Are you good or evil? (rpg question)

[Nazzzgul666]

On 12/27/2018 at 6:37 PM, Hana0nline said:

I never play as a pure good or pure evil character  (Lawful Good / Chaotic Evil as in the good old Neverwinter); i always make my choises based on what i think is right to do in that particular situation, even tho sometimes i do  something extremely evil and cruel just for the taste  of sweet revenge.

In the end my alignment tend to be mostly evil than good.

Imho lawful (evil) was/is always worse than chaotic (or evil), at least as far as i got it. A chaotic character would do what's best for himself, that's something i can relate to although i don't necessarily follow that path. A lawful character will do something just because it's the "right" thing to do, regardless of the outcome which is imho despicable. Not considering the consequences of your actions - and in case of doubt, doing evil things by accident - is imho beeing stupid on purpose.

 

As an example of a possible NWN scenario: imagine there is a lawful evil wizard who wants to destroy the world with the help of an item, although he'd die himself, just because destroying the world is something a lawful evil character does on purpose. Then there is a chaotic thief, who steals the item (because he wants to survive, if for no other reason). And then there is a lawful good paladin who catches the thief and gives the item back to the wizard because he's the lawful owner and it's the "right thing" to do.

 

In this scenario it doesn't even matter if the thief is good or evil, the fact that he's not lawful is what makes him save the world, while the precious paladin helps destroying it.

 

Sure, this scenario may be extreme, there are many others where the paladin could obviously be more good than our thief, but the fact that it's a plausible scenario is what prevents me from ever playing any lawful character in any game. I value (selfish) logic over ideology, that's something i just can't help. 

 

That said, in NWN regardless how i started, i always ended at least with chaotic neutral, usually chaotic good, but just because that way gave the most rewards. Letting the kidnapped children die because the parents didn't have any gold was hardly an option for my characters when i still got a good amount of XP doing it, especially considering that i didn't get anything for not doing it. Same for smashing the chests and robbing peoples houses. Maybe that means i'm just bad at roleplaying, i dunno. In RL i don't break into peoples houses smashing their stuff searching for gold in general, though.

If game rewards wouldn't be rigged i'd play as chaotic evil.

[Guest]

chaotically neutral - is evil without the drawbacks

I don't want items costing a lot more, interactions with npc being impossible - or worse core game being unplayable.

[Lyman the Lunatic]

I think the English word I'm looking for is "pragmatic".
What is evil to a deer is good to a lion. Question, are you a lion or a deer. Lions eat deers, does that make lions evil? Life is simply more complicated than good & evil.

Funny thing, I did a DnD alignment test some yrs ago, and it says I'm a lawful good. I never play DnD anyway, but laws are different, 1 kingdom's interpretation of what is good might not apply to the other, so I guess it's accurate enough.

Sure, sure, a basic mores is important to maintain the social order. If you wish to remain where you are the rest of your life, you don't need to think much about it. But I like to be adventurous. So to me, I'll be pragmatic about it.

[Mr. Otaku]

I'm good to good people, evil to evil people. Obviously that's a fantasy mindset but it's based on my approach in general. To a good person i'm good and to a bad person i'm bad, someone treats me kindly i will make sure to do the same to them, someone fucks with me i'll straight up clap them cross-eyed.

 

In games i typically don't feel like causing complete mayhem for no reason most of the time. Like in GTA for example, i don't get the impulse to drive into a crowd or anything. But some other times i deliberately gain 5 stars so that i can keep blasting the cops with my Toreador or Khanjali all across the map, even better when done with friends. Nothing beats freemode pvp though, that shit gets electric. I don't know if that makes me good or evil though but i do start a lot of these fights by acting as a bait and allowing them to start attacking first only to do the old switcheroo and smoke them lol.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Lyman the Lunatic said:

I think the English word I'm looking for is "pragmatic".
What is evil to a deer is good to a lion. Question, are you a lion or a deer. Lions eat deers, does that make lions evil? Life is simply more complicated than good & evil.

Funny thing, I did a DnD alignment test some yrs ago, and it says I'm a lawful good. I never play DnD anyway, but laws are different, 1 kingdom's interpretation of what is good might not apply to the other, so I guess it's accurate enough.

