D&D alignments: EG, GE, LC, CL?

[Xuldarinar]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.

3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

What alignments could these characters be? Is it more important what a character believes in, or how they conduct themselves? Is 1 good because they fight in the name of good, or are they evil because of how they fight? Is 2 evil because they side with evil, or are they good because they are benign in behavior? Is 3 lawful for using laws and establishing them, or are they chaotic for believing in freedom? Is 4 chaotic for being a very free spirited individual, or lawful for believing in law?

Here, I'd like to discuss the implications of belief as opposed to behavior in D&D. Now, I have a system that separates the two alignments, but in the core game.. Which is more important for alignment, what we do or why we do what we do?

[Der_DWSage]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

If they're doing terrible things in the name of good, that smells a lot like Lawful Evil to me. The means might justify the ends, but in the meantime, you're killing puppies for being too cute.


2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.

At worst, chaotic neutral. But honestly, associating with the forces of hell doesn't automatically change your alignment-this seems a lot more like 'naive good' or 'foolish good.'


3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

This one's a lot more tricky, and depends on how you view lawful/chaotic. Personally, I'd say it's lawful good or lawful neutral-they're establishing laws that encourage freedom, which encourages community growth. They don't even have to be good for that-they could even be Lawful Evil, so long as they realize that it's in their benefit in the end.


4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

Ehhh...just some flavor of good. 'Chaotic' doesn't mean you go against the law for the sake of being a rebel. Chaotic means that you don't really plan it out. On the other end of the spectrum, lawful doesn't mean that you automatically follow all the laws of the land-just that you'd prefer to, especially if they promote community growth.

[Just to Browse]

These definitely feel like they can be folded in to the current 9-alignment setup. Adding complexity to alignments of all things doesn't feel necessary.

If you want to represent mindless devotion you can add the Exalted tag to an alignment, meaning the character pursues that one alignment persistently to the expense of the other axis--so you have XG, XE, XL, XC. Being whimsical about things is just being neutral.

[Sylthia]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

That depends on what you mean by terrible things. The argument could be made for either Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral, depending on what it is.


2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.

If they are advancing the will of devils, they are at best some sort of Neutral on the Good-Evil scale. They could be affably Evil. I won't violate Godwin's Law here with examples.


3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

Most likely Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral, definitely not Chaotic. Someone who thinks freedom comes from laws is definitely lawful.


4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

Same as number 3.

[hamishspence]

That depends on what you mean by terrible things. The argument could be made for either Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral, depending on what it is.

Soul destroying? That's an "Only Evil people are willing to do this" thing according to BoVD.

Torture is also pretty high on the Evil scale.

[Telonius]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.

3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

What alignments could these characters be? Is it more important what a character believes in, or how they conduct themselves? Is 1 good because they fight in the name of good, or are they evil because of how they fight? Is 2 evil because they side with evil, or are they good because they are benign in behavior? Is 3 lawful for using laws and establishing them, or are they chaotic for believing in freedom? Is 4 chaotic for being a very free spirited individual, or lawful for believing in law?

Here, I'd like to discuss the implications of belief as opposed to behavior in D&D. Now, I have a system that separates the two alignments, but in the core game.. Which is more important for alignment, what we do or why we do what we do?

D&D alignment is much more about actions than about motivations. There are certain actions that are always good or evil, no matter what; certain things and creatures that are objectively, undeniably Good or Evil. If you habitually do things that are Good, or Evil, or Lawful, or Chaotic, then you are Good, or Evil, or Lawful, or Chaotic. (Consistency in behavior is an important component of alignment. There are only a few extreme actions that can flip an alignment on their own).

For number 1, it depends a bit on exactly what "terrible things" he's done, and how hard he's trying to avoid "terrible things." If the action is extreme enough (an act of genocide, becoming a Lich, an extreme act of betrayal, signing a Pact Certain, that sort of thing) then the character is Evil no matter what. If we're talking more about getting your hands dirty in extraordinary circumstances, Grey Guard-style, the character might still be Neutral or Good, depending on how hard they try to atone or avoid the situation altogether.

For 2, it depends on what he's done to "throw his lot in with hell." If it's just something like worshiping Evil deities or living in a generally Evil society, that might not be quite enough to merit an Evil alignment. You could get away with Lawful Neutral if there aren't any particularly evil actions on your conscience, or even Lawful Good if you go out of your way to be kind within a terrible situation. But if we're talking about actively, willingly serving a Lawful Evil cause or person, then yes, that's Evil. The extreme end of that span is actually selling your soul to a devil.

3 gets at the heart of how poorly defined Law and Chaos are. It also raises the issue of whether using Lawful means to a Chaotic end works the same way as using Evil means to a Good end, or even if it's a paradox to have a "Chaotic moral code." Personally I would say that they work in a similar manner; a character who makes a Law to serve Freedom would be in the same boat as the character who does "terrible things" to serve good. If he's tried to achieve freedom by every other way he can but has to make a law as a last resort, and tries to get around needing the law whenever possible, that would still be Chaotic. If he starts serving the law as an end in itself, that's Lawful.

