| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 01:08:45
|
What alignment would be a character be if they performed good actions not for the desire to do good, but because it would help and enrich them later? Since good guys do not stab people in the back as often as evil ones and all that.
So neutral, good or some overlap area?
|
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4489 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 01:24:14
|
| Chaotic Good, doing good for personal gain. Also, I think good guys stab people in the back so long as it's 1) someone they perceive as evil or bad and 2) it will further along their agenda. For example a CG Rogue breaks into a rich merchants home who's been collecting FAR too much in taxes to make themselves rich. The point is to kill and/or rob the merchant but if a guard gets in the way *shrugs* the ends justify the means. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
 |
|
|
Fendrikor
Learned Scribe
Australia
189 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 06:43:57
|
Totally dissagree.
... Breaking into the merchants home and murdering him for fraud is hardly a good act... Killing the poor guard whos job it is to STOP the merchant from getting robbed for being Fabulously rich is also - hardly a good act.
A chaotic good character might break into the merchants house, find proof of his corruption and then spread the information to the masses. See the merchant run out of town by an angry mob. Spread bad word of mouth to make him lose buisness. make him the most hated man in town, demand action from the ruler etc. This would all be good. As it is positive change against corruption.
But back to the question, doing good for selfish reasons... I think, inherantly, all acts - good , evil or neutral - are selfish. now im no psychologist, but i feel selfish action is an attempt on our own part to exert control over how something goes to better control our own experiances.
however, to answer your question - I would say true neutral or chaotic neutral; as they are more focused on motive over morals. |
'Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup' |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4702 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 07:18:34
|
Hmm, doing good acts now to become rewarded somehow later? In some ways might be Neutral Evil, acting as a person that they really are not. They do not care about Good for the sake of being good, except how it will be paid back later. In many ways it depends though on expected rewards, to be able to sell goods at higher value then they are worth because they are buying from a "good person" clearly strikes me as acting to gain unfair advantage in the future.
It should be said slotting a character into an alignment because of one plan does not work well, alignment is the whole of life. Some good acts planned to gain advantage in the future would tend to be Evil, however there could be honor in dealing that would be lawful "His word is as good as a charter"
Also often depending on events a character shifts alignment, or at least tends to a shift, based on events of play and interaction.
A single plan of actions is not enough to provide an alignment assignment. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6447 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4489 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 15:09:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
Totally dissagree.
... Breaking into the merchants home and murdering him for fraud is hardly a good act... Killing the poor guard whos job it is to STOP the merchant from getting robbed for being Fabulously rich is also - hardly a good act.
Define Good please. Because I'm sure that the poor people think killing the merchant who's basically stealing from them is a good thing. If a guard gets in the way, incapacitate him by any means possible. If that means death, well the guard knew what he was getting into when he signed up for guard duty. Do you think that EVERY Englishman in Robin Hood who worked for the Sheriff was an evil "bad-guy"? More likely they were just there for the coin and had not agenda what-so-ever.
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
A chaotic good character might break into the merchants house, find proof of his corruption and then spread the information to the masses. See the merchant run out of town by an angry mob. Spread bad word of mouth to make him lose buisness. make him the most hated man in town, demand action from the ruler etc. This would all be good. As it is positive change against corruption.
And if the local Watch is too much for a group of poor, hungry, people to deal with, what then? If the people already know the merchant is taking too much in taxes? What then? Instead of attempting to get the people into a fury, which will ultimately claim some of their lives, would it not be easier for the guy to just sneak in and deal with the problem?
EDIT: This is also why I don't get into Alignment debates, because I find the system FAR to rigid in application to how people react in real life and there's FAR too much gray area to categorize into 9 separate points. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 10 Jul 2014 15:11:22 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36968 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 16:21:38
|
| I've never understood how nine general guidelines on behavior are considered too rigid... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Foxhelm
Senior Scribe
Canada
592 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 17:48:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never understood how nine general guidelines on behavior are considered too rigid...
I think it because certain aspects of the game require certain alignments (Classes, Monsters and so on), so the question of how much out of alignment behaviour is acceptable before penalties apply. And it's easier/lazier to be restrictive then adaptive in this case.
Rereading the 3.5 edition rule book...
To be of good alignment, or evil for that matter, is the desire to be good/evil for good/evil's sake. Otherwise it's neutral.
It's like the Gatetowns in the Outlands in the Outer Planes of the Great Wheel. They are the border of the planes of Neutrality and the planes devoted to an moral/ethical view. As long as they maintain their semi-neutrality, they remain on the Outlands. But if the city gets to devoted to a m/e point of view, they slide into the other plane. Like what keeps happening to the Abyss Gatetown, forget their name...
So a person who is good for selfish reasons are likely on the border of good (Chaotic, Lawful or Neutral), but will only remain as such as long as they do not begin to desire to help people just to help them, for no reward. It is a slight balance act.
PS: If you have watched Dark Matters, you may have learned of a math major who did a calculation which proved there are no unselfish action, as there is eventual even a sliver of selfish motive to even the most unselfish acts. He drove himself mad and broke trying to prove himself wrong, but didn't prove himself wrong.
He's a moral question: Is it wrong to perform a selfless act, even if it might have a slender selfish benefit for you? Or the goodness of a selfish act outweigh the selfishness? Why is doing good unselfishly seen as better then doing good for a benefit, if they both do good? |
Ed Greenwood! The Solution... and Cause of all the Realms Problems! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2014 : 18:34:49
|
If he doesn't care at all about people he helps, he's not good-aligned. If he cares about them a bit but wouldn't put his back out for them except for his own gain, he may be mildly good. Good doesn't require absolute altruism, just some benevolence and caring about other people.
The whole alignment grid, except the extremes, is a grey area, just one divided into nine squares . . . |
|
|
|
Fendrikor
Learned Scribe
Australia
189 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2014 : 10:05:29
|
@ Diffan
:) Ease up turbo, no great argument can exist without criticism. Ends justify the means, is fundamentally not good. Its a Utilitarian ethos, commonly attributed to neutral characters. 'No one gets left behind', could be considered a Good ethos, as it puts a high value on human life. 'human life' is a term that doesnt translate well over to DND as our world lacks the racial diversity to come up with a better term. our world also has no alignment system. however dnd does. It is full of one dimensional villain races that should have killed themselves into extinction long ago, or are somehow inexplicably thriving in exile. who knows.
Killing Orc Marauders, raping and murdering their way through the rural hinterlands - a good act. the people demand justice.
Breaking into the tower of an evil necromancer who has been animating bodies in grave yards to build an army to lay waste to the kingdom, then murdering him? - Good. He's a dangerous psychopath who exists outside society!
Killing a wealthy merchant suspected of tax fraud - an evil act. A, you would need proof he was committing tax fraud. B, breaking into his house to get that proof kinda means you broke the law too but hey - now that he is exposed the people will demand justice from the ruler, or else they will lose total confidence in him and it may incite a rebellion... the guards comprise of 1 permanent man for every 100 people in the village, or 10 militia... news flash, the people ARE the militia! Who is to say the Guards are on the Merchants side? with proof of his fraud he would be arrested and taken to the courts.. or in medieval times, dragged out into the streets by his fancy golden robes and stoned to death by the people. But lets say you cut strait to C instead of this.
C, Killing him yourself to save other people dieing in the subsequent bout of rioting that would occur when the proof gets out. Noble yes, but the decision condones the suffering of one, for the benefit of the many by means of Murdering him. Murder is not good. Trial and execution is fair (lawful path), and as barbaric as it seems - so too is frontier justice (chaotic path). though i cannot think what the neutral good path would do, i still do not feel they would murder someone in cold blood.
@Wooly Rupert
I prefer the 3.5 alignments to the 4th ed ones by far... 9 rough alignment boxes offers a broad amount of choice, within the bounds of how they are interpreted of course.
|
'Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup' |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4489 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2014 : 19:02:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
@ Diffan
:) Ease up turbo, no great argument can exist without criticism. Ends justify the means, is fundamentally not good. Its a Utilitarian ethos, commonly attributed to neutral characters. 'No one gets left behind', could be considered a Good ethos, as it puts a high value on human life. 'human life' is a term that doesn't translate well over to DND as our world lacks the racial diversity to come up with a better term.
Right, this is why I'm not big on the alignment system other than a sort of short-hand for how character's think. I feel it's all about perspective and is often subjective to it's participants. To Robin Hood, who a player might associate the Chaotic Good alignment to, is in a situation where a Guard (we'll say he's just a generic N-aligned mook) is standing in his way with sword brandished. Robin Hood needs to get through him to unlock the gate so that the Rebels and enter the castle. They fight and the Guard dies. Was Robin Hoods actions Good? Or, more importantly, does this change his alignment from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral? Even if, when the act is done and the castle invaded and the lives of peasants and villages is saved from the tyranny of Prince John?
