Alignment System

[Drolyt]

Edit: Nobody really likes this. I have to agree with them after some thought. My idea was to simplify the system but allow for more flexibility in interpreting the alignments (eg Lawful Good doesn't mean you always have to follow the law). Instead I think there are only really 3 good solutions: Do away with alignment, expand on it and actually make it more complex, or use a completely different system from what exists in D&D 3.5. End Edit. Alright, I've been thinking that to make the alignment system a little more sensible why not drop out all the "in-between" alignments, aka the neutral alignments? You would be left with Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil, and then Unaligned. Some campaigns will have a "True Neutral", which would be different from Unaligned in that it actively seeks balance, but I don't think it's appropriate for most campaigns (though you would need it for Planescape). Here's my reasoning: Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is. Lawful Good is clearly a Good Character that puts an emphasis on legitimate authority, and Neutral Good is someone who is just plain Good, not caring about authority. So what is Chaotic Good? It can't be someone who actively fights against legitimate authority, since that goes against the concept of Good. It is someone who thinks that freedom is more important than legitimate authority, but how is that different from Neutral Good? Since Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are essentially the same, I think it's better to axe the Neutral part so as to maintain the Dichotomy between Law and Chaos. As for Neutral Evil, the definition is simply self-serving. I don't see how that is different from Chaotic Evil, except for the fact that many people seem to define Chaotic Evil as insane, which is odd since to me insane would imply Unaligned the same way Animals are Unaligned, they can't reason for themselves. Lawful Evil implies at least some respect for custom and tradition, and perhaps some level of honor, but again, it makes more sense to axe Neutral Evil. As for Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, these make more sense to keep, but in the end they usually end up either being played as Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid, or Lawful Neutral is played like Lawful Good/Evil while Chaotic Neutral is just played as Neutral. In the end both Neutral and Chaotic Neutral make more sense as Unaligned, while Lawful Neutral is rarely played satisfactorily and would mess up the dichotomies of this system. What does everyone think? Do you prefer the traditional Alignment system, no alignment system, 4th Edition Alignment? Comments are welcome.

[Drolyt]

Reserved for future use.

[mummy162]

This is basically the 4E alignment system, which I hate. There are two problems with it:


This makes it harder to have alignment requirements. It eliminates alignment options for such classes as bard and druid. Unless you want to get rid of alignment requirements altogether, you need neutral.
Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all very distinct. Lawful Neutral characters are the judges and moderators of the alignment system, not caring for morality, only justice. True Neutral obviously is Neutral towards everything. Chaotic Neutral characters don't care much one way or another towards other people, and disregard the law. Lawful Evil are the tyrants, Neutral Evil the servants of death, and Chaotic Evil pure slaughtering machines.

[Drolyt]

This is basically the 4E alignment system, which I hate. There are two problems with it:


This makes it harder to have alignment requirements. It eliminates alignment options for such classes as bard and druid. Unless you want to get rid of alignment requirements altogether, you need neutral.
Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all very distinct. Lawful Neutral characters are the judges and moderators of the alignment system, not caring for morality, only justice. True Neutral obviously is Neutral towards everything. Chaotic Neutral characters don't care much one way or another towards other people, and disregard the law. Lawful Evil are the tyrants, Neutral Evil the servants of death, and Chaotic Evil pure slaughtering machines.


Well... your descriptions of Neutral and Chaotic Neutral don't seem very different to me. As for your description of Chaotic Evil, why can't those be classified as Neutral Evil? Why can't servants of death be Chaotic Evil? Also, how are pure slaughtering machines realistic? Like I said above, Lawful Neutral is the one I wasn't sure about, but I think most unaligned people are into traditions anyways. Thing is, why would you serve the law if you don't care about good or evil? Purely lawful and purely chaotic just make no sense to me, it doesn't seem like things people would fight for. Although to be honest Evil doesn't seem like something anyone would actually seek, I usually think of evil as self serving and good as helping others. A Paladin of good makes sense. Of law? Of chaos? Of evil? I don't get it. And yeah I'm not into alignment requirements.

[pyrefiend]

Your system seems to assume that characters who are neutrally aligned on the law-chaos axis have no regard for authority, but that's not true. Neutral characters follow legitimate authority when it serves them to do so. Lawful characters tend to follow authority even when it doesn't serve them, and Chaotic characters tend to not follow authority even when it doesn't serve them to do so.

Thus lawful neutralstrictly follows authority, true neutral generally follows authority, and chaotic neutral does not follow authority.

Also, a chaotic evil person is not necessarily a murderous berserker.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:


Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.

[pyrefiend]

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:


Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.


I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.

[Vemynal]

* Lawful Neutral - The Law above all else (even good or evil)
* True Neutral - I think Roy's sis said it best, "I go both ways"
* Chaotic Neutral - Personal freedom above all else (different from chaotic good in my mind because Chaotic good will only use good methods while Chaotic neutral might protest or might bomb civilians)

* Lawful Evil - I am the law
* Neutral Evil - Observes laws that benefit themselves while ignoring laws that don't
*Chaotic Evil - My personal freedom above all else (likely to make that bomb and will enjoy killing those innocent people)

and just because I love it so much:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s18/Vemynal_photo/lol%20folder/alignmentsuperheroes.jpg

[Agi Hammerthief]

I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.

are they incorrect to the point where they are not a valid point against the OPs sentiment that


Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is
??

its a long way from "Nobodo Knows" to "People Don't Agree"

the examples I've given are the extreme corners of each alignment
chaotic good starts with disobedience and has active oposition at the far end.

I seen the Neutrals as a narrow band in the middle,
like the bit of the seasaw that doesn't see any up or down, even though all the motion goes through it.

[Drolyt]

Answering everyone in order:

Your system seems to assume that characters who are neutrally aligned on the law-chaos axis have no regard for authority, but that's not true. Neutral characters follow legitimate authority when it serves them to do so. Lawful characters tend to follow authority even when it doesn't serve them, and Chaotic characters tend to not follow authority even when it doesn't serve them to do so.

Thus lawful neutralstrictly follows authority, true neutral generally follows authority, and chaotic neutral does not follow authority.

Also, a chaotic evil person is not necessarily a murderous berserker.
I suppose my problem with this is that I don't see Chaotic characters as not following authority, I see them as following authority so long as it suits their purposes, but not placing any inherent value in it. That is, unless they are insane a Chaotic Good character will see the value of a good political system, but they believe that freedom and justice are more important. By contrast a Lawful Good character thinks that legitimate, emphasis on legitimate, authority is more important than individual freedom. You could argue Neutral good is an in between, but I don't think its necessary.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:

* Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
* Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
* Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.

That's insane. Oppression is not good. I don't think that scheme works at all.

I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.
See, you aren't giving any tangible differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Or at the very least I'm not understanding them.

??

its a long way from "Nobodo Knows" to "People Don't Agree"

the examples I've given are the extreme corners of each alignment
chaotic good starts with disobedience and has active oposition at the far end.

I seen the Neutrals as a narrow band in the middle,
like the bit of the seasaw that doesn't see any up or down, even though all the motion goes through it.
I have to agree with you on one point, I should not have put "Nobody Knows". However, nobody agrees on it. My problem with the neutrals isn't that they can't be used effectively, its just that they are so much harder to define than the extreme alignments that I don't' think they serve a useful purpose in the game.
Edit: Am I to take the lack of support to mean nobody likes it, or simply that anybody who likes it didn't post?

[Harperfan7]

Does the PHB just not make it clear enough?

LG - works for LG, LN, and NG
NG - works for LG, NG, and CG
CG - works with NG, CG, and CN

A lawful character won't work for a chaotic purpose.
A chaotic character won't work for a lawful purpose.

Are you saying there isn't anybody who would work for either, as long as good comes from it?

[Agi Hammerthief]

nobody agrees on it.
My problem with the neutrals isn't that they can't be used effectively, its just that they are so much harder to define than the extreme alignments that I don't' think they serve a useful purpose in the game.
look at my example of the seesaw:

the part that is definitely UP is connected via the middle to the part that is definitely DOWN

the path between UP and Down is gradual, and I guess most players agree that the transition from GOOD to EVIL / CHAOS to LAWFUL also gradual

so per definition, in order to have a gradual transition you need a bit in the middle.


what we are lacking is just an agreement on where the part (alignment) we call middle (NEUTRAL) starts.
How much disobedience of a "Neutral" PC makes him Chaotic, when does adherence to Laws make him lawful?

IMO this lack of agrement is no excuse to go lazy and cut it out the neutral midle entirely
this breaks the alignment system just as sure an you break a seesaw by cutting the through the plank.

[Drolyt]

Does the PHB just not make it clear enough?

LG - works for LG, LN, and NG
NG - works for LG, NG, and CG
CG - works with NG, CG, and CN

A lawful character won't work for a chaotic purpose.
A chaotic character won't work for a lawful purpose.

Are you saying there isn't anybody who would work for either, as long as good comes from it?

I'm saying that both LG and CG would work for either as long as good comes of it.
Got Ninja'd:

look at my example of the seesaw:

the part that is definitely UP is connected via the middle to the part that is definitely DOWN

the path between UP and Down is gradual, and I guess most players agree that the transition from GOOD to EVIL / CHAOS to LAWFUL also gradual

so per definition, in order to have a gradual transition you need a bit in the middle.


what we are lacking is just an agreement on where the part (alignment) we call middle (NEUTRAL) starts.
How much disobedience of a "Neutral" PC makes him Chaotic, when does adherence to Laws make him lawful?

IMO this lack of agrement is no excuse to go lazy and cut it out the neutral midle entirely
this breaks the alignment system just as sure an you break a seesaw by cutting the through the plank.
I thought of the transition problem too. I think, however, that pretty much everyone leans to one side or the other. I have unaligned there, though in my mind that's for people in between good and evil. Thing is the moral axis is much more grounded in real life, the ethical axis is not how humans in the real world behave. There are people who devote themselves to good, and people who are genuinely evil (or at least misguided), but no one "devotes" themselves to chaos or law. Those who believe law is best for the people and act on it are almost certainly lawful good, or (if they are Well-Intentioned Extremists) Lawful Evil. Those who favor law but don't act on it are simply unaligned. My point is if you don't act on your beliefs you are unaligned/neutral, but if you do you are either seeking self interest (and are therefore evil), or for a higher cause (and are therefore good). So in my mind Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral make no sense.

[Zexion]

Just to clear up alignment:

Lawful
Predictable in which that they have a certain way of doing things, that does not infringe on the law. Follows the spirit of agreements, not the actual legal wording.
Neutral
Will obviously like his neighbors following the law, but sometimes will exploit loopholes in agreements and... yeah.
Chaotic
Believes in free expression. NOT an average guy. Usually believes in a form of law where everyone has their voice heard.

[Jane_Smith]

You said yourself;


I suppose my problem with this is that I don't see Chaotic characters as not following authority

Thus your issues with the alignment system are your own opinion - do as you will.

I for one dislike this idea. Personally - the only alignment system I have truely enjoyed isnt an alignment system at all. Toss all alignment based feats, spells, etc, or remodel them, and use the d20 modern allegiance system. To me, having your top 3 priorties in life listed seems more important then stating if your lawful stupid or chaotic moronic. :smallamused:

[Drolyt]

You said yourself;



Thus your issues with the alignment system are your own opinion - do as you will.

I for one dislike this idea. Personally - the only alignment system I have truely enjoyed isnt an alignment system at all. Toss all alignment based feats, spells, etc, or remodel them, and use the d20 modern allegiance system. To me, having your top 3 priorties in life listed seems more important then stating if your lawful stupid or chaotic moronic. :smallamused:

First off, what I meant is that I don't think Chaotic characters defy authority for the sake of defying authority; that's just suicidal. Rather they simply value their own freedom above legitimate authority. I also like to emphasize the legitimate part since I don't think Lawful characters have to bow down to authority they think is wrong. As for the rest of your post, I more or less agree. I especially don't like spells like "Detect Evil". How can a spell know whether someone is evil? Evil has to do with your choices, it isn't something you are. I simply presented this system as a possible variant of the alignment system, used as a tool for roleplaying, but I agree that effects that rely on alignment need to be chopped into tiny pieces and burned.

Somehow missed a post:

Lawful
Predictable in which that they have a certain way of doing things, that does not infringe on the law. Follows the spirit of agreements, not the actual legal wording.
Neutral
Will obviously like his neighbors following the law, but sometimes will exploit loopholes in agreements and... yeah.
Chaotic
Believes in free expression. NOT an average guy. Usually believes in a form of law where everyone has their voice heard.
That makes more sense, but it doesn't seem to be what other people are arguing.

[pyrefiend]

See, you aren't giving any tangible differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Or at the very least I'm not understanding them.
I was just responding to Hammerthief's analysis, that wasn't meant to be a concrete definition of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Anyway, what's wrong with the definition I gave before?

[Drolyt]

I was just responding to Hammerthief's analysis, that wasn't meant to be a concrete definition of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Anyway, what's wrong with the definition I gave before?

Because Lawful characters don't follow authority if they don't believe it is legitimate, and Chaotic characters are fine with following authority when it suits them. True anarchists are insane, as are those who insist on following the law no matter how corrupt.

[Harperfan7]

So, Drolyt, you're saying that the LG would help the CGs work against the LN to help bring in a system thats CG?

I see what you are saying, and I agree that LG and CG would team up against a LE, but theres more shades of grey to deal with, and thats why you need NG.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I especially don't like spells like "Detect Evil". How can a spell know whether someone is evil?
one word: MAGIC

[Drolyt]

So, Drolyt, you're saying that the LG would help the CGs work against the LN to help bring in a system thats CG?

I see what you are saying, and I agree that LG and CG would team up against a LE, but theres more shades of grey to deal with, and thats why you need NG.

I would assume that a LG character would prefer a CG system to a Non-Good system of any flavor, even LN. As for the shades of grey, I guess I'm not sure. I think my system is simpler and the alignments are easier to define, but I'm not set in stone about it, it was just an idea. My problem is how to make the system more concrete and sensible, since it is currently neither. Edit: I mean the current D&D system, not the system in the first post (although that probably qualifies too).

[Harperfan7]

I would assume that a LG character would prefer a CG system to a Non-Good system of any flavor, even LN. As for the shades of grey, I guess I'm not sure. I think my system is simpler and the alignments are easier to define, but I'm not set in stone about it, it was just an idea. My problem is how to make the system more concrete and sensible, since it is currently neither.

Well, good luck.

[sscheib]

This is how I've viewed it (in terms of comic book characters, for reference).

Lawful Good: Superman. Superman never breaks the law, no matter what.
Neutral Good: Captain America. He respects law and abides by it, but when it crosses a boundary, he will fight back.
Chaotic Good: The Punisher. The Punisher actively breaks the law by murdering criminals. In fact, the Punisher is actually enemies with heroes like Daredevil because he breaks the law in such a big way.

A lawful good character is bound to the law unconditionally.
A neutral good character will follow the law so long as it doesn't go against what he believes to be right.
A chaotic good character actively works against the law. They have no respect for law, but they still do good things.

The Punisher is a good person at heart, he just kills a whole bunch of people.
Superman is a good person, but he just won't break the law.

That being said, I'd say there are relatively few Lawful/Chaotic Good characters. A majority of characters would realistically be Neutral Good because it's the gray area.

[Drolyt]

This is how I've viewed it (in terms of comic book characters, for reference).

Lawful Good: Superman. Superman never breaks the law, no matter what.
Neutral Good: Captain America. He respects law and abides by it, but when it crosses a boundary, he will fight back.
Chaotic Good: The Punisher. The Punisher actively breaks the law by murdering criminals. In fact, the Punisher is actually enemies with heroes like Daredevil because he breaks the law in such a big way.

A lawful good character is bound to the law unconditionally.
A neutral good character will follow the law so long as it doesn't go against what he believes to be right.
A chaotic good character actively works against the law. They have no respect for law, but they still do good things.

The Punisher is a good person at heart, he just kills a whole bunch of people.
Superman is a good person, but he just won't break the law.

That being said, I'd say there are relatively few Lawful/Chaotic Good characters. A majority of characters would realistically be Neutral Good because it's the gray area.

I'm not certain I'd call The Punisher good, but I'm not a comics expert. If your explanations of the alignments are correct then no sane person should be Lawful or Chaotic. Honestly at this point I'm convinced it makes more sense to just drop the alignment system.

[pyrefiend]

I'm not certain I'd call The Punisher good, but I'm not a comics expert. If your explanations of the alignments are correct then no sane person should be Lawful or Chaotic. Honestly at this point I'm convinced it makes more sense to just drop the alignment system.

Eventually, all of these debates lead to this same conclusion.

[Drolyt]

Eventually, all of these debates lead to this same conclusion.

In my experience though a lot of people complain if you do away with alignment. What should a DM/GM do then? What about published settings?

[NemoUtopia]

True anarchists may or may not be insane. As might those who espouse terrorism and other evils including anything from genocide to unfair legal systems. The problem with this is that, in true representation of humanity, everyone views the 3.0/3.5 alignment system in at least slightly different ways. I challenge those who say that the system goes too far into saying that the system does not go far enough. Much like a survey system, it would be better as at least a 7 point (I think 9 is about right) system on each axis:
Zealously L - Strongly L - Moderately L - N - Moderately C - Strongly C - Zealously C
Do the same for good and evil. The simple truth is that most people fall in the 'moderately - moderately' cross, but does not disallow strong alignments. It also means alignment change over time is much easier than trying to decide when a lifelong Cleric of Heironeous changes from LE and migrates up towards CG as a reaction to his old lifestyle. It's much easier to determine with the sliding rating. For the purposes of the system, this creates a 9x9 grid with 81 squares: each DnD 3.0/3.5 alignment corresponds to a cluster of 9 dots on the grid (specifically, a 3x3 square). This means that there ARE sentients considered lawful/evil/whatever without going bonkers into 'you're only lawful evil if both extremely zealous about the law AND being evil', which would only represent the farthest SW corner of the 81 dot grid. In fact, this degree of axis definition provides an excellent compass for a character's choice and roleplaying: whether they value law and good equally, for instance, or whether they are more inclined to break an unfair law just this once or uphold it and then try to legally change said law.

Trying to make the system simpler like you suggest only makes things more complicated. I'll swear by the 9x9 grid, as it has served me very well.

[Agi Hammerthief]

In my experience though a lot of people complain if you do away with alignment. What should a DM/GM do then?
find players that don't complain?

use completely different alignment scale:

Altruistic / Egoistic
&
Cooperative / unCooperative


I'm agreeing with NemoUtopia that making the grid coarser than 3.x is a step in the wrong direction.

[Drolyt]

True anarchists may or may not be insane. As might those who espouse terrorism and other evils including anything from genocide to unfair legal systems. The problem with this is that, in true representation of humanity, everyone views the 3.0/3.5 alignment system in at least slightly different ways. I challenge those who say that the system goes too far into saying that the system does not go far enough. Much like a survey system, it would be better as at least a 7 point (I think 9 is about right) system on each axis:
Zealously L - Strongly L - Moderately L - N - Moderately C - Strongly C - Zealously C
Do the same for good and evil. The simple truth is that most people fall in the 'moderately - moderately' cross, but does not disallow strong alignments. It also means alignment change over time is much easier than trying to decide when a lifelong Cleric of Heironeous changes from LE and migrates up towards CG as a reaction to his old lifestyle. It's much easier to determine with the sliding rating. For the purposes of the system, this creates a 9x9 grid with 81 squares: each DnD 3.0/3.5 alignment corresponds to a cluster of 9 dots on the grid (specifically, a 3x3 square). This means that there ARE sentients considered lawful/evil/whatever without going bonkers into 'you're only lawful evil if both extremely zealous about the law AND being evil', which would only represent the farthest SW corner of the 81 dot grid. In fact, this degree of axis definition provides an excellent compass for a character's choice and roleplaying: whether they value law and good equally, for instance, or whether they are more inclined to break an unfair law just this once or uphold it and then try to legally change said law.

Trying to make the system simpler like you suggest only makes things more complicated. I'll swear by the 9x9 grid, as it has served me very well.

This makes more sense. I guess from now on I'll stick to either no alignment, or something like what you suggest. Or maybe this:

find players that don't complain?

use completely different alignment scale:

Altruistic / Egoistic
&
Cooperative / unCooperative


I'm agreeing with NemoUtopia that making the grid coarser than 3.x is a step in the wrong direction.
Using completely different alignment scales, particularly ones that are less subjective, would work well but would be very campaign specific.

[Jane_Smith]

Trued20 uses Conviction instead of alignment - you pick a vice and a virtue; like greedy and compasionate or something. They actually give statistical benefits for -roleplaying- these (conviction points).

[UserShadow7989]

The way I see Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic is this:

1. When a Good character is dealing with an oppressive regime:

---A Lawful person will attempt to turn the system against the oppressors, or get into the system themselves to change it for the better. Instead of breaking the laws, they use it defeat or entrap those that abuse them or change it for the better.

---A Chaotic person will force the rulers to clean up their act or overthrow the system entirely, either blackmailing the rulers to step down or act as they wish or starting a revolution. One way or another, the system as it is won't be around for much longer as long as this person has a say in it.

---A Neutral Good person will examine their options, and pick whichever is most likely to work. They will also consider the drawbacks in more detail, such as the chances of the lawful approach failing due to the rest of the system countering every change put into place or the high chance of bloodshed a revolution would cause.

Whether lawful, chaotic, or neutral, a good character won't hesitate to switch to another approach if the current one isn't working, but a neutral will likely change is slightly earlier then the other two.

2. A Good, Evil, or Neutral is faced with a repeatedly appearing problem.

---A Lawful character will create or find an established system to deal with the problem any time it appears. They will stick to the system unless it fails repeatedly or an unseen circumstance that the system can't deal with appears. When that happens, they will modify the system until it does work.

---A Chaotic character will not develop a system, and will instead react to each appearance of the problem with no regard to how they handled it before. They will fall back on previously successful methods, but have no system and will abandon any method if they fail more then once or twice.

---A Neutral character will develop a method to deal with a particularly annoying problem, but won't hesitate to try a different approach that may provide better results (even if the standard response is working fine). If it does, they drop the first system for the second. If not, they'll go with what the know gets the job done.

Lawful characters develop systems, Chaotic characters will react to each appearance of the problem individually. A Neutral character will try to use a system, but will break away from a system when it stops working as opposed to refining it like a Lawful character would.

3. An evil character comes across a town famous for it's vast gold mines.

---A Lawful Evil will work their way to the top, using shady back street deals and an unmarred political face. They will foreclose on anyone with a decent sized gold claim on their land and even the flimsiest justification that will let them. They will blackmail, lie, cheat, and dole out more fine print covered contracts faster then you can say "rob them blind". If this fails, they will lay low and reappear later with a new name and a new disguise and start over again.

---A Chaotic Evil will rob the citizens blind, stealing in the night and putting on an amiable front during the day. No witnesses survive these crimes, obviously, except for fake witnesses under the character's thumb that will pin the blame on others. Alternately, they will drum up as many thugs, crooks, and cheap hirelings as they can and raze the city, stealing all the gold and valuables for themselves.

---A Neutral Evil will use both Lawful and Chaotic methods at the same time, possibly acting both as mayor and leader of the local mafia (not that anyone will know about this). They will bleed the people dry with whatever scams or crimes they can. Should the lawful approach fail, it's army-of-crooks-pillaging time. If that fails, they will either disappear and reappear with a new identity or a new army, or they will give up and move onto a different town.

Lawful evil will oppress, use social and legal pressure, and bribe or blackmail to get their way. They protect themselves with a system. Chaotic evil characters use violence to scare others into complying, and steal what they want. Neutral evil will do both, only dropping one for the other the moment they can't play both fields.

4. A Good character has just had their climactic fight with the BBEG, who is now hanging for dear life on the edge of a building/cliff/bridge.

---A lawful good character will attempt to save their life, and have them arrested and tried for their crimes. Exception: If they were complete monsters, slaughtering or attempting to slaughter hundreds, the lawful good may let them fall as they are too dangerous to trust that a prison will hold them or they won't escape before execution.

---A chaotic good character will not assist them, letting the results of their actions take effect. Exception: If they were a well intentioned extremist, were only doing what they believed to be right, or pet a lot of dogs in their time, the chaotic good may try to help them.

---A neutral good character is just as likely to assist as they are to leave them. The risk of the BBEG escaping, killing more people, etc. versus how likely they are to reform, help people, or simply stop being such a big pain in the neck for all that's good will make or break this choice far more then for a lawful or chaotic good character.

Basically, Lawful characters have a systematic approach to things, Chaotic characters react differently every time unless one method is obviously better then any other, and Neutral characters go with either both methods (example 3), a middle ground or fusion (example 2) or pick whichever they think will have the best reward to cost ratio, regarding the circumstances (example 1).

[Drolyt]

The way I see Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic is this:

1. When a Good character is dealing with an oppressive regime:

---A Lawful person will attempt to turn the system against the oppressors, or get into the system themselves to change it for the better. Instead of breaking the laws, they use it defeat or entrap those that abuse them or change it for the better.

---A Chaotic person will force the rulers to clean up their act or overthrow the system entirely, either blackmailing the rulers to step down or act as they wish or starting a revolution. One way or another, the system as it is won't be around for much longer as long as this person has a say in it.

---A Neutral Good person will examine their options, and pick whichever is most likely to work. They will also consider the drawbacks in more detail, such as the chances of the lawful approach failing due to the rest of the system countering every change put into place or the high chance of bloodshed a revolution would cause.

Whether lawful, chaotic, or neutral, a good character won't hesitate to switch to another approach if the current one isn't working, but a neutral will likely change is slightly earlier then the other two.

2. A Good, Evil, or Neutral is faced with a repeatedly appearing problem.

---A Lawful character will create or find an established system to deal with the problem any time it appears. They will stick to the system unless it fails repeatedly or an unseen circumstance that the system can't deal with appears. When that happens, they will modify the system until it does work.

---A Chaotic character will not develop a system, and will instead react to each appearance of the problem with no regard to how they handled it before. They will fall back on previously successful methods, but have no system and will abandon any method if they fail more then once or twice.

---A Neutral character will develop a method to deal with a particularly annoying problem, but won't hesitate to try a different approach that may provide better results (even if the standard response is working fine). If it does, they drop the first system for the second. If not, they'll go with what the know gets the job done.

Lawful characters develop systems, Chaotic characters will react to each appearance of the problem individually. A Neutral character will try to use a system, but will break away from a system when it stops working as opposed to refining it like a Lawful character would.

3. An evil character comes across a town famous for it's vast gold mines.

---A Lawful Evil will work their way to the top, using shady back street deals and an unmarred political face. They will foreclose on anyone with a decent sized gold claim on their land and even the flimsiest justification that will let them. They will blackmail, lie, cheat, and dole out more fine print covered contracts faster then you can say "rob them blind". If this fails, they will lay low and reappear later with a new name and a new disguise and start over again.

---A Chaotic Evil will rob the citizens blind, stealing in the night and putting on an amiable front during the day. No witnesses survive these crimes, obviously, except for fake witnesses under the character's thumb that will pin the blame on others. Alternately, they will drum up as many thugs, crooks, and cheap hirelings as they can and raze the city, stealing all the gold and valuables for themselves.

---A Neutral Evil will use both Lawful and Chaotic methods at the same time, possibly acting both as mayor and leader of the local mafia (not that anyone will know about this). They will bleed the people dry with whatever scams or crimes they can. Should the lawful approach fail, it's army-of-crooks-pillaging time. If that fails, they will either disappear and reappear with a new identity or a new army, or they will give up and move onto a different town.

Lawful evil will oppress, use social and legal pressure, and bribe or blackmail to get their way. They protect themselves with a system. Chaotic evil characters use violence to scare others into complying, and steal what they want. Neutral evil will do both, only dropping one for the other the moment they can't play both fields.

Basically, Lawful characters have a systematic approach to things, Chaotic characters react differently every time unless one method is obviously better then any other, and Neutral characters go with either both methods (example 3), a middle ground or fusion (example 2) or pick whichever they think will have the best reward to cost ratio, regarding the circumstances (example 1).

Here's the problem though. The way you have it the only logical alignment is Neutral. Spock would be Neutral Good. Neutral is the only ethical alignment that is willing to both use an established, working system AND abolish it if it no longer works. That's simply the intelligent way to do things, it has nothing to do with whether I prefer a stable society (Dwarves) or individual freedom (Elves).

[Agi Hammerthief]

putting the

Zealously Strongly Moderately Neutral
in front of the classical alignments gives you this monster


zCzG sCzG mCzG _NzG mLzG sLzG zLzG
zCsG sCzG mCsG _NsG mLsG sLsG zLsG
zCmG sCmG mCmG _NmG mLmG sLmG zLmG
zC_N sC_N mC_N _N_N mL_N sL_N zL_N
zCmE sCmE mCmE _NmE mLmE sLmE zLmE
zCsE sCsE mCsE _NsE mLsE sLsE zLsE
zCzE sCzE mCzE _NzE mLzE sLzE zLzE


might be something to keep in mind

I guess now discussions will start if some body on zL is actually willing break the law to kill somebody (to fullfil the requirement for the prestige class Assasin)
"Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin."

[sscheib]

But how boring is it if everyone does something the same way?

Like I said before, I'd say most good characters are actually Neutral Good, but who's to say you have to make a character who does exactly the right thing to do every single time?

Having drastically different ways of doing things adds flavor and makes the game entertaining. Not everyone is always willing to look at both sides.

[Drolyt]

putting the

Zealously Strongly Moderately Neutral
in front of the classical alignments gives you this monster


zCzG sCzG mCzG _NzG mLzG sLzG zLzG
zCsG sCzG mCsG _NsG mLsG sLsG zLsG
zCmG sCmG mCmG _NmG mLmG sLmG zLmG
zC_N sC_N mC_N _N_N mL_N sL_N zL_N
zCmE sCmE mCmE _NmE mLmE sLmE zLmE
zCsE sCsE mCsE _NsE mLsE sLsE zLsE
zCzE sCzE mCzE _NzE mLzE sLzE zLzE


might be something to keep in mind

I guess now discussions will start if some on zL will actually break the law to killing somebody (to fullfil the requirement for the prestige class)

You mentioned a 9x9 table. What does that add? Also I think something got cut off from your tiny note at the bottom, but I would guess that a) a Zealously Lawful character would never break the law, ever, and b) Nobody in the real world is Zealously Lawful.
Edit: Got Ninja'd Again:

But how boring is it if everyone does something the same way?

Like I said before, I'd say most good characters are actually Neutral Good, but who's to say you have to make a character who does exactly the right thing to do every single time?

Having drastically different ways of doing things adds flavor and makes the game entertaining. Not everyone is always willing to look at both sides.
That should really be roleplaying though. Putting Lawful on your sheet shouldn't dictate that you never think of creative solutions. Even if many players never do.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Here's the problem though. The way you have it the only logical alignment is Neutral. Spock would be Neutral Good. Neutral is the only ethical alignment that is willing to both use an established, working system AND abolish it if it no longer works. That's simply the intelligent way to do things, it has nothing to do with whether I prefer a stable society (Dwarves) or individual freedom (Elves).
err,

welcome to the real world :smallcool:

very few people are always logic :smallbiggrin:


You mentioned a 9x9 table. What does that add? Also I think something got cut off from your tiny note at the bottom, but I would guess that a) a Zealously Lawful character would never break the law, ever, and b) Nobody in the real world is Zealously Lawful.
Edit: Got Ninja'd Again:

That should really be roleplaying though. Putting Lawful on your sheet shouldn't dictate that you never think of creative solutions. Even if many players never do.
wasn't me that mentioned the 9x9 for every bit of the classic 9x9 grid

yeah the grammer in the tiny is messed up from editing

[Drolyt]

err,

welcome to the real world :smallcool:
very few people are always logic :smallbiggrin:

Okay, but if we go that route yes there are Lawful and Chaotic people in real life, more or less as UserShadow7989 described them. These alignments in a Roleplaying game become nothing but a handicap since the most reasonable route is to be Neutral Good and always look at both sides from an unbiased perspective. The Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters, if roleplayed properly, are going to make stupid mistakes because they can't do that.

[Drolyt]

wasn't me that mentioned the 9x9 for every bit of the classic 9x9 grid

yeah the grammer in the tiny is messed up from editing

My mistake, got confused. I thought it had something to do with editing, I've done that before.

[GreenMuffin]

My personal point of view is that alignment wasn't meant to DEFINE your character, just to... put some sort of label on how your character acts.I mean, you can be evil and still be nice to someone you love. You just decide to blow up the rest of the world and millions of people in your free time. It's a label, but that label has lots of elbow room.

In my opinion, alignment isn't entirely needed. I do not, however, hold any grudges against it.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Okay, but if we go that route yes there are Lawful and Chaotic people in real life, more or less as UserShadow7989 described them. These alignments in a Roleplaying game become nothing but a handicap since the most reasonable route is to be Neutral Good and always look at both sides from an unbiased perspective. The Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters, if roleplayed properly, are going to make stupid mistakes because they can't do that.
so... you as the DM, not allowing those alignments, are going to tell your players they can't do a certain action because it would be a mistake?

they HAVE TO take the most reasonable route?
they HAVE TO look at both sides from an unbiased perspective?

Are you sure you want to play with other people? **


stupid mistakes can be a lot of fun:

A friend of mine had his sorcerer run up on a (going to be) battlefied, leaving his party behind to cast Magic Missile (range: 400! feet, always hits) 10 feet away from the (now) enemy.
stupid mistake, but 100% in character

** a rethorical question to make a point

[UserShadow7989]

Actually, a Lawful person or Chaotic person can be creative too. They just have a method or methods they like better then others. A Lawful Good character will sometimes act Chaotic if the greater good is better achieved or only achievable by a Chaotic method, and the opposite holds true too.

The only ones who are likely to ignore other options are Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, with no real inclination towards anything other then Law and Chaos. Even then, they can still break from it if they see a blatantly better way to achieve their goals. A Neutral person is just slightly faster to see it because they have no preferred method.

This works for evil characters too. A Lawful Evil will resort to violent, barbaric approaches if nothing else seems to be working and a Chaotic Evil will play by the rules if it benefits or protects them enough to be worth the trouble.

Edit: In addition, being neutral on the Law - Chaos axis can have draw backs too. Say you're Neutral Good. You come across an oppressive government like example 1 back in my previous post. Both working inside the system (lawful) and starting a revolution (chaotic) are possible choices. Both have equal draw backs (potential loss of life, potential chance of failure) and benefits (number of lives saved, reduced or no oppression), and both are just as likely to work as the other, but can end horribly if they fail.

What do you choose? A Lawful or Chaotic good character will pick one and get started, while a Neutral Good may become paralyzed with indecision, costing time, resources, and lives. A preferred method may have it's draw backs, but having none does too.

[Drolyt]

so... you as the DM, not allowing those alignments, are going to tell your players they cant do a certain action because it would be a mistake?

they HAVE TO take the most reasonable route?
they HAVE TO look at both sides from an unbiased perspective?

Are you sure you want to play with other people? **


stupid mistakes can be a lot of fun:

A friend of mine had his sorcerer run up on a (going to be) battlefied, leaving his party behind to cast Magic Missile(range: 400! feet always hits) 10 feet away from the (now) enemy.
stupid mistake, but 100% in character

** a rethorical question to make a point

Okay, fair point. Still, that example had nothing to do with alignment. NG, N, and CE basically tell you whether the character is a good guy or not. That makes some sense. Lawful vs Chaotic, however, just seems to decide whether your character is flexible or not. That is purely a roleplaying thing. No alignment system is really needed.

Actually, a Lawful person or Chaotic person can be creative too. They just have a method or methods they like better then others. A Lawful Good character will sometimes act Chaotic if the greater good is better achieved or only achievable by a Chaotic method, and the opposite holds true too.

The only ones who are likely to ignore other options are Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, with no real inclination towards anything other then Law and Chaos. Even then, they can still break from it if they see a blatantly better way to achieve their goals. A Neutral person is just slightly faster to see it because they have no preferred method.

This works for evil characters too. A Lawful Evil will resort to violent, barbaric approaches if nothing else seems to be working and a Chaotic Evil will play by the rules if it benefits or protects them enough to be worth the trouble.
I lean towards this, but the problem is that it makes Neutral kind of redundant. Every character is going to lean towards one type of solution, so unless you decide that the neutral alignments cover all "moderate" stances, than only one in a million characters are truly neutral, since that implies they have no preference at all. This is where my original idea came from.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Okay, fair point. Still, that example had nothing to do with alignment. NG, N, and CE basically tell you whether the character is a good guy or not. That makes some sense. Lawful vs Chaotic, however, just seems to decide whether your character is flexible or not. That is purely a roleplaying thing. No alignment system is really needed.

the alignment system is a guide for both the player and DM

I think that actually playing a Neutral character is the hardest to play:

They have to try and take the most reasonable route and look at both sides from an unbiased perspective.

everybody else will either try to set their biases in accordance with the Chaotic (doesn't plan/ doesn't like authority) or Lawful (makes plans/ likes authority) axis
or
have the label stuck on to them by the DM.


same with the Good/Evil axis, only its easier to do.

[UserShadow7989]

I don't see how it's redundant. It's basically "Which do you prefer most? Option A, Option B, or neither?" It can also mean a mixture of both, like having a Lawful approach to situations A, D, H, and Y while opting towards Chaos for situations B, C, E, and X. It's a near equal mix of both as opposed to 75% option A and 25% option B, or 80% option B and 20% option A.

[Drolyt]

the alignment system is a guide for both the player and DM

I think that actually playing a Neutral character is the hardest to play:

They have to try and take the most reasonable route and look at both sides from an unbiased perspective.

everybody else will either try to set their biases in accordance with the Chaotic (doesn't plan/ doesn't like authority) or Lawful (makes plans/ likes authority) axis
or
have the label stuck on to them by the DM.


same with the Good/Evil axis, only its easier to do.

Good/Evil axis is easier to do because in most situations it should be fairly obvious which is which. Those where it isn't obvious don't come in most games (though some are based on such choices). At any rate it is always easier to roleplay what you are in real life. That's why most people don't roleplay evil characters very well (I'm evil! I kick the puppy!), because most people are (thankfully) not evil (and the ones that are usually don't realize it). It's definately harder with the law/chaos axis, since the way you guys are describing it it is intrinsically linked to your personal style of decision making. It is hard to change that for a game, so for example people who in real life are anal lawful are going to end up playing very stereotyped chaotic players, and vice-versa. Neutral players will probably be able to do this better.
Ninja'd yet again:

I don't see how it's redundant. It's basically "Which do you prefer most? Option A, Option B, or neither?" It can also mean a mixture of both, like having a Lawful approach to situations A, D, H, and Y while opting towards Chaos for situations B, C, E, and X. It's a near equal mix of both as opposed to 75% option A and 25% option B, or 80% option B and 20% option A.
That's what I'm saying though. The way you describe it only people at or very close to choosing 50% Lawful/50% Chaotic should be Neutral. These people would be very rare, and often better represented by a mellow version of whichever they lean towards (however slightly).

[sscheib]

I guess I don't have a problem with Lawful or Chaotic characters never really seeing a middle ground because I rarely actually play a character as myself, which can be difficult sometimes.

My character Dak'Aron, a homebrew race/class "Beastling", is very innocent and childlike with a different edge to him when he battles. But he only speaks Sylvan, so when people are talking strategy I have to almost completely disregard what they're saying because they tend to forget I can't understand them. Also, I've been faced with the problem of doing completely dumb things because Dak'Aron would do it even if I would not.

You don't have to play a character as yourself. In fact, I almost never do. It makes the game fun. That way I can make purely lawful or purely chaotic decisions and not feel restricted since that's just how my character is.

Making lawful or chaotic decisions exclusively doesn't mean you're doomed to fail. There's always more than one way to do something, even if it might not be the most logical. Logic shouldn't enter into it every single time. Not every single character has impeccable logic.

[hamishspence]

My personal point of view is that alignment wasn't meant to DEFINE your character, just to... put some sort of label on how your character acts.I mean, you can be evil and still be nice to someone you love. You just decide to blow up the rest of the world and millions of people in your free time. It's a label, but that label has lots of elbow room.

Agreed on it having elbow room- however, I suspect that, even in a fantasy setting, most Evil beings will be thugs, bullies, etc rather than would-be blower's-up of the world. The tavern bully, the guardsman who beats confessions out of suspects and goes home to a loving family, the mayor who abuses his office to ruin his enemies and enrich his friends, etc.

In a setting where roughly 1/3 of the population are Evil, 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral "mildly evil" people will be common.

Savage Species mentioned the "nice to people of their in-group" bit.

[Drolyt]

I guess I don't have a problem with Lawful or Chaotic characters never really seeing a middle ground because I rarely actually play a character as myself, which can be difficult sometimes.

My character Dak'Aron, a homebrew race/class "Beastling", is very innocent and childlike with a different edge to him when he battles. But he only speaks Sylvan, so when people are talking strategy I have to almost completely disregard what they're saying because they tend to forget I can't understand them. Also, I've been faced with the problem of doing completely dumb things because Dak'Aron would do it even if I would not.

You don't have to play a character as yourself. In fact, I almost never do. It makes the game fun. That way I can make purely lawful or purely chaotic decisions and not feel restricted since that's just how my character is.

Making lawful or chaotic decisions exclusively doesn't mean you're doomed to fail. There's always more than one way to do something, even if it might not be the most logical. Logic shouldn't enter into it every single time. Not every single character has impeccable logic.

Of course you don't have to play a character as yourself, but unless you are a magnificent actor it's hard not to, at least a little bit. And Yeah I get that not everyone is logical, I just find the idea of writing that down on your sheet odd. Also probably more than half of roleplayers play characters that are supposed to be more intelligent than they are, so how logical their character should be acting is neither here nor there.

Agreed on it having elbow room- however, I suspect that, even in a fantasy setting, most Evil beings will be thugs, bullies, etc rather than would-be blower's-up of the world. The tavern bully, the guardsman who beats confessions out of suspects and goes home to a loving family, the mayor who abuses his office to ruin his enemies and enrich his friends, etc.

In a setting where roughly 1/3 of the population are Evil, 1/3 Good, 1/3 Neutral "mildly evil" people will be common.

Savage Species mentioned the "nice to people of their in-group" bit.
I agree on the part that most evil people are thugs or bullies rather than supervillains, but I disagree on 1/3 or the population being evil. In a human population at least the vast majority will be neutral: You are out for number 1 and don't actively work to help those in need, but you nevertheless find the idea of active evil abhorrent. That is, Neutral characters are those who commit sins of omission; sure they don't murder, but they don't give food to those starving people either, so you can't really call them good. An Evil character is actively evil, while a Good character actively works for the good of others, often (though not necessarily) at his own expense. Both of those should be rare.

[hamishspence]

PHB: "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

(Also, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" does not mean all 3 are required. A tavern bully who beats up people who come into "his bar" for fun, but never kills anyone, is still "hurting and oppressing others".)

Quintessenial Paladin 2 discusses the various levels, from "evil everywhere" to "evil is rare" to "evil is supernatural"

In Evil Everywhere, the kindly person who helps others in trouble and donates clothes and cookies to the homeless, is Good, the bullying landlord who evicts people at the least excuse, is Evil.

in Evil Is Rare, the person helping others would need to be saving lives to be Good, and the Evil person is "either a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both". The landlord would need to be intentionally evicting people in the middle of winter on purpose in the hope that they would die, to be Evil.

in Evil Is Supernatural, a serial killer would not detect as evil- unless he was doing it as part of the worship of fiends or evil gods.

The Eberron Campaign Setting in particular emphasises Evil Everywhere- not every evil being is a complete monster. Many are "just real jerks" so to speak.

[Drolyt]

PHB: "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

(Also, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" does not mean all 3 are required. A tavern bully who beats up people who come into "his bar" for fun, but never kills anyone, is still "hurting and oppressing others".

Quintessenial Paladin 2 discusses the various levels, from "evil everywhere" to "evil is rare" to "evil is supernatural"

In Evil Everywhere, the kindly person who helps others in trouble and donates clothes and cookies to the homeless, is Good, the bullying landlord who evicts people at the least excuse, is Evil.

in Evil Is Rare, the person helping others would need to be saving lives to be Good, and the Evil person is "either a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both". The landlord would need to be intentionally evicting people in the middle of winter on purpose in the hope that they would die, to be Evil.

in Evil Is Supernatural, a serial killer would not detect as evil- unless he was doing it as part of the worship of fiends or evil gods.

The Eberron Campaign Setting in particular emphasises Evil Everywhere- not every evil being is a complete monster. Many are "just real jerks" so to speak.

I guess I'd go for evil is rare, although the example given for for good under Evil is Everywhere seems like it should qualify for Evil is Rare, as long as it is done consistently.

[hamishspence]

1st ed seemed to go for (at least for Detect Evil, as opposed to Know Alignment) "Evil is Supernatural"

3.0 and 3.5 ed, especially for Eberron, (though Faerun sample NPCs in the FRCS, and various other sourcebooks, also seemed to fit) appeared to me to be going for "Evil Everywhere"

E.g.- a place like Zhentil Keep or Thay will have a large amount of the population be Evil, but those who are, are as likely to be horrible jerks, as murderers.

Fiendish Codex 2 described how Lawful Evil societies tend to work- with a lot of indoctrination, children being raised in such a way as to ensure the older ones bully and tyrannize over the younger ones, etc.

"roughly 1/3 of the human population is Evil/Good" doesn't mean an even distribution- in Evil societies the proportion of Evil will be higher and Good lower, in Good societies it's the reverse, and in Neutral societies its possible both will be quite low.

[LurkerInPlayground]

"Evil is supernatural" just blames external rather than internal causes for the evil.

That doesn't really address whether it is common or not or the degree of its severity.

[Drolyt]

1st ed seemed to go for (at least for Detect Evil, as opposed to Know Alignment) "Evil is Supernatural"

3.0 and 3.5 ed, especially for Eberron, (though Faerun sample NPCs in the FRCS, and various other sourcebooks, also seemed to fit) appeared to me to be going for "Evil Everywhere"

E.g.- a place like Zhentil Keep or Thay will have a large amount of the population be Evil, but those who are, are as likely to be horrible jerks, as murderers.

Fiendish Codex 2 described how Lawful Evil societies tend to work- with a lot of indoctrination, children being raised in such a way as to ensure the older ones bully and tyrannize over the younger ones, etc.

"roughly 1/3 of the human population is Evil/Good" doesn't mean an even distribution- in Evil societies the proportion of Evil will be higher and Good lower, in Good societies it's the reverse, and in Neutral societies its possible both will be quite low.

I would think most societies in the real world are neutral though. Can't go into specifics, but I just can't imagine a society where a majority of people are evil, at least what I call evil (purposefully harming others without regret). The only exception is if they have been raised in a culture where they are taught to believe that something evil isn't, but it's hard to quantify how "evil" that would make you, since after all you don't even know that what you are doing is wrong.
Ninja'd:

"Evil is supernatural" just blames external rather than internal causes for the evil.

That doesn't really address whether it is common or not or the degree of its severity.
I agree.

[hamishspence]

true- it seemed to me more like a "Why killing anything that detects as Evil- even in town, is morally OK" excuse.

When only monsters, clerics of evil gods, and clerics of archfiends, detect as evil, or are "considered to be of Evil alignment" it seems like "hack-and-slash morality"

D&D campaign settings, especially from 3.0 onwards, seem to fall somewhere between "Evil everywhere" and "evil is rare" with a general precept that "just because somebody is evil does not mean they deserve immediate execution"

BoED's comment "even if slavery, torture, discrimination, etc are common in a medieval-based setting, they remain evil"

So, in general, it would not be that hard for a setting to have a great deal of people oppressing and hurting other people, and yet still not being "complete monsters" but with a large proportion being "evil-aligned"

"Purposely harming others without regret" is not all that uncommon a trait.

[Drolyt]

true- it seemed to me more like a "Why killing anything that detects as Evil- even in town, is morally OK" excuse.

When only monsters, clerics of evil gods, and clerics of archfiends, detect as evil, or are "considered to be of Evil alignment" it seems like "hack-and-slash morality"

D&D campaign settings, especially from 3.0 onwards, seem to fall somewhere between "Evil everywhere" and "evil is rare" with a general precept that "just because somebody is evil does not mean they deserve immediate execution"

BoED's comment "even if slavery, torture, discrimination, etc are common in a medieval-based setting, they remain evil"

So, in general, it would not be that hard for a setting to have a great deal of people oppressing and hurting other people, and yet still not being "complete monsters" but with a large proportion being "evil-aligned"

"Purposely harming others without regret" is not all that uncommon a trait.

The problem with the BoED's take on the matter is how can you call people of the past evil based on modern morality? 100s of years into the future they may very well start saying that things we consider normal are actually evil, but how could we be considered evil because of what a culture in the future says? Presumably in D&D there is an actual cosmic barometer, telling you whether an action is good or evil, but in that case you would actually expect evil to be rather uncommon, since 90% or so of evil deeds come from people being convinced it is actually good (the other 10% being people that don't care that what they are doing is wrong, but they are actually rarer than you think, most people in real life have to justify everything in their heads). It becomes pretty hard to internally justify your actions if a detect evil spell tells you how wrong you are.

[hamishspence]

but in that case you would actually expect evil to be rather uncommon, since 90% or so of evil deeds come from people being convinced it is actually good.

Even in a D&D setting, this is very common. Characters who believe (erroneously) that their enemies are deserving of everything being done to them, and refuse to believe their own actions are evil.

Just because evil is objective rather than subjective in a setting, does not mean that the people in that setting will accept that their own behaviour is evil.

The "Victorious Blade of the People" (translation) in Faerun is one example of such a faction- elf supremacists.

[Drolyt]

Even in a D&D setting, this is very common. Characters who believe (erroneously) that their enemies are deserving of everything being done to them, and refuse to believe their own actions are evil.

Just because evil is objective rather than subjective in a setting, does not mean that the people in that setting will accept that their own behaviour is evil.

The "Victorious Blade of the People" (translation) in Faerun is one example of such a faction- elf supremacists.

But there is Magic that tells you whether it is evil or not! There is no question, so how do you convince yourself otherwise? Tell yourself the universe itself is out to get you?

[Agi Hammerthief]

But there is Magic that tells you whether it is evil or not! There is no question, so how do you convince yourself otherwise? Tell yourself the universe itself is out to get you?
first you need to think that you are a valid target for "Detect Evil"

[hamishspence]

How many clerics, paladins, etc, are there?

How often is a person going to pass near a person who is Detecting Evil?

And, even then, how do you know when they've detected it? Do paladins prompty yell "Evil!" the moment somebody "pings"?

And even then, you have the "miko types" who can be convinced that the universe really is out to get them, or the evil gods have cast a spell bestowing a false evil aura on them, or some other belief.

Or, they may believe that the forces labelled "good" and "evil" don't really exist as morals- they are just powerful factions with no "real" moral standing.

That said, in the average Evil fantasy country, its possible most of the populace will go their whole lives without someone casting Detect Evil on them- because Good clerics and paladins tend to be persona non grata there.

[Kairamek]

I always thought each axis of the Alignment system had at least two interpretations.

Lawful: 1) One who supports/follows a legitimate authority.
2) One who follows a code of discipline

Chaotic: 1) One who does not allow legal matters to affect their decisions
2) One who actively revolts against order/law

Good: 1) One who put the needs of others above themselves.
2) One who helps others whenever he/she can. (no, those are not the same)

Evil: 1) One who knowingly engages in activities that may harm others for their own benefit.
2) One who actively harms others. (Also not the same thing)

Neutral: 1) One who seeks a balance between an axis.
2) One who shows characterizes of both sides of an axis.

Collary on Good: The difference between the two listed is that G1 actively seeks out to do good things, and G2 will actively avoid doing evil and will be good when they can. So G1 would volunteer at a soup kitchen but a G2 would donate money rather than time to that soup kitchen.


One of the first characters I played was a Lawful Good Monk. He was Good2 because he put the needs of others above himself, but Lawful2 because he followed a code of conduct set down by his Order. So yes, in the first play session I broke the law of the land with that character, because it was in conflict with the CoC of his order. So within 3 hours of my first play session with that char I was a Lawful Criminal.


By way of another example, let me talk about Neutrality for a moment. As my understanding of alignment shows you have people who seek a balance and people who demonstrate both sides of it.
A Neutral1 Good character is one who follows certain laws for the common good (pay your taxes, don't kill nobody, etc), but fight against, protest, or openly defy unfair laws. This is a guy who can be in the middle of a conversation explaining to a tradesman why he must pay a new defense Tax to prepare for a warlord's march on the city, then start bashing a new bigoted Anti-Elf ordinance in a city with no Freedom of Speech. Cause Bigotry is wrong and Freedom of Speech is inalienable.

A Neutral2 Neutral2 character could be described as follows: A Wizard who doesn't believe in the authority of man over another (Chaotic2), but follows specific rituals and patterns needed for his spell casting (Lawful2). He will hurt or help people, whichever is faster and easier, in the interest of gaining more magical knowledge/spells. He demonstrates both lawful characterizes in his own life and behavior, but chaotic in how he deals with the outside authority; and he will be Good or Evil to you as he deems necessary (also a touch chaotic).

Afterthought: HEY! That sounds like Raistlin at the first half of Dragonlance Chronicles. "I do not follow him, for the time being, Tanis and I happen to be traveling in the same direction." And when that direction was no longer to his benefit, he left everyone else to die. That action lead directly to him become a Neutral2 Evil1.

Edited for spelling.

[Drolyt]

I always thought each axis of the Alignment system had at least two interpretations.

Lawful: 1) One who supports/follows a legitimate authority.
2) One who follows a code of discipline

Chaotic: 1) One who does not allow legal matters to affect their decisions
2) One who activly revolts against order/law

Good: 1) One who put the needs of others above themself.
2) One who helps others whenever he/she can. (no, those are not the same)

Evil: 1) One who knowningly engages in activities that may harm others for their own benefit.
2) One who actively harms others. (Also not the same thing)

Neutral: 1) One who seeks a balance between an axis.
2) One who shows characterists of both sides of an axis.

Collary on Good: The difference between the two listed is that G1 activly seeks out to do good things, and G2 will activly avoid doing evil and will be good when they can. So G1 would volunteer at a soup kitchen but a G2 would donate money rather than time to that soup kitchen.


One of the first characters I played was a Lawful Good Monk. He was Good2 beacuse he put the needs of others above himself, but Lawful2 because he followed a code of conduct set down by his Order. So yes, in the first play session I broke the law of the land with that character, beause it was in conflict with the CoC of his order. So within 3 hours of my first playsession with that char I was a Lawful Criminal.


By way of another example, let me talk about Neutrality for a moment. As my understanding of alignment shows you have people who seek a ballence and people who demonstrate both sides of it.
A Neutral1 Good character is one who follows certain laws for the common good (pay your taxes, don't kill nobody, etc), but fight against, protest, or openly defy unfair laws. This is a guy who can be in the middle of a conversation explaining to a tradesman why he must pay a new defense Tax to prepare for a warlord's march on the city, then start bashing a new bigoted Anti-Elf ordenance in a city with no Freedom of Speach. Cause Bigotry is wrong and Freedom of Speach is inalienable.

A Neutral2 Neutral2 character could be described as follows: A Wizard who doesn't believe in the authority of man over another (Chaotic2), but follows specific rituals and paterns needed for his spell casting (Lawful2). He will hurt or help people, whichever is faster and easier, in the interest of gaining more magical knowledge/spells. He demonstrates both lawful characterists in his own life and behavior, but chaotic in how he deals with the outside authority; and he will be Good or Evil to you as he deems nesissary (also a touch chaotic).

Afterthought: HEY! That sounds like Raistlin at the first half of Dragonlance Chronicals. "I do not follow him, for the time being, Tanis and I happen to be traveling in the same direction." And when that direction was no longer to his benefit, he left everyone else to die. That action lead directly to him become a Neutral2 Evil1.

Here's how I've always thought of it: Lawful: 1 Chaotic: 1 Good: 2 (but 1 means you are further along the good axis) Evil: 1 Neutral: 2

[Ashtagon]

I always thought each axis of the Alignment system had at least two interpretations.

Lawful: 1) One who supports/follows a legitimate authority.
2) One who follows a code of discipline

Chaotic: 1) One who does not allow legal matters to affect their decisions
2) One who activly revolts against order/law

Good: 1) One who put the needs of others above themself.
2) One who helps others whenever he/she can. (no, those are not the same)

Evil: 1) One who knowningly engages in activities that may harm others for their own benefit.
2) One who actively harms others. (Also not the same thing)

Neutral: 1) One who seeks a balance between an axis.
2) One who shows characterists of both sides of an axis.

Collary on Good: The difference between the two listed is that G1 activly seeks out to do good things, and G2 will activly avoid doing evil and will be good when they can. So G1 would volunteer at a soup kitchen but a G2 would donate money rather than time to that soup kitchen.


One of the first characters I played was a Lawful Good Monk. He was Good2 beacuse he put the needs of others above himself, but Lawful2 because he followed a code of conduct set down by his Order. So yes, in the first play session I broke the law of the land with that character, beause it was in conflict with the CoC of his order. So within 3 hours of my first playsession with that char I was a Lawful Criminal.


By way of another example, let me talk about Neutrality for a moment. As my understanding of alignment shows you have people who seek a ballence and people who demonstrate both sides of it.
A Neutral1 Good character is one who follows certain laws for the common good (pay your taxes, don't kill nobody, etc), but fight against, protest, or openly defy unfair laws. This is a guy who can be in the middle of a conversation explaining to a tradesman why he must pay a new defense Tax to prepare for a warlord's march on the city, then start bashing a new bigoted Anti-Elf ordenance in a city with no Freedom of Speach. Cause Bigotry is wrong and Freedom of Speach is inalienable.

