D&D 5E Goals for a party - why should they even go anywhere together?

Imaculata said:

Without turning this into a Firefly discussion, Jayne is more chaotic neutral (and maybe even chaotic good in Serenity).

Click to expand...

Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I would totally be down for a flash Firefly discussion.

Hemlock said:

We must have watched different Jaynestowns. The main thing you learn from that segment is that (1) Jayne will stab anyone in the back for cash; (2) Jayne feels rotten about himself but has no intention of changing.

Click to expand...

You should watch the ending of that episode again. In it Jayne shows genuine sorrow when a kid sacrifices his life to save his. See, Jayne knows that he is a rotten person. But he isn't rotten through and through. He does have empathy, and does care about doing the right thing. It just takes him a while to get there.

The episode is actually a pretty interesting exploration of Jayne's character. We see him as a false hero, a treacherous criminal, and a guy who is struggling to understand why people would want to love him. It seems the person who hates Jayne the most, is Jayne himself. At the end of the episode he destroys the statue they made of him, because he no longer wants them to believe a lie, and that is pretty noble. The boy catching a bullet for him at the end, is the last thing he wanted. Seems there might be a good guy underneath all that bluster and attitude after all. And I think that is what the writers wanted us to take away from that episode.

Hemlock said:

Edit: I see you edited in a clip of Mal gratuitously torturing someone to prove your assertion that Mal is Lawful Good. Seriously?! We have very different standards for what constitutes good and evil.

Click to expand...

He gives a bad guy who tried to murder him (after also doing a bunch of other bad stuff), a few extra jabs with his sword. He doesn't torture the guy, nor kill him. He just gives him a few punches while he's down. Given the context of the episode, Mal can be forgiven by the audience for not being entirely kind to the guy.

Certainly given the story of serenity, it is clear that Mal is a good guy, with a strict moral code. This episode was all about that code. He didn't have to face an expert swordsman in a duel and risk his life, but he did so because he wanted to defend the honor of the woman he loves. And then he shows mercy to the man who tried to kill him. He just wanted to make a point.

(EDIT: Added some extra commentary regarding the Jaynestown episode)

Hemlock said:

Jayne is indistinguishable from Brutish Evil though, and he doesn't disrupt the show. In fact he adds a lot of humorous moments to it.

Mal Reynolds might be evil--it's hard to say how bad his offscreen activities are. Remember, this is the guy who would kill a shipful of refugees in order to save the lives of (only) his crew. If he intensely regrets that act, he's probably still good. If he secretly, in his heart, thinks that those idiot yokels aren't worth saving in the first place, he's probably evil.

It's hard to know a man's heart from only the actions that are written in the script.

Click to expand...

I think @Imaculata answered this better than I could.

I would just add that as far as I am concerned, your words and actions define your alignment. Someone who secretly wants to kidnap people and eat them after torturing them to death is not necessarily evil unless they actually follow through on their actions. They may be evil. They may be lawful good.

Thinking about how I would rob a bank does not make me a bankrobber.

[edit]
Oh, and Jayne's behavior is that of a chaotic neutral individual, from what we see he is not evil. Being a thief, being greedy does not necessarily make you evil.

Imaculata said:

He gives a bad guy who tried to murder him (after also doing a bunch of other bad stuff), a few extra jabs with his sword. He doesn't torture the guy, nor kill him. He just gives him a few punches while he's down. Given the context of the episode, Mal can be forgiven by the audience for not being entirely kind to the guy.

Certainly given the story of serenity, it is clear that Mal is a good guy, with a strict moral code. This episode was all about that code. He didn't have to face an expert swordsman in a duel and risk his life, but he did so because he wanted to defend the honor of the woman he loves. And then he shows mercy to the man who tried to kill him. He just wanted to make a point.

Click to expand...

Given that what you call "Lawful Good" I call "Evil", it's not surprising that you refuse to allow evil characters in your campaign. The evil characters I'd allow would probably be Lawful Good at your table, and the evil characters you'd disallow would be Unspeakably Vile at mine.

Hemlock said:

Given that what you call "Lawful Good" I call "Evil", it's not surprising that you refuse to allow evil characters in your campaign. The evil characters I'd allow would probably be Lawful Good at your table, and the evil characters you'd disallow would be Unspeakably Vile at mine.

Click to expand...

A lawful good character does not have to be a character that always does the right thing, or follows the law. A lawful good character can have bad character traits just like any other alignment can. Just because the character has a good heart, doesn't mean he's nice, or likeable. Han Solo is a good guy, although you wouldn't be able to tell at first. But when it comes down to it, he shows up in the nick of time to help Luke blow up the Death Star. He's the kind of guy who says he doesn't care about it all... but in the end, he pulls through (He leans towards neutral good though). But a lawful good character simply follows a code, be it the actual law, or some strong personal ethics. It is this code that informs his good acts. Its what makes Mal instruct the people he's robbing to lock themselves up in the vault when the reavers attack in Serenity. Playing a good character does not mean that you have to play a goody-two-shoes. But when it comes down to it, you're the good guy. That doesn't mean you have to be nice to your enemies though, or show them mercy. A lawful good paladin for example, could be a fanatic who doesn't show her enemies any mercy at all.

Hemlock said:

Given that what you call "Lawful Good" I call "Evil", it's not surprising that you refuse to allow evil characters in your campaign. The evil characters I'd allow would probably be Lawful Good at your table, and the evil characters you'd disallow would be Unspeakably Vile at mine.

Click to expand...

What would you say Superman's alignment is then? After all, in the last movie he killed Zod even though Zod is "helpless". In the old Christopher Reeve version it's even worse - IIRC Superman reverses polarity on a gizmo that returns his super powers while taking away Zod's powers. He then bitch-slaps Zod to his death.

Imaculata said:

A lawful good character is not a character that always does the right thing, or follows the law. A lawful good character can have bad character traits just like any other alignment can. Just because the character has a good heart, doesn't mean he's nice, or likeable. Han Solo is a good guy, although you wouldn't be able to tell at first. But when it comes down to it, he shows up in the nick of time to help Luke blow up the Death Star. He's the kind of guy who says he doesn't care about it all... but in the end, he pulls through (He leans towards neutral good though). But a lawful good character simply follows a code, be it the actual law, or some strong personal ethics. It is this code that informs his good acts. Its what makes Mal instruct the people he's robbing to lock themselves up in the vault when the reavers attack in Serenity. Playing a good character does not mean that you have to play a goody-two-shoes. But when it comes down to it, you're the good guy. That doesn't mean you have to be nice to your enemies though, or show them mercy. A lawful good paladin for example, could be a fanatic who doesn't show her enemies any mercy at all.

Click to expand...

Translation: We would both ban Unspeakably Vile PCs from our tables. Apparently we would both allow characters who enjoy torturing their enemies; it's just that I call those characters Evil and you call them Lawful Good.

Hemlock said:

Translation: We would both ban Unspeakably Vile PCs from our tables. Apparently we would both allow characters who enjoy torturing their enemies; it's just that I call those characters Evil and you call them Lawful Good.

Click to expand...

Whether they enjoy torturing, or just commit an act that inflicts pain on an enemy to punish him, are two very different things. Mal giving his defeated opponent two extra pokes with his sword, was obviously not doing the right thing there. But does that make him evil, when he is teaching his opponent a well deserved lesson and also sparing his life?

In my current pirate campaign, the players play more morally gray characters. They are pirates, so they are already ignoring the law. But they do have ethics. They do protect the weak and innocent, while even sometimes showing mercy to their enemies. But they have on occasion also subjected one of their enemies to torture, to extract information. Yet despite that, they are good characters at heart.

One immoral act or poor life decision is not what determines a character's alignment in my view. Even a good character can do the wrong thing at times.

Oofta said:

What would you say Superman's alignment is then? After all, in the last movie he killed Zod even though Zod is "helpless". In the old Christopher Reeve version it's even worse - IIRC Superman reverses polarity on a gizmo that returns his super powers while taking away Zod's powers. He then ----slaps Zod to his death.

Click to expand...

It's been a while since I've seen Man of Steel, but I remember it differently than you do. I don't remember Zod being rendered helpless for example--I remember him being at a temporary disadvantage, and Clark had no way to neutralize him except killing him, which he did, and which apparently caused him a great deal of psychic trauma (maybe because he's killing one of the few remaining members of his own species). In the movie I remember seeing, I'd say that fight gives no particular information on Superman's morality, but other things Superman does, such as spending his time helping other people, indicate he is relatively good-ishly inclined. I don't remember how strongly he leans in that direction.

In the movie you apparently saw, where he gratuitously executes helpless enemies, it might be a neutral or evil act, depending on his reasons for the gratuitous execution.

I don't remember Zod dying in the Christopher Reeves version, but it has been quite a long time since I watched it. In the Christopher Reeves version, Zod really is rendered permanently helpless and depowered--killing Zod under those conditions is even more gratuitous, and doing so with relish would definitely be evil. Repeated displays of that character would, in D&D, definitely result in becoming evil-aligned.

BTW, the Superman we see in Superman III is clearly evil, despite doing nothing worse (IIRC) than petty vandalism, beating up some drunks and seducing the bad guy's moll. You don't have to be an omnicidal maniac to be evil-aligned. You just have to let malice, envy, lust, etc. have free rein over your soul and deny mercy, compassion, wisdom, justice, and restraint, often enough that the DM says "Okay, your alignment has changed."

Imaculata said:

Whether they enjoy torturing, or just commit an act that inflicts pain on an enemy to punish him, are two very different things. Mal giving his defeated opponent two extra pokes with his sword, was obviously not doing the right thing there. But does that make him evil, when he is teaching his opponent a well deserved lesson and also sparing his life?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily in and of itself--I just think it's weird that you gave that video clip as part of your PROOF that Mal is Lawful Good. It's not like you gave it as a caveat, either ("he's generally Lawful Good but sometimes he messes up big time, like this time"). You just inserted it without explanation and then asserted Mal's Lawful Goodness in the next breath.

Imaculata said:

In my current pirate campaign, the players play more morally gray characters. They are pirates, so they are already ignoring the law. But they do have ethics. They do protect the weak and innocent, while even sometimes showing mercy to their enemies. But they have on occasion also subjected one of their enemies to torture, to extract information. Yet despite that, they are good characters at heart.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. You know them better than I do of course. But if they resorted to torture often enough for me to flip the switch and say, "Your alignment has just changed, and your Robe of the Neutral Archmagi no longer functions," that wouldn't render the campaign unplayable. It would now be the same campaign as before, with more evil characters being evil more frequently. Perhaps some of them could even seek and find redemption at some point.