The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
"The PHB is wrong here" -> You are literally arguing against RAW :) You can play how you like, but in RAW Lawfull good put society rules above personal ones.
"Evil" society in D&D terms put inviduals above others (good, neutral, evil is just slider how much person is selfless or selfish)
It's more that lawful good characters have a standard by which they feel society should function. A lawful good character in a town oppressed by the government and their excessive laws will not happily be like "well, that's just the law!".
If a lawful good (heroic) person were to travel back in time to the 18th century and witness a woman being tied up and burnt as a witch, they wouldn't just be like "well, as long as it's legal then I guess it's good!".
A Lawful Good person in real life would not look at the case where many people with physical disabilities are marked as fit for work because they are asked if they could walk half a mile, and they answer "yes, but it would hurt a lot and I'd be crippled for a day afterwards", and the person making the survey just ticks "Yes", and their benefits are denied, and think that it was right.
But the issue there isn't in whether the Phb has it right - it's in the confusion between "Society" and "the law". If someone speeds on their way home to get to their significant other who is hurt, and no-one else was hurt, then the law says they get a speeding ticket, but anyone you ask about it would say "that's just harsh, they needed to get there!". Society is about what the people consider normal and right. "The Law" allows you to shoot a welshman from the border with a longbow on a certain day, but society would not consider such an act as lawful or good.
Take an extreme example - the Purge. For those unfamiliar, the concept is that once per year, on one day only, you can kill each other. It's part of the law of the land. Does that allow a lawful good character to go full murderhobo for a day without it actually affecting whether they are lawful or good?
I already anwered this to previous posts. Your aligment is compared what you are used to. Not cultural differences.
"What you describe is totally diffent cultural enviroment. What Lawfull usually is compared is what you are used to and what im comparing to. Lets say "normal" good society -> lawfull good cannot start to resist laws there forcefully wihtout starting to sift more neutral (either in that you totally disregard rules or by that think that your rules are more important than others -> making action more like of "Neutral")."
I think that this is just highlighting one of the issues with the alignment in itself.
On the one hand, we have the idea that alignment is based off your cultural norms, which is to say "I was brought up in a town where we burnt witches, and it was the law to burn witches, so if I go anywhere and burn witches that is still lawful".
On the other hand, we have the COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE - any ability or magical item which functions differently for someones alignment, suggesting that there is some omnipotent judge who is deciding who's naughty and who's nice. If a weapon functions differently for a lawful or chaotic being, if two people work together to burn a witch, one can be lawful whilst the other is chaotic, thus one can use the weapon whilst the other can't?
This then suggests that cultural upbringing is somehow an excuse for behaviour, like saying "I'm still lawful good, because I brought my own laws with me whilst I destroy this aboriginal population so that I can wipe out all the animals and ship their skins back to my homeland".
Alignment (realistically) is based on where you stand. There is a poem somewhere about the man who worked in auschwitz stopping on the way home to buy his infant son a chocolate bar. To his son, he was good. To (most of the world) he was evil, or neutral at best. But that's not how alignment works in d&d. You don't change alignment based on who's asking. So we return to the idea of an omnipotent santa figure judging everyone.
As such, Lawful Good needs to be defined outside of cultural bias. The "Lawful" means that they follow a strict set of rules - make it the law of the land if you want, but you don't have to - and "Good" means selfless, for the most part, as you said.
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
LG in the PHB talks about doing the Right Thing, as expected by society. That's more about being Good than being Lawful; the Lawful part comes in because it's society that determines what the right thing to do is. It doesn't stop the character from having a personal code as well though. That personal code will likely largely be in line with societal norms, but it's possible that they conflict occasionally as well. A LG character might give to beggars because their personal code says to help the weak and feed the hungry, even if begging itself might be forbidden in whatever city they're in, for instance. Or they could be more strict than what society expects, like being vegan among vegetarians. Just one line in the PHB isn't enough to explain all the nuance of an alignment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think that this is just highlighting one of the issues with the alignment in itself.
On the one hand, we have the idea that alignment is based off your cultural norms, which is to say "I was brought up in a town where we burnt witches, and it was the law to burn witches, so if I go anywhere and burn witches that is still lawful".
