PDA

View Full Version : Which of the nine alignments scares you the most?



CoffeeIncluded
2009-12-23, 03:17 PM
Self explanatory title, really. Which of the nine alignments do you find the scariest, and why?

For me, it would have to be Lawful Evil. Why? Because I consider myself to be Lawful Good, with an emphasis on Good.

See, the thing that scares me about Lawful Evil is how far one is willing to go to maintain order. That's why Robespierre both fascinates and completely terrifies me. He's me, but evil.

When a guy who was called "The Incorruptible" suddenly becomes very, very corruptible and orchestrates the Reign of Terror, then I get a bit scared. Why? Because that could happen to me.

One of my biggest problems is my stubbornness, mixed with pride. That's generally a good thing, because I don't back down from my principles. But the bad thing about it is that I have trouble admitting that I can be wrong.

It's the whole "As you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you" deal. I see the ruthlessness and evil, for lack of a better word, and I get scared because I see how easily I myself could become that.

And that is why Lawful Evil scares me the most. What about you guys?

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 03:18 PM
Lawful good, nuff said.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 03:20 PM
Frankly, the whole system scares me - because it deals in absolutes.

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.

Britter
2009-12-23, 03:21 PM
Lawful good, nuff said.

I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-23, 03:23 PM
Chaotic Evil, because he doesn't need any more reason to rip your head off than "you look funny".

Siegel
2009-12-23, 03:23 PM
Lawfull Evil

and

True Neutral

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 03:23 PM
I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer is, "Legislated Persecution."

Toliudar
2009-12-23, 03:32 PM
Chaotic neutral scares me: the official alignment of the sociopath, and those who wish to play them.

Britter
2009-12-23, 03:33 PM
In response to Lord_Gareth.

Sure, but to my mind that is more the realm of Lawful Neutral.

Maybe I just have a more idealistic view of the concept of good than most, but I don't believe that such a government would create such legislation.

Mind you, I don't think there has ever been a government in the history of the world that could be classified as good, so I am speaking in terms of how I view a DnD style LG government or individual. I just wonder what it is about LG that tends to attract so much ire from people.

jmbrown
2009-12-23, 03:34 PM
True neutral. In a world of absolutes you at least know where a good person and an evil person stand (and what a lawful person believes and the lack of a chaotic person's belief). Neutrality in D&D terms usually goes hand in hand with "unchecked pragmatism." If it works or makes sense for him at that particular point in time then so be it. The AD&D description of "A neutral person favors the underdog; he may help defeat a band of gnolls then switch sides to protect them from extinction" scares me the most.

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me." -Zapp Brannigan

Yzzyx
2009-12-23, 03:38 PM
I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

Good people brutally murder and loot the bodies of Evil people while lecturing them about how terrible they are for brutally murdering and looting the bodies of Good people. Worse still, only Lawful Good people start alignment threads. That's reason enough to fear them.

erikun
2009-12-23, 03:38 PM
The things that really scare me don't fit into the alignment system.

That said, Lawful Evil is the most likely to organize and be capable for intentionally starting a Good-on-Good fight, or be protected by otherwise good people, so they're probably the scariest. Characters from the other alignments would need to be incredibly individually powerful to do that, or be a comparable thread.

Gralamin
2009-12-23, 03:39 PM
Chaotic Good. They try to change the system to make it better while breaking the systems rules, It's hypocrisy. They are at their best when they are trying to topple an actually corrupt government. At any other time though, they are a bane to society, which may very well wreck it in the name of good.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 03:40 PM
See, here's the thing though - real morality does not work in absolutes. Any attempt to seriously apply the alignment system fails because the system is inherantly flawed, and the biggest failing is that their definition of absolute good does some pretty horrible things on a fairly regular basis, while their definition of evil is arbitrary and annoying. People get a bug up their ass about LG because, basically, LG characters end up "enforcing" contradictions that lead to party infighting, flagrant racism, self-righteousness, and holy wars.

Like I said, at least Evil is honest about its motivations.

Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 03:41 PM
Neutral Evil. If they hate you enough, they can find any way to get rid of you - working within the system, or dispensing with it entirely.

(Naturally, I am NG.)

Fortuna
2009-12-23, 03:41 PM
Neutral Evil. Although that depends on your definition of Chaotic Evil - Whichever one of those would set the world on fire to see it burn.

Randalor
2009-12-23, 03:42 PM
As jmbrown said, True Neutral, because you don't know who's side they're on. Remember that Humans are the prime example of true neutral, and look at how devious they are.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 03:43 PM
Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.


This is very much depending on the DM. Some sourcebooks (BoVD, BoED) stress that murder is murder whether the person carrying it out is Good or Evil.

And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

Gralamin
2009-12-23, 03:45 PM
This is very much depending on the DM. Some sourcebooks (BoVD, BoED) stress that murder is murder whether the person carrying it out is Good or Evil.

And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

To be fair, they also contradict themselves and suggest do what you want to evil because they are evil (See: Ravages)

Duke of URL
2009-12-23, 03:45 PM
None of the nine alignments scare me nearly as much as X Stupid or Stupid X.

Because not only are they absolutist, but they're totally irresponsible about it.

Yzzyx
2009-12-23, 03:49 PM
As jmbrown said, True Neutral, because you don't know who's side they're on. Remember that Humans are the prime example of true neutral, and look at how devious they are.

If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.


Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality.

Edit:


None of the nine alignments scare me nearly as much as X Stupid or Stupid X.

I agree. Stupidity is a lot worse than Evil.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 03:49 PM
If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.

Trust no one!

*/paranoia*

Britter
2009-12-23, 03:50 PM
Fair enough, I guess that it is possible to interpret RAW Lawful Good that way. Which, among many of the other excellent points made in this thread, is why I do not use the alignment system in my games.

When I did use alignments, most of the actions people are attributing to LG here would earn you an almost immediate alignment shift to LN, and to LE if they continued, becasuse they are not in line with how I interpret good. Of course, YMMV, and I do realize that my approach is horribly biased by my own opinions of good. I would always clarify my expectations with my players and try not to spring this sort of thing on them without some warning and an understanding of my position. :)

Thanks for the clarification guys.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 03:51 PM
To be fair, they also contradict themselves and suggest do what you want to evil because they are evil (See: Ravages)

Ravages only work on the evil- thats a far cry for "using ravages is never Evil"

An evil guy could poison a fellow evil guy with a ravage- that wouldn't make doing so non-evil. Motive and justification is a big part of things.

And (at least by BoED) you need more justification for harming someone than "he is evil"

Like "he is harming others and to save them, you must stop him, and the only way to stop him involves harming him"

Interestingly, some of the things BoED recommends, go right back to 1978 D&D or before- like "do not torture prisoners"

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 03:52 PM
If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.

Races of Destiny contradicts that, and is a more specific source on human nature than the PHB.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 03:53 PM
Here's a question - do you take motive into consideration when dealing with alignment?

For example, say you have someone obsessed with maintaining order. They commit atrocities to do so, but they don't enjoy or take pleasure from them - it's just the cost of maintaining order. LE, or LN?

The most commonly used definitions of evil involve self-benefit and self-gratification, not just committing a certain class of act. This idea lends to the image of an LE beauracrat gaming the system for all it's worth (and is also why Weird Al Yankovic's I'll Sue Ya is the LE theme song). Do the atrocities themselves make you evil, or does your motivation do so?

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 03:53 PM
Races of Destiny contradicts that, and is a more specific source on human nature than the PHB.

But supposedly, its "not core".

like any other source that fills out alignment in more detail.

According to BoED, for Good acts at least, motive matters. Acts of "charity" done to boost your own image among others, are Neutral rather than good.

However, BoVD, BoED, and FC2 do suggest that for some acts, no amount of motive makes them non-evil.

Atelm
2009-12-23, 03:54 PM
Chaotic neutral scares me: the official alignment of the sociopath, and those who wish to play them.

This; although I've mentioned it to my own players, one of them consistently takes the CN alignment as a freeway ticket to acting however they want, which has at times led to said player's characters acting more evil than the "officially" evil members of the party. :smallsigh:

Lycan 01
2009-12-23, 03:55 PM
Chaotic anything. If a player does it good, no problem. If they use it as an excuse to do whatever they think will be funny or entertaining, it can lead to problems.

Good examples I've had:

The Chaotic Good Dragonborn Cleric who fights for the greater good, but is okay with bending a few rules or threatening a few people as long as nobody actually gets hurt and things turn out for the better. Also, she starts fights when she gets drunk...

The Chaotic Evil Halfling Warlock. Yes, I knew I was playing with fire, but it turned out okay. He kept his destructive tendancies in order, only being cruel and wicked towards enemies. He had a tendancy to kill his foes in slow and painful manners, and he liked to cause a bit of mischief. But he never actively tried to be evil and cause serious chaos. Except for the time he blew up the cow. But that actually helped a farmer start a restaraunt chain...


Bad examples I've had:

...


Come to think of it, I've never had a bad alignment. Just bad players, regardless of alignment... I'm just scared of one day having somebody abuse the Chaotic aspect of their alignment...

Coidzor
2009-12-23, 03:55 PM
Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

Hmm... Comm...Commun....Commuian? Commilian? Chameleon?! :smalleek::smallconfused:


And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

Snake, do you think morality can bloom, even on the battlefield?


This; although I've mentioned it to my own players, one of them consistently takes the CN alignment as a freeway ticket to acting however they want, which has at times led to said player's characters acting more evil than the "officially" evil members of the party. :smallsigh:

How evil are we talking here?

Yzzyx
2009-12-23, 03:56 PM
Races of Destiny contradicts that, and is a more specific source on human nature than the PHB.

I knew it! The Player's Handbook lies!

jmbrown
2009-12-23, 03:57 PM
See, here's the thing though - real morality does not work in absolutes. Any attempt to seriously apply the alignment system fails because the system is inherantly flawed, and the biggest failing is that their definition of absolute good does some pretty horrible things on a fairly regular basis, while their definition of evil is arbitrary and annoying. People get a bug up their ass about LG because, basically, LG characters end up "enforcing" contradictions that lead to party infighting, flagrant racism, self-righteousness, and holy wars.

Like I said, at least Evil is honest about its motivations.

Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

Actually that's the result of absolute law. Society is confined and orderly; the barbarians across the river are the antithesis of our society and must be destroyed before they destroy us. Law dictates that everyone is entitled to an equal share even if others didn't pull their weight. Law dictates that we respect authority and are honest because that's what separates us from animals even though unfair laws can make us degenerate into less than animals.

Good tolerates the presence of evil when evil isn't encroaching on them. Law must preserve society. Anything that presents a threat to society must be stamped out.

OMG PONIES
2009-12-23, 03:57 PM
Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, if we take "chaotic" in the selfish sense. Either way, I picture someone like Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood." He's only kind to you as long as he stands to gain something from you. After that, all bets are off.

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 03:59 PM
But supposedly, its "not core".

like any other source that fills out alignment in more detail.

I think you're so prepared to deal with that argument that you're pre-empting it. :smallamused:


Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

Um, Community vs. Self IS Law vs. Chaos. Lawful society = needs of the community outweigh the needs of the individual, Chaotic society is the opposite.


I knew it! The Player's Handbook lies!

That's a bit extreme - I prefer to say "isn't specific enough."

Unless you're attempting sarcasm. It doesn't translate well in text, I'm afraid.

Britter
2009-12-23, 04:02 PM
Here's a question - do you take motive into consideration when dealing with alignment?

For example, say you have someone obsessed with maintaining order. They commit atrocities to do so, but they don't enjoy or take pleasure from them - it's just the cost of maintaining order. LE, or LN?

The most commonly used definitions of evil involve self-benefit and self-gratification, not just committing a certain class of act. This idea lends to the image of an LE beauracrat gaming the system for all it's worth (and is also why Weird Al Yankovic's I'll Sue Ya is the LE theme song). Do the atrocities themselves make you evil, or does your motivation do so?

This is an interesting question, and I think it very accurately illustrates the weakness of the alignment system. I think you could have a character who performs atrocties for the purpose of maintaining order and class that individual as LN, or LE, or maybe even LG (though for me that is reaaaalllyyyy stretching it). In another thread the subject of how one would classify the alignment of the Operative from Serenity, a man who was willing to do anything at all in order to serve the preceived greater good, and was aware that his very nature and the nature of his actions automatically exclude him from having a place in a the very society he is trying to help bring about. I can see arguements for both LN or LE there.

Personally, I would call it LE, but again that lies with how I interpret evil and neutrality. I would support your assertion that it could very easily be considered LN.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:04 PM
I think you're so prepared to deal with that argument that you're pre-empting it. :smallamused:

I have heard that argument a tiring number of times :smallamused:

That said, I can't find much about Human Alignment in RoD. The closest thing to a "racial deity" in it is LE, but the closest thing is on page 7:

"humans as a race are decidedly neutral in alignment."

However its not clear if this means "Humans are Often Neutral (50% or more)" or simply "Humans, taken as an average, are Neutral"

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 04:04 PM
Um, Community vs. Self IS Law vs. Chaos. Lawful society = needs of the community outweigh the needs of the individual, Chaotic society is the opposite.

Noooot necessarily. There's a difference between the "order/anarchy" argument and the "individual/group" argument. The first - the Law/Chaos axis - deals with whether it's better to enforce rules to create a stable society, or if it's better to have no rules to prevent the corruption of power. Individual/Group is a matter of scope - is it more important to protect the society as a whole, even if the individual must suffer, or is it more important to uphold individual rights, because individuals are what compose societies.