Sure, sure, a basic mores is important to maintain the social order. If you wish to remain where you are the rest of your life, you don't need to think much about it. But I like to be adventurous. So to me, I'll be pragmatic about it.

 

Neither the deer or lion contemplate their lot in life - certainly not the morality of their actions

 

I see your point tho so how about this... 

 

Good people can do terrible things when pushed out of necessity but they at least regret these decisions - truly evil just don't care. 

 

That's the difference to me, then again I like Lorgar Aurelian (40k) lol

[gagemage]

i’m chaotic good. i cannot for the life of me be rude to characters in games lol. i do play as a thief and assassin in skyrim, but in my mind i always come up with some reason to justify what i do because those questlines are so much more fun than the ones to destroy the organizations, and i’m a stealth player by nature lol. i like the serana dialogue add-on with the initial stages of the dark brotherhood quests because she herself comes up with those reasons. but while in skyrim i do stuff like that, i also go out of my way to help and befriend as many NPCs as possible. in the sims, i cannot stand playing evil characters but sometimes it serves a story lol. in animal crossing i cannot for the life of me say no to a request, and in basically every game i try to be kind to the NPCs, even the ones that are marks lol. 

 

i don’t think people who play evil/mean characters are bad inherently lol. sometimes it’s fun to play stuff you’d normally never do… like stealing and murdering! but personally i do find it hard to be mean apart from what i need to do in games lol. 

[sila]

In DND games I like to roleplay as a hard liner Lawful Good fighter.

 

By that I mean he does some pretty evil shit in the name of the greater good.

 

The kinda guy that would cull Stratholme without even stopping to think about it, or that would prefer killing someone he knows isn't going to make it instead of wasting resources trying to save them. On the flip side, he fights as hard as he can to save those he *can* save, and if anyone messes with his friends it's not going to end well for em.

 

I got along quite well with Regill from Wrath of the Righteous. 

[scarletrobe303]

I always choose to be the good guy. Not the push over but one who is willing to the sensible thing and kill anyone that endangers threatens or attempts to kill me or my team. Kill anyone who poses a threat in the future. 

In the case of Mass Effect I allowes the alien council to be wiped out to put Anders in charge so the humans we at the top. It was the only real choice as we needed a strong voice to protect the rest of the galaxy who continued to ignore us. My ultimate goal was to eliminate the enemy and remove all political obsticles.  I am always the hero that gets the job done doing what others wouldn't have the guts to do. 

[DocClox]

My guys are pretty much anti-heroes. No particular interest in being a hero and will quite happily screw someone over if someone pisses them off. But show them a little girl with her kitten stuck up a tree, and half an hour later, my guy will be back, dragging a stepladder and grumbling about how people should take better care of their pets.

 

[Popo07]

On 9/1/2022 at 11:11 AM, sila said:

In DND games I like to roleplay as a hard liner Lawful Good fighter.

 

By that I mean he does some pretty evil shit in the name of the greater good.

 

The kinda guy that would cull Stratholme without even stopping to think about it, or that would prefer killing someone he knows isn't going to make it instead of wasting resources trying to save them. On the flip side, he fights as hard as he can to save those he *can* save, and if anyone messes with his friends it's not going to end well for em.

 

I got along quite well with Regill from Wrath of the Righteous. 

I think that would make you lawful neutral, good people don't do bad things to others out of spite.

 

On 9/6/2022 at 12:16 AM, DocClox said:

My guys are pretty much anti-heroes. No particular interest in being a hero and will quite happily screw someone over if someone pisses them off. But show them a little girl with her kitten stuck up a tree, and half an hour later, my guy will be back, dragging a stepladder and grumbling about how people should take better care of their pets.

 

I think that would put you in the neutral good category, unless you kept the cat then you would be true neutral (depending on how bad you were otherwise}.

[sila]

36 minutes ago, Popo07 said:

I think that would make you lawful neutral, good people don't do bad things to others out of spite.

 

I think that would put you in the neutral good category, unless you kept the cat then you would be true neutral (depending on how bad you were otherwise}.

It depends on the character's morality. If they genuinely believe that what they are doing is for the better good, and such thing is actually for the better good... It is still a Good action. And a good character can do evil things on occasion.

