Alignment: a moral compass for roleplaying?

[jmsteven]

This topic is a continuation from the thread on "cold wights". I'm starting it as a new discusssion since it no longer pertains to slaying cold wights, and deals only with the isssue of alignment, ethics, and roleplay; specifically with regard to pickpocketing and/or killing non-hostile NPCs, and fellowships among characters of opposite alignments.

There are two components to alignment. The first relates to the degree to which one values order and respects laws and other codes of conduct. For example, lawfully aligned characters will uphold the law, so long as they believe it is established by a legitimate authority; neutrally aligned characters may break the law, though the circumstances for doing so will depend on the second element of their alignment; and chaotic characters have little regard for laws, but will only cause harm to others based on the second element of their alignment.

The second component of alignment relates to the degree to which a character values the life, liberty, and property of others; and values the greater good in relation to their personal well-being. Good characters have high regard for the life, liberty, and property of others, and work towards the greater good (even at the expense of their personal well-being). In contrast, evil characters are selfish and have little regard for others.

Given this premise, only non-lawful characters of neutral or evil alignment (TN, CN, NE, CE) would pickpocket an NPC for personal gain, though there would be some rationalization on the part of the TN character. And, only non-lawful characters of evil alignment (NE or CE) would kill a non-hostile NPC just to take their stuff. It's possible that a NG character would commit theft, but only if there was reason to believe that the theft would benefit the greater good, and that such benefit couldn't be legitimately achieved.

There is also an issue of whether good characters would associate with neutral or evil characters. For example, Paladins have core values like truth, piety, honor, and valor, and probably wouldn't accompany a party with chaotic or evil aligned characters. A paladin would likely not even accompany a party with a true neutral thief or bard that pickpockets NPCs. In the "cold wights" thread, another contributor suggested that the Paladin might have a "don't ask/don't tell" in this situation, but such cognitive dissonance is impossible for the paladin who values truth and honor.

I conclude my argument by saying that it's not meant to be prescriptive. I'm only entering into a theoretical discussion regarding how fictional characters might act given their alignment. It's your game, and for you the world of IWD is whatever you decide to make of it.

[Calagari]

First let me say I am glad you are here. You are adding life to this forum and that is a good thing.

I would like to address the Paladin issue with his/her virtues. If a paladin leaves a store front with members of the party and only the thief remains inside with the shop owner whos to say what takes place inside the store? For the sake of arguement lets say the thief picks the store owners pocket. The store owner is unaware of the act. Therefore he can't voice a complaint about this. The thief leaves the store and rejoins the party. The thief doesn't flaunt what they just stole or even that anything was stolen.
How can the paladin be or get upset at this? The paladin would be completely unaware as the store owner that anything took place.
I don't know about IWD but I think in BG party members of unlike alignments do not get along. I have not heard any discord from my party members about their pary makeup.

Originally posted by jmsteven: This topic is a continuation from the thread on "cold wights". I'm starting it as a new discusssion since it no longer pertains to slaying cold wights, and deals only with the isssue of alignment, ethics, and roleplay; specifically with regard to pickpocketing and/or killing non-hostile NPCs, and fellowships among characters of opposite alignments. There are two components to alignment. The first relates to the degree to which one values order and respects laws and other codes of conduct. For example, lawfully aligned characters will uphold the law, so long as they believe it is established by a legitimate authority; neutrally aligned characters may break the law, though the circumstances for doing so will depend on the second element of their alignment; and chaotic characters have little regard for laws, but will only cause harm to others based on the second element of their alignment. The second component of alignment relates to the degree to which a character values the life, liberty, and property of others; and values the greater good in relation to their personal well-being. Good characters have high regard for the life, liberty, and property of others, and work towards the greater good (even at the expense of their personal well-being). In contrast, evil characters are selfish and have little regard for others. Given this premise, only non-lawful characters of neutral or evil alignment (TN, CN, NE, CE) would pickpocket an NPC for personal gain, though there would be some rationalization on the part of the TN character. And, only non-lawful characters of evil alignment (NE or CE) would kill a non-hostile NPC just to take their stuff. It's possible that a NG character would commit theft, but only if there was reason to believe that the theft would benefit the greater good, and that such benefit couldn't be legitimately achieved. There is also an issue of whether good characters would associate with neutral or evil characters. For example, Paladins have core values like truth, piety, honor, and valor, and probably wouldn't accompany a party with chaotic or evil aligned characters. A paladin would likely not even accompany a party with a true neutral thief or bard that pickpockets NPCs. In the "cold wights" thread, another contributor suggested that the Paladin might have a "don't ask/don't tell" in this situation, but such cognitive dissonance is impossible for the paladin who values truth and honor. I conclude my argument by saying that it's not meant to be prescriptive. I'm only entering into a theoretical discussion regarding how fictional characters might act given their alignment. It's your game, and for you the world of IWD is whatever you decide to make of it.