Lawful Selfish, for example, would be a lot like Black in magic - that character beleives in rules that benefit them, or that they cannot avoid following. Their own self and comfort are paramount in their minds at all times, but they don't act randomly or without forethought.

Chaotic Communal, on the other hand, is Red - Everyone is entitled to freedom, and everyone is free to resolve their own disputes their own way. The community is important, but not as important as the overall goal of freedom. Such a character trusts in common sense and communal goodwill to see the group through any crisis in which unity is necessary, rather than attempt to enforce cooperation through limiting laws.

Oslecamo
2009-12-23, 04:05 PM
See, here's the thing though - real morality does not work in absolutes.
I've got bad news for you: real magic are nothing more than cheap(and sometimes expensive) tricks aimed at fooling the observer that something else is hapening.

This is D&D we're talking about. Where good can literaly knock you at the door.




Any attempt to seriously apply the alignment system fails because the system is inherantly flawed, and the biggest failing is that their definition of absolute good does some pretty horrible things on a fairly regular basis, while their definition of evil is arbitrary and annoying. People get a bug up their ass about LG because, basically, LG characters end up "enforcing" contradictions that lead to party infighting, flagrant racism, self-righteousness, and holy wars.

No, those are the twisted versions of good that people come up with, that actualy correspond to evil or neutrality at best. If your character started an unnecessary destructive conflict, he clearly was lying to everybody and himself to begin with.



Like I said, at least Evil is honest about its motivations.

No it isn't. Some evil dudes are honest. Most of them hide their motivations between word twisting and claim they're good. See above.



Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.
No it doesn't. The "greater good" mentality is just as corruptible as the evil/good axis, as you can basicaly choose to pick on anyone and claim it's for the benefit of all others.

But hey, it's evil's nature to lie and twist words for it's own benefit and claim there's no good or evil, so it can confuse people and get away with it's evil acts!:smalltongue:

EDIT: Also, for someone complaining about lack of realism, your last example is laughably irrealistic. A society where you trust everybody to do a fair share of the work for the community whitout control whatsoever? Rrrighhhtttt!

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-23, 04:05 PM
True Neutral - not this 3.5 "true" Neutral stuff.

Some of the scariest villains I've seen are from 2E, where TN meant "turn on your party when you're winning." Ironically, this type of TN combines the worst "traits" from both sides of the L/C axis - the desire to interfere with others (L) without worrying about what any external authority has to say about it (C).

This is largely because TN sought to maintain a "balance" that wasn't actually connected to any in-game material. By contrast, Law sought to uphold tradition - even when the character was out crusading, he still paid deference to some external authority - and therefore only the worst Well Intentioned Extremist actually exhibited the sorts of behaviors people fear from the Lawful.

TN? They don't bow to anyone - there is no check on their actions, aside from their personal perceptions.

jmbrown
2009-12-23, 04:06 PM
In OD&D the only alignments were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. The rational was that neither good or evil are absolutes. Free willed mortals simply aren't capable of being good 100% of the time and few people, even monsters, recognize themselves or their actions as being evil.

Society or the majority dictates what's right and wrong. A band of barbarians that rely on raiding villages for supplies and slaves is doing what their society deems is right. The city that subjugates outsiders and imprisons them in times of war is doing what they think will protect their natural born citizens. You either followed the majority (law), were against it (chaos), or were pragmatic and did what felt right at that moment in time (neutrality).

I'd say the Good/Evil axis was born with the concept of outsiders and planar absolutes because even Gygax wrote the beholder as being straight neutral.

Eldariel
2009-12-23, 04:06 PM
Any extreme; Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil. Extremes lead to fanaticism which leads to horrible, horrible results. Chaotic Good least of that bunch though; Lawful Good, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are all like to have terrible ends, but Chaotic Good can function with some luck.

Yzzyx
2009-12-23, 04:08 PM
That's a bit extreme - I prefer to say "isn't specific enough."

"Tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality" is rather specific. If it conflicts with a statement in Races of Destiny, the primary source for all things human, it is clearly wrong. It might not be "actively misleading," but close enough.


Unless you're attempting sarcasm. It doesn't translate well in text, I'm afraid.

Of course I'm not attempting sarcasm. I'm never sarcastic.

Edit: Anyway, I'm sticking with my previous statement. Lawful good scares me the most, because Lawful good people start alignment discussions.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:08 PM
Chaotic Communal, on the other hand, is Red - Everyone is entitled to freedom, and everyone is free to resolve their own disputes their own way. The community is important, but not as important as the overall goal of freedom. Such a character trusts in common sense and communal goodwill to see the group through any crisis in which unity is necessary, rather than attempt to enforce cooperation through limiting laws.

This is the bit that makes for the conflict. A person who thinks freedom is more important than Community, is not exactly someone with a "communal morality"

A person who thinks that community is more important than freedom- would be Communal, so to speak.

Also- which edition of OD&D? I recall a 1978 Basic D&D edition that mentioned Good and Evil as well as Law and Chaos- though that could have been just "the first 3 levels of AD&D"

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 04:08 PM
No it doesn't. The "greater good" mentality is just as corruptible as the evil/good axis, as you can basicaly choose to pick on anyone and claim it's for the benefit of all others.

Alignment is about belief and behavior. Yes, power corrupts and the "greater good" is used as an excuse for atrocities - but in the proposed system, "community" =/= "good". It just means that the person in question most often acts in the interests of the community rather than their own interests. They don't have to be efficient, intelligent, or even correct - just sincerely motivated.

absolmorph
2009-12-23, 04:11 PM
Chaotic Evil, because he doesn't need any reason to rip your head off.
Fix'd for my view.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:12 PM
"Tend towards no particular alignment, not even neutrality" is rather specific. If it conflicts with a statement in Races of Destiny, the primary source for all things human, it is clearly wrong. It might not be "actively misleading," but close enough.

The statement in Races of Destiny wasn't very clear either

"Humans as a race are decidedly Neutral"

can mean "Neutral on average"

or it can mean "more humans are Neutral than any other alignment"

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 04:12 PM
I have heard that argument a tiring number of times :smallamused:

Hey, maybe you're getting through to people. Hope springs eternal, right? :smallbiggrin:



That said, I can't find much about Human Alignment in RoD. The closest thing to a "racial deity" in it is LE, but the closest thing is on page 7:

"humans as a race are decidedly neutral in alignment."

However its not clear if this means "Humans are Often Neutral (50% or more)" or simply "Humans, taken as an average, are Neutral"

The context of that quote is very important here.

"The variety of human existence naturally pulls human personalities in different directions. For example, humans crave having their own voice and standing out from the crowd, but they also have a tendency to “follow the herd” and adhere to the status quo. An individual human who strives to break from the mold can later become a defender of the status quo—or can defend some aspects of the status quo while advocating radical change in other aspects. Because of this inner conflict, humans as a race are decidedly
neutral in alignment."

This is quite plainly neutrality due to combining Chaos and Law. The quote emphasizes that humans as a race routinely use Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends, and vice-versa. It is not that "humans over here are chaotic and humans over here are lawful, therefore the average is neutral." It is "humans are neutral because they see both Law and Chaos as tools, rather than desirable states of being in and of themselves."

Oslecamo
2009-12-23, 04:12 PM
Alignment is about belief and behavior. Yes, power corrupts and the "greater good" is used as an excuse for atrocities - but in the proposed system, "community" =/= "good". It just means that the person in question most often acts in the interests of the community rather than their own interests. They don't have to be efficient, intelligent, or even correct - just sincerely motivated.

And this is where you fail at the interpretation of the D&D alignment system.

Your motivations matter little.

Your actual actions matter a LOT.

The gods care not what you think, but what you do. Otherwise you can claim you're of any alignment you want to be by twisting your point of view enough. It doesn't matter that you're covered in Pelor's signs and claim/believe to be acting in Pelor's name, if you go on a children purge trough the country, the universe will brand you as evil.

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 04:13 PM
I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

Because it always seems to be the easiest to corrupt, it is the absolute of absolute in my eyes, like chaotic evil, only chaotic evil cannot change, while LG can at the tap of a finger, worst are paladins, too many times I have seen a lawful good character fall into darkness because of their zeal.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 04:15 PM
And this is where you fail at the interpretation of the D&D alignment system.

My stance remains that the D&D alignment system fails because morality cannot be expessed in terms of absolutes. It's not a matter of reality vs. fantasy - morality simply cannot be expressed in simple terms. D&D attempts to do so, and inevitably fails.

*Ponders starting a thread on the Homebrew forums, dealing with trying to establish a replacement alignment system.*

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:16 PM
The main source to stress "actions matter- those who routinely behave in an evil fashion are of evil alignment" is Champions of Ruin.

it mentioned the many ways a character can come to Evil alignment, from being raised in an evil society, to being "driven to evil" to keep a worse evil at bay- but all in all, the same principle applied.

Xzeno
2009-12-23, 04:18 PM
Because it always seems to be the easiest to corrupt, it is the absolute of absolute in my eyes, like chaotic evil, only chaotic evil cannot change, while LG can at the tap of a finger, worst are paladins, too many times I have seen a lawful good character fall into darkness because of their zeal.

So you dislike lawful good because it can lead to evil? Seems odd.

I fear Lawful Evil. Tyranny is far worse than... anything else the alignment system has to offer.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:19 PM
This is quite plainly neutrality due to combining Chaos and Law. The quote emphasizes that humans as a race routinely use Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends, and vice-versa. It is not that "humans over here are chaotic and humans over here are lawful, therefore the average is neutral." It is "humans are neutral because they see both Law and Chaos as tools, rather than desirable states of being in and of themselves."

However, if this was completely right, any variant of Chaotic X or Lawful X alignment would be very much the exception.

Which doesn't seem to be reflected in the game.


I fear Lawful Evil. Tyranny is far worse than... anything else the alignment system has to offer.

Lawful evil societies in D&D get most completely fleshed out in FC2.

They come across as alarmingly realistic in that respect.

Bob
2009-12-23, 04:20 PM
Something worth mentioning is that this alignment system is based on romantic fiction; where good is good, evil is evil, and everything that goes around comes around. Asking alignment-based questions about catch22 scenarios or more realistic situations isn't really fair, that's a whole different literature.

In my opinion the problem with alignment in D&D is there is too much parallelism between good and evil. Well, not really; there are plenty of monsters that subsist on the flesh of intelligent beings. It's just that the grayer characters are the ones everyone talks about on the internet.

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 04:20 PM
Noooot necessarily. There's a difference between the "order/anarchy" argument and the "individual/group" argument. The first - the Law/Chaos axis - deals with whether it's better to enforce rules to create a stable society, or if it's better to have no rules to prevent the corruption of power. Individual/Group is a matter of scope - is it more important to protect the society as a whole, even if the individual must suffer, or is it more important to uphold individual rights, because individuals are what compose societies.

I still don't see that as a difference. Anarchy is merely an extreme example of Individualism, not a totally separate concept. It means a society where the individual is so paramount that no amount of regulation by the many should apply to his wishes.

It is a matter of scope, as you say, but it is still one axis. The scope merely applies to the level of extremism involved.


Lawful Selfish, for example, would be a lot like Black in magic - that character beleives in rules that benefit them, or that they cannot avoid following. Their own self and comfort are paramount in their minds at all times, but they don't act randomly or without forethought.

What you've just described here is Neutral Evil, which is exactly what pure black in M:TG emphasizes. Follow the rules when they benefit me, discard them when they cease to. Lawful Evil is different - it never discards the rules, even if it hurts to continue following them, because it either depends on them for protection or believes that following them makes them superior to other forms of Evil (or both.)


Chaotic Communal, on the other hand, is Red - Everyone is entitled to freedom, and everyone is free to resolve their own disputes their own way. The community is important, but not as important as the overall goal of freedom. Such a character trusts in common sense and communal goodwill to see the group through any crisis in which unity is necessary, rather than attempt to enforce cooperation through limiting laws.

Freedom for freedom's sake - here you've described Chaotic Neutral. This is where the freedom itself is the goal, and more important than any possible good or evil consequences that could result. As you pointed out, Red.


However, if this was completely right, any variant of Chaotic X or Lawful X alignment would be very much the exception.

Which doesn't seem to be reflected in the game.

Isn't it? There are very few human societies in any setting that are primarily Chaotic or primarily Lawful. Most if not all of them are host to the spectrum of alignments.

I do not believe humans CAN be unaligned - only mindless creatures like animals can lack an alignment. Neutral is by far the best fit.

jguy
2009-12-23, 04:21 PM
Does no one think that Lawful Neutral is the scariest? An unthinking machine who only upholds the law, no matter the circumstances. Willing to cut the hand off a thief from pick-pocketing from a judge as a starving child with a loaf of bread.

Hell, in the Elder Evils book, a literal God Killing Machine was nearly released because a LN inevitable was trying to fulfill a contract. A contract! And it states that the plane they come from will forever pump out an inevitable to free the Elder Evil.

absolmorph
2009-12-23, 04:22 PM
My stance remains that the D&D alignment system fails because morality cannot be expessed in terms of absolutes. It's not a matter of reality vs. fantasy - morality simply cannot be expressed in simple terms. D&D attempts to do so, and inevitably fails.

*Ponders starting a thread on the Homebrew forums, dealing with trying to establish a replacement alignment system.*
Morality can be expressed in absolutes when good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/celestialCreature.htm) can knock on your door.
And try to kill you if you're evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:25 PM
Lawful Evil is different - it never discards the rules, even if it hurts to continue following them.


What, never?
No, never!
What, never?
...Hardly ever!

