So I guess yea this is an alignment based thread and i'm looking for peoples opinions on whether or not the Character i will soon be describing is either Neutral good or Lawful Good.
I based the character off the following quote : "There's a time and place for honor, and that time is one were people I care about aren't in danger" This quote although i forget where it came from i do remember it came from a Monk esq. Dnd character.
The Character i am making is not as of right now bound by alignment restrictions so mechanics and such should not be mentioned quite yet.
The base Concept as of right now is : the Character is indeed honorable , law abiding, and a good person. however he is willing to stoop to such things as lying and in general fights with poisons and in a way that most would consider unfair. His belief is that only cowards set rules for combat. He fights how he fights due to his lack of martial training.
as far as what the characters journey or goals are: he travels in hopes of developing and learning a respectable code of honor, as well as teaching people to become heroes in their own way versus relying on heroes, paladins, and knights or what have you to fight for them.
If you have any questions just ask and i will responds as soon as possible.
Sounds like someone straddling the line between them, yeah. I'd personally call it NG but trying to move to LG.
Doesn't sound lawful to me.
In general the time and place for honor is when it makes it adds to the story. When you don't Coup de Grace your beaten opponent, instead healing them to a positive HP total and saying "honor is satisfied" then it's good. When you take a third option because your honor demands it - that can be good.
When honor gets in the way of a good story and limits you - "my character would never wade through a sewer/disguise themself/hide from an enemy/accept an invitation to the BBEG's banquet" - then it's much less good. Maybe there are things your character won't do, but rather than shutting down options try and offer alternatives.
Thing is there are many things that go into honor besides rules of combat. The biggest issue I find between LG and NG is the lying part, since an honorable person generally never goes back on their word.
I guess my question would be this hypothetical. I realize this is probably not something the character would agree to in the first place, but bear with me;
The above character is dueling a villain, and has agreed to let the duel decide if the villain keeps a friend his prisoner. The villain wins. Does this character honor the agreement, or take the advantage while the villain gloats to land a killing blow.
If the answer is honor the agreement, it's probably LG. Other wise he's NG. In my opinion.
In this particular scenario honor be damned a friend is in trouble, however there is the fact that he doesn't go back on his word if he knows the other person wouldn't either. in his mind why should risk honoring an agreement when there's no guarantee that the villan would honor in. he doesn't lie to everyone just to people who don't deserve his word. Although i get what your saying in this scenario.
In general the time and place for honor is when it makes it adds to the story. When you don't Coup de Grace your beaten opponent, instead healing them to a positive HP total and saying "honor is satisfied" then it's good. When you take a third option because your honor demands it - that can be good.
When honor gets in the way of a good story and limits you - "my character would never wade through a sewer/disguise themself/hide from an enemy/accept an invitation to the BBEG's banquet" - then it's much less good. Maybe there are things your character won't do, but rather than shutting down options try and offer alternatives.
as much as i would love to put something like lawful except when this scenario is playing out. the purpose of this is to determine what his alignment is on a more consistent basis, i can't just have him switch when depending on the situation
I based the character off the following quote : "There's a time and place for honor, and that time is one were people I care about aren't in danger" This quote although i forget where it came from i do remember it came from a Monk esq. Dnd character.
So "honor, until it becomes inconvenient to me". I mean...if you care about your party, then almost any situation where you could lie to enemies could conceivably fit that line.
I am not saying that being lawful shouldn't leave room for flexibility... but if that it one of your founding ideals.... then that isn't quite lawful. More NG.
It is slightly better with the 'attempting to develop a code' thing, since you are trying to develop a comprehensive code broad enough that it has allowable exceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a straight up Neutral vibe off this guy. Lawful characters value integrity and (sometimes) honor above things like good outcomes. LGs aren't very "ends justify the means" kind of guys. By the same token, Good characters believe in the greater good, or communal betterment, or something above and beyond themselves. If your worldview is "I try and be a decent guy, unless someone I care about is in trouble, in which case screw it", that sounds like no particular commitment to good or evil, nor law or chaos.
well if his deeply held belief is 'only cowards set rules for combat' then I'd say his alignment would be chaotic evil or at least chaotic neutral.
I mean think about the implications of this belief. He not only doesn't play by the rules, but he thinks those who do for whatever reason are cowards. I mean by that logic he's against war crime legislation.
NG to me.
I think "There's a time and place for honor, and that time is one were people I care about aren't in danger" is far too open and doesnt set much in terms of lawful.
To me it sounds like , "im lawful , unless any of my party members or NPCs i like are threatened"
PS: And this brings the question if he even keeps up the good part or if he drops it also the moment his friends are in danger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not chaotic or evil. He's not opposed to rules in general, just ones about combat. If as a sane human being, you decide that violent conflict resolution is an absolute resort, that selfish stance only makes sense: if something is important enough to risk your life, it's worth risking anything else. If you hold back during war, you're endangering people who are more important to you (friends, family, etc) for the sake of those who are less important (everyone else). On the flip side, if you expect your opponent to hold back, you're an idiot, because they won't.
Saying "I won't slaughter this orphanage because I think the children pose no threat" is not a lawful action. It's a neutral one. Saying "let's make an agreement not to burn down each other's orphanages" or "I won't burn down this orphanage even though it poses a serious risk, because there's a law against it, or my own personal code forbids it" is a lawful action.
Basically, if we can accept that combat can be a good action (and paladins have to), you have to also admit that respecting no limits can be a lawful action.
|
Way I see it, he cares enough about innocent people to actually act and help/protect them = Good.
However, not only will he go back on his word if it benefits him, but he also wants people to take things in their own hands rather than rely on those whose role actually is just that.
Maybe Neutral Good, would likely be Chaotic Good in my games.
well if his deeply held belief is 'only cowards set rules for combat' then I'd say his alignment would be chaotic evil or at least chaotic neutral.
I mean think about the implications of this belief. He not only doesn't play by the rules, but he thinks those who do for whatever reason are cowards. I mean by that logic he's against war crime legislation.
I think Evil is going a little far. Considering the time/technology of this era, the character has probably and will probably never encounter some of the horrific weaponry we have banned from war in our time.
The OP seems to be describing someone who thinks rules like ''Don't attack an unarmed opponent,'' or ''Ranged weapons are dishonorable,'' are stupid rules. Perhaps down right cowardly, since limiting an opponent means you're not confident in yourself to take what they can dish out.
Overall I'd still give him the NG, but he is a character that walks a fine line and could slip depending on how far he is willing to go.
Cause Blindness, Cloudkill, Contagion, Raise Dead, Death Kneel, Disguise Self all pretty clearly have used that would be considered war crimes by today's standards.