| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| savant_warlord1304-07-06, 03:33 PM | One of my players came to me for help with his character. He cannot figure out his character's alignment, and niether can I. The character uses logic and reasoning, but is very non-conformist and free thinking. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor, but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. The character is obviously Good, but what about the other half of the alignment? |
| Millennium04-07-06, 03:39 PM | I'd say he's NG: he sees value in aspects of both Law and Chaos, but doesn't have a clear commitment to one over the other. In other words, he's the other kind of Neutral. He's not really a fan of balance; he just doesn't have a strong commitment either way. |
| loaba04-07-06, 03:41 PM | Sounds Lawful Neutral to me. The guy doesn't appear to be too hung up with Good and Evil, but from what you say he does have an order that he adheres to. He uses logic and reason but is willing to operate outside the box if needs be. |
| revnk04-07-06, 03:44 PM | The easy answer is "Neutral," but that's probably wrong. It seems counterintuitive, but the "strong moral code and sense of honor" are hallmarks of a Lawful personality. The fact that the character uses logic isn't really pertinent--it's something a Chaotic character could do. Nor is the fact that the character is "nonconformist and free-thinking": notwithstanding a common misperception around here that Law (ethos) is somehow related to law (local statutes and mores), a Lawful character need only act in conformity to his own coherent code of rules and ethics to qualify for the alignment, even if his personal code violates local laws (as opposed to acting on whims). (Consider the Lawful Evil gangster living in a Lawful Good society: the character might act in perfect conformity to Lawful Evil while violating every local statute against murder, arson, kidnapping, extortion, etc.) AD&D (1E) tended to grade off the alignments at the edges in a useful way that seems to have vanished from 3E: a character might have been described as "Chaotic Neutral with good tendencies," for instance, or "Chaotic Neutral (Good)." If you're not certain that "Lawful" is the best way to describe this character, you might consider letting the player describe himself as "Neutral (Lawful) Good": that is, Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies. I imagine a number of posters will take issue with what I've written, especially since it could be interpreted to differ from the contemporary RAW somewhat. Nonetheless, I hope it helps. In any case, good luck! |
| savant_warlord1304-07-06, 03:44 PM | I'd say he's NG: he sees value in aspects of both Law and Chaos, but doesn't have a clear commitment to one over the other. In other words, he's the other kind of Neutral. He's not really a fan of balance; he just doesn't have a strong commitment either way. But he doesn't see value in order, he considers imposing order a form of oppression. He also doesn't understand human behavior. He considers much of the very basis of human culture to be deceptive, irrational and cumbersome. |
| revnk04-07-06, 03:46 PM | If he actively opposes order, he's sounding more Neutral or Chaotic, then. Which would appear to answer your own question. Is that more helpful? |
| savant_warlord1304-07-06, 03:48 PM | Sounds Lawful Neutral to me. The guy doesn't appear to be too hung up with Good and Evil, but from what you say he does have an order that he adheres to. He uses logic and reason but is willing to operate outside the box if needs be. I left out the stuff concerning the good/evil axis because that aspect of his alignment was quite clear to both of us |
| savant_warlord1304-07-06, 04:18 PM | I would like a few more opinions, as the ones I have received so far are quite varied |
| kelvinaw27304-07-06, 04:28 PM | Chaotic characters can think logically, they just see no reason to impose order on things. Therefore I would say CG. |
| loaba04-07-06, 04:31 PM | Chaotic characters can think logically, they just see no reason to impose order on things. Therefore I would say CG. Which is why the don't think logically. :D If the guy is Good, then he's LG. He obviously works within a structure, even if it is a loose one. |
| JulesCARV04-07-06, 04:39 PM | This is a situation where the D&D alignment system is genuinely unclear, so I say... -If there are any mechanical benefits to being of one of the "good" alignments over the others, then be the one that's most mechanically advantageous (e.g. if he wants to be a pyrokineticist in the future, be Chaotic Good. If he wants to become a Fist of Raziel in the future, be Lawful Good, etc). This may sound sarcastic, but since all of them are at least plausible, why not? -If mechanically, alignment doesn't matter to this character, go neutral good. It's the "good" alignment for when either law and chaos are balanced, or you can't figure it out. |