:smallbiggrin:

I'd say most Lawful guys can bend a few rules. Even some Lawful Outsiders- lawful guys are supposed to be truthful, yet at least one archdevil is the Lord of Lies, and quite keen on rule-breaking.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 04:26 PM
What you've just described here is Neutral Evil, which is exactly what pure black in M:TG emphasizes. Follow the rules when they benefit me, discard them when they cease to. Lawful Evil is different - it never discards the rules, even if it hurts to continue following them, because it either depends on them for protection or believes that following them makes them superior to other forms of Evil (or both.)

Not necessarily - the shop owner concerned with his own profit and little else is also Black, and he doesn't have to commit horrid atrocities in pursuit of his goal. Selfishness =/= evil.

White, for example, believes in the community. Utopian societies are White. So are facist war-states, dictatorships, and The Borg. Blue believes that knowledge can lead to perfection and that everything can change - but in the pursuit of knowledge, Blue is just as likely to vivisect you as it is to inteview you.

Y'know, actually, the Color Wheel would make a pretty good alignment system...

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:27 PM
Morality can be expressed in absolutes when good can knock on your door.
And try to kill you if you're evil.

Again, not everyone plays Good like that. Especially in 3.5, with BoED and Eberron stressing that you can't kill people just for being evil- you need a better reason than that, and generally force should be the last rather than the first resort.


Not necessarily - the shop owner concerned with his own profit and little else is also Black, and he doesn't have to commit horrid atrocities in pursuit of his goal. Selfishness =/= evil.

Selfishness combined with mild malice, and a lack of compassion for those in trouble, can be- there can be "petty evils" where a person indulges in little acts of spite but never causes serious harm.

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 04:28 PM
So you dislike lawful good because it can lead to evil? Seems odd.

I fear Lawful Evil. Tyranny is far worse than... anything else the alignment system has to offer.
I believe that lawful good can do far more harm than it can do good, and it NEVER ends well, always the paladin will fall, always will the darkness win that inner battle....

Gralamin
2009-12-23, 04:30 PM
Not necessarily - the shop owner concerned with his own profit and little else is also Black, and he doesn't have to commit horrid atrocities in pursuit of his goal. Selfishness =/= evil.

White, for example, believes in the community. Utopian societies are White. So are facist war-states, dictatorships, and The Borg. Blue believes that knowledge can lead to perfection and that everything can change - but in the pursuit of knowledge, Blue is just as likely to vivisect you as it is to inteview you.

Y'know, actually, the Color Wheel would make a pretty good alignment system...
Because the Color wheel is based on actual warring philosophy's. The articles on each combination of colors are very good, and show that the color wheel does have a lot of depth to it.

Optimystik
2009-12-23, 04:30 PM
Hardly ever, then. :smalltongue:

But certainly far less than a NE villain would (and far less than a Black-aligned M:TG villain would, for that matter.)


Not necessarily - the shop owner concerned with his own profit and little else is also Black, and he doesn't have to commit horrid atrocities in pursuit of his goal. Selfishness =/= evil.

White, for example, believes in the community. Utopian societies are White. So are facist war-states, dictatorships, and The Borg. Blue believes that knowledge can lead to perfection and that everything can change - but in the pursuit of knowledge, Blue is just as likely to vivisect you as it is to inteview you.

Y'know, actually, the Color Wheel would make a pretty good alignment system...


His alignment depends on the lengths he's willing to go to to secure his profit, I agree.

The problem here is that more than one alignment can fit under each color. White as you pointed out, is usually lawful good, but can embody both mercy (NG) and tyranny (LN, even bordering on LE.) So being "White-aligned" isn't very meaningful in terms of being Smite-able, unless you change alignment-powered spells and abilities to work on "not my color" rather than actual morality and ethics.

...Any racial overtones in that post were completely unintentional!

Telonius
2009-12-23, 04:30 PM
Lawful Neutral, for me. "Mitigating circumstances? What are those?"

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:32 PM
I believe that lawful good can do far more harm than it can do good, and it NEVER ends well, always the paladin will fall, always will the darkness win that inner battle....

according to BoED at least, Good is forgiving- a person can fall, but struggle back.

There is a lot of emphasis on forgiveness even to the evil, and helping them achieve redemption- whether its an Evil fallen hero, or some other Evil but redeemable being.

And very few beings are not redeemable.

Britter
2009-12-23, 04:33 PM
I believe that lawful good can do far more harm than it can do good, and it NEVER ends well, always the paladin will fall, always will the darkness win that inner battle....

Thanks for the explanation gamerkid. I think that we have fundamentally different perceptions of how good operates, and I am a lot less cynical about it than you appear to be. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your view for me.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-23, 04:34 PM
The problem here is that more than one alignment can fit under each color. White as you pointed out, is usually lawful good, but can embody both mercy (NG) and tyranny (LN, even bordering on LE.) So being "White-aligned" isn't very meaningful in terms of being Smite-able, unless you change alignment-powered spells and abilities to work on "not my color" rather than actual morality and ethics.

...Any racial overtones in that post were completely unintentional!

Suuure they were :P

And it wouldn't actually be that hard to make the shift. There's a core philosiphy at the heart of every color, which can be used/abused as one sees fit. There's already good definitions down for what each color and color combination (well, up to three colors, anyway) mean and, more importantly, one can more easily distill the colors into absolutes. Absolute good is hard to embody. Absolute selfishsness, order, freedom, growth, and change, however, are much easier.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:35 PM
Lawful Neutral, for me. "Mitigating circumstances? What are those?"

Thats more for strong LNs like inevitables- I figure most "ordinary LNs" will grasp the concept, but be cautious in application.

In the Dragon article on St Cuthbert, it takes the approach that, for example, all thievery should be punished, but those who thieve to feed their starving children, should receive much lesser punishments (but should never be just let off)

chiasaur11
2009-12-23, 04:36 PM
True Neutral

The great Zapp Brannigan sums it up for me.

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me."

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-23, 04:38 PM
Does no one think that Lawful Neutral is the scariest? An unthinking machine who only upholds the law, no matter the circumstances. Willing to cut the hand off a thief from pick-pocketing from a judge as a starving child with a loaf of bread.

Hell, in the Elder Evils book, a literal God Killing Machine was nearly released because a LN inevitable was trying to fulfill a contract. A contract! And it states that the plane they come from will forever pump out an inevitable to free the Elder Evil.
I'm more afraid of unthinking machines than LN people.

Because people are neither unthinking nor machines.

Demented
2009-12-23, 04:41 PM
I've simplified it down to:
Evil kills innocents. Neutral will let them die. Good saves them.
Lawful follows law. Neutral follows common sense. Chaotic follows its nose.

They're just alignments; there's nothing innate about them that makes them frightening. Real life examples of what someone might interpret as a particular alignment, sure, those can be scary, but that has more to do with reality than it does with the alignment in question. :smalleek:

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:46 PM
Going by BoVD "letting innocents die" is an evil act. Indeed, far more evil than "stopping the murderer" even if the murderer has good intentions.

In this respect, it would come under "killing in defense of others" generally considered non-evil.

So, a person who "passively co-operates" with evil by refusing to interfere, may end up slipping to evil themselves.

After all, "lack of respect for life" is a key point of evilness, and this can be shown through indifference, as well as active harm.

You could say:

"Evil lacks respect for life"
"Good has strong respect for life and acts on it"
"Neutral has limited respect for life, and is more likely to act on it when they have something at stake"

While PHB puts "helping friends/kin but not strangers" as more Neutral, Savage Species points out that even Evil beings can have friends and help them- but they are capable of being cruel and ruthless to those outside their "in-group"

Zaydos
2009-12-23, 04:48 PM
Back in the D&D B/X there was only Law, Neutrality, and Chaos and Chaos was defined as selfish and willing to betray others for their own good, with Law putting the good of others first. These alignments rather seem like Good, Neutral, and Evil to me but oh well.

In 2e and on (don't know the 1e alignment grid) I'd say Lawful Evil scares me the most. Chaotic Evil might kill you, but ultimately they'll fall to pieces against anything big. Neutral Evil? Again a single foe. Lawful Evil? Now that's scary, they win and then they sue you for opposing them, take your money, execute you for an inability to pay your debts and sell your children into slavery to cover the rest. They are organized and they might actually win. There's a reason Takahisis (or however you write her name) from Dragonlance almost won, and why her black knights (especially) were scary. It was because they were lawful and they were evil, and while she lost the first time because of chaotic infighting the knights lacked that and that is terrifying.

Second most would probably be Lawful anything else, it's so easy for them to fall into lawful evil. Really it's a toss up between LG and LN. LN is scary when it is falling into LE but usually that starts as LG. Lawful Good is scary because it can so easily become Lawful Evil without thinking.

That said I'm decidedly lawful (and I like to think "good") in real life, although I philosophically support chaos and play CG and NG.

absolmorph
2009-12-23, 04:55 PM
according to BoED at least, Good is forgiving- a person can fall, but struggle back.

There is a lot of emphasis on forgiveness even to the evil, and helping them achieve redemption- whether its an Evil fallen hero, or some other Evil but redeemable being.

And very few beings are not redeemable.
This is how I play good.
A complete focus on the eradication of evil- not the upholding and protection of good, but eradication of evil- will inevitably cause the character so focused to become evil themselves. It's not a case of corruption or anything like that, it's a case of losing sight of what makes a person good.

Gamerlord
2009-12-23, 04:55 PM
Thanks for the explanation gamerkid. I think that we have fundamentally different perceptions of how good operates, and I am a lot less cynical about it than you appear to be. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your view for me.

Your very welcome :smallsmile: .

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:56 PM
The word evil was sometimes used in OD&D- for example a lich being described as formerly an evil and chaotic wizard- but it wasn't till 1st ed that Good and Evil were routinely used in alignment descriptions.


Though a 1978 book called "Basic D&D game" did use them- maybe it was an AD&D 1st ed Starter set, with the first 3 levels?

taltamir
2009-12-23, 04:58 PM
Frankly, the whole system scares me - because it deals in absolutes.

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.

and in CRPGs, both sides steal everything that isn't nailed down... like that diamond in the chest at the house of the "extremely poor peasant TM".

I have never met a person IRL that will fit into any of the 9 alignments...
It is not the absolutes that bother me so much as the pigeon holing...

Daimbert
2009-12-23, 04:58 PM
And this is where you fail at the interpretation of the D&D alignment system.

Your motivations matter little.

Your actual actions matter a LOT.

I disagree that that is how it should be. People may well play it that way because it's easier, but it isn't the right way to do it.


The gods care not what you think, but what you do. Otherwise you can claim you're of any alignment you want to be by twisting your point of view enough. It doesn't matter that you're covered in Pelor's signs and claim/believe to be acting in Pelor's name, if you go on a children purge trough the country, the universe will brand you as evil.

Um, except that if you twist your point of view and at some level should be aware of that, that means that your motivation is not good or evil or whatever, but that you are twisting and rationalizing things to allow you to justify the real motivation you have. Deliberate and clear choice to work outside your stated alignment should force a change faster, but continual rationalization to make your evil actions (say) seem good should change your alignment as well. Deliberately deluding yourself is not done by someone really acting to their alignment.


Does no one think that Lawful Neutral is the scariest? An unthinking machine who only upholds the law, no matter the circumstances. Willing to cut the hand off a thief from pick-pocketing from a judge as a starving child with a loaf of bread.

Hell, in the Elder Evils book, a literal God Killing Machine was nearly released because a LN inevitable was trying to fulfill a contract. A contract! And it states that the plane they come from will forever pump out an inevitable to free the Elder Evil.

I don't think that's how you should interpret Neutral. Neutrals will go to either side as they feel appropriate (in general) as opposed to your comment which seems to be about them opposing both. Whenever I play Lawful Neutral characters, I usually put them as characters who, for some reason, think that sometimes you have to sacrifice your own interests for others but that sometimes you really can indeed do things just for yourself. None of my characters would necessarily be as willing to cut the hand of the thief or the starving child, and certainly no more so than any other Lawful character.

The closest that would happen is that my LN characters, if in a situation where the law of a domain says that the punishment is the same, no exceptions, would be far more willing to allow it if it would be inconvenient for them to oppose it. But LE characters would do the same, and in general not consider helping the child unless it was in their direct best interest. In short, the LE character would not argue that doing that to the child would violate the spirit of the law and so the law should not apply in that case, the LG would in almost all cases, and the LN might or might not depending on circumstances.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 04:58 PM
This is how I play good.
A complete focus on the eradication of evil- not the upholding and protection of good, but eradication of evil- will inevitably cause the character so focused to become evil themselves. It's not a case of corruption or anything like that, it's a case of losing sight of what makes a person good.

That was what I liked most about most of BoED- which made some of its less well thought out aspect just about forgivable- its emphasis on compassion toward evil, even when fighting it, without going overboard into "never kill" but "kill when necessary, and try to redeem rather than kill wherever possible"

On the alignment system in general, I see the PHB descriptions as very basic stereotypes. No-one, even in the game, is likely to fit any perfectly, but in general, most of a character's traits are going to fit.

The PHB even mentions it, describing a dwarf as LG, but with the flaw of greediness, which means that occasionally, he will act in ways not entirely appropriate with LGness- he will steal if he can justify it to himself.

I figure this is a good rule- alignments are general guidelines- characters fit alignments approximately, rather than perfectly.

Demented
2009-12-23, 05:35 PM
Going by BoVD "letting innocents die" is an evil act. Indeed, far more evil than "stopping the murderer" even if the murderer has good intentions.

In this respect, it would come under "killing in defense of others" generally considered non-evil.

So, a person who "passively co-operates" with evil by refusing to interfere, may end up slipping to evil themselves.