A Neutral2 Neutral2 character could be described as follows: A Wizard who doesn't believe in the authority of man over another (Chaotic2), but follows specific rituals and paterns needed for his spell casting (Lawful2). He will hurt or help people, whichever is faster and easier, in the interest of gaining more magical knowledge/spells. He demonstrates both lawful characterists in his own life and behavior, but chaotic in how he deals with the outside authority; and he will be Good or Evil to you as he deems nesissary (also a touch chaotic).

Afterthought: HEY! That sounds like Raistlin at the first half of Dragonlance Chronicals. "I do not follow him, for the time being, Tanis and I happen to be traveling in the same direction." And when that direction was no longer to his benefit, he left everyone else to die. That action lead directly to him become a Neutral2 Evil1.

This is probably one of the best summaries of alignment I have seen yet. The most people try to paint an alignment as being just one of each of these pairs for everyone of a given alignment. Such rail-roading is what leads to interpretations such as lawful stupid. Alignment was always more complex than that.

[Drolyt]

This is probably one of the best summaries of alignment I have seen yet. The most people try to paint an alignment as being just one of each of these pairs for everyone of a given alignment. Such rail-roading is what leads to interpretations such as lawful stupid. Alignment was always more complex than that.

But if alignment is more complex than that, why even have alignment? What's the point of a rough guideline? It's especially bad when you consider that alignment impacts rules like smite evil.

[Ashtagon]

But if alignment is more complex than that, why even have alignment? What's the point of a rough guideline? It's especially bad when you consider that alignment impacts rules like smite evil.

Personally, I prefer casting detect evil to casting detect people who either knowingly engage in activities that may harm others for their own benefit or who actively harms others. ymmv.

Of course, I'd rather have alignment rules (all of them, even d20m's allegiances) thrown out. It's really hard to use them in a game-mechanic way that doesn't sound contrived. The only problem with that is that it removes some of the high fantasy feel and turns it into a "shades of grey" campaign.

[Latronis]

doesn't necessarily need to be knowingly.....

[Kairamek]

This is probably one of the best summaries of alignment I have seen yet. The most people try to paint an alignment as being just one of each of these pairs for everyone of a given alignment. Such rail-roading is what leads to interpretations such as lawful stupid. Alignment was always more complex than that.

Thank you. That's about 15 years of studying character motivations, and alignment systems, and interpersonal dynamics wrapped up in 530ish words. After writing all that I couldn't take another "That's stupid and you're a stupid person for thinking it," responce, as the internet is known to do. But this isn't the 8-bit Theatre forums *ZING*


But if alignment is more complex than that, why even have alignment? What's the point of a rough guideline? It's especially bad when you consider that alignment impacts rules like smite evil.

Alignment isn't supposed to be simple. Alignment is the sum of everything that defines who you are and why you do things and who you're willing to do them to. And that is the way I've always played it. I ask a character I am creating the B5 Questions. "Who are you?" "What do you want?" Once I know that I can answer the questions "What are you willing to get it?" and "Why?" The answers to those questions give me the alignment of the character. The rest is rule mechanics.

Alignment as a 'rough guideline' would say I am lawful, so I would show up on a Detect Lawful spell. The magic doesn't care why I am lawful, only that I am lawful. In the world as a whole I am lawful beacuse fear the breakdown of social order. I depend upon the law of the land to keep me safe, that people would rather work 40hrs a week than kill me in an alley for my shoes and the change in my pocket. At work I am lawful not out of fear but out of fairness. Our policies ensure fair and consistent treatment of our customers, so I adhear to them.

Did you see that? Two distinctive, different motivations. In one case I passively support order in that I denounce chaos but in the other I actively promote order. Complex stuff, but the game mechanics don't care about that. All that matters is Word of Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wordOfChaos.htm) would jack me up hardcore.

In summary, what I'm trying to express here is that as a Game Mechanic, alignment is as you say, a rough guideline. As a character building tool it can go much, much deeper. And that depth is what leads to debates like this. If it were a simple and numerically compairable concept we'd all agree pretty quick; like when balancing a homebrew class.

[hamishspence]

I agree on the suggestion that there are at least 2 traits to every alignment (though I might suggest that sometimes there are even more than that).

It looks like a very nice summary. And the PHB, through more than one edition, has tended to suggest "Alignment is a guideline, not a straightjacket"

The "rough guideline" also goes well with "Humans don't actually tend toward Neutral"- that is, that any of the 8 other alignments, are not rarities, but pretty common. Maybe not quite as common as Neutral,

but not rare enough for "Humans- Often Neutral" or "Humans- Usually Neutral" to be a true statement.

[waterpenguin43]

Well... your descriptions of Neutral and Chaotic Neutral don't seem very different to me. As for your description of Chaotic Evil, why can't those be classified as Neutral Evil? Why can't servants of death be Chaotic Evil? Also, how are pure slaughtering machines realistic? Like I said above, Lawful Neutral is the one I wasn't sure about, but I think most unaligned people are into traditions anyways. Thing is, why would you serve the law if you don't care about good or evil? Purely lawful and purely chaotic just make no sense to me, it doesn't seem like things people would fight for. Although to be honest Evil doesn't seem like something anyone would actually seek, I usually think of evil as self serving and good as helping others. A Paladin of good makes sense. Of law? Of chaos? Of evil? I don't get it. And yeah I'm not into alignment requirements.

The difference between Neutral and Chaotic Neutral is that Chaotic Neutral people are mercurial and have a low attention span. The difference between CE and NE is that NE is more subtle about it and is less psycho-killer and more a greedy, self-serving pig who slaughters people for little or know reason.

[hamishspence]

Except when they are amoral+ruthless types that will do anything for money, but don't actually slaughter people for no reason.

Or, when they are Well Intentioned Extremists that have fallen a very long way, but still believe that their evil acts are justified by their intent.

[Drolyt]

Thank you. That's about 15 years of studying character motivations, and alignment systems, and interpersonal dynamics wrapped up in 530ish words. After writing all that I couldn't take another "That's stupid and you're a stupid person for thinking it," responce, as the internet is known to do. But this isn't the 8-bit Theatre forums *ZING*



Alignment isn't supposed to be simple. Alignment is the sum of everything that defines who you are and why you do things and who you're willing to do them to. And that is the way I've always played it. I ask a character I am creating the B5 Questions. "Who are you?" "What do you want?" Once I know that I can answer the questions "What are you willing to get it?" and "Why?" The answers to those questions give me the alignment of the character. The rest is rule mechanics.

Alignment as a 'rough guideline' would say I am lawful, so I would show up on a Detect Lawful spell. The magic doesn't care why I am lawful, only that I am lawful. In the world as a whole I am lawful beacuse fear the breakdown of social order. I depend upon the law of the land to keep me safe, that people would rather work 40hrs a week than kill me in an alley for my shoes and the change in my pocket. At work I am lawful not out of fear but out of fairness. Our policies ensure fair and consistent treatment of our customers, so I adhear to them.

Did you see that? Two distinctive, different motivations. In one case I passively support order in that I denounce chaos but in the other I actively promote order. Complex stuff, but the game mechanics don't care about that. All that matters is Word of Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wordOfChaos.htm) would jack me up hardcore.

In summary, what I'm trying to express here is that as a Game Mechanic, alignment is as you say, a rough guideline. As a character building tool it can go much, much deeper. And that depth is what leads to debates like this. If it were a simple and numerically compairable concept we'd all agree pretty quick; like when balancing a homebrew class.

Alright, I have to agree with you. Alignment, when used in this way, is a great roleplaying tool. However, alignment, used in this way, should not have a mechanical effect. Detect Evil/Law/Chaos/Good and Smite Evil/Law/Chaos/Good and Magic Circle Against Evil/Law/Chaos/Good should all be thrown out. They try to treat something subjective as objective, and that doesn't work. Besides that a Paladin killing anything that registers as Evil on his timey-wimy detector doesn't seem heroic so much as sociopathic.

The difference between Neutral and Chaotic Neutral is that Chaotic Neutral people are mercurial and have a low attention span. The difference between CE and NE is that NE is more subtle about it and is less psycho-killer and more a greedy, self-serving pig who slaughters people for little or know reason.
Your reasoning sounds to me like lawful stupid/stupid evil. I'll admit that there are differences, but they are much more complex.

[Lord_Gareth]

Totally to toot my own horn, but you fine folks may want to try The Color Wheel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177) if the current alignment system bothers you.

Plus, if you post commentary, it's not a necro. The last post was this month >.>

[Drolyt]

Totally to toot my own horn, but you fine folks may want to try The Color Wheel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177) if the current alignment system bothers you.

Plus, if you post commentary, it's not a necro. The last post was this month >.>

That's very interesting, but I don't have much to say about it. It could create great campaign flavor for anyone who wanted to use it, but it doesn't really fix the problems of the alignment system. That is to say, your system will probably have fewer problems because of the way you designed it, but it isn't a fix, just an alternative (same goes for the D20 Modern Allegiance System). Again, I like it, but I don't really have anything to add and it doesn't solve my dilemma.

[Lord_Gareth]

The problem is that the only fixes for the Nine Alignments involve ignoring certain aspects (houseruling) or replacing them (homebrewing). As-written, the Nine Alignments suffer from huge flaws stemming from hypocrisy, vague definitions, and WotC's general flavor incompetence. You don't precisely have a lot of options.

[Drolyt]

The problem is that the only fixes for the Nine Alignments involve ignoring certain aspects (houseruling) or replacing them (homebrewing). As-written, the Nine Alignments suffer from huge flaws stemming from hypocrisy, vague definitions, and WotC's general flavor incompetence. You don't precisely have a lot of options.

True. However, while I like your system it is going to be campaign dependent because of the flavor. The Nine Alignments can handle any system (although not necessarily well). I think the best solution, regardless of how you handle alignment, is to remove effects that rely on alignment.

[Lord_Gareth]

Out of curiosity (and you can post this on the other thread if you like, to avoid derailing this one), why do you think that "the flavor" makes it campaign-dependant? It was my goal to be able to describe anyone's morality/personality/methods with the Color Wheel, so your opinion may indicate a rather gaping flaw in my system.

[Drolyt]

Out of curiosity (and you can post this on the other thread if you like, to avoid derailing this one), why do you think that "the flavor" makes it campaign-dependant? It was my goal to be able to describe anyone's morality/personality/methods with the Color Wheel, so your opinion may indicate a rather gaping flaw in my system.

Oh, it does a good job of describing anyone yes. The reason I say it is campaign specific is... well its hard to explain, but the idea of classifying alignment in a color wheel seems to be flavorful in and of itself. I mean, if its only a tool used by the players that's fine, but if the characters in the game talk about white and blue alignments, then you know you are playing a certain style of game. You suggest that there are outsiders that are pure white or pure green, and that adds a certain flavor that is different from the flavor of, say Planescape. Like I said though, if it is only used by the players with no game effects, then I suppose there is no flavor.

[hamishspence]

However, alignment, used in this way, should not have a mechanical effect. Detect Evil/Law/Chaos/Good and Smite Evil/Law/Chaos/Good and Magic Circle Against Evil/Law/Chaos/Good should all be thrown out. They try to treat something subjective as objective, and that doesn't work. Besides that a Paladin killing anything that registers as Evil on his timey-wimy detector doesn't seem heroic so much as sociopathic.

This one is usually resolved with "Detect Evil is not supposed to be used that way"

Quinessenial Paladin 2 suggests that in both Evil Everywhere and Evil is Rare, it is a warning, not a call to arms.

