|
I agree with much of the post above but definitely not about True Neutral. In fact I believe most sentient beings are True Neutral. Going about your own business, without making a huge deal of obeisance or rebellion, without acting strongly to either protect or hurt innocent people, that is True Neutral.
And I am not even talking about the zealots of a cause (magical knowledge, nature, the cycle of life and death) that consider it vastly more important than fighting to protect or oppress people or how people should react when told what to do.
I agree with much of the post above but definitely not about True Neutral. In fact I believe most sentient beings are True Neutral. Going about your own business, without making a huge deal of obeisance or rebellion, without acting strongly to either protect or hurt innocent people, that is True Neutral.
And I am not even talking about the zealots of a cause (magical knowledge, nature, the cycle of life and death) that consider it vastly more important than fighting to protect or oppress people or how people should react when told what to do.
I can see your argument, but I think that most people are both lawful and good. As shown with the lockdowns of this year, most people are willing to comply even if they disagree. I also believe that most people would try and help someone in trouble if there was no personal risk. Very few would seek to take advantage of the person in trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with much of the post above but definitely not about True Neutral. In fact I believe most sentient beings are True Neutral. Going about your own business, without making a huge deal of obeisance or rebellion, without acting strongly to either protect or hurt innocent people, that is True Neutral.
And I am not even talking about the zealots of a cause (magical knowledge, nature, the cycle of life and death) that consider it vastly more important than fighting to protect or oppress people or how people should react when told what to do.
Perhaps for completely ordinary NPCs, but adventurers have a drive and willpower to them that should inevitably change one part of that alignment on the law/chaos or good/evil axis.
I can see your argument, but I think that most people are both lawful and good. As shown with the lockdowns of this year, most people are willing to comply even if they disagree. I also believe that most people would try and help someone in trouble if there was no personal risk. Very few would seek to take advantage of the person in trouble.
Not to get too political, but movement patterns were already slowing down and people were beginning to isolate themselves before any lockdowns actually initiated. It's a mix of people not wanting to get sick(Any alignment), not wanting to potentially get others sick(Neutral Good), and those obeying the law(lawful neutral).
But again, being Good requires personal sacrifice. So "no personal risk" is a crucial factor here. Very few people would stop to help someone in a car accident if they need to be at work in 5 minutes.
|
|
I can see your argument, but I think that most people are both lawful and good. As shown with the lockdowns of this year, most people are willing to comply even if they disagree. I also believe that most people would try and help someone in trouble if there was no personal risk. Very few would seek to take advantage of the person in trouble.I agree with much of the post above but definitely not about True Neutral. In fact I believe most sentient beings are True Neutral. Going about your own business, without making a huge deal of obeisance or rebellion, without acting strongly to either protect or hurt innocent people, that is True Neutral.
And I am not even talking about the zealots of a cause (magical knowledge, nature, the cycle of life and death) that consider it vastly more important than fighting to protect or oppress people or how people should react when told what to do.
Willing to comply even if you disagree is not Lawful to me. Lawful is "of course I will comply, higher-ups know better."
And helping at no personal risk can be done by a Neutral person. It is when there is a personal risk that Good people reveal themselves.
@The Raven Black, I don't really follow your rebuttal arguments. If you agree with a law then you would follow it regardless of alignment. Likewise, if you believe anything a leader says is the true way then you would follow regardless of alignment.
The personal risk qualifier really splits those who are heroic and those who want to help but are too scared. A good person who doesn't help would still hope the victim is alright and would have feelings of remorse if they weren't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you agree with a law then you would follow it regardless of alignment. Likewise, if you believe anything a leader says is the true way then you would follow regardless of alignment.
Consider the following real-life anecdote:
A 4-year old child was about to eat a bowl of cereal. It was the special yummy cereal that she liked, and she was hungry. She wanted to eat it and had every intention of doing so.
At this point her mother, not looking, casually said, 'Eat your cereal.'
The child put down her spoon, pushed away her bowl, and said, 'No!'
Concerned, her mother said, 'But it's your special yummy cereal, you love it!'
'I can't eat it now!' the child protested.
'Why not?'
'Because you told me to!'
True story.