After all, "lack of respect for life" is a key point of evilness, and this can be shown through indifference, as well as active harm.

You could say:

"Evil lacks respect for life"
"Good has strong respect for life and acts on it"
"Neutral has limited respect for life, and is more likely to act on it when they have something at stake"

While PHB puts "helping friends/kin but not strangers" as more Neutral, Savage Species points out that even Evil beings can have friends and help them- but they are capable of being cruel and ruthless to those outside their "in-group"
Non-core definitions are non-core rules. They aren't there unless you're using them. As far as I'm concerned, this applies to alignment, too! A BoVD campaign would be different. A Savage Species campaign maybe less so.

Neutral is committed to others by personal relationships, but as it's rather vague how this works, the exact results of this is left up to the character.

The issue I have with "respect for life" wordings is that it's both vague and not strictly absolute as written. Good "implies" respect for life, but, when the chips are down, Good characters will only protect innocent life for sure.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 05:43 PM
And what's "innocent"?

Good?
Not evil?
Has not ever committed an evil act?
Has not committed any crimes that you know of?

If a good character knows that an evil merchant (not known to have committed crimes, but pings as LE or NE) is about to be murdered by another evil merchant, does their duty to "respect life" demand that they intervene?

on splatbooks- it seems to me like some are guidelines

"this is how "respect for life" etc is supposed to work" (i.e not slaughtering everything that pings as evil, they way some players do)

With the PHB, its up to the DM and the players- and some play it very differently from the way it was apparently "intended" to work- going by the amount of alignment threads. So, they release splatbooks to make some alignment issues clearer. And, for some big group games like Living Greyhawk, it actually says "for guidelines on what's an evil act, see the splatbook"

There may be minor conflicts, but actually, the splatbooks agree far more often than not.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-23, 06:02 PM
Y'know, actually, the Color Wheel would make a pretty good alignment system...

I for one am in full support of trying this if anyone ever makes it. I think it would an interesting alteration.

As for alignments, I find Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil are the sort of people I never want to be up against. Especially people who actually have POWER in terms of the law.

Tyranny in any form, whether it be a King or a Judge or a Sheriff, is awful to me, because it means that the common people literally cannot be expected to fight back without serious persecution. Neutrality on the Good/Evil axis just seems too close to apathy and ambivalence, which, combined with power over the people, is just a skip away from active evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 06:07 PM
Chaotic tyrannies aren't impossible (orc kingdoms?) but they tend to be unstable.

Drow cities are somewhere between CE and NE- there is a lot of tyranny, but the individual tyrants compete so much among themselves that the oppression is unpredictable.

"Rule of the strongest" can be scary- but because its less systematic, it may be easier to topple.

Kylarra
2009-12-23, 06:08 PM
Like Zapp Brannigan, I fear those neutrals.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-23, 06:09 PM
Chaotic tyrannies aren't impossible (orc kingdoms?) but they tend to be unstable.

Drow cities are somewhere between CE and NE- there is a lot of tyranny, but the individual tyrants compete so much among themselves that the oppression is unpredictable.

"Rule of the strongest" can be scary- but because its less systematic, it may be easier to topple.

My thinking is mainly that a Lawful Tyranny is more likely to have supporters who are unlikely to be swayed from its basic tenants. A neutral or chaotic person is easier to bribe or bargain with, or turn against the system, and as you said, there's far more room for individuals to compete. It's really more about the strength of the system.

Daimbert
2009-12-23, 06:13 PM
I must admit to being puzzled by people who are afraid of Lawful Evil alignments. These map directly to the Snidley Whiplash type of villain, the guy who's going to foreclose on the orphanage because he has the mortgage, but where they have until midnight to get the money, and so you can go out and desperately raise the money and he slinks off into the night saying "Curses, foiled again!".

Ultimately, the LE character follows the law. They twist it to their advantage, but you know how to defeat them: find the loophole in the law that means that they can't do what they want to do. And once you do, they can't do anything. It's the character who has a strict code of honour, and so if you can convince them to accept a challenge to be let free if you succeed they'll let you go. If you challenge them to help you, and they accept, and you win, they'll help you, and be unswerving in that. Yeah, they're good at finding loopholes themselves, but are far better than CE or CN characters who just won't bother following the rules at all.

CE would scare me more than CN, except that with the CE character you know how to deal with them or in some sense predict what they will do: simply calculate the activity that most benefits them. CN are utterly unpredictable.

Amphetryon
2009-12-23, 06:14 PM
Chaotic Neutral: the only thing it can decide on is that it does not want to decide.

barteem
2009-12-23, 06:16 PM
But you need to discern fair laws from unfair ones for that to be ok.
There have been LOTS of law abiding people who's laws are bad, worse, or even pure evil.
So, like the alignment says, Lawful Evil can very easily be following the letter of EVIL law.
Did you know that it was illegal for people of color to vote in the early (and not so early) days of our country?

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-23, 06:19 PM
I must admit to being puzzled by people who are afraid of Lawful Evil alignments. These map directly to the Snidley Whiplash type of villain, the guy who's going to foreclose on the orphanage because he has the mortgage, but where they have until midnight to get the money, and so you can go out and desperately raise the money and he slinks off into the night saying "Curses, foiled again!".

Ultimately, the LE character follows the law. They twist it to their advantage, but you know how to defeat them: find the loophole in the law that means that they can't do what they want to do. And once you do, they can't do anything. It's the character who has a strict code of honour, and so if you can convince them to accept a challenge to be let free if you succeed they'll let you go. If you challenge them to help you, and they accept, and you win, they'll help you, and be unswerving in that. Yeah, they're good at finding loopholes themselves, but are far better than CE or CN characters who just won't bother following the rules at all.

Admittedly a LE villain who is just a random guy isn't much in the way of a threat. Then you hit the upper levels of society, namely the people who make the rules. And then all bets are off, because you are now playing their game.

A Lawful Evil Villain who is actively making the laws is essentially a NE or a CE villain in terms of what they are restricted to, but far worse because you are utterly disadvantaged in the sense that the rules on the table are always going to be stacked against you. They can win with the law because they ARE the law.

EDIT:
To expound without dipping into anything sensitive: Think about some of the more widespread and memorable atrocities in history, and how many of them were justified and spurred on by the Laws of the time as opposed to being random happenings.

hamishspence
2009-12-23, 06:21 PM
2nd ed outlined "aligned societies" in some detail- and I think some 3rd ed sources might have discussed it once or twice. The most detailed source though, was Fiendish Codex 2, on LE societies.

And how they inculate LE virtues- by raising children together and putting a lot of pressure on the older to oppress the younger, as well as coming-of-age ceremonies that require acts of cruelty.

the 2nd ed DMG:
LG societies tend to have honest, law abiding, helpful people. They also, as a rule, don't have people walking around armed and armoured, and may even dislike adventurers because of this.

LN societies tend to a lot of organization, regulation, and bureaucracy, which can get out of control.

LE societies tend to have severe laws and harsh punishments. Laws are more concerned with the status quo than justice. Bribery and corruption are common.

NE societies tend to be benign (but not pleasant) dictatorships, whereas NG societies tend to be "enlightened" dictatorships, but all 3, NG, N, NE, tend to adopt whatever government seems most expedient at the time.

CG societies, while often having a single ruler, allow communities to manage themselves as long as they obey a few broad edicts. And also tend to have weak law enforcement, with communities sometimes taking the law into their own hands.

CN societies- absolute anarchies.

CE societies- rule of the most powerful- strongarm bosses who obey the government out of fear. Assassination is common.


While "benign, but not pleasant, dictatorship" for NE seems a bit odd, that was the phrasing.

Guancyto
2009-12-23, 06:37 PM
Psh, you people and your "lawful evil is scary!" and "chaotic neutral is insane!"

LE is predictable. Of course he'll betray you if he gets a better offer, just be better at it than him.

CN is containable. If he does whatever and people know that, he'll have a hard time getting any support for his latest mad scheme.

If I had to choose the scariest one in the D&D-verse? Neutral Good.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-12-23, 06:46 PM
Psh, you people and your "lawful evil is scary!" and "chaotic neutral is insane!"

LE is predictable. Of course he'll betray you if he gets a better offer, just be better at it than him.

CN is containable. If he does whatever and people know that, he'll have a hard time getting any support for his latest mad scheme.

If I had to choose the scariest one in the D&D-verse? Neutral Good.

This makes the assumption that people of these alignments cannot ever be subtle, cunning, or intelligent about their own behavior.

Lawful Evil doesn't always have to take the best offer. He can work far more subtly than that, working to build your trust until just the right moment. He can turn the rules of society against you while keeping it on his side and appear justified to the common folk.

Chaotic Neutral played right, does what he wants, however he has to, for himself. Nowhere in there does it say he has to act in a way that makes this blatantly obvious. Chaotic Neutral is the perfect alignment for say, a double-triple-quadtuple agent.

jmbrown
2009-12-23, 06:46 PM
Also- which edition of OD&D? I recall a 1978 Basic D&D edition that mentioned Good and Evil as well as Law and Chaos- though that could have been just "the first 3 levels of AD&D"

OD&D is the 1974 box set that included 3 volumes. Basic was created after a split between ideas between Gygax and TSR. Gygax moved on to AD&D which was, as he quotes, a new system while Basic was more in line with TSR trying to reach a broader audience.

I'm assuming that good and evil was added because people need clear definitions of their actions. You weren't supposed to feel bad about slaying the evil red dragon but AD&D stressed monster ecology like finding his newborn hatchlings or stumbling upon the hungry orc children waiting for daddy to come home with meat from the slaughter.

Schylerwalker
2009-12-23, 06:51 PM
I hate it whenever I, or someone else, mentions Lawful Good, and everyone else goes "Geck, I hate Lawful Good people. They're so stuck up and full of themselves, trying to push their alignment on themselves. They're just a bunch of hypocrites."

I ALSO hate it when people go "Lawful Evil is an awesome alignment! I'm like Darth Vader; intelligent and refined, but I possess an iron fist and I can crush my enemies whenever I want." Much as I love Darth Vader, I'm not sure if he's Lawful Evil. He disobeys his Emperor's commands for his own ends; namely, protecting his son. On the other hand, he mercilessly slaughters those who oppose him.

Doing X for a Y cause is a decidedly NEUTRAL act. A paladin who breaks his comrades out of the city jail to kill the evil duke, will (RAW) IMMEDIATELY fall, because breaking the law, is, by definition, a chaotic act. As a paladin, and thus, a cut above everyone else in the department of ethics and morality, he is expected to find a way that is both GOOD and LAWFUL to achieve the goals of GOOD and LAW.

In all honesty, I despise the alignment system, as it is. I think only creatures like outsiders, undead, and those who actively channel the power of iconic otherworldly forces should have an "alignment." Mortal creatures, like ordinary humans, dwarves, elves, etcetera, are just so...bloody neutral!

Sure, in D&D terms, it's easy to point out somebody's alignment...in the above example. "Hey, that homicidal blackguard of Erythnul is going around burning down castles and villages. He MUST be chaotic evil!" However, is the farmer who kills his neighbor for his stash of silver chaotic evil? No.

Allow me to quote the Book of Exalted Deeds:
Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-righteous,
or naïve, though good-aligned characters might be some
of those things. Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates
from the celestial planes and crushes evil. Good is selfless, just,
hopeful, benevolent, and righteous.

I always thought that this EXACTLY what good should be. Only paladins, clerics, and angels should possess this redeeming virtue. Anybody else who calls themselves "Good" is just posturing. They're...Neutral "An Alright Guy."

Now, allow me to quote the Book of Vile Darkness:
“Evil” is a word that is probably overused. In the context
of the game, and certainly of this book, the word should
be reserved for the dark force of destruction and death that
tempts souls to wrongdoing and perverts wholesomeness and
purity at every turn. Evil is vile, corrupt, and irredeemably
dark. It is not naughty or ill-tempered or misunderstood. It is
black-hearted, selfish, cruel, bloodthirsty, and malevolent.

The goblin brigands who raid farmsteads, steal sheep, and kill the occasional farmer, and evil. Their master, the half-fiend bugbear blackguard who serves his dark master, Hextor, to his dying breath, is Evil. There is a huge, defining difference.

In conclusion, I will quote the first Core Rulebook of the Dungeons and Dragons game, 3.5 edition:
Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D
game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.
—D&D Player’s Handbook

This seems to be something that we have forgotten.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Now, in answer to the OP...Neutral Evil. :smallamused: Definitely.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-23, 07:17 PM
Man, TSR did alignments up right.

While "benign, but not pleasant, dictatorship" for NE seems a bit odd, that was the phrasing.
What they mean here by "benign" dictatorship is one in which the central government exercises absolute power, but not terribly frequently.

Lawful dictatorships, as a rule, have many laws that govern the daily interactions of its citizens. Liberty is constrained for its own sake.

Chaotic dictatorships - if they exist - are very much of the "I'm the Boss" school of leadership. The Boss does what he wants, whenever he wants - and the rest of society can do whatever.

The difference between NG and NE is how that discretionary power is used. NG dictatorships would intervene For The Greater Good, while NE dictatorships step in to exploit the underclass. Think of a NE country as a collection of self-governing fiefs that occasionally sees G-Men stop by to pick up a little extra for themselves.

I am amused that a Neutral Government is, by implication, merely a dictatorship :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2009-12-23, 07:19 PM
Well, he's only named King, otherwise it'd be a monarchy.

Guancyto
2009-12-23, 07:32 PM
This makes the assumption that people of these alignments cannot ever be subtle, cunning, or intelligent about their own behavior.

