Alignment questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arlee
02-04-06, 03:13 AM I was just curious on what the general consensus here would be on an alignment disagreement. It is generally held in the group I play with a charecter can only be lawful if they always follow the rules so to speak. I think a charecter can be considered lawful if the charecter has a deffinite code they live by and stick to regardless. To clarify, if a charecter always does certain things for clear reasons they should be considered lawful, even if someone on the outside who doesn't neccisarily understand the motivations and reasons of the perticular charecter.

Let me know what you think, and Thanks! :D
Mentar
02-04-06, 03:36 AM Two schools of thought, as you have noticed.

1) The law of the land is the law, LG use the laws as written to attempt to bring good, LN use the laws period, LE use the laws that can benifit you.

2) Personal code. Here's the big one, to most people a character can be CG/N/E while having a set personal code. In this way a CG good character will ALWAYS help others when possible, will fight the law of the land if the law is deemed unjust, etc.

According to the PHB it's a mix of the two. LG will use the law if it is just and will fight within the law to change evil laws. Thus using type 1. However under the Monk class it states that a monk must be lawful, but talks about the monestary or teacher rather then following local laws.

I usually use Lawful to mean one who works within the laws, and use Neutral or even Chaotic for characters with strict personal codes.
My CG fighter, very religious, could follow the path of the paladin if he wasn't breaking local laws in order to help people.
Tyler Do'Urden
02-04-06, 05:50 AM The lawful alignment type represents a commitment and adherence to a specific set of rules; cause and effect, death and taxes, things like that. The lawful character stops at the stop sign because it is proper (or perhaps even polite) to do so. A character's personal set of rules need not coincide with any particular government, or it may include following the local laws to an extent, or it may include following a particular locale's laws to the letter ignoring all others.

The chaotic alignment type represents a deliberate rejection of any particular set of rules. The chaotic character either blows the stop sign as an active rebellion, or because he just doesn't care. He might even stop at the stop sign once in a while just to confuse lawful characters. A chaotic character may have a few very simple, very basic rules he lives by (don't kill people), but he will almost always have exceptions (...unless they started it).

Being ethically neutral means not being particularly drawn to either side of the spectrum. An ethically neutral character is just as likely to be lawful as to be chaotic, depending on the situation. The neutral character will usually stop at the stop sign if he thinks someone is watching or if he's feeling orderly, and he'll usually do a rolling stop if he thinks there's nobody there or he's feeling particularly rebellious. He follows the rules when it's beneficial, convenient, or when not doing so would be the opposite. He may follow certain rules out of habit.

You can't think of alignment as a yoke by which the DM can lead your character around. Alignment is a function of the character's actions, but it's not as fragile as people seem to think.
If a single evil act shifts you from good to evil or good to neutral, it has to be somethin really evil, like burning down an orphanage so you can buy the property and build a sweatshop, or maybe beating your own mother to death with your dog with your father tied to a chair watching.
If a thousand good acts don't shift you from evil to good or evil to neutral, they have to be really crappy good acts, like half-assedly holding the door open for the next guy or droping a quarter in one of those little charity donation boxes.

If you're seriously fretting about what sort of actions will instigate an alignment change, then you and your group are thinking about it too much and/or doing it wrong and would probably be well suited to abandoning the alignment system entirely. It's just a game.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arlee 02-04-06, 03:13 AM	I was just curious on what the general consensus here would be on an alignment disagreement. It is generally held in the group I play with a charecter can only be lawful if they always follow the rules so to speak. I think a charecter can be considered lawful if the charecter has a deffinite code they live by and stick to regardless. To clarify, if a charecter always does certain things for clear reasons they should be considered lawful, even if someone on the outside who doesn't neccisarily understand the motivations and reasons of the perticular charecter. Let me know what you think, and Thanks! :D
Mentar 02-04-06, 03:36 AM	Two schools of thought, as you have noticed. 1) The law of the land is the law, LG use the laws as written to attempt to bring good, LN use the laws period, LE use the laws that can benifit you. 2) Personal code. Here's the big one, to most people a character can be CG/N/E while having a set personal code. In this way a CG good character will ALWAYS help others when possible, will fight the law of the land if the law is deemed unjust, etc. According to the PHB it's a mix of the two. LG will use the law if it is just and will fight within the law to change evil laws. Thus using type 1. However under the Monk class it states that a monk must be lawful, but talks about the monestary or teacher rather then following local laws. I usually use Lawful to mean one who works within the laws, and use Neutral or even Chaotic for characters with strict personal codes. My CG fighter, very religious, could follow the path of the paladin if he wasn't breaking local laws in order to help people.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-04-06, 05:50 AM	The lawful alignment type represents a commitment and adherence to a specific set of rules; cause and effect, death and taxes, things like that. The lawful character stops at the stop sign because it is proper (or perhaps even polite) to do so. A character's personal set of rules need not coincide with any particular government, or it may include following the local laws to an extent, or it may include following a particular locale's laws to the letter ignoring all others. The chaotic alignment type represents a deliberate rejection of any particular set of rules. The chaotic character either blows the stop sign as an active rebellion, or because he just doesn't care. He might even stop at the stop sign once in a while just to confuse lawful characters. A chaotic character may have a few very simple, very basic rules he lives by (don't kill people), but he will almost always have exceptions (...unless they started it). Being ethically neutral means not being particularly drawn to either side of the spectrum. An ethically neutral character is just as likely to be lawful as to be chaotic, depending on the situation. The neutral character will usually stop at the stop sign if he thinks someone is watching or if he's feeling orderly, and he'll usually do a rolling stop if he thinks there's nobody there or he's feeling particularly rebellious. He follows the rules when it's beneficial, convenient, or when not doing so would be the opposite. He may follow certain rules out of habit. You can't think of alignment as a yoke by which the DM can lead your character around. Alignment is a function of the character's actions, but it's not as fragile as people seem to think. If a single evil act shifts you from good to evil or good to neutral, it has to be somethin really evil, like burning down an orphanage so you can buy the property and build a sweatshop, or maybe beating your own mother to death with your dog with your father tied to a chair watching. If a thousand good acts don't shift you from evil to good or evil to neutral, they have to be really crappy good acts, like half-assedly holding the door open for the next guy or droping a quarter in one of those little charity donation boxes. If you're seriously fretting about what sort of actions will instigate an alignment change, then you and your group are thinking about it too much and/or doing it wrong and would probably be well suited to abandoning the alignment system entirely. It's just a game.