likely to do the most good at the time, sometimes siding with LG's structures and sometimes siding with CG's idealism as the situation requires.

In-play, a NG character is often both the DM's best friend (unlikely to derail the plot with crazy ("lawful") executions or unreasonable chaotic idealism (aka stupidity)) but also hard to RP because they are so inherently compliant alignment-wise that they often find little to object to and rub up against. NG characters with no axe to grind tend to end up as one-dimensional generic heroes* with little to distinguish themselves without serious effort to make them interesting.

*See League, Justice for excellent examples of this.

[Demonslayer666]

How does everybody role-play Neutral Good Characters?

In my time playing D&D I have encountered some wildly different ways of playing Neutral Good characters (from Pacifist Healers to 'end justifies the means' murder-hobos).

Starting up a new character I was thinking of trying out NG as an alignment and I was wondering if anyone had some ideas about how best to play an NG character.

I get that everybody brings something slightly different to the table when roleplaying, but I was wondering if there are any tried and true methods of roleplaying NG characters.

Thanks

Sometimes you look out for yourself, but you also recognize the benefits of order in society, so you help maintain and better it when it doesn't cause you undue hardship. You value life and protect the innocent. You follow the laws unless it's for greater good.

I really like the Alignment System, posted here:
http://easydamus.com/neutralgood.html

[Sigreid]

Probably not. I was responding more to...

...than I was to anything you said at first. Specifically the part about anarchy which works for individuals but not great for societies/cultures along the chaotic spectrum. Chaotic societies will definitely prefer or tend towards a minimum amount of law but won't necessarily promote pure anarchy.

Well, based on societies that have existed in the past here on earth, a chaotic society will have norms, and when someone goes too far outside those norms, day by murdering someone, it starts a cycle of bloody revenge that lasts until one side is too weak to seek revenge or simply doesn't exist anymore.

[Brotherbock]

Probably not. I was responding more to...

...than I was to anything you said at first. Specifically the part about anarchy which works for individuals but not great for societies/cultures along the chaotic spectrum. Chaotic societies will definitely prefer or tend towards a minimum amount of law but won't necessarily promote pure anarchy.

That's a bit of begging the question. A chaotic society will have some rules...it's a society. But the chaotic character is a different story.

I mean, if you want to get really granular, the best way would be to place good/bad and law/chaos on a two-axis graph and let people score themselves. I'm +3 Lawful +2 Good, or -4 Lawful -1 Good, etc. But without a system like that, the ultimate chaotic individual doesn't have to accept the benefit of any laws at all.

Alignments are for individuals, not for societies. It makes less and less sense the more people you incorporate into your scope to say "this society is such-and-such alignment". And the game to its credit doesn't do that either, that I'm aware of. There are societies ruled by evil people, but there aren't labeled 'Evil societies'. So if alignment is for individuals, then considerations of society don't impact alignment. The paradigm chaotic character will be one who thinks laws are bad.

Now if that character is also Good, and happens to be living among people, then she'll have decisions to make about what compromises she's willing to accept, what laws she's willing to not try to tear down, etc. Not because she agrees they are good, but because she has decided to live there, and decided to let some things go, because you can't fight every battle. But--there can easily be another chaotic character, one who is less chaotic, who agrees that some laws are okay.

The problem if you approach the paradigm of CG as agreeing that some laws are okay is that you quickly lose the distinction between CG and NG. And the only way out often seems to mandate that NG believes in a perfect balance, which greatly restricts NG.

So we're not really disagreeing, I think we'll both agree there's grey area. But I prefer to look at paradigms, so new players can more quickly get a feel for the distinctions.

[KyleG]

Certainly made me rethink things about my latest character. So I wonder what you think:
He is a warlocl with a list of individuals to serve justice on. At the moment im unsure whether that means being judge jury and executioner or just the executioner but my character knows without a doubt that this list is about justice.
In saying that the list (actually a tattoo on his arm) was of people who werent brought to justice long ago. In the present day it is a list of those most closely connected to them. A corrupt politican back then may be represented by a current corrupt politician or equally by the originals descendants, who may or may not themselves be corrupt but they live because he was not brought to justice back then. Or it may be the name of an now immortal individual.