Lawful Evil doesn't always have to take the best offer. He can work far more subtly than that, working to build your trust until just the right moment. He can turn the rules of society against you while keeping it on his side and appear justified to the common folk.

Chaotic Neutral played right, does what he wants, however he has to, for himself. Nowhere in there does it say he has to act in a way that makes this blatantly obvious. Chaotic Neutral is the perfect alignment for say, a double-triple-quadtuple agent.

And yet when it comes down to it, they will both be as subtle as a tack hammer when subjected to Greater Dispel Magic -> a variety of Detection spells. And since that line of planning relies on you trusting them, well... you're going to have the opportunity.

Neutral Good is really, really effective at being as subtle as a tack hammer. And perhaps more importantly, since this is the D&D Verse if you haven't killed them already on your way up the ladder, they probably have plot armor or know people who do.

Ormur
2009-12-23, 09:55 PM
I'd tend to say Lawful Evil, the kind of societies that build death/concentration camps and have the trains transporting undesirables there arrive on time. But I'm still not quite sure it fits. Evil government that committed horrible atrocities often didn't care much for the law even if they had bureaucracies and good organization. Stalin and Hitler were revolutionary in many ways and didn't care much for laws or the status quo. Are lawful Evil government perhaps rather conservative juntas that just want to maintain the hierarchy while the charismatic dictators that want to accomplish their goals no matter what are Neutral Evil.

The law-chaos axis isn't accurate enough for me to decide. Some interpretations might say NE is complete selfishness while others say it's a complete devotion to evil goals, paying no heed to law or chaos. If it's the latter then I'd say NE. Many seem to interpret lawful as bureaucratic and preserving the status quo while others say it's just better organized, again if it's the latter then I could say LE.

CE is pretty consistently depicted though and it's that kind of individuals that I'd be most scared of individually. The random meaningless violence you might encounter in a shady neighborhood at night or ,hopefully not, in your home. It's the kind you read about and don't understand but they're still petty. You can imagine CE warlords slaughtering people for fun but they're not going to accomplish much on their own. Killing a few hundred might be fun but killing millions is a pain to organize properly.

deuxhero
2009-12-23, 10:15 PM
Here's a question - do you take motive into consideration when dealing with alignment?

For example, say you have someone obsessed with maintaining order. They commit atrocities to do so, but they don't enjoy or take pleasure from them - it's just the cost of maintaining order. LE, or LN?

The most commonly used definitions of evil involve self-benefit and self-gratification, not just committing a certain class of act. This idea lends to the image of an LE beauracrat gaming the system for all it's worth (and is also why Weird Al Yankovic's I'll Sue Ya is the LE theme song). Do the atrocities themselves make you evil, or does your motivation do so?

Selfless is "good"
Selfish is neutral.
Malice is evil.

Now the system as a whole scares me. Everyone in put in nine vaguely defined groups. THAT is a world I'm scared to live in.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-23, 10:54 PM
Selfless is "good"
Selfish is neutral.
Malice is evil.

Now the system as a whole scares me. Everyone in put in nine vaguely defined groups. THAT is a world I'm scared to live in.
Is that because labeling is frightening? Or because identifying Selflessness with Good is bad? :smallconfused:

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-23, 11:00 PM
Neutral Evil. Although that depends on your definition of Chaotic Evil - Whichever one of those would set the world on fire to see it burn.
I see Pure Evil as someonething unwilling to end the world in flames on the principle that there's got to be some way to make people suffer way more than that.


The most commonly used definitions of evil involve self-benefit and self-gratification, not just committing a certain class of act.
Selfish motivation isn't Evil motivation, though. I don't see why so many people seem to think that. It's quite simple: Evil is all about harming others, so Evil motivation is wanting to harm others. Disregard for the welfare of others is thus decidedly not Evil motivation, though it may lead to Evil acts.

Even a sadist who tortures people for fun isn't pure Evil, because he's actually motivated by pleasure. You could conceivably motivate him to commit extremely Good deeds if you could pay him with a drug that makes him feel way, way better than torturing people does.

A fiend who will toss himself into a pit of pain and fire for a century in order to get the power necessary to make others' lives extremely unpleasant -- not because he enjoys doing that, but just out of pure spite -- has a strongly Evil motivation.

But Evil motivation isn't restricted to bizarre, alien entities, sadly. Human beings are quite capable of hatred and malice. I wouldn't even call it abnormal, in the sense of most people never experiencing it. (Though I would call it uncommon, in the sense that most people aren't experiencing it right now.)


Thanks for the explanation gamerkid. I think that we have fundamentally different perceptions of how good operates, and I am a lot less cynical about it than you appear to be.
Is it not Lawful Good to want to create a perfect society -- a utopia?

Historically, how well have the attempts of people in power to create utopias gone?


Going by BoVD "letting innocents die" is an evil act.
Well, that certainly seems like an absurd standard by which the vast majority of real human beings would be Evil. I mean, have you devoted your life to saving as many innocent lives as you possibly can? I know I haven't.

In addition to labeling that "Evil", I have a problem with calling that an "act". Refraining from doing something is a form of inaction, not action.


With the PHB, its up to the DM and the players- and some play it very differently from the way it was apparently "intended" to work- going by the amount of alignment threads.
In 3.5, at least, I don't think that there was a consensus among the actual game designers in the first place. Heck, just look at the core books: The PHB makes it pretty clear that evil for evil's sake is a special case of Evil alignment, and that killing simply for your own convenience is decidedly Evil-aligned. Yet the Evil Monster Manual creatures generally seem to be outright sadistic, and simply murderous monsters generally seem to be classified as Neutral (e.g. wyverns).

The splatbooks on alignment, as I see it, represent an attempt to turn the alignment system into an at least mildly coherent classification schema. The problem was not that players failed to understand the straightforward, consistent alignment standards in the core books, but that no such standards existed in the first place!


Chaotic tyrannies aren't impossible (orc kingdoms?) but they tend to be unstable.
Orcs in 3.X do the whole "We're racist and sexist and religious and hierarchical but WE'RE CHAOTIC REALLY I SWEAR" thing that drow did in AD&D.


Ultimately, the LE character follows the law.
What if the law that this particular person holds to demands that he destroy you and everyone you know and love?

Why might this be worse than a very vindictive personal enemy motivated to do the same by an entirely personal grudge? Because the "law he holds to" bit suggests that this isn't just something that he came up with on his own; there are probably a bunch of other people who want to do the same thing...

Fenlun
2009-12-23, 11:00 PM
See, the thing that scares me about Lawful Evil is how far one is willing to go to maintain order.

Everyone has seen the Darth Vader gag-pic... "Bringing order to the universe... even is you have to choke the **** out of it

But for me its Lawful Good. I feel like you could still be "Good", yet be on some crazy, hellbent quest and wind up killing innocents in the process. If anyone remembers/has played the opening to NWN:SoU, and the Paladin's choice to kill the baby Goblin...

Inhuman Bot
2009-12-23, 11:21 PM
As jmbrown said, True Neutral, because you don't know who's side they're on. Remember that Humans are the prime example of true neutral, and look at how devious they are.

:smallconfused:

urkthegurk
2009-12-23, 11:28 PM
Frankly, the whole system scares me - because it deals in absolutes.

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.

Depends on how you play the game. Sounds like in this incarnation, there are no alignments, or at least that they represent the characters professed beliefs. I think the regular system assumes that you're using it as a measurement of the character's spiritual leanings, but you could use if for that too. If both sides cheat, steal, and all that bad stuff, and are the same, then there aren't really two sides.

In my game, there are just very few people who are good, quite a few people who are evil, and mostly people who are neutral. This is because I believe that people are inherently neutral, although they fall all along the alignment spectrum, and some are are good, and some are evil. But most are neutral. I also believe, though, that people are very corruptible, and so more of them end up descending to evil than are rising for good. In addition, the evil are more motivated to spread evil, whereas the good are actively discouraged from spreading good. They also have a tendency to look inward, preoccupied with maintaining their goodness, and thus they tend to be lax in encouraging others to goodness. Finally, the world they live in is very dark, and tends to be a very hostile environment for morality.

EDIT

I think lawful evil is a lot better than chaotic evil, if you have good laws. If you have evil laws, then it might be feasible to have a chaotic person on your side.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-23, 11:29 PM
Is that because labeling is frightening?
Quite frankly, it's been hard enough to get human beings not to be huge jerks to other human beings just for having differently colored skin or a different nation of birth. It's even worse when you bring in things that are actually voluntary and sometimes opposed to each other, like religion or political ideology.

Now imagine a world where you can detect someone's moral nature, as described by categories built into and supported by the universe itself.

Upon reflection, I think that this makes Lawful Evil extra scary in a world where alignment actually exists. It might be disturbingly easy to form a large group dedicated almost entirely to crushing everyone outside the group. Oh, sure, there might be some in-fighting, but there'd also be a strong sense of shared values. Even proving that your god of tyranny is superior to the next guy's is less important than the really big concerns like obliterating freedom. After all, the gods of tyranny themselves say so! So maybe you're not so different, after all.

Gensh
2009-12-23, 11:44 PM
It looks like the main source of arguments here is in there being a blanket system. There's nothing wrong with sorting people into nine categories, because the vast majority of people will in fact fit into those categories. There isn't really even a problem with those few wild cards that don't fit into any alignment and get stuck with neutral or chaotic neutral labels. The main problem is that there are different tiers of alignment. A person's actions and thoughts can be of completely different alignments, which can both be different from their society's alignment as a whole, which in tern can be completely different from their religion's alignment, which has no connection at all with its deity's alignment.

Let's take a well-known and rather cliched example: a cleric of Pelor. Pelor is Neutral Good because he helps people without caring for the law but without disrupting anyone. Really? How about him telling his followers to wipe out his foes without mercy? That's most assuredly a Lawful Evil act; it's the repression or killing of people who may or may not be outright Evil. Destroy all the undead! What about the Lawful Neutral cleric of Wee Jas who became a lich but rules his city justly? What if that same lich-cleric-governor also works in a soup kitchen on weekends?

That lich-cleric-governor-soup-kitchen-worker would have a multi-tiered alignment of some crazy sort: his actions are largely LN, his religious tenets debatably LN, his deity LN, but most importantly, his intentions are clearly LG. Regardless, the vast majority of Good's followers would strike him down because the lich's alignment entry says "always evil". In that case, wouldn't all of those Good deities actually be LE?

So yeah, I'm not especially fond of LG. Being Superman tends to lead to rather spectacular meltdowns at the most inopportune moments.

deuxhero
2009-12-23, 11:48 PM
Is that because labeling is frightening? Or because identifying Selflessness with Good is bad? :smallconfused:

I meant now as in starting a separate train of "thought" rather than "currently". It's frightening for the same reason The Many is.

Coidzor
2009-12-23, 11:56 PM
I meant now as in starting a separate train of "thought" rather than "currently". It's frightening for the same reason The Many is.

The Many? We're afraid we are just not picking up on that specific reference.

The main problem with talking about this problem (other than the sheer borkedness of the alignment system's cumbersome ability to incorporate outside examples as representing X or Y alignment) is that what the laws actually are in a given place seems to have too much of an impact on the lawful-chaotic aspect of people or a society. We blame the inherent problem of the name, but that's us.

Until we get to outsiders and other such elementally evil beings who don't have to worry about actual law writ, then it just goes to their psychological profile.

deuxhero
2009-12-24, 12:00 AM
"Glory to The Many. I am a voice in their choir"

(It's the loss of self, always found that to be one of the few motives of a villain that is actually disturbing instead of corny.)

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 12:02 AM
"Glory to The Many. I am a voice in their choir"

That doesn't aid us in determining your context. If it would, then we would have already gotten it by having "The Many" invoked.

Serenity
2009-12-24, 12:02 AM
Lawful Neutral, official alignment of the Knight Templar archetype. Few things are more dangerous than the man who can say "While free will exists, there can be no peace," and sincerely mean it.

urkthegurk
2009-12-24, 12:21 AM
I think I disagree with much of Schylerwalkers post:smallbiggrin:, but I think I'll simply point out...



I ALSO hate it when people go "Lawful Evil is an awesome alignment! I'm like Darth Vader; intelligent and refined, but I possess an iron fist and I can crush my enemies whenever I want." Much as I love Darth Vader, I'm not sure if he's Lawful Evil. He disobeys his Emperor's commands for his own ends; namely, protecting his son. On the other hand, he mercilessly slaughters those who oppose him.



.. that Darth Vader is CLEARLY LAWFUL EVIL and the act of defiance at the end was a sudden and unexpected character reversal for him. Sure, when you watch the movie now, you're expecting it. But when I saw that scene I was very much in awe of his suddenly developed decision-making prowess.

Also



Doing X for a Y cause is a decidedly NEUTRAL act. A paladin who breaks his comrades out of the city jail to kill the evil duke, will (RAW) IMMEDIATELY fall, because breaking the law, is, by definition, a chaotic act. As a paladin, and thus, a cut above everyone else in the department of ethics and morality, he is expected to find a way that is both GOOD and LAWFUL to achieve the goals of GOOD and LAW.

I don't think paladins are expected to follow every law, they are simply expected to be lawful. If they have sworn an oath to the law, or pledged to obey the king, then they would have to act against their nature to break that loyalty, because they believe things very strongly. But I imagine a paladin would be very careful about the philosophies of their potential leaders.

