On alignments...

[Seppo87]

If you had to be as objective as possibile, (assuming alignments can be objective, for the sake of the poll) how would you describe the following situations?

Good-Evil axis
You can't stay Good and will become Neutral if:
You can't stay Neutral and will become Evil if:
You can't stay Evil and will become Neutral if:
You can't stay Neutral and will become Good if:

Chaos-Law
You can't stay Lawful and will become Neutral if:
You can't stay Neutral and will become Chaotic if:
You can't stay Chaotic and will become Neutral if:
You can't stay Neutral and will become Lawful if:

It's not important that your answer is contradictions-free or that it covers every possible situation. Your gut feelings are just as important, as they probably are close to interiorized, untold moral rules, which is what alignments are actually about.

Feel free to be as accurate as you like.

[hamishspence]

I'd probably go with:

"You will cease to be Good, and become Neutral if... you embrace the Way Of The Mercenary and decide you will never help any stranger, without payment or the the promise of payment."
"You will cease to be Neutral and become Evil if ... you intentionally harm or destroy an immortal soul."
"You will cease to be Evil and become Neutral if... you repent all your past Evil deeds and resolve to, at minimum, never do Evil again."
"You will cease to be Neutral and become Good if... in addition to the above, you resolve to atone for your past evil deeds, and to devote yourself to altruism"

I figure the Law/Chaos axis is somewhat blurrier.

[Baxter Konrad]

Good-Evil axis
You can't stay Good and will become Neutral if:
You are no longer able to maintain a sense of altruism. Good characters are (and should be) rewarded for their heroism, but they do what they do because it is right, not because they get rewarded. As has been said, mercenary behaviour (only helping if there's a reward) is Neutral.

You can't stay Neutral and will become Evil if:
You willfully harm, or allow to be harmed, people while in the pursuit of your goals. Example: A Good character would help a starving farmer protect his land; a Neutral character might come to some arrangement, or at least feel bad for not helping; an Evil character does not care about the farmer at all.

You can't stay Evil and will become Neutral if:
You begin to empathise with people who are not directly benefiting you. Note, having empathy for certain people doesn't mean you're not Evil - you must have empathy for people who offer no immediate reward for that empathy.

You can't stay Neutral and will become Good if:
You embrace altruism, and begin to forsake personal gain for the benefit of others.

Good and Evil basically focus on selfish vs selfless. From a certain point of view, all selfish acts are Evil, and all selfless ones are Good. However, motive is important. That's where it gets tricky, and the other important thing is that these ideas need to be broad and over a course of many instances. You cannot stop being Evil because you give food to one hungry dog, but you would probably stop being Evil if you set up a food bank. On the other hand, if you set up a food bank because you're smart enough to know that weak slaves can't build your Black Pyramid of Eternal Pain, then that's not going to budge your alignment one bit.

Chaos-Law
You can't stay Lawful and will become Neutral if:
You actively seek work-arounds for legal, moral or organisational codes that you align to and seek to follow. Lawful characters CAN ignore illegal, immoral or extra-organisational codes so long as their own codes supersede. Also, if you embrace any kind of anarchic or libertarian political ideology.

You can't stay Neutral and will become Chaotic if:
You actively flout legal, moral or organisational codes that you align to and previously sought to follow. Also, if you embrace ideals of personal freedom and liberty to the point of it becoming a life choice.

You can't stay Chaotic and will become Neutral if:
You adopt legal, moral or organisational codes and accept their rulings. Also, if you begin to embrace political ideologies that place the importance of the individual and their freedom below that of the state (ie: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, etc.), or take a job in a financial sector.

You can't stay Neutral and will become Lawful if:
You fully embrace legal, moral or organisational codes and accept their rulings, even when doing so inhibits your personal rights and freedoms. You also become Lawful if you create, or fully embrace the ideals of Capitalism, Feudalism, Communism or Fascism).


To clarify the Law-Chaos one, because this is kind of complicated, Law-Chaos is essentially about structural rigidity versus personal expression. The idea of free speech (that you should be allowed to say what you want, however aberrant or hurtful) is Chaotic. The idea that speech should be regulated, with certain phrases outlawed, is Lawful.

