Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[ChristianSt]

For the is LG better (or harder to achieve) than NG/CG, I would simple suggestion following:

Just say that the alignments are some sort of flavour (like ice cream types). Maybe LG is of the strawberry kind and NG of the chocolate kind. And if Roy wants to have his strawberry ice cream (even more so if his family is having it, too), then clearly he would be bumped if he doesn't get it. And the strawberry ice cream seller would be interested in convincing peoples that strawberry is the way to go. (And saying strawberry is harder to get even makes it more valuable!)

But we all clearly know that chocolate is the best! ... eh, probably it is a matter of taste

[Sir_Leorik]

No. Even going without food himself would jeopardise his family, as it reduces his ability to take care of them.

My idea of LG: takes the merchant, not home, but to the healer (who is better able to take care of him), and tells the healer to keep an account of his expenses, which can be presented to the merchant as a bill when he's well enough to pay it. He probably visits every day, as time allows, to see if there's anything more he can do. In due course, if the merchant doesn't offer any reward voluntarily, he might - well within alignment - present a bill for his own rescue services, plus anything else he's been called upon to do in this capacity. After all, the man is clearly well able to pay for these services - there's no reason he should need charity that should rightfully be given to those who don't have such ample means.

One thing he certainly doesn't do is: show less commitment to his own family than a neutral or evil character would have done. If Fyodor is the sole, or even main, breadwinner for his family, then risking his own life and health is not a Good act. It may be justified to prevent a greater evil (leaving the stranger to die), but in itself there is nothing remotely virtuous about it.

My main issue I'm trying to show is that a Lawful Good character is willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, to a degree that a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would be unwilling to. In all of the Good scenarios Fyodor decides to risk his life to carry an infectious and delirious man (who probably weighs more than Fyodor does, since Sanguinians have access to more food than the Voros) through a werewolf infested forest during a blizzard. The question is what happens next? Does Fyodor's responsibility to the man end? How does he balance any responsibility to this stranger to his responsibility to his family, his community and himself?

Then there is the issue of finding a healer. For our purposes, let's say that there is a Vistani caravan visiting Fyodor's village, and the Raunie can heal the merchant. (With either non-magical remedies or casting remove disease.) The Vistani do not give gifts to giorgio out of the goodness of their hearts; their alignment tends to be True Neutral, in a very mercenary way. Suppose they are willing to help the merchant, but they want Fyodor to do something less than moral for them. Perhaps they want Fyodor to rummage through the merchant's belongings for a scroll (warning Fyodor not to unseal it). When Fyodor asks why they want him to rob the merchant, they say they will deal with the repurcussions of his act. When he insists on knowing what the scroll is for, they threaten to leave the village and never return.

Now Fyodor is in a major bind: should he steal the scroll to pay for the merchant's care? Why do the Vistani want this scroll? How did they even know there was a scroll to steal? On the other hand, can Fyodor afford to care for the merchant himself? He could very well risk the filth fever spreading to his family or the other villagers. He certainly has no food to spare, nor does anyone else in the village. How much is Fyodor willing to bend his ethics? How much is he willing to sacrifice for a stranger?

You might clarify the issue more if you remove the possibility of reward from the scenario completely. Instead of a wealthy merchant, have Fyodor come across a ragged, smelly hobo, whose worldly wealth amounts to 3 c.p., a slightly mouldy hunk of bread and a four-month-old copy of Hello! magazine.

Without the temptation of the merchants' money, the Evil choices become simple: leave him to die. He has nothing Fyodor wants, and Fyodor won't risk his neck for him. The Neutral scenarios should probably emphasize the merchant's wealth, maybe give Fyodor a motivation to help out of greed, but there needs to be a temptation to do nothing, a temptation to rob the merchant and the issue of a man's conscience. Plus there is the matter of what the Dark Powers have to say. Murdering a man for his money is grounds for a Dark Powers check; leaving a man to die may or may not be, depending on whether its a total stranger (no Dark Powers check) or a fellow PC (which is).

[Copperdragon]

My main issue I'm trying to show is that a Lawful Good character is willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, to a degree that a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would be unwilling to.

Where'd you get that? I think it is more a matter of the character's specific values and "good" if you are willing to die for others. I think it has nothing to do with "lawful" (unless you think a law or tradition requires you to, but that is more lawful neutral than lawful good).

[Sir_Leorik]

Where'd you get that? I think it is more a matter of the character's specific values and "good" if you are willing to die for others. I think it has nothing to do with "lawful" (unless you think a law or tradition requires you to, but that is more lawful neutral than lawful good).

One of the differences between Law and Chaos has to do with responsibility, towards others, towards one's duties, and towards society as a whole. Lawful Good characters are supposed to take their responsibilities seriously. Eugene Greenhilt swore a powerful Blood Oath of Vengeance to destroy Xykon; after trying and failing to find Xykon, Eugene gave up.

Spoiler

Show

Even when Right-Eye gave him Xykon's home address, Eugene blew him off and went home.

As a result of his abandoning his responsibilities, Eugene is barred from entering Mt. Celestia until his Oath is completed by one of his heirs. Roy accepted the responsibility to fulfill his father's oath, to protect the Gates, to rescue his sister and get Haley's father and uncle out of Tarquin's dungeons. Roy is essentially sacrificing his own happiness and safety to clean up his father's mess and to protect the world.

Chaotic Good characters follow their consciences, but they do so in a haphazard way that eschews duty, honor or responsibility towards others. If a Chaotic Good hero feels morally compelled to sacrifice on behalf of others, he will do so (see for example, Driz'zt Do'Urden or Caramon Majere), but not because others expect him to. Elan is happy to help others, but until the Lotus Eater trap, I doubt he understood the concept of self-sacrifice.

Neutral Good characters try to stick their responsibilities, but the temptation of taking a short-cut in order to do the right thing is ever present. It's hard to sacrifice on behalf of someone else, like the Lantern Archon on your shoulder is advocating, when the tiny Eladrin on your other shoulder is advocating a less responsible path.

It is possible for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters to make sacrifices on behalf of others, I just feel that their tendencies towards Chaos make them less likely to do so, at least consistently.

[Math_Mage]

My main issue I'm trying to show is that a Lawful Good character is willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, to a degree that a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would be unwilling to.

Absolutely not. Making sacrifices on behalf of others is an issue of Good vs. Evil, not of Law vs. Chaos. LG Fyodor and CG Fyodor both help because it is the right thing to do. They derive their concept of 'the right thing to do' from different sources--LG Fyodor has a code, CG Fyodor his well-developed conscience--but they are not more or less likely to do the right thing, even to their own detriment. Duty or desire, either can spark Good.

In all of the Good scenarios Fyodor decides to risk his life to carry an infectious and delirious man (who probably weighs more than Fyodor does, since Sanguinians have access to more food than the Voros) through a werewolf infested forest during a blizzard. The question is what happens next? Does Fyodor's responsibility to the man end? How does he balance any responsibility to this stranger to his responsibility to his family, his community and himself?

This is a Lawful perspective. The Chaotic perspective is, does Fyodor still feel this man needs help? You make the error of thinking a Good person only does Good out of responsibility, and reason that since CG is less cognizant of responsibility, he is less likely to do Good. This is false.

Then there is the issue of finding a healer.

No, there isn't. Let's not invent further complications to this scenario before we establish the results of the initial scenario.

Without the temptation of the merchants' money, the Evil choices become simple: leave him to die. He has nothing Fyodor wants, and Fyodor won't risk his neck for him. The Neutral scenarios should probably emphasize the merchant's wealth, maybe give Fyodor a motivation to help out of greed, but there needs to be a temptation to do nothing, a temptation to rob the merchant and the issue of a man's conscience. Plus there is the matter of what the Dark Powers have to say. Murdering a man for his money is grounds for a Dark Powers check; leaving a man to die may or may not be, depending on whether its a total stranger (no Dark Powers check) or a fellow PC (which is).

Again with the contortions. Forget what the Dark Powers have to say or what they check, unless you're willing to cite chapter and verse showing that they're authoritative on alignment and that they would do what you claim. We have nine alignments with descriptions. They guide us on how Fyodor would respond. Your descriptions of how Chaotic Fyodor would respond are not at all in line with the descriptions of CG and CN, and in every case are far more Evil or less Good than the corresponding Lawful and Neutral responses. These are the salient points. They will not go away just because nobody made a Dark Powers check.

