Thomas, A |
So when a DM/GM deals with anything from assassins and paladins to what is and, is not ok do in the Pathfinder Society there is a lot of argument over what is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. I believe the problem stems from a lake of vocabulary to complete and irrefutably describe these parts of the aliment systems, so every game, party, and/or DM/GM sees it differently. This is a good thing over all because it can add a dynamic to the game; however, it can sometimes derail the game in to an argument about what is within the paladin code or other such thing.
So for the purpose of conversation and sharing of notes I am asking you how you define each of the aliment poles.
Do you use a black and white type system or a scaling one?
Do you focus on the north and south more than the east and west poles?
What would you call an extremes or moderate actions?
For me and my group it breaks down this way:
We use a scaling system and try to focus on the law vs. chaos more than good vs. evil because I feel it makes a better story
Good: positive external actions, taking a mission because of the goal
So an extreme good would be like socialism so everyone could act for each other.
Evil: positive internal actions, taking a mission because of the award
So an extreme evil would be like apocalypse preparation because you are ensuring your own safety and well-being
Lawful: predictable actions, any code to live by personal or external
So an extreme would be like a robot because it is a complete lake of choice
Chaotic: spontaneous actions, acting because you have the freedom to do so or because you do no
So an extreme would be like freeing yourself or others from slavery to go from no choice to complete choice would be chaotic
At the end of the day good vs evil comes down to numbers you make an action the number of people it helps vs the number of people it hurts and which side you fall on makes it a good or evil action. With law vs chaos it comes down to could you predict yes: lawful, no: chaotic. Now yes some actions are more this then that and some are both and that’s how I get neural not every action has the capability to move you across the aliment poles.
So if we look at some of our favorite Aliment augments
Robin Hood vs. the tax collector: the tax collector would charge random taxes at random from non-predictable amounts making him Chaotic regardless of the fact he works for the government a lawful institution. If Robin Hood came around and robed the tax collector every time he taxes the people he would be ultimately be lawful even though he is breaking the law he is following his own.
One that is more compacted
The paladin protecting the king from the assassin: Now the assassin has a contract so his action is lawful (internal). The paladin has been order to protect the king for an award so his actions are lawful (external). But let’s say the king is genuinely bad for the kingdom, this would make the paladin’s action evil for hurting more people than he is helping and the assassin good for killing him. However at the end of the night if the assassin kills the paladin to make his job easier the whole night was evil for the assassin because the paladin would probably do more good the king would have evil. If the Paladin killed the assassin at the end of the night the opposite is true killing the assassin would probably more “good” than saving the king was evil.
But like I said this is only how it would be looked at in my game.
PS lets be civil :)
Umbranus |
To say in advance: As I see it having N as part of your alignment means a focus on the other part. NG would focus on good, CN focuses on being chaotic etc.
Good: positive external actions, taking a mission because of the goal
So an extreme good would be like socialism so everyone could act for each other.
More or less how I see it. But even a good person can accept payment.
Evil: positive internal actions, taking a mission because of the award
So an extreme evil would be like apocalypse preparation because you are ensuring your own safety and well-being
This could hardly be farther from how I see evil.
By this definition nearly 90% of the working class would be evil because they accept the mission (their job) for the award (their payment). I see this as a clearly neutral act. You work for your award but you would not do it without the award. Neither good nor evil just the middle and by that neutral.
Lawful: predictable actions, any code to live by personal or external
So an extreme would be like a robot because it is a complete lake of choice
Yes that's it.
Chaotic: spontaneous actions, acting because you have the freedom to do so or because you do no
So an extreme would be like freeing yourself or others from slavery to go from no choice to complete choice would be chaotic
That sounds too positive for me.
Being chaotic includes erratic, unpredictable decisions. Especially CN. This is the "don't trust him, he'll change his mind tomorrow"
So if we look at some of our favorite Aliment augments
Robin Hood vs. the tax collector: the tax collector would charge random taxes at random from non-predictable amounts making him Chaotic regardless of the fact he works for the government a lawful institution. If Robin Hood came around and robed the tax collector every time he taxes the people he would be ultimately be lawful even though he is breaking the law he is following his own.