 

IMO Culling of Strathome  was a perfect example of true lawful good. There is no other way to solve the issue with the resources Arthas had, and even culling it didn't do the job since the place is still a wasteland afterwards. Any other choice there would have been much worse. I would argue Uther's choice there was more neutral good than lawful good.

 

Edit: to go a bit further.

 

I consider Imperious from Diablo to be lawful good as well, while Tyrael is clearly Chaotic Good. While killing all of humanity is obviously a bad thing from the human perspective, Imperious firmly believed that because of their ties to demons they could not be allowed to exist. So he tried to genocide them. Tyrael, being chaotic good, obviously disagrees with such a notion despite being the same faction and having the same reason to doubt humanity because he cares more about the lives that would be lost than the orders of his superior or the chance of something going wrong because of their ties to demons.

 

I consider Uther in Culling of Stratholme to be Neutral good action because he disagrees with his superior (Arthas was the prince and even if Uther was a high ranking paladin, that still makes him the commanding officer) because he cares more about trying to save the people than trying to save the country.

 

Then there is Itachi Uchiha, who killed his entire clan on orders because he wanted to avoid civil war and the destruction of the leaf village. Also Lawful Good in my opinion.

Edited September 8, 2022 by sila

[Popo07]

34 minutes ago, sila said:

It depends on the character's morality. If they genuinely believe that what they are doing is for the better good, and such thing is actually for the better good... It is still a Good action. And a good character can do evil things on occasion.

 

IMO Culling of Strathome  was a perfect example of true lawful good. There is no other way to solve the issue with the resources Arthas had, and even culling it didn't do the job since the place is still a wasteland afterwards. Any other choice there would have been much worse. I would argue Uther's choice there was more neutral good than lawful good.

 

Edit: to go a bit further.

 

I consider Imperious from Diablo to be lawful good as well, while Tyrael is clearly Chaotic Good. While killing all of humanity is obviously a bad thing from the human perspective, Imperious firmly believed that because of their ties to demons they could not be allowed to exist. So he tried to genocide them. Tyrael, being chaotic good, obviously disagrees with such a notion despite being the same faction and having the same reason to doubt humanity because he cares more about the lives that would be lost than the orders of his superior or the chance of something going wrong because of their ties to demons.

 

I consider Uther in Culling of Stratholme to be Neutral good action because he disagrees with his superior (Arthas was the prince and even if Uther was a high ranking paladin, that still makes him the commanding officer) because he cares more about trying to save the people than trying to save the country.

 

Then there is Itachi Uchiha, who killed his entire clan on orders because he wanted to avoid civil war and the destruction of the leaf village. Also Lawful Good in my opinion.

 I think you don't quite understand the whole alignment concept.

 

Lawful beings will follow all the laws of the land they are in.

Neutral beings will follow the law,but they might break a few here or there depends on if they are good, evil, or true neutral.

chaotic beings do not care about laws they tend to do as they wish without regards to laws.

 

The whole good,neutral, evil is how they do things. Using lawful as an example

 

A lawful good person would be your everyday fantasy citizen living in a major city, living the everyday uneventful life. A lawful neutral person is someone who would follow "all" laws good or bad regardless of the situation. your culling of strat falls under this, and last a lawful evil person will use the laws of the land to enrich themselves or benefit to detriment or cost of others while still "following" the law . You cant arrest an evil merchant even if he is evil if he hasn't broken any laws.

 

I would suggest doing the Culling of Strat instance again and listen to the dialog again Arthas wanted everyone in the city killed infected or not, not something a "good" person would do without exhausting every other option.

 

[sila]

1 hour ago, Popo07 said:

 I think you don't quite understand the whole alignment concept.

 

Lawful beings will follow all the laws of the land they are in.

Neutral beings will follow the law,but they might break a few here or there depends on if they are good, evil, or true neutral.

chaotic beings do not care about laws they tend to do as they wish without regards to laws.

 

The whole good,neutral, evil is how they do things. Using lawful as an example

 

A lawful good person would be your everyday fantasy citizen living in a major city, living the everyday uneventful life. A lawful neutral person is someone who would follow "all" laws good or bad regardless of the situation. your culling of strat falls under this, and last a lawful evil person will use the laws of the land to enrich themselves or benefit to detriment or cost of others while still "following" the law . You cant arrest an evil merchant even if he is evil if he hasn't broken any laws.

 

I would suggest doing the Culling of Strat instance again and listen to the dialog again Arthas wanted everyone in the city killed infected or not, not something a "good" person would do without exhausting every other option.

 

Lawful good does not have to mean goody 2 shoes, and as I said characters can be flawed. A good character can do evil actions on occasion.

 

And a lawful character doesn't have to follow every Law, it is about following a code. Otherwise you get characters that change how they act depending on what city they are in 

 

The average every day person would absolutely not be lawful good.... I would say the average would be neutral, of course it would depend on where they are. 

 

Edit:

"Alignment is a funny thing. It’s been around in Dungeons and Dragons since nearly the beginning, but it has morphed and changed into something new with each edition.

Of the nine alignments, Lawful Good gets a bad rap: there are some great and glaring misconceptions about what Lawful Good means and how it should be played.

You could have one Lawful Good character smiting an entire village of children and be completely justified, and you could have a different Lawful Good character willing to martyr themselves for the same group of children."

"A Lawful Good character can be respectful, polite, compassionate, courageous, conscientious, moral, upstanding, woke, or none of these things, depending on your interpretation. It is important to remember that just because a Lawful Good character thinks that laws are good does not mean they think that all laws are good. What matters is that they seek legal means to change those laws."

https://blackcitadelrpg.com/lawful-good-alignment/

 

"Lawful good characters are group and order oriented, and will cooperate with authority in all cases to promote the common weal. Not all lawful good beings view the cosmos with an equal desire for lawfulness and goodness, so there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced "lawful good" attitude (nor a perfectly balanced attitude for any other alignment, for that matter). In general, however, a lawful good character promotes the ideals and rights of the majority over those of the individual (and this includes himself as well as others) and upholds the rights of the weak and oppressed members of society, who should be allowed to reap society's benefits with equanimity. The lawful good being feels this is the best way that all members of society can enjoy the rights of existence together. Life is important to the lawful good being, but life is not exclusive of order, and vice versa."

 

"When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation."

http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

 

As for the culling of stratholme... Do you know the whole story? There was no way to tell who was infected and who was not. They didn't even know what was causing the infection. They had their army camped outside Stratholme for days and their own troops were getting sick for no apparent reason. Letting the people there go would have put countless others at risk. That would NOT be for the good of the many.

Edited September 8, 2022 by sila

[Popo07]

Read your examples again they all prove my point. Also if someone is trying to take your life you have a right to defend yourself, if you can detain them without killing them that's the good option,if you kill them when you can contain them or incapacitate them then your no different from them. As for war its a messy ugly thing ,but one countries villains are another countries hero's.

[sila]

30 minutes ago, Popo07 said:

Read your examples again they all prove my point. Also if someone is trying to take your life you have a right to defend yourself, if you can detain them without killing them that's the good option,if you kill them when you can contain them or incapacitate them then your no different from them. As for war its a messy ugly thing ,but one countries villains are another countries hero's.

I don't think they do.... They prove my point. If that's your stance I think we just have to disagree here...

 

Edit: and just for the record, there is nothing at all evil about killing someone that tried to take your life. If you can reasonably expect to capture them instead of killing them sure, but theres nothing wrong with just killing them either. They threatened your life, self defense is not illegal in any good aligned place that I am aware of...

 

Second Edit:

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."

"A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty. However, lawful good characters will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code, even if they recognize such action as being good"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

 

"

One important thing to keep in mind is that you are Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid. Your character likely has some sense of self-preservation and perspective. If not, that’s a character trait, and should be emphasized as something that is odd about your character, not a default aspect of your alignment. Even then, these traits should be handled with care, since a self-destructive character can also be party-destructive if you’re not careful. In general, even if your Lawful Good character is against stealing on principle, they will probably have the foresight to put aside their compunctions to rob a demon lord and stop the world from ending.

That doesn’t mean your character can’t have conflicts, though. Moral crises are the bread and butter of Lawful Good characters. Just because you aren’t derailing the adventure at every opportunity doesn’t mean you have to feel good about it. You can also offer up ideas that better align with your moral code; breaking the law might be the obvious solution to certain problems, but it doesn’t have to be the only option.

