| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 10:27:28
I have wondered this for a long time but what keeps Drizzt from being lawful good? Now I suspect he was forced to be neutral good because rangers in 2nd edition couldn't be lawful, but after that, I see no reason why he can't.
In my opinion, most of his actions seem like they would come from a lawful good individual. |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Roseweave |
Posted - 03 Apr 2015 : 01:23:05
Lawful Good people try to work with a system, think of well meaning government officials and party politicians, the few "good" cops etc. Chaotic Good rally against the system from the outside - activists, anarchists, grassroots organisation. Neutral is kind of a balance of the two, like larger activist/advocacy organisations, independent politicians that work with the government but still aggressively advocate for change. Neutral people tend to see themselves as more pragmatic.
In real life terms, Martin Luther King was Neutral Good(though a lot of white people like to cast him as Lawful Good) whereas Malcolm X was more Chaotic Good.
Both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good have flaws in that they can easily nosedive into less moral territory, the former due to following too closely a potentially deeply corrupt and broken system and the latter being often too quick to turn to violence or being otherwise difficult to keep in check/control.
Neutral good is the more balanced though I do feel Chaotic Good is more of the true "Good" in a sense since Neutral good still appeals to abstract standards like Lawful good(preference though, since I'm more leaning Chaotic Good myself, and like playing characters that lean slightly moreso). In real life the worst evil on a longer time scale tends to be Lawful evil. |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 25 Mar 2015 : 04:05:52
What might help this topic and the people making their arguments about the cast for Drizzt's stories is if people start putting down why the pure alignment exists and the reason to behave in that way. Don't use the words "freedom," "laws," "society," or "authority" unless they are needed as tools to achieve the actual purpose of those alignments. That way we can strip the superficial from the intents to describe character actions.
Admittedly, it has been a long time since I read any books regarding the outcast drow but what I remember was a forlorn figure looking for a place to belong and disillusioned with the peoples of the surface world. Drizzt wanted to believe that prejudice only existed below the surface and was genuinely shocked to find that it existed on the surface world as well. Despite encounters of stark fear and mistrust, the drow tried again and again to find that acceptance until he found a few that were willing to look past his outward appearance. In that time I recall an implacable foe that hunted him down and demanded a duel to the death and tried to force Drizzt to kill him when he lost. That man later encountered Bruenor who dissuaded him from ever going after Drizzt again because the dwarf made it clear that the man would die by his hand if the hounding of Drizzt didn't stop.
Why couldn't Drizzt do this on his own? I'm speculating, but I think the author was using the hunter as an allusion to civilization (more specifically, the defense mechanism of civilizations) to protect themselves from dangers ever coming near to everything they hold dear. The man embodied bigotry and the aggressive bravado that covers the fear of the unknown. Even after maiming at the hands of Drizzt and the loss of all his companions, he never wavered in his boldness with his courage surging when the dark elf would not kill the man and end the threat on the elf's own life. The man's resolve was only broken by another being of a "goodly" race standing up for the drow and declaring his commitment to defend his friend from the persecution. This was the moment where the support of others was necessary for the elf who would not or could not stand up on his own any longer in the face of unrelenting hate.
What we have here is an example of an extreme situation that has dire consequences for Drizzt. The man (whose name eludes me but isn't the assassin more famously crossing swords with Drizzt) is a clear and present danger for Drizzt's early existence on the surface of the world. The final duel had no witnesses, as far as Drizzt could tell, and was clear as to the lengths the man would go to kill him. No proof of a good deed was enough to make the man change his mind and mercy was lost on him. What stayed the elf's hand from killing a dangerous enemy sworn to end the elf's life or die trying and for whom all reasoning is abjectly ignored?
To me, this is the epitome of despairing hope and the desperate clinging to the guidepost of avoiding any action similar to the societal norms of his drow homeland. Killing the man would be Drizzt's acceptance that it is better to kill the threats to his existence than to try to live with them and the wider belief that the wholesale death of one group or another is necessary. Why else would the elf have recoiled in horror at that moment? |
| Tybalt |
Posted - 24 Mar 2015 : 20:18:17
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Exactly! Same goes with Artemis Entreri who is lawful evil. He has his own code.
