Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Anaxim 07-02-07, 06:09 AM	As we all know, one of the most abstract concepts in D&D is the alignment. One picks an alignment to keep in check with himself who he is and how to play, correct? I came up with the following house rule to ease a player's choice into changing alignment. Admit it, we all wanted, at one point or another, to change our Lawful Good St. Cuthbert Fighter into a Chaotic Neutral Kord Fighter, right? So here is how it works: Chaotic Evil is black, Lawful Good is white, the rest are mid-tones. Going from White to black, the path is like such: Lawful Good Neutral Good Chaotic Good Lawful Neutral Neutral Chaotic Neutral Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil Seems right to you all, how the scale works? To make this work, and this is adjustable, let's say like such: 3 drastic alignment changing actions (Save the girl, don't kill her; This city is not going to be burned; the such) Would move you up one category. Of course they need to move by category: Chaotic Evil would massacre with some sense, skipping most of the people on his side, with a few mistakes, to move to Neutral Evil. Opinions, please.
Rhialto 07-02-07, 06:15 AM	So, my chaotic good fighter does something evil, and becomes lawful neutral? Is puzzlement.
Witch 07-02-07, 06:20 AM	I'm sorry, but your system is crap. Law and Chaos aren't just different shades of Good and Evil, they're actually independent of those.
Anaxim 07-02-07, 07:07 AM	First, This works when a player WANTS to change alignment, not at all times. As for the degrees: To me it makes sense because it's made in this linear path of evolution, if you look at how each alignment is described, you'll see that Lawful Good is described is utmost good and Chaotic Evil is described as the worst evil. The move represents a transformation, since you won't go from Lawful Good to Chaotic Neutral in a single fell swoop. You first take yourself off the "Paladin seat" (form of speech), then become a "rebel", followed by just listening to rules when you like it, down to plain neutral, to benefit yourself and yourself only, then system evil, plain evil and destructive evil. When a player finds his Lawful Good Fighter is not worth his time, he can't just decide to go on a murderous rampage and become Chaotic Evil in a flash. He needs to pass a process since alignment is restrictive in RP. Supershifts like a Paladin becoming evil because of this or the other, are cases for atonement, and not plain alignment change. This curve is to demonstrate a a PC's process of turning, gradually, from one alignment to another.
Witch 07-02-07, 07:17 AM	you'll see that Lawful Good is described is utmost good and Chaotic Evil is described as the worst evil. That is plain false. The move represents a transformation, since you won't go from Lawful Good to Chaotic Neutral in a single fell swoop. Correct. You might go from LG to NG to N to CN. Or you could go from LG to NG to CG to CN. Or LG -> LN -> N -> CN. When a player finds his Lawful Good Fighter is not worth his time, he can't just decide to go on a murderous rampage and become Chaotic Evil in a flash. If that murderous rampage suddenly happens because of sudden incurable madness, then yes, he might suddenly become CE. Otherwise, it's likely that it goes LG -> N -> CE. Alignment is not restrictive in RP. It is descriptive. If you want to demonstrate a PC's process of turning more gradually from one alignment to another, you need to use this one, where the good-evil axis and law-chaos axis are unrelated: LG L(N)G N(L)G NG N(C)G C(N)G CG LG(N) NG(N) CG(N) LN(G) NN(G) CN(G) LN L(N)N N(L)N NN N(C)N C(N)N CN LN(E) NN(E) CN(E) LE(N) NE(N) CE(N) LE L(N)E N(L)E NE N(C)E C(N)E CE
Tequila_Sunrise 07-02-07, 11:29 AM	While Witch is utterly lacking in tact and courtesy, as usual, I do agree with him. I detest the common conception that LG is the 'goodest good' and CE is the 'evilest evil'.
Vaelan 07-02-07, 12:44 PM	Yeah, what do you have against Chaotic people? :( I don't know how you managed to glean the idea that Lawful Good is more Good than Chaotic Good from the actual text. The whole "This alignment is the (worst/best) because blahblahblah" tends to give most people the idea.
calronmoonflower 07-03-07, 03:08 AM	you'll see that Lawful Good is described is utmost good and Chaotic Evil is described as the worst evil. That is plain false. Actually it is correct, but every miss leading. Every good alignment is said to be the best. Every evil alignment is said to be the most evil. Each is looked at from a different prospective and their for it is all subjective.
