While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
1. Lawfull - Chaotic which tell how much you like to play with the rules (here is what is confusing -> Lawfull dont mean actual laws but some rules)
Right, so lawful can be based on a personal code, as long as that personal code has rules / principles, and isn't just your whims. It can also be a non-personal, but non-legal code, like religious principles.
Yes, it is the "good" part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones.
I can see where you are getting mixed up.
You are interpreting it as "selfish" to follow your own principles. That is not the common meaning of selfish. To be selfish is to serve your own needs / wants / desires, not to make your own decisions.
Take a knight who follows a principle, "I will give my life to save the life of someone who has saved mine." Now it turns out the person who saved his life has been wrongly accused of a crime and is sentenced to death. The knight might break their friend out of prison. This prioritizes the knight's own principles over the laws of the land. But it is lawful based on the knight's principles. It is good independent of either the knight's principles or the laws of the land, because the friend is innocent and doesn't deserve to die.
No, im not mixing it up. Im using same definion, but as in you example knight still needs to make decision if he follows his own rules or societys. He clearly chooses brake to law and help his friend -> Neutral Good behavior -> Thats why slider slightly moves toward it
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
If there is conflict then player make as choice. If he/she do as his personal code says he/she should, then character is selfish and that Good-Neutral-Evil slider move slightly toward Neutral. After some amount of similar selfish acts character aligement changes to Lawfull Neutral. And thats pretty much all that happens. That aligment is not going to make difference anywhere...
I'm slightly confused on this one. You're saying that if a Lawful Good character (by your definition, IE following the law of the land) were to risk a fine/punishment by giving food to a starving beggar in a place where helping beggars were illegal, they would become less good?
But a chaotic good character doing the same would remain as good as before?
Giving food for starving beggar would make you slightly less lawfull. Person would still be "good" (selfless).
Chatoic good would remain same as he dont follow rules anyway.
While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
1. Lawfull - Chaotic which tell how much you like to play with the rules (here is what is confusing -> Lawfull dont mean actual laws but some rules)
Right, so lawful can be based on a personal code, as long as that personal code has rules / principles, and isn't just your whims. It can also be a non-personal, but non-legal code, like religious principles.
Yes, it is the "good" part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones.
While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
1. Lawfull - Chaotic which tell how much you like to play with the rules (here is what is confusing -> Lawfull dont mean actual laws but some rules)
Right, so lawful can be based on a personal code, as long as that personal code has rules / principles, and isn't just your whims. It can also be a non-personal, but non-legal code, like religious principles.
Yes, it is the "good" part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones.
I can see where you are getting mixed up.
You are interpreting it as "selfish" to follow your own principles. That is not the common meaning of selfish. To be selfish is to serve your own needs / wants / desires, not to make your own decisions.
Take a knight who follows a principle, "I will give my life to save the life of someone who has saved mine." Now it turns out the person who saved his life has been wrongly accused of a crime and is sentenced to death. The knight might break their friend out of prison. This prioritizes the knight's own principles over the laws of the land. But it is lawful based on the knight's principles. It is good independent of either the knight's principles or the laws of the land, because the friend is innocent and doesn't deserve to die.
No, im not mixing it up. Im using same definion, but as in you example knight still needs to make decision if he follows his own rules or societys. He clearly chooses brake to law and help his friend -> Neutral Good behavior -> Thats why slider slightly moves toward it
You dont change immediately to NG and some other act might move it slightly back again to LG so that why I also say it is constantly moving. How you act most of the time is ultimately where you aligment lies.
Whether choosing your own personal code over society's norms changes how Lawful you are or how Good you are appears to vary from one example to the next. That's actually more or less correct (other than that in most cases it wouldn't meaningfully change where the character is on either scale, in my opinion), but it doesn't really support your argument. It's all contextual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think the whole "lawful means you follow the law" argument relies entirely on a perfectly upheld and faultlessly defined legal system, free of corruption and mistakes.
We may be talking to a Modron here...