 

Finally, playing a Lawful Good character does not mean that you have to follow the law, or even necessarily want to follow the law. There are many ways to interpret alignments; sometimes Lawful can mean following a rigid code or set of rules, which might conflict with the law. Paladin Oaths are a good example of this. Paladins aren’t officially restricted to Lawful anymore, but a set of rules that they pledge to follow is baked into the class itself. An Oath of Vengeance paladin might follow the tenets to the letter, but might not particularly care what town guards think of them. Similar thinking can be applied to monks, clerics, or any characters that work within an organization or creed.

https://www.thegamer.com/dd-alignments-lawful-good-guide/

 

 

Lawful creatures are often described as creatures of habit — their reactions are predictable in many situations. They may not necessarily uphold the law or even respect it; Devils are lawful because of their preference for hierarchy, punishment, and organization.

 

Good characters are traditionally the heroes. Goodness represents altruism, compassion, and a general respect for life. Good characters are typically willing to help others, particularly those in need and for whom the cause is just, even at personal cost. They will oppose evil on principle, not just when financially motivated. Their goodness may not be absolute, but it represents a general affinity for the dignity of others and a respect for those around them.

 

Contrary to some portrayals, they aren’t necessarily naïve or “Lawful Stupid”. They simply see the value of the organization of society in upholding the greater good. Lawful Good characters are, however, described as narrow-sighted and inflexible due to their unwillingness to violate laws, order, or hierarchy even in the service of the greater good.

 

https://cardgamebase.com/lawful-good-alignment/

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by sila

[sila]

Basically lawful good can be up to interpretation, someone with that alignment can react very differently depending on their personal code and beliefs.

 

I'll give an example of the nuance of Lawful Good.

 

You just killed a group of bandits. There is one cowering in the corner wearing the same gear as the bandits are wearing.

 

1. You decide that because this person is clearly a bandit, he needs to be slain as well. Sure he is cowering now but he's just going to join another group after. Better to deal with it now than to let him harm someone else later.

In this instance, your character was so set in his beliefs that bandits are evil and need to be dealt with that he did not care why the bandit was terrified or unwilling to fight. You just assumed he was a coward.

 

2. You ask him what's going on, why was he not fighting with the other bandits? You find out that he had been forced into helping them because his children were being held captive. You decide that even though he was previously helping bandits he doesn't deserve to die for something like that, so you take him to prison instead.

With a slightly less biased outlook, you asked what happened and realized the man was not a bandit at all. But because he still broke the law he needs to be punished accordingly, so you sent him to jail even though he had been forced into doing it.

 

3.You ask him what's going on, why was he not fighting with the other bandits? You find out that he had been forced into helping them because his children were being held captive.

You decide that because he was forced against his will to be a bandit he deserves a second chance and let him go. Perhaps if you have the time you even go the extra mile and try save his kids.

The stereo typical bleeding heart Lawful Good take, it's boring but perfectly justified.

 

All of those can be done by a Lawful good character, but are very different actions. It depends on the character's beliefs, moral code, circumstances of the fight, etc.

Edited September 8, 2022 by sila

[legendarytoyou]

Well considering I managed to perfect the Pacifist playthrough on both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas I would say Lawful Good.  My main will NEVER ignore someone asking for help but detests killing anybody.  Let me tell you it was a nightmare getting through Dead Money and Lonesome Road without killing something but I did it.  Same with Fallout 3's Mothership Zeta.  Can't seem to get it to work with Fallout 4, mostly due to how companion kills count against you.  Regardless my main on Fallout 4 is the next best thing.  Using the Journal of the Sole Survivor mod my SS was secretly a covert operations assassin that not even Nate was aware of, codename: Venom 13 or sometimes Shinigami.  Oddly VERY religious, is helpful when she can be but God help you if you piss off her off.  Tactical infiltration and covert stealth assassin missions are her forte'.  Wiping out entire raider towns lone shark style is nothing to her.  This is all on Very Hard Survival difficulty using the TiFA mod (Tony's Immersive Fallout Overhaul).

