I'm not sure what alignment he is but I'm pretty sure he is not chaotic good. thing about retribution is it's ultimately based on anger. and while good people can get. angry when it's the basis of killing people...
so one example you used was if a criminal was perceived to get off light
ynor on a technicality then killing him. since I am assuming the character won't have profession laser this essentially is just murder since the charcter likely will only have subjective opinion for this
though like anything with alignment its subjective to opinion.
Well, as mentioned in a previous post on another topic, I've banned Chaotic Good at my table because it's frequently used to justify acts that I don't believe are good.
I don't think that 'punishing the guilty' is a classically good action, although there are characters like Batman who you would generally say were good who are driven by revenge. On the other hand, Batman doesn't kill.
I would (personally) generally regard revenge as lawful evil and retribution as lawful neutral. There's nothing more lawful than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I would expect a good character to always regret that 'it was necessary' no matter how necessary it was. The character you describe would, at my table, be dropped straight into the Lawful Evil box. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I think LE is a great role playing alignment which brings up moral dilemmas which a good character would quickly solve with "but it's wrong", the 'greater good' LE may decide they have to take responsibility for unpleasant actions because no one else will. I think there's a terrible tendency for players to regard CG as 'not as good' as LG, and to confuse being lawful with obeying the law. (All IMAO, of course (I don't *have* humble opinions)).
|
That sounds exactly like the darker end of CG. If he goes too far in his pursuit of vengeance, he could easily tip over into CN, but as is, he's trying to do the right thing, help people, and make the world a better place. That's CG.
Hell, looking at organizations, the Bellflower Network kill slavers, like a lot, and are stated as CG by the official rules. They also, indeed primarily, help free slaves of course...
Hmmm. I think maybe the tipping point is which does he care more about: Helping people and making the world a better place? Or punishing the guilty? Would he rather save a life, or make sure a murderer dies?
If it's the first, he's CG, if the second, CN. Or maybe even LN with a very specific code.
To put it another way: he can punish the guilty and still be CG, but not if it's the most important thing in his life.
This character stands far more ethically neutral to me. Generally speaking throughout D&D characters with the "ends justify the means" have not fallen into the good category, regardless of intent. The best example of this demonstrated was the former Paladin described in the AD&D Villians Guide, who sought good results through evil actions.
"maybe baleful polymorph instead. or feeblemind used on him as the justice he escaped because of the law"
Now both of those are sadistic, no points from my 'good-ometer'. (And, I have to ask, if you're just creating him, at what point do you expect to have fifth level spells?)
Why do you want him to be good anyway? If he's going to hang out with a CN witch to do the dirty work for him, why not just be CN as well, and then your GM can throw tantrums about you being really being CE and abusing CN. I still think that if he's motivated by a 'punishment fitting the crime' type of mentality that's highly lawful.
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and disagree with everyone: Murder isn't inherently an evil act. It's Chaotic, since it's illegal, but it's neutral in regards to Good and Evil. Who and why you're killing determines the good or evil of the act.
Killing someone who's done horrible things but the law will never punish, to keep him from doing any more such things? Good.
Killing the man who raped your sister, possibly while you're in in a fit of rage? Neutral, as is most revenge killing for really bad stuff. This is why Calistria is CN.
Killing someone for your own enjoyment? Always Evil. (Note: This is why Dexter is Lawful Evil in D&D, it's not that he kills, but that he does so almost purely for his own enjoyment.)
Assassinating an evil tyrant to make the world a better place? Good.
Assassinating an evil tyrant because your king orders it? Neutal.
Assassinating an evil tyrant because you want his kingdom? Evil.
Killing a good man who's been irrevocably possessed and is beyond saving to put him out of his misery? Maybe Good, maybe Neutral. Definitely Good if he's a threat to innocents and it's the only way to stop him.
Killing a good man because your king orders it? Neutral verging on Evil. It's the kind of thing a LN guy wouldn't think twice about, but a Good character wouldn't ever do, and a Paladin would fall for doing.
Killing a good man because he knows something that could ruin you? Evil. It's pure self interest.
Killing an innocent for the "greater good"? Never Good, almost always Evil (and doing this often will take your Alignment down that path), unless you're objectively right and there's no other way, then it's Neutral. Still enough to cause a Paladin to fall, though.