[Dancing Virginia]

I've never played Baldur's Gate. Can you elaborate on how characters wouldn't get along? That doesn't seem to be a problem in IWD as the characters don't really interact. Or haven't yet in my case.

Cary

[Calagari]

Characters of dissimilar alignments just seem to be at odds with each other, it is in the programming. They get verbal with each other and just won't perform as they should. I haven't played Bg either. This is only information I have read in the forums. It is like the good players just don't want to be associated with those of a bad or evil alignment. I think it is a neat idea. It keeps you from having such a vast difference in the ideologies of the party make up.

Originally posted by Dancing Virginia: I've never played Baldur's Gate. Can you elaborate on how characters wouldn't get along? That doesn't seem to be a problem in IWD as the characters don't really interact. Or haven't yet in my case. Cary

[Aerich]

Yes, most BG players who then move on to IWD find the lack of intra-party disagreements to be somewhat disconcerting.

With regard to the pickpocketing/alignment issue - it's highly likely that any Chaotic character would have no qualms about picking pockets. I take slight issue with the characterization of "good" as including respect for property. To me, that's more of a lawful characteristic. CG is more about doing the overall right thing, not worrying much about the details, whereas LG means following societal rules AND doing the right thing at the same time if that's possible.

CG characters are very individualistic and may act on impulses - if they thought about stealing at all, they might rationalize it as "just my due" or "he [the victim] doesn't need the money anyway, and I do". You wouldn't, however, see that reasoning applied to killing non-hostile NPCs for their loot.

[Roboghost]

Well...

...there's also that Cleric punch if everyone is the same alignment!

Righteous Wrath of the Faithful--
"...extra attack every round and a +2 to their attacks, damage rolls, and saving throws."

[Aerich]

True, but it's hard to get a really good mix if you give all (or the majority) of them the same alignment. I rarely cast RWotF because I rarely have more than three characters of the same alignment; it's not really worth casting unless you have the exact same alignment - not much of a bonus, and fatigue to follow. I'd rather cast Shield of Lathander in most situations.

[ 10-23-2004, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Aerich: Yes, most BG players who then move on to IWD find the lack of intra-party disagreements to be somewhat disconcerting. With regard to the pickpocketing/alignment issue - it's highly likely that any Chaotic character would have no qualms about picking pockets. I take slight issue with the characterization of "good" as including respect for property. To me, that's more of a lawful characteristic. CG is more about doing the overall right thing, not worrying much about the details, whereas LG means following societal rules AND doing the right thing at the same time if that's possible. CG characters are very individualistic and may act on impulses - if they thought about stealing at all, they might rationalize it as "just my due" or "he [the victim] doesn't need the money anyway, and I do". You wouldn't, however, see that reasoning applied to killing non-hostile NPCs for their loot.

I would have to take a sligthly different stance on this one.

Pickpocketing (or stealing in general) is a chaotic act, but if you would put it on the good/evil scale, I would say it tends more towards evil than good. After all, you take something that doesn't belong to you. A rich merchant might not have any right to gold he have lured of someone, but neither does the thief who steals it for his own. Neither of these two have done a good act. If the thief, on the other hand, gives it back to the original owner things are a bit different.

In this regard, a CG character would have to find some other ways to qualify as good than just being individualistic and just taking "my due" or he [the victim] doesn't need the money anyway, and I do". We might play such characters as good aligned in games, but no one would regard someone as that as "good" in the real world, especially not if they've been stealing from us personally.

[jmsteven]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aerich:
[qb] Yes, most BG players who then move on to IWD find the lack of intra-party disagreements to be somewhat disconcerting.

I'm not sure if CG characters wouldn't respect another individual's right to property. They seem very Libertarian from the description in the game.

[ 10-25-2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: jmsteven ]