 

There's also my Dreadnaught playthrough on Fallout New Vegas.  Viciously loyal to the NCR, he'll help where he can but specializes in making any enemies outright terrified of him.  Terrifying Presence, Explosives and Heavy Guns & melee weapons expert, even Lanius would be a tad nervous facing this guy down.  Hunting legionaries is his hobby so him and Boone tend to be best buds.?

[sila]

1 hour ago, legendarytoyou said:

Well considering I managed to perfect the Pacifist playthrough on both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas I would say Lawful Good.  My main will NEVER ignore someone asking for help but detests killing anybody.  Let me tell you it was a nightmare getting through Dead Money and Lonesome Road without killing something but I did it.  Same with Fallout 3's Mothership Zeta.  Can't seem to get it to work with Fallout 4, mostly due to how companion kills count against you.  Regardless my main on Fallout 4 is the next best thing.  Using the Journal of the Sole Survivor mod my SS was secretly a covert operations assassin that not even Nate was aware of, codename: Venom 13 or sometimes Shinigami.  Oddly VERY religious, is helpful when she can be but God help you if you piss off her off.  Tactical infiltration and covert stealth assassin missions are her forte'.  Wiping out entire raider towns lone shark style is nothing to her.  This is all on Very Hard Survival difficulty using the TiFA mod (Tony's Immersive Fallout Overhaul).

 

There's also my Dreadnaught playthrough on Fallout New Vegas.  Viciously loyal to the NCR, he'll help where he can but specializes in making any enemies outright terrified of him.  Terrifying Presence, Explosives and Heavy Guns & melee weapons expert, even Lanius would be a tad nervous facing this guy down.  Hunting legionaries is his hobby so him and Boone tend to be best buds.?

I'd say that a pacifist run would put you closer to neutral good than lawful, not dealing with  someone when they are a clear threat to civilians or ignoring factions like Raiders who kill, loot and steal would be pretty strange for a Lawful character.

 

The others could certainly be lawful good though.

 

Edit: now I think about it, the pure pacifist is probably closer to Lawful Neutral if he follows the moral code of not killing so rigidly. You can't be lawful good if you don't actively try to improve society though. Maybe if you roleplayed sending in someone to arrest the baddies afterward you could call it Lawful Good.

Edited September 8, 2022 by sila

[DocClox]

8 hours ago, Popo07 said:

I think that would put you in the neutral good category, unless you kept the cat then you would be true neutral (depending on how bad you were otherwise}.

 

but then I also turn into a vampire and keep a cave full of slave girls as cattle, so I don't have to terrorize the general population  All captured bandits and who tried to kill me, honest! Maybe a couple of Dawnguard in there too. And the odd Vigilant... Anyway, I figure all that has to count against me in the long run

 

I'd definitely give the cat back

Edited September 8, 2022 by DocClox

[lPalpatinel]

this is a deep question, well i tend to behave in games like i do in real life. I'm quite a paladin (lawful good) in real life and in games (although I use questionable practices like necromancy), but I don't show it, I appear to be true neutral and I do this for the purpose of finding out the person I'm interacting with if they are good or a person who needs protection, is sick or needs money, I help that person with a good heart (in real life Christian teaching and in games like the elder scrolls, I'm usually on the side of good like the nine divine). But if the person is bad and wants to hurt, steal or other bad things or get in the way of my goals then I just destroy them (at this time mix lawful good paladin with a chaotic good dark crusader).

[legendarytoyou]

On 9/8/2022 at 1:17 AM, sila said:

I'd say that a pacifist run would put you closer to neutral good than lawful, not dealing with  someone when they are a clear threat to civilians or ignoring factions like Raiders who kill, loot and steal would be pretty strange for a Lawful character.

 

The others could certainly be lawful good though.

 

Edit: now I think about it, the pure pacifist is probably closer to Lawful Neutral if he follows the moral code of not killing so rigidly. You can't be lawful good if you don't actively try to improve society though. Maybe if you roleplayed sending in someone to arrest the baddies afterward you could call it Lawful Good.

Hmm...fair point.  Just look at Vash the Stampede from the Trigun series as an example.  Even that guy from the Nebraska family says, "there's no way you didn't have to deal with trouble makers at some point or another.  The 60 billion double dollar bounty on your head is proof of that."  To be fair at one point during Honest Hearts she did agree fighting against the White Legs was the only real choice but managed to talk Joshua Graham down to show a degree of mercy yet still confided to just letting Joshua kill off the White Legs that attacked them. 

