Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 1200750" data-attributes="member: 10825">I'll second that. The only thing that matters much based on society in D&amp;D, in my opinion, is the Law versus Chaos scale. A nobleman who rapes commonfolk and kills peasants who touches him in a society where that is both legal and socially acceptable would be essentially lawful. A nobleman who does the same where it is legal but considered not socially acceptable (and there is a difference), would start treading more towards neutrality and chaos. A nobleman who does the same where it's neither legal nor acceptable is acting in a chaotic manner. And in all instances, even if the culture accepts it, it is an evil act. In general, Good and Evil are considered to be fairly universal. Orcs may live in a culture where murder, rape, assassination, glorifying death are all considered virtues (strength, dominance, etc), and therefore, all that is good by their standards, but it doesn't make them Good. If Good were based on cultural morality, the alignment system could just as easily cut it back down to just Law, Chaos and Neutrality. The individual is still True Neutral in my book, with tendencies towards Chaos and Evil. In light of how dire the consequences the individual may face for having gone into the arena, I'm even more strongly inclined to say he's Chaotic Neutral - wishing to impress your father and gain his respect isn't necessarily lawful, at least if you go about it in ways that are strongly against his wishes and those of society. In light of the fact that he might be disinherited or executed, I'd say the individual is leaning strongly towards Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trickstergod, post: 1200750, member: 10825"] I'll second that. The only thing that matters much based on society in D&D, in my opinion, is the Law versus Chaos scale. A nobleman who rapes commonfolk and kills peasants who touches him in a society where that is both legal and socially acceptable would be essentially lawful. A nobleman who does the same where it is legal but considered not socially acceptable (and there is a difference), would start treading more towards neutrality and chaos. A nobleman who does the same where it's neither legal nor acceptable is acting in a chaotic manner. And in all instances, even if the culture accepts it, it is an evil act. In general, Good and Evil are considered to be fairly universal. Orcs may live in a culture where murder, rape, assassination, glorifying death are all considered virtues (strength, dominance, etc), and therefore, all that is good by their standards, but it doesn't make them Good. If Good were based on cultural morality, the alignment system could just as easily cut it back down to just Law, Chaos and Neutrality. The individual is still True Neutral in my book, with tendencies towards Chaos and Evil. In light of how dire the consequences the individual may face for having gone into the arena, I'm even more strongly inclined to say he's Chaotic Neutral - wishing to impress your father and gain his respect isn't necessarily lawful, at least if you go about it in ways that are strongly against his wishes and those of society. In light of the fact that he might be disinherited or executed, I'd say the individual is leaning strongly towards Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies. [/QUOTE]

Verification