Alignment Stereotypes

[Drelua]

Have you ever had someone tell you what your character would think just because of his alignment? My first character was a LN monk of St. Cuthbert, (looking back, he was probably LG, but I was new) and the DM told me that I was homophobic because I was lawful. He said this was simply because the law says its wrong to be gay. When I argued that being lawful doesn't mean you strictly follow the law to the letter, he told me that yes, in fact, it does.

Have you ever had people tell you what your character thinks based purely on their alignment? What are some common alignment stereotypes you've dealt with?

[Saintheart]

The most common stereotype I've seen is that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid = The Paladin.

Lawful Good, as you say, only requires that you respect legitimate authority and revere life -- not that you always obey.

[WarKitty]

My worst problem is with playing evil characters. I get a lot of people saying my characters ought to burn down the building/slaughter the NPC's/what have you because they're evil. Never mind that my characters have no reason to do that and don't want to bring the authorities down on their heads.

[Divide by Zero]

Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. A character's decisions should never be decided by what's written on their sheet, but by what the player thinks they should do.

[Kenneth]

Chaotic stupid for me has alwasy been more of a problem.

Out of nowhere the rouge in th eparty decides that stealing what amounts to the pope's sceptar during the biggest holy day for that particular religion, becuase " hey Im chaotic and it looks like it'll fetch a big sum" is one of proably hundreds of examples.


Chaotic =/= you do stuff just because

and good =/= stupid/gullible, or you always let the other guy go/surrender

(this last one was a semi big fight OOC on a game I was DMing, one player -NG druid- accepted teh bad guys hey let me go i will be good from now on, like the previous 5 or 6 times he had been caught, another player -CG pryomancer- proceeded to empower a ember bolt (think fire ball but a range touch) and kill him. the arguemtn was killing him was an evil act (fromt eh druid) and that no he had been let go plenty of times, lied and sought to harm them time after time (from teh pyromancer) myself I ruled the pyromancer was correct as he basically called the bad guys bluff and to be honest that I was suprised that he even made it this far with being alive after being defeated and let go.)

[Kojiro]

Topic of Lawful = Follows all laws, regardless of sense: Next time someone says that, open the Players Handbook and ask them to show where it says that. (Spoiler: It doesn't; in fact, other books, such as Complete Scoundrel, explicitly say that this isn't how it works.) Ignoring the inconsistency of laws between countries, there are so many ways you could stick holes in that argument.

Relative to my characters... None here, really, although there was an amusing time when, talking about non-D&D RP characters, there was trouble determining what alignment one of my characters was. He was something Good, but it was hard to get a consensus on what that something was.

I do hate the Chaotic Neutral = Chaotic Stupid stereotypes, though, as well as the general "Chaotic is eviler/worse than Lawful" one. Those are annoying.

[Bob]

The CG pc that could make a LE character blush. Seriously, what is it about an alignment with a chaotic componant that turns players into sociopaths?

[Meleemancer]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150139) is what I always think of when it comes to a LG character. The first post is all that's really necessary.

[Drelua]

[QUOTE=Kojiro;11447746I do hate the Chaotic Neutral = Chaotic Stupid stereotypes, though, as well as the general "Chaotic is eviler/worse than Lawful" one. Those are annoying.[/QUOTE]

I had a player a while ago that had exactly this problem. He was so sure that a CE character was way more evil than LE, because the latter at least follows the law. I told him as clearly as I could, many times, that this simply was not true. Of course, this was the same guy that couldn't make his own character after 3 years of playing, and could never be bothered to learn, but that's a topic for another thread.

[WarKitty]

Yeah, as someone who is quite fond of chaotic characters, I hate the whole chaotic=stupid idea.

That and people who have to impose their own idea of good on all good characters, and insist that characters who don't follow it aren't good. There are and will be disagreements on what the right action is - in a morally questionable scenario, any reasonably justifiable action should be considered good.

