AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'm just wondering if I chose the wrong alignment for one of my characters. My question is, does Lawful Good mean that you don't summon undead, and that you don't use morally gray means to reach "good" ends?

It sounds like a stupid question, but I guess I'm asking if the Lawful in Lawful Good stands for the laws that govern Paladins across the board, or can they be any laws particular to a character? Can the law in Lawful Good be specific to your character? Like a way of acting and responding that stems from a moral belief system, is consistent, and achieves good ends, but may not coincide with the laws of Cordor or other good cities.

At the end of the day the character is good, and she acts consistently according to an inner doctrine, but if breaking a cities laws interferes with achieving a "good" end she'll break them without a second thought.

And no she's not a paladin. Fire away, thanks.

I believe that the alignment axis tries to look at the whole thing from a halfway objective point of view. If what you do by your character's standards of good and lawful does not coincide with what is considered good and lawful on an unbiased, level-headed, common-sensed OOC level, then you might just have slipped through and ended up at lawful evil. You think you do good, but it's not all that good to summon undead regardless of your intent with it. If you'd argue that intent makes alignment then I would point at the numerous troubled villains who really just did what they thought was right and proper by them... with bad consequences.

Lawful does not make yo a mindless automaton of law, nor does Good make you a mindless automaton of good (or law, either).

PHB wrote:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifice to help others ...
"Law" implies honour trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability.

It does tend to go on a lot (hence the ellipsis), but it also states "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."

Alignments of the 'good' nature are explored in the Book of Exalted Deeds, which is worth a read IMO.

Yurell is right.

Summoning undead is a chaotic action, sometimes judged as the most chaotic you can get.

No, it's an EVIL action. Law and Chaos has nothing to do with it, heh.

Last edited by Yurell on Tue, Mar 17 2009, 23:28 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Moridan_X wrote:

Yurell is right.

Summoning undead is a chaotic action, sometimes judged as the most chaotic you can get.

As much as I love to hear that I'm right, I can't recall saying that.
Summoning undead is classed as an evil action - it's even in the spell descriptor in PnP.

THe problem is 'inner-doctrine'. If you have a strict personal code (a la monk) you are Lawful, but if you follow a strict moral code code (a la Robin Hood), you are Chaotic. The difference between the two being ... ?

Basically, I think it is very much up to interpretation.

I do believe it is possible for Lawful Good characters to Summon Undead. I have recollections of reading that priests of Osiris (LG Mulhorandi deity) summon undead to protect burial grounds. I'm sure there was some sort of catch to make that not as rediculous as it sounds, but dont remember the specifics.

It's entirely possible for a LG character to summon undead ... I don't think there are many spells that work or not based solely on your alignment until you hit vile and exalted status - and they change yor alignment methinks, although I can't remember.
At any rate, they're not in NWN.

Chaotic good characters will go to any length to ensure that good prevails at the end of the day, even if it means breaking laws, lying, deceit starting a rebellion or causing some loss of life at the end of the day. They do what they feel is right and will do anything to ensure what's right prevails. Chaotic good characters also believe in the right of freedom for everyone and will fight for freedom in any form. If they don't like oppressive laws, they'll fight against the oppressive laws.

Lawful good characters on the other hand will do what is right but in a way that's bound to the laws of the city/area they live in or what their deity commands. They won't burn down a building and kill an innocent family just to kill a bunch of criminals so to speak.

To give an easy example:
-Spiderman would be Lawful Good.
-The Punisher would be Chaotic Good.

Thus to answer your query, in my honest opinion to use undeath as a last resort to do what is right would be a chaotic good action. I disagree with the use of undead by good characters though because as Tormak said... it's an evil act and the reason it's evil is because it's what the mainstream Good deities and their clergy preach.

Well, there is the interpretation, but DnD feels like (to me) it tries to define "this is good, this is evil" and "this is lawful, this is chaotic"... However: A good person can still do the wrong thing and a chaotic person may still obey a law.

It's best to try and go by the bigger picture or if you feel it is a pivitol event in the character to be defining their actions.

That said, a good person could summon undead. However, justifying lawfully may be challenging. Yet a lawful person could summon an undead under direct order. But was it the good thing to do?

Quote:

At the end of the day the character is good, and she acts consistently according to an inner doctrine, but if breaking a cities laws interferes with achieving a "good" end she'll break them without a second thought.