In reality though, no legal system is flawless. Most are contradictory at best, and generally are heavily corrupt. Look at basically any trial in the UK or USA - the richer person almost always wins. In divorces, the man tends to lose everything. America's legal system is built around Baseball, and is essentially a new form of slavery. These are the "Good" societal legal systems you might consider.
In the case of a knight who swore to do good and holds himself to that, he is lawful good. The above example is an excellent proof of how your interpretation falls apart - if the law is doing things which are unlawful (convicting someone falsely), it is unlawful to fight against it? "fighting for the truth" and all that jazz?
IMO, if the knight mentioned in previous posts does anything but try to uphold his promise, then he is not acting as a lawful person would. He's taking the easy route "love to help, but the law and all" rather than the right one. That's neutral.
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws)? Then sift happens in good/evil scale.
If a knight breaks the rules because he lost faith in the rules he doesn't shift from lawful/rule-abiding to chaotic/rule-breaking, but from good to evil (well, neutral at least)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws)? Then sift happens in good/evil scale.
If a knight breaks the rules because he lost faith in the rules he doesn't shift from lawful/rule-abiding to chaotic/rule-breaking, but from good to evil (well, neutral at least)?
If he didnt lost faith in rules general (ie in his personal rules or codes.) just society determined ones. -> start to be more selfish ie toward to LN
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
Believe it or not, this is actually self-consistent.
In my example it was not clear, but the knight went against society's laws because they conflicted with his own principles. If the friend was wrongly accused, but the knight did not owe a life debt to him, he would have not taken such extreme measures. And in fact, this same knight might have rescued the prisoner, even if he was guilty, because of his debt of honor. But he would have felt bad about it. In that case, I would agree he moves toward Lawful Neutral. But in this case, the man was innocent so the act was good. It doesn't make sense you that you can become less good by doing a good act.
What you are saying is that conforming to society's rules is good. Not conforming to society's rules is evil. You would regard freeing an innocent man from prison as an evil act, since it breaks society's rules. Effectively, you are saying that a society can never be evil.
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
Believe it or not, this is actually self-consistent.
In my example it was not clear, but the knight went against society's laws because they conflicted with his own principles. If the friend was wrongly accused, but the knight did not owe a life debt to him, he would have not taken such extreme measures. And in fact, this same knight might have rescued the prisoner, even if he was guilty, because of his debt of honor. But he would have felt bad about it. In that case, I would agree he moves toward Lawful Neutral. But in this case, the man was innocent so the act was good. It doesn't make sense you that you can become less good by doing a good act.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense. It was more of selfish (versus against "will of society" aka law) act and made you more selfish.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense.
But they are the terms. You're free to use what you want for your games, but if we're not on the same page about what we're discussing there's not much point, is there?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One of the problems I’m seeing here is the conflict between consequentialism, dentology, and virtue ethics. All have different definitions of good and evil.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an act is dependent on its results.
Dentology argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the act itself.
Virtue ethics argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the motive.
Philosophers have been arguing about these for years, and I doubt we’ll be able to settle the question on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. IMO, it’s a non-starter.
OP, can't give you advice on your specific question, but I play like this:
Since there are no player character mechanics that depend on alignment (paladins have oaths now etc), the characters don't have alignment. But at session 0 we talk about the expectations of moral conduct för a specific campaign, I e moral gray is fine, but no pure evil, psychopath mass murdering villagers etc. Or whatever fit a specific campaign.
But I really like alignment for the rest of my game world, with absolute good and evil, philosophical concepts that can manifest physically and so on.
So: Characters don't use alignment, but gods, monsters, npc etc does.
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
Believe it or not, this is actually self-consistent.
In my example it was not clear, but the knight went against society's laws because they conflicted with his own principles. If the friend was wrongly accused, but the knight did not owe a life debt to him, he would have not taken such extreme measures. And in fact, this same knight might have rescued the prisoner, even if he was guilty, because of his debt of honor. But he would have felt bad about it. In that case, I would agree he moves toward Lawful Neutral. But in this case, the man was innocent so the act was good. It doesn't make sense you that you can become less good by doing a good act.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense. It was more of selfish (versus against "will of society" aka law) act and made you more selfish.