 

And she mostly sided with the NCR, helped the Followers every chance she could, aided in annihilating the Fiends and helped deal a finishing blow on the Legion but she managed to convince Lanius that it was futile to go any farther because of the danger of losing the East.  As before to she mostly played combat medic, keeping her companions alive and trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Edited September 9, 2022 by legendarytoyou

[sila]

33 minutes ago, legendarytoyou said:

Hmm...fair point.  Just look at Vash the Stampede from the Trigun series as an example.  Even that guy from the Nebraska family says, "there's no way you didn't have to deal with trouble makers at some point or another.  The 60 billion double dollar bounty on your head is proof of that."  To be fair at one point during Honest Hearts she did agree fighting against the White Legs was the only real choice but managed to talk Joshua Graham down to show a degree of mercy yet still confided to just letting Joshua kill off the White Legs that attacked them. 

 

And she mostly sided with the NCR, helped the Followers every chance she could, aided in annihilating the Fiends and helped deal a finishing blow on the Legion but she managed to convince Lanius that it was futile to go any farther because of the danger of losing the East.  As before to she mostly played combat medic, keeping her companions alive and trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Oh, well that changes things. So you were having companions kill things for you? That could certainly count as lawful good. If you were playing a medic that could count as lawful good even if you were not really dealing with enemies because you would have been helping society in other ways.

 

It really is all about the character and how you play it 

 

I've just always abhorred the idea that a lawful good character must be some kind of bleeding heart romantic that never does anything bad. They are not all meant to be perfect saints!

[legendarytoyou]

6 hours ago, sila said:

Oh, well that changes things. So you were having companions kill things for you? That could certainly count as lawful good. If you were playing a medic that could count as lawful good even if you were not really dealing with enemies because you would have been helping society in other ways.

 

It really is all about the character and how you play it 

 

I've just always abhorred the idea that a lawful good character must be some kind of bleeding heart romantic that never does anything bad. They are not all meant to be perfect saints!

Hehe, yeah my Dreadnaught is a shining example of that.  Absolutely hates Legion, goes out of his way to hunt them but will not ignore a plea for help.  He's kind of like Ghostrider in that he has a sense of justice that he lives his code by and God help you if you are evil and cross his path.  HE...WILL...BE...MERCILESS.  Especially if you pose a threat to innocent civilians or NCR to whom he has an almost brutal loyalty to.  Actually not really Ghostrider but more like Kratos from God of War.  Can be understanding at times but an absolute monster against his enemies.

[sila]

1 hour ago, legendarytoyou said:

Hehe, yeah my Dreadnaught is a shining example of that.  Absolutely hates Legion, goes out of his way to hunt them but will not ignore a plea for help.  He's kind of like Ghostrider in that he has a sense of justice that he lives his code by and God help you if you are evil and cross his path.  HE...WILL...BE...MERCILESS.  Especially if you pose a threat to innocent civilians or NCR to whom he has an almost brutal loyalty to.  Actually not really Ghostrider but more like Kratos from God of War.  Can be understanding at times but an absolute monster against his enemies.

As long as he doesn't take joy in killing the Legion, that could be Lawful Good. Hating the enemy that threatens your friends, allies, and your people is fine. Enjoying killing them would still put you on neutral or evil though. For a good character life must be valued, even if not by much. Take Regill from Pathfinder: wrath of the righteous as an example. The guy is Lawful because he follows an extremely rigid code and values Order above all, and evil because he cares little about the lives of his people and less about the lives of his enemies. Then there is Hulrun, who is Lawful Neutral. Lawful because again he values order above all, neutral because while he does value the lives of his friends and allies, he doesn't care about anyone else.

As for Kratos, that guy is about as Chaotic as it comes, he's the complete opposite of Lawful. He went out of his way to destroy order by any means necessary. I'd put him at Chaotic Neutral I think.

Edited September 9, 2022 by sila

[Idyll]

I tend to fancy myself as chaotic good, no matter the cost I strive to obtain the most positive outcome according to my allegiances which tend to fall on "good guys" sides, it's been a while since last I played an RPG with such things as the "spectrum of morality" - sounds more dramatic - though.