On the other hand, we have the COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE - any ability or magical item which functions differently for someones alignment, suggesting that there is some omnipotent judge who is deciding who's naughty and who's nice. If a weapon functions differently for a lawful or chaotic being, if two people work together to burn a witch, one can be lawful whilst the other is chaotic, thus one can use the weapon whilst the other can't?
This then suggests that cultural upbringing is somehow an excuse for behaviour, like saying "I'm still lawful good, because I brought my own laws with me whilst I destroy this aboriginal population so that I can wipe out all the animals and ship their skins back to my homeland".
Alignment (realistically) is based on where you stand. There is a poem somewhere about the man who worked in auschwitz stopping on the way home to buy his infant son a chocolate bar. To his son, he was good. To (most of the world) he was evil, or neutral at best. But that's not how alignment works in d&d. You don't change alignment based on who's asking. So we return to the idea of an omnipotent santa figure judging everyone.
As such, Lawful Good needs to be defined outside of cultural bias. The "Lawful" means that they follow a strict set of rules - make it the law of the land if you want, but you don't have to - and "Good" means selfless, for the most part, as you said.
There is no more COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE in D&D 5E aligments. And realistically where you live (cultural background) determine what is lawfull or not (and historically burning witches "was good thing to do" for awhile)
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
LG in the PHB talks about doing the Right Thing, as expected by society. That's more about being Good than being Lawful; the Lawful part comes in because it's society that determines what the right thing to do is. It doesn't stop the character from having a personal code as well though. That personal code will likely largely be in line with societal norms, but it's possible that they conflict occasionally as well. A LG character might give to beggars because their personal code says to help the weak and feed the hungry, even if begging itself might be forbidden in whatever city they're in, for instance. Or they could be more strict than what society expects, like being vegan among vegetarians. Just one line in the PHB isn't enough to explain all the nuance of an alignment.
As I said before, it doesnt stop having personal code, but that as you are "good" (selfless) you make society (read other people rules = laws in civilized country) rules more important than your personal ones. That leads if there is conflict LG person would follow society rules.
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
LG in the PHB talks about doing the Right Thing, as expected by society. That's more about being Good than being Lawful; the Lawful part comes in because it's society that determines what the right thing to do is. It doesn't stop the character from having a personal code as well though. That personal code will likely largely be in line with societal norms, but it's possible that they conflict occasionally as well. A LG character might give to beggars because their personal code says to help the weak and feed the hungry, even if begging itself might be forbidden in whatever city they're in, for instance. Or they could be more strict than what society expects, like being vegan among vegetarians. Just one line in the PHB isn't enough to explain all the nuance of an alignment.
As I said before, it doesnt stop having personal code, but that as you are "good" (selfless) you make society (read other people rules = laws in civilized country) rules more important than your personal ones. That leads if there is conflict LG person would follow society rules.
I'd argue that if there's conflict about what the lawful thing to do is, a LG person would likely decide what to do based on what they judge to be the most Good. It all depends though - some characters will be more Lawful than Good, others will be more Good than Lawful, sometimes the action they're contemplating will accomplish a lot of Good while only requiring a minor infraction of the Law, sometimes it will be the other way around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
LG in the PHB talks about doing the Right Thing, as expected by society. That's more about being Good than being Lawful; the Lawful part comes in because it's society that determines what the right thing to do is. It doesn't stop the character from having a personal code as well though. That personal code will likely largely be in line with societal norms, but it's possible that they conflict occasionally as well. A LG character might give to beggars because their personal code says to help the weak and feed the hungry, even if begging itself might be forbidden in whatever city they're in, for instance. Or they could be more strict than what society expects, like being vegan among vegetarians. Just one line in the PHB isn't enough to explain all the nuance of an alignment.
As I said before, it doesnt stop having personal code, but that as you are "good" (selfless) you make society (read other people rules = laws in civilized country) rules more important than your personal ones. That leads if there is conflict LG person would follow society rules.