4 also highlights poor definitions. If the character purports to believe in laws, but ignores them whenever it's convenient (or acts like the laws apply to everybody but him), then the alignment is probably Chaotic Jerk. :smallbiggrin: If he's more about being as free as possible within the law ("Hey, there's no law against it, so let's go nuts!") then he's probably Neutral. But if he's consistently weighing his behavior against a set of rules and norms before acting, and allowing society to shape what "free spiritedness" he expresses, that's probably Lawful.

[Flame of Anor]

My thoughts:

1. Interesting concept. Rather like the Operative from Serenity. I imagine that, depending on just how bad the means are, there are a few regular alignments this would fit under.

2. I don't think this would ever happen. It's a psychological contradiction.

3. (a.k.a. Libertarian) This is just one way of playing Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral.

4. Neutral, I suppose.

[Xuldarinar]

I like people's interpretations thus far. So. Im going to add a few more concepts to see how they are perceived.


5. A necromancer (anywhere from cleric, to dread necromancer, to even a necrocarnate) who, while they constantly use the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.

6. A blackguard, an evil outsider, or any thing that would be perceived as evil, that is constantly of good conduct. Protect the innocent, help those in need, so on. Their reason, however, is because they want to create doubt. To allow an opening for others who serve evil to not necessarily be attacked upon sight, and possibly be seen as very positive beings in a certain society. Behaving good to benefit others of evil.

7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good? The reason behind their service could be that they have a common enemy and a devil's pact or blessing could help the paladin in their fight. The paladin could be one who is sent to fight demons in a conflict between hell and the abyss, or even the paladin is sent to help 'collect' those who have made pacts with a certain devil and have tried to break their agreement (Lawful over Good). A devil could use a paladin to fight other devils, since the ability to smite evil would be a great help in that. Such a paladin might be on a crusade against a particular devil and aligning themselves with another helps get them closer to their goal.



On 2 being a contradiction. It could happen. Someone is inherently a good person, but they have been raised in a society that devil worship is the norm or that they believe hell to be a good thing. Perhaps their view is that devils collect the souls of the wicked and punish them, there by benefiting the souls of the good. A "rotten apple spoils the barrel" sort of mentality. Tempting weak mortals helps draw those unworthy out, those who could easily become corrupt later, as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. You could have a great craftsman who forges powerful magical items and has a means of providing them to devils. They do not fight, they are not wicked, but they are benefitting inherently evil beings.



Also, can you come up with a workable concept for a character that:

Could qualify for being good, could qualify for being evil, but absolutely could not be neutral. Same goes for lawful and chaotic. I want to see concepts that challenge the alignment system, characters that wouldn't necessarily fall into one of the 9 easily. Characters who are black and white at the same time but are not grey.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

If you'll stop at nothing you're Evil, so you need to be standing against something more concrete like everything that threatens my country, village, family, race, plane etc or a specific evil group. Could be LE if they feel especially duty bound to protect a certain group or CE if they truly follow no rules in the pursuit of destroying their hated foes.




[QUOTE=Xuldarinar;15345103]
3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

Probably Neutral Good. Setting the boundaries where you would infringe on the rights of others allowing maximum reasonable freedom. Actually Chaotic Good may be more likely.



4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

Lawful, but fun.

[Erik Vale]

5: Ignoreing DnD's It's Evil! outlook, Any type of good. Accepting DnD's it's evil look, he would be N, depending on how often he had to refresh his stock of undead [If he was constantly replacing them, technically evil. If he rarely did, Good. However I see this as a case similar to Roy after his death. He tries to be LG, therefore he is LG]
6: That's called affably evil. [Spelling seems off, but my spellcheck is telling me otherwise]. If they weren't self serving then:
-Blackguard would 'rise', becoming good.
-Evil Outsiders wouldn't do it, or if they would, they would seek out the Savage Species ritual to loose the evil discriptor.
7: Ehhh.... That depends on the God and the devil. There are some gods that might allow it, but otherwise they would fall that paladin hard. However, in DnD land, thats a inherently evil action [infernal pact] so they fall to nuetral immediately if not evil. Otherwise, Neutral or Good depending on the devil...
However, if he got gods permission to sign the pact before hand, I think the character could get away with it.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

5. A necromancer (anywhere from cleric, to dread necromancer, to even a necrocarnate) who, while they constantly use the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.

Depends on the game, in some games creating undead is an inherently evil act for reasons ranging from it upsetting the souls of the deceased to "the DM says so" in others it's a neutral act. If creation in inherently evil then the character may have to be evil, in which case I'd recommend Lawful to reflect the character's code of "Protect the Innocent".

If undead creation isn't evil they can be any flavor of good.


6. A blackguard, an evil outsider, or any thing that would be perceived as evil, that is constantly of good conduct. Protect the innocent, help those in need, so on. Their reason, however, is because they want to create doubt. To allow an opening for others who serve evil to not necessarily be attacked upon sight, and possibly be seen as very positive beings in a certain society. Behaving good to benefit others of evil.

Evil since it's all a scam. The slippery slope of morality doesn't work both ways.