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
our world also has no alignment system. however dnd does. It is full of one dimensional villain races that should have killed themselves into extinction long ago, or are somehow inexplicably thriving in exile. who knows.
Killing Orc Marauders, raping and murdering their way through the rural hinterlands - a good act. the people demand justice.
Why not just capture them instead of outright slaughter? Shouldn't they be made to profess their crimes to the people under a jury? What justice is done in tracking them down and killing them outright? Don't the people deserve to enact the justice?
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
Breaking into the tower of an evil necromancer who has been animating bodies in grave yards to build an army to lay waste to the kingdom, then murdering him? - Good. He's a dangerous psychopath who exists outside society!
I always find this scenario hilarious. How, exactly, do you know the Necromancer is evil? Or are you just making the assumption that he is because he raised the dead? And if he did raise the dead into zombies, how do you know for certain the undead are being created to laying waste the country side? How do you know he's not using the undead to tend to his fields of crops? Or to run his farm? Or because he's sees life as another part of death and that it hurts no one because the soul has already passed on and that the husks are viewed as lumps of clay to be molded to make the world better?
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
Killing a wealthy merchant suspected of tax fraud - an evil act.
Who said anything about "suspected". It's plain as day that he lives in riches while over a vast majority of the populace live in squalor and die from all sorts of diseases and malnutrition. It's evident to everyone that a tyrant of a Mayor/merchant/whatever is exacting TOO much from the local gentry. There's no speculation at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
A, you would need proof he was committing tax fraud.
Why? Like I said the majority of the people live in squalor while he lives in splendor it's evident to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
B, breaking into his house to get that proof kinda means you broke the law too but hey - now that he is exposed the people will demand justice from the ruler, or else they will lose total confidence in him and it may incite a rebellion... the guards comprise of 1 permanent man for every 100 people in the village, or 10 militia... news flash, the people ARE the militia! Who is to say the Guards are on the Merchants side? with proof of his fraud he would be arrested and taken to the courts.. or in medieval times, dragged out into the streets by his fancy golden robes and stoned to death by the people.
That's making a LOT of assumptions about this town. The guards are probably on his side because he's the one paying them to keep people in line. They keep people in line by using fear and physical punishments. The local lord goes down, who will the people turn on next? Probably the ones who were forcing them down on the physical level too. So it's within their best interests to keep the lord alive so that they A.) keep their pockets full of coin and their bellies fed and B.) without him, the mob of peasants will turn on them and there's not guarantee they'll be the guards for the next incumbent.
quote:
Originally posted by Fendrikor
But lets say you cut strait to C instead of this.
C, Killing him yourself to save other people dying in the subsequent bout of rioting that would occur when the proof gets out. Noble yes, but the decision condones the suffering of one, for the benefit of the many by means of Murdering him. Murder is not good. Trial and execution is fair (lawful path), and as barbaric as it seems - so too is frontier justice (chaotic path). though i cannot think what the neutral good path would do, i still do not feel they would murder someone in cold blood.
Trial and execution would probably not work since he controls the majority of the town and the people who would do the "judging" would know it. Further, your basing your assumption that the gentry have power in numbers when I've attempt to make it clear that they do not. Showing the people proof of what they already know is moot. Further, it wouldn't turn the guards against the guy because they know it too and are being paid by him. So, exposure to him being fraudulent is pointless (it's already seen) and the people who might have cared (the people) can't do anything about it because the subsequent death that will eventually occur due to any revolt. To someone who wants to see as few citizen deaths as possible (a good act) by bringing down the person who's responsible (another good act) it might just require that person's death (perhaps a bad act, but within the realm of justifiable).
See, the difference between Orc maurauders and the tyrant merchant/mayor/etc is that one's depredations is swift, exacting, and noticeable while the other is longer to take effect, slowly deteriorates the populace, and is generally overlooked because "such is our lot in life" mentality. Both have very similar effects (people die). Both have similar root causes (Orcs and Tyrants). So why is it "OK" to go out and kill orcs who are terrorizing people in a swift way while the other is not "OK" for someone who's terrorizing people over the course of a prolonged period?