[ffone]

The CG pc that could make a LE character blush. Seriously, what is it about an alignment with a chaotic componant that turns players into sociopaths?

I've seen this. On-paper Chaotic Good characters who think that their Charisma / Cha-based skills / sheer innate awesomeness means every NPC should bow down and worship them and do whatever they say, despite maltreatment (i.e. the typical LE objective).

the Lawful Stupid Paladin-type is something I've seen nauseatingly often among NPCs - I daresay the majority of DMs with their own campaign setting (and some official ones, like Eberron's Silver Flame) have the Hollywood trope of "annoying fascist organization that is obviously a 'satire' of the RL Catholic Church" (see V for Vendetta, the Golden Compass, etc.) which goes around scolding people, killing heathens, etc. Insinuations of pedophila were common for a year or two after that scandal in RL.

[Divide by Zero]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150139) is what I always think of when it comes to a LG character. The first post is all that's really necessary.

Also, this (http://i.imgur.com/ChLnY.jpg).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also, this (http://i.imgur.com/ChLnY.jpg).

Oh yeah, I saw that picture before. I thought that was one of the most awesome lawful good speeches ever.

[Seharvepernfan]

I've seen this. On-paper Chaotic Good characters who think that their Charisma / Cha-based skills / sheer innate awesomeness means every NPC should bow down and worship them and do whatever they say, despite maltreatment (i.e. the typical LE objective).


I think a lot of LE people see themselves as CG. I don't know why, but I keep seeing it.

[Ajadea]

I think a lot of LE people see themselves as CG. I don't know why, but I keep seeing it.

Because they believe they are good because they believe their end goals are good and the end goals justify all means to arrive there. Chaotic might mean unconventional, out of the ordinary, unfettered by little things like the laws that say 'don't murder, blackmail, and kidnap people'.

To them, labelling themselves as a Chaotic entity gets them the freedom to buck the laws of the land. They will convieniently rationalize the fact that they are murdering people with a lot of talk about the Greater Good. Their oppressive behavior and willingness to follow are ignored completely.

[Drelua]

Another common misconception about alignment seems to be that people forget that it is purely a metagame concept. Like all lawful characters see themselves as such and follow the law strictly because of it, or that all chaotic characters consciously disregard the law because they're chaotic.

[GoatBoy]

Lawful means obedience to a set of laws or ideals, but not necessarily the prevailing laws of whichever land they happen to be in.

While chaotic evil can include mindless destruction, it's no worse than lawful evil, because one can use the laws to inflict far more pain and suffering upon people.

Neutral doesn't necessarily mean you actively seek to balance good and evil/law and chaos, just that you aren't one or the other and still go about your normal goals.

I see good and evil as functions of empathy. A good person helps others because they feel good by bringing that feeling to everyone. A neutral person might feel this too, but they will likely rationalize helping people who aren't of immediate relation or use to them, because it is "too hard" or "won't really do any good." An evil person lacks this empathy.

An evil person who does evil deeds in the name of good often considers the ones they harm to be "irrevocably tainted" or "sub-human." By distancing themselves from the sense of empathy which the side of good claims to have, the perpetrator's deeds are considered evil because they avoid the consequences of harming others (that is, feeling the pain of others upon your own self) yet they can rationalize their actions as good (because their victims are not "real people").

[Kojiro]

Another thing I dislike is that many people think "fights evil" automatically makes them good, regardless of how unpleasant, uncaring, or outright cruel the character in question is. RPing group I'm in, on the character lists there are some characters who have attacked innocents without provocation who are still listed as Good, and it's ridiculous.

[hamishspence]

I see good and evil as functions of empathy. A good person helps others because they feel good by bringing that feeling to everyone. A neutral person might feel this too, but they will likely rationalize helping people who aren't of immediate relation or use to them, because it is "too hard" or "won't really do any good." An evil person lacks this empathy.