One of the problems I’m seeing here is the conflict between consequentialism, dentology, and virtue ethics. All have different definitions of good and evil.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an act is dependent on its results.
Dentology argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the act itself.
Virtue ethics argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the motive.
Philosophers have been arguing about these for years, and I doubt we’ll be able to settle the question on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. IMO, it’s a non-starter.
Fair, but the fact that morality is an ongoing debate among a professional intellectual caste doesn't stop governments, professions, communities in the flesh and virtual from drawing lines between right and wrong. I still think the real conflict in this discussion are folks who see alignment as prescriptive, as it "[allegedly] use to be" vs. what others have recognized in 5e's use of alignment in character generation as a set simple terms that can be combined to start a player's determination of their character's morality. "Lawful is this" and "Neutral is that" and "Good and Evil pivot on this inflection point" can only be painted in the broadest of brushstrokes. So to go back to the actual question starting this thread, a Necromancer can align themselves in a variety of ways depending on how both they, "culture" but I'd say most importantly a (like it or not, no gods no masters folks) "natural law to the game's universe" (unless you have a truly ambivalent cosmology, in which case why are all those divinities even bothering granting Clerics access to magic?) are articulated in the game.
So what alignment should a Necromancer be who is trying to beat death? Was Dr. Frankenstein good or evil? Arrogant? Sure. Defiant of "natural law?" Sure. But it's been a while and I don't really know where he lands morally, or if he lands somewhere morally. Later interpretations of Frankenstein place him in various spots on the Good to Evil spectrum, the definition largely dependent on the world building of the setting.
I will say these conversations get abstract, and enough to the poster has been written that they probably have enough to take their concept and talk it over with the DM to jointly figure ou where this character aligns.
One of the problems I’m seeing here is the conflict between consequentialism, dentology, and virtue ethics. All have different definitions of good and evil.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an act is dependent on its results.
Dentology argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the act itself.
Virtue ethics argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the motive.
Philosophers have been arguing about these for years, and I doubt we’ll be able to settle the question on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. IMO, it’s a non-starter.
It's not a problem, because we have a multi-axis alignment chart. The correspondence is not precise, but roughly:
Consequentialism corresponds to the good / evil axis.
Deontology corresponds to the lawful / chaotic axis. It depends on a set of principles, such as, "Thou shalt not kill." Or your principle could be to comply with legitimate authority, for some definition of legitimate (elected, divine right, etc.).
Virtue ethics may or may not have a bearing. If your purpose in using the concept of alignment is to guide your role playing of a character, then you need your alignment to depend on your motives, because coincidentally accomplishing good or evil acts doesn't predict how you will act next. If your purpose is to hand out in-game rewards or punishments, such as right to use certain magic items or play certain classes, then you might or might not assign significance to motives.
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
Believe it or not, this is actually self-consistent.
In my example it was not clear, but the knight went against society's laws because they conflicted with his own principles. If the friend was wrongly accused, but the knight did not owe a life debt to him, he would have not taken such extreme measures. And in fact, this same knight might have rescued the prisoner, even if he was guilty, because of his debt of honor. But he would have felt bad about it. In that case, I would agree he moves toward Lawful Neutral. But in this case, the man was innocent so the act was good. It doesn't make sense you that you can become less good by doing a good act.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense. It was more of selfish (versus against "will of society" aka law) act and made you more selfish.
If you are replacing evil with selfish, and defining selfish as against law, then you now have a Lawful - Evil axis, not a Good - Evil axis.
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale.
So you can break society's rules and remain Lawful (Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil).
If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
And you can break society's rules and remain Good (Neutral Good or Chaotic Good).
But you seem to be saying you cannot break society's laws and remain perfectly Lawful Good.
That contradicts when you said it was simple and can be evaluated independently on each axis.