I'd be seeing more Neutral on the law-chaos scale with that. As in example of one of the neutrals is that the character respects the Governement or Rulers but does not feel betrothed to them. [[If I got that right...]]

Quote:

My question is, does Lawful Good mean that you don't summon undead...

Well, by DnD seeming terms of summoning undead is Evil based on the fact you're both bringing forth a powerful negative energy and disturbing death which is -by most and yet not all - considered a sacred occurance or something of fate that is not meant for mortal hands when natural death takes hold; that the released soul is better respected in being let the afterlife they earned in life [not to force it back into a 'false' life.]

So...a Lawful Good summoning undead... Hard question. Possible...but the more it occures, the higher chance of a change away from either Lawful or Good depending which part of their alignment it has a greater effect on. [IE: Laws of "No Undead" altering Lawful vs Morals of "sacred death" being disturbed.]
1) If they feel morally reasoned that the summon of the undead was practical or nessecity; then the Lawfulness is changing more.
2) If they feel shamed for breaking oath or guideline of their law; then the Goodness is changing more.
3) If they feel both morally justified and that the law was too strong; then both alignment factors are changing equally.
4) If they feel morally doubtful and dishonored for breaking the laws; then both alignments are being challenged but are resisting to change [which would imply less often to no summoning of undead.]

/endrant

Hopefully something there makes sense.

Quote:

Well, there is the interpretation, but DnD feels like (to me) it tries to define "this is good, this is evil" and "this is lawful, this is chaotic"... However: A good person can still do the wrong thing and a chaotic person may still obey a law

Well, sure, that's why alignment points are there. Nnot everyone is 100/100 LG, heh. Some are 87/92!

Responding to the OP, I think the character is more Neutral Good or Chaotic Good than Lawful Good.

Lawful generally means giving extreme thought and reservation about breaking of the laws. If the character is gun-ho good guy, forget the system, he is probably closer to Chaotic Good.

Laws in regards to Lawful Alignment doesn't mean a city's or a region's laws. While they're always taken into consideration, it's more relevant to the character having a structured and formulated set of -personal- laws, rules, and morals that he doesn't break.

Example; the evil, megalomaniac who stands staunchly against torture - even if it would serve his ends much better than just killing people - is more Lawful than anything.

I think the best way to put it is;

Lawful; The Ends to not justify the Means
Chaotic; The Ends justify the Means.

Lawful vs. Chaotic can be a difficult thing to comprehend I think.

One way I like to think about it is the modern day thought of Conservative vs. Liberal. Conservative being Lawful and Liberal being Chaotic. Now, that's not not to say that all conservatives and liberals fall under the two categories, but when looking at the wider picture and looking at it from an over all and general perspective, it gives you just that, perspective.

Another way to look at it is thinking of a proper Police officer for Lawful and a Rebel for Chaotic. Again, not fool proof, but it generally speaking, it can give you an idea.

Lawful's are honorable. They follow laws and codes and even uphold them if they're placed in a position of power. They're organized, they're traditional, they plan well, they're reliable, and are honest. Honesty is one of their biggest things. They can be very judgmental of others also, believing everyone should live up to their moral code. There is little beating around the bush with a Lawful, they're blunt and forward.

Chaotic's are beacons of freedom. They follow their consciences and will do what they want because they want to. They're unorganized, like new ideas, don't like to plan, are unreliable, and say whatever they want. Freedom is one of their biggest things. They adapt well to their environments because they're so flexible and open. They will lie, play with words and beat around the bush if it means it will further their cause.

With that said, I hate the idea of good's summoning undead. Okay sure, sometimes people mess up, but we're talking about someone who does it regularly right? That would make him drop to Neutral and not good IMO. Also, Lawful and Chaotic has nothing to do with undead at all. From the way you describe your character though, I would go with Chaotic Neutral.

-Cloak-and-Dagger- wrote:

I do believe it is possible for Lawful Good characters to Summon Undead. I have recollections of reading that priests of Osiris (LG Mulhorandi deity) summon undead to protect burial grounds. I'm sure there was some sort of catch to make that not as rediculous as it sounds, but dont remember the specifics.

Jergal got the same, the priests are allowed to summon undead to do the job for them.
No catch as far as I can tell.