[Snails]

This is a Lawful perspective. The Chaotic perspective is, does Fyodor still feel this man needs help? You make the error of thinking a Good person only does Good out of responsibility, and reason that since CG is less cognizant of responsibility, he is less likely to do Good. This is false.

I agree with this sentiment.

Chaotic Good is not an inferior form of Good from the Lawful Good. The CG perspective is The Good requires us to see those who are worthy of help with eyes not distracted by rules that are not absolutely necessary (and often even then rules must prove their worthiness of application for the case on hand) -- that a man who steals bread to feed a starving child is a man to stand shoulder to shoulder with, consequences be damned.

[Liliet]

I think I can explain why Roy was struggling to be Lawful Good. And why it has no bearing on "Chaos=leave in the woods" being [censored]stupid[/censored].

(here goes a long rant on the nature of Law and Chaos)

Spoiler

Show

You see, on both axis there`s a "strict" end and a "free" end.
If you are Good, it means that you are devoted to Good as an idea, will go to some length to promote it and percieve beneficial to Good outcome as beneficial to you. If you are Evil, you don`t have to be specifically devoted to the case of Evil. You just don`t care about Good enough to put it above your personal comfort/your personal gain/your personal desires/and so it goes down the scale. Where the borders lie between Good and Neutral, and between Neutral and Evil, is an entirely different question, and regardless of it, the direction is pretty clear.
Likewise, if you are Lawful, it means that you are devoted to Order (law is the wrong term to apply here), will go to some length to promote it and percieve beneficial to Order outcome as beneficial to you. If you are Chaotic, you don`t have to be specifically devoted to the case of Chaos. You just don`t care about Order (again, not laws, they have little to do with this) enough to... well, you can finish the text yourself. No, I didn`t copypaste it, I retyped it, and I got bored. It`s the same.
A good example of Law/Chaos choice, totally unrelated to the Good/Evil axis, would be the following situation. Imagine that you are standing on the first storey of the house and want to go out to the street. There`s no emergency, you just for some reason want to go out. Maybe you want to go for a walk, maybe you want to water your garden, maybe it`s time to go for a work. You just want to leave.
There`s a door in several steps from you, and there`s an open window just near you. It`s wide, you are low above the ground, and there`s no flowerbed under the window, just road. If you leave though the window, you`ll take a shortcut, but it is not normal to leave houses through the windows. To not complicate a situation, let`s say that regardless of what you choose, nobody will see you.
Now, the Lawful choice is to leave though the door. A truly Lawful person won`t even consider leaving through the window, as window is not an exit if there`s not emergency.
The Chaotic choice is to leave through the window. A truly Chaotic person won`t even think about the door: the window is nearer, why bother?
Of course, most people fall somewhere in between. They will probably recognise the window as a possible way out, but will hesitate whether to use it or just do it the "normal" way.
Note that it does not matter whether the person is Good or Evil. Neither decision will harm anyone, it`s only about following the Order.

Now, the Lawful person will sort of sacrifice several seconds of personal time to going the normal way. But she won`t even notice it, it`s _normal_ for her the same way Roy didn`t even consider loss of his precious time when, in OtOOtPC,

Spoiler

Show

he chose to babysit the Orcs rather than slaughter them for the equal amount of XP

. To those devoted to their cases, following them in minor things at the cost of something really minor doesn`t even feel like sacrifice, it`s just what people do.

Now, Law is not "better" than Chaos, or rather it depends on how much you, personally, value Order. If you are a Lawful person, clearly being Lawful is, for you, much better than being Chaotic, and it is worth the effort it costs.
If, on the other hand, you are Chaotic (I personally am Neutral on this axis, so I can identify with both sides), you just won`t understand the reasons of the Lawful characters` actions, in the same way that Evil Cannot Comprehend Good. Or you will, in the theory, but will feel that it just doesn`t have that value for you personally.

tl;dr: Lawful people do indeed feel superior over Chaotic, and it takes more efforts to be Lawful, but.
But. But it bears no implications on the Good/Evil axis.

Fyedya`s (yes, I can do that to Russian names even harder, bwahahaha) situation has nothing to do with Law and Chaos. Unless there are some local laws or traditions about what to do with the wounded strangers in the woods (and from the description it sounds like there are none) Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic characters will percieve the situation identically. Lawful Good Fyedya will help the merchant because it`s Good to help those in pain. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good Fyedyas will do the same for the same reason, given they are at the same place on the G/E axis and there are no additional considerations.
Now, imagine that there`s a local law/tradition about registering the strangers who have come to the village at the local magistrate. Now the choice about whether to do this is entirely L/C choice. Lawful Fyedya will bring the merchant to the magistrate first, and to the healer/his home/wherever he intended to take him later. Neutral Fyedya will bring him to the warm first with the intention to register him later when the timing for that is better. Chaotic Fyedya will just ignore that law since no harm will come from one wounded merchant coming unregistered.
Now, this example is more complicated, of course. There may be G/E considerations about whether to obey that particular law; it may be a precaution from something dangerous to uphold the safety of the people, in which case a Chaotic person may feel the need to do it as well - or it may be a law designed for totalitarian control and the registration will end badly for the merchant, in which case a Lawful person will have reasons to break this particular law. But the basic choice is along this axis.

Responsibility and its influence on Fyedya`s behavior in a described situation only kicks in when there`s a law/tradition (we are talking about a traditional society now, so I`m not going to differentiate between those two) to take care of the strangers in the woods. A man is supposed to either carry the stranger himself despite the danger and demostrate hospitality, or he`s supposed to call Rangers whose responsibility it is. And the situation becomes different depending on which one this is.


Anyway, the situation as described makes no sense as genuine reflection of alignment.
First, the external circumstances, such as Fyedya`s Wis and Int stats and time of the day, seem to differentiate retroactively, influencing the outcome independently from an alignment choice.
Second, the bar for Neutral is set too low. As other people in this thread have mentioned, just leaving a merchant to die in the woods is Evil, and leaving all his valuables with him in this case is neither Chaotic nor Lawful, it`s impractical and stupid. Lawful Evil Fyedya will leave him there (slitting or not his throat will not make much difference since he`s likely to die either way) and take his stuff as well as a Chaotic Evil Fyedya, given the same Int score. Lawful Neutral Fyedya and Chaotic Neutral Fyedya will both warn the Rangers, unless it involves some form of sacrifice in itself, such as paying them to investigate... and even in this case, as they could well know this beforehand and take some of the merchant`s money specifically for this purpose. And the rest of the money for themselves. Leaving the money with him in the middle of the wood is calling for robbers and is neither Lawful (in the woods, on a dying body - finders keepers) nor Good (it puts a merchant in additional danger).
Third, if there are Dark Powers there (I`m not exactly familiar with the setting), do local people know about them? It seems reasonable to assume that yes, they do, and if attracting their attention is unpleasant, even Evil Fyedyas will have reasons to save the merchant regardless of their personal opinion of the value of the others` lifes. They are protecting their personal precious Karma meter, it`s serious.
Fourth, Chaotic Evil Fyedya slaughtering his family without second thought is [censored]a very stupid idea[/censored]. In the OOtS both Chaotic Evil villains we see (Xykon and Belkar) have no-one to care about.... oh wait, Belkar has Mr.Scruffy. And there`s Sabine who is most probably CE (succubus) and loves Nale. And that`s talking about the villains of the webcomic, where there`s bound to be no "just casual" Evil or there will be not enough conflict. Chaotic Evil villager may burn his neigbour`s house for an imagined offence, but his family is still his family. It`s there in the definition of the alignment in source material.

[Reddish Mage]

Quotes SRD " Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient"


Clearly 'active' Evil is not the only kind of Evil there is. As I mentioned, having no conscience is another kind of Evil, and one the SRD covers.


In response, I give you the words of Helen Keller:
“Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.”

'Lacking a conscience', 'simply have no compassion', 'the apathy of human beings'--these are different ways of expressing the same basic concept: if you can prevent evil, and the only reason you don't is that you don't care if the evil happens, then you are complicit in that evil act.

So yes, Neutral Roy still has an obligation to at least make an effort to rescue Elan. Sure, if the going gets tough, he'll give up. But if he doesn't even try, that's Evil.

I don't see someone who shows no compassion to a guy dragged away by bandits as the equivalent to the guy who would kill Elan in his sleep if he thought it would get him to shut up.

"No compassion" is given a very specific meaning by the SRD, it means that the creature will "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

[Copperdragon]

One of the differences between Law and Chaos has to do with responsibility, towards others, towards one's duties, and towards society as a whole.