I tend to think about Law and Chaos as world views, and it's also useful to use some (rather simplified) political ideas to express that. Holding strong political viewpoints aligns you; if you are weak, or fluctuate a lot, then you're Neutral on the Law-Chaos alignment. Any ideology that relies heavily on laws, regulations and government to work is Lawful, otherwise it's Chaotic. It can be helpful to simplify these ideas down to a core principal, rather than trying to work out whether a society is Lawful or Chaotic because they combine a "lawful" socialist health care ideal with a "chaotic" low-regulation banking sector.

[Raven777]

You can't stay Neutral and will become Evil if:
You willfully harm, or allow to be harmed, people while in the pursuit of your goals. Example: A Good character would help a starving farmer protect his land; a Neutral character might come to some arrangement, or at least feel bad for not helping; an Evil character does not care about the farmer at all.

Objection! Merely not caring and being on your way is Neutral. A starving farmer is entitled to nobody's help. Evil is an active behavior. Evil would be going out of one's way to steal what little food the farmer has left, or divert the river the farmer needs to grow what little crops he has to build one's castle.

[hamishspence]

Merely not caring and being on your way is Neutral.

Lack of empathy for innocent strangers in trouble tends to be associated with Evil in D&D though.

[Flickerdart]

Lack of empathy for innocent strangers in trouble tends to be associated with Evil in D&D though.

There's a difference between empathy and personal sacrifice on behalf of a stranger. Just because I feel bad for the farmer doesn't mean I have to help him.

[hamishspence]

Hence:

a Neutral character might come to some arrangement, or at least feel bad for not helping.

A character who does not feel bad at all about it - and doesn't feel any desire to help, not even in a "help for reward" fashion, seems more Evil than Neutral.

Then of course, there's concepts like "duty to rescue" - the notion that "failure to try and rescue someone in danger when doing so would not be a significant risk or sacrifice, is reprehensible or even criminal".

[Flickerdart]

Hence:



A character who does not feel bad at all about it - and doesn't feel any desire to help, not even in a "help for reward" fashion, seems more Evil than Neutral.

Then of course, there's concepts like "duty to rescue" - the notion that "failure to try and rescue someone in danger when doing so would not be a significant risk or sacrifice, is reprehensible or even criminal".

Hm...

Consider this: A modron, a slaad, and a rilmani are walking down the road when they sees a starving beggar. Do any of them feel bad for the beggar? Do any of them help the beggar?

[Red Fel]

Hm...

Consider this: A modron, a slaad, and a rilmani are walking down the road when they sees a starving beggar. Do any of them feel bad for the beggar? Do any of them help the beggar?

The Modron would seek to ensure that the beggar was performing his designated function. Upon determination that the beggar described himself as a beggar, the Modron would be satisfied, in that the beggar, being defined as a person who begs, is performing his designated function.

The Rilmani would observe the beggar, and, having determined that a balanced society requires both wealth and poverty, would be on his way.

The Slaad likes cats today.

As an aside: Is there a way to turn that into a "three Outsiders walk into a bar" joke?

[Karl Aegis]

Generally speaking, you only change alignments if it would benefit you or if circumstances around you change so that your alignment was no longer feasible. Any action is easy enough to justify as acting in alignment. So you only change your alignment if your patron deity abandons you over something petty or if you suddenly lose access to vital resources that you can't survive without.

[Flickerdart]

The Modron would seek to ensure that the beggar was performing his designated function. Upon determination that the beggar described himself as a beggar, the Modron would be satisfied, in that the beggar, being defined as a person who begs, is performing his designated function.

The Rilmani would observe the beggar, and, having determined that a balanced society requires both wealth and poverty, would be on his way.

The Slaad likes cats today.

Then not feeling bad for the beggar must be Neutral.

As an aside: Is there a way to turn that into a "three Outsiders walk into a bar" joke?

An Ravid and a Nightstalker are trying to find a bar. "Are you sure we're going the right way?" asks the Nightstalker. The Ravid says, "I'm positive."

[dascarletm]

A Mindflayer, a Drider, and a Wyrmling Red Dragon walk into a Tavern.

They are immediately slain since this is where all the murder-hobos are.



or....

A wizard, a fighter, a rogue, and a cleric walk into a bar.

The campaign begins.

[Andezzar]

As an aside: Is there a way to turn that into a "three Outsiders walk into a bar" joke?

A Balor, a Succubus and a Flamebrother Salamander walk into a bar. "Man, that must have hurt!" says the Salamander.

[JohnDaBarr]

I think we should start a DnD joke thread