Witch 07-03-07, 05:53 AM	Actually it is correct, but every miss leading. Every good alignment is said to be the best. Every evil alignment is said to be the most evil. Each is looked at from a different prospective and their for it is all subjective. Your comment seems to miss my point entirely. I know that it says that. That still doesn't mean you can say that Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good with any objectivity.
Neutronium_Dragon 07-03-07, 06:38 AM	It's a common misconception that LG is "more good" than CG, and LE is "less evil" than CE in 3E. It isn't. It *was* in older editions, which portrayed lawful as being better than chaotic of whatever stripe. The 3E ruleset very deliberately moved away from that notion, but the old-E viewpoint often remains among players (especially among pre-3E players).
Kaelas Bloodstorm 07-03-07, 07:31 AM	I like your approach althought I doubt I will use it. Anyway I think alignments are overrated. The amount of bickering and discussions seem to reinforce this alignment overkill.
Werral 07-04-07, 10:29 AM	It's a common misconception that LG is "more good" than CG, and LE is "less evil" than CE in 3E. It isn't. It *was* in older editions, which portrayed lawful as being better than chaotic of whatever stripe. The 3E ruleset very deliberately moved away from that notion, but the old-E viewpoint often remains among players (especially among pre-3E players). It was scrapped already by 2E but it dies hard. NG good would be the most "good" since they only think about good. NE would be the most "Pure evil" (but while Devils and demons are well covered, yugoloths are just well... "I fought a demon!" "You hero!" vs "I fought a yugoloth!" "You forught a what?")
Bobson 07-04-07, 02:23 PM	While Witch is utterly lacking in tact and courtesy, as usual, I do agree with him. I detest the common conception that LG is the 'goodest good' and CE is the 'evilest evil'. There is the conception (outside the PHB) that following the laws is "good" and breaking them, even for good reasons, is "bad" (not evil, just bad), and that destruction for the sake of destruction is more evil than destruction for personal gain (everyone can understand someone who steals a rare painting - but few people can understand someone who just rips it up and leaves it there). However, these preconceptions are completely inapplicable to the alignment table. Still, that's where I'd guess that a lot of that conception comes from. If that were really the case, it would be an alignment diamond, not an alignment square - with LG on top and CE on the bottom. I've often seen it referred to as the moral (what do you find worth doing) vs. ethical (how do you do it) axis. LN is closer to LG than it is to CG (one step as opposed to 3), because both lawful characters agree that laws and/or rules and/or personal codes of conduct are important, whereas the CG character doesn't feel bound by them at all. All that being said, Anaxim's list of alignments makes sense from the perspective of desirability in a game... At least in my games, the CN characters tend to be "I'll do whatever I want that isn't harmful to anyone else, and what I want to do is make me happy." Self-centered, doesn't-play-well-with-others types. Evil characters generally have been worse (even in an all-evil party). And the neutral ones are usually just disinterested "I can't be bothered" types. The players from my group who play LN or *G characters tend to be party-friendly and more involved. (And this is generalizing across multiple campaigns with varying groups of players). In my current campaign, I restricted players to "within two steps of LG", which ruled out NE, CE, and CN. The party currently is LE, N, LN, CG, and works together pretty well.
Kadasbrass 07-04-07, 02:36 PM	I always felt getting rid of law and chaos, or the entire alignment system, was an step in the right direction :rolleyes2: It just makes the game too complicated and then tries to force players into these poorly defined fantasy streotypes. People try and let their alignment define their behavior when it is their behavior that defiens their alignment. There is good and evil, and there are those that fight for order or chaos, but the problem is they don't belong on the same chart with people being good or evil AND chaotic or lawful. Most often people promote one or the other, either good/evil or order/chaos, and rarely work in favor of some mix between the two. Thou there are a few exceptions to this, the exceptions do not make the rules.
Rhialto 07-04-07, 03:35 PM	Personally, i think d20:Modern had teh right idea with allegiances. The only issue with implementing it is there's so much of the magic rules bound together with the alignment grid, but that isn't an impossible issue by any means.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-04-07, 09:22 PM	First, This works when a player WANTS to change alignment, not at all times. As for the degrees: To me it makes sense because it's made in this linear path of evolution, if you look at how each alignment is described, you'll see that Lawful Good is described is utmost good and Chaotic Evil is described as the worst evil. If you read the PHB closely, you'll notice that all of the evil alignments are described as the worst evil and all of the goods are described as the highest good. But the actual worst evil is lawful evil, and the best good is neutral good.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-04-07, 09:24 PM	It's a common misconception that LG is "more good" than CG, and LE is "less evil" than CE in 3E. It isn't. In fact, quite the reverse is true.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-04-07, 09:26 PM	Also, if you're not playing a cleric (of a specific deity), or druid, or paladin, than alignment shouldn't even come into play at all, except when certain spells are cast on you.