If you arrive in a town, ruled by an evil duke, you are not automatically expected to follow all laws by him, as this is unreasonable. If this was true, then a paladin would have to follow the laws of everyone, including rules made up by commoners or orcs. The only reason the rules of authority matter is because they have power vested in them, but that does not make them more lawful, just more powerful rules. A paladin could only be face with this quandary if the served the same lord or cause as the duke, in which case this is a perfectly reasonable dilemma for a LG character to go through. It is not easy for them to backstab professed allies or compatriots to a common cause, since their bonds of loyalty run so strong.

A chaotic good character, seeing their comrades corrupted in this way, would simply refuse to help them, or attack them immediately. While chaotic people can be loyal, they are usually loyal to ideals rather than people, and all their allegiances are very conditional. A bad ruler should not be followed. This is why chaotic societies tend to fall apart.

The Vorpal Tribble
2009-12-24, 12:31 AM
If I had to choose the scariest one in the D&D-verse? Neutral Good.
I'm frightening alright.

I've never understood the cool factor of evil. I'm a goody two-shoes, I admit it, I accept it, and if you mess with those I care for one of those shoes are going up your butt.

pres_man
2009-12-24, 12:34 AM
Self explanatory title, really. Which of the nine alignments do you find the scariest, and why?

True Evil (Neutral Evil)

I find evil the least understandable. Lawful and even Chaotic creatures can be predictable (or predictably unpredictable). True Evil is motivated by things I don't understand is willing to use whatever means works best for the given situation.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-24, 12:36 AM
Genzodus, a bit more along the lines you were discussing:


Every action has motivations, expectable results, and actual results. In addition, every action can be described with a verb. In the history of moral theory (a history substantively longer than human history) it has at times been contested by otherwise bright individuals that any of those (singly or collectively) could be used as a rubric to determine the rightness of an action. D&D authors agreed. With all of those extremely incompatible ideas. And the result has been an unmitigated catastrophe. Noone knows what makes an action Good in D&D, so your group is ultimately going to have to decide for yourselves. Is your action Good because your intentions are Good? Is your action Good because the most likely result of your action is Good? Is your action Good because the actual end result of that action is Good? Is your action Good because the verb that bests describes your action is in general Good? There are actually some very good arguments for all of these written by people like Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and David Wasserman – but there are many other essays that are so astoundingly contradictory and ill-reasoned that they are of less help than reading nothing. Unfortunately for the hobby, some of the essays of the second type were written by Gary Gygax.

This is not an easy question to answer. The rulebooks, for example, are no help at all. D&D at its heart is about breaking into other peoples' homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their money. That's very hard to rationalize as a Good thing to do, and the authors of D&D have historically not tried terribly hard.
- The Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=9ff89c170551b4417d4e7865a318cbbc)

golentan
2009-12-24, 12:52 AM
I think the alignment that scares me the most is lawful good. Because I agree with all the lawful good intents. I recognize the existence of evil, and oppose it as the greatest fundamental threat to the greatest number of people, and seek to oppose it in an orderly way.

And it's so easy to slip. I know, for example, that my Psych profile would put me top of the list if someone needed to be tortured. Because I have empathy, and am methodical, and if I had reason to all my empathy and kindness and desire to really help people could be forged into a weapon of malice and evil, and I know this.

Evil doesn't scare me because it's something to oppose: something to give your life meaning. Neutral doesn't scare me because it isn't trying to be harmful, and can be contained with proper policies from doing harm. Chaos doesn't scare me because I understand it to be a necessary component to any system, and not harmful in and of itself even if it is not the ideal platform for the system as a whole to be built from. Good scares me because it's so easy to say "for the greater good." It's so easy to overlook that one step in favor of what you're accomplishing. Law scares me because it can be so dogmatic it strangles out the dissenting voices and forges ahead in the most efficient manner possible, right up to the moment that it implodes.

Lawful good scares me because it's my ideal self image. My ideal world image. And I look in the mirror, every morning, and see the faces of some of the people who tread before me. And I see that I don't disagree with them on any particular point. And that their actions were still blatantly against everything I stand for. That doesn't make the ideal any less so, but it is a warning I have to keep giving myself lest I start down the left hand path.

My rule of thumb is to examine your own dream, an ideal you in an ideal world. And if you can't see the ways it can go wrong, if you can't see the hideousness lurking just beneath the smile, *you are having the wrong dream.*

belul_kegbreaker
2009-12-24, 01:00 AM
I would have to say anything lawful. No matter how hard I look I just cant find a soul in there and I've tried.

Lappy9000
2009-12-24, 01:02 AM
Honestly, truthfully, and by far, the scariest alignment is anything involving the terrible, unbearable Square. Those dudes are so dull that they'd crash a birthday party and impose their non-Funky dogma upon any hip, hop, or happenin' folks attending the bash!

The Square man lacks the awesome, the cool, and the socially poppin' aptitude that keeps society groovin' along at it's most excellent pace.

Sure, we've got those Good and Evil peeps, and neither Law nor Chaos exactly holds the get together of the year, but even a burnin', pillagin' psychopath can at least do things with style, man!

It seems to my happenin' eyes that the problem lies in the wrong questions being asked. Because in my book, the 'nine' alignments start and end at twenty-seven (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828). :smallwink:

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 01:04 AM
All of them. They all scare me. Except maybe true Neutral. True Neutral is basically the only alignment which is not absolute and its the only alignment that doesn't seem two dimensional. in a world where people are supposed to have real personalities.

golentan
2009-12-24, 01:06 AM
I would have to say anything lawful. No matter how hard I look I just cant find a soul in there and I've tried.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I also resent it.

urkthegurk
2009-12-24, 01:08 AM
All of them. They all scare me. Except maybe true Neutral. True Neutral is basically the only alignment which is not absolute and its the only alignment that doesn't seem two dimensional. in a world where people are supposed to have real personalities.

In answer to this, as well as the original question, I'd say that chaotic evil is the most scary on its own, because every chaotic evil person is pretty scary. Of all of the other alignment types, only some are scary, sometimes most, unless you are of the opposite alignment, in which case they're all scary. But chaotic evil is scary to everyone, all the time.

I'd say lawful evil, in terms of effectiveness though, but I don't find the outlook as scary as the methods, so I rank it second.

I've always felt somewhat of a kinship for the nihilistic self-serving NE, but they are pretty creepy. The thing is, I think the most evil ones are the least powerful in their social grasp, since they're so self-serving. I think its the creepiest because its the easiest one into which people can slide. You don't get to Chaotic Evil by degrees.

I find none of the Neutral ones really that scary, except at the most Axiomatic or Anarchic, which is scary, but kind of amusing. To be scary, they have to caricatures.

None of the good characters are scary, except at their most perverted. I would like to point out that most 'good' villains are actually evil, although you can certainly disagree and become enemies with a good person. Many evil things are so much more rotten because they resemble evil things. The two should not be confused.

The distinction, I think, is if the character meant to do evil. Of course, negligence in the consideration of your actions is almost as criminal as malice aforethought. But in the case of the merely stupid or pathetically unlucky, failure does not necessarily mean damnation. Simply lying to yourself or doublethink does not protect you, it is simply that sincere and earnest attempts to do good often end in horrible disasters.

This is why I think morality is very black and white. Its just not always clear what the best actions are.

Lappy9000
2009-12-24, 01:10 AM
I would have to say anything lawful. No matter how hard I look I just cant find a soul in there and I've tried.There's not supposed to be. Chaos also falls into this 'soulless' category. That's what Good and Evil are for, although neither are as funky fresh as I'd prefer :smallcool:

Shyftir
2009-12-24, 01:13 AM
Chaotic Neutral - its pretty much evil, but you can't smite it...

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 01:19 AM
Chaotic Neutral - its pretty much evil, but you can't smite it...

Y'know, we get that in real life, too. :smallwink:

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 01:48 AM
-snipety snip-

Why are Chaotic Evil characters scary for you? Because the PHB said they were supposed to be? Chaotic Evil characters are scary for me because they are required to be black-and-white dumbasses. According to the PHB, these guys are barbarians who kick things just because and rip people in half because they thought it was funny. The only Chaotic Evil Character I would consider a 'good and well written' character is the Joker from TDK.

Lawful Evil scares me not only because of its lack of dimension, but for its potential to control everything. According to the PHB all Lawful Evil characters practically have to be charismatic creatures who lead others to their own ends. Read into Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World

Neutral Evil doesn't quite scare me as much as the other two, simply because it isn't quite as rigid. It does however require that the person is ready to kill and will have no qualms ripping someone's heart out. Or their other organs. I guess Evil in general scares me because it represents a level of insensitivity that another personality means nothing to them. They think that everyone else is two dimensional and lacks a past.

Lawful Good scares me because it simply means someone who is overzealous in their pursuit of good and expects others to follow. They are really the annoying religious fanatics who protest against the production and play of D&D and other such games.

Chaotic Good scares me because it really doesn't make sense. According to the PHB, Chaotic means he doesn't follow rules and acts according to his own will. Evil has a similar description. To me, this makes them fairly interchangeable. "Chaotic Good" --> "Evil Good"? What? Of course the PHB says that they are all Robin Hood-esque characters. These are people who are overzealous and do something with it. They don't necessarily try to force their beliefs on others, but they don't necessarily respect the views of others either. They are people who can easily become evil if given enough power.

Neutral Good like Neutral Evil doesn't scare me as much as the others. Actually, maybe it doesn't scare me at all. Neutral good is the exemplar citizen I suppose. He'd be willing to help out if someone wanted, but doesn't try to force their beliefs on anyone else. I think that in addition to Neutral, I'm not scared of Neutral Good.

I agree with you that most of the arguments for being scared of Good alignments are somewhat flawed, and that once you've twisted good to the point that you're killing people to have your 'goodness' then you've become evil. But I really don't believe in black and whites. They don't seem real to me because most of the types of people that are considered 'evil' by the PHB I've only seen in movies. Gunmen, thieves and other criminals are genuinely remorseful to a certain extent. Even if there are people who have been recorded to simply lose their sensitivity for human life, there aren't many of them, and villains who are considered 'evil' oft have feelings and a past.

chiasaur11
2009-12-24, 01:56 AM
That doesn't aid us in determining your context. If it would, then we would have already gotten it by having "The Many" invoked.

The villains that ain't SHODAN from System Shock 2.

A hive minded...

Think the Borg, but fleshier and capable of emotional response, add in a religious level of commitment...

There you go. Trouble.

Zaydos
2009-12-24, 01:56 AM
Lawful Evil scares me not only because of its lack of dimension, but for its potential to control everything. According to the PHB all Lawful Evil characters practically have to be charismatic creatures who lead others to their own ends. Read into Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World
[B]


I always thought more of 1984 myself (and even Animal Farm), but yes dystopias seem about right for LE.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 01:58 AM
Those are also good examples. Although I haven't read 1984 yet *grins sheepishly*

Kelb_Panthera
2009-12-24, 02:04 AM
Unfortunately, I can see all too clearly how taking any of the nine alignments to its extreme can be pretty scary.

LG can find themselves blinded by their own armor, as the saying goes. NG can be pushovers. (note I said "can be" not "are,") CG can cause great harm in-spite of the best intentions by acting without thinking. LN can become tyrannical or bureaucratic causing harm by lack of compassion or ineffectiveness. N can cause problems for themselves, and everybody else, by trying too hard to strike a balance between the extremes, or can be completely apathetic to the entire world. CN causes problems by being inconsistent, and consequently unfair, or even entirely random. LE will create tyranny, and will harm others for their own benefit. NE shouldn't need an explanation. CE are hedonistic savages.

Mind you, that's if things are taken to extremes. In moderation even the evil alignments are tolerable.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 02:13 AM
According to you (and me), the PHB deals with alignments in extremes. Read the alignments section in the PHB and it will tell you pretty much what you've written down.

Also, to continue my rant (because it wasn't long enough already), Lawful Neutral is literally supposed to be emotionless, as nothing can sway their decisions and they decide based on what is law in their eyes. This could rule into chaotic neutral or good, or even evil. But otherwise, like the other alignments, it is immutable and one dimensional

Chaotic Neutral, like someone earlier said, is evil, without being evil. 'nuff said.

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 02:13 AM
and villains who are considered 'evil' oft have feelings and a past.

That's what makes them all the more foul. A fiend is evil due to being made out of the primeval evil of the universe, whatever that is. A human is evil due to the choices it makes with its free will. Having feelings doesn't make something not evil, it means that something has emotions. Having a past doesn't make something not evil, it means that something exists in time as well as space and is capable of remembering that which as come before.:smallconfused:


A hive minded...

Think the Borg, but fleshier and capable of emotional response, add in a religious level of commitment...

There you go. Trouble.

Thank you. Trouble indeed. :smallwink:

chiasaur11
2009-12-24, 02:17 AM
You know, the Lawful as scariest?

Read too much Pratchett for most of it to fully click. I mean, between Vetinari, Vimes, and the Assassin's guild we got LG, LN, and LE covered. And they work. I mean, sure, the concepts can go bad, but you see why, generally, they don't.

And Lord Rust shows what Lawful can do if it gets dumb and, well...

Seems easy enough to work around.

Lioness
2009-12-24, 02:17 AM
LE, because it brings to my mind an image of a cold and calculating torturer/evil genius.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 02:23 AM
Sorry, that was poorly placed. What I meant by that is that Evil characters understand morality or at least, they used to.