I'd argue that if there's conflict about what the lawful thing to do is, a LG person would likely decide what to do based on what they judge to be the most Good. It all depends though - some characters will be more Lawful than Good, others will be more Good than Lawful, sometimes the action they're contemplating will accomplish a lot of Good while only requiring a minor infraction of the Law, sometimes it will be the other way around.
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...
There is no more COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE in D&D 5E aligments. And realistically where you live (cultural background) determine what is lawfull or not (and historically burning witches "was good thing to do" for awhile)
As I said before, it doesnt stop having personal code, but that as you are "good" (selfless) you make society (read other people rules = laws in civilized country) rules more important than your personal ones. That leads if there is conflict LG person would follow society rules.
There absolutely is a cosmic santa claus in D&D. Good and evil in D&D are defined by some higher form of judgement, and not based on circumstance. The results of "Detect good & evil" don't change depending on who casts them - thus it is that, no matter where you go, your alignment remains the same.
As for burning witches being a "good thing to do" for a time - not really. It was an evil thing, which people were manipulated into doing by fanatical religeous zealots, who seem to think that there is a hell but that burning innocent women would not land them there. It's almost enough to make one wish they were correct about hell existing, just so that they themselves are having to burn there for what they did.
I'd argue that if there's conflict about what the lawful thing to do is, a LG person would likely decide what to do based on what they judge to be the most Good. It all depends though - some characters will be more Lawful than Good, others will be more Good than Lawful, sometimes the action they're contemplating will accomplish a lot of Good while only requiring a minor infraction of the Law, sometimes it will be the other way around.
100% this. There's too much grey on alignment without including laws, which are generally put in place for the "greater good". Like how it's (somehow) legal to put spikes under outside stairs to discourage people who are sleeping rough from actually being under shelter whilst they sleep (should have thought of that before they became peasants, eh?).
What does a lawful good person do when the laws of the country are evil? It's not compatible - "Lawful" as an alignment cannot mean "always follows the law of the land". If Lawful means following the laws of the land, you could only ever be Lawful Neutral - because there are a lot of laws out there which aren't good.
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?
what alignment would a character that wants to save life but choose necromancy too do it (resurrection but with their soul)
Rather than think of it in terms of alignment, have you thought about it in terms of a character form a book or film?
For instance, based on what you said I think Dr Frankenstein is probably quite apt for your idea. He was a prodigy in medicine but took research and experimentation to far, so your character could be of a similar cast. In terms of alignment you'd liekly start off Chaotic Good as you have good intnetions but ignore the morales of society but drift to Chaotic Neutral as you become more driven to accomplish your goals and delve intot he less savoury side of medicine such as grave robbing. You can start off with a background that gives Medicine as a skill proficicnecy (or maybe reflvaour the Guild Artisan to reflect working in a hospital) but you took up adventuring when you repeatedly failed ot save the lives of those under your care and set of to find answers, this could lead down a path of self taught Wizardry if you came into possession of a spell book before you left, or maybe some godly worship with Grave domain cleric and eventually lead you down a path of trying to use necromancy to create life instead of undeath.
There absolutely is a cosmic santa claus in D&D. Good and evil in D&D are defined by some higher form of judgement, and not based on circumstance. The results of "Detect good & evil" don't change depending on who casts them - thus it is that, no matter where you go, your alignment remains the same.
As for burning witches being a "good thing to do" for a time - not really. It was an evil thing, which people were manipulated into doing by fanatical religeous zealots, who seem to think that there is a hell but that burning innocent women would not land them there. It's almost enough to make one wish they were correct about hell existing, just so that they themselves are having to burn there for what they did.
Good and evil are just selfless and selfish and determined by cultures worshipped gods in D&D (there in not "one". There are many. Orcourse this can be setting thing aswell). And "burning witches" really was believed to be good at the time (orcourse it was orchestrated by church and manipulatd heavely to get personal gains. Point tought is people really also believed that). You cannot use nowdays standars to medieval times. Or any other culterers standard some thing elses.
What does a lawful good person do when the laws of the country are evil? It's not compatible - "Lawful" as an alignment cannot mean "always follows the law of the land". If Lawful means following the laws of the land, you could only ever be Lawful Neutral - because there are a lot of laws out there which aren't good.