My guys all about justice with a bond to "fight for those who cannot fight themselves" (could change depending on what flaw I come up with), very paladin esk. And he fully believes the names are those who have escaped justice but when some of the names are discovered to be descendants who themselves may have done no wrong im not sure how he reacts with this core belief in carrying out justice.

With all that I think he is lawful good leaning lawful neutral With the potential for lawful evil?

[Malifice]

Certainly made me rethink things about my latest character. So I wonder what you think:
He is a warlocl with a list of individuals to serve justice on. At the moment im unsure whether that means being judge jury and executioner or just the executioner but my character knows without a doubt that this list is about justice.
In saying that the list (actually a tattoo on his arm) was of people who werent brought to justice long ago. In the present day it is a list of those most closely connected to them. A corrupt politican back then may be represented by a current corrupt politician or equally by the originals descendants, who may or may not themselves be corrupt but they live because he was not brought to justice back then. Or it may be the name of an now immortal individual.

My guys all about justice with a bond to "fight for those who cannot fight themselves" (could change depending on what flaw I come up with), very paladin esk. And he fully believes the names are those who have escaped justice but when some of the names are discovered to be descendants who themselves may have done no wrong im not sure how he reacts with this core belief in carrying out justice.

With all that I think he is lawful good leaning lawful neutral With the potential for lawful evil?

Youre Lawful Evil.

Your PC would literally murder a person for the sins of his father.

In no way is that LG.

[KyleG]

When he knows that yeah for sure if he kills. But while he doesn't know?
And should he not kill but imprison? Seek restitution from them? What then. What's the tipping point?

[Malifice]

When he knows that yeah for sure if he kills. But while he doesn't know?
And should he not kill but imprison? Seek restitution from them? What then. What's the tipping point?

'Evil' has traditionally in DnD been defined as 'harming or killing others'. 'Good' has traditionally been defined as 'altruism, mercy and compassion.'

If your PC runs around killing people other than in self defense or the defense of others (and when such force is proportionate to the harm), you're almost certainly evil.

Superman is Good aligned because he generally refrains from killing or hurting people unless in self defense or the defense of others and only as a last resort, and is altruistic, merciful and compassionate.

The Punisher is Evilly aligned because he kills, tortures and murders people all the time, and is almost never merciful, compassionate or altruistic.

Jon Snow is Good aligned because he generally refrains from killing or hurting people unless in self defense or the defense of others and only as a last resort, and is altruistic, merciful and compassionate.

Arya Stark is (now; post the Hound and Faceless men training) Evilly aligned she kills, tortures and murders people all the time, and is almost never merciful, compassionate or altruistic.

You'll note that both Arya and the Punisher are evilly aligned protagonists. They work towards a 'greater good' and have a certain code that they abide by and a twisted sense of honor. Cross either of them though and make their hit list, and you'll have your children murdered, cut up and cooked into a pie, have that pie fed to you, and then you'll be trolled about it while they cut your throat, along with the rest of your house and entire family.

Both the Punisher and Arya Stark post Faceless men training have a (twisted) code of honor. They rationalise their evil (murder, torture, genocide) as being necessary for the greater good, and actively try not to harm those they see as 'innocent'. They're driven and motivated people with a high level of respect for family, honor, rules and tradition, even if they themselves break the law all the time.

They're both likely LE.

Your typical LE protagonist will generally have a (twisted) code of honor of some nature as some kind of redeeming quality (only murders 'evil doers', will never harm women and children, always keeps his word in any bargain and never lies etc). They'll do what they do out of a sense of obligation to family (both the Punisher and Arya only became the twisted monsters they are on account of family tragedy, and as a means to strike back at those that hurt their family).

The typical LN PC would be Judge Dredd (albeit one that works for a LE dystopian regime; making him lean towards the LE side of the spectrum).

For a Game of Thrones example of LN, see early depictions of Stannis Baratheon (before he went full evil and had his daughter burnt to death) and recent depictions of Danaerys Stormborn.

Danaerys Stormborn sits in the Neutral area of the morality spectrum, because while she often shows mercy, compassion and altruism, she's equally prone to acts of extreme cruelty and violence. Having the Tarly family burnt to death, crucifying hundreds of the Slave Masters of Myreen, and bringing a literal army of Barbarian rapists to Westeros to win herself a crown.