7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good? The reason behind their service could be that they have a common enemy and a devil's pact or blessing could help the paladin in their fight. The paladin could be one who is sent to fight demons in a conflict between hell and the abyss, or even the paladin is sent to help 'collect' those who have made pacts with a certain devil and have tried to break their agreement (Lawful over Good). A devil could use a paladin to fight other devils, since the ability to smite evil would be a great help in that. Such a paladin might be on a crusade against a particular devil and aligning themselves with another helps get them closer to their goal.


I've already endorsed fighting for team L in the Blood War. As for the rest, it might be acceptable as a temporary arrangement, but the stakes would need to be very high like in the Blood War and it's probably a foolish decision, but foolish isn't evil.

As for your scenarios on number two:

The first is very contrived, but I suppose a person raised in that society could be judged on their actions. I'm not sure if you'd really call it throwing in with devils though since their just accepting devils as a working part of their cosmology. If their good or even neutral they shouldn't really be "helping".

In the case of the merchant neutral he's just a merchant, though the devils are probably working hard to corrupt him.

[ArcturusV]

1: This is one of those areas where you're likely to get different answers. There are some acts that are irredeemably evil, and doing those is going to mark the guy as evil no matter what. The phrase "The road to hell is paved in good intentions" is likely to be used about such a character, and few outsiders will doubt his Evil nature. Most will chalk it up to self-delusion. But Good versus Evil is defined by Motivation, not Means. So it's entirely possible (And happens quite often I find) to have Despotic "Good" figures. As long as you avoid the few acts that immediately peg you as evil regardless, you can maintain "Good" while being tyrannical, fanatical, and maniacal.

2: Sadly the book includes one of the behaviors that instantly IDs someone as "Evil" as "Worships evil or evil beings". So that person would be tossed into the bin as pure evil. Regardless of why he did it, or if he's just trying to be good. The fact that he's a bootlicker, a willing bootlicker that is, of Evil taints his soul.

3: This is likely to fall under the umbrella of "Lawful Evil", to be honest. Lawful Evil is all about propping up the system. But Evil is all about cutthroat "every man for himself" behavior. Neutrals at least theoretically give a damn about others and want to protect others/protect against others. An evil guy is fine with setting up a system that is all about making sure everyone is untouchable because they figure their own ruthlessness is going to get them ahead of the game.

Note that it can also fall under Lawful Good, as Good is usually defined in terms of caring for the well being of others, and creating codified laws in order to guarantee it is right up their wheel house. Generally it, like most Good/Evil splits depends on Intention. If the freedom is created for the good of all, it's Lawful Good, if it's freedom for the sake of their own advantage because they believe this system will give them the best shot at the life they want no matter what? Probably Lawful Evil.

4: Probably True Neutral or Lawful Neutral, perhaps on the cusp between the alignments and able to dance across that boundry fairly much. Note that Neutrals tend to care about personal freedom as well, and care about Law. With no particular leaning towards good or evil, it just marks you out as being neutral. Left alone? You'll want to be your own man. If something demands order? You'll be part of the order without a second though. Pure animalistic behavior, and most animals are True Neutral after all.

5: Depends in part on what sort of weight is taken to the action and how Undead are defined in the setting. Most of the "Undead are evil" is because by standard fluff it involves not only the twisting of souls, but also opening rifts into realms of pure evil energy and such. Without that restriction, and with a low weight to various "vile" spells? Probably not going to impact the alignment much.

But note some vile spells like... Liquid Pain, which creates Agony? It involves fully inflicting torture upon an unwilling subject just for the sake of drawing forth power from their suffering. If you're regularly practicing "Vile" and [Evil] magics along that vein? You're gonna end up evil by most anyone's measure. You don't recover form torturing people for hours so you can snort their pure pain and suffering to get high by making token gestures.

6: Doubly danged into Evil on this one, pretty clear cut. Not only are you serving evil to continue to get your powers (In the case of Blackguards), but your plans are also actively pursuing a status where more evil can be inflicted later on. I mean, look at Asmodeus, this description is just like him. The guy who has plans which stretch Eons. The guy who will help mortals do something that seemingly thwarts his own desires just because it sets up some other Xanatos Gambit that furthers his plans.

"Even if he loses, Dr. Doom's machinations are such that he will lose in such a way that ultimately furthers his plans, thus, victory Doom."

7: Not really. It's mucking around with Paladins. And Paladins do clearly have it written in The Rules "You associate with anyone who is evil, you fall, you may never choose to volunteer with anyone who is evil". Which is kinda stupid, I always hated it. But it is there. A Paladin could fight alongside a Devil, or a Demon, sure. Ad hoc style, taking down threats, the bearded devil who's helping you fight off Demogorgon from entering the prime material plane is frankly just a small fry in comparison, and you're not going to throw away help when you need it. But making long term plans and alliances with? Classic evil definition territory.

The second, a person who's good in a Devil Worshiping Society isn't all that weird at all. Makes sense. Probably not going to be a Paladin, as the Paladin has a "Higher Calling" and "Knows the Truth" and their patron forces aren't going to take kindly to it, regardless of societal norms. This sort of pattern has come up in several sources over "What's normal for mortals" versus Paladin Code, and the books have erred on the side of Paladin code each and every time.

But it doesn't exclude someone from being Good in that society. Might make them loose the "Good" status if they take it a step further. But not as is.