At the end of the day good vs evil comes down to numbers you make an action the number of people it helps vs the number of people it hurts and which side you fall on makes it a good or evil action. With law vs chaos it comes down to could you predict yes: lawful, no: chaotic. Now yes some actions are more this then that and some are both and that’s how I get neural not every action has the capability to move you across the aliment poles.
Could not agree to this. I would see Robin as the classic CG guy who breaks rules to make the world a better place.
A final note on alignment:
I find it sad that so many games forbid evil alignments but are fine with CN. Because this means that good teamworking guys (LE) are forbidden and craze sociopaths are allowed (CN).
And as a by-product this creates lots of PCs that have CN written down on their sheet but are played as evil, always stating that they are just being chaotic. CN is the worst alignment of all.
Wiggz |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When dealing with evil humans and humanoids, I default to something my father taught me - all true evil stems from selfishness and all true good stems from selflessness. In other words, the more a person is willing to sacrifice the welfare of others to better himself, the more evil he is... whereas the more willing a person is to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others, the more good he is. It works pretty well.
Lawful individuals tend to plan and organize more and take into account either the laws of the land they are in, their own personal code or both. Chaotic individuals tend to shoot from the hip more and act independently of the laws of the land or any rigid personal code.
When dealing with outsiders like demons and angels and whatnot, I tend to use a more idealistic or mythological approach at times with standards unattainable or unrealistic for mortal races.
Kimera757 |
So when a DM/GM deals with anything from assassins and paladins to what is and, is not ok do in the Pathfinder Society there is a lot of argument over what is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. I believe the problem stems from a lake of vocabulary to complete and irrefutably describe these parts of the aliment systems, so every game, party, and/or DM/GM sees it differently. This is a good thing over all because it can add a dynamic to the game; however, it can sometimes derail the game in to an argument about what is within the paladin code or other such thing.
So for the purpose of conversation and sharing of notes I am asking you how you define each of the aliment poles.
Do you use a black and white type system or a scaling one?
Do you focus on the north and south more than the east and west poles?
What would you call an extremes or moderate actions?
Frankly I use a common-sense alignment system, rather than what's in the rules. Evil versus good is more important than law versus chaos, as the latter is just more confusing. Even the term law confuses people :(
So if we look at some of our favorite Aliment augments
Robin Hood vs. the tax collector: the tax collector would charge random taxes at random from non-predictable amounts making him Chaotic regardless of the fact he works for the government a lawful institution. If Robin Hood came around and robed the tax collector every time he taxes the people he would be ultimately be lawful even though he is breaking the law he is following his own.
That doesn't make any sense to me. For starters, there's nothing saying the tax collector is "random". Feudal obligations demanded you pay a certain amount of your wealth as taxes. If he's carrying more money on day 1 than day 2, perhaps he visited the part of Nottingham where there's a river and richer soil that day.
I agree that lawful characters can break the law. Robin Hood was a terrorist/freedom fighter. Robbing the tax collector was a way of weakening the "enemy" regime. He could have done so whether he's lawful or chaotic, however.
One that is more compacted
The paladin protecting the king from the assassin: Now the assassin has a contract so his action is lawful (internal). The paladin has been order to protect the king for an award so his actions are lawful (external). But let’s say the king is genuinely bad for the kingdom, this would make the paladin’s action evil for hurting more people than he is helping and the assassin good for killing him. However at the end of the night if the assassin kills the paladin to make his job easier the whole night was evil for the assassin because the paladin would probably do more good the king would have evil. If the Paladin killed the assassin at the end of the night the opposite is true killing the assassin would probably more “good” than saving the king was evil.But like I said this is only how it would be looked at in my game.
PS lets be civil :)
If the king is a bad king, why is the paladin protecting him? The paladin should refuse the job. Whatever church is sponsoring the paladin should refuse the job, otherwise said paladin should get a new patron. Even if the paladin believed the king was a "good guy" and later found out he wasn't, he should quit. Yes, even if that means breaking a legal contract. (I would expect his church to protect him.)
The assassin should try to kill as few people as possible, just the target, for logical reasons if no other. But taking out the bodyguard comes up, a lot. That's probably more "evil" but that's the case even if the assassin knows nothing about the bodyguard. The paladin shouldn't be expected to hold back against the assassin either, paladins are trained to kill in order to protect others. (Indeed, in this example, they didn't hold back.) They brought the assassin to "justice".