And so on and so forth. It's about motivation and target. If you're killing bad people to legitimately make the world better, you're performing Good acts. Maybe not as Good as saving iorphans, and if you turn down saving orphans to do it you're certainly doing the wrong thing, but it's not inherently non-virtuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
Lets see now.
Now the way I envision the character is one who seeks to right the wrongs he perceives, without regard for any rule or authority anyone might claim for themselves to that end.
Acts on his own moral compass instead of the law, ignores societal norms, and is proactive in making things better. Chaotic good.
I see this character as taking out his own view of justice, karma, or the like, on those he believes are guilty.
He sounds reckless, which fits the chaotic part, is willing to take risks to meet good ends, that is good. As long as his view of "justice, karma, or the like" is generally trying to stay within that idea of doing good, this is chaotic good.
Say a murderer gets off easy, or is released on a technicality. He has no problem killing them, or doing things that don't lead to their death directly, if he thinks they deserve it.
That dude killed someone and was not punished. It is good to want to see him made unable to hurt more people, even if his death is part of that. Sure, the chance exists that someone might be innocent or he was more justified than a deranged murderer and I expect your character will use some better judgement in this case. Still, sounds like good-natured vigilante work intended to make the world better. Chaotic good. You respect life in that you are protecting the whole of the community through your acts.
To him, the ends do justify the means. If it will ultimately bring about better
You are not a paladin, this is indeed acceptable behavior for a good character. Even more so for a chaotic good character.
He does help people and takes on causes, but a large part of his alignment is made up of pursuing retribution on those who cause the wrongs.
Being a proactive agent of good, seeking to find and deal with threats, is not an evil act.
He doesn't trust easily, and the benefit of the doubt is given sparingly until they prove themselves one way or the other.
That is more a character quirk than an alignment issue.
He has the best intentions. He wants to make the world better by sticking it to those who make it worse (in his mind, they don't deserve kindness, benevolence, or mercy)..whether they're corrupt, or they are murderers. When he takes action to stick it to them, he feels no remorse or pity if they've earned it, in his opinion.
Again, you are not a paladin. The very idea that you want to do good makes you good in this case. Chaotic Neutral doesn't really care to help others as that alignment is written. Neutral in general is the "I like good but don't have the desire to go further the cause of good at my own expense. Good is good and I am glad other people are willing to do good for me." You aren't evil because, once again, you want to do good. You don't kill people because you love blood or are trying to trick people into letting their guard down. You don't kill for sport or just to make your own life easier. In his heart, good is his active aim for no other reason than furthering the cause of good.
So would you say he's Chaotic Good? He's comfortable with morally gray, but in a sense twists it to his own point of view.
Congrats, you have made a definition Chaotic Good character. You and chaotic good are best buddies now. Read the definition of chaotic good and tell me where the violation could be?
To clarify further.
The chaotic element seems agreed.
Chaotic neutral does not care overly about others. He does. He wants to help and protect people for the sake of making the world better. That is CG not CN.
Chaotic evil is killing unpredictably for fun. This is not the case.
thanks for the input.
particularly what you said, ironicdisaster, has given me some things to think about.
i do want to go with more good. so less murdering the offenders seems like a very viable option.
and to what deadmanwalking said...that is a fine line to straddle. punishment? or helping people? maybe enforcing 'karma' as he can.
i'd say that the thing he would gravitate towards, is helping people and making the world better. if he can get that punishment with it, all the better.
i'll have to think about it some more. hehe.
thanks again.
edit: i didn't mention it, but this character is starting at 9th level.
I think if you are enforcing karma then that is neutral as far as good and evil are concerned.
"Murder isn't inherently an evil act. It's Chaotic, since it's illegal"
Again, we have the 'lawful = law abiding'. Utter nonsense. Droit de signeur. Slavery. Secret Police. Death penalty for theft. A lawful good character should oppose all these things (depending slightly on campaign background), the level to which they oppose them (hiding escaped slaves, throwing secret police into deep pits etc.) will depend on the character, but they shouldn't use the 'well, I have to obey the law' to avoid their responsibility to be 'good'. Chaotic Good may have more of a problem accepting that the majority have a right to impose their will on a minority (although this is the basis of democracy, which is a chaotic good system if there ever was one), but they would generally accept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) even if they themselves are a member of the few. I would say that was the defining characteristic of 'good' in an alignment system, the willingness to suffer oneself for the good of others. And this applies equally to chaotics as lawfuls (probably more so, a lawful might consider that because of social class, they are inherently more valuable than another person). At the other side of the good/evil axis, a lawful evil fighter is not going to just accept that he can't become a duke because his parents were peasants and it's illegal.
Chaotic evil is not more evil than lawful evil, lawful good is not more good than chaotic good.
And Normal, while I can't be bothered to break down your analysis piece by piece, suffice to say I disagree with almost everything you say, to the point that I'm not sure you're not being ironic. I will select one piece of disingenuousness though...
He does help people and takes on causes, but a large part of his alignment is made up of pursuing retribution on those who cause the wrongs.
Being a proactive agent of good, seeking to find and deal with threats, is not an evil act.
Pursuing retribution is not being a proactive agent of good or seeking out threats, it's finding people who you don't like and doing bad things to them regardless of the threat they now present.
IMAO
|
|
"Murder isn't inherently an evil act. It's Chaotic, since it's illegal"
Again, we have the 'lawful = law abiding'. Utter nonsense.
Uh...did you just not read the entire rest of my post? I mean, the part where I listed a serial killer as LE and an assassin for their king as LN? I was making a general statement that law-breaking actions (such as theft, murder, etc.) are usually connsidered Chaotic. That's all. Yes, obviously, some Lawful characters have an internal code that permits breaking the laws of the country they're in...but that has basically nothing to do with my actual argument.
I don't disagree with most of the rest of the post you make, I mean, I tend to think CG is more good than LG if anything (since they don't let arbitrary rules get in the way of doing what's right), but it has nothing to do with what I was saying or the argument at hand.
Pursuing retribution is not being a proactive...
It's not? Actively stamping out evil individuals so they don't harm anyone else isn't proactive? Why not?
And again, I refuse to listen to the little voice in my ear that is just telling me to shut up. Sorry.
At what point did the dictionary definition of "pusuing retribution" get re-written to say "actively stamping out evil individuals so they don't harm anyone else"?
Now actively stamping (etc.) may be the purpose of Brett's character, but retribution is about punishing people for what has been done, not about acting to prevent them doing harm again. In Brett's example of hunting down a murderer who has not been punished, if that murderer has seen the error of his ways and is now devoting his life to some good ideal, it would still be retributive to kill him, but it wouldn't be stamping out evil. You could make a case for it still not being evil to kill him, but it would certainly be lawful.
;-)
I really will shut up now, and many thanks to everyone for giving me the chance to exercise some recreational outrage.
|
|
At what point did the dictionary definition of "pusuing retribution" get re-written to say "actively stamping out evil individuals so they don't harm anyone else"?
It didn't, necessarily. But they're both potentially valid descriptions of what he's doing, largely depending on motivation. As I said in my first post, it depends on his priorities whether such a character is CG or CN or even LN.
Now actively stamping (etc.) may be the purpose of Brett's character, but retribution is about punishing people for what has been done, not about acting to prevent them doing harm again. In Brett's example of hunting down a murderer who has not been punished, if that murderer has seen the error of his ways and is now devoting his life to some good ideal, it would still be retributive to kill him, but it wouldn't be stamping out evil. You could make a case for it still not being evil to kill him, but it would certainly be lawful.
Absolutely true! And very much part of the whole 'priorities' thing outlined above. :)
Pursuing retribution is not being a proactive agent of good or seeking out threats, it's finding people who you don't like and doing bad things to them regardless of the threat they now present.
I certainly admit that my post is not a comprehensive, philosophy based argument on morality. Although I do like to dabble, the game does not care about the finer points of ethics and morality. With a fairly hard stick I just applied the simplistic ethics and morality the game presents. The result is a simplistic response, and one that fits into the arrangement the game poses. My own views on the morality of his character are irrelevant. At its base, good in the game is trying to be a good guy which he fulfills. If his concept were instead being delusional in thinking that he is doing good when in fact he is sating some deep seated bloodlust or psychopathic tendency, then it would be evil because he is actually doing it for the wrong reasons. It is this measure of wanting to do good and the simplistic acceptance of that fact which lets the frequently violent and self-centered heroes not be branded as evil sociopaths.
My general measure is the in game effects weighed against character concept. This character sounds like a guy that would fall prey to Dictum and Blasphemy and Smite Good. He should probably ping on the Detect Good and Detect Chaos meter. It sounds like he would not gain negative levels for holding a holy sword, but would if he held an axiomatic one.