Penalties tend to stack. As to why not magi? It's a second level spell which isn't on their spell list, is mind-affecting, can't take out an enemy (can't reduce a stat to 0), and may not have a combat-significant effect on many goons.
It looks like while they do tend to stack, they don't stack in this case.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.
Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.
Touch of idiocy appears to fall under a couple of the headings that prevent stacking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you agree with a law then you would follow it regardless of alignment. Likewise, if you believe anything a leader says is the true way then you would follow regardless of alignment.Consider the following real-life anecdote:
A 4-year old child was about to eat a bowl of cereal. It was the special yummy cereal that she liked, and she was hungry. She wanted to eat it and had every intention of doing so.
At this point her mother, not looking, casually said, 'Eat your cereal.'
The child put down her spoon, pushed away her bowl, and said, 'No!'
Concerned, her mother said, 'But it's your special yummy cereal, you love it!'
'I can't eat it now!' the child protested.
'Why not?'
'Because you told me to!'
True story.
Oh I can believe it and witnessed similar from my own preschoolers. But the actions of a 4 year old with an undeveloped frontal cortex are not indicative of adult behaviour. Your analogy would be similar to Greenpeace protesting against legislation to stop using fossil fuels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The personal risk qualifier really splits those who are heroic and those who want to help but are too scared. A good person who doesn't help would still hope the victim is alright and would have feelings of remorse if they weren't.
Feeling bad doesn't make you a Good person though. Personal sacrifice doesn't necessarily have to mean putting your life in danger. A Good person would seek help for a victim or wait till the immediate threat passes and run to the victim's aid.
My rule of thumb is Time/Life/Wealth. Throwing away a fortune to free a slave, even if doing so would inconvenience you later. A farmer sharing what little he has during the winter with another family. He won't starve, but he'll be well acquainted with the stinging pains of hunger. A man who volunteers the majority of his free time working at a soup kitchen or helping his neighbor bring in their harvest despite not expecting any reward for doing so.
Alignment is a reflection of your actions. Feeling remorseful or angry at a bad thing happening means jack all in the metaphysical cosmology of D&D/Pathfinder where Good, Evil, Chaos and Law are real actual forces warring for dominance in the universe.
|
|
@The Raven Black, I don't really follow your rebuttal arguments. If you agree with a law then you would follow it regardless of alignment. Likewise, if you believe anything a leader says is the true way then you would follow regardless of alignment.
Reflexive obedience and respect for the leader, the law, the tradition is a hallmark of Lawful IMO. Believing anything a leader (meaning any legitimate leader) says is the true way IS being Lawful.
The personal risk qualifier really splits those who are heroic and those who want to help but are too scared. A good person who doesn't help would still hope the victim is alright and would have feelings of remorse if they weren't.
Actually the later is what a Neutral person does in my book. Wishing to do well but unable for reasons (cowardice, greed, more important goals...).
Not helping and not caring is not Neutral to me. It is Evil.
@The Raven Black, I don't really follow your rebuttal arguments. If you agree with a law then you would follow it regardless of alignment. Likewise, if you believe anything a leader says is the true way then you would follow regardless of alignment.Reflexive obedience and respect for the leader, the law, the tradition is a hallmark of Lawful IMO. Believing anything a leader (meaning any legitimate leader) says is the true way IS being Lawful.
The personal risk qualifier really splits those who are heroic and those who want to help but are too scared. A good person who doesn't help would still hope the victim is alright and would have feelings of remorse if they weren't.Actually the later is what a Neutral person does in my book. Wishing to do well but unable for reasons (cowardice, greed, more important goals...).
Not helping and not caring is not Neutral to me. It is Evil.
I have to disagree with both points. A cultist following a charismatic leader, be it a political activist, terrorist or demon lord and railing against society is not lawful because they unquestioningly follow the leader is not lawful.
Neutral, by the very definition of the word means not caring. Being evil would require the person to actually take pleasure from the other's misfortune rather than just not care. To argue that being neutral to someone's plight makes you evil is nonsensical.
|
|
Not caring is not being Neutral. Caring but not acting is Neutral. And caring enough to act is Good.
As for the Lawful part, I do not mean following a given individual leader, which in fact can be done by anyone. But blindly following a leader or a law or the tradition, just because they are designated as legitimate, and through no individual merit, is pretty much the mark of Lawful to me.