Person dont have to do anything or he can do everything (LG dont meant that you have to do something). It his society rules that person follows. If person is born in such as society he cannot know anything else and is IE Lawfull Evil at start (If LE is society "norm"). But he can change afterwards after person learns that there is other ways.
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). LG person might just give him a work to earn his pay if just direclty giving food would be illegal -> which could be still "lawfull" and "good"
Chatic good would remain same as he dont follow rules anyway.
The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
"The PHB is wrong here" -> You are literally arguing against RAW :) You can play how you like, but in RAW Lawfull good put society rules above personal ones.
"Evil" society in D&D terms put inviduals above others (good, neutral, evil is just slider how much person is selfless or selfish)
These are not rules.
""These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
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.
""These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
So with same logic you are arguing there are no rules at all when DM guide reads: "As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them" :D
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.
""These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
So with same logic you are arguing there are no rules at all when DM guide reads: "As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them" :D
At your table, you can interpret the DMG however you want. For most GMs though, they would disagree with your interpretation, as alignment is not something as clear cut as you make it out to be.
""These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
So with same logic you are arguing there are no rules at all when DM guide reads: "As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them" :D
At your table, you can interpret the DMG however you want. For most GMs though, they would disagree with your interpretation, as alignment is not something as clear cut as you make it out to be.
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?
And Im also curious why you think Im saying its "clear cut". Im saying quite opposite, its constantly sifting one depending on decisions.
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.
It is in no way selfish. The knight might suffer great personal loss and little gain as a result of aiding an outlaw.
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.
I already anwered this to previous posts. Your aligment is compared what you are used to. Not cultural differences.
"What you describe is totally diffent cultural enviroment. What Lawfull usually is compared is what you are used to and what im comparing to. Lets say "normal" good society -> lawfull good cannot start to resist laws there forcefully wihtout starting to sift more neutral (either in that you totally disregard rules or by that think that your rules are more important than others -> making action more like of "Neutral")."
I think that this is just highlighting one of the issues with the alignment in itself.
On the one hand, we have the idea that alignment is based off your cultural norms, which is to say "I was brought up in a town where we burnt witches, and it was the law to burn witches, so if I go anywhere and burn witches that is still lawful".
On the other hand, we have the COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE - any ability or magical item which functions differently for someones alignment, suggesting that there is some omnipotent judge who is deciding who's naughty and who's nice. If a weapon functions differently for a lawful or chaotic being, if two people work together to burn a witch, one can be lawful whilst the other is chaotic, thus one can use the weapon whilst the other can't?
This then suggests that cultural upbringing is somehow an excuse for behaviour, like saying "I'm still lawful good, because I brought my own laws with me whilst I destroy this aboriginal population so that I can wipe out all the animals and ship their skins back to my homeland".
Alignment (realistically) is based on where you stand. There is a poem somewhere about the man who worked in auschwitz stopping on the way home to buy his infant son a chocolate bar. To his son, he was good. To (most of the world) he was evil, or neutral at best. But that's not how alignment works in d&d. You don't change alignment based on who's asking. So we return to the idea of an omnipotent santa figure judging everyone.
As such, Lawful Good needs to be defined outside of cultural bias. The "Lawful" means that they follow a strict set of rules - make it the law of the land if you want, but you don't have to - and "Good" means selfless, for the most part, as you said.
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!
LG in the PHB talks about doing the Right Thing, as expected by society. That's more about being Good than being Lawful; the Lawful part comes in because it's society that determines what the right thing to do is. It doesn't stop the character from having a personal code as well though. That personal code will likely largely be in line with societal norms, but it's possible that they conflict occasionally as well. A LG character might give to beggars because their personal code says to help the weak and feed the hungry, even if begging itself might be forbidden in whatever city they're in, for instance. Or they could be more strict than what society expects, like being vegan among vegetarians. Just one line in the PHB isn't enough to explain all the nuance of an alignment.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is no more COSMIC SANTA CLAUSE in D&D 5E aligments. And realistically where you live (cultural background) determine what is lawfull or not (and historically burning witches "was good thing to do" for awhile)
As I said before, it doesnt stop having personal code, but that as you are "good" (selfless) you make society (read other people rules = laws in civilized country) rules more important than your personal ones. That leads if there is conflict LG person would follow society rules.
