PDA

View Full Version : [Any D&D] Alignment occording to a mix of the 1st. Edition PHB and DMG.



Agrippa
2012-02-19, 02:21 AM
Now I've posted various if similar takes on alignment in the past. But now I've finally gathered together something that best explains my views on alignment using modified definitions from both the 1st. Edition PHB and DMG. I do apologize if I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

Major Divisions:
There are two major divisions of four opposite points of view. All four are not mutually exclusive, although each pair is mutually opposed.

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, Law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while Chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while Chaos promotes the individual over the group.

Good And Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of Good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is determinant.

There can never exist a Lawful Chaos or an Evil Good. These, and their reverses, are dichotomous. This is not to say that they cannot exist in the same character or creature if it is insane or controlled by another entity, but as general divisions they are mutually exclusive pairs. Consider also the alignments graph. If law is opposed to chaos, and good to evil, then the radically opposed alignments are lawful neutral — chaotic neutral, neutral good — neutral evil, lawful good — chaotic evil, and lawful evil — chaotic good. Lawful groups might, for example, combine to put down some chaotic threat, for example, just as readily as good groups would combine to suppress some powerful evil. Basic understanding and agreement, however, is within the general specific alignment, i.e. one of the nine categories. These are defined as follows:

LAWFUL GOOD: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

NEUTRAL GOOD: Unlike those directly opposite them (Neutral Evil) in alignment, creatures of Neutral Good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world — the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

CHAOTIC GOOD: To the Chaotic Good individual, freedom and independence are as important as life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is often times wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.

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, so long as he doesn't go to far, or a soldier who almost never questions his orders are good examples of Lawful Neutral behavior.

TRUE 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. They have no care whether these forces remain in balanced contention.

CHAOTIC NEUTRAL: This view of the cosmos holds that absolute freedom is necessary. Whether the individual exercising such freedom chooses to do good or evil is of little to no concern.

LAWFUL EVIL: Obviously, all order is not good, nor are all laws beneficial. Lawful Evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from the lowest to the highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while the philosophy of Lawful Evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger, but being served by the weaker.

NEUTRAL EVIL: Similar to the Neutral Good alignment, that of Neutral Evil holds that neither groups nor individuals have great meaning. This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything else.

CHAOTIC EVIL: The Chaotic Evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit, or that freedom itself is so important that life is meaningless compared to it. Thus, law and order rends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-19, 04:05 PM
I have to ask, what do you personally find wrong with alignment as described by the PHB?

Agrippa
2012-02-19, 04:13 PM
I have to ask, what do you personally find wrong with alignment as described by the PHB?

It's too muddled and imprecise for me. I like the Lawful and Chaotic alignments to have actual noticable differences and I don't care for the conflation of Law with honor and being methodical or Chaos being conflated with insane or inherently unrealiable.

Talakeal
2012-02-19, 04:49 PM
While good and evil are mostly clear cut (although the red team vs. blue team mentality over rides real world ethics a bit too much for my taste) chaos and law have become a soup of conflicting ideas.

As traits of lawful characters the books give us include:

Obeys the law.
Obeys tradition.
Logical.
Orderly.
Efficient.
Honorable.
Loyal.
Trustworthy.
Honest.
Sane.

Would a lawful character testify against their friends? It is legal and honest to do so, but dishonorable and disloyal.
Would a character who works to distort the truth and restrict information for their government ala 1984 be lawful? It is very orderly and legal, but completely dishonest.
Would a lawful character run a stop sign when the road was deserted, or say a prayer before a meal (assuming an atheist)? It is following the law and tradition, but is inefficient and illogical.

Lawful vs. Chaos originally meant the character supported large ordered societies or opposed them. It was much simpler than the sea of ill defined and contradictory terms more recent books make us deal with.


Good and Evil have become a bit muddied to, thanks to books like BoED, BoVD, CoR, HoH, and FC2. The players handbook definition is SO much simpler than having to deal with all sorts of arbitrarily good and evil acts.
Also, evil always wins in an act with multiple parts, which is weird. Using BoED / BoVD logic animating a skeleton to save an orphanage is evil, but summoning a celestial to destroy an orphanage is still evil.

hamishspence
2012-02-19, 04:52 PM
A certain "looseness" in definition could have its advantages though- allowing more DM discretion.

That said, the choice of "desire for freedom" as the defining trait of Chaos is interesting.

Law as "order and organization" also fits fairly well.

Evil as "the strong over the weak" is pretty typical.

As is Good as "rights and happiness of beings is paramount."

Neutrality is I think the weakest link here. "Refusing to see their actions as either good or evil" is a very common trait of certain villains.

Talakeal
2012-02-19, 04:53 PM
Yeah, the old "high neutral" defender of the balance was always a bit wierd, and always made me feel bad for playing a druid when I wanted to do good. I think the addition of unaligned is one of the few things that recent takes on alignment got right.

hamishspence
2012-02-19, 04:56 PM
Good and Evil have become a bit muddied to, thanks to books like BoED, BoVD, CoR, HoH, and FC2. The players handbook definition is SO much simpler than having to deal with all sorts of arbitrarily good and evil acts.
Also, evil always wins in an act with multiple parts, which is weird. Using BoED / BoVD logic animating a skeleton to save an orphanage is evil, but summoning a celestial to destroy an orphanage is still evil.

It's not that weird. Acts can be divided into sections- with one section evil, the other section not- and it can make sense that, because one section was evil, it triggers a Fall (in the case of paladin-like classes).

Talakeal
2012-02-19, 05:03 PM
Yes, and by real world morality it would be debatable whether or not it is worth it. But the BoED makes it explicitly clear that if you ever do a minor evil act for a greater good you are a bad person and going to hell for it. It really hurts my ability to RP a character when the universe itself has a morality that doesn't jive with my knowledge of ethics.

In the case I gave, for example, the skeleton isn't hurting anybody, and isn't even channeling evil energy (negative energy is unaligned). It is simply because most people find the undead "icky" which seems to me a terrible excuse to let children die.

Honestly, when I play D&D I just write CE on my character sheet and then RP what I feel is LG. No one ever criticizes you for being too good or lawful, so it avoids alignment discussion altogether.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-19, 05:05 PM
Would a lawful character testify against their friends? It is legal and honest to do so, but dishonorable and disloyal.

It's not dishonorable if they did something bad or against a legitimate law (or against a bad law for a bad reason). This is colored by good/evil.


Would a character who works to distort the truth and restrict information for their government ala 1984 be lawful? It is very orderly and legal, but completely dishonest.

A lawful good character wouldn't do that unless he was sure he was saving lives and promoting good. A lawful neutral would unless it caused chaos or unnecessary death (unnecessary death is open to interpretation, I guess). A lawful evil character would.


Would a lawful character run a stop sign when the road was deserted, or say a prayer before a meal (assuming an atheist)? It is following the law and tradition, but is inefficient and illogical.

If he could clearly see that no one was coming for a fairly ridiculous distance, then no, it wouldn't really be chaotic of him to do so, but this is more a wisdom thing than not. In general, a lawful character would stop at a stop sign unless he had a really good reason not to (like it being ridiculous as stated above).

The prayer thing again depends on where he is and why, and it's not inherently illogical (well, it is, but there could be logical reasons for doing it). Would Spok? If he was on a diplomatic mission or among good friends, he would probably do it for the sake of the mission or out of respect to his friends (and if he didn't do it for his friends, it's because they've talked it over before).

Talakeal
2012-02-19, 05:16 PM
I tried to leave good and evil out of my examples. Assume that in each case the conflict matches the characters good and evil axis. IE good characters work for good governments lying to good citizens, evil characters work for evil governments for evil creatures, etc.

So you think Spock is lawful then? I do to but you are the first person to agree with me, most people I have had the discussion with say that rigid adherence to tradition and rules are the sign of a lawful character, and a logical character would have no reason to follow them and is thus chaotic.

What about someone like the Terminator? They have their own directives and goals, and follow those goals no matter what. Purely logical, loyal, and determined, but doesn't give a darn about what laws he breaks working towards his goal.

What about if you replace the Terminator with a Marut? They follow the same personality save that they have a single scruple, they will not directly harm an innocent. And they are exemplars of law.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-19, 05:21 PM
Agrippa, could you give an example of a LG person and a NG person and how they differ on the group vs. individual basis? Where does a CG person draw the line between CG and CN? You mentioned in all three evil alignments a strong-over-the-weak thing, but you never mentioned the opposite in the good alignments.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking for clarification.

hamishspence
2012-02-19, 05:27 PM
Yes, and by real world morality it would be debatable whether or not it is worth it. But the BoED makes it explicitly clear that if you ever do a minor evil act for a greater good you are a bad person and going to hell for it. It really hurts my ability to RP a character when the universe itself has a morality that doesn't jive with my knowledge of ethics.

Strictly it's simply the casting itself that qualifies as evil. Heroes of Horror emphasises that casting evil spells for a greater good is compatible with a Neutral alignment (in the Dread Necromancer description, and the anti-heroes description also suggests minor evil acts with a good end in view allow for Neutrality).

