i was trying to come up with an interesting new character for our next game and eventually came to the conclusion that playing a sociopath would be new. So when i started putting together character ideas i started looking at popular sociopaths and tying assignments to them. Dexter would easily be lawful evil. Sherlock Holmes (form the tv series) would be chaotic neutral. and then i came to the thread title; could you make a lawful good sociopath?
like a paladin who follows the law and does good deeds, never does evil, but only because he is supposed to because his god says to. not from a feeling of righteousness .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i was trying to come up with an interesting new character for our next game and eventually came to the conclusion that playing a sociopath would be new. So when i started putting together character ideas i started looking at popular sociopaths and tying assignments to them. Dexter would easily be lawful evil. Sherlock Holmes (form the tv series) would be chaotic neutral. and then i came to the thread title; could you make a lawful good sociopath?
like a paladin who follows the law and does good deeds, never does evil, but only because he is supposed to because his god says to. not from a feeling of righteousness .
Sure. Someone who popular culture defines as a sociopath isn't gonna have a lot of emotions, or at least dulled ones (though anger tends to still be of normal or greater intensity), likely doesn't feel real connections to individual people (or at least not very many people), and probably doesn't feel much in the way of guilt when they do bad things (though they'll likely feel cognitive dissonance when they do something they feel is inconsistent with their own character)...but none of those are necessary in order to have a rigid code of behavior you adhere to no matter what.
And once you've got such a code, the nature of the code will, in large part, determine your Alignment, anywhere from LG to LE depending on the code. This being the case, I'd think a LG sociopath to be more common than a CG one, actually. Now, they'd need a reason to adhere to such a code, but religious, philosophical, and aesthetic reasons are all very possible (and can be easily combined...a sociopathic Paladin who worships Iomedae because they find the idea of justice aesthetically pleasing is very plausible, for example).
What you describe is not a sociopath
It can be. A person can both follow a philosophy and be a sociopath.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would generally say no, since he does not have others' wellbeing in mind. He just procedurally follows his code, which sounds lawful neutral to me.
Marcus Robert Hosler kind of brought up an important point- He is ethical, but not necessarily moral. Ethics are how we act for the good of society, while morals define one's personal character.
Another way to think of this- someone commits a crime (lets say they robe a bank) in order to get the money so the blind children's orphanage can the surgeries to get their eyes working again. He was unethical (since he disrupted the flow of society and the lives of many), but he may have been moral due to his relatively altruist behavior.
Another example would be a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty. Despite how much he might despise his client, his ethics require him to properly defend this man because everyone has the right to a defense in court. He might be acting against his morals by doing so, but he knows that if lawyers made these kind of judgment calls, then other, less scrupulous people would manipulate the system and twist justice for their own ends (i.e.- putting innocent men in jail, and letting criminals bribe their way out). Not to say the system is perfect and that such things do not already happen, but for it to work at all some people have to make attempts at upholding its codes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, "lawful good sociopath" made me think of Ozymandias from the Watchmen series. He works for the greater good but in the end has no real attachments to his teammates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's psychopath, actually. And no, psychopaths are completely divorced from empathy and sympathy, making them unwilling to indulge in beneficent actions for anything other than practical or selfish reasons. You CAN have a psychopath who's a mostly reasonably and reliable ally, such as a LE ex-hellknight. All that means is that you need to watch your back with them if the enemy makes them an offer that's better than what they have going with you.
I'd place Holmes as NG, actually. He works with the legal system quite often, aiding it and abiding by its rules for the most part. He also has routines and a very structured, logical way of thinking. At the same time, he's very insistent on doing things his own way when he wants to or feels he needs to. And what does Holmes do for a living? He could be anything, anything at all, but he chooses to solve crimes and help bring criminals to justice. Also, Holmes has a clear foil and that's Moriarty, a man who specializes in arranging crimes by his own rules for fun and profit. Moriarty may seem loopy and chaotic, but there's a method to his madness that is all his own, devoid of honor but full of flexibility and potential. He's be NE, by my reckoning, making his opposite, Holmes, NG.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say no. "a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
"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."
