[...]But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently[...]
I've got to point out that arguing the definition of lawful is pointless because WotC hasn't been consistent in its definition. Good and Neutral Lawful includes the law (implicitly by "do the right thing as expected by society" (as opposed to "by their personal code") in the case of the former and explicitly in the latter), and so it means to follow the laws of the land. Evil Lawful makes no reference to the law and talks about personal codes instead. As such, whether lawful refers to keeping personal codes or the law technically depends on your morality, but from a more reductionist standpoint (ie that lawful/chaotic should be defined independently of the other variable, morality) is actually not clearly defined. That's why we get so many arguments about alignment - it just isn't clear what is intended.
Honestly, that's the point of this thread.
There is no clear cut answer on alignment and the discussion on each character and where people think think they fall on the scale based on their actions and their personal perceptions is what I'm looking for. Keith Bakers alignment example of the government employee who repossesses things where Keith calls that guy Lawful Evil, but why is he evil? Hes not hurting people because he wants to, that's his job. A job that's sanctioned by the government. It's not evil because those people agreed to the repercussions of their actions, and while they are entitled to their feelings during the aftermath? They still get to experience those consequences.
That's the kind of discussion I'm trying to bring forth here, with mainstream popular examples that most should have an opinion on.
[...]But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently[...]
I've got to point out that arguing the definition of lawful is pointless because WotC hasn't been consistent in its definition. Good and Neutral Lawful includes the law (implicitly by "do the right thing as expected by society" (as opposed to "by their personal code") in the case of the former and explicitly in the latter), and so it means to follow the laws of the land. Evil Lawful makes no reference to the law and talks about personal codes instead. As such, whether lawful refers to keeping personal codes or the law technically depends on your morality, but from a more reductionist standpoint (ie that lawful/chaotic should be defined independently of the other variable, morality) is actually not clearly defined. That's why we get so many arguments about alignment - it just isn't clear what is intended.
I knew someone was going to say this. This is the problem with so many discussions. You can't debate this (or anything) without having a definition of the relevant terms, because if you don't define them then everyone will fall back on their own unique definition and people (usually without realizing it) will often end up arguing over their definition of the term. Saying that arguing the definition is pointless is therefore saying that the entire discussion is pointless. That doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion.
Laws don't always enforce "the right thing as expected by society." Many laws uphold or reinforce flawed systems or models because because the people or organizations they benefit have the power to get those laws passed.
"Lawful" is just a terrible word to describe the opposite end of the spectrum from "Chaotic" because people automatically interpret it as "the law governing the land." "Chaotic" describes behavior that is not constrained by any set of rules or beliefs, therefore its opposite would be behavior that is constrained by rules or beliefs, but that doesn't have to be "the law."
a manichean conflict between good and evil and the Michael Moorcock law and chaos conflict (which I'm pretty sure he got from somewhere else but I'm too lazy to get up and read the Gaiman forward I'm sure is in one of the volumes on my bookshelf).
Milton, I think?
I don't know. Milton inadvertently made Satan a compelling character by modern sensibilities. It was the Romantics who saw him as a tragic hero to be emulated via bad boy behavior which in turn was emulated by pop music icons over the 20th Century. (And just wheel spinning my brain but I'd say Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein probably anticipates Moorcockian sensibilities more than either Milton or the Romantics, or at least Moorcock would pretend so). Paradise Lost clung to a christian derived manicheism ... though I'd say Blake's interpretation of Milton (Blake being a little unique among the Romantics) I think point to Moorcock too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
[...]But first I wanted to define the relevant terms as i see them. Lawful doesn't refer to following the the governing law of the land- one could easily behave chaotically without ever breaking a law- it's more about having a code or set of beliefs that you follow consistently[...]
I've got to point out that arguing the definition of lawful is pointless because WotC hasn't been consistent in its definition. Good and Neutral Lawful includes the law (implicitly by "do the right thing as expected by society" (as opposed to "by their personal code") in the case of the former and explicitly in the latter), and so it means to follow the laws of the land. Evil Lawful makes no reference to the law and talks about personal codes instead. As such, whether lawful refers to keeping personal codes or the law technically depends on your morality, but from a more reductionist standpoint (ie that lawful/chaotic should be defined independently of the other variable, morality) is actually not clearly defined. That's why we get so many arguments about alignment - it just isn't clear what is intended.