As to the intriguing example of Batman, a deeply flawed individual with multiple facets. The argument can and has been made for any alignment combination. NG or LG would be my hat on that one. The game would probably cast The Punisher as CG. Yes, the essential difference is that one is willing to work with the authorities and their laws and the other is not. Both are good for the trying to make things better for others. It is stupid and arbitrary, but that is how the alignment axis rolls.
Edit: Darn, too slow. Sorry to see you exit the conversation as your last post indicated. Might have liked to hear your thoughts regarding this. Well, Cassia, my main point is that your reasoning is not flawed. Rather, the game's reasoning is flawed on a deep level regarding the issue. That is the source of that irony. And for better or worse, it is that deeply flawed reasoning in the system that is relevent as a game mechanic.
I’d advise you to go with Neutral instead of Good as far as that axis goes. ‘The ends justify the means’ can work for a good character, but it’s trickier than with a neutral one. And from what you describe, the character’s overarching motivation is punishing others, not making the world a better place. Yes, he wants to improve life for those around him, but it’s secondary to acting out his righteous fury and possibly more a rationalization than a genuine motivation.
For the Law-Chaos axis, I could go either way, but true neutral is out. If he’s chaotic, his ‘standards of justice’ will vary pretty drastically case by case. If he’s lawful, he will generally apply one standard to all offenders. You could really go either way here, but it sounds like the chaotic flavor is what you are more into for this PC.
One rule-of-thumb-thought-experiment I use for alignments: How would the PC be different if everyone in the setting suddenly shared his/her alignment? If the majority of his/her personality, motivations and actions would change drastically, then the alignment should be reconsidered.
Developer
|
This character, morally, sounds like Batman.
Seriously, though, you could justify anything. Honestly, obsession with karma and justice are lawful behaviors. You don't have to agree with a given society's laws to be lawful, just with order.
Now if you're particularly random with whom you seek to enforce this karmic ideal, you might be chaotic.
Things like this are why I dislike the alignment system to begin with. It's all well and good as a roleplaying helper, but too often it just gets in the way.
This thread has some great arguments going back and forth. Unfortunately none of these arguments are new. People have been having these same arguments since the inception of the alignment system. I think it is vitally important to remember that alignment is not dictatorial of player behavior. Instead, player behavior should dictate alignment. Having said that, everyone's interpretation of alignment is different. Which is why there have been so many arguments about it through the ages. Who's right? Everyone. Yes, everyone is right. Why? Because the system itself is flawed in that it tries to use rigid set-boxes to encapsulate the variegated and mottled morality of human kind. I'd encourage everyone that posted in this thread or who lurked in it, to read the following article: RPG Character Alignments. It has some great insight into the system of alignment, and also does a good job of breaking down the system into usable chunks.
I agree with The_normal_anomaly
Per rules and definition he fits right in with CG. Granted... these Alignments are very BROAD and no two CG characters would be QUITE the same.
He isn't playing CG the way "I" play CG... but if his goal is to right wrongs and makes things better... then that IS good... if he has no respect for Law (which he doesn't if he sees the guilty as 'mistakes')and believes the rules don't apply to HIM... then he's Chaotic.
If he starts to care more about punishment then protecting people... he'd easily slip to CN. To me, Punisher is more a CN character and Daredevil is CG.
Lawful is RIGHT out. He's going OUTSIDE the law to take out people that the LAW says is innocent... Lawful characters either work within the system if they're Good.... or twist the laws to their advantage (Luthor or Kingpin) if they're evil.
|
|
Lawful is RIGHT out. He's going OUTSIDE the law to take out people that the LAW says is innocent... Lawful characters either work within the system if they're Good.... or twist the laws to their advantage (Luthor or Kingpin) if they're evil.
I entirely agree with the rest of your post, but this is explicitly not true. a Lawful Alignment can either represent this kind of devotion to the law OR it can represent an absolute unshakable, rigid, commitment to a specific code of behavior that has nothing to do with actual legalities.
Your classic Samurai attitude, in other words. Or, as I mentioned before, Dexter from the Showtime series (who is utterly devoted to his chosen code).
.
.
.
So killing people like this could be either lawful or chaotic depending on, among other things, how rigid his standards are.
Yet another alignment argument thread.... sigh...
I suppose there is no way to get three people to agree on any alignment definition.
At my table I have some very basic house rules about alignment. In short they are:
"Neutral does not mean 'does not care.'"
"Good people don't commit murder."
"Lawful does not mean stupid."
"Chaotic does not mean psychopath."
