D&D 5E Is trafficking in soul coins ostensibly evil?

[TiQuinn]

Ah, it’s been awhile since we’ve done an alignment thread.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A Lawful Neutral character who participates in the slave trade is going to become Lawful Evil incredibly quickly.

"Participation" is probably the key word here. Not actively owning or trading in slaves would probably be Lawful Neutral (if not particularly nice). Making any sort of profit off of it would get them into evil territory, I agree.

 

[Necropolitan]

Being dedicated to ones discipline in my mind, is not Law, at a cosmic scale.

Rakshasas before 5th Edition beg to differ. They were narcissistic hedonists and Lawful Evil Outsiders.

"Participation" is probably the key word here. Not actively owning or trading in slaves would probably be Lawful Neutral (if not particular nice). Making any sort of profit off of it would get them into evil territory, I agree.

Yeah. "Treating people as property is Evil, not Neutral" shouldn't be a controversial take.

 

[billd91]

Yeah. "Treating people as property is Evil, not Neutral" shouldn't be a controversial take.

No, but “participation” probably is something more controversial. What constitutes participation - willing, unwilling, active, passive? And does it matter if you have or lack the power to change things, given the situation you’re in? That’s one of the most insidious traps of the alignment debate and requirements of being Good. A lot of people in alignment debates effectively require Good = perfect, even to the point of personal extinction.

 

[Scribe]

Rakshasas before 5th Edition beg to differ. They were narcissistic hedonists and Lawful Evil Outsiders.

I'm not concerned with someone else's potentially incorrect decades old interpretation, but I would consider narcissistic hedonism likely a shade of Evil, as the root of Evil to me, is selfishness.

Law doesn't enter into that example though, for me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A lot of people here are weirdly conflating lawfulness ("is it the rule of the land") with goodness ("is this an act that hurts or harms others").

It's been a while since we've had a good old fashioned alignment war, but maybe it's time for one again.

Lawfulness is a method. Goodness is a goal. The two are fully compatible: pursue what is Good by the methods of Law to the best of your ability. Law does not absolutely prohibit rebellion or defiance. It places high expectations on such behavior, true, but it is perfectly Lawful Good to declare that, because a given law pursues a morally evil end, that law has forfeited its justification. Not only can it be opposed, it must be opposed: by its removal and, if warranted, replacement. (Laws permitting slavery do not need to be replaced. Laws with worthy intent but unworthy execution should be replaced.)

Lawful people prefer to work within the existing system...so long as that system is worthy. If the system itself is Evil, the only Lawful Good choice is to oppose it: uphold the correct standards and rules, defeat and depose the existing system, and replace it with a better one. No system is perfect, but a better system is often quite achievable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does being good require actively stopping evil any more than being evil requires actively stopping good? One could argue that you are engaging in an evil act just by knowing about it and not doing anything. But that makes most of society look bad, so I can see why most folks don't go that far.

It's a reasonable question, and maybe it generally doesn't. But when that dude is in your party? Yes it does lol. Otherwise you are literally "party" to it!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, but “participation” probably is something more controversial. What constitutes participation - willing, unwilling, active, passive? And does it matter if you have or lack the power to change things, given the situation you’re in? That’s one of the most insidious traps of the alignment debate and requirements of being Good. A lot of people in alignment debates effectively require Good = perfect, even to the point of personal extinction.

I think it's pretty easy to say that it has to be willing and active to count as actual Good/Evil in most cases.

 

[Distracted DM]

Which is what I should be doing as Lawful Neutral ....

Sure! I don't think I said otherwise

 

[R_J_K75]

"Lawful" doesn't mean you just do whatever is lawful where you are. It's never meant that.

It hasnt? The OP is talking about LN.

1E & 2E Definition of LN