[Eliastion]

Well. The main problem I see with alignment in D&D is that it doesn't just serve the purpose of conveniently describing characters' beliefs. The alignment system is built into the world itself. There is absolute, objective good and evil - and so there is chaos and law - although this second dichotomy isn't as obvious.
So, basically, there are two main ways of being good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral - but not exactly the way Kairamek stated it. The true difference comes from whether you actively and willingly support the powers of some alignment, or just accidentally think and act in a way that corresponds to the general idea of such alignment. This marks the difference between between NE "evil person" and NE "fighter for evil". The second isn't just someone who actively hurts others - he's much more and his wa of thinking is much more complex. Such a person may even occasionally act surprisingly selflessly for the sake of evil: like putting her life in a line just to kill a champion of good - for no other reason than that it would benefit the "greater evil". Such act is evil, but for a normal person it would be just stupid: someone who's just selfish, or (more extreme) likes to hurt others for fun would probably see no meaning in seeking a dangerous fight with a strong opponent, just because such person is fighting evil...
The alignments of D&D must work works this way - because here Evil isn't just ethical category - its an objectively existing power (remember positive and negative energy?), one of the great forces running this world. It does correlate with "ethical" evil - but it's not the same.
The above, of course, applies to Good, Law and Chaos (including their combinations) as well. And to some extent even to True Neutral - with possibilities of being either a perfectly "normal" everyday person, or a "fighter of balance".

[Drolyt]

Well. The main problem I see with alignment in D&D is that it doesn't just serve the purpose of conveniently describing characters' beliefs. The alignment system is built into the world itself. There is absolute, objective good and evil - and so there is chaos and law - although this second dichotomy isn't as obvious.
So, basically, there are two main ways of being good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral - but not exactly the way Kairamek stated it. The true difference comes from whether you actively and willingly support the powers of some alignment, or just accidentally think and act in a way that corresponds to the general idea of such alignment. This marks the difference between between NE "evil person" and NE "fighter for evil". The second isn't just someone who actively hurts others - he's much more and his wa of thinking is much more complex. Such a person may even occasionally act surprisingly selflessly for the sake of evil: like putting her life in a line just to kill a champion of good - for no other reason than that it would benefit the "greater evil". Such act is evil, but for a normal person it would be just stupid: someone who's just selfish, or (more extreme) likes to hurt others for fun would probably see no meaning in seeking a dangerous fight with a strong opponent, just because such person is fighting evil...
The alignments of D&D must work works this way - because here Evil isn't just ethical category - its an objectively existing power (remember positive and negative energy?), one of the great forces running this world. It does correlate with "ethical" evil - but it's not the same.
The above, of course, applies to Good, Law and Chaos (including their combinations) as well. And to some extent even to True Neutral - with possibilities of being either a perfectly "normal" everyday person, or a "fighter of balance".

Right. I don't like that. Morality isn't objective in the real world. At first glance it looks like making it objective for a game is fine, but then you realize that if you put any thought into it objective alignment creates absurdities (such as champions of evil, which no one would ever be). I don't like objective alignment, and therefore I don't like spells that work on alignment.

[Eliastion]

Well. The question is: how it is done. The 9-alignment system (with absolute good, evil, chaos and law) can be perfectly consistent and work well. It's simplified, but let's consider such construction:

We have 4 main powers and 4 philosophies.
The 1st one's represents the idea: the strong should help the weak - the ideal world is where no one suffers
The 2nd one is about: every man for himself - the ideal world is where strong and clever win
The 3rd one says: the order and discipline are absolute - the ideal world is where everyone abides by the clear rules
The 4th one says: the freedom is most important - the ideal world is where everyone's free and independent

Now, let's call the first power Good, the second: Evil, the third: Law, the fourth: Chaos.
Sounds familiar? Seems we've already defined the basic of four "pure" alignments. So, now for the mixes:

LG - let's build the world where clear rules protect the people
LE - let's build the world where strong and clever rule the unworthy masses
CG - let's build the world where nothing stops people from enjoying their freedom and expressing their kindness
CE - let's build the world where nothing stops strong and clever from having their way

And, time for the final touch, we need the true neutral aligment. So, in the end, classical:
N - the world should maintain it's natural balance (alternatively, of course: "I don't care" :D )

I know, that the above construction is really simplified. But it shows the general idea. Objective alignments don't have to be bad. The problem really appears only later, when we start to mix our morality into this, like "bad=evil". And then, after some time and simple, logical reasoning, we end up with something as stupid and antyclimatic as "champion of evil", whose alignment should oblige him to slaughter his comrades (in their sleep), family (exploiting their love and trust) and, preferably, everyone else in sight too (in the most cruel way we can imagine). All of this 'cause, you know, it's bad. And, well, bad is Evil, isn't it?

[Kairamek]

Right. I don't like that. Morality isn't objective in the real world. At first glance it looks like making it objective for a game is fine, but then you realize that if you put any thought into it objective alignment creates absurdities (such as champions of evil, which no one would ever be). I don't like objective alignment, and therefore I don't like spells that work on alignment.

No one would ever be a champion of really? Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK) History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) disagrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al%27Qaeda)
Heh, I've always wanted to do that. :smallbiggrin: Post a different link for every word in support of a short simple statement.

But if you dislike them so much then house-rule them out. It's that simple. If you don't like this aspect of a game you should remove so long as you can rebalance in it's place, in the spirit of which the alignment restriction was set in the first place. Paladin's Smite Evil just becomes Smite (Players usually fight 'evil' anyway). Bards and Barbarians don't become tied down and fettered by the laws of man. Monks have a strict discipline nessiary to maintain their skill in the art. The only point where this breaks down is that Druids must be neutral, and how do you define the middle when you refuse to define the edges? Then save Detect/Circle/Protection etc for the hard line, quantifiable defined aligned outsiders. Demons and Devils Evil, Celesitals are always Good, elementals are Chaotic Neutral, etc.

[Drolyt]

No one would ever be a champion of really? Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK) History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) disagrees. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al%27Qaeda)
Heh, I've always wanted to do that. :smallbiggrin: Post a different link for every word in support of a short simple statement.

But if you dislike them so much then house-rule them out. It's that simple. If you don't like this aspect of a game you should remove so long as you can rebalance in it's place, in the spirit of which the alignment restriction was set in the first place. Paladin's Smite Evil just becomes Smite (Players usually fight 'evil' anyway). Bards and Barbarians don't become tied down and fettered by the laws of man. Monks have a strict discipline nessiary to maintain their skill in the art. The only point where this breaks down is that Druids must be neutral, and how do you define the middle when you refuse to define the edges? Then save Detect/Circle/Protection etc for the hard line, quantifiable defined aligned outsiders. Demons and Devils Evil, Celesitals are always Good, elementals are Chaotic Neutral, etc.

The thing about the links you have to champions of evil? They didn't view themselves that way. They all had reasons for what they did. Bad reasons, yes, but they tried to justify their actions and they at least thought they were the good guys. A champion of evil is someone who does evil for the sake of evil. That is unrealistic. Nobody wants evil, they merely mistake it for the good they seek.

[Lord_Gareth]

Here's the other problem - "good" and "evil" are, in the end equation, just words. Last time I checked, there wasn't a giant stone tablet with "THESE ARE GOOD THINGS" inscribed on it anywhere on the planet, and we've more or less consistently failed to find any such artifact anywhere in the known universe. What one culture, religion, or philosiphy says is "good" is contradicted by any number of other cultures, religions, and philosiphies, and each one of them has their own reasons, justifications, logic, and doctrines behind it.

Take one example - in Western culture, boys/men are told, rather firmly, that they do not hit girls/women, even if said girl/woman is hitting them. Tell that to the Japanese, and they'll laugh their asses off at you. Their Kunoichi have served with distinction since feudal times, and the idea that a woman cannot fight is ludicrous to them.

In certain cultures, it is ordained by divine mandate that men are above women. To these people, that is a holy - and thus "good" - law. In these same cultures, when an "invading" culture introduced democracy, many men and fathers attacked and/or murdered their wives, daughters, and sisters as they attempted to vote. From their perspective, they were enforcing a law, handed down from the heavens, which was unquestionably good.

This wouldn't be a problem if WotC - or the D&D player base - had consistently portrayed a world which was black-and-white, but they did not. Many players, source books, articles, et cetera portray characters with shades-of-gray morality, and worlds such as Eberron and Planescape play with it gleefully. That, more than anything, is why the Nine Alignments consistently fall apart - they don't work, they have never worked, and they never will. They're simplistic, unrealistic, and boring, and the gaming community as a whole has more or less left them behind.

[Drolyt]

Here's the other problem - "good" and "evil" are, in the end equation, just words. Last time I checked, there wasn't a giant stone tablet with "THESE ARE GOOD THINGS" inscribed on it anywhere on the planet, and we've more or less consistently failed to find any such artifact anywhere in the known universe. What one culture, religion, or philosiphy says is "good" is contradicted by any number of other cultures, religions, and philosiphies, and each one of them has their own reasons, justifications, logic, and doctrines behind it.

Take one example - in Western culture, boys/men are told, rather firmly, that they do not hit girls/women, even if said girl/woman is hitting them. Tell that to the Japanese, and they'll laugh their asses off at you. Their Kunoichi have served with distinction since feudal times, and the idea that a woman cannot fight is ludicrous to them.

In certain cultures, it is ordained by divine mandate that men are above women. To these people, that is a holy - and thus "good" - law. In these same cultures, when an "invading" culture introduced democracy, many men and fathers attacked and/or murdered their wives, daughters, and sisters as they attempted to vote. From their perspective, they were enforcing a law, handed down from the heavens, which was unquestionably good.

This wouldn't be a problem if WotC - or the D&D player base - had consistently portrayed a world which was black-and-white, but they did not. Many players, source books, articles, et cetera portray characters with shades-of-gray morality, and worlds such as Eberron and Planescape play with it gleefully. That, more than anything, is why the Nine Alignments consistently fall apart - they don't work, they have never worked, and they never will. They're simplistic, unrealistic, and boring, and the gaming community as a whole has more or less left them behind.

I agree with this assessment. One should note that often things we see as evil served a purpose in their time.

[hamishspence]

This wouldn't be a problem if WotC - or the D&D player base - had consistently portrayed a world which was black-and-white, but they did not. Many players, source books, articles, et cetera portray characters with shades-of-gray morality, and worlds such as Eberron and Planescape play with it gleefully. That, more than anything, is why the Nine Alignments consistently fall apart - they don't work, they have never worked, and they never will. They're simplistic, unrealistic, and boring, and the gaming community as a whole has more or less left them behind.

This seems like something of an overstatement. The Nine Alignments work perfectly well in shades of gray- as long as they are treated as guidelines (as the PHB actually suggests).

Even books like BoED suggest that Good and Evil characters can work together against a greater threat- but the Good characters can't just turn a blind eye to evil acts committed by their allies, either.

Similarly, BoVD suggests sometimes Evil characters can be heroic "Antiheroes" so to speak.

[Lord_Gareth]

Y'know, I'm actually glad that someone brought up the BoED - I just finished reading the relevant section, y'see. The one titled Ends and Means.


"With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no....

Emphasis mine. The BoED, like all of WotC's sourcebooks, fails to intelligently introduce true moral dillemmas and to deal with the tough questions is it was supposedly written to tackle. Cooperating with evil beings in order to achieve a good goal - which, incidentally, the book states is "fraught with both physical and moral peril", placing the onus on the good characters to, essentially, ensure that their evil allies won't be evil anytime in the near future - is just common sense. By placing "antiheroes" - or even those who won't let ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand innocents suffer and die just because it means making a morally questionable act - in the realm of "neutral" and "evil", the Nine Alignment system forcibly cripples itself, compromising any real chance it had at allowing players to explore the concept of morality.

[hamishspence]

One of the problems with that particular example, is that lying is listed as "Not Always Evil" in BoVD, anyway.

BoED characters with Exalted feats, can't commit evil acts and keep them- this is a given.

But not every Good character is an Exalted Good one- you can have scoundrelly Good characters who commit minor (and occasionally not so minor) evil acts once in a while, but never descend to committing evil acts on a routine basis.

