Reactions by alignment

[Tiiba]

Here's a situation. I'm trying to figure out the reactions three people would have. They are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good. (Assume also that these are their actual names. They're brothers.)

They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.

What do the three brothers say?

Edit: (By the way, this is not for an RPG, but for a story. I'm trying to give people different reactions, but they end up all taking different routes to the same conclusion.)

[ElenionAncalima]

It really depends on your players. There is a reason alignment is so often debated.

Chaotic Good may be the most willing to cooperate with True Neutral...as he is willing to do underhanded things for the greater good. However, should True Neutral's actions offend him, he is also the most likely want to take vigilante justice.

Lawful Good may feel that he could never work with such and amoral person and that True Neutral must be brought to justice for his crime. However, he could also feel innocent lives must be protected now and justice for True Neutral can wait.

Neutral Good is going to be the hardest to predict. You are totally at the mercy of the player's moral compass.

...and of course they are just as likely to do none of the above. I would be ready for multiple different reactions.

[TheStranger]

Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

[mucat]

Mostly what TheStranger said. There are more than nine different possible outlooks on life. Knowing a person's alignment tells you a little about their personality and viewpoints, but far too little to predict their reaction to a complicated situation.

They meet an old, wise mentor figure named True Neutral. True tells them that he has what they desperately need to escape a dire, dire situation. In the process he admits that the situation was brought about because he cooperated with Lawful Evil. Furthermore, he does not regret doing so in the slightest, and would do it all again for a Klondike bar.

And even after what I just said about alignment not predicting a person's actions...unless he has a strong redeeming side you haven't told us about, I would have trouble describing this guy as Neutral. He knows his actions caused great harm, but would do it again? Is he convinced that, overall, he was acting for the greater good, or does he just not care if he harms people? If it's the latter, that's a distinctly evil outlook.

[Daimbert]

I'd say that here the problem is more that you are varying the Lawful aspect of their personalities, but the situation as -- simply -- described actually relates more to Good than it does to Lawful. The Law/Chaos axis is essentially no more than "Do you follow your own conscience or do you follow the rules even if they conflict with your own personal feelings?" Lawful characters follow the rules even if they personally, at that point, think that not following the rules will lead to the better outcome as per their other axis, while Chaotic ones follow their own personal judgements even if the rules say otherwise. so, in this case here, speaking strictly on the Law/Chaos axis:

LG: "Was there any law broken? Will I be breaking any law in taking your aid?" (remember that being LG and being a Paladin are not the same thing).
NG: "Hmmm. I don't think I'll be breaking any laws, and it might be worth it to get out of the situation anyway."
CG: "As long as my personal conscience doesn't make me disapprove of you personally, I don't see why I shouldn't help."

But then that does come down to personality, and comes down to how each character FEELS about working with someone who caused the situation and did it with someone who's evil.

A better differentiator would be if the association here would involve breaking the law:

LG: "I'm not going to break the law to get out of this situation. I'll find another way or accept the consequences."
NG: "I don't want to break the law, but if the situation is bad enough ..."
CG: "That it's illegal doesn't say anything about whether or not I should work with you."

But, yes, personality comes into all cases as well, but I think that the reason they all come up the same is that the sitaution calls for a judgement based on the Good/Evil alignment axis, but you're only changing the Lawful one. Think about it for, say, NG, True Neutral, and NE:

NG: "I have a problem working with someone who not only works with evil, but does so wilingly and unapologeticaly" (which doesn't mean that they wouldn't work with them).
True Neutral: "If it works out the way I want, I'll work with anyone".
NE: "... What's the problem?"

[Mastikator]

They all say "sure I'll help you, I don't like who you cooperate with but you don't deserve this dire, dire fate, I can't live with myself if I look and do nothing".

Then they have different ideas about how to resolve the situation.

[Tiiba]

They all say "sure I'll help you, I don't like who you cooperate with but you don't deserve this dire, dire fate, I can't live with myself if I look and do nothing".

Then they have different ideas about how to resolve the situation.

The Goods are in the bind, not TN.

Thanks guys. I see my problem now - I didn't do enough to figure out my characters' personalities. That's why they all think like me.

[Kalmageddon]

Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

This.
Not much else to say.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm pretty sure all three of them would say some variation on "Give me the thing, and I'd better not catch you doing that again, Klondike bar or not."

[Slipperychicken]

Say it with me, people: Alignment is not personality.

Seriously - there's no way to answer this based on alignment. It's a function of the details of the situation, the exact relationship with True, and the personalities (not alignments) of the brothers.

This. Alignments aren't people.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I should write a story where characters are named things like L. Goode and C. Eville.

[Tiiba]

I should write a story where characters are named things like L. Goode and C. Eville.

And C. would be the the paladin trying to prevent Erythnul from sponsoring L.'s apotheosis.

[Jay R]

The alignment system is not a way to determine thoughts or actions. It is a (poor) tool for characterizing thoughts and actions after you've decided what they are.

My recommendation: When creating a character, first figure out how he or she thinks (I find it helps to compare the character to a real-world or fictional person, with changes. "She's like Elena in The Mask of Zorro, but she never trusted her father." "He's like Gilligan, but without the quiet dignity."

Then work up stats, skills, feats, etc.

Finally, after the character is complete in your mind, ask yourself what alignment that character is.

Don't decide she is Lawful Neutral and build from that. Decide that she thinks a certain way, build her actions and abilities from that, and then figure out (not decide) what her alignment is.

"Begin with an individual, and before you know it you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find you have created – nothing."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Kelb_Panthera]

As others have said, there's simply not enough information in your presented scenario to reasonably judge what characters of those alignments might do in response.

There's also the not so minor issue of the fact that, however they react, it's not a result of their alignment. How they react is a result of their individual personalities; their upbringing, their personal foibles, past experiences with similar situations, etc; and -that- determines their alignment.

[Jay R]

Here is the crucial observation, that will help explain everything else:

There are more than nine ways for people to react.

[AMFV]

Here is the crucial observation, that will help explain everything else:

There are more than nine ways for people to react.

This is true, there are ten.

[Slipperychicken]

This is true, there are ten.

{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

[Jay R]

{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

You left out the three most common D&D alignments - Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Back-stabbing.

[russdm]

You left out the three most common D&D alignments - Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Back-stabbing.

Actually those three are all parts of one alignment: Player Characters. You can have all three present in one character and have it work even if they are annoying as all get out.

[AMFV]

{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

Well if you don't know the tenth one I'm afraid I can't tell you about it, it's super-secret.

[Mastikator]

{table]LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
[/table]

I count nine here.

I count 362 880, since you can be any combination.

[Slipperychicken]

I count 362 880, since you can be any combination.

How did you get that number?

[Mastikator]

How did you get that number?

Nine factorial.

[Slipperychicken]

Nine factorial.

There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

[AMFV]

There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

Well technically since you can have tendencies, you could be Lawful Lawful Good, or Chaotic Neutral (Evil), which opens up quite a few more possibilities. Depending on how you want to factor things.

[Mastikator]

There are only nine alignment combinations: Each one of the boxes I made is a combination in itself. One cannot combine, for example, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil to get a new alignment.

Unless you do alignmentshifts on a daily basis. If you can do up to 9 in one day then it's possible to have 9! number of ways to react.

[TuggyNE]

Unless you do alignmentshifts on a daily basis. If you can do up to 9 in one day then it's possible to have 9! number of ways to react.

I am completely lost as to why this is a thing. Why would having previously been of alignment X affect your reaction in a way that is substantially different from currently being of alignment Y? How are these alignments shifting almost diametrically (from LN to CE, say) without intermediate steps and nigh-instantaneously? What is the source of the arbitrary nine switches/day figure?

I just ... I just don't understand.

[Evo_Kaer]

Even if everyone says its impossible to answer, I'm going to try my luck:

LG: "Why should I trust you, if you brought us into this mess in the first place?"
NG: "I might overlook what you did, if you get us out of here"
CG: "I'm still not sure if I should kick you before or after we get outta here"

[TheStranger]

Even if everyone says its impossible to answer, I'm going to try my luck:

LG: "Why should I trust you, if you brought us into this mess in the first place?"
NG: "I might overlook what you did, if you get us out of here"
CG: "I'm still not sure if I should kick you before or after we get outta here"

All of those are entirely reasonable reactions, and consistent with the given alignments. However, that's primarily because you could justify any of the nine alignments having any of those reactions (possibly with slight differences in wording). You're making assumptions about the personalities that go along with each alignment.

[Lorsa]

I'm sorry, but according to the D&D alignment system, how can a person that willingly creates a situation that places other people in immediate danger of physical harm only so he can abuse their situation and offer help in exchange for a reward be described as True Neutral? It seems to me the (wise?) old man is Evil himself.