I'm not so sure I would classify Entreri as LE. He went where the money went. He was not particularly loyal, nor did he care for any particular rules. When he was young, he was taken in by the Basadoni Cabal. Later he worked for the Pook Guild. And he worked for other criminal organizations in between. When Regis took over Pook's guild, Entreri mutinied and snatched the guild from the halfling. Later still, Entreri formally joined Bregan D'aerthe, and then worked solo with the band's leader. And then when that no longer suited him, Entreri even walked away from Jarlaxle. It would appear that Entreri's organizational affiliations were little more than means to an end for him
quote:
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor": A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, tradtions, or codes would maker her any better or more noble. [...] The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil.
To me, that just screams "Artemis Entreri".
That is, at least until his run-in with a certain magical flute...
Nowadays, I'd call him Neutral Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral. He's just in it for himself most of the time, because he can't be bothered to really care about anybody but himself.
But Drizzt is trying to mold him into CG. Entreri occasionally tries on the role of a goodly guy, here and there, just to see how it fits. It even seems to make him somewhat happy--until he notices that others see him smiling, and then he returns to sulking and brooding and dismissing the rest of the world.
Good post, I would say that Entreri leans Chaotic because of the disdain for authority he showed during the Sellswords Trilogy. Even if someone is clearly Lawful Good like Gareth, Artemis kept openly questioning his right to have authority over others, due to his mistrust of authority, caused by his childhood. His experiences with corrupt priests makes him wary about anyone who is in a position to potentially abuse their power, whether they do it or not. He also doesn't like the idea of an authority figure thinking they are "better" than anyone else due to birth or circumstance.
He may have been neutral evil in the past when he was working among the guilds in Calimport, but I think idalia's flute unlocked memories about corrupt authority figures. At this point, I would classify him as Chaotic Neutral. |
| Tybalt |
Posted - 24 Mar 2015 : 20:07:38
Drizzt has said multiple times that he doesn't like the idea of authority. I forget which book (I think it was around the time of the drow invasion), where he had one of his monologues, he said that he only likes living in a kingdom (Mithral Hall) because Bruenor is very hands-off about ruling. That if he wasn't living in his good friend Bruenor's kingdom, he would like to live off in the wilderness/on an adventure. He wasn't lying because that's what he did before he met bruenor and while bruenor was dead.
He also said, during his time with Dahlia, that he feared he is still very "Drow" because he prefers the chaos of battle to a life of peace, which is why he was drawn to Dahlia.
As far as I can see, lawful means they have to respect/enforce authority whereas Drizzt doesn't give a hoot about titles.
He may have changed, now that he has been more involved largescale events, but I understand how he can be neutral good or even chaotic good. |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 22:10:23
He is a story character and alignments are a game rule system. Alignment classifications are subjective and not clearly delineated from one another so easily. Real characters cannot be so easily put into those nine alignment boxes. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 13:16:36
Eddard Stark was Lawful Stupid... |
| Lilianviaten |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 02:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by Entromancer
Best Lawful Good: Stannis Baratheon
You'd have to consider the collateral damage from Drizzt's deeds. Then its easy to see why he's Chaotic Good.
Personally, I'd have Stannis down as Lawful Neutral. He's concerned that order and harmony are kept, not so much that everybody (or even most people) gets the best result. When Stannis considers a course of action, I don't see him thinking about what is right, so much as he thinks about what will be the most pragmatic solution. I would see Danaerys as more Chaotic Good. She is usually trying to do what's right in her own mind, and really shows no concern for laws or traditions. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 23:29:51
quote:
Originally posted by Entromancer
Best Lawful Good: Stannis Baratheon
I'd mostly agree with the exception of the whole demon shadow baby thing.  |
| Entromancer |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 23:28:04
Best Lawful Good: Stannis Baratheon
You'd have to consider the collateral damage from Drizzt's deeds. Then its easy to see why he's Chaotic Good. |
| Starshade |
Posted - 08 Mar 2015 : 13:49:40
I think it could be due to the personality of Drizzt, and how to portray him as a realistic, dynamic and real person. D&D's background, and Drizzt being from a previous unknown "stupid evil" fallen race of elves who was just used as monsters, probably demanded a highly realistic effort to make Drizzt appear realistic. Imho :) |
| Rymac |
Posted - 07 Mar 2015 : 08:50:43
Getting a handle on the alignments can be hard because everyone has a different point-of-view about it.
