Alignment question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gareshra
07-23-07, 11:44 PM I have a character. He is a nobleman and head of the ruling council of a small city. I planned on using him in my last campaign, but never got around to it.Luckily, he fits perfectly in this campaign. Here's the problem: He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it. Thing is...he wasn't always in a ruling position. He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state.

So my problem is that this character, and the others like him, are extremely chaotic in their belief system, yet 99% of the time are extremely lawful in how they act. HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE THEM?!

This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts?
Gedrin
07-24-07, 12:26 AM I'm not sure how a clandestine orginization, loyal to the nation, which supports the current order by seeking out forces that would corrupt it, is a chaotic entity.

He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land.

Aside from the single word "shadows" you could be describing members of a knightly,or even paladial, order dedicated to defending the principles of their nation.
pres_man
07-24-07, 12:34 AM Check out the grey guard, one can be sneaky and still be lawful.
Vikrun
07-24-07, 12:35 AM According to the PHB Pg 104,

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

So lets dissect:

He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it.
So this does argue that he is lawful. The fact that he recognizes the faults in the system is fine, and the that if he does want to bring about change, he can stay with accordance to the law of the land in order to bring about said change. Think of courts, judges, governments...etc in modern days passing new laws.

They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state.

I argue that by placing their agents in key areas to safeguard against corruption is a lawful act. so is dealing with outside threats. This sounds like a code of conduct that the whole group follows.

Hmm... are they chaotic? Doesn't sound like it
are they good? Maybe, maybe not.

I would classify them as fanatically lawful - they want this empire to stay as it is and will risk everything to ensure that.

I know I may be proven wrong about this but thats my two cents anyway.

Oh and
This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts?
I think thoughts are what defines an alignment, and actions usually confirm that though not always.
dknight100
07-24-07, 12:58 AM rather than spread the plague of Action and Intent debate to another thread, just check out the "Paladin's Detect Evil Is a Balancing Mechanic, nothing more" thread. We're at about 26 pages now, but you can pretty much skip everything since page 12.
adamx20
07-24-07, 01:09 AM Not going to give along speech here. NG. They are lawful in public, but in secret they act within their own rules system. Or the grey guard ( I have no Info )
ArchonJohn
07-24-07, 02:11 AM The way I would read it is that the group is in fact, lawful.

But you do raise an intesting point... if the group <b>WAS</b> chaotic, but acted lawful in public, how would one place them?

I would place the group as chaotic for one main reason...
You can pretend to be someone else, but you can't change who you are.

Just because you act one way (acting lawful) does not mean that you are... if you are chaotic in your mindset then you are chaotic. Think of an evil person who acts good in public so people think he's wonderful (such as giving kids candy or whatnot) but is in actuality a seething ball of evil rage.
vonklaude
07-24-07, 02:21 AM I have a character. He is a nobleman and head of the ruling council of a small city. I planned on using him in my last campaign, but never got around to it.Luckily, he fits perfectly in this campaign. Here's the problem: He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it. Thing is...he wasn't always in a ruling position. He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state.

So my problem is that this character, and the others like him, are extremely chaotic in their belief system, yet 99% of the time are extremely lawful in how they act. HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE THEM?!

This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts?

In your scenario it may be worth considering a tension within the group between those that favour a chaotic approach - treating the laws as just rough guidelines that may often be flawed - and those that favour a lawful approach - treating the laws as wise principles that must be adhered to, even if we don't always see why.

It would be helpful to posit an original lawgiver in the mythical past, to give them something to refer to: 'We mustn't break the laws of Mellanie the Foresightful, as we do not have her wisdom' vs 'The laws were made by a person, we're people, so we can decide to revise them whenver we want'.

One could imagine a chaotic legal system, if one wanted. It would mandate individual freedoms, and be open to continual change. It would be maintained by the members, rather than ordained from a figure (or figures) of authority. A complete pain in the arse, to be sure. Although it's not often explored, I'm fairly sure RAW doesn't tie the use of a written legal system to a 'Lawful' alignment. It's just that lawful alignments will be more likely to create and meaningfully abide by one. Chaotics can follow laws they personally believe are right, while reserving their privilege to change their minds about what right is depending on future situations.