Vva70 07-04-07, 11:07 PM	As we all know, one of the most abstract concepts in D&D is the alignment. I agree with this premise. One picks an alignment to keep in check with himself who he is and how to play, correct? I disagree with this one. It seems to me that the main reason that alignment exists is to allow for mechanical significance to be attributed to moral concerns. This involves such mechanics as the detect alignment spell, the paladin alignment requirement, and other similar considerations. I feel that alignment should reflect character decisions and actions, not guide or restrict them. A character's alignment should be a representation of his or her net moral leanings, as demonstrated by what he or she does (with possibly an emphasis on recent actions over older ones). Note my use of "net." A lawful character may have some chaotic tendencies and still be lawful, if the sum total is still on the lawful end of the scale. Further, if a character acts in a manner for which the net is inconsistent with his or her alignment, then the alignment should be what is seen as incorrect, not the character's actions. Because of this, I don't feel that a player should ever feel a need to "change his character's alignment." If the player decides that the character is adopting a new outlook, then he should play it as such, and the alignment will shift naturally to accommodate this.
Vaelan 07-05-07, 12:04 AM	One picks an alignment to keep in check with himself who he is and how to play, correct? From the SRD... Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-05-07, 01:31 AM	Because of this, I don't feel that a player should ever feel a need to "change his character's alignment." If the player decides that the character is adopting a new outlook, then he should play it as such, and the alignment will shift naturally to accommodate this. I think that alignment shouldn't even be permanently recorded, but, rather, should be determined on a case by case basis, based on recent character behavior, each time a character is hit by an alignment dependent spell.
Rhialto 07-05-07, 04:31 AM	If you read the PHB closely, you'll notice that all of the evil alignments are described as the worst evil and all of the goods are described as the highest good. But the actual worst evil is lawful evil, and the best good is neutral good. Isn't that opinion entirely subjective? I'd say the worst evil is chaotic evil, and teh best good chaotic good. That is also subjective, btw.
Khadmus 07-05-07, 06:39 AM	It was scrapped already by 2E but it dies hard. NG good would be the most "good" since they only think about good. NE would be the most "Pure evil" (but while Devils and demons are well covered, yugoloths are just well... "I fought a demon!" "You hero!" vs "I fought a yugoloth!" "You forught a what?") Seconded. The closest route between two points is a straight line. So your LG person could simply become less lawful and less good (staying LG for a while, perhaps overlapping into NG or LN), go into N, and eventually go into CE (perhaps crossing over CN or NE in the process). Of course, I use the 1e alignment chart for this, so inaccuracies might pop up. I think that alignment shouldn't even be permanently recorded, but, rather, should be determined on a case by case basis, based on recent character behavior, each time a character is hit by an alignment dependent spell. Seconded
Dan Hemmens 07-05-07, 10:32 AM	I think that the "Chaos is Bad" attitude probably has its roots in Moorcock (or at the very least in Warhammer, which has its roots in Moorcock). For what it's worth, I actually put together an idea for a setting with a very similar "linear" alignment system, except it had CE at one end and LN at the other, and was deliberately designed to diverge from the standard D&D interpretations of things.
yellowdingo 07-06-07, 09:06 AM	If you read the PHB closely, you'll notice that all of the evil alignments are described as the worst evil and all of the goods are described as the highest good. But the actual worst evil is lawful evil, and the best good is neutral good. I dont see how that is. Given such laws as Sedition Any act including acts of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign which Causes Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt is a sedtious act; and Treason Any crime no matter how insignificant or by whom it is committed is an assault on the obligation of the state to protect its citizens from crime Is a Treasonous Act. You put that to a Lawful Good Paladin and suddenly he/she must overthrow monarchy to establish a commonwealth where every act of government, law, constitution, sovereign must have the approval of every citizen on an ongoing basis least it be Sedition and Treason. That version of Government is often described as anarchy and chaos in modern Democracies where the rights of the individual have been overthrown by the state/church. SO LAWFUL GOOD is not loyalty to the regime, because true good is founded in the right of the one to exist free of the tyranny of the many and LAWFUL is the obligation of the ONE to conform to the Laws to which everyone agrees. So the ideal LG state requires everyone to be the Government. Everyone to vote on what act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign is acceptable to all. CHAOTIC GOOD and NEUTRAL GOOD are a conclusion that you are in something less than the perfect state. A place where freedom and equality is not protected by law. And the people in power are not accountable to the rule of law. LAWFUL EVIL on the other hand believes in the regime over the individual.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 09:55 AM	If everybody was truly good then we would need no laws.