Here's my take on Lawful Good vs. Neutral Good vs. Chaotic Good, courtesy of an article of D&D alignments at WikiHow, since it better explains than I could.
http://www.wikihow.com/Choose-and-Correctly-Role-Play-Your-Alignment-in-Dungeons-and-Dragons-V3.5
quote:
Lawful good characters have a strict moral code, usually coinciding with societal mores, and they almost never break it. They favor order, structure, and upright behavior. They will desire to help others when the opportunity presents itself, unless doing so would conflict with their moral code. These characters would not break the law except in very rare circumstances. They do not feel that the ends ever justify the means.
Basically, a Lawful Good character will strive to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the law. It is not in their nature to pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore. However, they are more likely to follow the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.
Following only the letter of a law is clearly a Lawful Neutral tendency. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
In an unjust society, these concepts may be flipped. A Lawful Good character would likely feel obligated to join or create a resistance or underground movement, seeking to restore justice and liberty, or overthrow the unjust society to create a just society. (Don't get me going on freedom vs. liberty!)
quote:
Neutral good characters always do what is good, right, or helpful which is why this alignment is sometimes called True Good. Unlike lawful good characters they are more flexible in their day to day actions. A neutral good character would consider bending the rules to do what is right.
Chaotic good characters want to do what is right but they do not do it with any real structure or system. They are perfectly willing to break the law to do what is right, and some even enjoy doing just that. The best time to play a chaotic good character is when there is a lawful evil authority to rebel against. Without such a target for a rebellion many chaotic good characters are indistinguishable from neutral good characters.
The hard thing to get around is the law/chaos axis. I tend to view the law/chaotic axis as how a character views and trusts authority (and via authority, laws). Do they naturally trust or distrust authority? Do they identify as part of a larger group first, as part of a smaller group, or as an individual? (In other words, how do they rank in importance from least to most important, as an example, self, family, god(s), king, and country?)
Drizzt is correctly identified as Chaotic Good. |
| Misereor |
Posted - 06 Mar 2015 : 12:54:49
A Goblin slave that ended up being hanged.
Can't remember what anthology it was from, but the reasoning supplied by Bob Salvatore was pretty clear on the lawful-chaotic dilemma.
|
| Barastir |
Posted - 06 Mar 2015 : 12:32:53
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
(...) I hate it when Lawful Good is presented more like it means Lawful Stupid.
Me too, but I don't think Drizzt is LG. He is at most NG. I like the way Thor and Cap. America are LG and still interesting characters, in the Marvel movies. |
| Aldrick |
Posted - 06 Mar 2015 : 07:03:47
It makes sense that Drizzt would not be Lawful Good.
Here is how I handle a Lawful alignment.
Being Lawful is comprised of three specific things:
1. Philosophical Codes of Conduct.
2. Accepted Cultural Practices.
3. Secular Laws.
Their importance rank in that order exactly. There are some individuals who have philosophical codes of conduct, such as paladins, and that code of conduct trumps cultural practices and secular laws. This means that a Paladin is fully within their rights to hold another culture and secular rulers accountable if they are engaged in evil practices. Their hands are not magically tied--the Paladin of Torm is not required to follow the Evil Tyrant of Bane's Laws. He is acting perfectly within his code to join a rebellion to overthrow said tyrant of Bane.
Likewise, someone from another culture is not required to engage in cultural practices that they find abhorrent just because a secular law demands it.