An evil person who does evil deeds in the name of good often considers the ones they harm to be "irrevocably tainted" or "sub-human." By distancing themselves from the sense of empathy which the side of good claims to have, the perpetrator's deeds are considered evil because they avoid the consequences of harming others (that is, feeling the pain of others upon your own self) yet they can rationalize their actions as good (because their victims are not "real people").

I'd say "distancing oneself" is more important than lacking empathy completely- an Evil character have have empathy, but suppress it with respect to one or more "groups" in the D&D world, making it easier to commit acts against that group.

[panaikhan]

I'm currently playing an evil character myself.
I got called up about being evil. We were in a situation where one of the NPC's with us had had their equipment taken from them. When my character found it, he returned the bundle to the NPC without even opening it.

My justification? We are on an island. a rather dangerous island. returning his stuff made him helpful, and increased our chances of survival. Nothing says he has to make it off the island alive, once we find a way.

[hamishspence]

There are a lot of different strains of Evil- some don't even need a selfish justification for doing Good deeds.

That said, "altruistic evildoers" tend to be somewhat uncommon.

[noparlpf]

I was playing a Heironean Paladin once. The DM ruled that rebelling against a corrupt government which was kidnapping lizardfolk children and brainwashing them with some incarnum stuff as well as attempting to raise a new god of death and pain (that was how the DM described it, in those words) counted as nonlawful, so I ended up multiclassing into Paladin of Freedom.

Another time I was a neutral good Druid. We somehow ended up on a prison ship to Carceri with all our equipment confiscated. While we were being unloaded, we and a few other prisoners tried to escape. All our equipment was under guard on a watchtower in the middle of the docks. When I tried to find my rings, I found three rings that he said looked like mine. So I had to pick two that I thought were mine and leave one, because a good character wouldn't take a ring that wasn't theirs. (Of course, both of the rings I had were rather distinctive. A ring of nine lives looks like a bloody cat, and I can't remember what the other one was but it wasn't the type you could mistake for a ring of spell storing holding nothing but a Grease spell.)

Really, I think lawful is the one that has this happen most often. Lawful really just means that you follow a personal moral and ethical code of conduct. It doesn't mean you follow local laws. Say I'm lawful good. I travel from one town where it's illegal to kill people to another town where people are ritually sacrificed daily and it's okay because that's the local law. Is it now okay to stand by and watch virgins be slaughtered because it's illegal to interfere in the rituals? (I'm assuming that most good people tend to dislike the idea of sacrificing virgins to dark gods. I think that's a reasonable assumption, but I guess I could be stereotyping good people.)

[hamishspence]

Generally "respect the laws as long as they don't conflict with one's morals" tends to be a Lawful Good trope.

If the local laws command the character to commit Evil acts- a Lawful Good character can certainly refuse and not undermine their Lawfulness.

But rebelling against it is a somewhat more major step.

Which is not to say a Lawful Good character won't lead a rebellion against a tyranny- just that the tyranny has to be pretty seriously evil for them to justify it to themselves.

[noparlpf]

Well, Paladins are fervently religious holy warriors. When a government is doing Evil things and trying to raise a god of death and pain, I think it's time to step up and do something about it.
I generally interpret lawful good as generally sticking to local laws if possible, but allowing one's personal morals to be the key factor in a decision. Lawful good can believe that it is right to put down evil wherever it rises to power. That includes rebelling against governments.

[hamishspence]

Hence the "pretty seriously evil".

A LG person prefers to change the system from the inside rather than tear it down- but will do so if its bad enough.

[Prime32]

Say I'm lawful good. I travel from one town where it's illegal to kill people to another town where people are ritually sacrificed daily and it's okay because that's the local law. Is it now okay to stand by and watch virgins be slaughtered because it's illegal to interfere in the rituals? (I'm assuming that most good people tend to dislike the idea of sacrificing virgins to dark gods. I think that's a reasonable assumption, but I guess I could be stereotyping good people.)Most neutral people tend to dislike that too, but are less likely to do something about it unless they know the people personally. Heck, some evil people would dislike that, but wouldn't do anything unless they know the people personally.

Yes, Evil people can have friends and stand up for them - taking away one of their friends is just as bad as taking away any of their possessions.

[noparlpf]

Most neutral people tend to dislike that too, but are less likely to do something about it unless they know the people personally. Heck, some evil people would dislike that.

I just figured that lawful good was most likely to do something about realistically, while by the idea of lawful always following local laws, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

[graeylin]

Boy, if Gygax could have seen the destruction a simple choice in words would cause decades later...

How I wish he had chosen "ordered" or 'structured' or 'organized' instead of lawful.

[hamishspence]

Stereotypes in general can be fun to subvert- while paying attention to the letter of the description.

Good alignment, is about "making personal sacrifices to help others" (and, IMO, avoiding committing serious evil acts with any regularity).

Nowhere does it say that the Good guy has to believe their own acts are personal sacrifices though.

There's lots of interesting "flaws" one could add to a good character, while following the basic rules.

They could be self-centred- doing good deeds primarily because it makes them happy (and the sight of others suffering makes them sad).

They could have disturbing tastes- fighting villains partly because they enjoy their suffering (while still being controlled enough not to commit Evil acts in the process).

And so forth.

[noparlpf]

Boy, if Gygax could have seen the destruction a simple choice in words would cause decades later...

How I wish he had chosen "ordered" or "structured" or "organized" instead of lawful.

That would have made the world a much simpler place.

[hamishspence]

Still, "To Be Lawful Or Good" is a pretty common trope even outside of D&D.

[Larpus]

Stereotypes in general can be fun to subvert- while paying attention to the letter of the description.

Good alignment, is about "making personal sacrifices to help others" (and, IMO, avoiding committing serious evil acts with any regularity).

Nowhere does it say that the Good guy has to believe their own acts are personal sacrifices though.

There's lots of interesting "flaws" one could add to a good character, while following the basic rules.

They could be self-centred- doing good deeds primarily because it makes them happy (and the sight of others suffering makes them sad).

They could have disturbing tastes- fighting villains partly because they enjoy their suffering (while still being controlled enough not to commit Evil acts in the process).

And so forth.
Similarly I've seen an Inquisitor Paladin, who would beat the crap of anything evil within arm's reach just because "it's evil" without any consideration for any other thing; likewise, he would refuse to attack anything that his detect evil didn't click him to attack.

It was on purpose of course, the player basically wanted to prove to the DM that a Paladin doesn't need to be a zealot who charges into the first evil thing his detect evil points him to and that he can, indeed, forgive lesser evils for various reasons and doesn't have to omit himself if the target is not evil.

Anyway, there are all sorts of stereotypes for all the alignments, such as the Neutral "I don't care about anything" and the anything Evil "I kick kittens and burn hospitals 'cus I'm eeeeeeeeevulll".

So I basically take the alignments as guidelines to how the character usually acts, basically Good prefers to help and/or prevent problems; Evil prefers to think only of his gain over anything else or is simply delighted in suffering or the such; Law prefers to follow codes, plans, laws, etc; Chaos acts more on impulse and on the heat of the moment, possibly indicating a lack of self-restraint as opposed to simple love for chaos and disorder.

Still, those are guidelines, a CE character inside a big city full of guards can and probably will refrain himself, possibly even passing as LG for the untrained eye. Likewise a LG character may start to have fun and act like a CE if a suitable situation presents itself, such as somehow being able to play GTA (as in, a situation where he can be as evil and sadistic as he can but without any victim [that he knows of, that is]), seriously, never seen anyone be anything but CE on his first contact with this game.

[Metahuman1]

That would have made the world a much simpler place.

Adding too that thought: It would have also been nice if he'd picked something other then "level" too determine how far you've come as a character.

