NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6407869" data-attributes="member: 71756">It's coherent because "good" in D&D terms means something very specific, as has been pointed out. And that specific value set may or may not be all that matters to a character. A chaotic good character believes charity, compassion, and hope are all excellent virtues, but they believe they are either A) must be shared alongside the values of self-reliance, free thought, and freedom from compulsion or B) that they are at their best when coupled with the latter. Likewise for a lawful good character and the values of law relative to the values of "good." On the other hand, a lawful neutral or chaotic neutral character does not believe the values of D&D "good" have any intrinsic value (or that if they do they are nowhere near the values of law and chaos). Neutral evil characters value very little beyond their own self-interest and gratification, while lawful evil and chaotic evil characters' selfishness is somewhat tempered by their adherence to law and chaos.From the perspective of each of these other alignments, neutral good characters place an overly high value on certain virtues that are either incomplete (lawful good and chaotic good), insignificant (lawful neutral and chaotic neutral), or callow (evil). From each particular alignment's perspective, Elysium is imperfect and therefore not the "best" plane, even if it exemplifies the purest form of "good." Because good on its own isn't what they value (if they value it at all).It's totally consistent with the 2-axis approach! The entire point of having a perpendicular axis to good and evil is that law and chaos have equal value in the eyes of many inhabitants of the multiverse! If law and chaos were considered wholly inferior to good, than you'd have a point, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't how the multiverse's inhabitants perceive it.You are right insofar as good has a clear definition in the rules. But that definition leaves out several principles that many characters consider valuable. And they don't care one whit if neutral good characters find those values arbitrary, because they believe in them. In the end, good is just a label for the particular value system that "pure" neutral good exemplifies best, but it doesn't necessarily match the value system of other characters of cultures. A lawful good character thinks the values of law are also important (but not as important as lawful neutrals would have it); a chaotic good character likewise believes the values of chaos are important (but not as much as a chaotic neutral character does).Detect good, at its most basic, is essentially detecting whether a creature is how closely aligned to the forces of supernatural "good" (that is to say "good" deities, angels, etc.). That's why supernatural creatures and clerics come up more strongly than regular mortals, no matter how good they might be. The same goes for detect evil: it's detecting whether the creature is aligned with supernatural "evil," not their sum total karma (which doesn't really exist as such in D&D).That's the perspective a lawful good or chaotic good character is likely to take. It's harder (though not impossible) for a neutral good character though, who just wants everyone to be happy.There's a few problems with this approach:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What's the divination spell supposed to show you... the consequences? If so it's actually kind of irrelevant; D&D alignment is primarily defined by means, rather than ends.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is the divination spell 100% reliable? Because a lot can depend on who you're asking, how you're asking it, and why you're asking it. Divination is a notoriously fickle field of magic (after all, it'd be no fun if you could just summon up answers to whatever questions you had whenever you wanted to).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">And again, a lawful good character is (often) just as concerned as to whether an act is lawful as whether it is good. And a chaotic good character wants to make sure their act isn't unnecessarily lawful as well. So determining which is more "good" isn't the end of the discussion.</li> </ol>Because conformity, obedience, and discipline come before the values of good in every equation. There's no suffering but there's none of the things a neutral good character would value and a paucity of those a lawful good character would value.Same answer; a neutral good character wouldn't enjoy Limbo as an afterlife and a lawful good character would rather intensely loathe it (although not as much as the Abyss).Only if you consider good to be inherently better than law and chaos, which isn't the way the nine-alignment system is designed; lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, true neutral characters are just as valid for play as lawful good, chaotic good, and neutral good characters are.It's not an exact synonym, I'll grant you that. But it is related. Most precisely altruism means unselfish regard for others and one of the most selfless ways you can show your regard for others is by giving of yourself to them; it needn't be a monetary gift (not all charity is monetary), but the point is you're giving up something of yourself for others.It's awfully close. It means you respect the sanctity of life, which means that you generally believe killing is wrong, even when it's for a righteous cause. Mercy naturally follows from that.But there are some value systems where freedom has a higher premium than human life or the happiness of others. Individual liberty, these people argue (and I'm trying to avoid stepping on the toes of discussing real-life politics here, even though I'm speaking largely of historical cases) can never come at too high a price. Likewise, there are value systems that consider obedience to authority, honor, and discipline to be more important than whether or not a person is happy. These value systems aren't "good" in the D&D sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have no sense of human well-being: they just believe happiness and the right to life are shallow interpretations of such a concept.Two points here:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I don't agree. I think it's entirely possible for a "broad definition" of good to include concepts that both chaotic good and lawful good characters value. Indeed such a broad definition seems otherwise useless.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Gygax isn't the be-all, end-all to the nine-alignment system. His involvement ended with D&D ended at 1st edition and many, many designers and writers have contributed to the discussion of what the nine alignments mean (among many other concepts) since then. Their accumulated additions are just as valuable as what Gygax originally intended, whatever that is (though it still seems to me defining the American Constitution as CG was what he was going for).</li> </ol>See, I don't see it that way (although I understand why some people might).My introduction to tabletop roleplaying was the 3rd edition of D&D, some time around the early-mid aughts (I honestly forget when precisely). And I remember thinking the 9-alignment system was really sophisticated, especially compared to the simplistic dualism you usually get in most fantasy. There was no simple, binary choice between the "light side" and the "dark side;" there was no choice between simply being good and evil. Instead you had 9 alignments, 5 of which (LN/LG/NG/CG/CN) all seemed to have some claim to being righteous, 3 of which (LE/NE/CE) that could represent most villains, and 1 which represented those who felt all of the above were a bunch of sanctimonious jerks.I'll admit I'm more likely to play lawful good or neutral good than any other alignment, but I like the fact that the system allows other perspectives. To me, it encourages sophisticated thinking on what's the moral or ethical choice, rather than simply handing you a very cut-and-dry interpretation the way most fantasy settings do.This is something I felt 4e's alignment system lacked: it's layout of lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil seemed to imply (whether intentionally or not) that lawful good and chaotic evil were, respectively, the best good and the best evil and everything in-between was somewhat imperfect. It felt too dualistic to me, whereas the nine-alignment system felt like anything but.I'm not sure I'd agree. Lawful good and good deities in 4e are just as (if not more) clearly the forces of righteousness in 4e as good deities were the forces of righteousness in prior editions. The primordials - all of whom are chaotic evil, incidentally (a few specific to FR aside) - were clearly the worst of the worst in 4e's cosmology, beings who were rightfully imprisoned by the gods and who still inspire fear among them. There's a very clear duality at work: the gods are better than the primordials and because the primordials are all chaotic evil it stands to reason the lawful good gods are the best.The mechanics of alignment are largely removed, that's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has no moral or ethical significance within 4e's cosmology.But not all the gods of the Great Wheel are good and not all of the gods of the Astral Sea are ambiguously good. Bahamut and Pelor in 4e are clearly good and turning on them would be similarly, by definition, "not good and probably evil." On the other hand, bringing the fight to Kord, god of storms, or Bane, god of war, is not out of the question for a good character. But the same is true for attacking gods of pure law, chaos, or evil in Great Wheel.Your argument actually reminds me of the end act of Mask of the Betrayer, the first expansion pack for Neverwinter Nights 2. Without going into too much detail, one of the critical choices you face at the game's end is whether to lead an army against a lawful neutral god or not. The reasons for doing so are arguably just, but they also pit you against the forces of cosmological order and require you to ally with several evil forces. The situation is ambiguous in very much the same kind of way the above scenario you describe is... but it happens within the context of 3e assumptions about alignment (albeit within the World Tree of 3e FR rather than the Great Wheel).</blockquote>

Verification