I do not see it that way. "Chaotic" is doing "what is right" without regard to rules, conventions, and other people's laws.
If you are weaker in feeling the responsibility towards others, then that is a question that plays on the "Good <-> Neutral" axis, not on a law vs. chaos.
If you are not part of a society where it is your "duty" to do this or that, then "duty" does not play into the equasion.
Also, if you sacrifice yourself not because it is "good" but because you feel it is your "duty", then this is a Lawful Neutral tendency, not one of "Lawfulness" or "Good".

[Tragak]

One of the differences between Law and Chaos has to do with responsibility, towards others, towards one's duties, and towards society as a whole.

No, that's Good vs. Evil.

My favorite distinction:

Lawfuls love the strong
Neutrals tolerate the strong
Chaotics hate the strong

Goods love the weak
Neutrals tolerate the weak
Evils hate the weak.

Chaotic is not somehow "less Good" because hating bullies more than you love police does Not mean that you care about the victims any less. Chaotic is not Evil, Evil is Evil.

Does this help?

[Liliet]

I don't see someone who shows no compassion to a guy dragged away by bandits as the equivalent to the guy who would kill Elan in his sleep if he thought it would get him to shut up.

If the dragged away guy is a stranger and it looks like he is one of the bandits, I see your point. If you know the guy and he`s clearly just an innocent victim, albeit very annoying in everyday life... And you just look at him being dragged away indifferently, sipping your coffee in a nearby caffee... I guess there`s some difference between you and me, somewhere around the personal morality. To me, this is obviously Evil.
On the other hand, if you would like to help, but are scared of the bandits and don`t want to endanger yourself and your family by crossing them... now you are Neutral. But if you didn`t even think about helping him, as in "not my problem", then it`s Evil.

And yes, there is a difference between a guy capable of murdering someone with his own hands (Roy falls into this cathegory, by the way, he kills enemies a lot) and a guy who only watches the others suffer without any feeling. But it`s not on the Good/Evil axis. Or even if it is in this case, both are on the Evil side of the spectrum anyway.

"No compassion" is given a very specific meaning by the SRD, it means that the creature will "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Killing without qualms has to do not with morality. It`s just a person`s capability to take other`s life. Roy is capable of killing without qualms if it is needed, a hypothetical average modern guy is most likely not and will throw up at the sight of a dead body regardless of morality.
From the moral point of view, killing without qualms if convenient is no different from letting someone be killed without qualms if convenient. The SRD just talks about adventurers, who are typically capable of killing and proactive in life.

And in the SRD it was just an example. "No compassion" is not a gaming term, it just means "no compassion". If you want to know what it means, google the dictionaries. SRD is not one.

[hamishspence]

It says "has no compassion and will kill without qualms"- that does not mean the two are synonymous.

You could have a character with both enormous compassion (for people of his preferred group) who will "kill without qualms" those of his hated group.

[Math_Mage]

My favorite distinction: Lawfuls love the strong vs. Chaotics hate the strong, Goods love the weak vs. Evils hate the weak.

Hating bullies more than you love law enforcement does not mean that you care about the victims any less.

It still implies that LG is more loving than CG, and doesn't really capture the CG attitude towards powerful people. Perhaps a different verb is in order: Lawfuls fear the turmoil of a power vacuum, while Chaotics fear the abuse of power.

I think I can explain why Roy was struggling to be Lawful Good. And why it has no bearing on "Chaos=leave in the woods" being bull****.

(here goes a long rant on the nature of Law and Chaos)

You see, on both axis there`s a "strict" end and a "free" end.
If you are Good, it means that you are devoted to Good as an idea, will go to some length to promote it and percieve beneficial to Good outcome as beneficial to you. If you are Evil, you don`t have to be specifically devoted to the case of Evil. You just don`t care about Good enough to put it above your personal comfort/your personal gain/your personal desires/and so it goes down the scale. Where the borders lie between Good and Neutral, and between Neutral and Evil, is an entirely different question, and regardless of it, the direction is pretty clear.
Likewise, if you are Lawful, it means that you are devoted to Order (law is the wrong term to apply here), will go to some length to promote it and percieve beneficial to Order outcome as beneficial to you. If you are Chaotic, you don`t have to be specifically devoted to the case of Chaos. You just don`t care about Order (again, not laws, they have little to do with this) enough to... well, you can finish the text yourself. No, I didn`t copypaste it, I retyped it, and I got bored. It`s the same.

I disagree. You are considering a narrow band of Lawful characters, but a wide band of Chaotic characters. As the alignment description puts it: "Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other." You acknowledge only the consciously Lawful, while even raising the question of whether someone who doesn't care is actually Chaotic rather than Neutral.

To put it another way, I might equally well say that the Chaotic are those who care enough to consciously question the dictates of society and struggle to achieve their ends even in the face of authority, while the Lawful simply don't care enough to do so. Indeed, the difference between the view you presented and the view I presented is how a Lawful character thinks vs. how a Chaotic character thinks.

I agree that Roy sees it your way. I even think OotSworld reflects that perspective to some extent--the Lawful characters tend to be thoughtful people like Roy, Durkon, and Redcloak who struggle to be Lawful, while the Chaotic characters tend to be thoughtless people like Elan, Belkar, and Xykon who are 'just naturally' Chaotic. But I strongly disagree that this represents an objective and complete assessment of Law vs. Chaos.

What do you think Tyler Durden would say about Law?

I don't see someone who shows no compassion to a guy dragged away by bandits as the equivalent to the guy who would kill Elan in his sleep if he thought it would get him to shut up.

"No compassion" is given a very specific meaning by the SRD, it means that the creature will "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

-'Same alignment' =/= 'the same'. In fact, I am explicitly talking about different kinds of Evil, so I'm baffled that you think a lack of equivalence is in any way contrary to what I'm saying.
-That's not what the SRD says. The two are juxtaposed, not equated.

[Liliet]

I disagree. You are considering a narrow band of Lawful characters, but a wide band of Chaotic characters. As the alignment description puts it: "Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other." You acknowledge only the consciously Lawful, while even raising the question of whether someone who doesn't care is actually Chaotic rather than Neutral.

Devotion to Law as a force of the universe is indeed a concious choice which may or may not be made by a Lawful person. But a personality trait is still a devotion to order, order on a small scale, casual order. If you think organising things in your room is worth your time, you are devoted to order, even if you think Modrons are morons. I did not talk about devotion to the universal forces at all.
And not caring at all is Chaotic, not Neutral. Neutral is when you care as much as everyone around you does, without leaving the norm. Where that norm lies and how far from it you can deviate before you stop being Neutral is an interesting question but has nothing to do with my point.

To put it another way, I might equally well say that the Chaotic are those who care enough to consciously question the dictates of society and struggle to achieve their ends even in the face of authority, while the Lawful simply don't care enough to do so. Indeed, the difference between the view you presented and the view I presented is how a Lawful character thinks vs. how a Chaotic character thinks.

Personal freedom as an ideal of Chaos? You see, Evil characters, when they are not as moronic as Nale who thinks that being a villain is cool, usually also lay a claim to fighting for "personal freedom". Personal freedom of doing non-Good things, instead of personal freedom of doing non-Lawful things. Lawful Evil characters may try to justify a right to kill those you want dead as a "natural right".
It`s just that Evil freedom is much more unsympathetic than Chaotic freedom, and when people say the word, they usually mean Chaotic. However, even freedom of speech has two edges: you may use it to openly discuss decisions of the politicians, or you may use it to present your enemies in a bad light with open lies.
Chaotic characters may conciously question existing laws and want to negate them just as well as Lawful characters may conciously question existing laws and want to change them. This is not a difference on an ethical axis, I assure you.

And did you just call me Lawful? Not that I take offence, I`m actually Neutral and tried to be unbiased so as not to present Chaos in to sympathetic light (in my hypothetical situation I would leave through the window).

I agree that Roy sees it your way. I even think OotSworld reflects that perspective to some extent--the Lawful characters tend to be thoughtful people like Roy, Durkon, and Redcloak who struggle to be Lawful, while the Chaotic characters tend to be thoughtless people like Elan, Belkar, and Xykon who are 'just naturally' Chaotic. But I strongly disagree that this represents an objective assessment of Law vs. Chaos.

What do you think Tyler Durden would say about Law?