Of course all these things I guess are up to personal interpretation, but I dont think one can be a sociopath and good. That doesnt mean a sociopaths actions cant result in good ends, but ultimately I wouldnt consider them good for alignment purposes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is "lawful" and what is "good" has less consensus as to what is a sociopath.
The question of whether all three can be combined into one persona is destined to be derailed about defining the traits, particularly the first two.
But for opinion polling purposes, my understanding of Lawful boils down to "The Many are More Important than the One" and that alone precludes what I understand sociopathy to be, even before Good enters the question. In my mind, Lawful Evil can't be sociopaths, either. They're too in tune with the norms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving aside the moral questions about the nature of good, and the precise definition of sociopath, the real question I have is how would you roleplay this?
A characters internal motivations are pretty hard to roleplay out. It is only their behavior and interactions that we roleplay. If you act in every way like a lawful good person, how would anyone know you are secretly a sociopath?
If you don't act like a lawful good person, well...then you aren't lawful good...
|
Bacon666Sure you can... You need to:
1. Define what you call sociopath
2. Define LG alignment
3. Combine the 2.I could see a LG char as the lawful stupid paladin, who see evil, and then kill it. He doesn't understand that his own action is evil, but deem every body else stupid because they cannot understand that he's right
He does follow his own code religiosly (lawful)
He does try to do good by eradicating evil (good)
He's definitely a sociopath
He doesn't work well in any group!
I agree with this, a "sociopath" is someone who follows their own code but it isn't always the code of the land. A Peon who dropped garbage and "polluted" which was witnessed by the LG Paladin of [insert random god here] and decided to slay that person would fit into being a sociopath. They just have to hold their "code" above all else, they deem themselves right on all accounts, sort of narcissistic, they and their God are always right, never seeing they are being evil and committing crimes.
Of course, the PC could be altruistic but act like a psychopath or sociopath. Kinda like how Batman appears to criminals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure you can... You need to:
1. Define what you call sociopath
2. Define LG alignment
3. Combine the 2.I could see a LG char as the lawful stupid paladin, who see evil, and then kill it. He doesn't understand that his own action is evil, but deem every body else stupid because they cannot understand that he's right
He does follow his own code religiosly (lawful)
He does try to do good by eradicating evil (good)
He's definitely a sociopath
He doesn't work well in any group!
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
If you have someone who is without empathy, aka compassion, then they cannot, by definition, be lawful good.
Only if you ignore the definition of sociopath.
|
Sure you can... You need to:
1. Define what you call sociopath
2. Define LG alignment
3. Combine the 2.I could see a LG char as the lawful stupid paladin, who see evil, and then kill it. He doesn't understand that his own action is evil, but deem every body else stupid because they cannot understand that he's right
He does follow his own code religiosly (lawful)
He does try to do good by eradicating evil (good)
He's definitely a sociopath
He doesn't work well in any group!
It doesn't matter what the Paladin thinks is good, or whether or not he's "trying". Good is good. If he isn't, he falls.
deadmanwalking has a pretty good definition of a sociopath for the purposes here; a person with severely dulled emotions. Im on my phone so i can't link, but lawful in pathfinder terms can include following closely to a code (personal out socially accepted), hence Dexter is lawful evil because he followed harry's code (at least in the tv series, i heard the books were different but haven't read them).
Also, the definition of sociopathy isn't widely agreed upon by psychologist, so i doubt we will come to a consensus here so for the sake of the discussion let's just go with the above.
lemeres hit the nail on the head for the reason behind making the thread; i guess it boils down to the nature of "what is good". is it the deeds in and of themselves or the reason behind the deeds.
If your personal code was set up in a way which only allowed for good and lawful actions and you strictly adhered to this code would you be lawful good even though you feel nothing for the people that you are helping or your party?
(again sorry for the bad grammar, I'm on my phone)
Well, Androids can be lawful good despite having the "Emotionless" racial trait -- so feelings are not really critical to alignment. But there definitely has to be some motivation to do the right thing, even if it is not an emotional one.