Now I think that you've hit the nail on the head with why most people argue the morality alignment system is "pointless" with regards to blanketing a group of people with just because of what they are... because WotC doesn't entirely define what somethings are, and for the record I think that's a good thing.
Anyone ever read Dragonlance, in particular the first Trilogy, the "core" novel so to speak, and ever hear of a knight named Sturm? Sturm is considered by many to be a "Lawful Good" archetype... however for the majority of his existence in the novels he was not a Knight (which to be fair if you read the novels he never calls himself one until he is, but he wears his father's armor, which belonged to the Knights of Solamnia which is not legal in eyes of some of the other eyes) and yet he adhered to the code of their order... and even that code was proved to be faulty due to of course what one could argue is the problem with those who are "lawful good".
If memory serves Rastlin Majere even brought this up at one point, in mentioning respect for Sturm (though they had many differing opinions on life and actions) due to the fact that he chose to live a code and follow it acting like the knight he was on the inside even though according to the rules he wasn't. I'd still argue that a character like Sturm is Lawful Good, even though the fact that his existence for most of his life broke some rules his order upholds... in other words Lawful Good can follow the same rules that work for Lawful Evil, you follow a set of codes and just don't break them.. and the code is based off of whether or not you would be neutral, good, or evil.
I mean this is all cool and all but unless you're(read as anyone reading this) actually willing to abide by what I asked for in the thread topic, I'd kindly ask anyone not to post.
If you want to argue your opinions on why X character is Y to you while posting about that character? Go for it. I don't want to know why you think the alignment system sucks. Go post in a different thread.
I mean this is all cool and all but unless you're(read as anyone reading this) actually willing to abide by what I asked for in the thread topic, I'd kindly ask anyone not to post.
If you want to argue your opinions on why X character is Y to you while posting about that character? Go for it. I don't want to know why you think the alignment system sucks. Go post in a different thread.
I'm sure I could have posted my response to what I quoted a different manner, someone essentially said it was pointless to argue.. and so I wrote that I agreed with the reason why WotC is "throwing out" the old system because parts of that were pointless.. than I wasted time bringing Sturm Brightblade up, the fact that he's considered x, but doesn't fully define it because it breaks the rules of what he is and than said Raistlin thought he was better for it because he really was living up to the spirit of x.
Sorry i wasn't basing it off of current characters that you were using... just trying to help out, I'll see my way out of this thread *shrugs*.
To be fair Spidey, not many people these days have read Arthur Conan Doyle's works directly. I know I have not, and since you explicitly specified "as written by ACD", I forewent participation in the thread as my understanding of Sherlock Holmes is informed more by modern rebakes of the character and pop-culture aggregate knowledge, rather than by ACD's original tales.
From that limited understanding? My take is that Sherlock Holmes does not fit easily into any single alignment, but the best overall stance would likely be Neutral Good verging perilously close to the reviled True Neutral. My arguments come from my understanding of the overall archetype, as follows: -Sherlock Holmes is less concerned with Doing Justice as he is with Winning, and with demonstrating/furthering his mastery.Cases are a challenge to his skills and a chance to exercise his abilities, with minor/simple cases proving too boring for him to take on. -Sherlock Holmes is a raging druggy, who is barely functional when not focused on a difficult case. He requires the challenge to give him something to focus on and strive towards or his brain starts to come unglued. -Sherlock Holmes has very little regard for society in general, considering most ordinary citizens to be pointless sheeple at best and willful incompetents at worst. We're chaff, unworthy of his time or attention, though he balks at doing ordinary folks active harm.
He is, in short, a deeply disfunctional Byronic hero archetype with extraordinary gifts of perception and deduction but a foul personality and no real nobility to speak of. He exists within society because that's easier than existing outside of it, and because it gives him access to what he needs to dull his mind at need as well as access to the challenging criminal cases that are his reason to persevere. But he doesn't really care about society, nor is he particularly fussed when he has to bend a rule or two, lean on a contact, or ape his target's tactics in order to bring them in. Plus, of course, he's a raging druggy.