When the moral dilemma is between "committing an evil act that will save many lives" and "not committing an evil act, and thus allowing people to die because you won't act", yes you'd expect the hero to commit the latter.

But you'd also expect them to lose powers which are "lost if you commit an evil act"

Because morality of an act is not solely defined by "what act saves lives and what act doesn't"

Character alignment, however, is determined by if you commit evil acts routinely- if you don't, and you otherwise have all the traits of Good alignment, the occasional Evil act will not cause you to cease to be good.

It's not like BoED was the first source to stress that "In D&D, the end's don't justify the means" either- the 2nd ed PHB and DMG both give "murdering the few to save the many" as an example of an Evil, potentially alignment-changing act.

[Lord_Gareth]

Unrelated Side Note: Do I pronounce your forum name "Hamishs-Pence" or "Hamish-Spence"? That's been bothering me for the past twenty minutes. I must know!

So committing an "evil" act is always bad? At what point do the ends start to justify the means? To save a million innocent lives, I, personally, would sacrifice a thousand. Would it be easy? No. Would it be "good"? Probably not. But when given the choice between two evils, neither players nor characters should be punished for looking deep into the heart of their own morality and choosing what they believe to be the lesser. The whole concept of Exalted & Vile feats only serves to enforce the idea that morality is black and white, and that any solution which does not leave one's purity intact is, ultimately, a bad solution.

Look, in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the examples of "hard questions" it gives are, "Is it okay to kill every Drow I find and sell their goods on the open market," and "Do Orc whelps have a chance at redemption?". Do those sound like complex moral questions to you? They sound pretty awful to me, personally - like things even a child should comprehend. I don't know about you, but I understood at a young age that killing things just to steal their possessions, then saying, "Well, he looked different from me, so that's alright," is wrong, and that was back when I was first introduced to 2nd edtion AD&D.

In essence, D&D expects "good" characters to either be riddled with flaws - while the evil ones are consistently devoid of virtues, mind - or else to constantly be forced to say, "I am not my neighbor's keeper, I am sorry," because in a realistically presented world, you have to do hard things to survive, and acting in one group's interests, even with good intentions, means stepping on the interests of another group. Someone has to lose out; real morality means thinking long and hard upon whom.

Drolyt's suggestion of removing alignment from mechanics has merit, but it involves much more work than one might think. Spells have to be rewritten or thrown out. The entire cosmology must be changed; certain classes must be re-examined, then edited or thrown out. What happens to deities? Outsiders? Beings with alignment subtypes? Alignment is built in to the D&D world, and is one of the most fundamental flaws that cripple it, ranking right up there with the Tippyverse and "warrior" classes. The system which fails to function is implemented everywhere, and then not implemented consistently. In Grayhawk, an evil character can look forward to an eternity of damnation and torture at the hands of the beings (demons/devils/yugoloths) that he is serving. Does that make sense to you? Conversely, in the Forgotten Realms, an evil being can expect to be rewarded by their diety for serving their cause so admirably - thus stripping out any meaningful difference between the consequences of being good and the consequences of being evil. Either way you spin it, you lose.

But hey, I've prattled on long enough. I do have one question, which I have yet to recieve a satisfactory answer to, anywhere - can you tell me why an absolutist morality system works?

[Drolyt]

Unrelated Side Note: Do I pronounce your forum name "Hamishs-Pence" or "Hamish-Spence"? That's been bothering me for the past twenty minutes. I must know!

So committing an "evil" act is always bad? At what point do the ends start to justify the means? To save a million innocent lives, I, personally, would sacrifice a thousand. Would it be easy? No. Would it be "good"? Probably not. But when given the choice between two evils, neither players nor characters should be punished for looking deep into the heart of their own morality and choosing what they believe to be the lesser. The whole concept of Exalted & Vile feats only serves to enforce the idea that morality is black and white, and that any solution which does not leave one's purity intact is, ultimately, a bad solution.

Look, in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the examples of "hard questions" it gives are, "Is it okay to kill every Drow I find and sell their goods on the open market," and "Do Orc whelps have a chance at redemption?". Do those sound like complex moral questions to you? They sound pretty awful to me, personally - like things even a child should comprehend. I don't know about you, but I understood at a young age that killing things just to steal their possessions, then saying, "Well, he looked different from me, so that's alright," is wrong, and that was back when I was first introduced to 2nd edtion AD&D.

In essence, D&D expects "good" characters to either be riddled with flaws - while the evil ones are consistently devoid of virtues, mind - or else to constantly be forced to say, "I am not my neighbor's keeper, I am sorry," because in a realistically presented world, you have to do hard things to survive, and acting in one group's interests, even with good intentions, means stepping on the interests of another group. Someone has to lose out; real morality means thinking long and hard upon whom.

Drolyt's suggestion of removing alignment from mechanics has merit, but it involves much more work than one might think. Spells have to be rewritten or thrown out. The entire cosmology must be changed; certain classes must be re-examined, then edited or thrown out. What happens to deities? Outsiders? Beings with alignment subtypes? Alignment is built in to the D&D world, and is one of the most fundamental flaws that cripple it, ranking right up there with the Tippyverse and "warrior" classes. The system which fails to function is implemented everywhere, and then not implemented consistently. In Grayhawk, an evil character can look forward to an eternity of damnation and torture at the hands of the beings (demons/devils/yugoloths) that he is serving. Does that make sense to you? Conversely, in the Forgotten Realms, an evil being can expect to be rewarded by their diety for serving their cause so admirably - thus stripping out any meaningful difference between the consequences of being good and the consequences of being evil. Either way you spin it, you lose.

But hey, I've prattled on long enough. I do have one question, which I have yet to recieve a satisfactory answer to, anywhere - can you tell me why an absolutist morality system works?

I always disliked both the BoED and the BoVD for their... strange views on morality. Although I disagree with you on one point, someone doesn't always have to lose out, sometimes everyone wins (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverybodyLives) and when someone does loose out it is often something they can do without for the good of the community/mankind. What I mean is a good aligned group would do its best to pursue its interests without stepping on anyone's feat, only doing so when absolutely necessary.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I always disliked both the BoED and the BoVD for their... strange views on morality.

it's not the alignment grid that is broken,
it's just that not everyone is using the same moral compass to navigate around it.

[hamishspence]

Unrelated Side Note: Do I pronounce your forum name "Hamishs-Pence" or "Hamish-Spence"? That's been bothering me for the past twenty minutes. I must know!

"Hamish-Spence"



Look, in the introduction to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the examples of "hard questions" it gives are, "Is it okay to kill every Drow I find and sell their goods on the open market," and "Do Orc whelps have a chance at redemption?". Do those sound like complex moral questions to you? They sound pretty awful to me, personally - like things even a child should comprehend. I don't know about you, but I understood at a young age that killing things just to steal their possessions, then saying, "Well, he looked different from me, so that's alright," is wrong, and that was back when I was first introduced to 2nd edtion AD&D.

An awful lot of people seemed to think otherwise though, including Gygax, going by some of his essays.

That, plus claims that "Monsters are for killing only" are pretty common, even these days. The OoTS compilation book Don't Split The Party comments on this.

"Evil characters are consistantly devoid of virtues" might be valid based on a literalist reading of PHB, but there are numerous other D&D sources suggesting otherwise- Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil, Heroes of Horror- and even BoVD points out that "Evil is not stupid" and has "Evil antiheroes" paragraphs in the back of the book- Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone is cited as one example.

[Drolyt]

"Hamish-Spence"



An awful lot of people seemed to think otherwise though, including Gygax, going by some of his essays.

That, plus claims that "Monsters are for killing only" are pretty common, even these days. The OoTS compilation book Don't Split The Party comments on this.

"Evil characters are consistantly devoid of virtues" might be valid based on a literalist reading of PHB, but there are numerous other D&D sources suggesting otherwise- Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil, Heroes of Horror- and even BoVD points out that "Evil is not stupid" and has "Evil antiheroes" paragraphs in the back of the book- Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone is cited as one example.

Thing is D&D encourages a game where you stab things first and ask questions later. It's nice for a hack and slash like Diablo or any given FPS, but most people in the real world would not agree with that sort of morality. Most in the real world wouldn't kill a monster just because it was in a cave, although some things can be killed without any moral dilemma- mindless oozes/constructs/undead being biggies. D&D's argument seems to be that things like demons and devils are made of pure evil, that they don't have free will and cannot in any sense be redeemed, and therefore need to be killed. That can be bought, though it is hard to stomach for those of us who in the real world believe in mercy and forgiveness. But the idea of a mortal race where it is okay to kill the babies because they are evil? That is just abhorrent. Even a Drow or a Bugbear, should it surrender, should be granted all the benefits of prisoner of war under the Geneva convention. So yes, BoED has a warped morality, but it is trying to impose morality on a hack and slash game. It's fine to play hack and slash D&D, look at 4th edition, and its fine to play D&D where morality and shades of gray are important, but don't try to mix the two; it doesn't work.

[hamishspence]

4th ed does suggest (in some of the books) that it isn't all hack-and-slash.

4E FRCS, for example, suggests that quite a few of the "monster races" produce heroes (goblins, orcs, etc)

BoED, while having options for "heroes who don't commit evil acts" seems built around shades of gray in many ways- such as saying that even if beings are evil, you still need more justification to go to war with them than just "they are evil".

Similarly, with its emphasis on not killing noncombatants, and on not torturing "bad guys" (Tolkien said the same thing in one of the essays published in Morgoth's Ring.)

On demons, devils, and other fiends, while there is a strong theme of it being very very hard to redeem them (and under normal circumstances, they can be fought without qualms) exceptions do exist.

Most of the "warps" in BoED morality, crop up when they say perfectly logical things (like, inflicting suffering when you don't need to, inflicting excessive suffering) but then try to make exceptions to this that can be used by "good guys".

[Eliastion]

(...) Conversely, in the Forgotten Realms, an evil being can expect to be rewarded by their diety for serving their cause so admirably - thus stripping out any meaningful difference between the consequences of being good and the consequences of being evil. Either way you spin it, you lose.(...)

To tell you the truth, this particular approach is really fine with me. As I said earlier - I personally believe that the main problems in DD alignment system is not the fact of 9-alignment system being there, but the fact of mixing morals as we (in our uncertain world with no proof of any gods existing at all) perceive them with Alignments (mind capital A) - representing objectivly existing powers connected with certain philosophical and ethical principles.
In fact, we should draw a clear line: being good and serving The Good are two separate things. Similarly, if you believe in what Evil stands for, it doesn't really make you amoral in your own eyes - it's just that your morals are different from those indicated by the power we call The Good. What I mean is: whether you're serving Evil or Good, you yourself will always see yourself as moral and your actions as just. At least until you do something bad, like, say, give your food to a starving child (It's a sin! Your god said the weak should be left to their demise to clean the world!).
Well, I suppose everyone get's what I'm messily trying to explain here :D And, once more: yes, it does sound messy. But it's all the names' fault. If you substitute Evil (written with capital letters) with descriptive "what the power I serve wishes for", everything's starting to make sense... And that is exactly (as I see it) what stands behind the FR idea of being rewarded for being evil: it's just that you get your reward from the power you supported. How generous the reward would be and what form it would take - oh, [B]that[B]is entirely different matter. And I do think there would be many differences between Evil and Good here.

[hamishspence]

This does fit quite well.

If "evil act" is "act that tips the cosmic balance in the direction of Faction Evil" this can explain why, even if it saves many mortal lives, certain special powers the PC has may get lost.

Interestingly, the Diablo cosmology has both the demons and the angels be extremely dangerous from the mortal point of view- hence, we have a faction dedicated to ensuring that neither side wins and takes over.

And mortals are descended from demon/angel hybridization, when one faction of renegade angels and demons left the war to create their own home.

BoED did make the celestials a lot more compassionate than Diablo angels in general are though.