Thanks for making this thread, OP. I was just thinking about this earlier. Specifically, Todd Alquist from Breaking Bad. I always wondered if he'd be a better person if it wasn't for his Neo-Nazi uncle (since Todd seems to lack passion for committing crimes and seems to only seems to do it to impress uncle Jack), or if he just had better influence in general.
I can see there being an unemotional and unempathetic paladin who still follows his deities' teachings to the letter and steadfastly opposes evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see there being an unemotional and unempathetic paladin who still follows his deities' teachings to the letter and steadfastly opposes evil.
See, that's more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. Good is far more than the merely the opposition of Evil.
But, that's my view. And as I said before, this thread is basically begging to become another discussion about what the alignments mean.
Batman is a sociopath.
Batman is Lawful Good.
Play Batman.
@ lucios; you can do good without having compassion. if the rules are to protect the innocent and someone is being harmed or in danger of being harmed you could protect them because you are obligated to.
i also don't see why people believe all sociopaths have poor self control. some sociopaths develop the ability to pretend they have emotions so well that most people don't even know they are sociopaths. that requires a tremendous amount of of self control.
@ lazerx; no.
Batman is a sociopath.
Batman is Lawful Good.
Play Batman.Joker is THE definitive sociopath of the Batman mythos.
And again, see above.
"Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.
That doesn't sound evil to me.
Also, you're implying that The Batman and The Joker aren't two sides of the same coin.
impossible, unless you define "good" as something other than "good"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
deadmanwalking has a pretty good definition of a sociopath for the purposes here; a person with severely dulled emotions. Im on my phone so i can't link, but lawful in pathfinder terms can include following closely to a code (personal out socially accepted), hence Dexter is lawful evil because he followed harry's code (at least in the tv series, i heard the books were different but haven't read them).
Also, the definition of sociopathy isn't widely agreed upon by psychologist, so i doubt we will come to a consensus here so for the sake of the discussion let's just go with the above.
lemeres hit the nail on the head for the reason behind making the thread; i guess it boils down to the nature of "what is good". is it the deeds in and of themselves or the reason behind the deeds.
If your personal code was set up in a way which only allowed for good and lawful actions and you strictly adhered to this code would you be lawful good even though you feel nothing for the people that you are helping or your party?
(again sorry for the bad grammar, I'm on my phone)
Sorry if I sound pedant, but this is not a sociopath, and your description conflates a lot of different conditions, mentalities, etc.
Let me begin by describing what is referred to as sociopathy. It is a personality disorder, in which the individual has no conscience or reduced capacity for conscience - socio (social) pathos (illness).
This is not in any way similar to having dulled emotions. A sociopath per se can have any range of feelings, the catch is that they are not going to be triggered by empathy.
Dexter, for example, is not a sociopath, since he does have a fairly broad capacity for empathy. I remember watching an episode in which he was going to kill a murderous teenager - but refrained from doing so when he found out the teenager had killed his victim because they had sexually abused him.
As you can see, Dexter felt empathy for the kid.
But still, we can agree that Dexter has some sort of mental disorder. His is psychopathy (mental illness), a problem that makes his actions be based on delusional reasoning. It is a different disease.
Now, how does it relate to alignment? I see two ways of looking at it:
- Alignment refers to a role in storytelling: This is the most common use of alignment, and the one that appears to be used by Paizo the most. I think the core book says something like "Evil creatures revel on the destruction of innocence and violence of every kind". "Evil" is defined on whether that creature is fighting for the bad guys or the good guys. Back in early D&D, if your PC turned Evil, the GM would start controlling it, because Evil characters were, by definition, those opposing the heroes. Under this view, you could have a Good sociopath since that sociopath could be in the side of the good guys.
- Alignment refers to a natural predisposition: This is the way I look at alignments. To me, "Good' implies the character is an altruist. "Evil" that the character is selfish. "Lawful" that the character has a moral code. "Chaotic" that the character is amoral. Under this point of view, Dexter would be Lawful Evil (he has a personal moral code that motivates his actions, although they are sometimes also motivated by selfish reasons); Sherlock Holmes would be True Neutral (he solves crimes to exercise his mind rather than to serve the law); Ozymandias would be Neutral Good (he doesn't have a code of ethics he follows, he just wants to create lasting well-being for everyone).