One of the clearest set of alignment rules I've seen are here: http://therpgtable.proboards.com/thread/40
I'm not saying Paizo should copy-and-paste, but the formatting is the kind of thing that should have spread out in the RPG community.
Thomas, A |
evil: ya mission for pay would be evil but not a big one feeding your family more good than a paycheck is evil. this is what i meant be things could be both good and evil like in my paladin vs assassin example
chaotic: your thought on this is the same as mine i was trying to come up with biggest example of not robot (*note robot came from the word for "compulsory labor")
on Robin Hood though he still a thief, internally lawful one but that does not keep you out of jail
I find it sad that so many games forbid evil alignments but are fine with CN. Because this means that good teamworking guys (LE) are forbidden and craze sociopaths are allowed (CN).
And as a by-product this creates lots of PCs that have CN written down on their sheet but are played as evil, always stating that they are just being chaotic. CN is the worst alignment of all.
this was the kinda the thing i wanted to look in to.
Calybos1 |
I find it sad that so many games forbid evil alignments but are fine with CN. Because this means that good teamworking guys (LE) are forbidden and craze sociopaths are allowed (CN).
And as a by-product this creates lots of PCs that have CN written down on their sheet but are played as evil, always stating that they are just being chaotic. CN is the worst alignment of all.
It's not that Chaotic Neutral is an invalid and unworkable alignment... it simply attracts bad players who like to misuse it as an excuse to "blow sh** up and burn the town." There are plenty of perfectly valid and interesting CN characters out there--freedom fighters, jesters, vigilantes, simple wanderers--but the psychos give them a bad name.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your definition of the Alignments
I'd have to say I define the alignments thusly:
-------------------------------------------------
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
--------------------------------------------------
Some people chafe against these definitions, but they've still served me pretty well overall. :)
Kazaan |
What a can of worms, typos not the least of which. There are lots of dichotomies to deal with here, first and foremost, objective vs subjective.
Objective vs Subjective Alignment
Good vs Evil
Law vs Chaos
Interaction of axes
Heroism vs Villainy
Orange vs Blue
Laurefindel |
(...) In other words, the more a person is willing to sacrifice the welfare of others to better himself, the more evil he is... whereas the more willing a person is to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others, the more good he is.
In any other context, I would agree with that.
The issue I have with this interpretation for the purpose of D&D, is that welfare of others implies the principle of community, but community is often sided with Law.
It also implies that LG is more Good than CG. Similarly, the line between independence and selfishness is sometimes muddled, "pushing" Chaos toward Evil
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Wiggz wrote:(...) In other words, the more a person is willing to sacrifice the welfare of others to better himself, the more evil he is... whereas the more willing a person is to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others, the more good he is.In any other context, I would agree with that.
The issue I have with this interpretation for the purpose of D&D, is that welfare of others implies the principle of community, but community is often sided with Law.
It also implies that LG is more Good than CG. Similarly, the line between independence and selfishness is sometimes muddled, "pushing" Chaos toward Evil
The "others" for which a good person is willing to make sacrifices doesn't have to be "the community at large". Cooking for your spouse even though you're tired is "sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others". So while you're right that community is more associated with Lawfulness, the idea that "for the good of others" implies a sense of community is incorrect.
If LG Larry and CG Charlie each witness a mugging on their way to meet each other for dinner, both would sacrifice their evening recreational plans for the good of intervening. That's the "good" axis, and is really unconnected with "community".
Now, Larry would call the police and try to note relevant information for a statement he'll give the police later, while Charlie might chase the perp down and engage him directly. That's the law/chaos part. But both being good, they'll both intervene at their own inconvenience.
Adamantine Dragon |
I believe that usually in things like this, the "keep it simple" approach is the best.
evil - means actively wanting to hurt others.
good - means actively wanting to help others
law - means wanting things to follow rules
chaos - means seeking freedom of choice
and most importantly
neutral - means actively seeking balance between the opposing ends of that alignment.
Laurefindel |
Laurefindel wrote:The "others" for which a good person is willing to make sacrifices doesn't have to be "the community at large". Cooking for your spouse even though you're tired is "sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others".Wiggz wrote:(...) In other words, the more a person is willing to sacrifice the welfare of others to better himself, the more evil he is... whereas the more willing a person is to sacrifice himself for the benefit of others, the more good he is.In any other context, I would agree with that.
