A question of multiple alignments. [Archive] - Wizards Community

A question of multiple alignments. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arak the mighty
11-02-04, 11:47 PM I posed an interesting question to myself, when designing a new group of people for my campaign world, and due to circumstances, I can't decide their alignment as a whole (generally speaking). The best I can come up with is that the majority of these people might actually have MULTIPLE alignments. I'll give the skinny.........

A group of wandering tribesmen that has been together for several hundred

years or more. Live off the land, move around as required. Very tight knit. Bands of 80-100 or so. Tribal councel rules by deciding what is best for majority. Keep to themselves, and crimes amongst themselves against their own kind is nearly non-existent. To me, these people would be either LN or LG. Despite being "savages", they have a very codified existence that they adhere to, despite what more advanced people would think of them.

In come the "advanced" and "enlightened" people. Build huge cities. New ideas, irrigation canals, mechanized farms and such. Use the tribal people as workers, and more commonly, slaves. Integrate them into their own society, but not as equal peoples.

The tribal people obviously don't care for this, and don't feel that they should have to adhere to laws that are not their own. They don't so much, "ACT OUT", but they become difficult, disobedient, and resentful of their place in the new society. They commit crimes, sometimes violent crime, etc, etc, etc. To me, somewhat along the lines of CN.

Here's the rub. Has their alignment CHANGED? Or have they altered their behavior contextually because of the situation?

(and yes, I know this is a close parallel of the plight of the American Indian, and many other groups throughout human history)

Are these still LG people behaving in a CN manner? (Which I think is the case) or has their alignment simply changed altogether?

(and no, they're not human, either.)
Obscure One
11-03-04, 12:22 AM In any society you have diversity. Not all within a certain social circle behave the same, or have a similar outlook. So simply justify different alignments due to the inate diversity of all creatures, that is unless they have a collective mind, in which case they'd all be neutral and behave in only a manner that would benifit the greater number.
Fixxxer
11-03-04, 12:26 AM Here's the rub. Has their alignment CHANGED? Or have they altered their behavior contextually because of the situation?
(and no, they're not human, either.)

There doesn't have to be a difference. If they feel justified doing things ("acting out") that they wouldn't have done before, then yes, their alignment has probably changed. The fact that it has changed because their situation has changed is beside the point.

In any society you have diversity. Not all within a certain social circle behave the same, or have a similar outlook. So simply justify different alignments due to the inate diversity of all creatures, that is unless they have a collective mind, in which case they'd all be neutral and behave in only a manner that would benifit the greater number.

True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil."
Obscure One
11-03-04, 12:33 AM True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil."
Well asigning and entire race to a specific alignment is taboo to begin with (due to diversity). However if your going to ever generalize a group of people based on the behavior of the bulk, just fall back onto what they do. For example, if they're mindless flesh eaters that sacrifice their young in some painfull ritual then, yes, evil is a good alignment choice. However if they are normal people, doing normal day to day things, then a normal, neutral alignment would be called for. Simply, if there is nothing that particularly pops out as good or evil, don't lean them towards either.
Maniacal_Cackle
11-03-04, 12:34 AM Question: If a mind flayer comes into your home and tries to enslave you, and you fight it, is it an evil act?

Answer: Heck no! It's not evil to defend yourself against someone that is attacking you!

Problem: But the tribe is not just defending themselves against someone attacking them. They are attacking a society that they view as oppressing them.

Solution 1: If intent is what matters, they are attacking an evil society that attacked them first, they are still LG. (At least, that is what I would think their PoV would be) (NOTE: This is my personal opinion, and the alignment axis is open to a great deal of debate. The intent would be to attack the evil ones, though it would be misguided... IMO)

Solution 2: If action is what matters, it could be argued either way, but I would say that you are attacking innocents who have not specifically done anything and you are CN or even CE. Probably CE.
Arak the mighty
11-03-04, 12:57 AM True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil."

Yeah, this is pretty accurate. Right now, I'm in the "design" stage, and to get a general overview of them, I called the people as a whole LG. Probably more towards LN or NG. That's obviously not to say there aren't exceptions, just like in any society.

The question came up because a few of my players will use "detect alignment" now and then, and I'm not really sure what alignment these people would be.

You are generally a good person, who follows the laws of YOUR people pretty strictly. That's LG. Now you get assimilated into another society where you're a lesser member. You lose your identity, you miss your old way of life, and you behave in a dissentious manner. These people don't go to all out war on their oppressors, but they are unruly, disobedient, and sometimes even violent to members of the new race.

Is that person still LG or is he now CN or CE? Or, as I asked above, is it maybe both?
MinusInnocence
11-03-04, 01:44 AM A society that endorses slavery on any level is Evil. End of debate. Lashing out against such a society, from within or without, is not Evil nor Chaotic. The "Lawful" trait would only come into question if the laws they were disobeying were illegitimate. Take a cue from MLK - civil disobedience is ok when the law itself is wonky.
darczero
11-03-04, 02:15 AM Alignment in D&D is entirely determined from an external point of view. It is because of that fact that questions like the one Arak posed arise in the first place.