| InterSilva04-07-06, 04:45 PM | I'd call it either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. |
| Nazaire04-07-06, 05:07 PM | I'd say NG |
| sneak_Blast04-07-06, 05:12 PM | I say "Neutral Good" as well because he IS good, but he takes parts from both sides on the chaotic lawful axis. |
| LCD2YOU04-07-06, 05:12 PM | I'll put my foot down and give a definite answer: NG with Chaotic Good tendencies, maybe. But I'm not sure. :angelhide |
| konrad_the_tall04-07-06, 05:27 PM | CE. 100% chaotic evil. defiantely chaotic evil. He fights against Law, that sound slike chaotic evil to me. and you sohuld trust Konrad the Tall. He knows his S***. |
| LCD2YOU04-07-06, 05:46 PM | CE. 100% chaotic evil. defiantely chaotic evil. He fights against Law, that sound slike chaotic evil to me. and you sohuld trust Konrad the Tall. He knows his S***.But we're not talking about S***. We're talking about alignments here. :rolleyes: EDIT: OBTW, this is a post in jest. I'm giving konrad some grief, nicely, about posting he knows his S*** when talking about alinments. I know there's a lot of S*** thrown when alignments are talked about, so I am also giving kudos to konrad for his playing on words. |
| talkingbeatles04-07-06, 06:17 PM | I'm going to go with the mob on this one and say NG. |
| savant_warlord1304-07-06, 08:33 PM | It's situations like this one that make me want to go play d20 modern... but then i remember that my GM won't let me have a mech, so I go back to the problems |
| BRJN04-07-06, 10:01 PM | If the character is a "random acts of Kindness" kind of guy, he is NG. While performing one of those acts, he may be temporarily LG. When between acts, he may be temporarily CG. Doubtless this is more :confused: than help... :P |
| ressurrector04-07-06, 10:52 PM | here's my own Alignment chart, might help: (note, there are multiple descriptions for each alignment, some are internal and some are external) Lawful: The character plans ahead of time, has a code that he will not defy (even in the face of contradictory public laws), is scrupulous about not breaking any laws of the area he is in, seeks to bring order to the world, OR has a strong dislike of chaotic actions. Chaotic: The character does whatever feels right at the time, has some internal morals (but may bend/break them), seeks to break the laws of society, seeks to bring chaos to the world (frequeltly C/E or C/N), OR has a strong dislike of orderly people. Good: The character helps others at the cost of himself, or the character seeks to eradicate evil. Evil: The character seeks to better himself regardless of others (and thusly, at the cost of them frequently), or the character seeks to eradicate good. Good and evil are easier to understand, but law and chaos are very complex concepts. I'd say he's the kind of Lawfull/Good you want to see your paladin playing. I say this because though he may break local laws, he is breaking them in service to his own moral code, which supercedes (sp?) the local laws. |
| Grey_Mage04-08-06, 03:29 AM | I say Lawful Neutral- for the follwing reasons: -A personal honor code implies lawful mindset. Thats why monks are lawful, and why paladins are lawful, the personal honor code that is important before other things. -Logic and Reasoning. As you put it this is someone who thinks things through in almost all cases in an analytic rather than intuitive way. This is also a lawful thing. -Free thinking doesnt mean that he doesnt have a set paradigm and code that he goes by, it means it doesnt match that of his society or that of normal humans. As you stated he thinks humans are stupid petty pains in the arse who make no sense... this seems perfectly reasonable that he would not be bound by their ideals. It also seems like a neutral thing to me... rather cerebral. -He fights to create change, wether its a good or bad country, based on his own beliefs. This is neutral. Hes doing it because in his mind things arent right... not because it will be better for others, or that hes greedy, but simply because its the only way that makes sense and others just dont see it. |
| Ghostwheel04-08-06, 05:19 AM | One of my players came to me for help with his character. He cannot figure out his character's alignment, and niether can I. The character uses logic and reasoning, but is very non-conformist and free thinking. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor, but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. The character is obviously Good, but what about the other half of the alignment? Piece-by-piece: 1: "uses logic and reasoning": these are the hallmarks of sentience, and have no bearing on alignment 2: "non-conformist and free-thinking": Chaotic tendencies 3: "strong moral code": Good 4: "sense of honor": honor is very problematic, and is the source of many alignment questions. It is my opinion that "honor" as most people think of it consists of two aspects, that that someone feels for themself and that which others accord them. "Self-honor" is not an alignment question, it is a matter of style, not substance. "Outside honor" is a campaign issue, best resolved with your own good judgement, but (IMHO) is a characteristic of Lawful society only if it is codified . My take on this is the PC is Neutral Good. I will stop now. |
