LG, sex and Star Trek

[Aaron L]

No, Neutral is Neutral. They don't care. the reference to preferring Good over Evil means they prefer Good neighbors over Evil neighbors, as Good neighbors are less likelely to stab them in the back.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Actually, I'd see them shift to NE, not CE. Again, from the SRD:

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

CE characters are driven to do evil...go out of their way to do it, in fact. A CN will not go out of his way to do anything that doesn't benefit them. If saving the person is an easy, non-risky task, then he'll save him, sure....but that doesn't make him good. That merely means he either perceives the good will of the saved person and the community is worth more to him and his personal situation than the enmity of others who might view it, or doing nothing. The act may be classified as good, perhaps, but not the motivation. He can do good, but he isn't intending to do good...it just works out that way. If he could rob the drowning man with no witnesses, and could get a lot of gold...he might do that...IF it furthered his personal agenda. An evil act, but not necessarily for evil motives. However, showing a preference for such acts would quickly move him into NE.

 

[fusangite]

I really should have waded into this thread earlier but I was busy having a real life. I should really cut down on that.

Anyway, the question seems to be, to what degree is WOTC alignment the equivalent of modern morality. First of all, I had better grant that often, WOTC and other publishers have the nasty habit of making "good" equivalent to liberal modernity. That's a shame because I don't think D&D is all that fun if we are compelled to play modern characters in a pre-modern world. It is therefore fortunate that some material, specifically the description of alignment in the PHB gives room for us to view alignment in a way that can be more culturally relativistic. After all, it would be a terrible shame if we couldn't identify with Tolkien's heroes just because they seemed to support some kind of racist autocracy.

So, I choose to view the Lawful Good alignment much as other posters have: one which demands its adherents be altruistic while simultaneously adhering to the social and legal conventions of their society. Based on this idea, it seems pretty clear that: (a) Lawful Good characters can support and engage in concubinage and sex outside of marriage; otherwise, there is no such thing as a Lawful Good Chinese emperor; and (b) Lawful Good characters can support and engage in loveless marriage; otherwise, most major historical European nobles and kings would be disqualified from being Lawful Good.

Some people might argue that our fallen world contains so few objectively good people that there really were almost no Lawful Good historical personages. I suppose such a viewpoint is defensible; but that would mean that people in the D&D world would, on average, act much more nobly than people in this world. But I would rather run a D&D which, at least on an ethical level, resembles our fallen world a little more closely.

 

[S'mon]

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?

You have a good point, but IMO CG actively seeks to avoid harming others. CN will not actively seek to harm others, but may be indifferent or callous, especially to people they don't know. A bank robber could be CN (just about), but if he shot witnesses to prevent them identifying him, he'd be CE. A CG character wouldn't rob a bank (except maybe a LE dictator's bank) since he'd know people might well get hurt.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I agree with your view on CN. I'd tend to disagree with your view of the typical American citizen with behaviour as you describe being LG though, NG more likely.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'd strongly disagree - assuming the drowning person is a stranger, letting them drown is classic Neutral behaviour. Indeed under English law you're not required to rescue drowning people - & rescuing them is regarded as an actively _good_ act. The exception is where you have a connection with & have assumed an (implied or explicit) duty of care to that person - eg you're their parent, lifeguard, fishing partner or whatever, in which case not rescuing them would be Evil behaviour.

An example from US society - the doctor who doesn't intervene to help an accident victim out of fear of litigation is acting Neutral-selfish not Evil IMO.

 

[S'mon]

Some people might argue that our fallen world contains so few objectively good people that there really were almost no Lawful Good historical personages. I suppose such a viewpoint is defensible; but that would mean that people in the D&D world would, on average, act much more nobly than people in this world. But I would rather run a D&D which, at least on an ethical level, resembles our fallen world a little more closely.

I agree with this. I tend to think the current PHB Alignment descriptions are written from a 'weak NG' perspective. A more strongly Good-aligned perspective would judge Neutral actions (eg not saving someone) more harshly than this (as LuYangShih does) and so classify them as Evil. A Neutral-to-weak-Evil perspective tends to say that any self-interested action is Neutral not Evil, whatever the result - so eg killing someone for their money is Neutral, so that an action is only Evil if it's done to actively promote harm & suffering for its own sake and the pleasure it brings the Evildoer (1e PHB Neutral Evil definition fit this).

 

[techno]

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.

I know this is getting a bit OT, but I hate to see inaccurate information about the Mormon Church being spread in this discussion. Only a small percentage of the membership of Church ever actually practiced polygamy. In 1890, the leadership of the Church received a revelation that the practice should be abolished. Since that time, members who are found to be in polygamist relationships are excommunicated from the Church and have no connection with it whatsoever. The Book of Mormon clearly states that having one wife is the rule and that polygamy is the exception.

 

[LuYangShih]

Inaction can be just as wicked as action. Letting someone die when you can save them, at little to no risk to yourself, is evil, by the D&D definitions of morality.

Wizardru:

You seem to be misinterpeting my comments. CN characters would save someone if they took little to no risk by doing so, after all, why not? I am not making an argument that CN=CG. A CG character would risk their lives to save other people, while a CN would not. Han Solo is the perfect example of a CN character in this regard. Unless they have a personal reason to take risks to save others, they will not get involved. However, they will help other people as long as they aren't really taking a great risk in doing so, or if they are personally involved with them.


Getting back to the original topic, I still do not think the BoEF description of a Lawful Good characters stance on sexuality comes even close to what it should be. The Good expression of sexuality would be love, yet that is not even mentioned. A Lawful character would seek a long term or structured relationship, and again this is not even mentioned. If LG is as other people in this thread have argued, what, may I ask, is the difference between LG and N?

Oh, and as for medieval Kings, I would classify the entire feudal system of the Dark Ages as being LE, and almost every single ruler from that period I have read of would fall under an evil alignment, as well. So I certainly do not agree that LG characters would follow such behavioral patterns.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Not to get too into this conversation, but I wonder about the emphasis on love as a 'good' thing.

From a strictly moral stand-point the relationship between sex and love is a pleasant thing, but there is certainly nothing wrong with having sex with someone you don't love as long as you are responsible about the long term implications of the love-making, including the ends and goals of the activity.

And that is what I believe the real emphasis of LG on sexual relationships would be, are you being responsible about the consequences of your sexual acts? Are you performing them for a good end?

And I think that for a LG character that consideration of responsibility covers not simply immediate and likely consequences but would almost be more concerned with long term and possible consequences.

LG would not be likely to enter into any sort of romantic relationship that would disrupt a beneficial social structure, even if they might be in love. And included in that would be a tendency to avoid any romantic relationship that conflicted with marriage goals.

Also in line with that I doubt that any LG character would enter into a romantic relationship where the question of supporting potential and actual progeny wasn't well established and satisfied ahead of the deed. I mean to the point where secret marriages would be a terrible huge no no since it means that adoption might be messed up in the case of the death of both parents.

LG are the sorts who started setting up funds for their children as soon as they began working and who pick Godparents based both on moral and material ability.

That and they would be willing to adjust a lot of their behaviour to social norms. Even in a NE society there will be elements of behaviour that work to preserve the futurity of the society, and since no society is nearly always worse than a bad society LG will be willing to make some accomadations. This might indeed include a certain amount of societally enfranchised whoring, as long as the means of taking care of potential progeny are clearly understood and strongly enforced within the society or within the character's means.

My main point, however, is that I think LG characters are the most, even to the point of probability, likely to sacrifice love and pleasure to social responsibility.

C'mon this is the literary archetype that joins the foriegn legion to hide from his heart. Not the type to pursue love through dale and bower.