HellScourge wrote:

Jergal got the same, the priests are allowed to summon undead to do the job for them.
No catch as far as I can tell.

Just don't let the Kelemvorites or the Tormites see what you're doing. You'll be creating a catch.

You know me, the resident Undead expert...so I thought I'd throw a real bone into this conversation.

There are good LICHES.

Baelnorn.

:twisted:

Regards,

Religion pwns their good intentions with pure ignorance. Stupidity wins again!

Galenson wrote:

HellScourge wrote:

Jergal got the same, the priests are allowed to summon undead to do the job for them.
No catch as far as I can tell.

Just don't let the Kelemvorites or the Tormites see what you're doing. You'll be creating a catch.

Jergal is Kelemvors servant, as far as I understood it..
So, in theory it would be alright. OF course, IC politics and what not may differ.

Won Won said it best.

Also LG is not a pinnacle of purity unless EVERYONE follows that doctrine of good. A paladin that slays heretics without mercy would by modern standards be the same as a suicide bomber. Don't forget, the DnD alignment system was written for a land of absolutes. Amia is more diverse and mutable then that.

Bearing that in mind Lawful denotes a set of rules; be they your moral compass, the laws of a land or city, or the laws of a god. These rules cannot be compromised, they are absolute.

Neutrality in an alignment sense adds detachment, rumination, doubt and reflection. For evil this carries a selfish edge, for good a 'humanistic' altruism and for TN, a detachment from the guided concerns of an aligned world.

Chaotic seems to throw impulsive, rash, reckless and above all emotive responses to the mix.

As far as Undead goes, what do the Laws you follow say? If they are there as a result of a god then chances are it will frown on undead (again not definite). If you're a LG character that doesn't pay serious homage to a god then what do the characters own moral laws say?

WonWon wrote:

Lawful; The Ends to not justify the Means
Chaotic; The Ends justify the Means.

I have a different point of view. To me, this doesn't make sense because paladins kill murderers, imprison slavers and wage for in the name of peace. Classic ends justifying means thinking. Most laws are, in fact, fully dependant on the premise of ends justifying means. How could you otherwise jail someone?

To me, it's more useful to think of lawful as being submissive towards a certain ethos, loyally accepting law from an outside source (gods, tradition etc), wheras to be chaotic is to assert oneself in a dominant position above law, effectively being an übermensch with an ethical origin (good or bad) in one's self.

HellScourge wrote:

Galenson wrote:

HellScourge wrote:

Jergal got the same, the priests are allowed to summon undead to do the job for them.
No catch as far as I can tell.

Just don't let the Kelemvorites or the Tormites see what you're doing. You'll be creating a catch.

Jergal is Kelemvors servant, as far as I understood it..
So, in theory it would be alright. OF course, IC politics and what not may differ.

'

any jergal follower seen creating undead will be burned, jergal is kelemvors subject now and as such much abide to his laws..the EO will enforce that..and no matter what...creating undeath is a EVIL act there is no other way to look at it .and no you cant summon a bealnorn as it is a powerfull elven lich...

I always think that the 'Chaotic' Rider means that they will sometimes cross over their normal parameters to do something unexpected, as in the nature of chaos.

So a lawful chaotic person might well do something a bit on the dark side believing it to be serving some higher agency whereas a Lawful good person would bemuch less likely to consider such a thing.

Athyonn Ursidae wrote:

I always think that the 'Chaotic' Rider means that they will sometimes cross over their normal parameters to do something unexpected, as in the nature of chaos.

So a lawful chaotic person might well do something a bit on the dark side believing it to be serving some higher agency whereas a Lawful good person would bemuch less likely to consider such a thing.

we arnt talking about stealing a apple..this is one of the foulest things you can possibly do...

There are as many alignments as there are characters. No two people are the same Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil.

Your alignment is the right one if you feel it fits your character. If a DM thinks otherwise, and it's really apparent, you may get an alignment shift. Nothing wrong with that, really.