The issue I have with this interpretation for the purpose of D&D, is that welfare of others implies the principle of community, but community is often sided with Law.Chaos toward Evil
But the other is connected to the community at large, to a great extent at least. Otherwise you'd have LG Larry cooking for his spouse with the food he stole from the orphans next door...
I don't disagree with "willingness to sacrifice" and "caring for another and for community" as being Good. Only, I don't think it should be the definition of Good. An effect, but not the cause.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
I don't disagree with "willingness to sacrifice" and "caring for another and for community" as being Good. Only, I don't think it should be the definition of Good. An effect, but not the cause.
Well, it is the definition of good, at least in the Pathfinder system:
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Laurefindel |
Laurefindel wrote:I don't disagree with "willingness to sacrifice" and "caring for another and for community" as being Good. Only, I don't think it should be the definition of Good. An effect, but not the cause.Well, it is the definition of good, at least in the Pathfinder system:
Never said it wasn't what RaW said; just that I don't quite agree with it :)
Still I find this definition problematic for the points I brought above (mainly confusion between Good and Law based on notions of community)
Off course, that's for the sake of arguing about my concerns on alignment, because in practice, players work better with examples than with abstract, conceptual definitions.
So while I think the Pathfinder definition of alignment is flawed to a certain extent, it works good enough for the purpose of the game as long as you accept that overlapping concepts can happen and you don't make too much fuss about it.
BillyGoat |
I believe that usually in things like this, the "keep it simple" approach is the best.
evil - means actively wanting to hurt others.
good - means actively wanting to help others
law - means wanting things to follow rules
chaos - means seeking freedom of choiceand most importantly
neutral - means actively seeking balance between the opposing ends of that alignment.
The problem I have with this approach is that it leaves nowhere for the grand majority of existing creatures and people. Bob the Farmer and his horse both actively seek to tend to their own needs. Neither gives meaningful thought to the good or ill that comes from their actions. They certainly don't actively seek to harm or help anyone.
And nor do they seek a balance between these cosmic forces that have no impact on the fall harvest. Unless you include an "unaffiliatdd" option, neutral needs to be open to simple indifference as well as active pursuit of balance.
Coriat |
I find it sad that so many games forbid evil alignments but are fine with CN. Because this means that good teamworking guys (LE) are forbidden and craze sociopaths are allowed (CN).
If a game is going to forbid evil, then it ought to forbid evil-but-with-CN-written-down. Which is all that that is. Evil with the E whited out on the sheet =/= actual CN.
"One of the great voices of moral certainty I have known."
-LG wizard commenting on my CN fighter
neutral - means actively seeking balance between the opposing ends of that alignment.
I have always had difficulty coexisting with the idea of active neutrality as a moral possibility. Just can't seem to accept it into my heart. If you add good and evil together in carefully balanced proportions... then I feel that the evil likely emerges dominant.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
I'm getting confused; is this thread about how we interpret Pathfinder's alignment system? Or is it about our own alignment systems that we prefer to use instead? I originally thought the former, but I keep seeing examples of the latter.
For example:
neutral - means actively seeking balance between the opposing ends of that alignment.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
...
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
I've seen a lot of that "neutral is actively seeking balance" idea before, and I've always wondered where it came from. It's clearly not how Pathfinder defines neutrality, but rather sounds more like an importing of classical notions of the virtue of "balance".
So are we talking about Pathfinder's alignment system or our own? 'Cause I'm sure not gonna go to the trouble of citing rules if we're talking about homebrew, you know?
Laurefindel |
I like to tell myself that Good is the ability to hear that voice in your head saying "that would be wrong", or "that would make the world a better place if" and listen to it. Good characters doing wrong will feel bad about it and attempt to amend/redeem their behaviour.
Evil is on the contrary, hearing the little voice saying "that is wrong but it would benefit good for me/us/my cause right now" and yielding to it either by weakness of character, rationalization of ends" justifying the means", or depraved enjoyment of seeing one suffer.
Those who cannot hear that little voice are neutral, and so are those struggling between wanting to ear the good voice, but often failing to do so.
Adamantine Dragon |
Billygoat - I do actually allow "unaligned" in my alignment system. But most NPCs I view as vaguely lawful neutral. Part of a chracter's personality is how hard they attempt to pursue their alignment. Many characters have an alignment but they aren't terribly motivated to assert it.
Coriat, the problem with balancing evil and good in most cases I see is when someone says "My donation to the orphanage offsets me murdering those fifteen bound prisoners."
No, it doesn't. It doesn't come close.
Terquem |
In my campaign settings an NPC is labeled with an alignment, not to remind me of “what is this NPC’s nature” but to remind me of “What is this NPC’s behavior toward the setting or the Player Character’s”
A particular NPC that is identified (in my notes) as Neutral Evil, may in fact be kind to strangers, helpful to their parents and siblings, generous toward orphans and widows, and determined to make sure the Mayor is driven out of town due to a made up scandal involving improper advances imagined toward the Governor’s daughter because of a slight that occurred during a childhood game that left the individual bitter and filled with a need to see the Mayor ruined once and for all, even going so far as to plot the death of the mayor, if it comes to that.
Because (in my campaign settings) no person (or creature) perceives themselves as Evil, it is their actions when perceived by others that make them evil. Goblins are evil not because they will eat you, they of course consider this normal behavior, but then again so does a large bear, but because they might decide not to eat you and only kill you for the fun of it.
Hordshyrd |
I'd like to weigh in if I may with an alternative view of Good/Evil that I have yet to see here. That is the concept of good vs. evil through Machiavelianism.
Machiavelianism is defined (if I'm spelling it right) as the measure of how far one is willing to put their own needs above those of others. This applies to the concept of good and evil like this, someone who is extremely Machiavelianist will do whatever it takes to progress their own needs over other, kill for money, subjugate the people to live in opulence, etc.. and as such is Evil. Where-as someone on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum would; starve in order to feed the hungry, jump into the path of a bus to push someone else out of the way, etc.. and as such would be called Good.
This establishes the concept of good and evil as selflessness vs. selfishness. Someone who is good sacrifices of themselves for the needs of others, someone who is evil sacrifices the needs of others for the sake of themselves, and someone who is neutral either tries to live a life without influencing those around them, living a life not helping or hurting others to an extreme, or working from a balanced approach, giving and taking in fairly equal quantities.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
If a Goblin shoves his sister out of the way of the pointed end of a double barreled musket, and leaps in front of her, after he has helped his sister kill a friend of the woman weilding the musket, is the Goblin Good, Evil or just dead.
Kinda depends on the rest of the goblin's life. Your alignment doesn't flip around moment by moment depending on the most recent thing or two you've done.
archmagi1 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, alignment is a bit less pervasive, especially since I adjusted the detect alignment scale (no creature that isn't inherently evil [undead, outsiders, clerics] shows up as faint until 10HD), but here is how I generally gauge things:
Lawful - Want to influence how society works
Chaos - Concerned about how things affect me
Good - What is right
Evil - Who cares about consequences
LG - Strives to make the world a better place
NG - Wants to do what is good, because it is the right thing to do
CG - Likes to do what is good, because it makes them feel good and happy
LN - Has an idea of what society should be, and seeks to make it that
N - Wants to live their life how they want to
CN - Strives to be free, spontaneous, not be weighed down by what is expected of them
LE - Must *make* society conform to their ideals
NE - Could care less about how their actions, often self serving and harmful, affect others
CE - Strives to do whatever they want to do, and *enjoys it* when their actions cause problems (and even seeks to do so) for others
Hordshyrd |
Terquem wrote:If a Goblin shoves his sister out of the way of the pointed end of a double barreled musket, and leaps in front of her, after he has helped his sister kill a friend of the woman weilding the musket, is the Goblin Good, Evil or just dead.Kinda depends on the rest of the goblin's life. Your alignment doesn't flip around moment by moment depending on the most recent thing or two you've done.
A paladin pushes her friend out of the way of the deadly end of a musket then jumps in front of her friend after having just killed the musket wielding woman's husband. Is the paladin good evil or just dead?
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy wrote:Terquem wrote:If a Goblin shoves his sister out of the way of the pointed end of a double barreled musket, and leaps in front of her, after he has helped his sister kill a friend of the woman weilding the musket, is the Goblin Good, Evil or just dead.Kinda depends on the rest of the goblin's life. Your alignment doesn't flip around moment by moment depending on the most recent thing or two you've done.A paladin pushes her friend out of the way of the deadly end of a musket then jumps in front of her friend after having just killed the musket wielding woman's husband. Is the paladin good evil or just dead?
Same answer; a paladin's alignment doesn't change any more easily than anyone else's. They might cease to be a paladin, but that doesn't necessarily mean their alignment changed.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
I must be one of those few who doesn't care for alignments at all.
'Good' and 'evil' are so completely subjective, especially in a game setting; having such labels is meaningless.
If I play a game without an alignment system, I don't miss it. Even in most Pathfinder games I play/run, it doesn't tend to come up too much. But when it does, I use the Pathfinder alignment system without modification. Seems to work just fine for the game it's part of.
Terquem |
Is the Paladin the "Hollywood Idealization of an Italian Roman Catholic Mobster", cause this is really important to the outcome of the story.
You know, 'cause she was a Made- Woman, once, but it got to her.
And then there was her daughter, looking up at her every night with those eyes saying, "why Mama, why?" So she got out of the game, and became a holy woman, she turned her life to good.
But they kept pulling her back. Every time she thought she was out they pulled her back in.
One day it came to a moment in her life where everything hinged on the next move she made. It didn’t have to be this way. Paulie was dead, but he forced her hand. She didn’t want to kill him, and now Colleen, his wife, had picked up his gun. Tears were in her eyes. They had been friends once. Colleen had sat second at little Juliet’s blessing ceremony.
Why, Why! She screamed as the gun went off, but she did the only thing she knew she had to do. She shoved Don Miguel out of the way. Don, the bastard deserved to die, didn’t he? But it was too late, she had made her choice and as her life slipped away she thought of Juliet, her little girl. What would become of her? Where would she go, what would she do? If only she could know, before she died, that there was a way for Juliet to stay out of the family, stay off the path her mother had chosen.
Tears mingled with her blood.
Collen kneeled by her side and said, “I’ll take care of Juliet. I promise. We’ll run away. She’ll always know you died saving every single one of us.”
Bruunwald |
Robin Hood is NG. I have said this a million times. He follows the good law of his king because it is a good law, and so long as the law is good, he is okay with it. He works with his king.
He breaks the bad law of the prince/sheriff because it is a bad law, and so long as the law is bad, he won't obey it. He doesn't care to work with those guys.
When the king returns, and brings back the good law, Robin goes back to following it and takes up again his old place in society.
He's as Neutral Good as Neutral Good can possibly get, but because he breaks the law in most of the stories, people fall into the mistake of thinking he is Chaotic. But he only breaks bad laws, and only conditionally, and only for a short time. He only lives outside society while society is corrupt. He lives within it when it is lawful again.
Chaotic Good people have a much more loose relationship with law and society in general. It is not conditional as it is with Robin. They don't follow along even when it is good, if that suits them. So long as they are not harming others, they are fine with breaking laws and breaking from society.
Laurefindel |
I must be one of those few who doesn't care for alignments at all.
'Good' and 'evil' are so completely subjective, especially in a game setting; having such labels is meaningless.
Not that "few"; most people I know have written the alignment system out of their D&D/Pathfinder game.
It's just that people not caring about alignment don't participate much in alignment treads. Just like how people without cars are under-represented at the mechanic's garage.
RDM42 |
Robin Hood is NG. I have said this a million times. He follows the good law of his king because it is a good law, and so long as the law is good, he is okay with it. He works with his king.
He breaks the bad law of the prince/sheriff because it is a bad law, and so long as the law is bad, he won't obey it. He doesn't care to work with those guys.
When the king returns, and brings back the good law, Robin goes back to following it and takes up again his old place in society.
He's as Neutral Good as Neutral Good can possibly get, but because he breaks the law in most of the stories, people fall into the mistake of thinking he is Chaotic. But he only breaks bad laws, and only conditionally, and only for a short time. He only lives outside society while society is corrupt. He lives within it when it is lawful again.
Chaotic Good people have a much more loose relationship with law and society in general. It is not conditional as it is with Robin. They don't follow along even when it is good, if that suits them. So long as they are not harming others, they are fine with breaking laws and breaking from society.