I think that Chaos/Lawful by your terms is going to be impossible. Chaos/Law split is defined so much in terms of What and How you do things, rather than Why. It's more concrete in it's terms.

Even Good/Evil might not be possible. Neutrality exists to fit that definition of "Sometimes good, sometimes evil" or "Motivated by both ends", etc, etc, etc. I mean it's why it's there. But good/evil is your best shot, as Good and Evil are defined typically by Motivations, rather than Actions. There's a few exceptions, mostly on the side of Evil. There's no "Purely Good" actions I can think of. Good has the higher standard in that motivation ALWAYS matters. There's a few things that are automatically "evil" no matter what. Worshiping Evil Gods/beings. Destroying Souls, etc.

So any Good/Evil split would have to avoid those actions. But still be doing things that are unquestioningly Evil. And do things that are unquestioningly Good.

... but the problem comes from how do you intend to do both Good and Evil at the same time? And avoid neutrality which would be defined as choosing a middle ground or waffling between them. You'd have to be set up in such a way that every major action you take is both simultaneously done for Evil reasons (Self motivation) and Good reasons (For the sake of others)...

... it's hard. Not sure I can think of it right now.

[Gnaeus]

1. Elric, who was pretty universally heroic in his actions (helped innocent people, opposed the forces of Chaos, generally a heroic guy) also used a sword that ate souls and he sometimes summoned a demon lord. Alignment per Deities and Demigods is CE.

[Telonius]

I like people's interpretations thus far. So. Im going to add a few more concepts to see how they are perceived.


5. A necromancer (anywhere from cleric, to dread necromancer, to even a necrocarnate) who, while they constantly use the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.

6. A blackguard, an evil outsider, or any thing that would be perceived as evil, that is constantly of good conduct. Protect the innocent, help those in need, so on. Their reason, however, is because they want to create doubt. To allow an opening for others who serve evil to not necessarily be attacked upon sight, and possibly be seen as very positive beings in a certain society. Behaving good to benefit others of evil.

7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good? The reason behind their service could be that they have a common enemy and a devil's pact or blessing could help the paladin in their fight. The paladin could be one who is sent to fight demons in a conflict between hell and the abyss, or even the paladin is sent to help 'collect' those who have made pacts with a certain devil and have tried to break their agreement (Lawful over Good). A devil could use a paladin to fight other devils, since the ability to smite evil would be a great help in that. Such a paladin might be on a crusade against a particular devil and aligning themselves with another helps get them closer to their goal.



On 2 being a contradiction. It could happen. Someone is inherently a good person, but they have been raised in a society that devil worship is the norm or that they believe hell to be a good thing. Perhaps their view is that devils collect the souls of the wicked and punish them, there by benefiting the souls of the good. A "rotten apple spoils the barrel" sort of mentality. Tempting weak mortals helps draw those unworthy out, those who could easily become corrupt later, as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. You could have a great craftsman who forges powerful magical items and has a means of providing them to devils. They do not fight, they are not wicked, but they are benefitting inherently evil beings.


5: there's vile and there's Vile (as in, a Vile spell from Book of Vile Darkness). If it's a Vile spell, it's a spell with the [Evil] descriptor; therefore it's always an Evil act to cast it. Just being a Necromancer isn't necessarily Evil. Command Undead and Control Undead, for example, don't have the [Evil] descriptor. But pretty much all spells that create undead have the [Evil] descriptor. If your guy is just harnessing the undead that already exist, there's nothing inherently Evil about that.

6: Absolutely, a person could have an Evil alignment and still be nice (even regularly). But it's all in service of an Evil goal - the ruination of a soul, which (if successful) would certainly be an Evil act.

7: A generic Lawful Good character might be able to manage this, but a Paladin couldn't; it violates the Paladin's Code (specifically the clause about associating with Evil creatures).



Also, can you come up with a workable concept for a character that:

Could qualify for being good, could qualify for being evil, but absolutely could not be neutral. Same goes for lawful and chaotic. I want to see concepts that challenge the alignment system, characters that wouldn't necessarily fall into one of the 9 easily. Characters who are black and white at the same time but are not grey.

WotC actually posted one a while back: Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

Another possibility: a Tiefling who underwent a Ritual of Alignment (from Savage Species) as a child, getting an [Evil] descriptor, therefore becoming an Evil Outsider (and qualifying for some of the Fiend prestige classes in Fiendish Codex 1). But since they actually do have a free will, decides to have a Good alignment. This would work for any of the Planetouched races, and any alignment.

[JusticeZero]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil. Evil, full stop.
2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.Evil, full stop.
3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.Lawful.
4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.Chaotic.
5. A necromancer ..uses the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.Evil, straight out. A paladin can smite the heck out of them with impunity. This is purely because of contamination, and a major reason why petitioners are a thing - there needs to be an audit process.
6. A blackguard.., that is constantly of good conduct. ..because they want to create doubt...Evil, for the same reason as the necromancer. Their actions are uncertain, but using their powers is evil acts.
7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good?Work with, yes. Serve, no.

[Slipperychicken]

In D&D, people want to do terrible things but have their acts be Good or Neutral, because Evil PCs don't mix well in D&D games.

This leads them to make all kinds of pants-on-head insane arguments like "he's not Evil, he just doesn't care", "He's not Evil, he's selfish", "He's not Evil, he's just serving the greater good", or "He's not Evil, he's crazy".