| Cantankerous04-08-06, 07:56 AM | But he doesn't see value in order, he considers imposing order a form of oppression. He also doesn't understand human behavior. He considers much of the very basis of human culture to be deceptive, irrational and cumbersome. I'd say that without a doubt this sounds like a Chaotic character. Chaos can be SELF disciplined, logical, orderly within the SELF and still be Chaotic. An old ideal from earlier editions of D&D might help here, as it's a true today as ever, simply not referenced often. Chaos has the Individual as entirely as important as the group, to the point that where there must be a choice made between the them, the fact that the group is infinitely larger means nothing; while Law holds the group more important than the individual. That's a good rule of thumb to work with. He sounds like a Spock themed character and like he's going to be fun to have in the group. Enjoy. Isshia |
| Animorphic04-08-06, 09:05 AM | Funny! haha... :D Sounds kinda like me... So... back to the question... I think revnk (4th post) has the right idea. Tendencies allow for more flexibility. BRJN (20th post) also has a good idea. So why not combine the two? Tendencies, somehow temporarily change alignment, since he is so...in-between. OR You could have ratings. on a scale of 1-10, I'd say that character is Good 8 1/2, Chaotic 5, Lawful 5. |
| savant_warlord1304-08-06, 01:02 PM | If the character is a "random acts of Kindness" kind of guy, he is NG. While performing one of those acts, he may be temporarily LG. When between acts, he may be temporarily CG. Doubtless this is more :confused: than help... :P :headexplo I ought to smack you for saying that! That is an insult to CG people everywhere! Why can't you enjoy helping others just because you are chaotic? |
| savant_warlord1304-08-06, 01:05 PM | Piece-by-piece: 1: "uses logic and reasoning": these are the hallmarks of sentience, and have no bearing on alignment 2: "non-conformist and free-thinking": Chaotic tendencies 3: "strong moral code": Good 4: "sense of honor": honor is very problematic, and is the source of many alignment questions. It is my opinion that "honor" as most people think of it consists of two aspects, that that someone feels for themself and that which others accord them. "Self-honor" is not an alignment question, it is a matter of style, not substance. "Outside honor" is a campaign issue, best resolved with your own good judgement, but (IMHO) is a characteristic of Lawful society only if it is codified . My take on this is the PC is Neutral Good. I will stop now. Perhaps the honor thing has some people confused. In this case, honor means that he treats others with respect and follows the golden rule. He is in no way paladinish. |
| Lord Ian Stark04-08-06, 01:47 PM | The character uses logic and reasoning, I assume this means for the majority of choices he makes. If so then this means he's not chaotic. but is very non-conformist and free thinking. This can be either neutral or lawful. When I say lawful, it's because he follows his own code, and none other. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor, but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. All of this screams Lawful Good. His ability to fight unjust laws is a big reason he's not neutral. He wouldn't care as much about the "unjust" laws unless they effected him personally if he was neutral. His Lawfulness also stands out in he keeps to his own personal code of what he feels is right and wrong because if a "good" kingdom has an unjust law, he will fight it no matter what. Again, no neutral or chaotic thinking for that matter here. So LG it is from what you've told us. Not that hard to see when you break it down. Now, unless you tell us in the future the way he deals with unjust laws is slaughter everyone that agrees with it or some other crazyness, then he's just simply LG and move on. I would like a few more opinions, as the ones I have received so far are quite varied LOL. I seriously hope you don't want a "correct" answer to this question. ;) More opinions to help you make a better judgement is fine. |
| savant_warlord1304-08-06, 01:54 PM | From what I've gathered so far, his alignment is "Other" |
| Witch04-08-06, 01:58 PM | I'd have to side with Lawful Good, but definitely not Lawful Stupid. Asides from that: if you don't know what your alignment could be, make it chaotic neutral! ^^ |
| Lord Ian Stark04-08-06, 02:03 PM | From what I've gathered so far, his alignment is "Other" Did I miss something in what I posted or are you just trying to play devils' advocate to anything someone says? The guy is LG with tendancies of neutral IMO. |