Really the problem is either the invention of the [Evil] tag for spells in the first place, or poor application of it.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-19, 05:31 PM
Talakeal, I don't think "following the law" and being lawful are the same thing. The same with breaking the law and being chaotic. I agree with Agrippa that a lawful person prefers order and organization, but that isn't the same thing as following the law, though they often line up.

How many laws are there that actually cause chaos? Plenty. A law is a tool, and a tool can be mishandled or outright misused, and when not used properly, chaos can result. So, yeah, it's whatever brings the most order, not just following the law.

Edit, adding some more: I think that a lawful good character helping the government lie to the populace in order to keep order and minimize evil is a lawful good act. The same as if he used his sword to kill in order to keep order and minimize evil. A paladin wouldn't, however, and he (the LG character) really ought to be trying to find a better method than lying.

The terminator, honestly, I can't ascribe an alignment too. However capable it is of reacting to its environment, it isn't actually intelligent or capable of making moral decisions, it does as its programmed, but then I could make the same argument with biological beings as well. Within the context of a D&D world, I'd say the terminator is LN like a Marut and leave it at that. It's protecting the order of time, period (the terminator, not the Marut, unless the Marut is the time-protector inevitable, I don't remember).

Talakeal
2012-02-19, 05:53 PM
Talakeal, I don't think "following the law" and being lawful are the same thing. The same with breaking the law and being chaotic. I agree with Agrippa that a lawful person prefers order and organization, but that isn't the same thing as following the law, though they often line up.

How many laws are there that actually cause chaos? Plenty. A law is a tool, and a tool can be mishandled or outright misused, and when not used properly, chaos can result. So, yeah, it's whatever brings the most order, not just following the law.

Edit, adding some more: I think that a lawful good character helping the government lie to the populace in order to keep order and minimize evil is a lawful good act. The same as if he used his sword to kill in order to keep order and minimize evil. A paladin wouldn't, however, and he (the LG character) really ought to be trying to find a better method than lying.

The terminator, honestly, I can't ascribe an alignment too. However capable it is of reacting to its environment, it isn't actually intelligent or capable of making moral decisions, it does as its programmed, but then I could make the same argument with biological beings as well. Within the context of a D&D world, I'd say the terminator is LN like a Marut and leave it at that. It's protecting the order of time, period (the terminator, not the Marut, unless the Marut is the time-protector inevitable, I don't remember).


That's my point. The books ascribing all sorts of various attributes to lawful have made it into a giant muddled mess. One can easilly find an answer to whether a character is lawful or not in a simple definition, but once we start factoring in dozens of different variables it is more difficult.

The marut is like the terminator, a subject is marked for death by the powers that be and the Marut is sent to hunt it down and destroy it by any means.


Strictly it's simply the casting itself that qualifies as evil. Heroes of Horror emphasises that casting evil spells for a greater good is compatible with a Neutral alignment (in the Dread Necromancer description, and the anti-heroes description also suggests minor evil acts with a good end in view allow for Neutrality).

Really the problem is either the invention of the [Evil] tag for spells in the first place, or poor application of it.

Within the heroes of horror framework that is possible, but the BoED makes it very clear that the ends NEVER justify the means, and even the tiniest evil act for the greatest good is the wrong thing to do.

Also, in core it is not evil to cast [EVIL] spells, that came later. In core the alignment tags were basically just used to tell you what dieties will grant what spells to their clerics.

Agrippa
2012-02-19, 06:05 PM
If you're cuiorous this is the basic philosophy of all Good alignments in a nutshell.


The superior man is the providence of the inferior. He is eyes for the blind, strength for the weak, and a shield for the defenseless. He stands erect by bending above the fallen. He rises by lifting others.

hamishspence
2012-02-19, 06:14 PM
Within the heroes of horror framework that is possible, but the BoED makes it very clear that the ends NEVER justify the means, and even the tiniest evil act for the greatest good is the wrong thing to do.

It can be a little odd when the greatest good is the saving of the universe (better no universe at all than the tiniest unfavourable shift in the balance? Doesn't work).

Better to simply say that tiny evil acts lose the character their powers because it's intrinsic to the nature of that class/those powers.


Also, in core it is not evil to cast [EVIL] spells, that came later.

True- Complete Scoundrel, BoVD, Eberron Campaign Setting, were the ones that mentioned it- but it was a fairly logical surmise before that.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-19, 07:49 PM
The marut is like the terminator, a subject is marked for death by the powers that be and the Marut is sent to hunt it down and destroy it by any means.


Heh, I was thinking Terminator 2.

hamishspence
2012-02-20, 06:04 AM
That would be the Zelekhut- an inevitable sent to stop people who are messing about with the timeline.

It works for both Kyle Reese's role and that of "Uncle Bob".

Wardog
2012-02-28, 01:20 PM
Talakeal, I don't think "following the law" and being lawful are the same thing. The same with breaking the law and being chaotic. I agree with Agrippa that a lawful person prefers order and organization, but that isn't the same thing as following the law, though they often line up.

How many laws are there that actually cause chaos? Plenty. A law is a tool, and a tool can be mishandled or outright misused, and when not used properly, chaos can result. So, yeah, it's whatever brings the most order, not just following the law.

My prefered explanation/solution is to say that a Lawful character thinks there should be laws (or at least, there should be rules), and that laws and rules are (in general) a good thing. Conversely, a Chaotic character thinks there should not be laws (or rules), and that laws are a bad thing.

So a Lawful character supports the existance of laws, and will (usually) follow them, but can break the law (or even rebel against the government or authorities) if necessary, however they will want to replace the bad laws and bad government with good ones. (That's "good" in the general sense, not necessarily the alignment).

If a someone subverts and usurps the legitimate government, sets themselves up as a dictator, and institutes lots of bad laws, a LG (or even NG) character may rebel against them, in order to re-establish the legitimate government and replace the bad laws with good ones.

(I would consider most of the Rebels in Star Wars: A New Hope to be lawful, both because they were organised with a proper command structure, and because they were trying to replace an illigitimate government with a legitimate one).

A CG or CN character on the other hand would probably say "See? This is why governments and laws are a bad idea! If people hadn't done what he said just because he called himself "king" and his enforcers wore uniforms, none of this would have happened!"

MukkTB
2012-02-28, 01:54 PM
I avoid alignment restrictions when choosing a class. The DM then never has any reason to peer over my shoulders and critique my play on the basis of alignment. Of course that makes clerics and paladins off limits to me. On the other hand a god peering over your shoulder is the same kind of pain.


Alignment is a good idea. In practice it breaks down. The best philosophy I've seen gets complicated. That philosophy of alignment holds that Good/Evil is just how many people you care about. Really good cares about everyone. Really evil only cares about #1. Law/Chaos is where it gets trickier. Chaos is practicality. If I'm chaotic I will do whatever is practical at the time to achieve my goals. Law is absolute. It holds that there are certain fundamental truths.

So should you make s skeleton to save an orphanage? Chaos says yes. The evil is minor as long as you dispose of the skeleton properly afterwards. The good is the life of many children. You weigh this particular decision and say that its practical to make a skeleton.

Law would say no. If you give people any excuse to make a skeleton you tactically acknowledge that its OK to do that. If you let people make skeletons eventually some skeleton is going to be uncontrolled and revert to eating people. This isn't acceptable. Law would also say that you should make a golem instead, or take some other action that isn't evil. It would be the guy saying 'There's always alternatives.'

From a pure Good/Evil standpoint there is no question. If you can save many lives while causing only negligible negative effects you are morally required to do so. So the decision is really a law/chaos one.

Or when you come to a street light in the middle of the night. Chaos would say its practical to run it. Law would say its a bad idea now despite minimal risk because its always a bad idea to run it.


A lot of Lawful thinking is designed to keep people from falling down a theoretical slippery slope.

hamishspence
2012-02-28, 01:58 PM
My prefered explanation/solution is to say that a Lawful character thinks there should be laws (or at least, there should be rules), and that laws and rules are (in general) a good thing. Conversely, a Chaotic character thinks there should not be laws (or rules), and that laws are a bad thing.

So a Lawful character supports the existance of laws, and will (usually) follow them, but can break the law (or even rebel against the government or authorities) if necessary, however they will want to replace the bad laws and bad government with good ones. (That's "good" in the general sense, not necessarily the alignment).

If a someone subverts and usurps the legitimate government, sets themselves up as a dictator, and institutes lots of bad laws, a LG (or even NG) character may rebel against them, in order to re-establish the legitimate government and replace the bad laws with good ones.

(I would consider most of the Rebels in Star Wars: A New Hope to be lawful, both because they were organised with a proper command structure, and because they were trying to replace an illigitimate government with a legitimate one).

Yes- and it must be remembered that while people like Vader call them "the Rebel Alliance" and "The Rebellion" they call themselves (when being formal) "The Alliance to Restore the Republic".

WoTC said very similar things in their "Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic" article- Lawful Goods can break immoral laws- and oppose Evil when it's in charge.

Another poster (Porthos) sigged it as:

Being Lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the law (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)