D&D 5E (2014) Drizzt as a LG 8th Level Champion

[PMárk]

I have the least problems with stats in Perkins's iteration of Drizzt, actualy I'd be more or less okay with them. The level and class are the the ones not in line with the fiction. But since it's not official just a fun take on the character in a comedy play, it's okay.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The overall problem is when you read all the books up until now you will see the discrepancy. Drizzt has been alive for a long time and has been in constant battle and other scenarios. In the early books Drizzt attended Sorcere and if I remember correctly, it was said that Drizzt could have been a wizard. This is where his high intelligence score came in to play. He and Entreri are essentially built the same and have both been described with a fencer build which consists of tightly packed and toned muscle. This is where the 13 strength comes in. He was not only described as handsome, even for a drow, but he also befriended the deep gnomes as well as Bruenor, Regis, Wulfgar, and Catti-brie. Let's not forget Montollio and Alustriel. While he has not always had good relations with everyone, mostly due to him being a drow, he has come along way so I would say this is where his 14 charisma comes from.

His early stats actually represent him the best overall. Sorry but it doesn't take a few hundred years to become 8th level.

 

[Prism]

His early stats actually represent him the best overall. Sorry but it doesn't take a few hundred years to become 8th level.

Again, you do realise this was a fun unofficial build designed to fit in with an unoptimized 8th level party. The original stats are pretty decent but these ones work just fine to help fit in with this particular game.

For a real Drizzt the 3e class build is probably most accurate with Drizzt leaving Menzo as roughly a 9th level fighter which at the time (1e) was considered high level for a fighter, especially a demi human. Follow that up throughout the books with levels of ranger (or scout), barbarian and more fighter and you probably arrive at about 16th - 18th level.

 

[Valetudo]

Yeah, perkins just made him the same level as the other players. Im pretty sure that if they statted drizzle in an official product, he would be back to his epic or near epic status.

 

[pemerton]

I'm afraid that's incorrect. You can be chaotic and have a code. Look at mercenaries. They are soldiers of fortune who follow the code of money. Look at two face from Batman. He relies on the flip of a coin but the outcomes can vary. If you read the books you will notice that Drizzt shows no mercy to Goblins and Orcs.

Paladins have codes. Lawful.

Monks and samurai have codes. Lawful.

Devils have (twisted) codes. Lawful.

The 3E SRD says '"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. . . . "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.'

Gygax's DMG says that "law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view."

Now I'm not saying that the above is knockdown. If you want your soldiers of fortune who never turn on their employers to be CN or CE rather than LN or LE, go to town! But assuming that you are correct to say of Drizzt that he is a perfectionist, in combat and in everything he does, striving to attain the highest standards within his code of morality and self-discipline, you have described a character who is very apt to be called Lawful, based on the above aspects of D&D's alignment tradition.

(As far as mercy is concerned, that goes to whether he is good or evil: evil characters generally rare merciless; good ones generally are not. It doesn't seem to bear on law vs chaos.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Paladins have codes. Lawful.

Monks and samurai have codes. Lawful.

Devils have (twisted) codes. Lawful.

The 3E SRD says '"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. . . . "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.'

Gygax's DMG says that "law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view."

Now I'm not saying that the above is knockdown. If you want your soldiers of fortune who never turn on their employers to be CN or CE rather than LN or LE, go to town! But assuming that you are correct to say of Drizzt that he is a perfectionist, in combat and in everything he does, striving to attain the highest standards within his code of morality and self-discipline, you have described a character who is very apt to be called Lawful, based on the above aspects of D&D's alignment tradition.

(As far as mercy is concerned, that goes to whether he is good or evil: evil characters generally rare merciless; good ones generally are not. It doesn't seem to bear on law vs chaos.)

While I do not find referencing older edition's definitions of alignments to be at all relevant to discussion of how things do/don't shake out in the current edition, and am a player of a character with a code of behavior he adheres to and a chaotic good alignment (which is, in my opinion, within the definition of chaotic good found in the 5th edition rules because said code was determined by the character's own conscience and with little regard to what others expect), I agree with your conclusion that the character of Drizzt falls within the realm of what 5th edition states of Lawful alignments.

Of course, I am also fairly certain that I could explain any particular behavior of Drizzt as being evidence of any particular alignment, given their generally nebulous definitions - for example, his showing no mercy to goblins and orcs shows that he is clearly Lawful Good because society views the killing of goblins and orcs as the "right thing" to do (with Lawful Good, in 5th edition, only saying that the creature can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Before you try and figure out a person's alignment, you need to determine for yourself what denotes Law / Chaos-- is internal or external? Or is it both in your opinion?

If it's external... then law and chaos are about how a person reacts to the external laws of society. Do they follow the laws of government, do they listen to authority figures and follow a chain of command? Or do they not care a whit for the laws of society and just do what they feel like, or feel as though the "rules" that people have put in place to make society run better do not in fact accomplish said goal?

If it's internal... then it's how they themselves see the world. Can they not help but see the world as a place where order is easier to grasp and deal with? And do they have a way of behaving that exemplifies that orderly look? Or do they just see the world as random stuff and are okay with everything being random?

So for example... internally I am highly Lawful. My mind works like a Tetris game, where everything needs to be orderly and organized or it drives me bonkers. If I see a set of drawers and one drawer is slightly ajar, I can't help but go over and close it. My computer has all my files organized in folders with everything identified clearly so that I can find things easy. But if I see someone else's computer desktop and it is completely full of icons of all different sorts with no rhyme nor reason as to what is where... my brain itches something severe and I have to restrain myself from just jumping on it and start organizing it. That internal Lawfulness ends up extend to external as well... as I've grown comfortable of the fact that following rules and following orders and organization tends to make things run smoother and I prefer smoothness over the need of "individuality".