[Andorax]

Odd thought:

A character who is LN not by choice, but by the functioning of a Greater Curse, who is a literal "follow all of the local laws" individual, who's morality and outlook on life changes the moment he crosses over a national border.

"Oh crud...I think we just entered the sewers under the Drow embassy!"

Playing that strictly and showing the DM just how wrong it is, might be a means of curing him of his misconceptions about what an actual, living LN character would be like.

[Kojiro]

The alignment version of C.o.D.zilla, showing them how wrong they are by giving them exactly what they want? I could not approve more.

[OracleofSilence]

my personal favorite is that LG does CG better then CG does and CG does LG better then LG does. for a canonized example see Drizzt and Bruenor. Drizzt is basically a Paladin that is CG, and Bruenor, although ostensibly CG only follows laws he thinks are moral.

[Drelua]

One of my favourite examples of an evil character taking things too far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZMlSZzUu8

[Kojiro]

One of my favourite examples of an evil character taking things too far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZMlSZzUu8

That's actually a good guy in an evil person's body, trying to imitate said evil person.

Which, hilariously, makes it even more appropriate for this topic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

my personal favorite is that LG does CG better then CG does and CG does LG better then LG does. for a canonized example see Drizzt and Bruenor. Drizzt is basically a Paladin that is CG, and Bruenor, although ostensibly CG only follows laws he thinks are moral.

Bruenor is NG, according to the the FR campaign setting for 3.0. In the little thing in which he's mentioned as the ruler if Mithral Hall, it says he's a NG level 13 dwarf fighter warblade.

Otherwise, I agree. If the law is unjust, a lawful good character can easily be seen as a chaotic good character.

[OracleofSilence]

crap, i was using homebrew states for him i found online, but yeah. that is true. Still i find the fact that people play CG as either LE or LG hilarious.

[hamishspence]

Bruenor is NG, according to the the FR campaign setting for 3.0. In the little thing in which he's mentioned as the ruler if Mithral Hall, it says he's a NG level 13 dwarf fighter warblade.

Otherwise, I agree. If the law is unjust, a lawful good character can easily be seen as a chaotic good character.

He's statted out fully in Silver Marches (page 77)

[jidasfire]

I think Lawful Neutral gets stereotyped a lot as a robotic rules and/or order fanatic. This may be because there aren't a lot of great heroic examples of people whose only point of conviction is the rules they follow. Still, I think there is more than one way to play such a character. For example, a LN character who lives in a LG society and holds to its ideals, but believes in upholding those ideals more ruthlessly than his superiors would (or should, in his mind). Another might be a bureaucrat in a LE society, who sees the nastiness his society is capable of, and while he might disapprove, tries to work within the system to preserve as many lives as he can, without bringing the wrath of his superiors down on him. Another might be someone attempting to turn Chaotic badlands into an ordered society, not really caring about right or wrong, as (in his mind) chaos is worse than order of any kind.

Just thoughts, and ways to play a LN character that defy the stereotype.

[hamishspence]

How about a Lawful rebel against a Chaotic system- for example an elf who disapproves of the current elven monarchies, and wishes to re-establish the old elven empires- but is not as malevolent as some such rebels.

[opticalshadow]

what i hate most about streotypes, is that people dont understand the wake of them.

i can be evil without murder, without torture, and without being a ass. i can be evil because i pick pockets and steal, because i demand high prices for my services, because i lie, because i cheat, because if given the choice between spedning a few copper to give a child water, id chose to keep the copper.

people think neutral stands in the middle, and they dont. neutral have opinions, they just dont garnish their lives by those choices. i can chose to give the copper to the kid, it does not make me good if i also break into a store and steal the food the next day. my actions and lifestyle are not co dependent.

people think good are stuck to the law. and this is only really true to one of the three subsets, but even then
a lawful good paladian could have his own code of honor, that openaly opsoses most of the law. at its core it means there is a code, a law that that person follows, and well ignore the realisty that good for one is evil for another, and just say that they may not murder puppies in thre street, but that doesnt mean they are exactly saints.