I'd argue that if there's conflict about what the lawful thing to do is, a LG person would likely decide what to do based on what they judge to be the most Good. It all depends though - some characters will be more Lawful than Good, others will be more Good than Lawful, sometimes the action they're contemplating will accomplish a lot of Good while only requiring a minor infraction of the Law, sometimes it will be the other way around.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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...
There absolutely is a cosmic santa claus in D&D. Good and evil in D&D are defined by some higher form of judgement, and not based on circumstance. The results of "Detect good & evil" don't change depending on who casts them - thus it is that, no matter where you go, your alignment remains the same.
As for burning witches being a "good thing to do" for a time - not really. It was an evil thing, which people were manipulated into doing by fanatical religeous zealots, who seem to think that there is a hell but that burning innocent women would not land them there. It's almost enough to make one wish they were correct about hell existing, just so that they themselves are having to burn there for what they did.
100% this. There's too much grey on alignment without including laws, which are generally put in place for the "greater good". Like how it's (somehow) legal to put spikes under outside stairs to discourage people who are sleeping rough from actually being under shelter whilst they sleep (should have thought of that before they became peasants, eh?).
What does a lawful good person do when the laws of the country are evil? It's not compatible - "Lawful" as an alignment cannot mean "always follows the law of the land". If Lawful means following the laws of the land, you could only ever be Lawful Neutral - because there are a lot of laws out there which aren't good.
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!
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?
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!
Rather than think of it in terms of alignment, have you thought about it in terms of a character form a book or film?
For instance, based on what you said I think Dr Frankenstein is probably quite apt for your idea. He was a prodigy in medicine but took research and experimentation to far, so your character could be of a similar cast. In terms of alignment you'd liekly start off Chaotic Good as you have good intnetions but ignore the morales of society but drift to Chaotic Neutral as you become more driven to accomplish your goals and delve intot he less savoury side of medicine such as grave robbing. You can start off with a background that gives Medicine as a skill proficicnecy (or maybe reflvaour the Guild Artisan to reflect working in a hospital) but you took up adventuring when you repeatedly failed ot save the lives of those under your care and set of to find answers, this could lead down a path of self taught Wizardry if you came into possession of a spell book before you left, or maybe some godly worship with Grave domain cleric and eventually lead you down a path of trying to use necromancy to create life instead of undeath.
Here's a link to the concept I had for such a Wizard Necromancer: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/wizard/48560-necromancy-primer-pt3-introduction-to-the-doctors
Good and evil are just selfless and selfish and determined by cultures worshipped gods in D&D (there in not "one". There are many. Orcourse this can be setting thing aswell). And "burning witches" really was believed to be good at the time (orcourse it was orchestrated by church and manipulatd heavely to get personal gains. Point tought is people really also believed that). You cannot use nowdays standars to medieval times. Or any other culterers standard some thing elses.
Person dont have to do anything or he can do everything (LG dont meant that you have to do something). It his society rules that person follows. If person is born in such as society he cannot know anything else and is IE Lawfull Evil at start (If LE is society "norm"). But he can change afterwards after person learns that there is other ways.
Giving food for starving beggar would make you slightly less lawfull. Person would still be "good" (selfless). LG person might just give him a work to earn his pay if just direclty giving food would be illegal -> which could be still "lawfull" and "good"
Chatic good would remain same as he dont follow rules anyway.
These are not rules.
""These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
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.
So with same logic you are arguing there are no rules at all when DM guide reads: "As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them" :D
Yes, it is the "good" part in LG that makes you selfless and priorities society rules above personal ones.
At your table, you can interpret the DMG however you want. For most GMs though, they would disagree with your interpretation, as alignment is not something as clear cut as you make it out to be.
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 >
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?
And Im also curious why you think Im saying its "clear cut". Im saying quite opposite, its constantly sifting one depending on decisions.
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.
It is in no way selfish. The knight might suffer great personal loss and little gain as a result of aiding an outlaw.
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.