However, after reading through the PHB, under every evil alignment, it says that those characters lack emotion and care for human life. They practically say "Evil means one-d." That's not what I think of when I look at a villain. That's what I think of when I see the characters in a poorly written moviebookscript anything.

sonofzeal
2009-12-24, 02:25 AM
Axiomatic Vile. I use a five-point scale in each axis, which helps differentiated between merchants who like to cook the books and demons who subside on rape and slaughter.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 02:28 AM
He said nine. Not 'Which of the alignments on the five-pointed thingy scare the most?' Unless there are somehow exactly nine alignments on your five-point scale

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 02:30 AM
^: Perhaps he means 5 points or degrees with 3 being neutral on the axis, 2 and 4 being moderately aligned towards that end of the axis and 1 and 5 being wholly aligned along that end of the axis.

For example, Axiomatic, then Lawful, then Neutral, then Chaotic, and finally Anarchic? Whatever that means

Exalted, Good, Neutral, Evil, Vile would be the other, we imagine.

which would basically being honest to goodness pure evil and law combined without squishy human inconsistencies.


Sorry, that was poorly placed. What I meant by that is that Evil characters understand morality or at least, they used to.

However, after reading through the PHB, under every evil alignment, it says that those characters lack emotion and care for human life. They practically say "Evil means one-d." That's not what I think of when I look at a villain. That's what I think of when I see the characters in a poorly written moviebookscript anything.

Heh. That'd be an interesting mechanical flaw if evil barbarians couldn't get angry in order to rage because they were too cussed... Not that anyone would do that, but that the idea is amusing. 'course, neutral barbarians are like as not to be wanting to split one's head open with an axe anyway.

Humanoids and such are probably too squishy to be full paragons of any alignment though. At least real-life humans are just too inconsistent even in our... purer forms.

absolmorph
2009-12-24, 02:33 AM
He said nine. Not 'Which of the alignments on the five-pointed thingy scare the most?' Unless there are somehow exactly nine alignments on your five-point scale
He said "Lawful Evil".
Axiomatic means lawful.
Vile means evil.
He was just adding that he uses an extra scale to determine where things fall in each alignment, like he stated.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 02:34 AM
So you're saying he has exactly 45 different alignments on his scale...?

absolmorph
2009-12-24, 02:39 AM
So you're saying he has exactly 45 different alignments on his scale...?
Or 25, if Coidzor is right and I'm incorrect.
Either way, it still translates into Lawful Evil.

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 02:40 AM
^: we're not seeing how our conclusions would be intractable.
So you're saying he has exactly 45 different alignments on his scale...?

Our math says 5 * 5 = 25 alignment monikers. But yeah, more nuance (at least potentially) than our 9 alignments.

It reminded us of first of a web enhancement that suggested variances of alignment allowing something akin to being "half-good" and having mechanics reflect that.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 02:41 AM
Ah, my bad. I didn't read your post(s?) properly.

EDIT: It's still not nine though.

sonofzeal
2009-12-24, 02:59 AM
Indeed, I have 25 alignment combinations. Adding "Axiomatic", "Anarchic", "Vile", and "Exalted" allows the same basic system to have a lot more expressive power. Evil, for me, is a complete lack of empathy or concern for others, while Vile is an actual devotion to doing bad things. Vile is almost less dangerous in a way, because it tacitly acknowledges moral conventions (insofar as it deliberately sets out to violate them), while Evil discards the whole system. Or, to phrase it otherwise, Evil is amoral and Vile is antimoral. Neutral acknowledges morality but doesn't put too much weight on it (but will tend to choose it, all else being equal); Good tries to do the moral thing but frequently gets tempted or discouraged (and has day jobs); Exalted is for the paragons of goodness who live and breath morality.

Humans are rarely outside of the central nine as a general rule, though of course the ones you tend to meet in-game are often in the 1% who fall into the extremities.



Edit - and, on second thought, I'd like to change my answer to Axiomatic Evil. Vile is generally a bit too comical to really take seriously.

Maximum Zersk
2009-12-24, 03:09 AM
Hmm... Comm...Commun....Commuian? Commilian? Chameleon?! :smalleek::smallconfused:


Communal... Communist!?

Of course, it all makes sense now! The truth to it all is--

-This text has been cut out by ~%^#&(-

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-24, 03:16 AM
You should have said-- *Scrubbed*:smalltongue:

Personally, I think the D20 Modern allegiance system is the best way to go. They don't necessarily have to be alignments, they are outlooks on life that any normal human will have. And those... not so normal humans...

Atelm
2009-12-24, 03:20 AM
How evil are we talking here?

Murdering hobos off the street just because, is one clear example of said player's CN characters, who do not strike me as CN at all. Had said example character survived the swift retribution of the local law enforcement, he would've changed alignments. (Not that it would've made a difference with this person)

chiasaur11
2009-12-24, 03:21 AM
Communal... Communist!?

Of course, it all makes sense now! The truth to it all is--

-This text has been cut out by ~%^#&(-

1723... the birthdate of Adam Weishaupt!

It all ties together!

Duke of URL
2009-12-24, 07:12 AM
Any extreme; Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil. Extremes lead to fanaticism which leads to horrible, horrible results. Chaotic Good least of that bunch though; Lawful Good, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are all like to have terrible ends, but Chaotic Good can function with some luck.

I've always disagreed with categorizing the "corners" as the extremes. To me the real extremes are LN, NG, CN, and NE.

The reasoning is that I find active neutrality to be exceedingly rare. Neutrality, from my observations tends to be passive, i.e., the character doesn't really have a stand on the issue on way or another, or at least not a strong enough stand to categorize.

As such, the "edge" alignments are to me the most extreme, in that they are fixated on only one aspect of the alignment grid. The "corner" alignments are at least tempered -- a CG person wants to help people, but not at the cost of creating an ordered system to do so. A LE person wants to use and abuse others, but has limits to how far (s)he will go to do so.

But, taking a literary example, let's look at inspector Javert from Les Miserables, he's pretty much the canonical example of LN -- application of the law, regardless of justice or consequence, is his only motivation.

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 07:53 AM
Non-core definitions are non-core rules. They aren't there unless you're using them. As far as I'm concerned, this applies to alignment, too! A BoVD campaign would be different. A Savage Species campaign maybe less so.

I knew this would come up eventually.

Core rules are merely a foundation. The expansions do just that - expand upon the material to help it be applied more accurately. Contingency is a core spell, but its applications are expanded upon in Complete Arcane.

Using the "primary source" rule, we can say the books that are designed to be about alignment - BoED and BoVD - are the primary sources for what counts as good and evil in D&D. (The sections are even called "What is Good?" and "What is Evil?") In addition, other morality splatbooks (e.g. Champions of Valor and Champions of Ruin) refer to the former two as authoritative sources, lending credence to their status as primary sources.

Munchkin-Masher
2009-12-24, 08:22 AM
Lawful stupid (good).

Why? well i'm glad you asked.

Anecdote Time

And there i was Surrounded by pious paladins on all sides, What had i done wrong? I had saved this town! Why were they persecuting me? To quote Asmondeus "We have blackened ourselves so that you could remain golden". How was this behavior lawful? or good for that matter? I had to do it. We were not powerful enough! How would we have defeated them if not for the help this book gave? I may have summoned a Demon Prince inside the very walls of their temple, but how could they not see that it was necessary?

Very well, So be it. I shall pay for what i did for you, both by your hands, and by the hands of my new master...

Orcus Calls.

Edit: Also Chaotic Evil to an extent, partly because i have play one my self and it does strange things to you (see above story detailing why i played a chaotic evil character). Also partly because of this gall.
(Vlaakith if you can't tell)

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/thumb/8/8a/Vlaakith.jpg/200px-Vlaakith.jpg

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 08:25 AM
Quoting Asmodeus to paladins may not go over very well. :smalltongue:

Munchkin-Masher
2009-12-24, 08:36 AM
Quoting Asmodeus to paladins may not go over very well. :smalltongue:
:smallconfused:

Maybe that was where the plan kinda fell apart.

Ashiel
2009-12-24, 09:20 AM
according to BoED at least, Good is forgiving- a person can fall, but struggle back.

There is a lot of emphasis on forgiveness even to the evil, and helping them achieve redemption- whether its an Evil fallen hero, or some other Evil but redeemable being.

And very few beings are not redeemable.

Just thought I'd mention that, at least as far as the feats are concerned, it's not forgiving in the least, and if you do fall you will never be "that good" ever again. :smallannoyed:

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 09:24 AM
Just thought I'd mention that, at least as far as the feats are concerned, it's not forgiving in the least, and if you do fall you will never be "that good" ever again. :smallannoyed:

Not true - most of the feats allow their effects to be regained with the Atonement spell, and BoED even goes so far as to say that your deity can simply choose to restore the lost abilities without needing the spell (in the event you can't find a high-level cleric around.)

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 11:30 AM
There's only one thing in BoED for which it is "impossible to achieve that level ever again" and that's the Saint. It even references regaining exalted feats in the description-

"must have never lost benefits of exalted feats- even if they subsequently regained them"

On the subject of "Kill everything of evil alignment" the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (AD&D 1st ed) does reference the Alignment Wars, where the "Forces of Good" acted like the worst aspects of the stereotype:

page 69: A brief history of underground cultures:

Then came the great Alignment Wars. These were actually all a part of a single great conflict that spanned centuries, with occasional truces that lasted a few decades. The Alignment Wars were characterized by great interracial cooperation and intraracial combat The sides were not determined by race, but by alignment. Thus, elves, dwarves, and man of good alignment united to fight elves, dwarves, and men of evil alignment. The wars extended to the seas, where the flourishing race of kuo-toa chose to align with the forces of evil and fight against the marine creatures of good.

Over the centuries, the forces of good slowly drove back their evil foes. Hatred and slaughter prevailed as evil creatures were slain solely on the basis of their alignment. Great battles were fought, and eventually the remanants of the forces of evil had to acknowledge complete defeat. Bitterly, these survivors sought shelter underground and prepared for a final battle. The drow elves and gray dwarves (or duergar) moved underground in great numbers. The skills they had developed through centuries of warfare helped them overcome the prior inhabitants of the underground.

Likewise, the kuo-toa moved under the surfaces of the seas and into subterranean waterways to escape the genocide of the Alignment Wars. Tired of the unceasing conflict, the victors abandoned their pursuit of the vanquished. Soon, the grand alliance faded, and once again new sources of evil appeared on the surface. Today, little evidence remains that the forces of good once held sway over the entire surface world.

I suspect that the "genocide is OK if your victims are evil" attitude that seems common in some of the discussions, may stem from this sort of thing.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 11:53 AM
Lawful Evil by far. It's really not even a contest. As others have said before, efficient, meticulous, orderly evil that is coherent and effective about achieving its ends.

Stalin and Hitler are far more terrifying than any Patrick Bateman I know of.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-24, 11:56 AM
Y'know, I don't get why everyone is convinced that CE is composed of a bunch of low-IQ psychopaths who wear the bloodstains on their sleeve (right next to their Doomsday Watch). I've played perfectly genteel, urbane CE characters who were philosophically opposed to the idea of law and order. I've played CE characters who, if they were to restrain their methods, might have been CG - disgusted with corrupt laws and greedy beauracrats, they began random, but pointed killing sprees, determined to bring about political change on the end of a blade if they had to.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 12:00 PM
yes- you can have functioning CE communities in D&D.

The aforementioned Survival guide points out that, chaotic or not, all cultures in the Underdark put a lot of focus on discipline, in personal habits and social lives, and the chaotic-ness manifests itself in large-group organization and coordination.

You can be chaotic and have self-discipline in dealing with others.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 12:00 PM
Y'know, I don't get why everyone is convinced that CE is composed of a bunch of low-IQ psychopaths who wear the bloodstains on their sleeve (right next to their Doomsday Watch). I've played perfectly genteel, urbane CE characters who were philosophically opposed to the idea of law and order. I've played CE characters who, if they were to restrain their methods, might have been CG - disgusted with corrupt laws and greedy beauracrats, they began random, but pointed killing sprees, determined to bring about political change on the end of a blade if they had to.

Patrick Bateman was not a low-IQ psychopath; in fact he was highly intelligent, and many serial killers who could be readily considered as CE possess this quality. He was also able to assume a genteel charming veneer, which is actually something he actively exploited to slaughter his victims. The thing is that CE characters are much less predisposed to work within, exploit and corrupt the system to become an instrument of great evil, and this is historically how the greatest, most far reaching atrocities have always been committed.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 12:11 PM
Waterdeep: City of Splendours has an interesting CE villain who is a fallen paladin- he refuses to admit he's fallen, never tells an outright lie (but misleads plenty of times) and is a long way from Belkar-type CE characters.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 12:19 PM
Yup- doesn't mean humans are more commonly LE, but its something to think about.

the "God of cities" the other human-centric deity listed, is NG though.

It does seem like LE is on average scarier, because it tends to be more efficient, and better at getting and holding on to power.

Lord_Gareth
2009-12-24, 12:31 PM
The Color Wheel Alignment System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7566350#post7566350)

P.E.A.C.H. appreciated ^_^

Falconer
2009-12-24, 12:42 PM
Really, the whole point of these sort of discussions is less how actual characters of that alignment act, and more how we, as players, would perceive the "archetypical" character of that alignment to behave. So yes, it's completely possible to have a CE character that is civil, charismatic, likable, etc. But that's not the archetype. At least to me (though I think others share this also) the archetypical CE character is completely bat^#@& insane. They kill because they get giggles out of it. They burn villages and torture people because they rather like the sound of innocents screaming in agony. And nothing more than that.

Chaotic Evil is the scariest alignment to me, not only because the archetypical CE character is completely, unrepentantly, horrifically evil, but they really don't care. Unlike Lawful Evil villains, who generally, in my mind, are at least trying to accomplish something that you or I might want, however absurd or wicked. Become dictator of the world, get as much money as possible, kill this particular person. You can relate to them more, because they can be placated. They can be reasoned with. But a deeply Chaotic Evil character, in the end, only has one motivation: It's fun!