I think... who? I don`t know this Durden guy.
I`d better discuss Havelock Vetinari, who I see as clearly Chaotic Good Or maybe the Well-Intentioned Extremist who slided into Chaotic Neutral because of the methods, but Chaotic nevertheless.

[Math_Mage]

Devotion to Law as a force of the universe is indeed a concious choice which may or may not be made by a Lawful person. But a personality trait is still a devotion to order, order on a small scale, casual order. If you think organising things in your room is worth your time, you are devoted to order, even if you think Modrons are morons. I did not talk about devotion to the universal forces at all.
And not caring at all is Chaotic, not Neutral. Neutral is when you care as much as everyone around you does, without leaving the norm. Where that norm lies and how far from it you can deviate before you stop being Neutral is an interesting question but has nothing to do with my point.

Passivity goes both ways. Not cleaning your room because you don't see the point might be considered Chaotic, but eating the same thing every day because you don't see the point of taking the effort to find a new place to go all the time might be considered Lawful. These are, of course, extremely petty examples of the alignments, but the point gets across. Casual order is often easier than chaos for someone who 'doesn't care', just as casual chaos is often easier than order.

Heck, OotS reverses your window analogy.

Personal freedom as an ideal of Chaos? You see, Evil characters, when they are not as moronic as Nale who thinks that being a villain is cool, usually also lay a claim to fighting for "personal freedom". Personal freedom of doing non-Good things, instead of personal freedom of doing non-Lawful things. Lawful Evil characters may try to justify a right to kill those you want dead as a "natural right".
It`s just that Evil freedom is much more unsympathetic than Chaotic freedom, and when people say the word, they usually mean Chaotic. However, even freedom of speech has two edges: you may use it to openly discuss decisions of the politicians, or you may use it to present your enemies in a bad light with open lies.
Chaotic characters may conciously question existing laws and want to negate them just as well as Lawful characters may conciously question existing laws and want to change them. This is not a difference on an ethical axis, I assure you.

Wait, wait, what?

Personal freedom is unambiguously a Chaotic ideal. It is the primary value established in the description of Chaos:

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Evil has no such link. Tarquin certainly isn't making any claim to fight for personal freedom. Redcloak is explicit about his willingness to oppress. Sure, there are Evil people who claim to be fighting for personal freedom; most of them are Chaotic Evil. That's because they're Chaotic, not because they're Evil.

And did you just call me Lawful? Not that I take offence, I`m actually Neutral and tried to be unbiased so as not to present Chaos in to sympathetic light (in my hypothetical situation I would leave through the window).

No, I described the perspective you presented as a Lawful slant on things. After all, the perspective I'm presenting probably doesn't represent my own alignment.

I think... who? I don`t know this Durden guy.
I`d better discuss Havelock Vetinari, who I see as clearly Chaotic Good

That's because Tyler Durden doesn't exist.

[hamishspence]

Sure, there are Evil people who claim to be fighting for personal freedom; most of them are Chaotic Evil. That's because they're Chaotic, not because they're Evil.

Some might not just claim to, but be doing so "for real" with them having become Evil through the sheer ruthlessness of their methods.

"He Who Fights Monsters" - having become one in the process.

[Math_Mage]

Some might not just claim to, but be doing so "for real" with them having become Evil through the sheer ruthlessness of their methods.

"He Who Fights Monsters" - having become one in the process.

True enough, I was imprecise. Indeed, anyone can claim to be fighting for personal freedom--what I should have said is that, of Evil characters, Chaotic Evil is very nearly the only place to put people who can say that with a degree of truth. Practically no one who can make a substantial claim to be fighting for personal freedom belongs in LE. There might be a few in NE.

[hamishspence]

True- "personal freedom" is a different thing from "my home's freedom".

I could see a place, invaded, with LG, LN, and LE inhabitants all participating in a guerilla movement- but that's a very different thing from wanting personal freedom in general.

[Liliet]

Passivity goes both ways. Not cleaning your room because you don't see the point might be considered Chaotic, but eating the same thing every day because you don't see the point of taking the effort to find a new place to go all the time might be considered Lawful. These are, of course, extremely petty examples of the alignments, but the point gets across. Casual order is often easier than chaos for someone who 'doesn't care', just as casual chaos is often easier than order.

Heck, OotS reverses your window analogy.

Do you think that a person who makes an effort to cook a new dish every day is Chaotic? Or can she as well be Lawful who likes to eat different tasty things every day?
Do you think that a person who eats the same dish every day out of laziness is Lawful? Or can she as well be Chaotic who prefers to choose herself where to direct her energy without listening to those who talk about healthy food?

I just don`t think that not changing something out of laziness is any kind of order. It may stay the same, stagnant, sure, but there is nothing particularly Lawful about it. A Lawful person will justify not changing it as "being true to the established tradition", and a Chaotic person will not justify it at all because she simply wouldn`t care.

Casual order is when you put your haircomb to the same place every day, even if the telephone rings and you are forced to go to another room with a haircomb in your hand... casual chaos will be to put it somewhere random without caring, and casual order will be to come back and put it on its place.

Wait, wait, what?

Personal freedom is unambiguously a Chaotic ideal. It is the primary value established in the description of Chaos:

Evil has no such link. Tarquin certainly isn't making any claim to fight for personal freedom. Redcloak is explicit about his willingness to oppress. Sure, there are Evil people who claim to be fighting for personal freedom; most of them are Chaotic Evil. That's because they're Chaotic, not because they're Evil.

Yeah, probably I went too far away from RAW when tying Evil to freedom. My apologies.
However, I can still see Lawful Good person fighting for freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, free market or whatever. I can even see Lawful Neutral person fighting for freedom, if their idea of "ideal order" includes natural rights for freedom. And they won`t come any closer to Chaotic at that.

Yes, freedom is a Chaotic ideal, because it`s the most comfortable ideal for a Chaotic person to follow. Yet there is nothing inherently Chaotic about it, and Chaos does not mean devotion to freedom. To realize it, just look at Xykon with his gladiator fights, Belkar with his freeing slaves to take them for himself, Sabine with her "sacrifices to love"... and tell me - do you see any devotion to the ideal of freedom there? At least as much as there is devotion to Order in Tarquin? Who thinks it worth his time and attention to word his promises to the Free City of Doom in such way that they are not lies, but technical truth?

No, I described the perspective you presented as a Lawful slant on things. After all, the perspective I'm presenting probably doesn't represent my own alignment.

Well, I am in Chaotic mood today, and I was actually representing a perspective of a "casually chaotic" person who can just randomly start singing and dancing in the middle of the street. Yes, I do that, really. People in my city have a good entertainment source on the streets of my route to and from university, I guess.

No, being Chaotic does not mean representing Chaotic ideals in a good light. It means doing and telling whatever the hell you want.

That's because Tyler Durden doesn't exist.

Oh. And I was almost going to go google him. Good thing I didn`t do that, then.


P.S.

True enough, I was imprecise. Indeed, anyone can claim to be fighting for personal freedom--what I should have said is that, of Evil characters, Chaotic Evil is very nearly the only place to put people who can say that with a degree of truth. Practically no one who can make a substantial claim to be fighting for personal freedom belongs in LE. There might be a few in NE.

Imagine, then, a person who wants to have a legal right to carry a gun in a pocket. Imagine that such person thinks that breaking law to kill a person you really want to kill is not as bad as killing her with a gun you have no right to carry, because hey, one more law to break! And this very Lawful Evil person starts or contributes to a movement for civil rights which wants legalized firearms. Such a person would be genuinely fighting for personal freedom. While being Lawful Evil. She may even justify to herself killing people with guns she still has no right to carry as demonstrating her ideals in practice. That`s a very Lawful Evil kind of delusion.
Am I right?

And if you say that it`s got to be not just her own personal freedom that she`s fighting for, you are confusing it with Good. Non-good chaotics fight only for themselves even more than lawfuls.

[veti]

I`d better discuss Havelock Vetinari, who I see as clearly Chaotic Good Or maybe the Well-Intentioned Extremist who slided into Chaotic Neutral because of the methods, but Chaotic nevertheless.

Vetinari is more Lawful than Chaotic. He instinctively manipulates people by shaping the environment around them, rather than by pressuring them directly - that's Lawful to me. He builds and uses a framework of laws to engineer his city, and then he makes sure those laws are enforced, at least to the extent required to bring about the kind of society he wants.

In his earlier days he was more Neutral, working through more informal structures (the Guilds, which are still pretty formal of course), but since Carrot's arrival in the city he's been firmly dragging it towards centrally-administered law.

(And I don't think he's ever stopped being Good. Sure, we hear rumours about cruelty, especially to mimes, but we've never seen any real sign of it. At this point I'm prepared to chalk those rumours up to 'reputation management' on his part - he finds it useful to be thought a tyrant.)

[Math_Mage]

Do you think that a person who makes an effort to cook a new dish every day is Chaotic? Or can she as well be Lawful who likes to eat different tasty things every day?
Do you think that a person who eats the same dish every day out of laziness is Lawful? Or can she as well be Chaotic who prefers to choose herself where to direct her energy without listening to those who talk about healthy food?

Oh, come on. You can't bring up an extremely petty example of Law to make your point about casual devotion to Law, and then protest when I bring up an extremely petty example of Chaos. I could equally protest that a Chaotic person could have plenty of reasons to clean his room, but that wouldn't serve the purpose of the argument, would it?

We can move to more meaningful examples of passive Law vs. passive Chaos if you want, and I see you do so later in the post, but if there's a problem it's with both examples, not just one.

Yeah, probably I went too far away from RAW when tying Evil to freedom. My apologies.
However, I can still see Lawful Good person fighting for freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, free market or whatever. I can even see Lawful Neutral person fighting for freedom, if their idea of "ideal order" includes natural rights for freedom. And they won`t come any closer to Chaotic at that.

Ah, this is a nice topic to bring up, and you're right, it deserves more elaborate consideration than I gave it. The Lawful Good official may strive to shape the system so that it affords well-defined legal rights to the people, for the sake of a better-functioning society. The freedom is a means to a Lawful end, even if he claims to fight for freedom (and he's not wrong to do so). As his mirror, I could conceive of a Chaotic Good official who uses the law as a means to attain the goal of personal freedom. He thinks the whole 'legal rights' doctrine is bogus; people are free, and the system constrains them. So he enacts broad restrictions on government's ability to interfere with people, except to fight the case where people oppress each other.

Two officials, both can claim to fight for freedom, both can claim to fight for the rule of law, and yet their motivations, legal perspective, and policy solutions are completely different. Is one more 'comfortable' than the other? Is one position 'easier' to take than the other?

Yes, freedom is a Chaotic ideal, because it`s the most comfortable ideal for a Chaotic person to follow. Yet there is nothing inherently Chaotic about it, and Chaos does not mean devotion to freedom. To realize it, just look at Xykon with his gladiator fights, Belkar with his freeing slaves to take them for himself, Sabine with her "sacrifices to love"... and tell me - do you see any devotion to the ideal of freedom there? At least as much as there is devotion to Order in Tarquin? Who thinks it worth his time and attention to word his promises to the Free City of Doom in such way that they are not lies, but technical truth?

Oh, you are fun!

Freedom is not necessarily comfortable at all, even for Chaotic characters, and certainly not for Lawful characters. What I said earlier about Lawful characters fearing a power vacuum? The reverse is true too: they may seek order because order is comfortable for them. It's stable, reliable, predictable, and they like that. Meanwhile, Chaotic characters may not value comfort at all, compared with opportunity. Game of Thrones has a wonderful exchange to this effect, a conversation between Varys and Littlefinger on the nature of chaos. Littlefinger thrives on chaos, but do you think that means he thinks it comfortable? Or do you think comfort simply isn't a thing he strives for?

Again, this is not a universal characterization. Some Lawful characters do seek Law despite that the Lawful path is uncomfortable. Some Chaotic characters do seek the Chaotic path because it is comfortable. My point is not that Chaos is harder, but that 'Law is harder' is a limited perspective.

As to your other point, I said that most Evil characters that can make a credible claim to strive for personal freedom are Chaotic Evil. That doesn't mean all Chaotic Evil characters strive for personal freedom as an ideal. I also pointed out that OotSworld in particular tends to take your perspective on this issue. Even so, Xykon and Belkar certainly are striving for a similar ideal: the freedom to do whatever they want. They simply don't care about the freedom of anyone else.

Well, I am in Chaotic mood today, and I was actually representing a perspective of a "casually chaotic" person who can just randomly start singing and dancing in the middle of the street. Yes, I do that, really. People in my city have a good entertainment source on the streets of my route to and from university, I guess.

No, being Chaotic does not mean representing Chaotic ideals in a good light. It means doing and telling whatever the hell you want.

I'm sorry to say that is a deep misunderstanding of Chaos as an alignment, a simplified pejorative description that does not get at actual meaning. I might as well say Law is "mindlessly doing what you're told."

Oh. And I was almost going to go google him. Good thing I didn`t do that, then.

...I'm starting to wonder if you really don't know. I thought you were just messing with me. Well, Fight Club should ring a bell.

Imagine, then, a person who wants to have a legal right to carry a gun in a pocket. Imagine that such person thinks that breaking law to kill a person you really want to kill is not as bad as killing her with a gun you have no right to carry, because hey, one more law to break! And this very Lawful Evil person starts or contributes to a movement for civil rights which wants legalized firearms. Such a person would be genuinely fighting for personal freedom. While being Lawful Evil. She may even justify to herself killing people with guns she still has no right to carry as demonstrating her ideals in practice. That`s a very Lawful Evil kind of delusion.
Am I right?

And if you say that it`s got to be not just her own personal freedom that she`s fighting for, you are confusing it with Good. Non-good chaotics fight only for themselves even more than lawfuls.

I think it's time to bring this line of argument back to the central question. Why are you bringing up points about non-Chaotic people fighting for freedom? I have suspicions, but I don't want to be uncharitable.

[Reddish Mage]

It says "has no compassion and will kill without qualms"- that does not mean the two are synonymous.

You could have a character with both enormous compassion (for people of his preferred group) who will "kill without qualms" those of his hated group.

Pardon I wrote that without longer analysis. Yes, the way it is written it states Evil person "has no compassion" AND "will kill without qualms." I read the second as modifying the former, as in "has no compassion to the point of killing without qualms." However, reading the SRD by its simple logic, there are two tests that an Evil creature must meet. By the logic of the conjunction (AND), the Evil creature must meet both.

1. Have no Compassion
2. Willing to Kill without Qualms

That means Roy at best meets the first test (though I think that's arguable, not every failure to show compassion is an evil act, when he makes a rude wisecrack that isn't an evil act, though this would explain why the Deva didn't like it). The only way Roy meets the second test is if you accept that 1. Elan was seemingly in mortal danger 2. Passively allowing something to pass is equivalent to doing the active deed itself and 3. "Seemingly" is enough of a bar for the probability of the actual death for the act to be considered "killing." 4. There are no extenuating circumstance (the actual danger of actually going into the Bandit camp doesn't count).

I disagree on points 2-4. I accept Elan was seemingly in moral danger (meaning there was a probability, though I'm not sure it was greater than 50%). I don't accept passivity is the same as actively doing the deed. I don't accept that "seemingly in mortal danger" was enough of a bar, even if death was probable. I don't accept the objective existence of danger can be dismissed as an extenuating circumstance even if Roy was using it as an excuse.

[Math_Mage]

Pardon I wrote that without longer analysis. Yes, the way it is written it states Evil person "has no compassion" AND "will kill without qualms." I read the second as modifying the former, as in "has no compassion to the point of killing without qualms." However, reading the SRD by its simple logic, there are two tests that an Evil creature must meet. By the logic of the conjunction (AND), the Evil creature must meet both.

1. Have no Compassion
2. Willing to Kill without Qualms

That means Roy at best meets the first test (though I think that's arguable, not every failure to show compassion is an evil act, when he makes a rude wisecrack that isn't an evil act, though this would explain why the Deva didn't like it). The only way Roy meets the second test is if you accept that 1. Elan was seemingly in mortal danger 2. Passively allowing something to pass is equivalent to doing the active deed itself and 3. "Seemingly" is enough of a bar for the probability of the actual death for the act to be considered "killing." 4. There are no extenuating circumstance (the actual danger of actually going into the Bandit camp doesn't count).

I disagree on points 2-4. I accept Elan was seemingly in moral danger (meaning there was a probability, though I'm not sure it was greater than 50%). I don't accept passivity is the same as actively doing the deed. I don't accept that "seemingly in mortal danger" was enough of a bar, even if death was probable. I don't accept the objective existence of danger can be dismissed as an extenuating circumstance even if Roy was using it as an excuse.