| Anodai04-08-06, 02:21 PM | two options that havnt been considered: 1) the charechter is unrealistic. He seems to oppose himself. in that case give him chaotic, as he has some sort of inner contradiction, or ask the player to consider creating less confused charechters 2) give him LCG. seriously. he seems to be equally lawful and chaotic. i think this is a reasonable use of rule zero, using it to solve situations not otherwize covered by the rules. personally, i favor this idea |
| Witch04-08-06, 02:52 PM | two options that havnt been considered: 1) the charechter is unrealistic. He seems to oppose himself. in that case give him chaotic, as he has some sort of inner contradiction, or ask the player to consider creating less confused charechters .. what? The character is pretty realistic, if you ask me. The character uses logic and reasoning, but is very non-conformist and free thinking. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor, but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. I'll name you a few of these people: Giordano Bruno, Nikolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Voltaire, Rousseau, ... Lawful Good, possibly Chaotic Good depending on how you see both. If you see Lawful as agreeing with the majority, then no, he's not lawful. If you see Lawful as agreeing what he believes to be a true and more just order, then yes, he's lawful. 2) give him LCG. seriously. he seems to be equally lawful and chaotic. i think this is a reasonable use of rule zero, using it to solve situations not otherwize covered by the rules. personally, i favor this idea LCG = NG. |
| savant_warlord1304-08-06, 02:53 PM | two options that havnt been considered: 1) the charechter is unrealistic. He seems to oppose himself. in that case give him chaotic, as he has some sort of inner contradiction, or ask the player to consider creating less confused charechters 2) give him LCG. seriously. he seems to be equally lawful and chaotic. i think this is a reasonable use of rule zero, using it to solve situations not otherwize covered by the rules. personally, i favor this idea he is not unrealistic, his alignment is based off that of the actual player |
| Witch04-08-06, 02:55 PM | On a sidenote, characters who "contradict themselves" are more realistic than those who do not. Without you realising, hundreds of your opinions are in contradiction of eachother. |
| loaba04-08-06, 02:59 PM | his alignment is based off that of the actual player Then your player needs to accept that he's LG, :D . Lord Ian Stark broke it down quite well; you have an ordered individual who works within a set code, that he sees as the right way, the Good way, wherever he may be. That is Lawful Good. You should be happy in one thing though, he doesn't really conform to the prototypical archetype that people think of (on these boards anyway) as LG, so that's kinda neat. |
| deathbane04-08-06, 06:02 PM | One of my players came to me for help with his character. He cannot figure out his character's alignment, and niether can I. The character uses logic and reasoning, but is very non-conformist and free thinking. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor, but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. The character is obviously Good, but what about the other half of the alignment? The fact that he fights unjust laws makes him good. the rebellious streak makes him chaotic. I say chaotic good |
| Lord Ian Stark04-08-06, 06:46 PM | the rebellious streak makes him chaotic. Saying, "Everyone who doesn't agree with an unjust law is chaotic" is not accurate IMO. Lawful Good, “Crusader”: She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. Obviously "unjust" things aren't let go by the character the OP has portrayed. This has nothing to do with chaos, and everything to do with lawful. |
| Cantankerous04-08-06, 11:12 PM | L_I_S, I'd agree with you but for an item of primary information the OP gave us: But he doesn't see value in order, he considers imposing order a form of oppression. There is no reasonable manner in which a person who sees no value in order and the imposing of any form of order as oppression can be considered Lawful. That Order has it's own intinsic value and that it can be in place without being oppressive are two of the primary linch pins of Law. Without them , Law has NO MEANING. Isshia |
| Lord Ian Stark04-08-06, 11:43 PM | There is no reasonable manner in which a person who sees no value in order and the imposing of any form of order as oppression can be considered Lawful. That Order has it's own intinsic value and that it can be in place without being oppressive are two of the primary linch pins of Law. Without them , Law has NO MEANING. I agree with the order thing there. Well said friend. :) I noticed this was his reply to other posts and it seemed like the OP was trying to create more problems/variations by saying the opposite of whatever peeps responded with. ;) |