At the end of the Chapter introducing alignments it talks about the usefulness to RP in creating such tensions. It talks about Tordek - a lawful character - being a little greedy and prone to occasional desires to steal things. I feel the biggest mistake many people make with alignment is to fail to include these tensions. Truly, play is much more interesting when you do.

-vk
vonklaude
07-24-07, 02:23 AM rather than spread the plague of Action and Intent debate to another thread, just check out the "Paladin's Detect Evil Is a Balancing Mechanic, nothing more" thread. We're at about 26 pages now, but you can pretty much skip everything since page 12.

The interesting stuff starts after page 12.

Actually, there's both good and bad material all the way through. It's rather insufferably smug to dismiss half a thread like that. The first 12 pages failed to resolve the questions raised.
dknight100
07-24-07, 06:07 AM The later 14 do nothing towards it either that hasnt already been said, simply inane debate about whether babies can be evil or not, whether personal sacrifice is personal sacrifice, and then back to the debate we had already had by page 12.
vonklaude
07-24-07, 06:28 AM The later 14 do nothing towards it either that hasnt already been said, simply inane debate about whether babies can be evil or not, whether personal sacrifice is personal sacrifice, and then back to the debate we had already had by page 12.

If you don't approve of the debate, then simply don't comment on it. Up to 12 remains mired in confusion.
steven3x
07-24-07, 06:51 AM This sounds very much like Neutral Good with Lawful Tendencies. Decisively Good, predominately Lawful - and in some ways almost Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies, Chaotic Good in origins... balancing it all out it seems to me the character is Neutral Good with Lawful Tendencies (NGL). In other words, spiritually aligned to the Twin Paradises of Bytopia. :thinks:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gareshra 07-23-07, 11:44 PM	I have a character. He is a nobleman and head of the ruling council of a small city. I planned on using him in my last campaign, but never got around to it.Luckily, he fits perfectly in this campaign. Here's the problem: He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it. Thing is...he wasn't always in a ruling position. He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state. So my problem is that this character, and the others like him, are extremely chaotic in their belief system, yet 99% of the time are extremely lawful in how they act. HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE THEM?! This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts?
Gedrin 07-24-07, 12:26 AM	I'm not sure how a clandestine orginization, loyal to the nation, which supports the current order by seeking out forces that would corrupt it, is a chaotic entity. He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. Aside from the single word "shadows" you could be describing members of a knightly,or even paladial, order dedicated to defending the principles of their nation.
pres_man 07-24-07, 12:34 AM	Check out the grey guard, one can be sneaky and still be lawful.
Vikrun 07-24-07, 12:35 AM	According to the PHB Pg 104, "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. So lets dissect: He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it. So this does argue that he is lawful. The fact that he recognizes the faults in the system is fine, and the that if he does want to bring about change, he can stay with accordance to the law of the land in order to bring about said change. Think of courts, judges, governments...etc in modern days passing new laws. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state. I argue that by placing their agents in key areas to safeguard against corruption is a lawful act. so is dealing with outside threats. This sounds like a code of conduct that the whole group follows. Hmm... are they chaotic? Doesn't sound like it are they good? Maybe, maybe not. I would classify them as fanatically lawful - they want this empire to stay as it is and will risk everything to ensure that. I know I may be proven wrong about this but thats my two cents anyway. Oh and This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts? I think thoughts are what defines an alignment, and actions usually confirm that though not always.
dknight100 07-24-07, 12:58 AM	rather than spread the plague of Action and Intent debate to another thread, just check out the "Paladin's Detect Evil Is a Balancing Mechanic, nothing more" thread. We're at about 26 pages now, but you can pretty much skip everything since page 12.
adamx20 07-24-07, 01:09 AM	Not going to give along speech here. NG. They are lawful in public, but in secret they act within their own rules system. Or the grey guard ( I have no Info )