The character is complex and multifaceted enough that assigning him to a single given two-word descriptor is an exercise in either frustration, readfer interpetation, or both. Frankly, given my limited and very likely flawed understanding of the character? I would posit that Holmes is actually Neutral Evil in many ways. He is a fundamentally selfish sort as I understand the character, and while he acts to better society he does it as much to spite society as anything else. 'Evil' gets a bad rap in D&D circles though, as does True Neutral, and whatever inhibition or self-imposed geas shackles him, he does bend his talents towards the preservation and protection of society. So, a grudging Neutral Good with the distinct caveat that 'good' does not mean Nice, Personable, Amiable, Charitable, or any of the other smarmy Hero of Jusdis crap everybody always bags on 'Good' alignment with.
Sherlock Holmes will help solve your father's murder. If your father was murdered in an interesting way, and he will make absolutely sure you know how much of an incompetent dullard you are by the time he's through.
Sherlock Holmes will help solve your father's murder. If your father was murdered in an interesting way, and he will make absolutely sure you know how much of an incompetent dullard you are by the time he's through.
Having read all of ACD, I can definitively say that this holds up. I remember a few cases of him not being interested until Watson basically shoved him into it. (Who is probably NG or LG with an emphasis on the G)
Heh. Batman is for a different thread. This one was specifically Sherlock Holmes. Gotta follow your own rules, Spidey :P
I will say that the point on legality of drugs is well taken, but it doesn't really change the essence of the issue. The man is - again, to the best of my flawed knowledge - almost reliant on the drugs in a weird way, as the only thing that can dull him enough to tolerate ordinary people/life. Whether or not his habit was illegal or not, it was still extensive and nigh-crippling.
The discussion here does point to an interesting sort of split, and one that calls into question some of my own assumptions. Namely, is alignment derived from actions, or from intentions/State of Mind? Judging by actions alone, irrespective of state of mind, Holmes is much more clearly LG, or at least NG. His actions are, for the greater part, unequivocably for the betterment of his fellows and society as a whole. The fact that he approaches them from a selfish, nihilistic mindset doesn't register for a lot of people - he does good therefor he is good.
It's the same response I see a lot of the time when I relate that story from the other thread about Keith Baker's LE tax collector. People argue the 'E' part and say that just because the guy relishes suffering and enjoys his work doesn't make him evil - he obeys the law and only gets rough when people break their agreements, so at worst he's LN. They look at the actions the man takes and disregard his state of mind, and see no evil in what he does. Whereas my take is that the 'Evil' in his alignment that would be detected by old-school alignment detection effects comes from the fact that he actively enjoys causing suffering and actively sought out a position where he was free to do so within the bounds of the law.
State of mind/intent is important to me fopr determining proper alignment, which is an interesting realization to make because I was - and in many ways still am - a firm proponent of the DM declaring alignments based on the character's actions in the world. You don't get to know your own alignment, the DM determines what it is based on what you've done...except that disregards state of mind entirely save to what limited extent the DM is aware of your character's state of mind. I still think DM determination is a better way to do things, but it does bring into question what should count, as it were, for determining alignment. Do intentions, reasoning, justification, and state of mind matter at all? or is it strictly the actions you take and their effect in the world?
Heh. Batman is for a different thread. This one was specifically Sherlock Holmes. Gotta follow your own rules, Spidey :P
I will say that the point on legality of drugs is well taken, but it doesn't really change the essence of the issue. The man is - again, to the best of my flawed knowledge - almost reliant on the drugs in a weird way, as the only thing that can dull him enough to tolerate ordinary people/life. Whether or not his habit was illegal or not, it was still extensive and nigh-crippling.
The discussion here does point to an interesting sort of split, and one that calls into question some of my own assumptions. Namely, is alignment derived from actions, or from intentions/State of Mind? Judging by actions alone, irrespective of state of mind, Holmes is much more clearly LG, or at least NG. His actions are, for the greater part, unequivocably for the betterment of his fellows and society as a whole. The fact that he approaches them from a selfish, nihilistic mindset doesn't register for a lot of people - he does good therefor he is good.