It's nonsense. People who do awful things will always have a justification, but that doesn't stop them from being Evil. Just accept that your character is an Evil murderous bastard and move on.

[Steward]

Another possibility: a Tiefling who underwent a Ritual of Alignment (from Savage Species) as a child, getting an [Evil] descriptor, therefore becoming an Evil Outsider (and qualifying for some of the Fiend prestige classes in Fiendish Codex 1). But since they actually do have a free will, decides to have a Good alignment. This would work for any of the Planetouched races, and any alignment.

One of the elder evils from the book Elder Evils is a monster called Avamerin. Avamerin was a planetar who fell from grace, becoming the chaotic-evil ruler of a demonic cult. Even though he is evil, he still has the Good subtype. So there is precedent for your idea (having a subtype / descriptor being the opposite of your alignment).

[cerin616]

In my opinion, its not always just about action to determine alignment, but also motivation.

No number of good acts with evil intention makes you any less evil.
With that in mind, evil acts with good intentions also end up as evil.

Good is just much more restrictive.

I feel the same about law vs chaos. In the descriptions of alignment, the axis is described as "lawful feels that establishing rules is the best way to go about gaining your ends, while chaotic characters are distrustful of setting limitations on themselves."

So with that, Lawful doesn't break the rules. Chaotic, however, will follow the rules while its convenient, but they wont make any dedications. (Chaotic won't say "I will not kill" because they feel that they may indeed need to kill and don't want that limitation on themselves. They may still avoid killing, however.)

[Cirrylius]

Also, can you come up with a workable concept for a character that:

Could qualify for being good, could qualify for being evil, but absolutely could not be neutral. Same goes for lawful and chaotic.
Well, there was a PrC brought up on the forum a couple of weeks ago that has a strict code of conduct to act as chaotically as possible. Can't remember the name off the top of my head, though.

[John Campbell]

So here's one that actually applies to one of my characters:

A character who uses an [Evil] spell as the only available option to suppress an Evil enchantress's domination of a paladin, directly bringing the paladin back to the side of Lawful Good, and indirectly making possible the defeat of said Evil enchantress and preventing her from murdering everyone in the world.

[Gildedragon]

1: Evil, but self delusional
2: Any, depending how you split it. Good in a precarious position of constant temptation, Neutral, being continuously tempted, or Well-adjusted Evil
3: Lawful (Good): order as a means for freedom strikes me as the epitome of a lawful good society
4: Chaotic (Alignment of Legal System): they act without regards to the law, but they fit within it by happenstance. Probably CG as CG and LE are more concordant than CN and LN, or CE and LE
5: Any, depends on your undead fluffing. Personal opinion: Good
6: Evil, if they were doing so out of personal motivation or if the subterfuge fades, slow slippage to neutral
7: Not serve, ever, collaborate maybe (big maybe).

JohnC: Depends on the spell. Probably remains Good, might want to atone or make an apology, if only to show no harm was intended. Note that most alignment spells are borked up.

[Telonius]

So here's one that actually applies to one of my characters:

A character who uses an [Evil] spell as the only available option to suppress an Evil enchantress's domination of a paladin, directly bringing the paladin back to the side of Lawful Good, and indirectly making possible the defeat of said Evil enchantress and preventing her from murdering everyone in the world.

Casting an [Evil] spell would still be an Evil action, but (on its own) it typically wouldn't change the caster's alignment to Evil. Single acts, unless they're extreme, don't change alignment. Alignment is about habitual action.

Single actions will most often be a problem only for Paladins. A single Evil action still usually wouldn't cause an alignment shift, but would require an Atonement before the Paladin features turn back on.

[Slipperychicken]

Alignment is about habitual action.

Close, but not quite.


A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.



Single actions will most often be a problem only for Paladins. A single Evil action still usually wouldn't cause an alignment shift, but would require an Atonement before the Paladin features turn back on.

Technically, Clerics are supposed to have codes of conduct too, it's just that no-one ever wrote them out and the idea was probably dropped after seeing people chafe so hard at Paladin restrictions.

"Oh no, my crusader of righteousness can't just go around eating babies and keep his goodness-derived powers?! Such a restriction to roleplaying!"

[hamishspence]

Casting an [Evil] spell would still be an Evil action, but (on its own) it typically wouldn't change the caster's alignment to Evil. Single acts, unless they're extreme, don't change alignment. Alignment is about habitual action.

And going by Fiendish Codex 2, casting an Evil spell is not at all extreme- it's on a par with "humiliating an underling".

[Slipperychicken]

And going by Fiendish Codex 2, casting an Evil spell is not at all extreme- it's on a par with "humiliating an underling".

So it makes you a massive jerkwad, but not capital-E Evil.

[hamishspence]

"stealing from the needy for personal gain" is quite a bit worse on the scale.

it's been a while since I looked up the list of Corrupt acts though. Top of the list were "Murder for pleasure" and "inflicting indescribable torture".

Alongside "casting an evil spell" and "humiliating an underling" was "inflicting intimidating torture"- that is, torture that does no damage. Holding a spider above the face of someone with arachnophobia would probably qualify.

[Slipperychicken]

Alongside "casting an evil spell" and "humiliating an underling" was "inflicting intimidating torture"- that is, torture that does no damage. Holding a spider above the face of someone with arachnophobia would probably qualify.

So casting [Evil] spells is like waterboarding people. Brutal.

[hamishspence]

It might depend on the DMs interpretation. I could see some DMs bumping the nastier forms of "nondamaging torture" up a notch or two- and applying the Intimidating torture rule just to those that involve showing people things in order to, well, intimidate them.

[Gwazi Magnum]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.

2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.

3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.

4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.

5. A necromancer (anywhere from cleric, to dread necromancer, to even a necrocarnate) who, while they constantly use the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.

6. A blackguard, an evil outsider, or any thing that would be perceived as evil, that is constantly of good conduct. Protect the innocent, help those in need, so on. Their reason, however, is because they want to create doubt. To allow an opening for others who serve evil to not necessarily be attacked upon sight, and possibly be seen as very positive beings in a certain society. Behaving good to benefit others of evil.

7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good? The reason behind their service could be that they have a common enemy and a devil's pact or blessing could help the paladin in their fight. The paladin could be one who is sent to fight demons in a conflict between hell and the abyss, or even the paladin is sent to help 'collect' those who have made pacts with a certain devil and have tried to break their agreement (Lawful over Good). A devil could use a paladin to fight other devils, since the ability to smite evil would be a great help in that. Such a paladin might be on a crusade against a particular devil and aligning themselves with another helps get them closer to their goal.


Also, can you come up with a workable concept for a character that:

Could qualify for being good, could qualify for being evil, but absolutely could not be neutral. Same goes for lawful and chaotic. I want to see concepts that challenge the alignment system, characters that wouldn't necessarily fall into one of the 9 easily. Characters who are black and white at the same time but are not grey.

Note: I'm just answering with what I see to be the most common answer to the question, I acknolwedge other alignments could also work however.

1. Chaotic Neutral
They have no rules, codes or honour that prevents from doing certain actions. As said with 'Will stop at nothing' so that is where Chaotic is from. Neutral because although for good reason he is doing evil acts to prevent it. He's not evil because the intentions are good, but he isn't good because of the lengths he'll go to.

2. Any Neutral or Chaotic Good

They could be neutral because although they deal with demons, they have the best of intentions.
Chaotic Good too because you could claim they are just willing to go to any extreme to help others, and/or may simply be delusional of the demons and think they're not so bad when they are that bad.

3. Neutral Good

Good because it's all for the peoples benefit.
Neutral because as a Lawful person they are enforcing laws, but only ones that allow individuals to be free which is also a sign of being Chaotic.

4. True Neutral
No some of a good or evil compass so I have assume Neutral there.
Although free spirited so they are not so disciplined and are not as predictable (Chaotic) they also see the point/use for laws and will enforce it for the good of others (Lawful) which balances out to Neutral.

Note: I consider there to be two different kinds of Lawful.

-Paladin Lawful: The kind of Lawful who will follow rules, laws, authority etc purely because said person is authority or purely because it is written down as law. In my personal opinion, I would see real life representations of these to be people who were unable to think for themselves, those who listen to whatever governments and parents tell them to do no matter what.

These are the kind of people you will see claiming rated T games, and some movies like Dark Knight have no reason to be near children for no reason other than because some board gave it a rating. Now, you can have this opinion and have other reasons to back it up that I can respect, normally the Paladin Lawful has no reason other than 'some board said so'. These might also be the people who are the paper pushers. Everything need's procedures and to be carried out orderly because that's how some paper says you should do it.

Example: The Citadel Council in Mass Effect

-Monk Lawful: Self-disciplined. You are more focused. You may not have the same respect for authority and laws as a Paladin Lawful does. Rather who have your own moral codes, your own principles, and your own way of doing things. You think for yourself, you restrict yourself to follow certain things and do certain things, but they are things you yourself chose to take on and follow. Not something you are following for the sake of following.

5. Chaotic Good or Neutral

Chaotic good if those who were turned to undead are those willing to be turned to undead and volunteered for it before dying. In other words, gave consent to be used this way after death. Neutral if the person is bringing these people back may they want to be left alone or not.

6. Lawful Evil

You are doing good acts, but not for good reasons. It is purely for your own gain, and others who will use it to simply harm others.
You are also disciplined enough to be able to follow out this plan without showing your true self.

7. If they're own god approves it, I can see this happening. Also if you happen to be the rare paladin that is a paladin of goodness and not a deity (and you can, the PHB allows you to).

However, that extends only as far as working with one demon or devil to defeat another.
Kind of like how during WWII the allies worked with Stalin when fighting Hitler.

Though I wouldn't say the Paladin is still good if they start aiding in collecting pacts for the demon or anything since that is more making others suffer than beating a common enemy.

Back to WWII example, we worked with Stalin to beat Hitler but we did not help Stalin with the genocide that led to him being powerful.

[Selenir]

1. A character who does terrible things in the name of good, they will stop at nothing to stop the forces of evil.
Evil, full stop.Yes. This is the very definition of evil, and by far the most common of its forms. Very, very few people think of themselves as evil. They just think their actions are justified for their own "greater good."