Rhialto 07-06-07, 10:12 AM	SO LAWFUL GOOD is not loyalty to the regime, because true good is founded in the right of the one to exist free of the tyranny of the many and LAWFUL is the obligation of the ONE to conform to the Laws to which everyone agrees. This is where your point breaks. The concept that teh will of teh community is a tyranny or even evil is a modern marxist concept, and it is not a valid point of the D&D good-evil axis. In D&D terms, imposing your will on others is neither good nor evil in itself, it is merely lawful, if down to bring about a stable society. Evil is eating babies and raping the livestock, not imposing a law on others.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 10:36 AM	Oops misread the last post.
Sylian 07-06-07, 10:48 AM	Chaotic Good character kills his friend in a rage and suddenly he's Lawful Neutral? Lawful Neutral guard gives money to charity and suddenly he's Chaotic Good?
Rhialto 07-06-07, 10:58 AM	Chaotic Good character kills his friend in a rage and suddenly he's Lawful Neutral? Lawful Neutral guard gives money to charity and suddenly he's Chaotic Good? He must have given the money to the Brothers of the Free Spirit, a fraternity which believes in random acts of kindness. :P
Adrez Nesnsid 07-06-07, 06:39 PM	The Curse of Greyface and the Introduction of Negativism (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/70.php) This should explain the problems with the notion that law is better than chaos Also: Explanation of the Sacred Chao Part 1 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php) & Explanation of the Sacred Chao Part 2 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/57.php) Excerpted from The principia Discordia (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/)
yellowdingo 07-06-07, 09:51 PM	This is where your point breaks. The concept that teh will of teh community is a tyranny or even evil is a modern marxist concept, and it is not a valid point of the D&D good-evil axis. In D&D terms, imposing your will on others is neither good nor evil in itself, it is merely lawful, if down to bring about a stable society. Evil is eating babies and raping the livestock, not imposing a law on others. On the contrary, imposing laws on others that they dont recognise because it violates their right to an equal share is as evil as me imposing laws saying my government can seize your land and let a corporation build a minimall on it because your way of life was not as benificial to the rest of us. Good is good for all, not the many or the few.
Roog 07-06-07, 10:58 PM	On the contrary, imposing laws on others that they dont recognise because it violates their right to an equal share is as evil as me imposing laws saying my government can seize your land and let a corporation build a minimall on it because your way of life was not as benificial to the rest of us. Good is good for all, not the many or the few. If its evil to deny their "right to an equal share", how many PCs are not evil? (Look another poor peasant - every one get out their purses)
zzo38 07-06-07, 11:32 PM	(Look another poor peasant - every one get out their purses) If you do that, then you are communist. You may be good, or you might not be, but I think it still makes you communist if you continually do such things. It means nothing about your alignment, although it is similar. (Of course, communist also means you might steal money from rich people.) Good people should be less greedy than evil people, and might do such things as give money to poor peasants sometimes but not continually. This new way, therefore, doesn't make you communist, it makes you good. The Curse of Greyface and the Introduction of Negativism This should explain the problems with the notion that law is better than chaos Ultimate order is when nothing exists at all, not even ultimate order. Therefore, what is it? Nothing? Ya, really... Destruction of objects is really a disorder, though. Therefore, you have to think about it.