The show has been subtly depicting her flip flopping between acts of Evil and barbarity, and altruism and Good (it's part of the whole 'when a Targaryn is born, the Gods flip a coin'). Recently she's reached a point where even Tyrion (CG) has seriously started to think that she's another version of her father.

[Unoriginal]

Alignments don't apply outside of D&D, but Tyrion certainly doesn't have a behavior that'd fit the description of good.

He commited murder and did tons of selfish things that harmed others directly or indirectly. He's not as much of a monster as his father, but his affability and the moments he's nice to others aren't enough to make him cross into benevolence.

Also last time I checked (haven't seen last episode), he mostly worried Daenerys was becoming her father because Westros got PTSD from rulers using fire as an execution method. The Tarlys certainly commited enough treason and damage to warrant death by the standards of the setting, so him and Varys comparing her and her father rings pretty hollow.


Regardless, punishing someone for the crimes of an ancestor is not only evil, it's also not justice.

[Malifice]

He commited murder

His father was actively trying to have him killed (and had been for some time, in addition to spying on him, treating him horribly, having his ex wife raped and murdered, rigging the trial against him, and so forth), and his former girlfriend ditto (in addition to spying on him for his father, and trying to kill him when he had to fight back).

Tyrion was a dwarf. His father was the Hand of the King and the most powerful man in Westeros. He leaves Kings landing, his father simply has him murdered elsewhere.

The point is, it wasnt murder as both killings (Tywin and his girlfriend) were acts of reasonable self defense in the circumstances, and proportionate to the threat faced. They're also out of character for him (he doesnt go around murdering people, or ordering them murdered, and actively opposes Bronn and Danaerys when they advocate murder) and the killings continue to haunt him afterwards.

He also treats Arya with compassion and kindness, in addition to Jon Snow, and plenty of other people, when no-one else does, and when he had no reason to do so other than draw the ire of people he shouldnt (including Jofferey).

Tyrion is constantly depicted as Good. He's compassionate, altruistic, kind and merciful (if sarcastic and sardonic). He opposes murder and bloodshed and those that advocate for it.


Also last time I checked (haven't seen last episode), he mostly worried Daenerys was becoming her father because Westros got PTSD from rulers using fire as an execution method. The Tarlys certainly commited enough treason and damage to warrant death by the standards of the setting, so him and Varys comparing her and her father rings pretty hollow.


It's not the use of fire as her chosen killing method that worries him. Its the fact she ordered 2 x POW's executed for no reason at all. He's worried that she's not quite the altruistic idealist she claims to be, and could be no better than her father or Cersie.

The shows writers have been clear on depicting Danaerys as capable of great evil and terrible brutality at times. Her ordering the Crucifixion of the Slavers, her burning alive of dozens of people as her chosen method of execution, her killing of the Tarlys, her locking her former handmaiden in a vault (alive), her joy at burning thousands of soldiers alive, her threats to 'burn Varys alive' if he betrays her, her burning alive of the Witch that killed Drogo, etc etc.

Her burning of the Tarys was evil. Tyrion opposed it because he's Good. He was upset about it and mentioned his reservations to the Spider. He's clearly worried she might be (or turn out to be) no better than her father.

Varys urges him to be her moral counterpoint, and guide her towards good options, and not evil ones.

Also, without any spoilers, the consequences of her actions come back to haunt her in a big way in the recent episode, and the show goes to great lengths (again) to show that she is largely both naive to the true evils of what she does at times, but also compassionate enough to know (at least in hindsight) that what she did was wrong.

Personally I think the show is trying to show that she only seeks the Throne because she believes its her destiny, and she is prepared to do almost anything to get to that goal. A lot of her 'breaking the wheel' talk is largely just her own justifications for sitting on the Throne. She has been shown as being far from good at times, and capable of doing terrible things.

She's not Evil. If she was, Kings Landing would be in molten ruins by now.

But she's definately not the Goody too shoes many try and make her out to be, and the show has gone to great lengths to depict that on a number of occasions (cleverly masking those acts of evil behind initially altruistic intentions, and recently, simply out of spite or vengeance).


