Devotion to Duty

Today, I watched a (digitally recorded and posted on Youtube) performance of The Pirates of Penzance. It was a funny play with convoluted plot holes, a tune or two that I guarantee you've heard before, and a main character, Friedrich, who had a fascinating concept of morality. Essentially, to him, duty is everything. When he was honor-bound to serve a crew of pirates, he did so to the best of his ability. He even, acting as a loyal crewman, warned them that, once he was free of his obligation to them, he would act on his patriotic duty to eradicate them. Despite the warning, the pirates still released him and he formed a battalion to fight them, but when he learned that he was still honor-bound to serve the pirates, he rejoined them and helped them fight against his battalion.

Through it all, Friedrich did no more or less than what he thought was his duty, regardless of the inherent morality or immorality of the act itself. In D&D, Friedrich's character would be considered Lawful Neutral, being honorable, but not particularly Good or Evil. Personally, I think that this is a terrible way to be.

I think that duty is important, and that devotion to one's duty is usually admirable, but I think that goodness is more important and that doing good regardless of one's duty is even more admirable. Attributes like Lawfulness, Obedience, and Devotion to Duty are neither virtues nor vices, in my opinion. If a person follows the rules, that doesn't necessarily make them good or bad. Lawful Good is better than Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, but Lawful Neutral is not, itself, Good. Devotion to duty is a good trait to have, but there are times when it would be better to betray one's duty, and devotion to it is certainly not the primary measurement of goodness.