Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="orsal" data-source="post: 2823552" data-attributes="member: 16016">There's something to that. For any of the corner alignments, you can easily construct a situation in which the two components conflict. For example, what does a lawful good character do when he realizes that the person he has made a deal with is intent on malice, and his fulfilling his part of the bargain would help the other person's nefarious plans. The LN character would fulfill his contract, the NG character would have no compunction about welching, but the LG character is conflicted. In that sense, NG is (potentially) the purest good of all.On the other hand, many LG people would argue that law and lawfulness are inherently good, and do generally promote good. For example, some defenders of Kantian ethics (the quintessential LG philosophy) contend that in the long run following the categorical imperative will do more good than deciding when to break it. In the above example, the LG character might rationalize that breaking his word, while it would be beneficial in the short term, would in the long term undermine his reputation (and therefore his ability to make contracts in the future that would be for the good), or would set an example for others (whose objectives were less noble) to break promises.I think of this question as: is the alignment map square or circular? Irdeggman and Odhanan, and the second paragraph of this post, are arguing for a square map -- at the good extreme is a straight line, so that the square extends as far in that direction on the sides (LG/CG) as in the middle (NG). Shemeska and spunkrat, and the first paragraph of this post, are arguing for a circular map -- to be as far as possible in the good direction you need to be in the middle on the other axis.</blockquote>

Verification