Regardless, punishing someone for the crimes of an ancestor is not only evil, it's also not justice.

Jon Snow agrees. Thats his exact reasoning when he pardoned the Umber and Karstark heirs.

Of course he is LG (like his adopted father Eddard). He believes in honor, family and tradition, and is merciful, kind, compassionate and altruistic.

He is almost certainly going to come into odds with Dany this season and her more 'harsh' methods and her penchant for brutality (that and the fact that he's the real heir to the Throne, thus totally invalidating Danaerys' one and only goal and character arc).

[Malifice]

If you really want a complex GoT PC that is hard to place, look at Jamie.

For mine he is clearly NE. He's clearly stated his is more than prepared to do (and has actively engaged in) acts of extreme evil. Murder, infanticide, fratricide, you name it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8eDZnqi_Rg

His speech from about 4:01 in says everything you need to know.

However despite all his evil, he's depicted as someone who has a compassionate side, and despite being despised as the least honorable man in Westeros, and is disillusioned with honor, clearly he still yearns to be the 'knight in shining armor' that he always wanted to be, but never was.

He admires Brienne because she is what he always wanted to be, but never could be, or maybe who he once was, but then walked away from in cynicism and disgusts during his 'fall'.

Whether or not he can finally redeem himself and become good again (like Theon is doing - who went from CN to CE to [trying to be] CG) remains to be seen.

[KorvinStarmast]

'Evil' has traditionally in DnD been defined as 'harming or killing others'. 'Good' has traditionally been defined as 'altruism, mercy and compassion.' That's both a gross simplification and an overstatement. The very basis of the game includes killing people/other creatures regardless of your alignment.
Beyond that, you make some good points.

[TheHighWayMan]

'Evil' has traditionally in DnD been defined as 'harming or killing others'. 'Good' has traditionally been defined as 'altruism, mercy and compassion.'

If your PC runs around killing people other than in self defense or the defense of others (and when such force is proportionate to the harm), you're almost certainly evil.

The Punisher is Evilly aligned because he kills, tortures and murders people all the time, and is almost never merciful, compassionate or altruistic...

...You'll note that both Arya and the Punisher are evilly aligned protagonists. They work towards a 'greater good' and have a certain code that they abide by and a twisted sense of honor. Cross either of them though and make their hit list, and you'll have your children murdered, cut up and cooked into a pie, have that pie fed to you, and then you'll be trolled about it while they cut your throat, along with the rest of your house and entire family.

Both the Punisher and Arya Stark post Faceless men training have a (twisted) code of honor. They rationalise their evil (murder, torture, genocide) as being necessary for the greater good, and actively try not to harm those they see as 'innocent'. They're driven and motivated people with a high level of respect for family, honor, rules and tradition, even if they themselves break the law all the time.

They're both likely LE.

Your typical LE protagonist will generally have a (twisted) code of honor of some nature as some kind of redeeming quality (only murders 'evil doers', will never harm women and children, always keeps his word in any bargain and never lies etc). They'll do what they do out of a sense of obligation to family (both the Punisher and Arya only became the twisted monsters they are on account of family tragedy, and as a means to strike back at those that hurt their family).

This definitely raises the question if the ends and motives justify the means. Is an Evil act truely Evil if it is done for Morally Good reasons? Even though we view murder as an Evil act we tend to view the slaying of an Evil wizard or dragon as a Good thing to do as we are ensuring that they cannot cause Evil acts to occur ever again. If we look at it this way surely in some respects the Ends and Motives can justify the means - making an Evil act not total repugnant in our eyes.

I agree that the Punisher is a Lawful Evil character, but that is not because of Evil acts, but rather a lack of Good acts. To be a Good character one must be altruistic and compassionate to others, not just kill for an ideal.

[MoiMagnus]

How does everybody role-play Neutral Good Characters?

In my time playing D&D I have encountered some wildly different ways of playing Neutral Good characters (from Pacifist Healers to 'end justifies the means' murder-hobos).

Starting up a new character I was thinking of trying out NG as an alignment and I was wondering if anyone had some ideas about how best to play an NG character.

I get that everybody brings something slightly different to the table when roleplaying, but I was wondering if there are any tried and true methods of roleplaying NG characters.

Thanks

IMHO, the "best" way to play any moderate character (so in particular NG characters) is to allow them character evolution and alignment shift.

Create a characters, pick some (non-evil) values that are important to your characters, see with the DM & other players a reason for your character to be interested in the plot, and play a character that follows its "intuition" on "what is the correct way to behave" and ponders it with what he want to do. He has the right to change its mind, to defends values that are contradictory to each others, to follow its heart or its duty depending on the moments, and to regret its choices and feel bad about its previous decisions. He will be forged by the advendure, the people he meet (the other PCs) and the experiences he lives. It may push him to any aligmnent, or not.

[Malifice]

That's both a gross simplification and an overstatement. The very basis of the game includes killing people/other creatures regardless of your alignment.
Beyond that, you make some good points.

Has the use of proportionate force (even lethal force) in self defense or the defense of others, ever been deemed as morally evil? Has it ever recieved any form of legal sanction in any legal code in the world that you know of, or has it always been viewed (across all cultures and legal systems, throughout time and history) as being not morally evil?

Like; if you shoot and kill a knife armed attacker that comes into your home, do you face a prison sentence and the sanction of a conviction, or does your local law and customs view that as morally acceptable (if unfortunate).

Ditto a police officer shooting a bank robber. Not a crime. We (as a society) dont sanction it, and never have. It's not a morally reprehensible act.

Ditto an army repelling a foreign invader. Not a crime. We (as a society) dont sanction it, and never have. It's not a morally reprehensible act.

Killing to save lives, or end suffering, when no other option reasonably presents itself, is traditionally not deemed to be morally reprehensible (evil).

They're not Good acts. They're just not evil ones.

Paladins carry (and train with) swords for a reason.

If your PC goes over to his neighbors house and murders him, thats evil. If your PCs neighbor breaks into your PCs house, and tries to murder your PC, and you are forced to use lethal force to stop the neighbor, thats not evil.

Again, a rule that is enshrined in legal codes around the world, and throughout history.

[KorvinStarmast]

Has the use of proportionate force (even lethal force) in self defense or the defense of others, ever been deemed as morally evil? That's not the only sanctioned, acceptable, nor condoned use of deadly force -you know it - in the history of the world. But we are getting into too much real world, so I'll confine the rest of my comments to D&D. Even in AD&D 1e, and OD&D, the expectation that lawful good and neutral good characters would use deadly force in pursuit of their aims was an in-game expectation. There was some guidance on the degree to which that was acceptable, but the core conceit of the game is that use of arms to achieve in game objectives never left the game. I have seen enough of your rants on alignment that I doubt you are going to change your position, so I'll leave it at that.

A problem with some of your more absolutist stances is that the post-Enlightenment worldview that informs your positions is a terrible fit for the medieval to late medieval world of D&D (even though the FR setting is closer IMO to Renaissance ...) - it is in every sense an anachronism.

But, at your table, they are the Law. Which is cool.

[Sigreid]

That's not the only sanctioned, acceptable, nor condoned use of deadly force -you know it - in the history of the world. But we are getting into too much real world, so I'll confine the rest of my comments to D&D. Even in AD&D 1e, and OD&D, the expectation that lawful good and neutral good characters would use deadly force in pursuit of their aims was an in-game expectation. There was some guidance on the degree to which that was acceptable, but the core conceit of the game is that use of arms to achieve in game objectives never left the game. I have seen enough of your rants on alignment that I doubt you are going to change your position, so I'll leave it at that.

A problem with some of your more absolutist stances is that the post-Enlightenment worldview that informs your positions is a terrible fit for the medieval to late medieval world of D&D (even though the FR setting is closer IMO to Renaissance ...) - it is in every sense an anachronism.

But, at your table, they are the Law. Which is cool.

Sometimes I miss the days when all humanoids were an evil that needed to be killed without hesitation. As opposed to humans and demihumans.