Rhialto 07-07-07, 01:12 AM	On the contrary, imposing laws on others that they dont recognise because it violates their right to an equal share is as evil as me imposing laws saying my government can seize your land and let a corporation build a minimall on it because your way of life was not as benificial to the rest of us. Good is good for all, not the many or the few. You're still not seeing it right. As d20 defines good and evil, the point you are making is simply not relevant to the good-evil axis. I'm not saying that in real world terms it isn't relevant, merely that, as defined in the game rules, it isn't relevant. That's an important difference.
yellowdingo 07-07-07, 04:57 AM	You're still not seeing it right. As d20 defines good and evil, the point you are making is simply not relevant to the good-evil axis. I'm not saying that in real world terms it isn't relevant, merely that, as defined in the game rules, it isn't relevant. That's an important difference. But if the Paladin's God comes along and says "The time is right to get rid of inequality. Everyone has the right to an equal share of the Benefits and obligations. Those who demand more resources than is their equal share are evil because they are greedy...Stamp this out and establish a process of government where every citizen must vote yes to approve every act of Government, Law, Constitution...on an ongoing basis so these things dont loose touch with the people. But beware, you must banish from this New Paradise any who oppose this, this Holy Commonwealth- my gift to the peoples of this world." then that is more lawful good than any lawful good who comes along and says "rubbish! they should be happy with their position in servitude to the ruling class-we know what is going on-only we can govern, They are going to take from the rich...Someone get me a whip this peasant is preaching communism and the overthrow of his betters." Yes The Difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is the line between equality and Inequality. Even in D&D.
Rhialto 07-07-07, 06:36 AM	But if the Paladin's God comes along and says "The time is right to get rid of inequality. Everyone has the right to an equal share of the Benefits and obligations. Those who demand more resources than is their equal share are evil because they are greedy...Stamp this out and establish a process of government where every citizen must vote yes to approve every act of Government, Law, Constitution...on an ongoing basis so these things dont loose touch with the people. But beware, you must banish from this New Paradise any who oppose this, this Holy Commonwealth- my gift to the peoples of this world." then that is more lawful good than any lawful good who comes along and says "rubbish! they should be happy with their position in servitude to the ruling class-we know what is going on-only we can govern, They are going to take from the rich...Someone get me a whip this peasant is preaching communism and the overthrow of his betters." Yes The Difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is the line between equality and Inequality. Even in D&D. Any such 'lawful good' deity would, ipso facto, have to redistribute his divine essence among all his worshippers, in order to avoid holding an unfair share of divine power, and as such, would promptly cease to exist in a puff of logic.
claypigeons 07-07-07, 06:41 AM	But if the Paladin's God comes along and says "The time is right to get rid of inequality. Everyone has the right to an equal share of the Benefits and obligations. Those who demand more resources than is their equal share are evil because they are greedy...Stamp this out and establish a process of government where every citizen must vote yes to approve every act of Government, Law, Constitution...on an ongoing basis so these things dont loose touch with the people. But beware, you must banish from this New Paradise any who oppose this, this Holy Commonwealth- my gift to the peoples of this world." then that is more lawful good than any lawful good who comes along and says "rubbish! they should be happy with their position in servitude to the ruling class-we know what is going on-only we can govern, They are going to take from the rich...Someone get me a whip this peasant is preaching communism and the overthrow of his betters." Bolding is mine. And... "equal share, what?" "No...sorry... your equality is over there, in the desert. That has nothing we want. Go now, into your land of un-sharing and un-fun times! Isn't equality grand?" Wouldn't banishing people, and thus denying them an equal share, immediately make this decree rubbish?
yellowdingo 07-07-07, 08:21 AM	"You have conspired against the Commonwealth and shall be banished for all time!" Yes it would be a bit harsh but then a loss of citizenship, resource share, and the prospect of never living in civilization again is perhaps more respectful of your right to life than an impailing pole for heresy against doctrine. I suppose in the end the expulsion from paradise is a Common decision.
claypigeons 07-07-07, 08:34 AM	"You have conspired against the Commonwealth and shall be banished for all time!" Yes it would be a bit harsh but then a loss of citizenship, resource share, and the prospect of never living in civilization again is perhaps more respectful of your right to life than an impailing pole for heresy against doctrine. I suppose in the end the expulsion from paradise is a Common decision. So banishing people from civilization, and leaving them on their own in the wild (where they will probably die) is okay, but impailing them on a pike isn't? "Respect for life" doesn't stop at your borders. Sending someone naked (meaning without a serious chance at living. "He could live, if he's lucky" is not sufficient.) into the wild really isn't good compared to execution.