ArchonJohn 07-24-07, 02:11 AM	The way I would read it is that the group is in fact, lawful. But you do raise an intesting point... if the group <b>WAS</b> chaotic, but acted lawful in public, how would one place them? I would place the group as chaotic for one main reason... You can pretend to be someone else, but you can't change who you are. Just because you act one way (acting lawful) does not mean that you are... if you are chaotic in your mindset then you are chaotic. Think of an evil person who acts good in public so people think he's wonderful (such as giving kids candy or whatnot) but is in actuality a seething ball of evil rage.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 02:21 AM	I have a character. He is a nobleman and head of the ruling council of a small city. I planned on using him in my last campaign, but never got around to it.Luckily, he fits perfectly in this campaign. Here's the problem: He is extremely obedient to the law, and therefore displays very lawful tendencies. He is loyal to the city and nation which he plays a part in. However, he also recognizes the faults in it. Thing is...he wasn't always in a ruling position. He was originally an agent for a small group that is basically a "power behind the throne" type thing. They work in the shadows, placing agents in positions of power so as to safeguard the empire against corruption. They also send out their agents to deal with threats to the cities and peoples in their land. They're a heavily chaotic good group. But their agents are, when not doing specific missions or tasks, always lawful in their actions, so that they do not reveal themselves and because they are all fiercely loyal to the state. So my problem is that this character, and the others like him, are extremely chaotic in their belief system, yet 99% of the time are extremely lawful in how they act. HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE THEM?! This is just an example, though. I ask everyone what you define law and chaos, good and evil, by. Actions, or thoughts? In your scenario it may be worth considering a tension within the group between those that favour a chaotic approach - treating the laws as just rough guidelines that may often be flawed - and those that favour a lawful approach - treating the laws as wise principles that must be adhered to, even if we don't always see why. It would be helpful to posit an original lawgiver in the mythical past, to give them something to refer to: 'We mustn't break the laws of Mellanie the Foresightful, as we do not have her wisdom' vs 'The laws were made by a person, we're people, so we can decide to revise them whenver we want'. One could imagine a chaotic legal system, if one wanted. It would mandate individual freedoms, and be open to continual change. It would be maintained by the members, rather than ordained from a figure (or figures) of authority. A complete pain in the arse, to be sure. Although it's not often explored, I'm fairly sure RAW doesn't tie the use of a written legal system to a 'Lawful' alignment. It's just that lawful alignments will be more likely to create and meaningfully abide by one. Chaotics can follow laws they personally believe are right, while reserving their privilege to change their minds about what right is depending on future situations. At the end of the Chapter introducing alignments it talks about the usefulness to RP in creating such tensions. It talks about Tordek - a lawful character - being a little greedy and prone to occasional desires to steal things. I feel the biggest mistake many people make with alignment is to fail to include these tensions. Truly, play is much more interesting when you do. -vk
vonklaude 07-24-07, 02:23 AM	rather than spread the plague of Action and Intent debate to another thread, just check out the "Paladin's Detect Evil Is a Balancing Mechanic, nothing more" thread. We're at about 26 pages now, but you can pretty much skip everything since page 12. The interesting stuff starts after page 12. Actually, there's both good and bad material all the way through. It's rather insufferably smug to dismiss half a thread like that. The first 12 pages failed to resolve the questions raised.
dknight100 07-24-07, 06:07 AM	The later 14 do nothing towards it either that hasnt already been said, simply inane debate about whether babies can be evil or not, whether personal sacrifice is personal sacrifice, and then back to the debate we had already had by page 12.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 06:28 AM	The later 14 do nothing towards it either that hasnt already been said, simply inane debate about whether babies can be evil or not, whether personal sacrifice is personal sacrifice, and then back to the debate we had already had by page 12. If you don't approve of the debate, then simply don't comment on it. Up to 12 remains mired in confusion.
steven3x 07-24-07, 06:51 AM	This sounds very much like Neutral Good with Lawful Tendencies. Decisively Good, predominately Lawful - and in some ways almost Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies, Chaotic Good in origins... balancing it all out it seems to me the character is Neutral Good with Lawful Tendencies (NGL). In other words, spiritually aligned to the Twin Paradises of Bytopia. :thinks: