How about you find me an example that states a lawful good character can do nothing to protect the innocent when it is in his power to do so?
Because that’s point. Both choices are wrong.
I found an example where it states that a lawful good character cannot willfully kill an innocent person. There was no exceptions listed in that sentence.
That seems pretty straightforward.
Actually DnD is where we get the alignment system from, and forgotten realms is a DnD setting, although one that existed prior to the setting becoming the official one, previously it was greyhawk (and I think it’s gone back to greyhawk now come to think of it).
However the authors of the books were still using the alignment system as each major character has an entry in the setting. I mean look at the most famous example… Drizzt. ![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
So your dismissal of the books of a DnD setting for the alignment argument is wilful ignorance. The authors were using the DnD alignment system… where this argument about ‘what alignment your character is’ stems from.
So you’re dismissing the source of the RP element that started the entire ball rolling on the alignment argument.
Neutral evil sounds about right for ol’ Xerash here.
Lawful neutral. The forces of chaos and evil are antithetical to the promulgation of law for a just and orderly society, and therefore must be rooted out in all their forms.
/boop
Teeheehehehe
1 Like
Ok, then i guess a lawful good character that finds himself in the situation i described will stop being lawful good no matter what he does.
Kill one innocent to save more? Yes. If I was DM - yes.
Chaotic Loot
You’re not even reading my posts are you?
You just agreed that if he doesnt kill an innocent to save more, he stops being lawful good.
You said he won’t be lawful good no matter what he chooses. You didn’t give one choice.
Are you reading mine? I said yes to him not being lawful good anymore if he kills an innocent - even if it’s to save more than one innocent.
Ok imagine there is a lawful good character in the following situation.
There is a zombie apocalipse going on, and he’s with a group of refugees barricaded inside a safe area.
Then he discovers one guy is infected. At any moment, he could turn into a zombie, possibly killing or infecting the rest of the refugees. The refugees are all in one room, and he can’t be kept somewhere separate, and there is nothing to restrain him with.
Mr. lawful good has two options:
- Say nothing to anyone, saving his life. And probably leading to the death of everyone else.
- Directly or indirectly kill him. This includes personally killing him, telling someone else which would lead to another person killing him, or sending him out which would lead to him getting eaten by zombies.
Would every single lawful good character choose 1?
You could try to say that the infected guy is “guilty”, but as he is just scared and doesn’t want to die, that seems a little bit forced.
Would mr. lawful good immediately stop being lawful good if he chooses not to doom his refugee group? Does he automatically become evil or neutral?
What if later on he is infected, and sacrifices himself without hesitation, does he go back to being lawful good? That would be strange, because his mindset never changed.
Why do you keep bringing up zombies if you’re talking about D&D alignment? Why do we get to move past D&D for your frame of reference but then when I start using definitions of evil and the like you accuse me of trying to use real world discussions? I really don’t get that.
Regardless - you tell the person who take his own life. And he should tell the others but then shouldn’t let them kill him. He should stand vigilant over the infected person until they change and kill him himself.
Lawful Good is a boring alignment that requires you to be Superman. Superman is Lawful Good. And he’s a boring character when trying to relate to him.
Well last time i checked, this wasn’t a D&D forum either. I still think it’s interesting to think about alignments in fictional characters, because they represent certain archetypes.
I make a point of separating alignments from real world morality because… seriously if an RPG was the one to find the ultimate solution to morality what the hell have philosophers been doing for the past 3000 years?
Oh i forgot to mention, the zombies have super speed, if mr. lawful good waits for him to turn, he’ll end up killing or infecting a bunch of people either way.
Also, superman is squarely neutral good imo.
His sole motivation is helping people. He makes use of “lawful” methods sometimes but they’re not important to him.
This character would be Chaotic Good.
Methinks that this monk would be Lawful Neutral, since everything must have order, and balance.
You might as well just go with the trolley paradox. You’re trying to pigeonhole a dilemma with real life morality, but throw in zombies and now you don’t have to worry about calling it real life?
Btw - everyone is calling alignment based on D&D values. So why are you trying to pivot away from D&D? Honest question because I thought the Lawful Good alignment was something invented by that game.
I honestly think it’s hogwash to think about alignments. They’re too rigid and lack the complexities of morality that we discuss.
Chaotic and Cannibalistic Evil.
My head is a realm of hatred and suffering.
My stomach is a black hole that forever craves and hungers.
Yet I have a soft side for kitties 
1 Like
Neutral Good.
Chaotic-Neutral to Neutral
Our characters end up accidentally ruining and purposefully saving things all the time, so it balances out.