[CTurbo]

I'm currently playing a NG character and she just prioritizes Good vs Evil much higher than law. She respects the law under most cirmcumstances, but she's not going to let evil hide behind the protection of the law. To her, evil must be stopped at all costs. It's not hard to play at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes I miss the days when all humanoids were an evil that needed to be killed without hesitation. As opposed to humans and demihumans. Yes, it made things less complicated for a game rather than the modern iteration of moral crusade with funny shaped dice. :smallyuk:
What's weird, in terms of the collective memory, is that "all" of them weren't necessarily Evil in OD&D. For example, originally all goblins and kobolds were chaotic, but orcs were either chaotic or neutral. :smallwink: (Men and Magic). IIRC that changed in AD&D. And men were lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

In our early games, the most dangerous opponents, other than dragons, were usually Men. (An evil high priest with a bunch of Dervish followers was a very dangerous encounter ...)

[Sigreid]

Yes, it made things less complicated for a game rather than the modern iteration of moral crusade with funny shaped dice. :smallyuk:
What's weird, in terms of the collective memory, is that "all" of them weren't necessarily Evil in OD&D. For example, originally all goblins and kobolds were chaotic, but orcs were either chaotic or neutral. :smallwink: (Men and Magic). IIRC that changed in AD&D. And men were lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

In our early games, the most dangerous opponents, other than dragons, were usually Men. (An evil high priest with a bunch of Dervish followers was a very dangerous encounter ...)

I started at AD&D so orcs were all evil.

[hamishspence]

Even in AD&D, an alignment in a statblock in the MM represented typical alignment - it wasn't prescriptive "Creature must be of that alignment".

There were non-evil orcs and goblins in AD&D in the fiction, and the game didn't actually make this a case of "breaking the rules".

[Sigreid]

Even in AD&D, an alignment in a statblock in the MM represented typical alignment - it wasn't prescriptive "Creature must be of that alignment".

There were non-evil orcs and goblins in AD&D in the fiction, and the game didn't actually make this a case of "breaking the rules".

No, but there weren't really any moral arguments about killing them on sight either.

[Malbrack]

I wouldn't overthink D&D alignment too much. It has a lot of limitations. As others have pointed out, it struggles to capture the complexity of characters like Tyrion from Game of Thrones. It really only works for characters that stay fairly consistent in their mindset/priorities. There is a reason 5e downplays alignment (to the point of having "unaligned" as a popular option) and instead focuses more on ideals/bonds. Even the 5e paladin is guided more by an Oath than merely Lawful Good alignment.

Think of Neutral Good as a rough guide. In Game of Thrones terms, you're more of a Jon Snow than an Arya (hard to classify, but definitely not Good), Stannis (started as textbook Lawful Neutral), Cersei (Lawful Evil), etc. As good, you care about helping people and you try not to harm people you don't have to. As neutral, you don't have especially strong feelings for or against the law and traditions. For example, a NG character probably wouldn't like to see a prisoner tortured and/or murdered because it was "easier."

[Unoriginal]

5e alignment is about one's typical behavior, and the alignment section acknowledge that basically no one's behavior can fit one alignment 100% of the time.

Lizardfolk sometime hunt and eat people. Despite that, they're generally neutral, because they don't go out of their way to hunt and eat people: they have hunting grounds, and tell people: this is our territory, what is there is food, if you go there you're food.

On the other hand, Lizardfolk can easily be swayed by a demonblooded monarch or a draconic overlord into going on raids and do some old fashioned murder/pillage. The Lizardfolk who do that are evil, as they're proactively seeking to harm others to benefit themselves.


Someone who knowingly do evil things but for a supposedly good cause are still evil, as they're still willingly and knowingly doing evil because they think it's their best path to accomplish their goals. Wanting to save a little kid is nice, but if you've sacrificed someone unwilling to Orcus to do and you judge it acceptable, your typical behavior is likely to not be good, as you need to do a loooooot of nasty stuff to reach the "and the Demon Prince helped save the kid" stage.

[GreyBlack]

Easy. I don't. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

That said, the characters I have who are NG do have some common traits. NG characters I play tend to be mistrustful of authority figures but willing to go along with them if they need something to happen. For example, they're not going to trust that the local noble exactly has the best interests of the town at heart, but when push comes to shove, they'll absolutely use the noble's private army to help evacuate the town.