What one player or DM views as Lawful may not totally agree with what another thinks is the same, while one player or DM will try to argue that something is not Evil in nature because of their personal (in or out of character) views on Evil. Everyone has their own opinions of Alignment because the book is too vague.

A single creature cannot have multiple alignments. If nothing else, Alignment is so general (everyone has one) that if an NPC/Monster has more than one alignment, then the players will want one too. Then you get into stuff like "With X Alignment Tendencies" and Three-Part Alignments and that just doesn't work. (LNG with CE tendencies...)

Pick an alignment for the culture, and keep in mind that virtually any sentient creature can break the mold if the situation is right. Individuals within that culture may be CG while the rest of their culture remains LN or N (which is my take on the alignments involved with the wandering tribe from your scenario).
ThatDarnCat
11-03-04, 02:30 AM Are these hillmen breaking the laws among thier own people or just the laws of the 'outsiders' who have enslaved than? I would consider them lawful if they continue to obey their own cultural laws, since those are the only laws they believe to be the 'right laws'.
Knight_of_spades
11-03-04, 03:35 AM Who are their targets? Do they fight to free themselves with an plan in mind are they randomly lashing out at whatever target present itself, or are they just using their plight as an exuse to target people who are even weaker than themselves? In the first LG in second CG in the third EVIL.
Knight_of_spades
11-03-04, 03:36 AM A society that endorses slavery on any level is Evil. End of debate. Lashing out against such a society, from within or without, is not Evil nor Chaotic.
It does not have to be Chaotic, but it can be.
The_Dark_One
11-03-04, 03:39 AM So,they are just minding their own business, when their home is invaded? The invaders steal their land, make them into slaves, and somehow fighting back makes the tribesmen no longer Lawful Good? No, they are still good. They are fighting for their freedom.

:pint:
EatFlan
11-03-04, 10:44 AM although i am not familiar with it enough to give a concrete answer i think the Ebberon campaign setting has a view on alignments that runs along the path you want to take.