i think the biggest problem people have are that chaotic = whatever i want. and that is dead wrong. chaotic good would be captian america, he went to any length to ensure good prevailed, he would uphold good to its highest honor, if that ment arresting his mom for stealing cable, or breaking the door to the badguys place down without permission to do so to aprpehend him he did it.

chaotic neutral is the big one people say "i do what i want when i want" thats actually IMO more of a True neautral thing, chaotic would lean more to the side of i know what i want, and ill do what it takes to get it. you dont kick a cat because you can, but you might kick that cat if it somehow gave you what you needed.

[TheRinni]

I have a DM who is vehemently against the CE alignment. "Their alignment requires them to kill people with wild abandon. They're not bound by any law/code, and they want people dead, so why wouldn't they kill him?" I've tried the whole "I'm not stupid evil" argument. But he insists that any character who puts even the slightest amount of logic/planning into his evil plans is LE, or at least NE.

Why can't I play an evil character who just hates authority? I don't have to be a sociopath.

[Honest Tiefling]

I've been told that only real chaotic characters are random. Since I play chaotic a lot, that was a frustrating experience.

I've also been told that Chaotic Good has no problem stealing for self gain. I personally think that fails at good.

I also want to play an evil character who sticks vehemently to an honor code that actually commands them to strike down other forms of evil, but evil games can be hard to find. The PC concept also would not work with many other forms of evil.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, as someone who is quite fond of chaotic characters, I hate the whole chaotic=stupid idea.

What about the "chaotic so I'll steal from and betray my party members for no reason"? Oh that gets old quick.

(although to be fair, the 2E PHB explicitly states that CN characters are completely insane, so you can't really blame people for playing them that way).

[Honest Tiefling]

That really does explain the 3rd edition definition of chaotic where it emphasizes that chaotic isn't random. I wonder how many DMs of 2e games were frustrated by characters following those rules...

[Kojiro]

Honestly, with all these stories of DMs not understanding alignments, I'm lead to believe that there is a large group of people who are convinced that only players need read the Players Handbook (or at least the 3/.5e one), deciding what the alignments meant based on what they sound like they might be. Good grief, these are all fully-formed adults with these ridiculous ideas?

[noparlpf]

Honestly, with all these stories of DMs not understanding alignments, I'm lead to believe that there is a large group of people who are convinced that only players need read the Players Handbook (or at least the 3/.5e one), deciding what the alignments meant based on what they sound like they might be. Good grief, these are all fully-formed adults with these ridiculous ideas?

Nah, plenty of them are teenagers. Though a good deal of the younger generation is playing 4E now.

[hamishspence]

I've also been told that Chaotic Good has no problem stealing for self gain. I personally think that fails at good.

I also want to play an evil character who sticks vehemently to an honor code that actually commands them to strike down other forms of evil, but evil games can be hard to find. The PC concept also would not work with many other forms of evil.

Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly is described as CG in Complete Scoundrel.

An evil guy based heavily around "pay evil unto those that harm the innocent" is an interesting variant- though they'd tend not to work well with other evil guys, unless they all subscribe to the same basic principles.

[Wardog]

Generally "respect the laws as long as they don't conflict with one's morals" tends to be a Lawful Good trope.

If the local laws command the character to commit Evil acts- a Lawful Good character can certainly refuse and not undermine their Lawfulness.

But rebelling against it is a somewhat more major step.

Which is not to say a Lawful Good character won't lead a rebellion against a tyranny- just that the tyranny has to be pretty seriously evil for them to justify it to themselves.

I think most importantly, a LG rebel would want to replace the tyranny with a better system of laws. (As opposed to a CG rebel who would think that any system of laws is bad, whether because it is bad in itself, or because it sets up society to be taken over by a new tyranny).