NG is not of the opinion that society needs to be burned to the ground to start anew; that's the chaotic alignments (Chaotic Good included). Rather, they're mistrustful of authority and willing to go outside the law in order to accomplish their goals, but equally willing to use the system if it would accomplish what's needed.

[Fryy]

RE: Good/Evil/Neutral (personal opinion) within the context of D&D...

Good
On Life: Puts a relatively high value on life. Prefers not to kill NPCs/monsters who are non-aggressive and non-harmful and who are also unlikely to become aggressive or harmful if left unattended.
Interaction with Others: Trades fairly with others. Does not exploit those who are weak or in need. Generally helps those who are weak or in need out of a sense of altruism, compassion, etc. May seek to right wrongs to themselves or others.
Evil
On Life: Puts a relatively low value on others' lives. Has no problem killing others if it is the most advantageous or expedient or efficient option available.
Interaction with Others: Has no problem exploiting others for personal gain.
Neutral
On Life: Understands that life and death are a part of the nature of the world. Aims for options that maintain some balance in the world between the life and death... in either uncivilized and civilized environments.
Interaction with Others: Makes 'even' trades with others (i.e. 'expects fair wages for fair services'). Does not exploit. If they themselves or their associates are exploited, they would want to 'even' things out later in some way.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't overthink D&D alignment too much. Well, there is that. :smallbiggrin:

[2D8HP]

How does everybody role-play Neutral Good Characters?...

...I was wondering if there are any tried and true methods of roleplaying NG characters...


Yes.

Play a P-a-a-a-r-t-a-y Oath of Ancients Paladin.

Or just play a PC confirming to their Tenets, dig:

Tenets of the Ancients
The tenets of the Oath o f the Ancients have been preserved for uncounted centuries. This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos. [so "Neutral Good"] Its four central principles are simple.

Shelter the Light.
Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.

Preserve Your Own Light.
Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in
your own heart, you can’t preserve it in the world.

Be the Light.
Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth
in all your deeds.
- Totally do that jam!


...Jon Snow is Good aligned because he generally refrains from killing or hurting people unless in self defense or the defense of others and only as a last resort, and is altruistic, merciful and compassionate...


Well he did mercy kill Mance Rayder (with an arrow so he wasn't burned alive)


...Jon Snow agrees. Thats his exact reasoning when he pardoned the Umber and Karstark heirs.

Of course he is LG (like his adopted father Eddard). He believes in honor, family and tradition, and is merciful, kind, compassionate and altruistic....


..Think of Neutral Good as a rough guide. In Game of Thrones terms, you're more of a Jon Snow than an Arya (hard to classify, but definitely not Good), Stannis (started as textbook Lawful Neutral), Cersei (Lawful Evil), etc. As good, you care about helping people and you try not to harm people you don't have to. As neutral, you don't have especially strong feelings for or against the law and traditions. For example, a NG character probably wouldn't like to see a prisoner tortured and/or murdered because it was "easier."


@Malifice,
I agree that Ed Stark was textbook Lawful Good, but Jon?

I agree with @Malbrack and think Jon Snow leans more towards Neutral Good as he has "Good" out weigh "Proper" (best result, not best actuon) while his adoptive father Ed in the end tried to do both

[GlenSmash!]

Can one be Lawful while engaged in Aunt banging?

[2D8HP]

Can one be Lawful while engaged in Aunt banging?


When played by Emilia Clarke with freakin' fire-breathing dragons?

It would be a crime to refuse, I mean DAMN!

[Malifice]

I wouldn't overthink D&D alignment too much. It has a lot of limitations. As others have pointed out, it struggles to capture the complexity of characters like Tyrion from Game of Thrones. It really only works for characters that stay fairly consistent in their mindset/priorities. There is a reason 5e downplays alignment (to the point of having "unaligned" as a popular option) and instead focuses more on ideals/bonds. Even the 5e paladin is guided more by an Oath than merely Lawful Good alignment.