I couldn't reasonably describe any of my characters by the alignment on their sheets. So Kalliniel is Chaotic Neutral? Maybe so, for he cares little for human laws and isn't averse to violent vigilante action. Neither does he like others telling him what to do. But he also has ideals as noble as a paladin's, and treats his bladesinger duties with a definite Lawful Good approach. He's also willing to show good faith to all goodly races until their prove undeserving, which makes him fairly Neutral Good in my eyes. You could say the same about Joon: he's gentle and benevolent, and one of his main goals is to educate children and help the poor. Quite Neutral Good. He's a free spirit and somewhat unfocused though, which would suggest a Chaotic alignment. He's never been one for much zeal, and tolerates evil when it doesn't outright threathen the things he values, because it gives him a chance to learn more about evil. True Neutral, perhaps? But then, he's a Cormyrean born and raised, proud of his country and eager to stand up to the standards of his king. He also constantly strives to better serve Oghma as a priest, and contemplates his teachings. Lawful, maybe even Lawful Good?

I could easily justify 5 different alignments for Kalliniel and 4 for Joon. Kir'nack, too, hovers between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral, at times. So I just picked one I felt was the most representative of the character on average.

The point is: there's no need to pinpoint your alignment exactly. It's an approximation that results from a variety of factors, such as motivation, cultural background, the results of your actions, and some supernatural factors like fiendish/celestial influence. If you want your character to be Lawful Good, he can be Lawful Good. There's plenty of room for fault there, especially because you're not bound to a divine code like paladins. I think Lawful Good suffers a lot from being associated with paladins, when that's just one possible interpretation. There are more than 9 kinds of people in the world.

Don't let others define it for you. I, for one, could never accept Ron's idea of ends justifying the means being chaotic, and vice versa. We all disagree, so you might as well accept disagreement in the first place and do it your way.

P.S. Can we take the undeath debate into the very recent topic dedicated to the very thing? As much as I enjoy proving everyone else wrong on the subject, it's getting tiresome.

All this talk about alignment absolutism and some such, Tormak's reply really resolves it best:

TormakSaber wrote:

Well, sure, that's why alignment points are there. Nnot everyone is 100/100 LG, heh. Some are 87/92!

I disagree. It doesn't solve the core issue at all, which is the unclear definitions of the alignment absolutes, good and evil to some extent but particularly chaotic and lawful. An action can be lawful in one sense of the word, but rather chaotic from a different perspective. The points can help with forming an approximation of someone's alignment, but having 10 000 set options instead of 9 doesn't really change the core of the matter.

The best solution is really: pike off and don't tell me how to play. We can always try diplomatically building a bridge between people's different ideas, but it's usually a waste of time in regards to result. The only merit is the enjoyment of debating.

Well, I was actually pointing out Tormak's quote out of respect to the fact that it's an explanation of how every character can have varying degrees of alignment (also conveniently enough, implicitly saying that the alignment absolutes do not have a clear definition).

However, given that the game mechanics explicitly force you to choose an alignment upon character creation, Tormak's reply is a good thing to keep in mind when you start to worry if you chose the correct alignment for your character, which is the trouble the OP is finding himself in.

To answer you, Reiley, I'm pretty sure summoning undead discredits a character some from the "Good" part. Maybe not the "Lawful" part, but I'd say "Good" people don't like to um... I'm not sure about the exact mechanics of undead, but... see someone's dead body forced back into movement to kill others or a spirit tied back to the world from moving on, etc... it's kind of... um... Evil.

As for breaking City's laws discrediting you from Lawful? I would say that it depends on what's going on in the City. For example, if the administration of the City itself is not following its own laws (i.e. your character finds an officer of the law [in a city where this is illegal] hanging innocent citizens from their rafters and telling the populace it's suicide), I would say that if your character chooses then to break a law, they are not being terribly "Chaotic" -- depending on what they do and how you have defined their own, inner code. Or it could depend on if you're in a place under the City's jurisdiction... if you're in the Sewers of the City, in a Thieves Guild's lair, do the laws of the City still apply, etc...

But just because I personally wouldn't label some of those things as "unlawful," that doesn't mean others wouldn't. Because to remain at a perfect 100 Lawful, I would tend to think you wouldn't break any laws at all. I don't think breaking a City's laws necessarily makes you Chaotic. But it does, to some degree, discredit your Lawfulness. I agree with Iron's point that it is terribly subjective and the alignment grid kinda sucks -- though I do think there are definitely some actions that, should a DM be present, would warrant a distinct change in alignment. At the very least, being Good and dealing willingly in the slave trade or something.

While lawful doesn't exactly mean you follow a city's laws, it does mean the character understands the need for laws in society. Breaking any of them, even those foreign and perhaps weird to him or her takes a great deal of care and review. Being able to instantly disregard them would make the character at least neutral.

Phantom-D wrote:

While lawful doesn't exactly mean you follow a city's laws, it does mean the character understands the need for laws in society. Breaking any of them, even those foreign and perhaps weird to him or her takes a great deal of care and review. Being able to instantly disregard them would make the character at least neutral.

That's easy to counter by saying "It's not so!" Why would a monk, completely detached from the mortal world and community, spend even a heartbeat thinking about the organization of society? I could go on with examples.

That's what these debates boil down to: you can state your opinions back and forth, but there's really no "evidence" to present here. Simply enough, I could create various character concepts that contradicted what you wrote above, and it would still be completely justified for them to be Lawful.

Overall, it's more fruitful and constructive to brainstorm for ideas on how Lawful and Chaotic might manifest in different characters. It's much more interesting to read a description of a character, a unique personality, and see how the player explains the chosen alignment, than evaluate these ill-founded blanket statements of "This is how Alignment X acts, and this is how Alignment X doesn't act." They're inaccurate, uninteresting and inconsequential to character creation, I feel. People in general shouldn't act as if they know what an alignment means, because they really don't.

I see your point indeed. One could even say that a monk that is removed from the world would have an even BETTER understanding of the need for societal rules. He might follow even the most ridiculous ones out of principle.

Phantom-D wrote:

While lawful doesn't exactly mean you follow a city's laws, it does mean the character understands the need for laws in society. Breaking any of them, even those foreign and perhaps weird to him or her takes a great deal of care and review. Being able to instantly disregard them would make the character at least neutral.

Xavi is CG, except for a brief flirtation with CN (during which time she often summoned wraiths using a Bone Shield), but she now understands (and even defends) the need for laws to protect the weak and to enable people to work together effectively. That being said, she would not hesitate to break a law if she thought it was better to do so than not (though she wouldnt do so frivolously, or at least not in front of a guard :wink:

). On the other hand, she would no longer summon an undead (based on her own personal moral code) but she is at the same time disgusted by the Kelemvorites fanaticism. She dislikes most blatantly evil folks but has also been known to be friendly with some, even if she disapproves of their behaviour in some respects.

In other words, she's definitely good but will sometimes associate with people who arent, for her own reasons. She also values personal freedom very highly and detests dogmatism and rigidity but sees the necessity for law and structure (if only because not everyone can be trusted to behave nicely when given the freedom to choose). She doesnt respect authority figures simply because they are authority figures, and indeed can be quite disrespectful (but is still likely to be quite polite in person unless she absolutely detests them and gets into a slanging match).

I would like to point out that she does have a very clear moral code (though she has been known to bend it for reasons of self-interest or personal gratification). It just doesnt agree with that of most other people.

I guess that would make her NG rather than CG?

Also LG is not a pinnacle of purity unless EVERYONE follows that doctrine of good. A paladin that slays heretics without mercy would by modern standards be the same as a suicide bomber. Don't forget, the DnD alignment system was written for a land of absolutes. Amia is more diverse and mutable then that.

Bearing that in mind Lawful denotes a set of rules; be they your moral compass, the laws of a land or city, or the laws of a god. These rules cannot be compromised, they are absolute.

Neutrality in an alignment sense adds detachment, rumination, doubt and reflection. For evil this carries a selfish edge, for good a 'humanistic' altruism and for TN, a detachment from the guided concerns of an aligned world.

Chaotic seems to throw impulsive, rash, reckless and above all emotive responses to the mix.

As far as Undead goes, what do the Laws you follow say? If they are there as a result of a god then chances are it will frown on undead (again not definite). If you're a LG character that doesn't pay serious homage to a god then what do the characters own moral laws.

In this case I think I might have put it pretty well, granted I'm a self-righteous forum pest buy still...

The Incognitos wrote:

Also LG is not a pinnacle of purity unless EVERYONE follows that doctrine of good. A paladin that slays heretics without mercy would by modern standards be the same as a suicide bomber. Don't forget, the DnD alignment system was written for a land of absolutes. Amia is more diverse and mutable then that.

Bearing that in mind Lawful denotes a set of rules; be they your moral compass, the laws of a land or city, or the laws of a god. These rules cannot be compromised, they are absolute.

Neutrality in an alignment sense adds detachment, rumination, doubt and reflection. For evil this carries a selfish edge, for good a 'humanistic' altruism and for TN, a detachment from the guided concerns of an aligned world.

Chaotic seems to throw impulsive, rash, reckless and above all emotive responses to the mix.

As far as Undead goes, what do the Laws you follow say? If they are there as a result of a god then chances are it will frown on undead (again not definite). If you're a LG character that doesn't pay serious homage to a god then what do the characters own moral laws.

In this case I think I might have put it pretty well, granted I'm a self-righteous forum pest buy still...

Good post.

To me, I like to think Lawful means that if they were put in the same situation again they would do the exact same thing again, whereas a chaotic character would change depending on his emotions, or a simple whim.

But the alignment system sort of breaks down when under strong analysis due to differing interpretations.

IronAngel wrote:

Overall, it's more fruitful and constructive to brainstorm for ideas on how Lawful and Chaotic might manifest in different characters. It's much more interesting to read a description of a character, a unique personality, and see how the player explains the chosen alignment, than evaluate these ill-founded blanket statements of "This is how Alignment X acts, and this is how Alignment X doesn't act." They're inaccurate, uninteresting and inconsequential to character creation, I feel. People in general shouldn't act as if they know what an alignment means, because they really don't.

I think Reiley was asking for some additional brainstorming, Iron

I'm pretty sure most people in the topic weren't screaming about alignment "rules," but proffering their personal opinions on some of his examples. At least, that's all I was doing.

And Yurell, what? I certainly hope you don't play Chaotic by just doing whatever you feel like on a whim. That isn't a very flushed out character at all. They still have goals and purposes! Just a different methodology.

Estara wrote:

And Yurell, what? I certainly hope you don't play Chaotic by just doing whatever you feel like on a whim. That isn't a very flushed out character at all. They still have goals and purposes! Just a different methodology.

No, I said what they'd do if placed in the same circumstance would be different. They still have goals etc (I play drow, remember? =D), but their reaction can change a lot depending on what they feel like at the time IMO.

Galenson wrote:

..
To give an easy example:
-Spiderman would be Lawful Good.
-The Punisher would be Chaotic Good.

As a huge Marvel fan I have to say you're wrong...

Spiderman is clearly Neutral Good, good for goodness sake and willing to be both lawful and chaotic in his pursuit of good.

Also people would argue that The Punisher is LN but I won't even get into that.

To use the classical examples

LG = King Arthur
CG = Robin Hood
LE = Darth Vader
CE = Attila the Hun

Yurell wrote:

To use the classical examples

LG = King Arthur
CG = Robin Hood
LE = Darth Vader
CE = Attila the Hun

I like how Darth Vader worked himself into that list.

D-Finitiy wrote:

I'm just wondering if I chose the wrong alignment for one of my characters. My question is, does Lawful Good mean that you don't summon undead, and that you don't use morally gray means to reach "good" ends?

It sounds like a stupid question, but I guess I'm asking if the Lawful in Lawful Good stands for the laws that govern Paladins across the board, or can they be any laws particular to a character? Can the law in Lawful Good be specific to your character? Like a way of acting and responding that stems from a moral belief system, is consistent, and achieves good ends, but may not coincide with the laws of Cordor or other good cities.

At the end of the day the character is good, and she acts consistently according to an inner doctrine, but if breaking a cities laws interferes with achieving a "good" end she'll break them without a second thought.

And no she's not a paladin. Fire away, thanks.

That is quite chaotic. CG at best then by my judgement. Lawful Neutral if you want order without the morality.

Kjetta wrote:

WonWon wrote:

Lawful; The Ends to not justify the Means
Chaotic; The Ends justify the Means.

I have a different point of view. To me, this doesn't make sense because paladins kill murderers, imprison slavers and wage for in the name of peace. Classic ends justifying means thinking. Most laws are, in fact, fully dependant on the premise of ends justifying means. How could you otherwise jail someone?

By considering punishment to be an end in itself, which many modern thinkers don't, but most paladin gods do.

Quote:

To me, it's more useful to think of lawful as being submissive towards a certain ethos, loyally accepting law from an outside source (gods, tradition etc), wheras to be chaotic is to assert oneself in a dominant position above law, effectively being an übermensch with an ethical origin (good or bad) in one's self.

That's shiny, but it doesn't account for some hardass that's just sworn an oath to himself like "I'll never lie".