Where would sociopaths fit in this place? They would be strictly Evil, not because their motivations are harmful to others, but because their only motivation is selfish. It would gravitate towards Neutral if they had a goal outside themselves - for example, a sociopath who only cares about his research or winning a war - but it can never be Good because that would imply they care for others in an altruistic way.
|
|
...
Batman is Lawful Good.
...
That is, for me, the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Batman is Lawful Good.
Unless of course I'm missing sarcasm. Commissioner Gordon? Superman? Sure. Batman, Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Neutral who is honestly self-deluded in thinking he's Good, granted, but still VERY far from Lawful Good.
...
Batman is Lawful Good.
...That is, for me, the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Batman is Lawful Good.
Unless of course I'm missing sarcasm. Commissioner Gordon? Superman? Sure. Batman, Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Neutral who is honestly self-deluded in thinking he's Good, granted, but still VERY far from Lawful Good.
I used to think as you do, until I actually thought about what "Lawful" means.
Batman has a STRICT code of conduct, making him Lawful. Batman does good deeds, such as stopping murderers, making him Good.
Batman could be chaotic if he consistently broke his code.
The above would vary based on which incarnation of batman we're talking about.
Chaotic characters can still have a code. Having a code doesn't make you lawful in any more than killing evil makes you good.
Chaotic characters can still have a code. Having a code doesn't make you lawful in any more than killing evil makes you good.
> not getting the emphasis on STRICT
Anyone can have a code, Lawful people follow their code STRICTLY.
Chaotic characters can still have a code. Having a code doesn't make you lawful in any more than killing evil makes you good.> not getting the emphasis on STRICT
Anyone can have a code, Lawful people follow their code STRICTLY.
I believe you're using a logical fallacy in your argument. A code requires you to follow it, if you're breaking it, it's not a code, it's a guideline.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think as you do, until I actually thought about what "Lawful" means.
I think we can probably agree to disagree right here about what "Lawful" and what "Chaotic" means, but just to air varying viewpoints I'm going along with it...
Batman has a STRICT code of conduct, making him Lawful. Batman does good deeds, such as stopping murderers, making him Good.
Batman could be chaotic if he consistently broke his code.
Having a code of conduct and strictly sticking to it is possible for anyone of any alignment.*
Furthermore, Batman/Bruce Wayne looks at what he sees as a corrupt/bloated/incompetent legal system and has decided that because of his own virtues, he is qualified to ignore it all and act on everyone else's behalf. That's as chaotic as chaotic comes.
As for the Good axis, yes Batman wants to do good and even sees himself as a good person. For what its worth, most of humanity (in Pathfinder) is Neutral, but would self-identify as "good". However, his methods include torture, intimidation, murder, etc. Yes, these means are to a "good end", however doing Evil on behalf of Good is, in other words, a pretty damn swell way to describe "Neutral".
Hence, Batman = Chaotic Neutral. By my own understanding of the Axes of Alignment, of course ;)
*= an in-rules example sprang to mind. Consider a Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil Cavalier of the Order of the Sword, especially the 2nd level ability:
By My Honor (Ex): At 2nd level, the cavalier must select one alignment. As long as he maintains the selected alignment, he receives a +2 morale bonus to one saving throw of his choice.
Note there's no requirement for Lawfulness. If you pick a code of honor that you chaotic alignment satisfies, (for the sake of argument, like one identical to Batman's), you stick to it and you not only keep your Order of the Sword ability, you're not required to change alignments in doing so because you're Chaotic and rigidly sticking to a code of honor.
...
Batman is Lawful Good.
...That is, for me, the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that Batman is Lawful Good.
Unless of course I'm missing sarcasm. Commissioner Gordon? Superman? Sure. Batman, Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Neutral who is honestly self-deluded in thinking he's Good, granted, but still VERY far from Lawful Good.
I used to think as you do, until I actually thought about what "Lawful" means.
