LG, sex and Star Trek

[LuYangShih]

To me it seemed more like a CG characterisation - "do what you feel like as long as it doesn't hurt other individuals".

That would be CN, not CG. Neutral generally tries not to hurt other people unless they feel it's neccessary. Good actively aids other people. Anyone with a Good alignment should be more concerned with love than pure physical pleasure, objectively speaking. Otherwise, what is the difference between Good and Neutral?

 

[Kesh]

Seems to me that folks are blowing this out of proportion. LG does not mean rigid and unflinching, it means following a code of conduct for the betterment of people around you.

Furthermore, it's not saying that a LG character can go around having sex at a whim. It says that they don't have to be monogamous, or in a long-term relationship. The LG character doesn't play games, or lead someone on... they don't 'love-em-and-leave-em'. They clearly state their intentions and, if their partner agrees, they enjoy their time together.

This is why I think any Lawful character should have a written code of conduct that the DM can see and understand. It helps prevent arguments like this.

 

[WizarDru]

To me, it looks like folks are forgetting that alignment follows actions, not the other way around. Sometimes the two differing concepts of lawful and good will come into opposition, but that doesn't mean they suddenly stop being LG. It takes a major violation or consistent pattern change to redefine someone's alignment.

As for a society where LG people engage in sex without being married, possibly having multiple partners and without a necessary long-term commitment? I live there, it's called the United States of America.

And Lu, I'll have to disagree with you about CN. Chaotic Neutral characters are generally apathetic, self-involved narcissits. They don't care what happens to other people, as long as they get what they want...their only concern is their own personal condition. They won't go out of their way to cause harm, but they also generally won't lift a finger to help, unless they see a benefit to themselves.

 

[LuYangShih]

That sounds like CE to me, not CN. The Neutral alignments will help other people, so long as they take no great risk in doing so. Remember that Neutral prefers Good to Evil, according to the current definitions, they just are not willing to take risks to uphold it.

I also disagree with your perspective on LG characters and relationships. Sex, as has been mentioned before by myself and others in this thread, is in and of itself a Neutral act. However, the expression of the act can be perverted into something Evil, or elevated into something Good. I would expect the LG expression to be one of love, caring, and committment.

 

[WizarDru]

That sounds like CE to me, not CN. The Neutral alignments will help other people, so long as they take no great risk in doing so. Remember that Neutral prefers Good to Evil, according to the current definitions, they just are not willing to take risks to uphold it.

Well, according to the SRD:

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

I don't see anything in there about helping others. They can act as you mentioned, but they could also act the way I described them. He doesn't go out of his way to inflict problems on others, but he won't help them if they're in trouble, either. "Not my Problem" is their guiding principle.

On the other hand:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Evil characters go out of their way to make people suffer. They're not narcisists, they're sociopaths. A CN character might seduce a partner, and then callously abandon them, after they've satisfied their desires. A CE character will do the sort of things that would make Eric's Grandma quite unhappy to hear about. The CE character wants to do these things, and goes out of his way to make them happen...but he has no greater plan to do so. Or rather, he might, since each alignment still allows for a great deal of variance within each one, IMHO.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Not to derail the discussion, but Mormons do not practice polygamy.

The main body of Mormons no longer practice polygamy, but they did practice polygamy right up until the turn of the century, they only abandoned it when pressured by the government, and it is still part of their scriptures. Moreover, there are smaller groups who consider themselves the only true Mormons because they practice polygamy.

 

[Afrodyte]

Seems to me that folks are blowing this out of proportion. LG does not mean rigid and unflinching, it means following a code of conduct for the betterment of people around you.

Furthermore, it's not saying that a LG character can go around having sex at a whim. It says that they don't have to be monogamous, or in a long-term relationship. The LG character doesn't play games, or lead someone on... they don't 'love-em-and-leave-em'. They clearly state their intentions and, if their partner agrees, they enjoy their time together.

My sentiments exactly. I see a Lawful character as someone going about things in a methodical way. Instead of leaving things to chance or taking it as it comes, I suspect a Lawful character would want everything out in the open from the beginning. An intereasting real-world example of the Lawful-Chaotic divide would be the Judge-Perceive axis in the Meyers-Briggs personality indicator.

As a side note and contrast, I can see chaotic character being monogamous not out of a sense of duty or obligation, but as a choice reflecting how much they value that person in their lives, one that is renewed each day.

 

[Mallus]

Sex, as has been mentioned before by myself and others in this thread, is in and of itself a Neutral act. However, the expression of the act can be perverted into something Evil, or elevated into something Good. I would expect the LG expression to be one of love, caring, and committment.

If that's your position, then the hypothetical paladin/playa could engage in causal sexual relationships with informed, willing partners [which would leave the action, pun intended, Neutral, wouldn't it]... It wouldn't be love finest flowering, but hey, there's nothing forbidding a paladin from occasionally indulging in non-evil passtimes.

Besides, you never know if/when he/she might just meet the right person and settle down.

While I'm not sure even I buy the notion of the bling-encrusted paladin whose sexual escapades rival his St. George and the Dragon ones... I am fairly certain that good people can get into multiple loving, committed relationships over the course of a lifetime. I mean, even with the best of intentions, things don't always work out.

 

[LuYangShih]

Yes, you can commit Neutral acts and still be Good, but since the BoEF was supposed to be describing the viewpoints of the various alignments on sexuality, a description of a (Chaotic) Neutral ethos for Lawful Good is incorrect.

 

[LuYangShih]

Wizardru:

Exactly. The CN character is not neccessarily as you describe, and can just as easily fall under my definition. I think inaction can be just as evil as action. If a CN character sees someone drowning, and can easily save them, but just lets them die, that shifts him to CE. The difference between Neutral and Good characters, judging from the definitions given in the alignment sections, is that Neutral only does the right thing when they are taking no risk in doing so.