PDA

View Full Version : Yet another alignment question.



shadow_archmagi
2008-02-08, 05:59 PM
So, in my current campaign, I've got a noble and a king.

The king is somewhat competant albiet a bit overzealous towards fighting crime, and although he hasn't exactly lead his people into an age of glory and prosperity, they arn't starving or in deathcamps either.

The noble thinks he could feed the poor, lower the crimerate, expand the kingdom's borders, etc. To this end, he's been stealing various magical items. So far, there isn't any pattern and most of them are harmless, but eventually he'll use the combination to seize power.


What alignment are they?

Bag_of_Holding
2008-02-08, 06:02 PM
I think it's the motive that should define one's alignment, not deeds.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 06:02 PM
Can't tell without more information, but the king sounds sort of Lawful Neutral, while the Noble is either Neutral or Neutral Good.

Frosty
2008-02-08, 06:04 PM
I think it's the motive that should define one's alignment, not deeds.

you just opened a can of worms...

Note that I agree with you, but...

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-08, 06:05 PM
I think it's the motive that should define one's alignment, not deeds.Miko?Ach, now I've done it. Can you say "Derailed"?

Bag_of_Holding
2008-02-08, 06:07 PM
you just opened a can of worms...

Note that I agree with you, but...


I know, I know... :smallannoyed:. There's the freedom of speech where you can't speak out your idea without being flamed for that. Ha, it's more irony than the word irony itself, so I'd call it: adamantiny!


*runs away, snickering madly*

chionophile
2008-02-08, 06:14 PM
I'd agree that the King sounds Lawful Neutral, but I think the noble sounds more chaotic. Maybe Chaotic Neutral? Stealing to help people strikes me as chaotic good (if he's stealing from evil people, anyway), but taking power from what sounds like a reasonably benevolent ruler just because he thinks he can do better strikes me as neutral. I could be totally off base though.

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-08, 06:24 PM
Personally, from the description of the book, I always considered Neutral to be a sort of "Sissified Good."

As in, if he saw a starving person while holding a bag of excess food, he'd hand it over. But at the same time, he isn't going to attack the evil overlord, he isn't going to join the crusades, and he hesitates for a LONG TIME over harboring the fleeing hero.


EDIT: I should probably stress that in the hero's last encounter with his thieves, they convinced a mob of commoners to help them fight. (Damn critical diplomacy rolls!) The thieves attacked the commoners with nonlethal damage and took a moment to stabilize the PC they nearly killed.

VanBuren
2008-02-08, 06:45 PM
Personally, from the description of the book, I always considered Neutral to be a sort of "Sissified Good."

As in, if he saw a starving person while holding a bag of excess food, he'd hand it over. But at the same time, he isn't going to attack the evil overlord, he isn't going to join the crusades, and he hesitates for a LONG TIME over harboring the fleeing hero.


EDIT: I should probably stress that in the hero's last encounter with his thieves, they convinced a mob of commoners to help them fight. (Damn critical diplomacy rolls!) The thieves attacked the commoners with nonlethal damage and took a moment to stabilize the PC they nearly killed.

I've always seen it as Evil benefiting self at the expense of others, Neutral benefiting self and then others with what's left and then Good benefiting others at the expense of self.

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-08, 06:46 PM
That sounds about right.

Yami
2008-02-08, 08:23 PM
EDIT: I should probably stress that in the hero's last encounter with his thieves, they convinced a mob of commoners to help them fight. (Damn critical diplomacy rolls!) The thieves attacked the commoners with nonlethal damage and took a moment to stabilize the PC they nearly killed.
Foolish thieves. Any foe whose willing to throw perfectly innocent commoners into the line of fire for a slight edge in combat should receive no mercy. There's good, and then there's just plain foolish.

Anyways, King be LN, oft better than LG in my opinion.

And the noble is CN.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-09, 06:58 AM
I think it's the motive that should define one's alignment, not deeds.

The problem is that a strict application of either principle gets ludicrous. It's either "my character tortures puppies to death but genuinely thinks it's the right thing" or else it's "my character would have cheerfully burned the whole village to the ground but he didn't when they offered to pay him money".

Alignment, she make no sense.

snoopy13a
2008-02-09, 10:09 AM
Personally, from the description of the book, I always considered Neutral to be a sort of "Sissified Good."



Actually, you do have a point here. Being "good" is the ideal for some neutral people but they do not put out the effort to help others even though they believe that they should. I'd venture that many true neutral and neutral good people share common beliefs with the difference being that the neutral good people act on their beliefs. Of course, other neutral people simply look out for themselves but are not evil because they believe in fair play and will not cheat or exploit others.

The king is either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. I think more information is needed such as how much power the king has. Perhaps he wants to better conditions for the poor but cannot due to opposition from powerful nobles and merchants. In this case, the king would be good because he makes sure all the people are fed.

I'd put the noble at True Neutral. His motives to better conditions for the poor and lower crime are good but trying to cause a revolution is not. The fallout from a successful or unsuccesful coup could be brutal with people on the losing side being executed. Addtionally, the idea to increase the kingdom's size means war which will result in the deaths of many soldiers. Finally, there is no proof that the noble will do a better job of feeding the poor or fighting crime. The king is already doing his best against crime and may even be doing his best on behalf of the poor. It isn't certain that the noble would do any better.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-09, 10:49 AM
Personally, from the description of the book, I always considered Neutral to be a sort of "Sissified Good."

That is more NG.
Neutral cares about self, family, and Friends.
Sure, he might feel guilt if he had food and someone he didn't know was starving, but he is just as likely as not to walk on by.


EDIT: I should probably stress that in the hero's last encounter with his thieves, they convinced a mob of commoners to help them fight. (Damn critical diplomacy rolls!) The thieves attacked the commoners with nonlethal damage and took a moment to stabilize the PC they nearly killed.


Awesome.

Yahzi
2008-02-09, 12:47 PM
Here's my alignment scale:

NE: No morality; psychopathic
CE: Fear of punishment
LE: Desire for reward
CG: Peer approval (Honor, etc.)
LG: Social Contract
NG: Universal rights.

The neurtals are on a different scale:
CN: Animals, the materiall world
NN: Inanimate matter
LN: Magic, the spirit world

By this, your King is probably LG - he's fair to those who play by the rules, but unmerciful to those who don't. Your Noble is CG: while he likes the idea of being good, he only extends that protection to people he likes - his friends, the peasants, etc. By defining the King as part of the "out group" he justifies ignoring the king's rights (and the same for the people who owned the magic items).

This is how Good does evil: by excluding them from moral consideration. The King excludes criminals from moral consideration, and the Noble excludes anybody not on his side.