2. A character who has thrown their lot in with hell, but they are a very kind person. Very honest. Wouldn't harm anyone, they simply associate with devils and possibly provide things to them.
Evil, full stop.

Uhh... I had to refute this, since you're completely wrong. A person who does no evil deeds, but is raised in a culture that happens to venerate devils is pure good. You have to do evil to be evil. Essentially, this amounts to doing good deeds while shouting "I'M DOING EVIL DEEDS!" at the top of your lungs. You're still doing good deeds, even if you happen to like fiends.

If you actively assisted devils in doing evil deeds, however (which this example is stated not to do - no harming people), you're evil.

Sidenote: A character like this, in just about any story, would run into an ideological conflict when they realize that their morals (their Good alignment) conflicted with their faith/allegiance (their fiendish associates). Whichever side of this conflict wins out determines what their new alignment is. If they decide to do evil to follow their fiendish leader, they're evil. If they betray the fiends to do good, they're good.



3. A character who establishes and enforces laws to promote individual freedom.
Lawful.
Yes.



4. A character who's behavior is incredibly free spirited in their behavior, but they fall in line with law and are a strong believer of laws.
Chaotic.Either Lawful or (maybe) Neutral. If they just happened to "fall in line with" law, they could be chaotic. But if they're a "strong believer" in law? Definitely Lawful. This person's definitely not Chaotic, though.



5. A necromancer ..uses the undead and thus vile magics, they use them to protect the innocent. They hold no alternative motivation.
Evil, straight out. A paladin can smite the heck out of them with impunity. This is purely because of contamination, and a major reason why petitioners are a thing - there needs to be an audit process.Unless you follow the "necromancy is always evil for no reason" clause, they're pure good.

This is determined only based on what connotations are associated with necromancy and so-called "vile magic." If the "vile magic" harms no-one, it's not an evil act to cast it. This individual is pure good, unless you abide to the arbitrary "evil magic is evil because of evil evilness of evil" clause.

Personally, I like this clause, but it must be given a reason. If necromancy is truly harmless, it's not an evil act. So in my campaign, necromancy tortures the soul of the deceased, and demon-summoning tears open the path from Hell to Earth wider, letting in more fiends. This way, these aren't just "inherently" evil, they're evil because what they do is horrible.



6. A blackguard.., that is constantly of good conduct. ..because they want to create doubt...
Evil, for the same reason as the necromancer. Their actions are uncertain, but using their powers is evil acts.Evil, for the exact opposite reason as the necromancer. The "good" acts of the Blackguard are actually evil acts, since they're just lies. "See me help this puppy!" is just part of an evil scheme to trick the common folk into thinking his evil faith isn't evil/dangerous.



7. This one branches off of 2. and is a hypothetical question. Could a paladin willingly serve an evil outsider, while maintaining their code of conduct and remain lawful good?
Work with, yes. Serve, no.A Lawful Good person can work with a fiend, and stay 100% Lawful Good. Paladins, however, are a special case. They've sworn an oath to specifically not do this, so they absolutely cannot. They'll be a Lawful Good Ex-Paladin if they do, but Lawful Good they will remain.

[JusticeZero]

A person who does no evil deeds, but is raised in a culture that happens to venerate devils is pure good. You have to do evil to be evil. Essentially, this amounts to doing good deeds while shouting "I'M DOING EVIL DEEDS!" at the top of your lungs. You're still doing good deeds, even if you happen to like fiends.I disagree here, but this is because I have a specific interpretation of the function of alignment. Alignment is a property which one absorbs, which is primarily meaningful to the inhabitants of the Outer Planes and forces which call upon said forces. As such, these are the things that affect your alignment, in order from generally most significant to least significant.

1: Directly invoking an Aligned power. Summoning hellfire, channeling positive/negative energy, casting an [evil] or [good] spell, etc. This is like chugging down a glass of glowing nuclear waste and wondering why you suddenly set off geiger counters. Note that the reason why you did this is immaterial! It's similar to the way that you can make something more appealing to a fire elemental by dousing it in gasoline and dropping a lit match on it. All you are actually doing is contaminating yourself to an extent that your soul after death will need some celestial being to actually sit down and do an actual audit on you.
Negative energy is aligned with "Evil" by default, because positive energy is connected to "Good". Every necromancer ever has to be careful around overzealous paladins, because their entire school of magic is basically working with hazmat, and even though their spells are set up to isolate them from the antilife, they still end up stinking of the stuff after awhile. It has zero effect on their behavior.
As an aside, this also means that if you are a BBEG who can find a way to channel positive energy on a regular basis, probably by tossing healing spells around, you can hang out in the Temple Of Miko Clones and nobody will ever suspect a thing.
That said, a few necromantic spells are inherently squicky on their own merits, y'know? "I kill him. Then I cast Animate Dead and use him to make a basic skeleton.. maybe just a skeletal hand!" The guy is suddenly off the radar of spells designed specifically to retrieve their soul from the afterlife. 404 File Not Found. Hmm, where do you think the guy's immortal soul is? Bound into the freaking animate spell, maybe? Trapped helplessly inside of a skeletal hand? That seems a bit.. well... nasty?