While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
The scales are not individual if the same action can leave you unaffected on either scale, but not unaffected on both simultaneously. And it's not simple if it depends on motivation (which I think it does, but you can have both a Good motivation and a Lawful motivation even while breaking society's rules).
Everyone can interpret any rules what ever they like, but im curious why you make claim that you know what most think? Are you some general "voice of the DM's" person?
Most people on here seem to be arguing against your interpretation.
And Im also curious why you think Im saying its "clear cut". Im saying quite opposite, its constantly sifting one depending on decisions.
You are pretty adamant that Lawful Good characters is more about following external laws than having a personal code, despite alignments themselves are fuzzy and the alignment descriptions should be treated as typical examples rather than as paragons.
Higher courts exist because there are laws that conflict with each other and there are laws that are even outright unlawful, and what is considered a crime in one jurisdiction could be considered lawful in another jurisdiction or even in the same jurisdiction. Smoking weed is perfectly legal in California because state law allows it, but it is also illegal at the same time under federal law. There are also laws that are unconstitutional that are struck down by the Supreme Court on a regular basis, so just because you are following a law does not mean you are exactly lawful either, as you can be lawful and unlawful at the same time.
Since you cannot even count on laws to be consistent nor legal, often times personal codes that appeal to higher ideals can provide that consistency and framework that laws can be derived from, and then further adapted and adjusted as necessary. Following a personal code or higher ideal can be more lawful than just simply following the law or whatever society expects from you, as following an illegal law does not mean your are lawful, and blindly following tradition and societal expectation certainly does not mean you are lawful if society is experiencing social change or a culture war where you are breaking expectations no matter what you do.
What you are saying is that conforming to society's rules is good. Not conforming to society's rules is evil. You would regard freeing an innocent man from prison as an evil act, since it breaks society's rules. Effectively, you are saying that a society can never be evil.
No, as I have said many times before. Good = selfless, evil = selfish. So your argument it would be:
What you are saying is that conforming to society's rules is selfless. Not conforming to society's rules is selfish. You would regard freeing an innocent man from prison as an selfish act, since it breaks society's rules. Effectively, you are saying that a society can never be selfish.
And no, Im not anywhere said society cannot be evil or selfish. Society can be wrong, but acting against societys laws wont make you right (or "good") either. Lets turn that knight story to modern world. What would modern society do if you would break in prison and free one prisoner even when you know he is not quilty?You would be sentenced anyway because in societys eyes that prisoner was guilty, unless legally found otherwise.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense.
But they are the terms. You're free to use what you want for your games, but if we're not on the same page about what we're discussing there's not much point, is there?
Well I have been saying what im mean many times in this very thread. Only now you get it? Good/Evil are even more broad terms and makes morality even harder (as was example that "burning the withces" -> which was "good" thing somepoint in history)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hang on. Before you said, "it is the 'good' part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones." In this case, the knight prioritized his own rules above society's. Based on your statement, that would place him in conflict with Good. If any sliding were to happen according to your definition, it would be sliding toward Lawful Neutral.
But I don't agree that any sliding at all happens, because his actions are perfectly compatible with Lawful, in that they uphold his personal code, and with Good, in that he helps an innocent person. The fact that personal code is not mentioned in the description for Lawful Good is simply because that section describes a typical Lawful Good person, and a typical Lawful Good person lives in a Good society and their personal code doesn't deviate much from society's laws. However that is not necessarily the case.
Whether choosing your own personal code over society's norms changes how Lawful you are or how Good you are appears to vary from one example to the next. That's actually more or less correct (other than that in most cases it wouldn't meaningfully change where the character is on either scale, in my opinion), but it doesn't really support your argument. It's all contextual.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think the whole "lawful means you follow the law" argument relies entirely on a perfectly upheld and faultlessly defined legal system, free of corruption and mistakes.
We may be talking to a Modron here...
In reality though, no legal system is flawless. Most are contradictory at best, and generally are heavily corrupt. Look at basically any trial in the UK or USA - the richer person almost always wins. In divorces, the man tends to lose everything. America's legal system is built around Baseball, and is essentially a new form of slavery. These are the "Good" societal legal systems you might consider.