@ Lord Gareth: The color wheel, however, is also very cool. My compliments.

Merry Christmas,
-Falconer

Fawsto
2009-12-24, 12:57 PM
This; although I've mentioned it to my own players, one of them consistently takes the CN alignment as a freeway ticket to acting however they want, which has at times led to said player's characters acting more evil than the "officially" evil members of the party. :smallsigh:

Welcome to my world... Damn all the Cleptomanyac CN rogues...

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 01:01 PM
CE can be just as dangerous, if not moreso. Unpredictable, difficult to reason with, thus difficult to anticipate. The Joker (particularly Heath Ledger's version in Dark Knight) shows how a CE can be outgunned and still gain the upper hand.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 01:16 PM
CE can be just as dangerous, if not moreso. Unpredictable, difficult to reason with, thus difficult to anticipate. The Joker (particularly Heath Ledger's version in Dark Knight) shows how a CE can be outgunned and still gain the upper hand.

And yet, even assuming everything the Joker did (Heath's) was completely plausible and could happen IRL (comic book incarnation isn't really worth mentioning, assuming a setting of realism), it is still less than child's play compared to the worst that LE schemers, dictators and tyrants have continuously achieved over the course of human history.

CE have the advantage of being unpredictable, but the disadvantage of their own nature inevitably interfering with the upper limits of their potential to do evil, which almost unwaveringly requires systematic far reaching manipulation and exploitation of others.

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 01:31 PM
And yet, even assuming everything the Joker did (Heath's) was completely plausible and could happen IRL (comic book incarnation isn't really worth mentioning, assuming a setting of realism), it is still less than child's play compared to the worst that LE schemers, dictators and tyrants have continuously achieved over the course of human history.

CE have the advantage of being unpredictable, but the disadvantage of their own nature inevitably interfering with the upper limits of their potential to do evil, which almost unwaveringly requires systematic far reaching manipulation and exploitation of others.

In the real world, it is impossible for individuals to approach the level of power that an organized group can accomplish. That is why LE has proven superior in our history.

In D&D, however, individuals can achieve extraordinary levels of power even without counting on an organization. Take Garagos in the Forgotten Realms - the other gods fear him and stay out of his way as much as possible. No Lawful deity has come close to matching that kind of reaction.

In addition, you are ascribing Evil's tendency to be self-defeating primarily to CE, without realizing that it applies to LE just as effectively. While an LE organization may stand the test of time, the man in charge of it is often frequently and violently replaced. LE plots and schemes, yes, but it is just as apt to turn that scheming against itself (as the Lords of the Nine do in 3.5) as it is to turn them outward to non-evil beings.

I agree with you that CE being weaker than LE has invariably been the case in the real world's history, but not that the same should automatically apply to D&D as a result.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 01:34 PM
In the real world, it is impossible for individuals to approach the level of power that an organized group can accomplish. That is why LE has proven superior in our history.

In D&D, however, individuals can achieve extraordinary levels of power even without counting on an organization. Take Garagos in the Forgotten Realms - the other gods fear him and stay out of his way as much as possible. No Lawful deity has come close to matching that kind of reaction.

In addition, you are ascribing Evil's tendency to be self-defeating primarily to CE, without realizing that it applies to LE just as effectively. While an LE organization may stand the test of time, the man in charge of it is often frequently and violently replaced. LE plots and schemes, yes, but it is just as apt to turn that scheming against itself (as the Lords of the Nine do in 3.5) as it is to turn them outward to non-evil beings.

I agree with you that CE being weaker than LE has invariably been the case in the real world's history, but not that the same should automatically apply to D&D as a result.

I was careful to qualify a setting of realism.

In D&D yes, the difference is obviously less pronounced, due to the relative ease with which massive individual power is acquired as you've mentioned. Even so though, I would still have to give the edge to LE, because several superpowered individuals working more or less coherently together is still generally more effective and dangerous than several free lancer CE powerhouses.

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 01:42 PM
a CE organization, with all members working toward a goal, is not impossible in D&D.

There will be a bit less overall direction, and a bit of backstabbing, but backstabbing is not unique to CE- LE factions can end up with this as well.

"world-shaking plots" can be led by CE villlains as well as LE ones- however the CE villain needs to rely on fear and intimidation even more than a LE one to keep followers in line.

Demogorgon, Iggwilv, Tchazzar, Lolth, D&D villains can do quite a lot despite being Chaotic.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 01:44 PM
True, although such groups are inherently, and substantially less stable, which is a pretty big disadvantage.

Optimystik
2009-12-24, 02:47 PM
And NE trumps them both IMO - See also: Shar.

Able to integrate with - and exploit - either ethical extreme of Evil routinely makes them very deadly. Worse, they can take the best aspects of both - the planning and organization of Law, with the autonomy and diversity of Chaos.

urkthegurk
2009-12-24, 03:06 PM
Sheesh, I wish everyone would stop bashing CN characters. Some of my best friends are CN characters. I might turn out to be chaotic neutral.

The thing about the alignment is its one of the least clearly defined, by definition, and therefore confused people who misunderstand the alignment system have a tendency to gravitate towards it. It has all the wild cards, and some of those wild cards are munchkins. It attracts that kind of player.

True-to-spirit examples of the CN alignment, such as Conan, Captain Jack Sparrow,and Tyler Durden are complex, even lyrical, although they can certainly be frightening. But they are nowhere near as evil as Evil.


Also:

True, although such groups are inherently, and substantially less stable, which is a pretty big disadvantage.

Its also kind of an advantage, since unpredictability can make for a dangerous opponent.


And NE trumps them both IMO - See also: Shar.

Able to integrate with - and exploit - either ethical extreme of Evil routinely makes them very deadly. Worse, they can take the best aspects of both - the planning and organization of Law, with the autonomy and diversity of Chaos.

Of course, a NE character is just as likely to backstab as to work together. A CE person, you know they'll get you if they get the chance, but NE... pretends to be your friend. I think this makes them less effective in an organization, but more dangerous as an acquaintance.

taltamir
2009-12-24, 03:11 PM
chaotic neutral is telling them DM "stop telling me what my character will or will not do according to his morals"

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 03:11 PM
Murdering hobos off the street just because, is one clear example of said player's CN characters, who do not strike me as CN at all. Had said example character survived the swift retribution of the local law enforcement, he would've changed alignments. (Not that it would've made a difference with this person)

*snrk* He should've been organizing a hobo fighting league for fun and profit instead. It incidentally insures them some manner of income/sustenance while at the same time exploiting them in an utterly pointless entertainment extravaganza, but that should still turn a profit.

Surrealistik
2009-12-24, 03:31 PM
And NE trumps them both IMO - See also: Shar.

Able to integrate with - and exploit - either ethical extreme of Evil routinely makes them very deadly. Worse, they can take the best aspects of both - the planning and organization of Law, with the autonomy and diversity of Chaos.

I'm not so sure, because in balance, I see Chaos detracting in total more than contributing. If one makes the assumption that NE is a seamless integration of only the best, and not the worst of both sides, yes, NE trumps, but in truth NE inherits the weaknesses also. While a better "opponent" for the title of scariest alignment in a DnD setting than CE, I'm not convinced that NE actually IS the most fearsome between it and LE.

Curmudgeon
2009-12-24, 03:44 PM
Chaotic good. Chaos is never good.

onthetown
2009-12-24, 03:55 PM
True Neutral is a little unnerving for me. I like to know exactly where people stand, and it sounds like an alignment that would never let me know where you do. I don't like the idea of constantly "swinging", as my DM once said.

Talking in D&D terms, I find most of the Neutral X alignments to be difficult to play and it actually makes me frustrated to try it. The characters I have the easiest (and most fun) playing are Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil. :smallwink:

golentan
2009-12-24, 04:14 PM
Chaotic good. Chaos is never good.

That's simply untrue. I'm so lawful I wish I could give up free will (my own, not others). I include chaos in all my plans because: they work better that way. By being systematically unpredictable in one's planning, you triumph over foes who are less rapid at adaptation. Chaotic good is the Reset button on Lawful structures should they fail to accomplish their basic purpose. Revolution may put in power someone who you might prefer not be, but it gets rid of the evils that exist (a sometimes necessary task). A bit of Anarchy, or freedoms for freedoms' sake, both reminds people why they submit to the law and lets them vent some steam in whatever harmless way they choose.

Chaos is both a weapon against one's foes and an integral part of a stable system. It's only bad in and of itself when you let it spread too far and destabilize other parts of the system, or when you try to remove it and thus make it your foe. Otherwise, it is a tremendous and wonderful source of inspiration and critique, which allows you to fine tune your structure and prevent it from ossifying. I'm not fond of it, but I'm not going to dispute its efficacy just because I disagree with some of the philosophical fundaments.

Coidzor
2009-12-24, 04:28 PM
I'm not fond of it, but I'm not going to dispute its efficacy just because I disagree with some of the philosophical fundaments.

<_< We think you might have missed the point of Planescape though. :smallamused:

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 04:34 PM
True Neutral is a little unnerving for me. I like to know exactly where people stand, and it sounds like an alignment that would never let me know where you do. I don't like the idea of constantly "swinging", as my DM once said.

2nd ed True Neutral could be a bit like that. in 3rd ed though, it became more "unaligned" so to speak. They stand for themselves and their kin, but not really against anyone- unless they see that being's behaviour as a threat. Then they are more likely to stand against it.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-24, 04:37 PM
Lawful good, nuff said.
No, it's not "nuff". I require more explaination.


Frankly, the whole system scares me - because it deals in absolutes.

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.
I consider those bad players that doesn't know how alignment works in D&D. As someone said in the forum once: "Good is not just (evil) * -1"

I always compare alignment with characters from comic books. LG? Captain America, Superman. LE? Doctor Doom, Lex Luthor. CE? Joker, hands down.
NG and CG are usually a blurry on what's what, since those two brush together so easily (probably one of the reasons 4E simplified the system).
True neutral could be the Phantom Walker (though he still pulls towards LG), and LN would be any of the typical "no-emotions" law enforcers (I AM THE LAW!)

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 04:39 PM
I do that occasionally.

I think one of the reviewers of True Blood did that- suggesting Sookie was CG and Bill was LN:

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

See the bottom of the page.

taltamir
2009-12-24, 05:56 PM
imagine, IRL, meeting a person who playes one of the 9 stereotypes to a T... each and every one of them would be utterly terrifying...

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 05:58 PM
What would be especially terrifying about a "typical PHB Neutral Good"?

Except in campaigns which take an "any being with an Evil alignment can be killed on sight" which is a bit atypical.

taltamir
2009-12-24, 06:01 PM
Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

you don't see anything terrifying about such a person?

hamishspence
2009-12-24, 06:05 PM
I said Neutral Good, not True Neutral.

taltamir
2009-12-24, 06:08 PM
I said Neutral Good, not True Neutral.

you know what, in retrospect that one is actually ok as written... problem arise with the DnD implementation of "good kills evil because that is good"... so the neutral good has nothing scary in its own description (unlike the other 8, yes even chaotic good and lawful good), it still goes around murdering anyone it deems "evil".

onthetown
2009-12-24, 06:50 PM
imagine, IRL, meeting a person who playes one of the 9 stereotypes to a T... each and every one of them would be utterly terrifying...

You can meet people like that. Sometimes it's because of their job, sometimes it's because of a mental disorder, sometimes it's just their personality. The 9 alignments basically just sum up different ways that people act and react. I've met a few people who could be statted and written up on a character sheet, for crying out loud. One was lawful good, to a T. She was an outspoken political activist; she spoke the truth no matter what because she was convinced nobody else would; she would vehemently enter any debate for the greater good and would try very, very hard to persuade us onto her side, going so far as to threaten us with justice and courts and whatnot because we weren't "conducive to society's best interests" and we belonged in a prison cell for our beliefs. The friendship obviously didn't last long.

She was a very extreme example of a lawful good person. I have met one other person who could be classified as lawful good, and she was much quieter about her beliefs but still did whatever she could to help any good soul out and rat out anybody's wrongdoings. We like her better.

It just depends on how severely you're attached to your morals.

taltamir
2009-12-24, 06:51 PM
liked or not... did you ever FEAR her?
I would... such people are dangerous.

plus, if she never killed anyone "evil", then is she really lawful good by D&D standards?

onthetown
2009-12-24, 06:55 PM
liked or not... did you ever FEAR her?
I would... such people are dangerous.

plus, if she never killed anyone "evil", then is she really lawful good by D&D standards?

Killing people, no matter how evil they are, isn't accepted by our society here in Canada. She did whatever she could to speak out against their actions and involved herself in a lot of troubling cases to try to bring the "evil" person down, but we haven't been raised to believe that killing is right.

We thought it was kind of a cute obsession at first. Then we were annoyed. Then, when she got to the threats, we were sort of... unnerved. That's when we decided it would be best if we didn't speak anymore.

I consider myself a lawful person, but let the courts handle things. She reeeeally needed to start seeing the gray area of things rather than lashing out.

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 03:38 PM
you know what, in retrospect that one is actually ok as written... problem arise with the DnD implementation of "good kills evil because that is good"....

Only in some versions. In most, there needs to be more than just "evil" - such as "trying to kill people".

Not everyone runs with simply "good kills evil because that is good"- and the PHB doesn't support it, though it doesn't deny it either.

Other sources explicitly state that there needs to be a better reason than "evil alignment" to kill someone, but get criticized by people for various reasons.