2: Being directed by an Aligned power. Yeah, we don't actually care why you were taking your orders from Zog'Cof'Cof. It's a black mark on your record. That said, Zog'Cof'Cof can't turn a bunch of paladins by going out and donating to an orphanage; the key is the chain of command.

3: Committing a significant aligned deed. You will note that this is number THREE. If an Angel tells you to go through an orphanage slaughtering people, the 'directed by' takes precedence over the deed. That sort of thing usually doesn't happen, though... Also, it has to be significant. Someone who needs to stay in good standing with Chaos doesn't need to worry if they happen to be following the laws of the area.
Additionally, this is deontological. The system cares not what the intent of the act is.

4: Habitual thoughts and actions. This is number freaking four. You'll default to this if you live a reasonably boring life.

[ArcturusV]

Note on the "Doing" thing above? The alignments in Good/Evil are defined in part by "Worshiping Evil for the sake of Evil" in the category of Evil. Least that's one of the qualifiers, worshiping or seeking to emulate evil masters whether they be mortals, fiends, or gods.

[Gildedragon]

The positive and negative energy planes are unaligned. If anything positive energy can be put to ends far more nefarious than positive energy. At a base level: prolong torture and its severity while preventing death or marks of abuse.

Note that the 404ing happens with death effects too, so it probably is not trapping the soul in the undead creation. Things that trap souls say so explicitly: eg Thianium.

[TuggyNE]

The positive and negative energy planes are unaligned. If anything positive energy can be put to ends far more nefarious than positive energy. At a base level: prolong torture and its severity while preventing death or marks of abuse.

True, more or less.


Note that the 404ing happens with death effects too, so it probably is not trapping the soul in the undead creation. Things that trap souls say so explicitly: eg Thianium.

It actually doesn't; raise dead is unable to recover from [death] effects, but it's not because the soul isn't around to pull back; it's more that it went further. Resurrection, true resurrection, and so on have no trouble with [death] effects, but are still just as stalled by undead soul-locking.

[John Campbell]

JohnC: Depends on the spell. Probably remains Good, might want to atone or make an apology, if only to show no harm was intended. Note that most alignment spells are borked up.
The spell was magic circle against good. I'd prepared it for just such eventualities, knowing that we were going up against a high-level mage with a predilection for mind control, because I hadn't had an opportunity to acquire ...against evil, but had found ...against good in a captured spellbook. At the level we were at, the alignment-dependent effects were meaningless anyway... I just used it for the mind-control suppression. I had a couple protection from evils prepared, too, for the same purpose, but I couldn't come up with a way to deliver one quickly enough, and the best other option I could come up with would've required me to beat a caster seven levels higher than me on a caster level check. (Possible, but not odds that I wanted to gamble the world on.) Magic circle let me cast directly on my familiar and have him run over to bring the paladin into its emanation range, which he had just enough running movement to do, and not have to waste an action actually delivering the spell to the paladin.

[Gildedragon]

As a DM i'd say: no need to atone. It is a very minor evil. Then again I am of the sort to say that magic circle against X is one same spell, where X can be either of the alignments opposed to yours (that is to say: magic circle against good is the same spell as magic circle against law, chaos, or evil). Ditto for spells like Dictum, Holy Word, Blasphemy, and Word of Chaos, and Consecrate and Desecrate.

[JusticeZero]

The positive and negative energy planes are unaligned. If anything positive energy can be put to ends far more nefarious than positive energy. At a base level: prolong torture and its severity while preventing death or marks of abuse.
While this is theoretically true, any Evil cleric who wants to spontaneously cast Healing spells and channel positive energy might disagree with the statement in practice.
If I recall correctly, we had issues at one point in an adventure with a BBEG torturer who was leaving people maimed as a terrorist act. The paladin took the Holy sword they were wielding for their own after we finally tracked him down and dealt with him. Dripping in innocent blood or no, the guy completely ignored a Holy Smite.

[Slipperychicken]

The positive and negative energy planes are unaligned. If anything positive energy can be put to ends far more nefarious than positive energy. At a base level: prolong torture and its severity while preventing death or marks of abuse.

I'd say damaging peoples' souls, threatening to destroy all life, creating Taint, and trapping/obstructing souls with undead is pretty much the definition of nefarious.

[Gildedragon]

A rebuttal:

Taint is... finicky as to how it is created. The creation of traint is, per heroes of horror, the result of evil acts and entirely up to the DM's discretion. And not the result of any particular necromancy spell. Necromancy is evil because necromancy causes taint is somewhat tautological and circular.

Furthermore as far as I can tell the only means of creating taint-like conditions via magic are via evocation and abjura spells: Castigate in the creation of Tainted weapons, Cloud of Taint, and Tainted Aura.

Soul damage is arguable and fluff dependent, and can be just as easily fluffed into saying it doesn't cause it.

As to threatening to destroy all life: look at Ragnora.

That the spells have the [evil] tag is not debated by me. They do. Nor is the fact that the spells interfere with revival spells debated.
I argue, however, that the energy of the plane is. Otherwise Cure and Inflict spells would be alignment tagged.

Note that Conjuration spells also interfere with souls. The spells used in the creation of golems enslave an elemental: which are souls and sentient.