Finally, if there is no philosophical code of conduct or cultural practice contradicted, then secular laws are deferred too.
Naturally, secular laws create a lot of grey area when dealing with the second half of an individuals alignment--good, neutral, or evil. When it comes to neutrality, it is straightforward. You follow the law, always. However, being good or evil provides some degree of flexibility. As a general rule lawful evil individuals will try to exploit the law to their advantage, by breaking the spirit of the law, but not the letter. They will try to create laws that advantage them and disadvantage others. On the other hand, lawful good individuals will follow the spirit and the letter of the law, in so far as it does not require them to cause harm to other individuals. When harm is created, they will break the spirit of the law in favor of adhering only to the letter. However, there is a line...
The line that is important to understand are unfair laws vs unjust laws. A Lawful Good character will break the spirit of unfair laws, but still follow them. However, they can and should ignore unjust laws. In this sense, their good alignment is acting similar to a philosophical code of conduct that is trumping secular law.
An unfair law is one that disproportionately impacts--either unintentionally or by design--a disadvantaged group of individuals. For example, there may be a law that disproportionately impacts the poor. The Lawful Good character will follow the law, but ensure that the lightest sentence as possible is handed out, usually undermining the spirit of the law in doing so. They will seek to change the law to make it more fair, and will also do their best to ensure poor individuals who run afoul of the law get the help and support they need.
An example of an unjust law is one that is undeniably evil. For example, a law that requires individuals to be publicly tortured and executed as a way to discourage the breaking of certain laws. Lawful Good individuals will simply refuse to follow such laws.
Though it rarely comes up this same flexibility is given to lawful evil characters when it comes to laws that essentially requires them to break their evil alignment to follow the law.
Drizzt is clearly not a lawful character, because he does not overly care for secular laws. In fact, his mere existence on the surface requires him to constantly break and undermine them. Drizzt is largely guided by what he thinks is good and right, rather than a specific code. He has no cultural practices to fall back on, since his culture is undeniably evil, making it irrelevant to the discussion. This essentially makes him a neutral good individual. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 06 Mar 2015 : 01:22:20
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
But then again, I hate it when Lawful Good is presented more like it means Lawful Stupid.
Lawful Stupid. I love this. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 04:42:27
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
Exactly! Same goes with Artemis Entreri who is lawful evil. He has his own code.
I'm not so sure I would classify Entreri as LE. He went where the money went. He was not particularly loyal, nor did he care for any particular rules. When he was young, he was taken in by the Basadoni Cabal. Later he worked for the Pook Guild. And he worked for other criminal organizations in between. When Regis took over Pook's guild, Entreri mutinied and snatched the guild from the halfling. Later still, Entreri formally joined Bregan D'aerthe, and then worked solo with the band's leader. And then when that no longer suited him, Entreri even walked away from Jarlaxle. It would appear that Entreri's organizational affiliations were little more than means to an end for him
quote:
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor": A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, tradtions, or codes would maker her any better or more noble. [...] The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil.
To me, that just screams "Artemis Entreri".
That is, at least until his run-in with a certain magical flute...
Nowadays, I'd call him Neutral Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral. He's just in it for himself most of the time, because he can't be bothered to really care about anybody but himself.
But Drizzt is trying to mold him into CG. Entreri occasionally tries on the role of a goodly guy, here and there, just to see how it fits. It even seems to make him somewhat happy--until he notices that others see him smiling, and then he returns to sulking and brooding and dismissing the rest of the world. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 29 Dec 2014 : 04:15:20
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
Personally, I've never interpreted Lawful to mean abiding by the laws of the land, but rather abiding by certain rules or a code of conduct.
In that sense, if Drizzt really is adhering to a strict inner moral code, to me at least, that would mean that he's a Lawful character.
This comes from the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
quote:
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. [...]
Lawful Good, "Crusader": A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. [... A] paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Looking at that, I see two main points: 1) obedience to authority (the law and the lawgiver), and 2) relentless/unmerciful pursuit of justice/punishment of evil.