| Milandros04-09-06, 12:47 AM | Probably NG, but LG is not impossible either. Remember Law/Alignment is not equal to law/social codes enforced by the threat of punishment. A lawful character is not required to obey the law of the land. For an example, imagine a completely immoral assassin who carefully and meticulously plans his every approach, ensures multiple getaway options, scrupulously researches his target, prepares carefully beforehand and always abides by the contract. Lawful Evil. Even though he regularly breaks laws on murder, robbery, etc. Thus for this character itr depends which is stronger - his code of behaviour and willingness to be organised and disciplined in his life, or his free-wheeling seat-of-the-pants ability to improvise and act as he sees fit on the spur of the moment. |
| FloppyLlama04-09-06, 07:57 AM | The character uses logic and reasoning He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor In this case, honor means that he treats others with respect and follows the golden rule. So he's a Kantian... but is rebellious With a rebellious streak. He's LG with a personality quirk. EDIT: Just realized something: But he doesn't see value in order, he considers imposing order a form of oppression. Then he obviously does not prioritize logic and reasoning at all. After all, rationality and logical modes of thinking require particular orders. Not to mention: He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor....and follows the golden rule. I think your player there is running a slightly oxymoronic character. |
| Witch04-09-06, 08:22 AM | So he's a Kantian... I think your player there is running a slightly oxymoronic character. First, Golden Rule does not equal Kantian :) Secondly, many people have contradictions in them. That's not really unrealistic :) |
| FloppyLlama04-09-06, 08:47 AM | First, Golden Rule does not equal Kantian Did I say that? What I was saying was the collective attributes of emphasizing (or supposedly doing so) logic and reason, strict code of ethics and honor, combined with respecting others and the golden rule shows that the person is very close to a Kantian mold. Secondly, many people have contradictions in them. No, they have conflicts. Ultimately the character will have to prioritize one aspect or the other and this is definitive. Base it on how they act. If they act in a rebellious manner, and act in a way that shows they really think order is oppressive, all this nonsense about them valuing reason and logic is doodly-squat (and vice-versa). That's not really unrealistic It is if the conflicting aspects are both taken into consideration simultaneously and without any sort of resolution occuring or expected to occur. |
| Witch04-09-06, 08:54 AM | No, they have conflicts. Ultimately the character will have to prioritize one aspect or the other and this is definitive. Base it on how they act. If they act in a rebellious manner, and act in a way that shows they really think order is oppressive, all this nonsense about them valuing reason and logic is doodly-squat (and vice-versa). There's plenty of logically thinking people who value a state without order. This would not mean they rebel against any type of order, just state order. Anarchism has been argumented logically, for example. |
| IcebergTitanic04-09-06, 11:13 AM | Why exactly does this "need" to be solved? Just so he can put an abbreviation on his character's sheet? Or so he can be detected with "know alignment" spells? Pah. Let him play his character as he has described. If someone casts know alignment on him, describe the result as his character actually is. "He seems lawful, but you get the sense that he responds more to his own moral code than he does to the law of the land." or "He seems lawful, but you detect a rebellious streak in him." Don't allow yourself to be constrained by the "Six Laws of Alignment" or anything. You're the GM! Do what you please! The official alignments are guidelines to help you categorize people, but they aren't meant to represent the whole width and breadth of human (and non-human) existence. The more freedom that you allow your players to have in their alignment, the more real roleplaying you may see. Within reason, of course. If they have seeming conflicting aspects of their personality, make them justify or role play it. "He's lawful good, but sometimes he goes and murders people for fun." ... WTF? Ok, why? Is he a sociopath? Schizo? How does that affect the game? Does the GM then get to declare what the voices say to him when Mr. Hyde takes over? |
| savant_warlord1304-09-06, 11:49 AM | I agree with the order thing there. Well said friend. :) I noticed this was his reply to other posts and it seemed like the OP was trying to create more problems/variations by saying the opposite of whatever peeps responded with. ;) As the OP (at least I think I am... It stand for original poster right?), I can tell you that I am in no way trying to cause confusion, just trying to help people with their understandable misinterpretations of what I said. |