LG: Law tempered with mercy
LN: Justice
LE: This isn't technically disallowed...

As normal, these are my opinions (and of course are only brief summaries thereof).

Last edited by Kjetta on Thu, Mar 19 2009, 11:08 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Uce, which paladin gods do you think of? I don't know them all, but I know Hoar's dogma and he's one of the rather zealous ones from what I know, but even he justifies his vindictive dogma with classic ends justifying means thinking.

Hoar wrote:

Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite further attacks."

And your oath character's alignment is only really tested when he encounters a situation when he himself realizes he would be better off by lying but chooses not to because his oath tells him so. I think this is a submissive stance towards his own oath, which he in a strange way has elevated to a dominant position above himself. A chaotic character would see no need for an oath given to himself.

But by all means, I do not advocate that my take on the chaos/law alignment axis is contradiction free or should be made universal or anything. It's just how it makes the most sense to me. You could argue that my personal take on it somehwat extends to Amia at large because I am a DM, but rest assured, I would never fall anyone or anything likethat over the finer points of law/chaos. I don't take alignment seriously at all, tbh. Admittabely, I think it's fun to discuss, but mostly I think you just get the flavor lawful and chaotic inted to convey.

Kjetta wrote:

Uce, which paladin gods do you think of? I don't know them all, but I know Hoar's dogma and he's one of the rather zealous ones from what I know, but even he justifies his vindictive dogma with classic ends justifying means thinking.

Tyr and Kelemvor(regarding necromancers), but I must admit I'm far from being a lore-junkie.

read half the posts....but if good and evil was designed by intent of a character....my CN vhaeraunite drow would be LG....because it is his intent to make the world a better place, to his biggot mind that means the drow, and the elves will rule the world...and the humans and stuff will be slaves.

Kjetta wrote:

Uce, which paladin gods do you think of? I don't know them all, but I know Hoar's dogma and he's one of the rather zealous ones from what I know, but even he justifies his vindictive dogma with classic ends justifying means thinking.

As Ruce said earlier, the "Paladin" gods, Torm, Tyr, and Helm (though Helm isn't so much a Paladin god), not so much Ilmater, to my knowledge are rather zealous "punish evil" gods. That is, they don't so much want evil to repent, or be rehabilitated, as they want to punish them for their actions. Set something of an example, as it were.

ILoveIceCream wrote:

read half the posts....but if good and evil was designed by intent of a character....my CN vhaeraunite drow would be LG....because it is his intent to make the world a better place, to his biggot mind that means the drow, and the elves will rule the world...and the humans and stuff will be slaves.

Do you mean the nature of good and evil and its relation to intentions, or a character's alignment and its relation to intentions?

Good and Evil, the unattainable universal concepts beyond gods and reality, are not dependant on mortal intentions. Character alignment, however, most certainly is. A Lawful Good cleric of Ilmater who heals a wounded traveller is doing a good thing, even if what he doesn't know is that the one he healed was a cultist of Cyric and the act of charity indirectly caused the massacre of an entire village. If the Ilmatari ever found this out, he'd feel guilty and try to atone for it, but at no point would he have done anything evil.

As for "Ends justify the means", it's a common phrase whose meaning isn't very clear. I don't quite grasp the theory behind it. It suggests actions in and of themselves can be good or evil, regardless of intention or consequence. Keeping this on a real-world level and not that of the game, it's a strange idea. I find myself unable to name any "means" that are either good or evil despite of their result. Killing, for example, cannot be disregarded by saying the ends justify the means, because the death caused by killing is a consequence, not a means. Paedophilia isn't wrong because of an inherent quality the action has, but because the results, direct and indirect (the so-called "ends") are undesireable.

All in all, the separation of ends and means is artificial and not very succesful. I admit I don't quite understand whether the "ends" of the phrase refer to consequences or intentions, but either way, it doesn't hold water. And I really don't see what it has to do with chaos and law, apart from the obvious connection to Immanuel Kant. >_>

'Ends justifies the means' is a fairly simple phrase: what you do is justified by your end goal.

A good example of this would be killing an innocent man to save a village. PnP simply doesn't accept the evil act (killing the innocent) to be good because it was intended to have good results (saving the village). This, too, is examined in the Book of Exalted Deeds

Lawful Good question

Who is online