By my understanding, the important thing about a Lawful alignment is that you think there ought to be rules. It doesn't necessarily mean you think the current set of rules are appropriate, or even that they should be obeyed. (A LG character in a LG society is probably going to work within the system to change it rather than outright rebelling, but the bigger the difference between character and society alignment, or the more serious the problem with the bad law, the more likely they are to rebel to fix them).

Nor does it mean that the rules that you do obey are the laws of the land (e.g. theives' guilds / The Mafia).



As for 2E Alignment definitions, here they are (at least, as represented in Baldur's Gate). The TN and CN definitions seems to have a lot to answer for.

LAWFUL GOOD: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
LAWFUL NEUTRAL: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior.
LAWFUL EVIL: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves, Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.
NEUTRAL GOOD: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.
NEUTRAL EVIL: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
NEUTRAL: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled'to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
CHAOTIC GOOD: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
CHAOTIC EVIL: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As for 2E Alignment definitions, here they are (at least, as represented in Baldur's Gate). The TN and CN definitions seems to have a lot to answer for.

LAWFUL GOOD: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
LAWFUL NEUTRAL: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior.
LAWFUL EVIL: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves, Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.
NEUTRAL GOOD: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.
NEUTRAL EVIL: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
NEUTRAL: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled'to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
CHAOTIC GOOD: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
CHAOTIC EVIL: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.

Yeah. Few people are true neutral because they actively seek balance? What about the farmer who's just trying to work for his family?

[WarKitty]

Actually, you can add "chaotic=total anarchist" to the list. You can be chaotic and still think governments ought to exist.

[Honest Tiefling]

Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly is described as CG in Complete Scoundrel.

I've actually never seen Firefly, but I assume he's a dude who steal things for personal gain. I would disagree with the interpretation of that, as it contradicts what is in the PHB, or at least what I got out of it. Stealng for self gain isn't really very altruistic. However, a few acts of stealing isn't a huge concern for me, it is when chaotic good is expected to steal constantly for no real good reason that worries me.


An evil guy based heavily around "pay evil unto those that harm the innocent" is an interesting variant- though they'd tend not to work well with other evil guys, unless they all subscribe to the same basic principles.

They probably would be incapable of working with other evil, being more inclined to punch other evil types in the face. Which is why it is a concept I wish to play, but am unlikely to do so. Oh well. I'm happy someone at least found it interesting!


Actually, you can add "chaotic=total anarchist" to the list. You can be chaotic and still think governments ought to exist.

I tend to play chaotic not as rebelling against government, but rebelling against laws or practices the character does not agree with. (Say, the idea of nobility, rather then getting qualified people to lead things.) I also tend to play them as not adhering to tradition very often, instead challenging old ideas to make people think if there is a better way or not. Maybe I'm just really bad at chaotic, however.

[NNescio]

Lawful Evil - "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to dine."

[Raimun]

Well, I've sometimes seen the mentality that implies that Lawful Good is more Good than the other two Goods.

I think Lawful Good is just, well, more Lawful than the other two Goods. One might say that Neutral Good is the most Good, because it's pure of the influence of other alignment traits but I feel the difference in the three Goods is mainly in the methods involved.

I guess one explanation for this might be the fact that the Paladin is the only class which has such a strong connection to any Good alignment. While Clerics, Druids, Monks, Barbarians and Bards have some limits to their alignment, they don't have be Good (even Clerics of Good deities) and they can certainly be Evil.

[Kojiro]

I think it's partially that, and partially that Chaotic sometimes gets the opposite and lumped in with Evil, or is at least somehow "worse" than Law.

Personally, while I think that too much Law/Chaos can make it hard to reach "max" Good (or Evil), and the reverse, Neutral Good isn't automatically the "best". Bit too Lawful and you may have to choose between Law and Good at times, but that doesn't mean that all Neutral Good people are the epitome of Goodness.