| FloppyLlama04-09-06, 12:17 PM | There's plenty of logically thinking people who value a state without order. This would not mean they rebel against any type of order, just state order. Anarchism has been argumented logically, for example. Thank you for clarifying, he is most definately LG. |
| glitch_7604-09-06, 12:27 PM | After giving some thought to your question this is surely a chaotic good charecter. Myself personally do not see this being any form of a neutral aligned charecter.( i've been a dm since "88") to me neutraly aligned charecters are a rarity as well as a few of my fellow dm's sharing that viewpoint. But everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions on this.(thats what makes this game so great) hope my opinion helps you out. |
| Kastas04-09-06, 07:18 PM | I think that the character should be considered NG. As many people here have already argued, the character shows strong characteristics of both Law and Chaos. This doesn't necessarily mean that he contradicts himself, it simply means that he may have a more nuanced view of ethics than many other characters. He claims not to see any inherent value in order, yet he behaves according to a moral code and sense of honor, thereby imposing a sort of order and consistency on himself. Though he appears to view himself as operating outside of organized society, he has a sense of which laws are just and which are not, and he is willing to fight unjust laws while (presumably) leaving just laws intact. This combination of lawful and chaotic traits says, in my opinion, that the character is NG, at least based on what has been posted about the character. If the character accepts this as a reasonable alignment, then go with it but watch what he does carefully, as many of the traits that you listed could be found in other alignments as well. For example, if he adopts an extremely broad view of what constitutes an unjust law, including in his definition many laws which most others would consider perfectly fair, then he may be more Chaotic than Lawful. |
| Kalai_Eljahn04-12-06, 03:02 PM | How interesting...that's like a mirror image of my own ethical alignment oO; I generally value law and order, obey rules so long as they don't contradict my inherent morals (and even if they mildly do), have holistic/tangential logic and reasoning that follows very chaotic paths, and do not have an exceptionally strong ethical code (I love philosophy discussions). I consider myself Neutral Good with strong tendencies towards both chaos and law. (About 33% to each L-N-C aspect.) That help at all? |
| Tormsskull04-12-06, 03:18 PM | I'd say that without a doubt this sounds like a Chaotic character. Yeah, without a doubt, there is no room for discussion on this. Oh wait. There are other opinions. :P I'd personally have to say NG sounds the most apt from what I have heard. But my guideline is always have the character explain to you why they think they should be a specific alignment. And as you yourself have said you are baffled OPer and you are the DM, I'd guess you aren't very strict on alignments. Just call it whatever you feel is the best, and allow a lot of room for fluctuation. If during the course of play, you feel the PC is acting consistently in a different alignment, mention it to them and work on shifting it. |
| kdyal04-12-06, 08:11 PM | Perhaps the honor thing has some people confused. In this case, honor means that he treats others with respect and follows the golden rule. He is in no way paladinish. That's about as Paladin as ya' get. |
| Cantankerous04-13-06, 01:41 AM | Yeah, without a doubt, there is no room for discussion on this. Oh wait. There are other opinions. :P *snip* I'd say that without a doubt this sounds like a Chaotic character. What about this line says anything about anyones opinion, except my own, that the character is Chaotic? Mike, what the Hell is up with you lately? Isshia |
| Koji04-14-06, 01:42 AM | A lawful good character believes that citizens will tend towards evil without proper governing. A chaotic good character believes that a government will tend towards evil if the citizens have no voice. A neutral good character believes that laws are necessary in order to protect people, but that people need freedom in order to do the most good. An example of a lawful rebel is a fascist revolutionary. An example of a chaotic despot is a socialist (Marxist, not Stalinist) leader. He's neutral good. Neutrality almost never means struggling to maintain a balance, it's usually characterized by two-facedness or even more commonly, indecisiveness. |