Rhialto 07-07-07, 09:48 AM	So banishing people from civilization, and leaving them on their own in the wild (where they will probably die) is okay, but impailing them on a pike isn't? "Respect for life" doesn't stop at your borders. Sending someone naked (meaning without a serious chance at living. "He could live, if he's lucky" is not sufficient.) into the wild really isn't good compared to execution. In fact, a case coudl be made that it's more evil than simple execution. in both cases, the victim dies, but sending him out into the wilderness without the means to survive is essentially a means of execution anyway, except slower and more painful.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 11:17 AM	How the hell is banishing somebody into the wilderness a means of execution:uh-huh: ?!?!?!?! Maybe we modern folk, who rely on our computers and automobiles and cellular phones for everything wouldn't last trying to survive in the woods, but the average commoner in D&D isn't reliant on that kind of stuff and would probably would be able to adapt much more easily.
claypigeons 07-07-07, 05:20 PM	How the hell is banishing somebody into the wilderness a means of execution ?!?!?!?! You typically don't send banished criminals into the wild with a pack full of supplies and gear. So, they need to find food, build a shelter, and keep from being eaten by any number of wild things. While they may live for a while (if they're skilled at surviving in the wild), they will eventually be overcome by the difficulties and hardships of life outside civilization.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 07:40 PM	You typically don't send banished criminals into the wild with a pack full of supplies and gear. So, they need to find food, build a shelter, and keep from being eaten by any number of wild things. While they may live for a while (if they're skilled at surviving in the wild), they will eventually be overcome by the difficulties and hardships of life outside civilization. I think that you're giving civilization A LOT more credit than it deserves.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 07:48 PM	Or are you talking from a strictly rules-based perspective, in which a single non-diseased rat actually poses a significant threat to life and limb for the average commoner.
yellowdingo 07-07-07, 08:16 PM	So banishing people from civilization, and leaving them on their own in the wild (where they will probably die) is okay, but impailing them on a pike isn't? "Respect for life" doesn't stop at your borders. Sending someone naked (meaning without a serious chance at living. "He could live, if he's lucky" is not sufficient.) into the wild really isn't good compared to execution. It is good. It is good with the understanding that all crime is an assaut on the obligation of the state to protect its citizens from crim and that such an assault on the state is treason so all crime is treason and the penalty for treason in a LG society is deportation for life and in an LE society, death. Conceivably the LN option is to send them to concentration camps in Antartica where they can do quarrywork for life.
Rustmonster 07-07-07, 08:46 PM	How the hell is banishing somebody into the wilderness a means of execution:uh-huh: ?!?!?!?! Maybe we modern folk, who rely on our computers and automobiles and cellular phones for everything wouldn't last trying to survive in the woods, but the average commoner in D&D isn't reliant on that kind of stuff and would probably would be able to adapt much more easily. They have 4 hitpoints, one feat (two if human) which are likely skill specializations, and 2 skill points on average. If they got no items to take with them after they were banished, they would have an unarmed strike causing 1d3 damage, after the opponent gets an attack of opportunity, an attack bonus of +0, no armour, 0 on all of their saves, and an AC of 10. No. They could not not survive. I mean, if they encoutered a dog it would be a serious hazard. They can only kill toads and maybe rats if they are lucky. They would probably have no ranks in survival, so they would probably just starve. They would be pretty well screwed. It's like a death sentance, where the exicution is slow starvation, while you're dirty and scared and tired. Then you get mauled by a bear or a pack of wolves. The gallows sound like a much better alternative.
Rustmonster 07-07-07, 08:53 PM	It is good. It is good with the understanding that all crime is an assaut on the obligation of the state to protect its citizens from crim and that such an assault on the state is treason so all crime is treason and the penalty for treason in a LG society is deportation for life and in an LE society, death. Conceivably the LN option is to send them to concentration camps in Antartica where they can do quarrywork for life. One, "treason" is crap. Somehow commiting crimes against the state is somehow worse than a crime against anyone else? It's just a buzz word that kings and politicians use to make the crime seem worse. Second, observe my previous post about exile. It's funny how you use the word "deportation" to try to make it sound better. It's exile into the wild.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-07-07, 09:09 PM	They have 4 hitpoints, one feat (two if human) which are likely skill specializations, and 2 skill points on average. If they got no items to take with them after they were banished, they would have an unarmed strike causing 1d3 damage, after the opponent gets an attack of opportunity, an attack bonus of +0, no armour, 0 on all of their saves, and an AC of 10. Ok, so you are talking from a strictly rules based standpoint. Ok, I'll give you that in that sense this point is definitely valid, given the way the commoner class is written up. Its kind of like that bit from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, "You could poke him with a pillow and kill him...."