As a sort of graph, with the y-axis being Good/Evil and the x-axis being Law/Chaos, put it in a square with rounded corners to visualize this; while a Lawful Good person can be as Good as a Neutral Good one, too much Law starts to lower one's maximum "Goodness capacity". Same for every other alignment combination; exactly how rounded the corners are is arguable (some people would try to convince you that it would be a circle, but don't listen to them), but it gets the basic idea of how I interpret it across.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's been brought up before here, but I dislike the stereotype of all Evil people being mass-murdering, baby-eating rapists. Related, though, I dislike how anyone who is moderately unpleasant or not compassionate "must" be evil, rather than just some sort of Neutral that isn't particularly friendly. Evil is more subtle than just screwing everyone because you can, but it's more than simply being rather unfriendly.

[Honest Tiefling]

Building on what Kojiro said, I also really dislike the idea that anyone who is not polite must be evil. No one who ever is rude or annoying is just a good aligned person with really awful charisma, or is simply said the wrong thing at the wrong time. People without social skills can't be good intentioned!

[WarKitty]

Building on what Kojiro said, I also really dislike the idea that anyone who is not polite must be evil. No one who ever is rude or annoying is just a good aligned person with really awful charisma, or is simply said the wrong thing at the wrong time. People without social skills can't be good intentioned!

I always thought of it as more associated with law/chaos than good/evil. Not exclusively, but a chaotic person is more likely to consider politeness as "social deceit" or somesuch, and to ignore customs regarding social standing.

[Rei_Jin]

In regards to the Firefly/Malcolm Reynolds thing, he's CG because whilst he steals, he does so only from the badguys, and only to provide for his crew (and obviously himself as a part of that). In one episode, they stole from the badguys, then found out that what they had stolen was medicine needed to help a bunch of sick people... and subsequently delivered the medicine where it was supposed to go, putting him and his crew at risk of repercussions from the group who gave him the job AND the people he stole from.

[Raimun]

Yeah, an individual Neutral Good creature might still be less Good than some individual Lawful Good creature.

[Honest Tiefling]

In regards to the Firefly/Malcolm Reynolds thing, he's CG because whilst he steals, he does so only from the badguys, and only to provide for his crew (and obviously himself as a part of that). In one episode, they stole from the badguys, then found out that what they had stolen was medicine needed to help a bunch of sick people... and subsequently delivered the medicine where it was supposed to go, putting him and his crew at risk of repercussions from the group who gave him the job AND the people he stole from.

Does he steal from the bad guys because he wants shiny loots, or does he steal from the bad guys to decrease their resources? Sounds pretty much Chaotic Good inclined, if not chaotic good itself otherwise, and I can see why it'll be a good example even if Malcolm does the occasional questionable deed.

[Rei_Jin]

Well, the background is that he was part of the resistance in an intergalactic war... and the resistance lost. He's continuing the fight as a space cowboy, by taking what jobs he can that put him at odds with the powers that be. He deliberately goes out of his way to "tick off" the Alliance, and in the movie (Serenity) he risks his life and his ship after losing almost all of his allies to try and bring down the baddies.

His taking of shiny things is to (a) Annoy the Alliance, (b) Reduce their resources, (c) Make them look like idiots, and (d) Provide for his crew and keep his ship running.

In another episode he takes a large cache of food supplies from the Alliance, and sells it to a woman who shot him before, knowing that she'd likely try and doublecross him, which she did. He took the cash from her anyway and left the food supplies, which he didn't have to do.

[Honest Tiefling]

Alright. Thanks for explaining. I think that works for chaotic good, as yes, he is using his resources for his own gain (not dying), but he seems pretty devoted to the cause of giving the Alliance to the middle finger. I think I should be more clear, being forced to take loot to keep fighting is one thing, but what I dislike is when it is expected that chaotic good take things merely because they want them. Like robbing taverns for booze for the heck of it. Maybe I should have been more clear with my initial post.