| Vaelan04-14-06, 01:57 AM | The character uses logic and reasoning... Which is neither a Chaotic nor Lawful trait, and it irks me how often people associate such basic traits with Law as, if anything, it is more a Chaotic trait as many Lawful people rely on tradition rather than logical thought whereas a Chaotic character has no such crutch. ...but is very non-conformist and free thinking. A small point towards Chaotic. He also has a strong moral code and sense of honor Moral code means good. A sense of honor isn't necessarily Lawful. If he is honorable because that is the way he wants to live, then it wouldn't be a Lawful trait. If he is Lawful due to tradition or because he believes that people should treat each other in an upfront, predictable manner then it is a Lawful trait. Incidentally, as per the PHB, following one's conscience is a Chaotic trait, and it sounds like that is what this character does. ...but is rebellious and and fights unjust laws, even in good kingdoms. Fighting unjust laws would be a Good trait as you are trying to prevent undue harm to others. Saying, "Everyone who doesn't agree with an unjust law is chaotic" is not accurate IMO. It is a hell of a lot more accurate than saying that Chaotic characters are incapable of using logical reasoning. :rolleyes: |
| Blinky96904-14-06, 03:43 AM | I think alot of you are completely misunderstanding of what chaos actually is. Law isn't the only side entitled to have morals or honor, nor is it the only side that can be logical. The fundamental difference is that law is systematic while chaos is organic. There are minor differences as well, but most spring from that. By systematic, I mean that lawful characters perform their functions with a certain degree of protocol. When something fulfills certain preset conditions, they act. These protocols get very in depth. For simplicities sake, they are written down, in the form of codified laws. When someone premeditatively murders someone else, they are punished accordingly. If it is found to be in the heat of the moment, the punishment is different. In order to be punished the latter way, it must be shown or believed that the criteria for that crime is fulfilled. Chaos is more natural, it involves more emotion and feeling, as well as reasoning. Chaotic good characters would weigh each murder and punish the guilty accordingly. They seldom both to write down the laws because they consider them mutable based on situation. They often have a very strict moral code for themselves, but are leery to imposed it on others, excepting a few choice exceptions they believe to be universal, usually about slavery, murder, theft, and rape. A full discourse on this would be many times longer than this post, and I'll spare all of you. From what I've seen, I'ld say CG, maybe NG leaning CG. |
| Dyrcona04-14-06, 01:11 PM | I agree with IcebergTitanic. |
| Arganis04-14-06, 02:08 PM | From what I've gathered so far, his alignment is "Other" Not other... Neutral. That's what Neutral is there for--when you're not one or the other. You don't have to be Neutral because you seek balance or you don't care, you could also find no meaning in the distinction between the two, and that sounds like this character. Law and Chaos are a lot more difficult to define than Good and Evil. The simple answer (to borrow Revk's phrase) is that if you're not sure because it seems to be both or neither, then it's Neutral, and I think that's the general consensus here. |
| mlund04-14-06, 02:32 PM | This character is Good. This character trends towards Chaos more than Law. While he has a personal code of conduct, he sees imposing laws based around that code (or any other) as an evil (oppression). Now, that's not to say that he has to go around smashing every institution that has a set of rules or challenging every state that has a basic laws against murder, rape, and thievery. There are "necessary evils" when you come to the logical conclusion that Anarchy is undesireable due to human nature. I'd say this character plays out Chaotic Good more often then not. He'll do the right thing, but resents being given orders and doesn't see the point in affording someone extra respect / benefit of the doubt just because they wear a crown or a badge while not being obviously evil. He's a do-gooder who is always suspicious that "The Man" is going to start coming down on innocent people. He's isn't interested in shaping just law - but rather he's focused exclusively on tearing down unjust law and letting people go about their lives. That strikes me as Chaotic Good. - Marty Lund |
| savant_warlord1304-15-06, 11:07 AM | A lawful good character believes that citizens will tend towards evil without proper governing. A chaotic good character believes that a government will tend towards evil if the citizens have no voice. A neutral good character believes that laws are necessary in order to protect people, but that people need freedom in order to do the most good. An example of a lawful rebel is a fascist revolutionary. An example of a chaotic despot is a socialist (Marxist, not Stalinist) leader. He's neutral good. Neutrality almost never means struggling to maintain a balance, it's usually characterized by two-facedness or even more commonly, indecisiveness. if you go by that, it would be a CG character, but I'm not sure I would go by that, since it is far to simple an assessment |
| savant_warlord1304-15-06, 11:09 AM | I think the general consensus is starting to lean towards CG |