Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bauglir" data-source="post: 348787" data-attributes="member: 6982">Typically for a PC there will be promises made by another party member on behalf of the party as a whole.  My vision of a CN character would feel no compulsion whatsoever to honour this. (Not to say that he would rail against it 100% of the time.. he would do it if he feels it's worth doing, or maybe if whoever made the promise asked him nicely <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />)Precisely - if Joe was in any way lawful and you had some kind of position of authority over him (his boss?) he would consider that promise binding on his behalf.  But not so chaotic joe..Not at all.  Just that he will be true to his own word above all other concerns.Himself and himself.  Of what worth is individuality if the word of an individual freely given is not followed?Because he's Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Evil.. his own concerns aren't always paramount...People see CN as random and untrustworthy.  I don't agree and I'm attempting to paint a picture to illustrate this.Perhaps.  It does rail somewhat against the traditional version..This would be an issue of Law and not of good...If the lawful character made the promise, then later found out that it was necessary to steal something (possibly even kill someone) to honour it, they would break the promise.  To place personal vows above society's tenets is an inherently chaotic action IMO.I do?Hmmmm...Again this comes down to how you view chaotic alignment.  Is it just randomness or is it a belief in individuality, and should an individual honour his word freely given?  IMO he would.With this in mind, the chaotic neutral character has no other concerns, moral or lawful that would impede the honouring of the promise.Perhaps you're right.  I imagine I'd be chaotic good if I was in D&D.  (I'd also be a gnomish sorcerer but that's not the point <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />)Interesting viewpoint.  I had always pictured the difference between good and evil being that a good person was selfless, while an evil person was selfish.  Just as the good character faces an alignment shift for hurting others for his own benefit, the evil character would face an alignment shift for helping someone else with no benefit to himself.  I think it takes some effort to be selfless.. the character often loses out.  Not so to be selfish.. the character typically gains, and an intelligent evil character can still maintain good PR (the evil rogue who secretly pockets the shiniest item in every chest they open would (unless he gets caught) seem to the party to be a good character, willing to help out with those trapped chests)TBH having read it a few times I think the above are examples of mental defects rather than some form of alignment.  I guess it depends on whether you think alignment is defined by actions or by motives.  Does the paladin lose his paladinhood if he kills an innocent while under the influence of a Dominate Person?  IMO no, to someone else maybe yes..Stealing doesn't have to be evil.  Was Robin Hood evil?Given that situation here's what I think the various alignments would do:LG - hand it to the copsNG - attempt to find the owner and return it - if they can't easily do so then hand it to the copsCG - find the owner and return it, handing it to the cops only as a last resortThe neutral alignments would do something similar, but would expect a reward for finding and returning the wallet.The evil alignments would all probably keep the wallet, unless the PR gain of returning it was of more value to them (they would of course demand a reward too)</blockquote>

Verification