But the idea of a "personal code" does not automatically mean you are Lawful. Codes are just beliefs. And you wouldn't claim that someone who believes in chaos is therefore lawful because of it. Because then there's no way to ever be Chaotic unless a person is that way without actually trying or realizing they are. They are Chaotic through random chance. And I don't think any of us would say that's what the Chaotic alignment is meant to represent.

So figure out what Drizzt's ideals are and what his external belief system or internal way of seeing the world is, and that'll give a better idea what his alignment is on the law/chaos scale.

 

[pemerton]

I do not find referencing older edition's definitions of alignments to be at all relevant to discussion of how things do/don't shake out in the current edition

My intuitive feeling on this is that the edition is meant to deliver a "classic D&D" feel, and the edition seems to have made very few changes to the traditional alignments of various entities. So I think there is some degree of continuity at least.

Before you try and figure out a person's alignment, you need to determine for yourself what denotes Law / Chaos-- is internal or external? Or is it both in your opinion?

<snip>

But the idea of a "personal code" does not automatically mean you are Lawful. Codes are just beliefs.

am a player of a character with a code of behavior he adheres to and a chaotic good alignment (which is, in my opinion, within the definition of chaotic good found in the 5th edition rules because said code was determined by the character's own conscience and with little regard to what others expect)

I feel there are a few things going on here.

First, I agree that law and chaos have both an "internal" and "external" aspect: monks and the like are self-disciplined but often quirky hermits or at least somewhat outside the typical social order; evil tyrants might be decadent but impose their yokes upon the world (this latter phrase being part of the AD&D description of LE); classic paladins are both self-disciplined and realise the highest ideals to which their societies aspire.

We can easily throw up more examples that don't fit straightforwardly into the law/chaos paradigm: eg many contemporary liberal democracies (the US perhaps first and foremost, at least in its constitutional documents) are founded upon the idea that the best foundation for individual liberty and self-realisation (both chaotic ideal, according to the original PHB) is a society founded on a robust rule of law (which would typically be seen as a lawful ideal). Is this law or chaos? Over the years, when I've raised this in posts, I've found different people have different views.

My own take on this is that alignment is not a "neutral" system for describing personalities, but a distinctive way of framing certain moral questions as a focus of play. Hence it can be expected to generate controversy over labelling, because until the play has actually taken place the answers can't be known! For those who think that alignment is a labelling device rather than a tool for focusing on certain questions in play, I think examples like the one about rule-of-law liberal ideals tend to show that the alignment system will work better for labelling pseudo-mediaeval societies conceived in a somewhat idealised way, than for labelling modern constitutional orders.

Finally, is a code just a belief (or set of beliefs)? I don't think so. Nearly everyone has beliefs about what is right or wrong - has a conscience, to evoke the 5e terminology - but that doesn't mean everyone follows a code. The idea of a code, in the monk or paladin sense (the classic lawful paradigms of D&D), is closer to a monastic rule. Jedi can naturally be read as having a code in this sense, but Han Solo doesn't (even though he obviously has a set of moral beliefs - a moral code - that he more-or-less sticks to).

It's tricky, and I don't except either of you two (or anyone else) to necessarily agree. And there is a complicating factor that, in Gygax's AD&D valuing truth is part of being good (so both LG and CG are honourable) whereas 3E moves this into lawfulness (as far as I can tell, this is the most important change in alignment definition over the editions), and I don't know where 5e thinks it should be.

Of course, I am also fairly certain that I could explain any particular behavior of Drizzt as being evidence of any particular alignment, given their generally nebulous definitions

I've never read a Drizzt story and have no idea what alignment - if any - would make sense. My post was triggered by the fact that [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] posted a description of Drizzt ("A perfectionist, in combat and in everything he does, striving to attain the highest standards within his code of morality and self-discipline") that describes every stereotypical monk ever. And monks are paradigmatically lawful. Hence, if that description of Drizzt is accurate (I personally have no idea) then I can see why Chris Perkins labelled him lawful.

 

[GreyLord]

One thing about Drizzt is that he was not lawful in many ways. First, instead of adhering to the order of things in the Drow world when he was younger, he did things very differently. In fact, he was threatened to be turned to a drider at one point if I recall, due to his incessant disregard for the drow way of doing things. He was more chaotic than some of the drow in regards to their "natural" order.

Later, he didn't exactly mesh with the rules and order of Icewind Dale. He was seen more of an outcast than someone who adhered to the local laws and order.

In that light, he may have a personal code (and you don't have to be lawful to have a personal code, for example, druids in all editions have had a code of types), but if that code is what makes a person lawful, then it is going to need to have some sort of reckoning which they will hold it above all other ideals.

Drizzt has had a code of sorts, but has shown he will occasionally bend it in specific circumstances. Hence, I'd say Drizzt would be Neutral at best, but Chaotic Good would fit him just as well.

 

[Pauln6]

Yes, he could have rolled the great stats in 3e. But if somebody sits down at my table with a 13, a 15, a 14, and 3 17's that he "rolled", I'm gonna pass those back and ask him to roll again.

And assuming fictional characters have those improbably high stats reinforces the misapprehension that the characters they're reading about are better or more heroic than the characters are able to play in your average home game.

Gord the Rogue's 'official' stats were just ludicrous. The Dragonlance characters were pretty reasonable but even there, I found myself scratching my head at how some of the stats did not seem reflective of what was portrayed in the novels.

However, we should also remember that some of the minimums in Drizzt's stats were dictated by his class in those earlier editions. Tanis Half-elven looked like a ranger to me as a kid but he didn't have ranger legal stats so tough luck Tanis. Some of Drzzt's achievements could be explained by skill or feat choices such as training in the survival skill instead of a level in ranger. It doesn't have to be all about the stats and level.