It's the same response I see a lot of the time when I relate that story from the other thread about Keith Baker's LE tax collector. People argue the 'E' part and say that just because the guy relishes suffering and enjoys his work doesn't make him evil - he obeys the law and only gets rough when people break their agreements, so at worst he's LN. They look at the actions the man takes and disregard his state of mind, and see no evil in what he does. Whereas my take is that the 'Evil' in his alignment that would be detected by old-school alignment detection effects comes from the fact that he actively enjoys causing suffering and actively sought out a position where he was free to do so within the bounds of the law.
State of mind/intent is important to me fopr determining proper alignment, which is an interesting realization to make because I was - and in many ways still am - a firm proponent of the DM declaring alignments based on the character's actions in the world. You don't get to know your own alignment, the DM determines what it is based on what you've done...except that disregards state of mind entirely save to what limited extent the DM is aware of your character's state of mind. I still think DM determination is a better way to do things, but it does bring into question what should count, as it were, for determining alignment. Do intentions, reasoning, justification, and state of mind matter at all? or is it strictly the actions you take and their effect in the world?
A curious question, worth considering.
I like that question about intent vs impact. There's a good story I remember that highlights the difference.
A man spent hours watching a butterfly struggling to emerge from its cocoon. It managed to make a small hole, but its body was too large to get through it. After a long struggle, it appeared to be exhausted and remained absolutely still.
The man decided to help the butterfly and, with a pair of scissors, he cut open the cocoon, thus releasing the butterfly. However, the butterfly’s body was very small and wrinkled and its wings were all crumpled.
The man continued to watch, hoping that, at any moment, the butterfly would open its wings and fly away. Nothing happened; in fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its brief life dragging around its shrunken body and shrivelled wings, incapable of flight.
What the man – out of kindness and his eagerness to help – had failed to understand was that the tight cocoon and the efforts that the butterfly had to make in order to squeeze out of that tiny hole were Nature’s way of training the butterfly and of strengthening its wings.
Sometimes, a little extra effort is precisely what prepares us for the next obstacle to be faced. Anyone who refuses to make that effort, or gets the wrong sort of help, is left unprepared to fight the next battle and never manages to fly off to their destiny.
I would say that his intentions were good so I would put his alignment at good, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibility for his actions. It takes wisdom, and sometimes a lot of it to be able to understand the consequences of our actions.
Heh. Batman is for a different thread. This one was specifically Sherlock Holmes. Gotta follow your own rules, Spidey :P
So let's talk Sherlock and alignment. We'll give it a few days or until the discussion dies down. At the end of your post, put in your vote for who you want to talk about next. Most votes wins, ties decided by me because its my thread.
I'm honestly having some trouble thinking of characters both well known enough and morally ambiguous enough to make a good discussion. Batman's the obvious one, but it feels like there's gotta be other options. Sherlock was an interesting start, I'll give it that. Hmm. heh, I really wish I could do Deus from Grrl Power, but if I'm not the only human being on these forums who knows who Deus is/what Grrl Power is I'd be astonished. Does suggest a less interesting but more well-known option, though.
How 'bout Lex Luthor? Heh, would be interesting to see which version of the character sticks in enough people's heads to discuss.
If you have an immutable list of things that your character will and will not do, that trends to Lawful. If that list is sometimes mutable, that trends to Neutral. If everything is decided in the moment, that trends to Chaotic.
That's not the only way to define that axis, though.
Also, I'm not partial to saying what my character's personality will be when I haven't played the character, yet. I've seen many session 1s with no session 0s where the next couple of sessions saw a character develop into something solid that was completely different than the first session. They had an intention in the first session, but by session 3, that intention was thrown out the window.
(Quick example: See The Spicy Rat Caper [first session] of OXventure. Then, see Wild Wild Woods [3rd session] by the same group. It's almost like 3 of the party members are not the same characters, but the remaining series sees them staying closer to their 3rd session characters. Even the Dragonborn Paladin [who arrived in the 2nd session] and the Tiefling Warlock didn't like each other when they met. [He called her a demon.] They became best friends not long after—not to mention that the Dragonborn worshiped a Gold Dragon in the first session he attended but, shortly, started worshipping a purple cow he could contact only if he stared at one of the suns for a long time.)