Well, would you like to weight it against the corresponding relevant description of Neutrality?

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Roy displayed no commitment to Elan whatsoever despite a personal relationship. Ergo, doesn't fulfill the minimum standard for Neutrality. Mealy-mouthed wordplay around 'killing the innocent' vs. 'letting the innocent die' misses the fact that neither stance displays any compunctions about it.

*sigh* I seriously don't know why this side of the argument is still happening. You don't fall out of the Good end of the alignment pool by committing Neutral acts.

Oh, wait, I remember. It's because you ignored 9/10ths of my post to go back to the mistaken claim that 'there is no such thing as passive evil.' If you really think that, get out in the world and look around.

[Sir_Leorik]

Absolutely not. Making sacrifices on behalf of others is an issue of Good vs. Evil, not of Law vs. Chaos. LG Fyodor and CG Fyodor both help because it is the right thing to do. They derive their concept of 'the right thing to do' from different sources--LG Fyodor has a code, CG Fyodor his well-developed conscience--but they are not more or less likely to do the right thing, even to their own detriment. Duty or desire, either can spark Good.

But obeying one's duty and following one's conscience are not the same thing. Roy, Durkon and O-Chul believe in duty to family, religion and bushido, respectively. (I'm using bushido as a shorthand for the Paladin code, Soon's Oath and loyalty to the Azurite throne.) Roy agreed to go on an arduous quest to set right the task his father never finished. Durkon left his homelands at the decree of his high priest. O-Chul suffered torture for months on end, in the hopes he would have a chance to strike against Xykon and Redcloak. Haley, Elan, Ian Starshine and Lord Shojo all follow the dictates of their conscience. But Haley's conscience doesn't instruct her not to steal, it merely instructs her to steal from the rich and give a "piece of the action" to the poor. Ian Starshine's conscience led him to try to make his daughter as paranoid as he was; we all know how well that turned out. Lord Shojo's conscience instructed him that making sure the world isn't destroyed by the Snarl is more important than following the letter of the Law. Was he wrong? Hinjo would say yes; Miko would say "slash-slash-slash".

The only Chaotic Good character in "OotS" whose conscience is pure is Elan. Elan saves Nale from being killed by falling into a pit of Umplebys and Flumphs because of his conscience. In Elan's case his Chaotic nature allows him to be a better hero dedicated to Good, just as O-Chul's Lawful nature makes him a better hero dedicated to Good.

This is a Lawful perspective. The Chaotic perspective is, does Fyodor still feel this man needs help? You make the error of thinking a Good person only does Good out of responsibility, and reason that since CG is less cognizant of responsibility, he is less likely to do Good. This is false.

So maybe in the final analysis Fyodor would drag the merchant out of the werewolf infested woods, during a blizzard, no matter if he were Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. What would differ would be what motivates his decision (his personal code/religious beliefs or his conscience nagging him, or some combination of the two). But once the are safely in the village, what is Fyodor going to do? He has a stranger suffering from filth fever, and no extra food to feed the man. Chaotic Good Fyodor's conscience should be bugging him about letting the stranger starve, but I don't think he would mind lifting coins from the strangers purse to pay for a cure. Lawful Good Fyodor would never think of stealing from a dying man, even to pay for the man's cure. Doing so violates Fyodor's personal code/religious beliefs/local traditions. Neutral Good Fyodor is caught between following his personal code and following his conscience, and I think that in this case his conscience will win out, at least until the merchant recovers. He's not a thief, but he might try to reason that the merchant would probably want Fyodor to save his life.

Again with the contortions. Forget what the Dark Powers have to say or what they check, unless you're willing to cite chapter and verse showing that they're authoritative on alignment and that they would do what you claim. We have nine alignments with descriptions. They guide us on how Fyodor would respond. Your descriptions of how Chaotic Fyodor would respond are not at all in line with the descriptions of CG and CN, and in every case are far more Evil or less Good than the corresponding Lawful and Neutral responses. These are the salient points. They will not go away just because nobody made a Dark Powers check.

The Dark Powers enforce their own brand of morality. Depending on how the DM interprets their actions, they may be Evil, Neutral or (conceivably) Good. (I do not hold by the latter view; the actions of the Dark Powers are at best Neutral, IMO.) The Dark Powers don't really care about Law and Chaos, just morality, and their view of morality may not be the same as that in the D&D Alignment system. However actions that would usually violate a Good or Neutral aligned character's Alignment often call for a Dark Powers check.

Chaotic Good is not an inferior form of Good from the Lawful Good. The CG perspective is The Good requires us to see those who are worthy of help with eyes not distracted by rules that are not absolutely necessary (and often even then rules must prove their worthiness of application for the case on hand) -- that a man who steals bread to feed a starving child is a man to stand shoulder to shoulder with, consequences be damned.

But where does the Chaotic Good character stop? If it's okay to steal bread, why not gold? Why not rob from the rich to feed the poor, ala Robin Hood? How much bread is it okay to steal before a Chaotic Good character's conscience will tell him to stop?

This is why a Lawful Good character would frown on this viewpoint. He won't go all Inspector Javert on the thief, but he may ask him to make restitution to the baker in some way, perhaps by becoming his apprentice, or delivering bread. A Neutral Good character would have a real difficulty: do I condemn the thief for stealing, or help him escape to feed his family? Besides, doesn't the baker deserve to earn a living too? Surely there is a way to help the thief and the baker, without anyone going to jail or having to make restitution? Just give the loaf of bread back and no one needs to call the city watch.

tl;dr: Lawful people do indeed feel superior over Chaotic, and it takes more efforts to be Lawful, but.
But. But it bears no implications on the Good/Evil axis.

Fyedya`s (yes, I can do that to Russian names even harder, bwahahaha) situation has nothing to do with Law and Chaos.

What is this Russian you speak of? Fyodor is a Voros name!

Unless there are some local laws or traditions about what to do with the wounded strangers in the woods (and from the description it sounds like there are none) Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic characters will percieve the situation identically. Lawful Good Fyedya will help the merchant because it`s Good to help those in pain. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good Fyedyas will do the same for the same reason, given they are at the same place on the G/E axis and there are no additional considerations.
(SNIP)
Responsibility and its influence on Fyedya`s behavior in a described situation only kicks in when there`s a law/tradition (we are talking about a traditional society now, so I`m not going to differentiate between those two) to take care of the strangers in the woods. A man is supposed to either carry the stranger himself despite the danger and demostrate hospitality, or he`s supposed to call Rangers whose responsibility it is. And the situation becomes different depending on which one this is.

Vorostokov is a collection of independant villages which each have their own traditions and local laws. Once upon a time they were ruled by a distant monarch who ruled by divine Birthright(TM), but ever since the endless winter began decades ago, they have been isolated, save for the occaisional Vistani caravan and a few unlucky Sanguinians. (Given the choice of "disease ridden Vampires" and "endless winter and werewolf attacks" four out of five Sanguinians prefer to stay home. Go figure.)

Voros seem to have a strong tradition regarding homesteads, visitors, family and protection from attacks. By bringing the merchant into his home, Fyodor becomes responsible for his care. The villagers generally look out for each other, but they have limited resources and may not want to contribute any to the stranger's well-being, since Fyodor is responsible. That may impact how a Lawful Good Fyodor would care for the merchant, as opposed to a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good Fyodor. But they would all care for the man. The question is would they "borrow" any of the merchant's money or goods to do so, and I feel that Lawful Good Fyodor would not, Neutral Good Fyodor would only do so as a last resort, while Chaotic Good Fyodor may do so as a first resort.

Anyway, the situation as described makes no sense as genuine reflection of alignment.
First, the external circumstances, such as Fyedya`s Wis and Int stats and time of the day, seem to differentiate retroactively, influencing the outcome independently from an alignment choice.

I stand by my assertion that the Dark Powers of the "Ravenloft Campaign Setting" can make the sun set whenever they want to. They can also adjust someone's perception of time's passing; while Fyodor might think he's spent a few minutes rifling through the merchant's belongings, he's actually been doing this for hours. The Dark Powers might even have sped up the passing of time in a localized area around Fyodor and the merchant; this has multiple precedents, most notably Castle Forlorn, which exists in three different time periods, and The Shadow Rift, where an hour outside the Rift equals days or weeks inside the Rift.