"Evil people can help old ladies across the street."
I would not consider the OP's described character concept as "Chaotic Good." But that's just me. More Lawful neutral probably from my perspective.
I say the exact opposite of CG: LE
He's basically Dexter. Doing cruel things to people who break his own personal code, all the while being mindful to do so in a way that complies with said personal code. I realize that your Dexter witch is comfortable breaking the law, but I've never interpreted lawful as literally complying with all legal systems, but instead basing one's actions and lifestyle around structure and specific codes of conduct.
That's the beautiful/idiotically terrible thing about the alignment system though... 9 people can come up with 9 alignments for the same character.
|
Developer
|
Lawful is RIGHT out. He's going OUTSIDE the law to take out people that the LAW says is innocent... Lawful characters either work within the system if they're Good.... or twist the laws to their advantage (Luthor or Kingpin) if they're evil.
Not necessarily. A lawful character generally respects law and order, but not every law. A LG character might oppose slavery and work to thwart slavers while upholding the idea that thieves must be punished.
A chaotic character can work within laws, they just generally oppose others telling them what to do, but if the laws line up with their ideals, so be it. A chaotic character does not oppose every law, or if there was a law against slavery, CG characters would seek to get into the slave trade.
The biggest problem I see in how the books explain good/evil in terms of respect of life/lack thereof, and law/chaos in terms of following rules/opposing rules is that it leads to nonsensical situations like a character being evil for killing a slaver, or a chaotic person being lawful when not looking to sell slaves in a society that outlawed their sale.
Good is altrusim, willing to sacrifice for others. Evil is greed, willing to sacrifice others for one's own gain.
Lawful is desire for order, be it personal or societal. Justice is big, as is punishment for wrongs. Note that the character's sense of order need not match a given society's, and that a lawful character can oppose laws, just not the idea of needing laws.
Chaos is the ideal that none should govern over the character. Tradition is often bucked, and many laws are disregarded. Not all laws, nor all traditions, as those that the character happens to agree with wouldn't be opposed.
These are also all sliding scales, of course. Some chaotic characters might hold to certain traditions, and many good characters won't give away every copper to the orphanage.
Further, this isn't the alignment RAW. I find those to lead to the inconsistencies above, and rules that lead to inconsistencies need to be reworded or revised. I just feel treating good/evil as measures of altruism and law/chaos as desire for order makes more sense.
Under this, the character in question seeks to help people, not himself. He's good.
He seeks to punish wrongdoers and deliver karmic justice. This need for karma and justice indicates a need for order. He's lawful.
Your character is lawful good.
Further, he doesn't actively fight the fact there are laws, he does not oppose that rules exist, he simply acts outside them at times. There is nothing chaotic until you oppose rules as rules, not just ignore some.
|
Developer
|
If this is a homegame, I have only this to say.
Ultimately alignment is crutch and a nine compartmented box. If you're looking to explore stories with actual depth and questions of ethics and morality, it's best done so in a game where this mechanic is scrapped entirely. Arcana Evolved has some excellent guidelines on running a game in that fashion.
Yes, this. Roleplaying is better without the two-letter nonsense that supposedly describes how a character behaves. Any system I play in that can do away with alignment, does.
|
|
I say the exact opposite of CG: LE
He's basically Dexter. Doing cruel things to people who break his own personal code, all the while being mindful to do so in a way that complies with said personal code. I realize that your Dexter witch is comfortable breaking the law, but I've never interpreted lawful as literally complying with all legal systems, but instead basing one's actions and lifestyle around structure and specific codes of conduct.
Yeah, but the thing about Dexter is that he's not a vigilante, he's not doing it to help people, or even to get rid of bad people. He's doing it because he gets a visceral thrill from it. It gets him off (metaphorically speaking)...and IMO, that's why he's Evil. He's doing it for his own pleasure, not the good of society or anything else.
A real vigilante isn't necessarily like Dexter, and might easily be CG, I'll go back to the (published, canonically CG) Bellflower Network for an example. They practice vigilante justice all the time, but it's part of freeing slaves and opposing slavery...so, CG.
Which category this character falls in (or somewhere in between) depends on why he's doing what he's doing.
That's the beautiful/idiotically terrible thing about the alignment system though... 9 people can come up with 9 alignments for the same character.
Yeah, it's kinda annoying. Though I don't actually think anyone's argued for LG, NG, or NE yet.
Note that "yet".