Think of Neutral Good as a rough guide. In Game of Thrones terms, you're more of a Jon Snow than an Arya (hard to classify, but definitely not Good), Stannis (started as textbook Lawful Neutral), Cersei (Lawful Evil), etc. As good, you care about helping people and you try not to harm people you don't have to. As neutral, you don't have especially strong feelings for or against the law and traditions. For example, a NG character probably wouldn't like to see a prisoner tortured and/or murdered because it was "easier."

Tyrion is NG. Jon is LG. Cersei is NE, as is Jaime (while secretly yearning to be the LG honorable knight he once wanted to be and that he sees in Brienne). Arya (faceless man grimdark edgelord Arya) is LE (previously CG).

Dany is CN after previously being CG. Shes capricious, prone to acts of both virtue and compassion and extreme ruthlessness and evil. She has no respect for honor or tradition, and actively works to upset and overthrow the established order. The only thing stopping her from razing Kings landing to ash (and arguably burning Varys to ash) is Tyrions counsel.

For a NG protagonist from the series, Tyrion is your man.

[GlenSmash!]

When played by Emilia Clarke with freakin' fire-breathing dragons?

It would be a crime to refuse, I mean DAMN!

I subscribe to your way of thinking. Indeed I think my whole view of alignment should be based upon it.

[2D8HP]

I subscribe to your way of thinking. Indeed I think my whole view of alignment should be based upon it.


And thus the answers to "Alignment" questions become clear, such as when I responded to the Is it evil to ambush some orcs? thread:


Orcs?

Of course it isn't evil!

Especially if they're banging on those headache inducing wardrums!

You'd be spreading civilization!

Unless.....if some of the Orcs are totally hot.

If they're some hot Orcs then what's evil is not going "native", joining the Orc tribe and learning their ways which are more in tune with nature and emotions and stuff, including extended bathing under waterfalls.

Then you fight the non-Orcs who are clearly the evil ones.

-Your welcome

[Tanarii]

I look at my charcaters Personality, Ideal, Bond, and Flaw.

I look at the given guideline for Neutral Good, do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Then I take that all into account as best I can when making decisions for my character in the fantasy environment, if I decide any of it applies.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Personally I haven't really played neutral good characters; most being chaotic or extremely lawful, but if I were to create one, they would probably be a very nice person. This would of course depend on how you want to portray the neutral aspect of the character's alignment. Personally, I would have it that the character places kindness above everything. They are neutral because to them kindness is more important than both law and chaos. Of course you could play it differently, and most can agree that it is better to create the character first, and then decide the alignment that fits the character's personality. But if you want to create a Neutral Good character that is how I would create one.

[Malifice]

And thus the answers to "Alignment" questions become clear, such as when I responded to the Is it evil to ambush some orcs? thread:

It is if they're just sitting around having lunch, and you have no reason to ambush them.

Just like it's evil to ambush humans, elves or dwarves.

If it's an act done in self defence or the defence of others, and there is no other reasonable way to stop the Orcs from killing those people, then it's not evil.

Its not OK to ambush a bunch of Germans, just because they're German. Alied soldiers ambushing Wermacht soldiers on the road to Paris during Operation Overlord however is a different story.

Can you see the difference?

[Unoriginal]

Same way that killing a bunch of goblins who came to the town to rais it isn't the same as killing a bunch of goblins who came to town to trade.

Of course the question can become "is it ok to attack bandits if they're not bandit-ing when you encounter them?", but personally I'd say stopping people who have for business plan to harm people in the near future count as legitimate defense.

[Toofey]

Once he wins and takes over, isn't he going to be LG, and expect people to obey his (just and fair) rules? :)

See, I would say no and I have 2 reasons for this

First in D&D terms the Merry men are distinctly CG and having lived among them a little of that rubbed off on Robin, and he would understand the need for people like that to have a place in society.

Second, in more rhetorical terms, I can't help but read the Robin Hood stories in their actual historical context, where they were popularized during the great depression primarily in America. As such I think it's not an accident that they tend towards an ethos of personal freedom and I would expect for this reason that the stories with the character after Richard's return would still show this liberty as a virtue trend.

[Fryy]

A GM setting up a morale dilemma involving 'Orcs sitting around having lunch' sounds like a really boring game to me. That's like having a rule in a Paintball game that you couldn't shoot the other team unless they were aiming at you at that exact moment.