Good Aligned Characters

[*Hydra]

"Case number 647993872902768574, it says here in the court documents you found a loophole in your diabolic contract and masterfully outplayed your patron. The contract is therefore void. However, afterwards you called your patron a "soul sucking hellspawn". This is hate speech, so you are hereby damned to the pit of eternal fire. Have a pleasant eternity."

Oh noes ! Diabolic justice warriors !

[*Taihou]

Eh, D&D in general, and even moreso Planescape are worlds where Moral Realism is not only a certain fact, but very easy to prove. Good and Evil are cosmic forces, which can interact with the world in very tangible ways. It's a very different take on morality, which a lot of people have a hard time to grasp (I wouldn't say it makes for very interesting moral conflicts, but it's not illogical as some people put it).

In a world like Planescape, saying "I'm Good" or "Hey, are you Chaotic?" actually make sense.

Wrongest thing, what one can say about alignment in DnD.

Good and evil, as well as law and chaos are OOC mechanical characteristics and/or OOc drivers, that may affect how characters interact with each other, but they are not IC knowledge, except for cases, when we speak of lower-planars.

Also, as I sayed interpreting "good" and "evil" are both IC and OOC very subjecticve. For example tell me whatever thou want, but I will NEVER consider driven by lust or sodomite character good-aligned.

If one makes "paladin", or character, who originates from "good planes" acting like that, I will say, it is bullshit character, who does not follow his alignment.


Also, my advice to people - do not fear conflicts. Thine characters would not and should not have all the same moral views and be content with everything and everyone. Fact that in Sigil, there are laws against fighting in streets does not mean, thou have to hug everyone regardless of race, alignment, moral views, acts and so on.

Do not be conformists! Be people, who have views and who are not afraid to act accordingly! If thine characters hate fiends, do not be friendly towards them. If thine character hates barmy elves, do notchat with them as if they didn't.

Do not fear thine characters being racists or chauvinists, because in life every normal person has something, he does not tolerate and decision on what to tolerate and what not to and why is, what makes up significant part of one's personality.

Conflicts are what drive the good stories, unless thou of course want to have story like "They came to a campfire, were chatting for some time, then they all returned home/died/got lost in time. The end."

[*Hydra]

Also, as I sayed interpreting "good" and "evil" are both IC and OOC very subjecticve. For example tell me whatever thou want, but I will NEVER consider driven by lust or sodomite character good-aligned

Nor you'll convince many people that this statement is evil, it's just pure stupidity.

[*Taihou]

Nor you'll convince many people that this statement is evil, it's just pure stupidity.

Whereas "stupidity" is subjective term too. We call "stupid" person, who does not share our own (certainly smartest) point of view as some "last retort". If ask me - best way to loose a debate is to call opponent "stupid".

In most cases, people call "stupid" those matters, they poorly understand themselves.

[*MimiFearthegn]

In a world like Planescape, saying "I'm Good" or "Hey, are you Chaotic?" actually make sense.

Please don't start having conversations like this!

I do agree with what Mick is saying, but I suspect that in the world alignment is something discussed by scholars and is based on observation of the planes / outsiders, not a set of designations based on observation of mortals. I don't think its likely that most people have enough self-awareness to really know their own alignment, or have conversations about it normally (unless they're outsiders, but outsiders probably don't care, it just what they are. . .).

[*Strawberry Jam]

These things might seem esoteric and pointless to you but they are completely relevant when you are talking about monster species that aren't humans. One species cannibalism isn't the same as another's, one's murder isn't the same as anothers either.

You can't pigeon hole all these monsters into the same moral absolutism purely based on human perspectives. To other creatures things you think don't matter at all absolutely do matter.

So good luck explaining how fey are always helpful and caring and selfless and honest, going out of their way to help humans completely contradictory.

Good luck explaining how unicorns in fact do help the humanoid male adventurers instead of staying away except for an innocent female maiden.

Good luck explaining how a Coatl is good when they use poison which one of the books literally says is evil.

Good luck explaining how magical enchantment and mind control isn't evil but slavery is.

Good luck explaining that Djinn are ascetic selfless creatures and helpful all the time and don't act like genies since they're good.

Also good luck explaining how a Slaad literally transforms into a Modron if they do something you characterize as lawful.

Welcome to the wonderful world of D&D where nothing makes sense and the books contradict each other frequently. Where designers are just ppl and you're trying to characterize everything about a monster type on a forgettable book a freelancer churned out nearly 30 years ago. Good luck trying to shoe horn everything into the same moral obligations and behaviors but don't expect to get anywhere with it or have fun trying to enforce moral absolutism from a purely human perspective.

[*Clangeddin]

I'm quite baffled at the cannibalism = evil equation.
I'm pretty sure that cannibalism is evil only if you kill someone else for it, and not if you eat the meat of someone who died of natural/other causes.
Heck, it may even be a necessity in some extreme case, like those people stranded in the Andes Flight Disaster of 1972.
Were all of them evil? Come on.

But let's not read too much into it, just another reason why "source books" are more often than not just another form of toilet paper. Written by people too much at odds with logic and fun that we have constantly to houserule them to make DnD any worth playing. *Sigh*

[*Darker_Thought]

If a human cuts down a forest is it good or evil?

Well...Debatable :P

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0150.html




:lol:

[*rapsam2003]

I'm quite baffled at the cannibalism = evil equation.
I'm pretty sure that cannibalism is evil only if you kill someone else for it, and not if you eat the meat of someone who died of natural/other causes.
Heck, it may even be a necessity in some extreme case, like those people stranded in the Andes Flight Disaster of 1972.
Were all of them evil? Come on.

If you looked at my link to BoVD, you'll notice cannibalism is under "fetishes and addictions", implying that your example of the Andes mountain group doesn't fit here. The source books are usually specific but don't bother with exceptions (because then the books would take years to write). We're talking about cannibalism for pleasure or power here, not for necessary survival.

[*Tomekk]

If you looked at my link to BoVD, you'll notice cannibalism is under "fetishes and addictions"...

Why is there a sodding book for that? :blink: