D&D General The child stealing food to survive scenario, for alignment

[Flamestrike]

The PHB states that "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good." in the alignment section. So a LG character wouldn't necessarily have a moral struggle, depending on what society expects of him.

You're ignoring the qualifier of 'do the right thing' when it comes to conforming with societal expectations in the above quote.

If society expects a LG creature to do the wrong thing, he wont do it.

'Right' is defined as: 1 : righteous, upright. 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper conduct.

Definition of RIGHT

righteous, upright; being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper; conforming to facts or truth : correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I'm struggling to see how lobbing a warhammer at the legs of a starving street urchin who just stole a loaf of bread is 'the right thing to do', or how it could be considered 'proper, good or just conduct' or how in a morally good society, such a thing could be tolerated or even expected of people.

Lawful neutral (LN) are (RAW) individuals whom act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Clearly @Oofta's PC had a strong personal code about 'upholding the law' and 'all crimes must be punished'. That's not a morally Good code at all, so to me he sounds like a LN PC.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Well ranged attacks can't be nonlethal RAW, which makes a lot of sense. You can't suddenly pull the momentum necessary for accurate aim.

But don't get hung up on this, the DM said you could, so I presume it was a gentle enough ankle tap with the sweep of the hammer's handle.

 

[Cadence]

You're ignoring the qualifier of 'do the right thing' when it comes to conforming with societal expectations in the above quote.

If society expects a LG creature to do the wrong thing, he wont do it.

'Right' is defined as: 1 : righteous, upright. 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper conduct.

Definition of RIGHT

righteous, upright; being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper; conforming to facts or truth : correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I'm struggling to see how lobbing a warhammer at the legs of a starving street urchin who just stole a loaf of bread is 'the right thing to do', or how it could be considered 'proper, good or just conduct' or how in a morally good society, such a thing could be tolerated or even expected of people.

I'm betting Gygax would approve - and he seems a bit more authoritative on the metaphysics of alignment in D&D than random people using Webster's name. ;-)

@Doug McCrae linked elsewhere to: Q&A with Gary Gygax, Part II - Page 3 - Dragonsfoot
About 2/3 down the page is the issue of slaughtering prisoners and it goes on to the next page. As Gygax notes of the LG in the 1e DMG: "They are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good,...." And in the 1ePhB they are "as strict in their prosecution of law and order" as those that are lawful evil. "Certain freedoms must, of course be sacrificed in order to bring order;".

Is it a bit disingenuous to merely label it lobbing a warhammer at the legs of a street urchin? It's not like you or I or any mere mortal on planet earth did it. It's almost (from what the GM allowed) more like a super-hero lobbing the thing over there at just the right angle to make the kid stop.

In any case, he's explained he was too far from the kid to stop them in another way. And, if the kid doesn't stop the shop keeper is out of bread and the kid will need to steal more the next day. Stopping the kid can fix both. Not willing to risk them getting a skinned knee (which could happen if you grabbed them too), risks them starving tomorrow too.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm betting Gygax would approve - and he seems a bit more authoritative on the metaphysics of alignment in D&D than random people using Webster's name.

All due respect to Gary, but Im not using his own views as the moral arbiter of what is 'right and just' and what is not. Gary had his own views, tempered by his personal thoughts and his interpretation of his own religious views.

Gary flat out tried to argue that genocide and mass infanticide was perfecly LG because 'nits make lice'. He tried to argue that murdering a helpless captive that had genuinely repented and vowed to be good by cutting his throat was perfectly LG because 'its one less soul for hell'.

I dont find those personal views of Gary to be 'morally good', and I doubt many other people would as well.

I also wouldnt use Lovecraft as my moral compass either for what it's worth.

 

[DammitVictor]

I dont find those personal views of Gary to be 'morally good', and I doubt many other people would as well.

90% of the problem with D&D's alignment system is that 90% of people are Neutral Evil and 90% of people believe they're Lawful Good.

 

[Cadence]

I dont find those personal views of Gary to be 'morally good', and I doubt many other people would as well.

I'm agreeing with you on that for everything in the real world*. We're not talking about the real world though, we're talking about one where there's a manifest source of Law and manifest source of Chaos. One where "Neutral Good" is labeled true good because the Lawful Good are "crusaders' and "zealots".

It feels like our big difference in the interpretation is how strong the Law and Chaos at the corners are.

So, in the examples above where folks gave an alignment and an action, I get why you disagreed. If they reversed it and gave the action and then assigned the closest alignment, did they get those right?


*And I'm not buying into Gygax's things in D&D either when I'm running things. I like that Moldvay Basic's one example (iirc) was a Lawful cleric emphatically saving the prisoners. I'd buy the hammer though given the additional justifications provided.

 

[John R Davis]

The more important question for society, like in the real world, is what happens if the kid is ' caught' a second time doing the same 'crime'. This is when a PCs moral compass is really tested.

 

[Flamestrike]

90% of the problem with D&D's alignment system is that 90% of people are Neutral Evil and 90% of people believe they're Lawful Good.

I disagree with your above statement in that 90 percent of people are NE, but I agree that the majority of people are not Good (the majority of people are Neutral) and this is where the disconnect lies (people trying to assert their own moral code as being Good, when it is not).

The majority of people have great qualms about engaging in assault, murder, rape and torture. Ergo, they are not Evil. The majority also lack the self sacrifice and altruism to consistently place the welfare of others above themselves, and demonstrate altruism, mercy and compassion for others. Ergo they are not Good.

The majority of people are out for themselves, seeking to better their lot in life and be happy, generally avoiding harming others, and not going out of their way to regularly put other peoples interests above their own, making them Neutral.

People exist who are generally fine with harming others, and in fact may even do so regularly. They're uncommon, but not rare. They're evil.

People also exist who dedicate their lives to helping others, donating to charity, helping out at homeless shelters and so forth. They're also uncommon, but not rare. They're good.

Most people sit in the middle somewhere.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm agreeing with you on that for everything in the real world*.

Well when the game uses terms like 'good, evil, just, right, wrong, harm and altruism', I presume that they are talking about those terms as they apply in the real world.

This tends to follow from an examination of the actions of creatures with noted alignments throughout the editions. 'Evil' creatures tend to enslave, harm, assault, rape, torture and murder. 'Good' creatures tend to demonstrate altruism, mercy, compassion, self sacrifice, kindness and respect for the lives and welfare of others.

This has been heavily implied since 1E, clearly enunciated in 3.5E and I see nothing that changes it in 5E.

 

[Cadence]

Well when the game uses terms like 'good, evil, just, right, wrong, harm and altruism', I presume that they are talking about those terms as they apply in the real world.

This tends to follow from an examination of the actions of creatures with noted alignments throughout the editions. 'Evil' creatures tend to enslave, harm, assault, rape, torture and murder. 'Good' creatures tend to demonstrate altruism, mercy, compassion, self sacrifice, kindness and respect for the lives and welfare of others.

We're not talking about the real world though, we're talking about one where there's a manifest source of Law and manifest source of Chaos. One where "Neutral Good" is labeled true good because the Lawful Good are "crusaders' and "zealots".

It feels like our big difference in the interpretation is how strong the Law and Chaos at the corners are.

So, in the examples above where folks gave an alignment and an action, I get why you disagreed. If they reversed it and gave the action and then assigned the closest alignment, did they get those right?


*And I'm not buying into Gygax's things in D&D either when I'm running things. I like that Moldvay Basic's one example (iirc) was a Lawful cleric emphatically saving the prisoners. I'd buy the hammer though given the additional justifications provided.