My advice is to get a feel for the character in the world and let whatever the character becomes be whatever the character becomes instead of trying to force it. If alignment ever comes into play (a rare thing in 5e), the character's past actions will probably show more of the alignment than what was written before entering the game.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Batman's tough to figure out. Like, if we look at Kingdom Come's Batman, he's arguably a tyrant with how he keeps watch over all of Gotham with his army of robots. Frank Miller's Batman, on the other hand, is actively going against the establishment, wherein he fights against Lawful Goodness incarnate Superman.
So, did we go from one form of lawfulness to one form of chaotic?
Clooney Batman is lawful good tho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, that's the point of this thread.
There is no clear cut answer on alignment and the discussion on each character and where people think think they fall on the scale based on their actions and their personal perceptions is what I'm looking for. Keith Bakers alignment example of the government employee who repossesses things where Keith calls that guy Lawful Evil, but why is he evil? Hes not hurting people because he wants to, that's his job. A job that's sanctioned by the government. It's not evil because those people agreed to the repercussions of their actions, and while they are entitled to their feelings during the aftermath? They still get to experience those consequences.
That's the kind of discussion I'm trying to bring forth here, with mainstream popular examples that most should have an opinion on.
I knew someone was going to say this. This is the problem with so many discussions. You can't debate this (or anything) without having a definition of the relevant terms, because if you don't define them then everyone will fall back on their own unique definition and people (usually without realizing it) will often end up arguing over their definition of the term. Saying that arguing the definition is pointless is therefore saying that the entire discussion is pointless. That doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion.
Laws don't always enforce "the right thing as expected by society." Many laws uphold or reinforce flawed systems or models because because the people or organizations they benefit have the power to get those laws passed.
"Lawful" is just a terrible word to describe the opposite end of the spectrum from "Chaotic" because people automatically interpret it as "the law governing the land." "Chaotic" describes behavior that is not constrained by any set of rules or beliefs, therefore its opposite would be behavior that is constrained by rules or beliefs, but that doesn't have to be "the law."
I don't know. Milton inadvertently made Satan a compelling character by modern sensibilities. It was the Romantics who saw him as a tragic hero to be emulated via bad boy behavior which in turn was emulated by pop music icons over the 20th Century. (And just wheel spinning my brain but I'd say Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein probably anticipates Moorcockian sensibilities more than either Milton or the Romantics, or at least Moorcock would pretend so). Paradise Lost clung to a christian derived manicheism ... though I'd say Blake's interpretation of Milton (Blake being a little unique among the Romantics) I think point to Moorcock too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Now I think that you've hit the nail on the head with why most people argue the morality alignment system is "pointless" with regards to blanketing a group of people with just because of what they are... because WotC doesn't entirely define what somethings are, and for the record I think that's a good thing.
Anyone ever read Dragonlance, in particular the first Trilogy, the "core" novel so to speak, and ever hear of a knight named Sturm? Sturm is considered by many to be a "Lawful Good" archetype... however for the majority of his existence in the novels he was not a Knight (which to be fair if you read the novels he never calls himself one until he is, but he wears his father's armor, which belonged to the Knights of Solamnia which is not legal in eyes of some of the other eyes) and yet he adhered to the code of their order... and even that code was proved to be faulty due to of course what one could argue is the problem with those who are "lawful good".
If memory serves Rastlin Majere even brought this up at one point, in mentioning respect for Sturm (though they had many differing opinions on life and actions) due to the fact that he chose to live a code and follow it acting like the knight he was on the inside even though according to the rules he wasn't. I'd still argue that a character like Sturm is Lawful Good, even though the fact that his existence for most of his life broke some rules his order upholds... in other words Lawful Good can follow the same rules that work for Lawful Evil, you follow a set of codes and just don't break them.. and the code is based off of whether or not you would be neutral, good, or evil.
I mean this is all cool and all but unless you're(read as anyone reading this) actually willing to abide by what I asked for in the thread topic, I'd kindly ask anyone not to post.
If you want to argue your opinions on why X character is Y to you while posting about that character? Go for it. I don't want to know why you think the alignment system sucks. Go post in a different thread.