yellowdingo 07-07-07, 09:23 PM	No. They could not not survive. I mean, if they encoutered a dog it would be a serious hazard. They can only kill toads and maybe rats if they are lucky. They would probably have no ranks in survival, so they would probably just starve. They would be pretty well screwed. It's like a death sentance, where the exicution is slow starvation, while you're dirty and scared and tired. Then you get mauled by a bear or a pack of wolves. The gallows sound like a much better alternative. You are suggesting that a Lawful good Society introduce slavery or slaughter as though these were more lawful good than simply kicking out the trash for life. The risk of you the criminal being mauled by bears is as likely as you the criminal doing the same to civilization if you are allowed to remain.
Rhialto 07-08-07, 03:09 AM	You are suggesting that a Lawful good Society introduce slavery or slaughter as though these were more lawful good than simply kicking out the trash for life. The risk of you the criminal being mauled by bears is as likely as you the criminal doing the same to civilization if you are allowed to remain. Sorry yellowdingo, but your interpretation of lawful good alignment is screwy here. Sending someone out into the wilderness, with no equipment except the clothes on their back, really is a death sentence unless they have some knowledge of survival skills. That's even assuming a wilderness area with no fantasy-type monsters. An unarmed human is easy pickings even for a wild dog. The only case in which banishment isn't a slow death sentence is if it is to some kind of organised camp, perhaps similar to the british penal colonies in Australia. But then, that isn't banishment so much as a jail that is a long way away. Now, slavery isn't particularly good (it's evil), but is is certainly lawful. Slaughter? Slaughter for slaughter's sake is certainly evil. A quick clean death as punishment for those found guilty of crimes is lawful (actually, any punishment for a crime no matter how severe or cruel, provided it is written in the lawbooks, is lawful). D&D rules do specifically note that killing creatures identified as evil is a good act. That killing only becomes morally ambiguous when it is performed in a cruel and/or unusual manner.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-08-07, 07:21 AM	Sorry yellowdingo, but your interpretation of lawful good alignment is screwy here. Sending someone out into the wilderness, with no equipment except the clothes on their back, really is a death sentence unless they have some knowledge of survival skills. Come to to think of it, when the prospect of banishment was originally brought up, did anybody actually SAY that they wouldn't get to keep any of their stuff. That could make a big diference as to whether they can survive.
claypigeons 07-08-07, 08:00 AM	Come to to think of it, when the prospect of banishment was originally brought up, did anybody actually SAY that they wouldn't get to keep any of their stuff. That could make a big diference as to whether they can survive. No. But 1), they're criminals, why would they keep their stuff, and 2) sending people out of your country with their stuff and telling them "Never come back" is hardly a burden, let alone a punishment. But, technically, no one said specifically that they would lose their gear.
Rhialto 07-08-07, 11:20 AM	I'm starting to wonder if part of the problem with understanding alignment is that a character is routinely described as being "lawful good" (or whatever). Really, what that means is that he is "lawful" and "good". There are two distinct axes (plural of axis, not the weapon) at work here. The usual phraseology for the alignments suggests that "lawful good" is a distinct concept. It isn't. It is merely a label for a coincidental coordinate position on the two axes.
Rustmonster 07-08-07, 11:42 AM	Come to to think of it, when the prospect of banishment was originally brought up, did anybody actually SAY that they wouldn't get to keep any of their stuff. That could make a big diference as to whether they can survive. Oh, alright. Now the commoner has a dagger and food for maybe a day. He still does less damage than that dog I was talking about, and he has less HP to boot. Remember, a commoners "stuff" is not an adventurers "stuff". They don't get huge masterwork swords or bows, they don't get magic potions or wands, they don't get suits of armour. They own maybe a dagger, some food (very little), the clothes on their back, and some trinkets. Not a big help.
