Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1766885" data-attributes="member: 17296">Pshhht. "Exempted from alignment classification" is simply rationalization. They're not exempted. Yes, their acting on instinct and emotion is why the act is neutral for them. And yes you can make a PC who acts only on instinct and emotions. Hell, having a set of actions allowed to you doesn't exempt you from classification, it just sets your classification. There are a number of undead who are essentially programed, but that doesn't exempt them from classification. An animal's instinct is their reason, and their reasons make them neutral. Some of them.Or, to think of this another way, if I made a paladin with a very low int and wisdom would that make the paladin "exempt" from having to be lawful and/or good?There's nothing to stop a character from being flawed to the point where they only act from instinct and emotion, but sometimes acting from emotion can be evil (sometimes it's good, actually)... in fact, to be fair, evilness itself is often (in real life) due to the inability to act beyond a certain level, a lack of empathy that "allows" a person to act purely on instinct or emotion, sometimes but not always restrained by laws...A number of societies and cultures define infantacide as normal and cannibalism as a good and expected thing. In fact, by some definitions you are showing an evil attitude coupled with a lack of empathy by the ethnocentrism inherent in this statement. The very ethnocentrism, I will point out, that *could* allow a character to be "lawful" within himself while disobeying the laws of the local land.(And with that statement I neatly bring this tangent back to the law/chaos axis it's meant to be about)Yup. I also stated chaotic as a possibility. Although still I see it as more likely to be neutral. Sure, non-lawful, but neutral is non-lawful. Even anti-lawful, but going against does not define a person as chaotic. A chaotic action, perhaps, but his general ordered bent could easily outweigh this action.But my main reason for writing to this point was to agree with you that being chaotic does not necessarily mean not having a consistent code. Sure, that does tend to be a lawful trait, but if that code contains a certain distain for codes... if the code is really more of a "guideline", then it could easily be chaotic.Yes, agreeing with local law but thinking that you are more fit than the local authorities to carry out the law is most likely chaotic. Of course, you could be right. The original post didn't say if this was a valid perspective. A lawful person whose personal law required the punishment of the evildoer caught in this act, whose law gave them the right to do this punishment, and who knew that there was a non-zero chance of the culprit being set free to commit unlawfulness again? That character could be seen as non-lawful for NOT killing the offender. It all depends on circumstance and reasoning.</blockquote>

Verification