What is "Good" Alignment

[@ryanweible9090]

as i see it, lg is a good cop, ng is a social worker/person who does a lot of charity, and cg is a kind of radical freedom fighter/activist. lawful people may not trust the current system, they aren't obligated to follow rules that are contradictory or obviously corrupt(like the faramir example), but they know the best way is a system. ng doesnt care so long as they are helping people, and cg thinks systems are the problem, that they always break, so leaving freedom to people is the key. and i like neutral good, though every personality test i take is lawful good. but i think ng is a good one to play because you have one goal, to preserve life and protect people, the method is not an issue. but its also a super nuanced alignment that if you ask 3 people about it, you will get 5 interpretations.

[@BlackShardStudio]

I agree. I approach alignment from a slightly different angle, but arrive at a very similar conclusion. I believe each alignment thinks of themselves as being the most correct, while their opposite is the quintessential definition of wrong. For example, LG believes law is necessary for good because they believe chaos can only ever end up enabling evil. Meanwhile, CG sees law, no matter how well-intentioned, as a dangerous path toward tyranny. In other words, CG believes law cannot help but be evil because they're interrelated, while LG believes chaos and evil are essentially the same at the end of the day. Those who are neutral tend to either be centrists ("both sides are equally bad"/"both sides are actually the same problem"), or they see the axis they are neutral on as irrelevant ("evil is evil and doesn't care whether there is law or not").

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

@ryanweible9090 thanks for the comment. That is one way of looking at it.

[@carminegraves]

Following the law doesnt make you good it makes you Lawful. Chaotic Good will follow their conscience and shirk laws that are evil. great video it really makes you think!

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

True, Slavery used to be legal and was the law, was it good? Depends on who you were and who you were talking to, and who's side you are on

[@carminegraves]

@@wizardsofthetower3802 slavery is objectively evil (look at the races that are slavers in the game, and in previous editions it was stated that orcs and other goblinoiods were born evil so players couldnt parley with them and force them into combat) considering youre exploiting others for labor without compensation or rights based purely on the fact that youre too lazy to do the labor yourself.

[@douglasphillips5870]

Every edition of D&D has treated alignment differently in its execution, and sometimes in its concept. Good alignment could mean that you are aligned with the cosmic forces of good, you don't actually need to be good yourself.

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

@douglasphillips5870 Thanks for the comment. I base Good alignment on 1st - 3.5 and PF. I've never read it to be as you describe, maybe in 4th or 5th (Only played some 5E, but never dug into it.

[@jemandanders6160]

Reporting someone for breaking the law is not a good thing to do, it is a lawful thing to do. Whether it is good depends on the law.

[@ryanweible9090]

jean valjean?

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

Interesting thing to look at it. And yes, Slavery used to be legal, was it good? Depends on who you were and who you were talking to, and who's side you are on

[@jemandanders6160]

@@wizardsofthetower3802 In authoritarian states usually laws facilitate the incarceration or execution of political dissidents, genocide and other atrocities. There were lots of "law abiding citizens" in Nazi Death Camps Law is a tool of whomever is in power, be they morally agreeable or not. A lawfull good character would abide by the law as best they can, while minimizing the harm they do. A neutral good character is likely to not antagonize the law while following their moral compass A chaotic good character is likely to disregard the law, even if there is a due process to achieve their moral goals.

[@tryingbridge2548]

If you have a character with a sort of split personality do you make an alignment for both of the personalities?

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

@tryingbridge2548 Thanks for the comment. Kind of depends on what your DM thinks and wants to do. If you have a sort of Jekyll and Hyde, not sure I as a DM would allow that in my game, or even a sort of a Sybil (True story of a woman with10+ personalities. This could cause Party conflict. As an NPC? You betcha

[@rickershomesteadahobbyfarm3291]

I like playing chaotic neutral characters. I don’t always have to be good, and I always have to be bad. A character I’m playing right now is chaotic neutral but he is also insane. Self preservation is a big part of this character. He started out as chaotic good, but he has a TBI and also has PTSD. He is paranoid of almost everyone. Last session he had a vision from his grandfather, and he was given a task to destroy a certain group of people. Another player characters patron instructed him to help the people who my character is supposed to be destroying. That character is one of the only other characters that my character doesn’t distrust. Both of our characters also received legendary weapons. Both of us are wondering how this going to go lol.

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

Thank you for sharing your story and the comment I myself play a lot of Chaotic Neutral characters, very self preservation, not good, not evil. Do what keeps you alive. But for good, I play a lot of Neutral Good, almost never Lawful good (Unless I must... only once with a Paladin).

[@Dracoaurion]

Orcs are inherently evil.

[@ryanweible9090]

well, they are influenced by their god, so their personality has kind of a copilot. which is one way to salvage the "sapient creatures deciding unilaterally to act a certian way". same with goblins. they dont have specific free will, they are to different degrees controlled by an external power that pushes them to specific behaviors.if you lay it that way, i dont, but its a way to run it. i see it as they are influenced to be violent, but they still have a choice. humans, even religious ones still act independently, so some can decide to be bandits, murderers and dishonest businessmen, while others can decide to be compassionate and eglitarian. the interesting thing was when you were talking about good being easy, it kind of is, unless you are in an evil aligned society, most societies work on the idea of respecting peoples property and safety, and even more people who are specifically prosocial tend to be viewed well and treated better. good is rational in a society...to a point. i was playing a rogue a while ago and wanted to get into the rogue mindset, and every thing i did, pickpocketing people, running a rigged card game, and considering burglerizing a general store, had risks to derail the game. when i played my cleric, there was no risk, talk to people, maybe do a ritual for the local church, i had no fear for my rolls, but the rogue had tension. and in computer games it was the same thing, in mass effect or kotor, i found playing a villian less fun because so often it was dumb, you were hurting your chances of getting information, getting backup, evil was, to me a stupid risk, so i agree, in a standard fantasy setting, good is much easier than evil to play.

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

So are Drow, Does that mean you attack Drizzet on first sight?

[@Dracoaurion]

@wizardsofthetower3802 assuming I include a character from official publication, then most likely yes. If you are in a public setting and see a rapist do you instantly attack them or do you try to avoid contact?

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

@@Dracoaurion Seeing someone doing a horrible act is different than seeing someone walking down the street who may be a sexual deviant but you have no clue. If you saw a photo of them and new them to be a sexual deviant, you most likely would report them. But attacking them on the street outright is not a good act,. If you saw them in the act of doing something wrong, you report them or if you need to, you would attack. But you cannot just assume. Like I said, You see a Drow, you have no clue who Drizzet is, you pull your sword and attack right away. What is the difference between that and seeing an Orc in the forest abd you have no clue who said orc is. Are you as a character just going to attack them outright? That is not a good act