I call him lawful good. He implicitly respects what he considers the legitimate law. He only opposes illegitimate law. But he isn't against law itself.
Terquem |
I call Robin Hood Chaotic Good. Good because he accomplishes his goals without immediatly resorting to violence, chaotic because they are "HIS" goal and his alone. It may be based upon ideas he has about what is "right" and what is "fair" but he decides what those mean and ignores any voice that is in opposition to those beliefs.
Tequila Sunrise |
I've seen a lot of that "neutral is actively seeking balance" idea before, and I've always wondered where it came from. It's clearly not how Pathfinder defines neutrality, but rather sounds more like an importing of classical notions of the virtue of "balance".
The active-balance definition of True Neutral dates back to 2e. (And possibly earlier, but I only date back to 2e.) The PHB was emphatic, in both the alignment chapter and in the druid section (druids had to be TN in 2e), that intelligent True Neutrals will do things like working with an order of paladins to fight off a marauding orc army, and then betraying those same paladins when Good gains the upper hand.
Planescape, the setting that attempted to reconcile all of D&D's various quirks, mentions how some TN dead folks actually walk around with personal Good vs. Evil diaries. Every time such a cutter promotes Good, he adds a mark to the Good column, and then goes looking for something Evil to do. And on and on.
It was a weird and trippy time in D&D's history.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Jiggy wrote:I've seen a lot of that "neutral is actively seeking balance" idea before, and I've always wondered where it came from. It's clearly not how Pathfinder defines neutrality, but rather sounds more like an importing of classical notions of the virtue of "balance".The active-balance definition of True Neutral dates back to 2e. (And possibly earlier, but I only date back to 2e.) The PHB was emphatic, in both the alignment chapter and in the druid section (druids had to be TN in 2e), that intelligent True Neutrals will do things like working with an order of paladins to fight off a marauding orc army, and then betraying those same paladins when Good gains the upper hand.
Huh. Well THAT'S interesting. :/
Tequila Sunrise |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the topic at hand...
Alignment is a spectrum, or rather a pair of crossing spectrums. Alignments are not a set of nine little boxes that anyone, except possibly outsiders, can neatly fall into. Also...
Well, firstly, your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.
...this. I actually consider a player's entry into the little alignment box on his character sheet to be what alignment his character aspires to. Non-neutral alignments require consistent action, not just intent.
Anyhow, my definitions are simply:
Good characters care about and act on behalf of others. Everyday example: Helping an old lady cross the street, or giving a few bucks to charity. Extreme example: Sacrificing yourself to save others, or dedicating one's fortune and/or life to charity.
Neutral characters make up the majority of humanity. Most believe themselves to be Good, but don't act on behalf of others often enough to deviate much from the center of the Good-Evil spectrum.
Evil characters disregard the well-being of others to achieve their goals. Everyday example: Stealing a few bucks from the church collection plate. Extreme example: Use your imagination.
Lawful characters believe in a particular faith, code, or lifestyle, and believe that the Way is best practiced by everyone. So a lawful character leads by example, proselytizes, or conquers in order to Spread the Word.
Neutral characters make up the majority of humanity. Most believe themselves to be Lawful, but lack the conviction to cleave to their beliefs when it becomes inconvenient.
Chaotic characters believe that everyone is best left to their own devices. So a chaotic character speaks out against or strikes against homogenizing forces such as tradition, religions, and rulers.
The Hitler Question: Note that plenty of Evil folks do good things, and most of them firmly believe that they're fighting the Good fight. But whenever I find myself asking "Well this character does some Good things and some Evil things...," the Evil acts take precedence and so the character defaults to Evil.
Otherwise, the game becomes a bad Disney story with mustachio-twirling villains and morally perfect heroes, or else alignment becomes meaningless because everyone is subjectively Good.
RDM42 |
I call Robin Hood Chaotic Good. Good because he accomplishes his goals without immediatly resorting to violence, chaotic because they are "HIS" goal and his alone. It may be based upon ideas he has about what is "right" and what is "fair" but he decides what those mean and ignores any voice that is in opposition to those beliefs.
Depends on the version, of course, but n the more common modern version he opposes Prince John as an outlaw because he considers prince John illegitimate as a king - and immediately again becomes an "in-law" when Richard came back. He respected Richards authority the whole time.