General Concept of it that i have: In ebberon your alignment is based apon what is in your heart of hearts, regardless of how you may act sometimes. So you can be the lawful good/neutral 'savage' yet still sabotage your enslavers equipment whenever the feeling comes over you.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arak the mighty 11-02-04, 11:47 PM	I posed an interesting question to myself, when designing a new group of people for my campaign world, and due to circumstances, I can't decide their alignment as a whole (generally speaking). The best I can come up with is that the majority of these people might actually have MULTIPLE alignments. I'll give the skinny......... A group of wandering tribesmen that has been together for several hundred years or more. Live off the land, move around as required. Very tight knit. Bands of 80-100 or so. Tribal councel rules by deciding what is best for majority. Keep to themselves, and crimes amongst themselves against their own kind is nearly non-existent. To me, these people would be either LN or LG. Despite being "savages", they have a very codified existence that they adhere to, despite what more advanced people would think of them. In come the "advanced" and "enlightened" people. Build huge cities. New ideas, irrigation canals, mechanized farms and such. Use the tribal people as workers, and more commonly, slaves. Integrate them into their own society, but not as equal peoples. The tribal people obviously don't care for this, and don't feel that they should have to adhere to laws that are not their own. They don't so much, "ACT OUT", but they become difficult, disobedient, and resentful of their place in the new society. They commit crimes, sometimes violent crime, etc, etc, etc. To me, somewhat along the lines of CN. Here's the rub. Has their alignment CHANGED? Or have they altered their behavior contextually because of the situation? (and yes, I know this is a close parallel of the plight of the American Indian, and many other groups throughout human history) Are these still LG people behaving in a CN manner? (Which I think is the case) or has their alignment simply changed altogether? (and no, they're not human, either.)
Obscure One 11-03-04, 12:22 AM	In any society you have diversity. Not all within a certain social circle behave the same, or have a similar outlook. So simply justify different alignments due to the inate diversity of all creatures, that is unless they have a collective mind, in which case they'd all be neutral and behave in only a manner that would benifit the greater number.
Fixxxer 11-03-04, 12:26 AM	Here's the rub. Has their alignment CHANGED? Or have they altered their behavior contextually because of the situation? (and no, they're not human, either.) There doesn't have to be a difference. If they feel justified doing things ("acting out") that they wouldn't have done before, then yes, their alignment has probably changed. The fact that it has changed because their situation has changed is beside the point. In any society you have diversity. Not all within a certain social circle behave the same, or have a similar outlook. So simply justify different alignments due to the inate diversity of all creatures, that is unless they have a collective mind, in which case they'd all be neutral and behave in only a manner that would benifit the greater number. True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil."
Obscure One 11-03-04, 12:33 AM	True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil." Well asigning and entire race to a specific alignment is taboo to begin with (due to diversity). However if your going to ever generalize a group of people based on the behavior of the bulk, just fall back onto what they do. For example, if they're mindless flesh eaters that sacrifice their young in some painfull ritual then, yes, evil is a good alignment choice. However if they are normal people, doing normal day to day things, then a normal, neutral alignment would be called for. Simply, if there is nothing that particularly pops out as good or evil, don't lean them towards either.
Maniacal_Cackle 11-03-04, 12:34 AM	Question: If a mind flayer comes into your home and tries to enslave you, and you fight it, is it an evil act? Answer: Heck no! It's not evil to defend yourself against someone that is attacking you! Problem: But the tribe is not just defending themselves against someone attacking them. They are attacking a society that they view as oppressing them. Solution 1: If intent is what matters, they are attacking an evil society that attacked them first, they are still LG. (At least, that is what I would think their PoV would be) (NOTE: This is my personal opinion, and the alignment axis is open to a great deal of debate. The intent would be to attack the evil ones, though it would be misguided... IMO) Solution 2: If action is what matters, it could be argued either way, but I would say that you are attacking innocents who have not specifically done anything and you are CN or even CE. Probably CE.
Arak the mighty 11-03-04, 12:57 AM	True, and I'm sure that Arak the mighty realizes this, but when you're designing a completely new race, it's often a good idea to assign the collective whole a basic alignment for a while. Additionally, there are plenty of races in D&D that have a definate alignment (at least as far as the basic system is concerned). Look through the monster manual and see how many entries have an alignment like "always neutral evil." Yeah, this is pretty accurate. Right now, I'm in the "design" stage, and to get a general overview of them, I called the people as a whole LG. Probably more towards LN or NG. That's obviously not to say there aren't exceptions, just like in any society. The question came up because a few of my players will use "detect alignment" now and then, and I'm not really sure what alignment these people would be. You are generally a good person, who follows the laws of YOUR people pretty strictly. That's LG. Now you get assimilated into another society where you're a lesser member. You lose your identity, you miss your old way of life, and you behave in a dissentious manner. These people don't go to all out war on their oppressors, but they are unruly, disobedient, and sometimes even violent to members of the new race. Is that person still LG or is he now CN or CE? Or, as I asked above, is it maybe both?
MinusInnocence 11-03-04, 01:44 AM	A society that endorses slavery on any level is Evil. End of debate. Lashing out against such a society, from within or without, is not Evil nor Chaotic. The "Lawful" trait would only come into question if the laws they were disobeying were illegitimate. Take a cue from MLK - civil disobedience is ok when the law itself is wonky.
darczero 11-03-04, 02:15 AM	Alignment in D&D is entirely determined from an external point of view. It is because of that fact that questions like the one Arak posed arise in the first place. What one player or DM views as Lawful may not totally agree with what another thinks is the same, while one player or DM will try to argue that something is not Evil in nature because of their personal (in or out of character) views on Evil. Everyone has their own opinions of Alignment because the book is too vague. A single creature cannot have multiple alignments. If nothing else, Alignment is so general (everyone has one) that if an NPC/Monster has more than one alignment, then the players will want one too. Then you get into stuff like "With X Alignment Tendencies" and Three-Part Alignments and that just doesn't work. (LNG with CE tendencies...) Pick an alignment for the culture, and keep in mind that virtually any sentient creature can break the mold if the situation is right. Individuals within that culture may be CG while the rest of their culture remains LN or N (which is my take on the alignments involved with the wandering tribe from your scenario).
ThatDarnCat 11-03-04, 02:30 AM	Are these hillmen breaking the laws among thier own people or just the laws of the 'outsiders' who have enslaved than? I would consider them lawful if they continue to obey their own cultural laws, since those are the only laws they believe to be the 'right laws'.
Knight_of_spades 11-03-04, 03:35 AM	Who are their targets? Do they fight to free themselves with an plan in mind are they randomly lashing out at whatever target present itself, or are they just using their plight as an exuse to target people who are even weaker than themselves? In the first LG in second CG in the third EVIL.
Knight_of_spades 11-03-04, 03:36 AM	A society that endorses slavery on any level is Evil. End of debate. Lashing out against such a society, from within or without, is not Evil nor Chaotic. It does not have to be Chaotic, but it can be.
The_Dark_One 11-03-04, 03:39 AM	So,they are just minding their own business, when their home is invaded? The invaders steal their land, make them into slaves, and somehow fighting back makes the tribesmen no longer Lawful Good? No, they are still good. They are fighting for their freedom. :pint:
EatFlan 11-03-04, 10:44 AM	although i am not familiar with it enough to give a concrete answer i think the Ebberon campaign setting has a view on alignments that runs along the path you want to take. General Concept of it that i have: In ebberon your alignment is based apon what is in your heart of hearts, regardless of how you may act sometimes. So you can be the lawful good/neutral 'savage' yet still sabotage your enslavers equipment whenever the feeling comes over you.