In the case of a knight who swore to do good and holds himself to that, he is lawful good. The above example is an excellent proof of how your interpretation falls apart - if the law is doing things which are unlawful (convicting someone falsely), it is unlawful to fight against it? "fighting for the truth" and all that jazz?
IMO, if the knight mentioned in previous posts does anything but try to uphold his promise, then he is not acting as a lawful person would. He's taking the easy route "love to help, but the law and all" rather than the right one. That's neutral.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Well, knight is LG and by (my) defion he thinks at the start society rules are more important than personal rules. Ofourse motive why knight break the rules is important. Is it becuase he lost faith in society rules (laws) or that personal rules are more important? Then sift happens in good/evil scale. If he helps because is his friend deserves to live and that is more important than law then it happens in lawfull/chaotic scale as he knowingly break rules.
What I think LG person would probably do is make everything possible legally to get his friend free. If that fails he might break the law (and taking hit eithert lafull/chatoci or good/evil depending why) or dont do anything and let his friend die and possibly lose "faith in humanoidity" (society) and take big hit to good/evil scale anycase.
If a knight breaks the rules because he lost faith in the rules he doesn't shift from lawful/rule-abiding to chaotic/rule-breaking, but from good to evil (well, neutral at least)?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If he didnt lost faith in rules general (ie in his personal rules or codes.) just society determined ones. -> start to be more selfish ie toward to LN
Believe it or not, this is actually self-consistent.
In my example it was not clear, but the knight went against society's laws because they conflicted with his own principles. If the friend was wrongly accused, but the knight did not owe a life debt to him, he would have not taken such extreme measures. And in fact, this same knight might have rescued the prisoner, even if he was guilty, because of his debt of honor. But he would have felt bad about it. In that case, I would agree he moves toward Lawful Neutral. But in this case, the man was innocent so the act was good. It doesn't make sense you that you can become less good by doing a good act.
What you are saying is that conforming to society's rules is good. Not conforming to society's rules is evil. You would regard freeing an innocent man from prison as an evil act, since it breaks society's rules. Effectively, you are saying that a society can never be evil.
IMO Good/Evil are not good terms. Thats why I prefer to use selfless/selfish which make much more sense. It was more of selfish (versus against "will of society" aka law) act and made you more selfish.
But they are the terms. You're free to use what you want for your games, but if we're not on the same page about what we're discussing there's not much point, is there?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One of the problems I’m seeing here is the conflict between consequentialism, dentology, and virtue ethics. All have different definitions of good and evil.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an act is dependent on its results.
Dentology argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the act itself.
Virtue ethics argues that the morality of an act is dependent on the motive.
Philosophers have been arguing about these for years, and I doubt we’ll be able to settle the question on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. IMO, it’s a non-starter.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
OP, can't give you advice on your specific question, but I play like this:
Since there are no player character mechanics that depend on alignment (paladins have oaths now etc), the characters don't have alignment. But at session 0 we talk about the expectations of moral conduct för a specific campaign, I e moral gray is fine, but no pure evil, psychopath mass murdering villagers etc. Or whatever fit a specific campaign.
But I really like alignment for the rest of my game world, with absolute good and evil, philosophical concepts that can manifest physically and so on.
So: Characters don't use alignment, but gods, monsters, npc etc does.
That is not what selfish means.
Fair, but the fact that morality is an ongoing debate among a professional intellectual caste doesn't stop governments, professions, communities in the flesh and virtual from drawing lines between right and wrong. I still think the real conflict in this discussion are folks who see alignment as prescriptive, as it "[allegedly] use to be" vs. what others have recognized in 5e's use of alignment in character generation as a set simple terms that can be combined to start a player's determination of their character's morality. "Lawful is this" and "Neutral is that" and "Good and Evil pivot on this inflection point" can only be painted in the broadest of brushstrokes. So to go back to the actual question starting this thread, a Necromancer can align themselves in a variety of ways depending on how both they, "culture" but I'd say most importantly a (like it or not, no gods no masters folks) "natural law to the game's universe" (unless you have a truly ambivalent cosmology, in which case why are all those divinities even bothering granting Clerics access to magic?) are articulated in the game.