Would it matter if the Mayor was an Orc and the ones doing the raping, pillaging, and terrorizing are humans? Does race come into the conflict at all?
Basically what I see is this: A town has a problem where there is a big overlord Tyrant who has pretty much total control of the town. He taxes the people WAAY too much. They can attempt to fight him and his guards and they even outnumber the guards 3 to 1. But they're not a military people, they have simple weapons and zero armor. They're fighting people who DO have training, weapons, armor and -frankly- numbers along will NOT get them though a foray.
In comes a guy who's sick of seeing Tyrants like this take advantage of "the people". He sees it as his duty to eliminate the threat (ie. the Tyrant) so that the people can start anew. Killing the Mayor/Tyrant/Merchant isn't the only thing this CG guy does. No, it's far more than that, it's just the first thing he does. Afterwards maybe he helps build up their infrastructure. He finds out who can manage the vacuum of power to be more beneficial to the populace. Perhaps even he steps in a regent until they can come up with some sort of hierarchy or government? But always, the first step is removal of the problem, and to ensure that there's no recourse, the elimination must be permanent.
To me, that's something a Chaotic Good person would do. Yes, it involves the death of a Tyrant. Yes it might involve the death of some guards who are protecting the tyrant. It's ultimately for the benefit of the people. It's for their protection. It's so they can prosper and grow. And if it benefits the character in the long run, if it gets him some gold or wealth, then OK great. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Copper Elven Vampire
Master of Realmslore
1078 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 13:25:37
|
| Chaotic Neutral for sure. Hands down. |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 23:01:54
|
| I have to agree with Copper Elven Vampire on this one; definitely Chaotic Neutral, although I've also seen evil characters in campaigns do something good, but only because it furthered their own goals. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3823 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2014 : 23:19:59
|
| I agree on chaotic neutral, but things like this are the reason I don't use alignments. As a DM, I'd rather ask the players to simply behave (in game, ofc) accordingly to the personality and ideals of their characters. Even evil characters can do good things for people they love, that's what would give a villain some depth, tbh. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 13 Jul 2014 23:21:44 |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2014 : 16:01:30
|
Yet another example of why the alignment system is a load of defective garbage that should have been relegated to the "optional" heap ages ago...
In my book, the motivation of the character is selfserving enrichment, and that puts the action in the "Evil" part of the alignment spectrum in my book. Depending upon how the act is carried out, it will determine whether it falls under the Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic part of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2014 : 16:40:02
|
Interesting comments to an interesting question. Here is my take: Alignment isn't a concrete package, it's abstract and can't always be spelled out clearly. Take an LG enforcer of the law. Is he 'non-lawful' if he breaks the law in order to do the right thing? Some laws are unjust are they not? If someone attacke this guy's wife and he found the perpetrator and beat the dogpoo out of him, does that make him non-lawful or is he acting LG in accordance with his own moral code (wherein he knows the perp is likely to get away with harming his old lady).
I think the example is still a LG person even though he broke the law and committed what might be considered a non-lawful/non-good act. Motivation is the key, I think. If a friend is captured by bloodthirsty cannibalistic rapists...do you shoot your friend with that Arrow of Never Ever Missing in order to spare them the horrors to follow? If you do, is it evil to do it? Or is it good? Somewhere in between? (Said friend may have escaped after all).
In my games I mainly concern myself with whether a person is good as opposed to evil. The Law/Chaos axis is a litte harder to pin down IMO. The real purpose of alignment is to get a general idea of the character's behavior...not crucify them with it.
|
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4256 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2014 : 16:42:25
|
I've played a Lawful Evil Assassin (1e) before that was a major contributor to a Chaotic Good Church. Why? Because it was a good front. He also contributed to orphanages, gave alms to the beggars and served in the City Watch (legit served...not pretended).
The fella also had friends, family and etc. I've always been confused by folks thinking someone can't be both Kind AND Evil...or on the flip side of the coin, Ruthless and Good.
Before anyone flips...just think of Criminals. Decidedly "evil" if they are drug dealers, murderers and etc; but they most likely have families. They have wives/husbands they love, children they cherish and etc.
So I think the Thief in this case most likely is doing good (like my assassin) simply to put on a front. Being wholly selfish (if they are) I would place them in the Neutral Evil box. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Alignment Question: Doing Good for Selfish Reasons