As I have said, Drizzt is not so much a soldier, as he is a martial consultant. He does not take orders, so much as confers with an authority figure and then determines how he can best fit in. And repeated imposition of expectations and routine from higher authority have led him to pine for the road, away from Mithral Hall, on numerous occasions. (More on this point will follow, below...)
I would also say that Drizzt couldn't be LG because he relented from fighting King Obould, and called for an end to the war against the Many-Arrows orcs and to give peace a chance, at the expense of justice for Obould's many crimes. Drizzt didn't seem particularly upset that Obould went unpunished.
quote:
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. [...]
Chaotic Good, "Rebel": A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
See, right there, CG is exactly what you were talking about, Tanthalas.
And that's exactly how Drizzt described himself in his diaries when he first left Menzoberranzan, so full of self-righteousness, so convinced of the rightness of his cause, even as he turned his back on civilization and society. This is why the lorebooks have rightly statted Drizzt up as CG for most of his life.
However, I do believe that Drizzt has evolved into more of this, over time:
quote:
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others. [...]
Neutral Good, "Benefactor": A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
When Drizzt first moved to Icewind Dale, he agreed to provide rangerly or scouting services for the people of Ten-Towns, but he still lived as a man apart, holing up on the far side of the mountain from everybody else, and rarely actually entering in the towns, themselves.
After the Companions of the Hall rescued Regis from the cluthches of Pasha Pook in Calimport, and even as Mithral Hall was ramping up full-scale mining and trading operations, nevertheless Drizzt made himself scarce and began a series of solo treks between Mithral Hall and Silverymoon. He did his bit for king and country...and then he split.
When the drow threatened Mithral Hall, Drizzt turned his back on his king and snuck into Menzoberranzan, alone.
When the drow were soundly defeated, Drizzt abandoned any sense of duty to the kingdom and went skirt-chasing after Catti-brie--for six years.
When Mount Hotenow erupted onto Neverwinter, Drizzt and Bruenor were actually taking a break from one another as traveling companions (Gauntlgrym). The Prelude to The Orc King tells of Drizzt on an adventure apart from Bruenor during this time period.
And then of course, there are also the scenes in which Drizzt uses deception when dealing with enemies, which others have mentioned. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 18:18:52
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
He has attempted to abide by that inner moral code for most of his life, rather than tying it to any particular legal one.
Personally, I've never interpreted Lawful to mean abiding by the laws of the land, but rather abiding but certain rules or a code of conduct.
In that sense, if Drizzt really is adhering to a strict inner moral code, to me at least, that would mean that he's a Lawful character.
Exactly! Same goes with Artemis Entreri who is lawful evil. He has his own code. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 15:07:45
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
He has attempted to abide by that inner moral code for most of his life, rather than tying it to any particular legal one.
Personally, I've never interpreted Lawful to mean abiding by the laws of the land, but rather abiding by certain rules or a code of conduct.
In that sense, if Drizzt really is adhering to a strict inner moral code, to me at least, that would mean that he's a Lawful character. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 15:03:16
If he was lawful good, he'd kill himself, because his very existence puts everyone else on the surface in jeopardy.
He has probably been indirectly (and even directly) responsible for the deaths of more beings then any Underdark drow - thats why Lolth loves him so much.  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 06:03:53
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I have wondered this for a long time but what keeps Drizzt from being lawful good? [...]
In my opinion, most of his actions seem like they would come from a lawful good individual.
Drizzt was raised in a culture where law was a facade, publicly obeyed, but privately bent and twisted whenever it suited the authorities. For better or for worse, this probably made him question the absolute validity of any legal code.
When he arrived on the surface, he was chased all over the North by the supposedly goodly races of the World Above. Even as he tried to convince those whom he met that he was different than other drow, he was still hunted and run out of town, repeatedly. And many who did so, did so in the name of law and order. This must have caused Drizzt to further question the validity of legal codes.
All too often, law has a way of dictating things that aren't necessarily all that good, or of prohibiting things that really aren't all that evil.