So what alignment should a Necromancer be who is trying to beat death? Was Dr. Frankenstein good or evil? Arrogant? Sure. Defiant of "natural law?" Sure. But it's been a while and I don't really know where he lands morally, or if he lands somewhere morally. Later interpretations of Frankenstein place him in various spots on the Good to Evil spectrum, the definition largely dependent on the world building of the setting.
I will say these conversations get abstract, and enough to the poster has been written that they probably have enough to take their concept and talk it over with the DM to jointly figure ou where this character aligns.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It's not a problem, because we have a multi-axis alignment chart. The correspondence is not precise, but roughly:
Consequentialism corresponds to the good / evil axis.
Deontology corresponds to the lawful / chaotic axis. It depends on a set of principles, such as, "Thou shalt not kill." Or your principle could be to comply with legitimate authority, for some definition of legitimate (elected, divine right, etc.).
Virtue ethics may or may not have a bearing. If your purpose in using the concept of alignment is to guide your role playing of a character, then you need your alignment to depend on your motives, because coincidentally accomplishing good or evil acts doesn't predict how you will act next. If your purpose is to hand out in-game rewards or punishments, such as right to use certain magic items or play certain classes, then you might or might not assign significance to motives.
If you are replacing evil with selfish, and defining selfish as against law, then you now have a Lawful - Evil axis, not a Good - Evil axis.
So you can break society's rules and remain Lawful (Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil).
And you can break society's rules and remain Good (Neutral Good or Chaotic Good).
But you seem to be saying you cannot break society's laws and remain perfectly Lawful Good.
That contradicts when you said it was simple and can be evaluated independently on each axis.
The scales are not individual if the same action can leave you unaffected on either scale, but not unaffected on both simultaneously. And it's not simple if it depends on motivation (which I think it does, but you can have both a Good motivation and a Lawful motivation even while breaking society's rules).
Most people on here seem to be arguing against your interpretation.
You are pretty adamant that Lawful Good characters is more about following external laws than having a personal code, despite alignments themselves are fuzzy and the alignment descriptions should be treated as typical examples rather than as paragons.
Higher courts exist because there are laws that conflict with each other and there are laws that are even outright unlawful, and what is considered a crime in one jurisdiction could be considered lawful in another jurisdiction or even in the same jurisdiction. Smoking weed is perfectly legal in California because state law allows it, but it is also illegal at the same time under federal law. There are also laws that are unconstitutional that are struck down by the Supreme Court on a regular basis, so just because you are following a law does not mean you are exactly lawful either, as you can be lawful and unlawful at the same time.
Since you cannot even count on laws to be consistent nor legal, often times personal codes that appeal to higher ideals can provide that consistency and framework that laws can be derived from, and then further adapted and adjusted as necessary. Following a personal code or higher ideal can be more lawful than just simply following the law or whatever society expects from you, as following an illegal law does not mean your are lawful, and blindly following tradition and societal expectation certainly does not mean you are lawful if society is experiencing social change or a culture war where you are breaking expectations no matter what you do.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
No, as I have said many times before. Good = selfless, evil = selfish. So your argument it would be:
What you are saying is that conforming to society's rules is selfless. Not conforming to society's rules is selfish. You would regard freeing an innocent man from prison as an selfish act, since it breaks society's rules. Effectively, you are saying that a society can never be selfish.
And no, Im not anywhere said society cannot be evil or selfish. Society can be wrong, but acting against societys laws wont make you right (or "good") either. Lets turn that knight story to modern world. What would modern society do if you would break in prison and free one prisoner even when you know he is not quilty? You would be sentenced anyway because in societys eyes that prisoner was guilty, unless legally found otherwise.
Well I have been saying what im mean many times in this very thread. Only now you get it? Good/Evil are even more broad terms and makes morality even harder (as was example that "burning the withces" -> which was "good" thing somepoint in history)