Batman has a STRICT code of conduct, making him Lawful. Batman does good deeds, such as stopping murderers, making him Good.
Batman could be chaotic if he consistently broke his code.
The above would vary based on which incarnation of batman we're talking about.
Read my post.
I see Good not as doing Good deeds, but as being altruistic. What is defined as a "good deed" is socially determined. Is killing moors inherently good? Cause that is what defined being a Paladin back in the day.
Anyway, I'm not going to spend all day discussing Batman's alignment because he is not a sociopath.
Going with a Watchmen reference, Rorschach was in every definition a Sociopath. He only saw his actions as good because he was directing his rage at the criminal element. Rorschach was no better than the criminals he victimized, he openly defied the law, and was by no means neutral, and using fear, violence and murder, clearly marks him as evil.
|
|
...lots of stuff...The thing however that keeps him from being a sociopath is that he CARES.
Indeed. I'm running with the tangent, rather than trying to make the argument that Batman's behavior is sociopathic. I definitely wasn't trying to convey that idea.
I was just saying how it fits in with the axes of alignment, is all.
OP: Yes (But Dave Justus makes a good point that no one may be able to tell). Edit: Hmm.. example: Data
Some: Sociopath =/= Psychopath
I would say actions matter. If someone lacks natural empathy, but generally struggles to do the right thing by applying ethical reasoning and/or following a strict code, then they are making a genuine effort to be good despite their limitations.
I'm not a fan of the idea that some people are just inherently evil, and nothing they can do will ever change that. When it comes to humanoids, good and evil should be choices, not something that's just assigned at birth and completely set in stone.
I would say actions matter. If someone lacks natural empathy, but generally struggles to do the right thing by applying ethical reasoning and/or following a strict code, then they are making a genuine effort to be good despite their limitations.
This is part of the problem with alignment. I think alignment means motivations. The rulebook says alignment means effects.
- A man kills a deer. Is this an evil or good act? Judging simply by its effect, this is an evil act because it is the destruction of innocent life. But if you care about the motivation, it could go any number of ways - he could be hunting to feed his family (good), for sustenance or revenue (neutral), or for sheer pleasure of it (evil).
- A goblin kills a human. Now, the book would state this is evil because goblins are evil and that they enjoy killing. But to me, the motivation is more important. Goblins eat humans, so this is not too different from the former case... would you fault a hunter for loving to hunt? The same would apply to a Goblin.
Now, back to your case... you need to understand - sociopaths, by definition, do not care about helping others. It may be nice and pretty to wax poetical about the ability to redeem ourselves, but sociopathy is a serious disorder that causes people to lack any empathy, thus being unable of making any action with the welfare of other people in mind.
|
What you describe is also not good. It's Lawful Neutral. They're following the rules because the rules are the rules and rules are there to be followed because they are rules because that is what you do with rules not because it's the right fracking thing to do.
But if evil acts make you evil regardless of why then good acts make you good regardless of why. Alignments are like this to many. Unless you would argue that "evil acts' do not make you evil...
|
What you describe is also not good. It's Lawful Neutral. They're following the rules because the rules are the rules and rules are there to be followed because they are rules because that is what you do with rules not because it's the right fracking thing to do.But if evil acts make you evil regardless of why then good acts make you good regardless of why. Alignments are like this to many. Unless you would argue that "evil acts' do not make you evil...
However good is about doing something because it is good. A good character should be willing to do something good even if it risks themselves, because it is good. Not because they were told to do it.
Following law (even if the law is a good law) for the sake if it being lawful.Also NO they couldn't be a paladin since one needs to be a crusader of good and law (and in that order too) to be a paladin. Not just doing what's good because that's what their god says to do. They need to be driven by being good, by doing what's right (like saving kittens from fires full of rabid-undead-on-fire-dogs even if there is no kitten saving law in their god's laws)
sociopath is made up of basically 2 words: society and pathos, it means in general a person who causes suffering on society. so, I'd say no. though clinically it's someone who has "a mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal". so also no.
someone doing something because it's what his religion says and wouldn't do it of their own volition, is either LN or LE.