I'm sure I could have posted my response to what I quoted a different manner, someone essentially said it was pointless to argue.. and so I wrote that I agreed with the reason why WotC is "throwing out" the old system because parts of that were pointless.. than I wasted time bringing Sturm Brightblade up, the fact that he's considered x, but doesn't fully define it because it breaks the rules of what he is and than said Raistlin thought he was better for it because he really was living up to the spirit of x.
Sorry i wasn't basing it off of current characters that you were using... just trying to help out, I'll see my way out of this thread *shrugs*.
To be fair Spidey, not many people these days have read Arthur Conan Doyle's works directly. I know I have not, and since you explicitly specified "as written by ACD", I forewent participation in the thread as my understanding of Sherlock Holmes is informed more by modern rebakes of the character and pop-culture aggregate knowledge, rather than by ACD's original tales.
From that limited understanding? My take is that Sherlock Holmes does not fit easily into any single alignment, but the best overall stance would likely be Neutral Good verging perilously close to the reviled True Neutral. My arguments come from my understanding of the overall archetype, as follows:
-Sherlock Holmes is less concerned with Doing Justice as he is with Winning, and with demonstrating/furthering his mastery. Cases are a challenge to his skills and a chance to exercise his abilities, with minor/simple cases proving too boring for him to take on.
-Sherlock Holmes is a raging druggy, who is barely functional when not focused on a difficult case. He requires the challenge to give him something to focus on and strive towards or his brain starts to come unglued.
-Sherlock Holmes has very little regard for society in general, considering most ordinary citizens to be pointless sheeple at best and willful incompetents at worst. We're chaff, unworthy of his time or attention, though he balks at doing ordinary folks active harm.
He is, in short, a deeply disfunctional Byronic hero archetype with extraordinary gifts of perception and deduction but a foul personality and no real nobility to speak of. He exists within society because that's easier than existing outside of it, and because it gives him access to what he needs to dull his mind at need as well as access to the challenging criminal cases that are his reason to persevere. But he doesn't really care about society, nor is he particularly fussed when he has to bend a rule or two, lean on a contact, or ape his target's tactics in order to bring them in. Plus, of course, he's a raging druggy.
The character is complex and multifaceted enough that assigning him to a single given two-word descriptor is an exercise in either frustration, readfer interpetation, or both. Frankly, given my limited and very likely flawed understanding of the character? I would posit that Holmes is actually Neutral Evil in many ways. He is a fundamentally selfish sort as I understand the character, and while he acts to better society he does it as much to spite society as anything else. 'Evil' gets a bad rap in D&D circles though, as does True Neutral, and whatever inhibition or self-imposed geas shackles him, he does bend his talents towards the preservation and protection of society. So, a grudging Neutral Good with the distinct caveat that 'good' does not mean Nice, Personable, Amiable, Charitable, or any of the other smarmy Hero of Jusdis crap everybody always bags on 'Good' alignment with.
Sherlock Holmes will help solve your father's murder. If your father was murdered in an interesting way, and he will make absolutely sure you know how much of an incompetent dullard you are by the time he's through.
Please do not contact or message me.
Having read all of ACD, I can definitively say that this holds up. I remember a few cases of him not being interested until Watson basically shoved him into it. (Who is probably NG or LG with an emphasis on the G)
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I think it's fair to point out that even though Watson talks about his disdain for the drugs he was doing, at the time they were perfectly legal.
So what's your take on Batman?
IMHO, Batman is LN with a heavy bend towards NG and a lighter bend to LG.
Heh. Batman is for a different thread. This one was specifically Sherlock Holmes. Gotta follow your own rules, Spidey :P
I will say that the point on legality of drugs is well taken, but it doesn't really change the essence of the issue. The man is - again, to the best of my flawed knowledge - almost reliant on the drugs in a weird way, as the only thing that can dull him enough to tolerate ordinary people/life. Whether or not his habit was illegal or not, it was still extensive and nigh-crippling.
The discussion here does point to an interesting sort of split, and one that calls into question some of my own assumptions. Namely, is alignment derived from actions, or from intentions/State of Mind? Judging by actions alone, irrespective of state of mind, Holmes is much more clearly LG, or at least NG. His actions are, for the greater part, unequivocably for the betterment of his fellows and society as a whole. The fact that he approaches them from a selfish, nihilistic mindset doesn't register for a lot of people - he does good therefor he is good.