Second, the bar for Neutral is set too low. As other people in this thread have mentioned, just leaving a merchant to die in the woods is Evil, and leaving all his valuables with him in this case is neither Chaotic nor Lawful, it`s impractical and stupid. Lawful Evil Fyedya will leave him there (slitting or not his throat will not make much difference since he`s likely to die either way) and take his stuff as well as a Chaotic Evil Fyedya, given the same Int score. Lawful Neutral Fyedya and Chaotic Neutral Fyedya will both warn the Rangers, unless it involves some form of sacrifice in itself, such as paying them to investigate... and even in this case, as they could well know this beforehand and take some of the merchant`s money specifically for this purpose. And the rest of the money for themselves. Leaving the money with him in the middle of the wood is calling for robbers and is neither Lawful (in the woods, on a dying body - finders keepers) nor Good (it puts a merchant in additional danger).

The Lawful Neutral Fyodor in my example didn't leave the merchant to die, he just wouldn't take unnecessary risks to rescue him. He recruited a village Ranger to help in the rescue and together they saved the merchant in the nick of time. True Neutral Fyodor isn't interested in saving the merchant himself; the worst his conscience can get him to do is to report the merchant's location to the Rangers. I don't see why Chaotic Neutral Fyodor wants to help the merchant. "Better him than me," is probably his response. He may or may not snatch the purse, but even if his conscience urged him to help, he would not do more than True Neutral Fyodor.

Third, if there are Dark Powers there (I`m not exactly familiar with the setting), do local people know about them? It seems reasonable to assume that yes, they do, and if attracting their attention is unpleasant, even Evil Fyedyas will have reasons to save the merchant regardless of their personal opinion of the value of the others` lifes. They are protecting their personal precious Karma meter, it`s serious.

Personal knowledge of the Dark Powers varies from region to region. Even in places where it is more likely that sages would know about their existence, the average person has only heard legends of "dark gods" who punish sin or reward wicked acts. I doubt Gregor Zolnik knows much about them, and he's the Darklord of Fyodor's home Domain. (Meaning that most of Zolnik's powers are a gift from the Dark Powers, as are most of the curses Zolnik labors under.)

Players in a Ravenloft Campaign know about the Dark Powers, and Dark Powers checks do function as a meter of bad deeds. (They don't measure good deeds, so they aren't really a "karma" meter.) But the average NPC believes them to be legends, myths and fairy tales. (Of course listening to legends, myths and fairy tales can keep someone alive in the Demiplane of Dread!)

Fourth, Chaotic Evil Fyedya slaughtering his family without second thought is [censored]a very stupid idea[/censored]. In the OOtS both Chaotic Evil villains we see (Xykon and Belkar) have no-one to care about.... oh wait, Belkar has Mr.Scruffy. And there`s Sabine who is most probably CE (succubus) and loves Nale. And that`s talking about the villains of the webcomic, where there`s bound to be no "just casual" Evil or there will be not enough conflict. Chaotic Evil villager may burn his neigbour`s house for an imagined offence, but his family is still his family. It`s there in the definition of the alignment in source material.

Chaotic Evil Fyodor cared for his family, but may have had an abusive streak. Remember he's been struggling to feed them for years, in a land with an endless winter. His crops are dying, and there isn't enough game. Lawful Good Fyodor coped with this crisis by becoming a better person, more caring and devoted. Chaotic Good Fyodor coped by honing his conscience. Chaotic Evil Fyodor is neither caring nor conscientious. When given an opportunity by the most powerful villain in miles to become a minion, Chaotic Evil Fyodor decides to join without hesitation. Fyodor's life has been bitter and harsh for so long, that he'll do it, even if it means murdering and eating his wife and kids.

[Sir_Leorik]

I`d better discuss Havelock Vetinari, who I see as clearly Chaotic Good Or maybe the Well-Intentioned Extremist who slided into Chaotic Neutral because of the methods, but Chaotic nevertheless.

Havelock Vetinari is as Lawful Neutral as they come. You're thinking of Sam Vimes; now there's a Chaotic Good fellow. Sam may be a "copper" charged with upholding the laws, but he's not Lawful. He's too cynical and jaded to have anything close to a personal code or credo. Unlike Captain Carrot, Sgt. Angua, Sgt. Detritus, Sgt. Littlebottom, and arguably Cpl. Shoe, who are all Lawful Good, Commander Vimes breaks the rules to assuage his own conscience. The reason Vetinari doesn't have Vimes sacked is because Vetinari is a Chessmaster, always one step ahead of anyone else. He knows that in order to bring order to a city as chaotic as Ankh-Morpork, he needs someone like Vimes who will break the rules to do the right thing. So long as someone like Carrot is there to keep Vimes from crossing the line (and to show that "Lawful Good is Not Nice") Vetinari can consider Vimes an asset.

What complicates matters is Moist Von Lipwig, who Vetinari is clearly grooming to replace him as Patrician. Unlike Vetinari, Moist really is Chaotic Neutral (with a bit of Good tossed in for good measure, pardon the pun). Why Vetinari wants Moist, brilliant as he is, to replace him, is anyone's guess.

[Kish]

I do not believe the argument over the alignment of Discworld characters is either 1) resolvable, since it amounts to yelling opinions at each other, or 2) constructive here, since Discworld characters are for the most part even more extreme caricatures than OotS characters.

And as far as I can tell, whether the sun can set abruptly because the protagonist of the scene happens to be Chaotic is a distraction; if you've actually addressed the huge problem that your description of the Chaotic alignments is all about the low Wisdom, I'm afraid I missed it.

[lio45]

Pardon I wrote that without longer analysis. Yes, the way it is written it states Evil person "has no compassion" AND "will kill without qualms." I read the second as modifying the former, as in "has no compassion to the point of killing without qualms." However, reading the SRD by its simple logic, there are two tests that an Evil creature must meet. By the logic of the conjunction (AND), the Evil creature must meet both.

1. Have no Compassion
2. Willing to Kill without Qualms

That means Roy at best meets the first test (though I think that's arguable, not every failure to show compassion is an evil act, when he makes a rude wisecrack that isn't an evil act, though this would explain why the Deva didn't like it). The only way Roy meets the second test is if you accept that 1. Elan was seemingly in mortal danger 2. Passively allowing something to pass is equivalent to doing the active deed itself and 3. "Seemingly" is enough of a bar for the probability of the actual death for the act to be considered "killing." 4. There are no extenuating circumstance (the actual danger of actually going into the Bandit camp doesn't count).

I disagree on points 2-4. I accept Elan was seemingly in moral danger (meaning there was a probability, though I'm not sure it was greater than 50%). I don't accept passivity is the same as actively doing the deed. I don't accept that "seemingly in mortal danger" was enough of a bar, even if death was probable. I don't accept the objective existence of danger can be dismissed as an extenuating circumstance even if Roy was using it as an excuse.

Roy's attitude when Elan is abducted is actually IMO closer to "willing to kill without qualms" (even if obviously it's not quite there) than it would be to the typically Neutral reaction -- which clearly would imply at least a little bit of minimal-risk scouting to try and see if there's anything they can realistically do for their ally before throwing in the towel, not a sigh of relief and a "Thank God for that spontaneous allegorical penicillin shot, I'm finally going to be able to enjoy a good night's rest now".

[veti]

My main issue I'm trying to show is that a Lawful Good character is willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, to a degree that a Neutral Good or Chaotic Good character would be unwilling to.

You play 4e, don't you? That's simply not true in any other edition.

Now Fyodor is in a major bind: should he steal the scroll to pay for the merchant's care? Why do the Vistani want this scroll? How did they even know there was a scroll to steal? On the other hand, can Fyodor afford to care for the merchant himself? He could very well risk the filth fever spreading to his family or the other villagers. He certainly has no food to spare, nor does anyone else in the village. How much is Fyodor willing to bend his ethics? How much is he willing to sacrifice for a stranger?

The question of what this scroll is, how the gypsies know about it and what they want with it - is indeed worrying, and deserves further investigation. Whether a first-level peasant with a full-time job caring for his own family is best placed, or even remotely qualified or equipped, to undertake that sort of investigation - is another question. At that point, my LG Fyodor would probably enlist the aid of the village mayor or priest or whatever authority figure they have, to handle the negotiations.

And now, incidentally, you're positing that these supposedly-true-neutral gypsies are performing acts of extortion that involve, potentially, letting a helpless man die purely as a negotiating tactic, when they could save him at zero risk and minimal cost. That should certainly be brought to the attention of the aforementioned village authorities as an issue in its own right. (After all, according to the rules of the settings, there's at least three Dark Powers checks right there - Extortion, Theft and Betrayal. For a healer to demand that a good person perform an evil act in exchange for his services definitely qualifies as 'betrayal of trust'.)