Despite and independent of all of the above laws, Drizzt developed a sense of goodly morality. This demonstrated to him that goodliness could have a basis other than proclamations and prohibitions from authority figures. He has attempted to abide by that inner moral code for most of his life, rather than tying it to any particular legal one.
Although he worked within the social framework of Ten-Towns in Icewind Dale, and even befriended King Bruenor Battlehammer and Princess Catt-brie, Drizzt still chose to live alone on the other side of the mountain, Kelvin's Cairn, opposite from the dwarven compound. Part of this must have been trust issues. But part of this was probably also resistance to authority.
And even when Drizzt finally did actually move in with the dwarves (Mithral Hall, in Legacy), he still had a sense of resentment to the settled life and all of the regimentation of dwarven culture. He was not a rules (i.e., law)-monger.
quote:
Now I suspect he was forced to be neutral good because rangers in 2nd edition couldn't be lawful, but after that, I see no reason why he can't.
Drizzt has been typically statted as having Chaotic Good alignment (Hall of Heroes {1E}; Menzoberranzan [Boxed Set], FRCS, Heroes' Lorebook {2E}; FRCS {3E}), rather than a Neutral Good one. (In Dungeon #171 {4E}, Drizzt is classified as simply "Good"-aligned.)
But after moving into Mithral Hall with the rest of the dwarves, I would tend to consider him more Neutral Good, like you said. Drizzt is basically an honest, law-abiding soul most of the time, but he can still be inspired to lie or to defy authority figures on occasion. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 20:41:10
I think Drizzt resorts to deceptive tactics and outright lying too much to be LG. I'm thinking specifically of one of the Drizzt short stories where the Dark Elf and Cattie Brie try to capture some pirates as a "dowry" of sorts before joining Deudermont's crew. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 19:07:32
I guess I haven't paid too much attention. I know he was at one time Chaotic Good. And Salvatore penned him as such in like the Crystal Shard, where he was kind of crazy when it came to fighting evil. Thinking Biggrin's Lair in this example. Maybe the years mellowed him to a more neutral bent. |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 17:25:11
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
I have wondered this for a long time but what keeps Drizzt from being lawful good? Now I suspect he was forced to be neutral good because rangers in 2nd edition couldn't be lawful, but after that, I see no reason why he can't.
In my opinion, most of his actions seem like they would come from a lawful good individual.
1. Rangers in 2E could be lawful. Their only restriction was that they had to be of good alignment:
quote:
Like the paladin, the ranger has a code of behaviour.
A ranger must always retain his good alignment. If the ranger intentionally commits an evil act, he automatically loses his ranger status. Thereafter he is considered a fighter of the same level (if he has more experience points than a fighter of his level, he loses all the excess experience points). His ranger status can never be regained. If the ranger involuntarily commits an evil act (perhaps in a situation of no choice), he cannot earn any more experience points until he has cleansed himself of that evil. This can be accomplished by correcting the wrongs he committed, revenging himself on the person who forced him to commit the act, or releasing those oppressed by evil. The ranger instinctively knows what things he must do to regain his status (i.e., the DM creates a special adventure for the character).
2. Why isn't Drizzt lawful good? Because the author said he isn't. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 11:10:59
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
I'm not entirely sure, but I think LG characters aren't supposed to ally themselves so often with evil creatures even if it's for the greater good. Likewise, Drizzt too often uses trickery (such as pretending to be a bad drow).
But then again, I hate it when Lawful Good is presented more like it means Lawful Stupid.
Now I haven't read every single Drizzt book out there, the newer ones actually, but is he ever in the presence of someone evil that actually does something, well evil to be honest, to the point where a lawful good character wouldn't stand for it? |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 27 Dec 2014 : 10:59:58
I'm not entirely sure, but I think LG characters aren't supposed to ally themselves so often with evil creatures even if it's for the greater good. Likewise, Drizzt too often uses trickery (such as pretending to be a bad drow).
But then again, I hate it when Lawful Good is presented more like it means Lawful Stupid. |
|
|