It's the same response I see a lot of the time when I relate that story from the other thread about Keith Baker's LE tax collector. People argue the 'E' part and say that just because the guy relishes suffering and enjoys his work doesn't make him evil - he obeys the law and only gets rough when people break their agreements, so at worst he's LN. They look at the actions the man takes and disregard his state of mind, and see no evil in what he does. Whereas my take is that the 'Evil' in his alignment that would be detected by old-school alignment detection effects comes from the fact that he actively enjoys causing suffering and actively sought out a position where he was free to do so within the bounds of the law.
State of mind/intent is important to me fopr determining proper alignment, which is an interesting realization to make because I was - and in many ways still am - a firm proponent of the DM declaring alignments based on the character's actions in the world. You don't get to know your own alignment, the DM determines what it is based on what you've done...except that disregards state of mind entirely save to what limited extent the DM is aware of your character's state of mind. I still think DM determination is a better way to do things, but it does bring into question what should count, as it were, for determining alignment. Do intentions, reasoning, justification, and state of mind matter at all? or is it strictly the actions you take and their effect in the world?
A curious question, worth considering.
Please do not contact or message me.
I like that question about intent vs impact. There's a good story I remember that highlights the difference.
I would say that his intentions were good so I would put his alignment at good, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibility for his actions. It takes wisdom, and sometimes a lot of it to be able to understand the consequences of our actions.
Fair cop.
I'm honestly having some trouble thinking of characters both well known enough and morally ambiguous enough to make a good discussion. Batman's the obvious one, but it feels like there's gotta be other options. Sherlock was an interesting start, I'll give it that. Hmm. heh, I really wish I could do Deus from Grrl Power, but if I'm not the only human being on these forums who knows who Deus is/what Grrl Power is I'd be astonished. Does suggest a less interesting but more well-known option, though.
How 'bout Lex Luthor? Heh, would be interesting to see which version of the character sticks in enough people's heads to discuss.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's all a grey area, but...
If you have an immutable list of things that your character will and will not do, that trends to Lawful. If that list is sometimes mutable, that trends to Neutral. If everything is decided in the moment, that trends to Chaotic.
That's not the only way to define that axis, though.
Also, I'm not partial to saying what my character's personality will be when I haven't played the character, yet. I've seen many session 1s with no session 0s where the next couple of sessions saw a character develop into something solid that was completely different than the first session. They had an intention in the first session, but by session 3, that intention was thrown out the window.
(Quick example: See The Spicy Rat Caper [first session] of OXventure. Then, see Wild Wild Woods [3rd session] by the same group. It's almost like 3 of the party members are not the same characters, but the remaining series sees them staying closer to their 3rd session characters. Even the Dragonborn Paladin [who arrived in the 2nd session] and the Tiefling Warlock didn't like each other when they met. [He called her a demon.] They became best friends not long after—not to mention that the Dragonborn worshiped a Gold Dragon in the first session he attended but, shortly, started worshipping a purple cow he could contact only if he stared at one of the suns for a long time.)
My advice is to get a feel for the character in the world and let whatever the character becomes be whatever the character becomes instead of trying to force it. If alignment ever comes into play (a rare thing in 5e), the character's past actions will probably show more of the alignment than what was written before entering the game.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I don’t have a take on Batman, since I don’t really do DC.
What about Loki next? Marvel versus myth and beginning versus end? It seems straightforward at first, but he’s a very dynamic character.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Makes sense Holmes would be CN or LN in my opinion. I might suggest Mario from the Super Mario series or Marty Mcfly from Back to the Future
DruidVSAdventure
Check out my Homebrew Class The Evoker
Batman's tough to figure out. Like, if we look at Kingdom Come's Batman, he's arguably a tyrant with how he keeps watch over all of Gotham with his army of robots. Frank Miller's Batman, on the other hand, is actively going against the establishment, wherein he fights against Lawful Goodness incarnate Superman.
So, did we go from one form of lawfulness to one form of chaotic?
Clooney Batman is lawful good tho.