Plus there is the matter of what the Dark Powers have to say. Murdering a man for his money is grounds for a Dark Powers check; leaving a man to die may or may not be, depending on whether its a total stranger (no Dark Powers check) or a fellow PC (which is).

Interesting. When you were first describing 'lawful good' Fyodor, you said he was inspired by the gods. Now 'true neutral' is apparently policed by fear of the 'dark powers'. You seem to assume that all motivation is extrinsic. In your account, even 'good' Fyodor isn't really acting out of compassion, so much as a desire to please the gods.

My idea of LG Fyodor would still pick up the hobo and get him to the healer - if humany possible - even if he'd never heard of either gods or dark powers, simply because it's what he'd want someone to do for him if their circumstances were reversed. The fact that the stranger in your example is rich - opens up a whole raft of possibilities that the good deed may pay off later, but those are really a distraction from the 'alignment' question. "Doing good to please the gods (who may reward you, in this life or the next)" is really no different from "doing good because you expect to be paid", which (I think) most people would agree is closer to Neutral than true Good.

[Math_Mage]

But obeying one's duty and following one's conscience are not the same thing.

They sure aren't. So what?

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

Roy, Durkon and O-Chul believe in duty to family, religion and bushido, respectively. (I'm using bushido as a shorthand for the Paladin code, Soon's Oath and loyalty to the Azurite throne.) Roy agreed to go on an arduous quest to set right the task his father never finished. Durkon left his homelands at the decree of his high priest. O-Chul suffered torture for months on end, in the hopes he would have a chance to strike against Xykon and Redcloak. Haley, Elan, Ian Starshine and Lord Shojo all follow the dictates of their conscience. But Haley's conscience doesn't instruct her not to steal, it merely instructs her to steal from the rich and give a "piece of the action" to the poor. Ian Starshine's conscience led him to try to make his daughter as paranoid as he was; we all know how well that turned out. Lord Shojo's conscience instructed him that making sure the world isn't destroyed by the Snarl is more important than following the letter of the Law. Was he wrong? Hinjo would say yes; Miko would say "slash-slash-slash".

Haley is, by word of God, 'Chaotic Good-ish', and the lesson you cite is learned from Ian, and Ian is merely Chaotic. Shojo is the only interesting example, and I wholly agree that Hinjo would disapprove of how Shojo handled things, given that Hinjo has already voiced his disapproval. That a LG character disapproves of a CG character does not mean the CG character is doing it wrong.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

The only Chaotic Good character in "OotS" whose conscience is pure is Elan. Elan saves Nale from being killed by falling into a pit of Umplebys and Flumphs because of his conscience. In Elan's case his Chaotic nature allows him to be a better hero dedicated to Good, just as O-Chul's Lawful nature makes him a better hero dedicated to Good.

So what? Just because OotS doesn't have many examples of Chaotic characters with pure consciences doesn't mean either that those examples are less meaningful, or that the distribution in this particular reflects anything objective about alignment in general. And just because you marginalize Elan with the word 'only' doesn't make him a marginal example.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

So maybe in the final analysis Fyodor would drag the merchant out of the werewolf infested woods, during a blizzard, no matter if he were Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. What would differ would be what motivates his decision (his personal code/religious beliefs or his conscience nagging him, or some combination of the two). But once the are safely in the village, what is Fyodor going to do? He has a stranger suffering from filth fever, and no extra food to feed the man. Chaotic Good Fyodor's conscience should be bugging him about letting the stranger starve, but I don't think he would mind lifting coins from the strangers purse to pay for a cure. Lawful Good Fyodor would never think of stealing from a dying man, even to pay for the man's cure. Doing so violates Fyodor's personal code/religious beliefs/local traditions. Neutral Good Fyodor is caught between following his personal code and following his conscience, and I think that in this case his conscience will win out, at least until the merchant recovers. He's not a thief, but he might try to reason that the merchant would probably want Fyodor to save his life.

Oh, CG never has qualms about stealing, is that it? Tell it to Elan. And to the extent that a CG character would consider stealing to pay for the cure, a LG character would equally consider the merchant in debt to whoever paid for the cure, and require repayment. You can't have one without the other.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

The Dark Powers enforce their own brand of morality.

Then they are irrelevant and you should stop using them in this discussion.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

But where does the Chaotic Good character stop? If it's okay to steal bread, why not gold? Why not rob from the rich to feed the poor, ala Robin Hood? How much bread is it okay to steal before a Chaotic Good character's conscience will tell him to stop?

This is why a Lawful Good character would frown on this viewpoint. He won't go all Inspector Javert on the thief, but he may ask him to make restitution to the baker in some way, perhaps by becoming his apprentice, or delivering bread. A Neutral Good character would have a real difficulty: do I condemn the thief for stealing, or help him escape to feed his family? Besides, doesn't the baker deserve to earn a living too? Surely there is a way to help the thief and the baker, without anyone going to jail or having to make restitution? Just give the loaf of bread back and no one needs to call the city watch.

Yes, we know, a Lawful Good character will disapprove of a Chaotic Good perspective. But, and say it slowly with me, this does not mean the Chaotic Good character is less Good. A CG character knows when to stop without a code. Also, the fact that you reference Robin Hood (the classic CG character) in a pejorative fashion shows exactly what you think of CG.

Please, just stop making scenarios. It's painful to read them. The mixture of shallow speculation and blatant prejudice hurts my eyes.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

The Lawful Neutral Fyodor in my example didn't leave the merchant to die, he just wouldn't take unnecessary risks to rescue him. He recruited a village Ranger to help in the rescue and together they saved the merchant in the nick of time. True Neutral Fyodor isn't interested in saving the merchant himself; the worst his conscience can get him to do is to report the merchant's location to the Rangers. I don't see why Chaotic Neutral Fyodor wants to help the merchant. "Better him than me," is probably his response. He may or may not snatch the purse, but even if his conscience urged him to help, he would not do more than True Neutral Fyodor.

Nonsense. If LN Fyodor feels duty-bound to go for help and try to rescue the merchant, CN Fyodor feels conscience-bound to help and TN Fyodor is caught between the two. That you think otherwise means you think CN is less moral than LN, which is ridiculous.

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

Chaotic Evil Fyodor cared for his family

Sure coulda fooled me. The fact that you can now invent an explanation to get around advertising your blatant prejudice does not actually hide it.

Can you please learn at least this one lesson from my post?

Conscience is not less worthy than code.

[Sir_Leorik]

And as far as I can tell, whether the sun can set abruptly because the protagonist of the scene happens to be Chaotic is a distraction; if you've actually addressed the huge problem that your description of the Chaotic alignments is all about the low Wisdom, I'm afraid I missed it.

Here's what I wrote:

Chaotic Evil Fyodor cared for his family, but may have had an abusive streak. Remember he's been struggling to feed them for years, in a land with an endless winter. His crops are dying, and there isn't enough game. Lawful Good Fyodor coped with this crisis by becoming a better person, more caring and devoted. Chaotic Good Fyodor coped by honing his conscience. Chaotic Evil Fyodor is neither caring nor conscientious. When given an opportunity by the most powerful villain in miles to become a minion, Chaotic Evil Fyodor decides to join without hesitation. Fyodor's life has been bitter and harsh for so long, that he'll do it, even if it means murdering and eating his wife and kids.

Chaotic Evil Fyodor isn't an idiot; he's a desperate man who is tired of the constant struggles to survive in Vorostokov. When he stumbles on a man who needs help, he doesn't feel empathy for the man; all he can do is stare at the merchant's fine clothes, fat purse and heavy pack, and think "Why should he have such a good life?" Ignoring the merchant's hacking cough, shivering and fever, all Chaotic Evil Fyodor can see is the material wealth. So he lashes out at the merchant, killing him in as bloody a fashion as he can. The Dark Powers notice this, the Mists rise, and for a moment the forest has no sound but the death rattle of the merchant and Fyodor's knife stabbing the merchant. When Fyodor looks up in horror from what he has done, hours seem to have somehow passed, and Zolnik is there with a job offer for Fyodor. This has nothing to do with Fyodor's intellect, only with years of grinding poverty, a winter that never lets up, and a moment where an inability to show empathy to a stranger curdles into hatred. That is why he stabbed the merchant.