Rustmonster 07-08-07, 11:50 AM	You are suggesting that a Lawful good Society introduce slavery or slaughter as though these were more lawful good than simply kicking out the trash for life. The risk of you the criminal being mauled by bears is as likely as you the criminal doing the same to civilization if you are allowed to remain. Notice how I never said that. And don't try to tell me that a lawful good society wouldn't have the death sentance. If you kill someone, you get killed in return. Sounds lawful to me. And really, good characters "slaughter" all the time. Don't make me bring up the "paladin killing kobold tribe because they register as 'evil', even though they never hurt people outside of other savage tribes, but it's a 'good' act for some reason" thing. Execution is not "slaughter" as long as it isn't some sort of genocide. If someone gets hung for killing a man, it's not slaughter.
claypigeons 07-08-07, 12:00 PM	And don't try to tell me that a lawful good society wouldn't have the death sentance. If you kill someone, you get killed in return. "You kill someone, we kill you back, jack." :D
Sylian 07-08-07, 05:41 PM	Most LG societies would rather send someone into exile than killing them. Killing would only be the punishment for a capital crime, or if they are very dangerous (such as a demon). Most LG societies don't even have the death penalty. Prison or exile are more used than prison. Who says that exile is sending someone into the wilderness? What prevents the criminal from going to the nearest town and live there? Most commoners wouldn't do crimes that are wortht of exileship, anyway.
claypigeons 07-08-07, 06:36 PM	Who says that exile is sending someone into the wilderness? What prevents the criminal from going to the nearest town and live there? Most commoners wouldn't do crimes that are wortht of exileship, anyway. Then again, any significant threat (generally an NPC or PC with half a dozen or more levels. This assumes that the 'average' guard is probably a level 1-3 warrior, and not a level 23fighter or something equally silly.) wouldn't be exiled. They would executed, just on a level of basic sanity. Anyone with any amount of ability to lead people would probably end up leading revolts in prison... and some of such a relative power level probably has connections and would not be significantly hindered (let alone actually harmed) by being exiled.
058 07-09-07, 01:10 AM	Folks let alignment become too restricting. One shouldn't justify an action by saying "it's because I'm lawful good." A character should behave how the player decides the character behaves, and the documented alignment come after the player has shown what sort of character it is. Because Jack Hale, the human fighter, risked his life to save the orc child from ravenous wolves, even though his current quest requires that he kill a number of orcs, he's chaotic good - he breaks his contract (or whatever it is you get when someone gives you a quest) in order to preserve someone's life. I don't believe there's any such thing as a "lawful good" society, nor do I believe there's a "lawful evil" one. Lawful may well be in there(it's virtually required, for a government cannot be grounded in chaos, and neutral in government easily leads to chaos), but good and evil depend, on the whole, upon who is leading the country - be it a council of crotchety old men who don't give two piles of rat's excrement what the people think of them as long as their country isn't at war(lawful neutral), or a guy who rigs elections and likes to torture folk(neutral evil). The "alignment" of that government lasts right up until there's another leader.
Roog 07-09-07, 04:57 AM	It is good with the understanding that all crime is an assaut on the obligation of the state to protect its citizens from crim and that such an assault on the state is treason so all crime is treason and the penalty for treason in a LG society is deportation for life and in an LE society, death. Thats not LG or LE, that is classic Lawful Stupid.
Sylian 07-09-07, 06:09 AM	A Lawful Good society would be a society where the power is mostly in the hands of people who are Lawful Good. For example, a nation that is lead by good, honorable knights. A Lawful Evil society is the opposite, like, a nation lead by evil, honorable knights.
058 07-09-07, 10:32 AM	The society itself isn't lawful good, its leaders are, and its leaders are subject to change.
Bobson 07-09-07, 10:43 AM	The society itself isn't lawful good, its leaders are, and its leaders are subject to change. But depending on the method of change-of-leaders, it may not matter (usually) who the specific leaders are. If the leaders choose their successors, then the successors are likely to have the same attitudes as them. There's always the option for someone to sneak in and/or be corrupted (or uncorrupted) while in power, but in general, a LG group of leaders choose LG people to succeed them. Even besides that point, a society can be LG if the leaders set an example, laws are passed which treat everyone equally, and the populace accepts and follows them. Even if the society changes from LG after a new evil king or councilmember takes over, that's no different than a character changing from LG to LE. Just because he can change to LE at some point doesn't mean he wasn't LG to begin with.
Witch 07-09-07, 06:52 PM	The society itself isn't lawful good, its leaders are, and its leaders are subject to change. Tell that to the denizens of Baator. Societies can be structured alike an alignment. The ability to change it does not mean that societies can't be aligned.
Rhialto 07-10-07, 01:56 AM	I think an exception can be made for societies composed of moral exemplars. For societies composed of mere mortals. that sentence remains true.