Alignments you're terrible at playing.

[tadkins]

Are there one or more on the chart you'd consider yourself bad at playing? As I've learned this week, I am apparently terrible at playing Lawful Good characters!

I'm currently playing in two games, a 3.5 game and a 4e game. In both games I am playing a LG character; a whisper gnome cleric of St. Cuthbert in the 3.5, and a dwarven runepriest in the 4e.

In the 3.5 game, my gnome is working with a dread necromancer from the church of Wee Jas, an organization allied to mine in the campaign, and a shadow renegade, a sort of homebrewed combination of a swordsage and rogue. Last week as we were infiltrating the stronghold of an evil organization, we encountered a skeletal T-Rex blocking our path. A quick Command Undead from our necromancer ended the fight and gained us a new minion. An NPC crusader accompanying us, also with the Cuthbert church, remarked about how distasteful the Pelorites would find that action. My gnome replied that it's not the Church of Pelor here, sharing our peril, which gained him a stern look from the crusader and a DM-imposed -1 DC to my spells for a night, representing disapproval from his god by scoffing at the laws of another church. I didn't really see it that way of course, as this place was clearly not under the jurisdiction of any civilized group, but not wanting to cause strife I just accepted it quietly.

In the 4e game, our group is working alongside a rebellion in an elven kingdom, whose goal is to depose of an evil elven sorceress-queen who slew most of her family to seize power, working her own experiments haphazardly and using her own people as disposable pawns. My "lawful good" dwarf already assured one of our party members, an elven ranger who is the sister of the aforementioned queen, that he will assist in taking her down. After the game my DM friend jokingly remarked how I'm terrible at playing lawful good, supporting a rebellion and working against the law.

Just a couple of my stories that I wanted to share. I have already determined that my next character's going to just be a straight up CG or CN character, because I always seem to goof up LG. xD

How about you guys? Any opinions/stories you'd like to share?

[ArcturusV]

I always have problems with True Neutral. Because I feel like everyone has a different metric of what "True Neutral" actually is... and no one really agrees what it means at the table. I mean we know that Animals are True Neutral, because they're completely incapable of making moral choices or even being aware of them. So they're amoral. That's True Neutral. But if you had an amoral humanoid character, most people would probably peg them as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil (I swear the distinction between those two is the smallest of all neighboring alignments). I've seen people just say "Well a True Neutral guy is just greedy and self centered"... but that's also how Neutral Evil is defined. The guy who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, etc, because it makes things better for himself? Textbook example of Neutral Evil rather than True Neutral. So all that's really left is the Cosmic Philosopher type, who tries to balance Law, Chaos, Good and Evil in themselves or their surroundings. Which is honestly really hard for me to play, particularly in an Adventure setting where you're supposed to be proactive, righting wrongs, putting down monsters, etc.

It's just really hard for me to get a handle on. Chaotic Neutral (Without being evil in fact) is easier for me as I just call it the "James Dean, Rebel without a Cause" alignment, someone who resists being told what to do, put into a box and defined, but lacks any strong moral authority or drive. He wants his life to be his life, left alone, free to do what he wants, etc.

Other one I have a hard time with? Probably Chaotic Good... because Good is very "group think" anyway. Good of the people, champion of societies, etc. And having someone who is strongly Chaotic just... it doesn't mesh well with Good in my mind. How does a Chaotic Good character deal with something like a good aligned organization? Well, some books suggest all good alignments get along and work well together. But it's the very nature of Chaotic alignments NOT to work together... that natural conflict makes it harder for me to RP.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

First off: Your DM is an idiot not understanding the real principles of Lawful Good Alignment :smalltongue:. Your first character bowed to the reality of the situation in light of it being ostensibly for the good. And the second character...was combating an unlawful, illegitimate government.

As for myself...I also have trouble playing Lawful Good. I tried to basically play a Superhero Paladin in Mutants and Masterminds once. While it was loads of fun, my character had a habit of picking fights and causing needless mass destruction. Assassins tried to take out the party, as well as some bank tellers, and it was the LG guy's plan to pick up the bank floor and throw it at the terrorists instead of blocking their machine gun fire from killing scores of civilians. Turns out having Super-Strength to the point where my fists can shift the Earth's alignment? Not the best superpower when trying to avoid collateral damage.

I felt really bad that night. :smallfrown:

[Angelalex242]

Any Evil.

I tend to go "Okay, dude, you're creeping out the rest of the group" evil when given the chance to be evil. Or even, "Okay, you're making the game unfun with that level of evil..." To which I go, "Hey, you wanted evil, don't complain when I give you exactly what you asked for..."

[OldTrees1]

Any evil with access to "detect evil". In other words, knowingly evil. The best I can do is "Damn one soul to save multiple" or "detect evil does not detect evil and gods are not moral authorities".

In one campaign I tried to mimic it by using a blue/orange morality around "trying to reform the world to an ancient population total using death as a primary tool". I definately creeped people out that game:
As Lich I permanently paralyzed some foes instead of killing them, let several foes leave alive, casually used positive&negative energy touches as torture tools and casually slaughtered slaves on a slave ship

[Curmudgeon]

Chaotic Good is problematic. Most times I've seen this alignment played by others the Chaotic aspect overwhelms any Good, meaning CG is the same as "100% selfish, but you're not allowed to hate me".

[Craft (Cheese)]

Other one I have a hard time with? Probably Chaotic Good... because Good is very "group think" anyway. Good of the people, champion of societies, etc. And having someone who is strongly Chaotic just... it doesn't mesh well with Good in my mind. How does a Chaotic Good character deal with something like a good aligned organization? Well, some books suggest all good alignments get along and work well together. But it's the very nature of Chaotic alignments NOT to work together... that natural conflict makes it harder for me to RP.

My preferred interpretation of Chaotic characters is that they follow their whims and do whatever feels right at the moment. For CG characters, their instincts are to be exceedingly kind and helpful at all times, even to complete strangers (or for extremely CG characters, their worst enemies). They may not do what you ask them to do, but they'll always do what they think will make you the happiest: Ask them to get you a sandwich and they'll bring you an ice cream cake. They're unlikely to instigate violence (even against people they don't like) and if you try to pick a fight with them they'll just leave rather than cause trouble, unless by doing so they'd be leaving innocents in harm's way.

Basically, think this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts#NAACP). As for Good-aligned organizations, I don't see any reason why a CG character couldn't work well with them, assuming they never asked the character to do anything they didn't want to do.

[Ortesk]

Lawful Good/Lawul Evil. Im very smash mouth when it comes to situations. Guy wont talk? I hit him with a brick. Message needs to be sent to scare evil doers? I will whipe a pack of werewolves and put there heads on pikes. Which ive done and actually lost my class features over for doing a non LG act. FYI, wasnt a paladin

[tadkins]

First off: Your DM is an idiot not understanding the real principles of Lawful Good Alignment :smalltongue:. Your first character bowed to the reality of the situation in light of it being ostensibly for the good. And the second character...was combating an unlawful, illegitimate government.



The first part was pretty much how I felt. I also believed that it's not my character's place to impose laws on a place where they haven't been established, especially ones that aren't universal, like the views of a single, irrelevant church.

For the second character, my DM's argument was that the queen's government, while evil, was also lawful. If LE existed in 4e the queen would have been that; as well, she's a worshipper of Asmodeus to reinforce that point. Furthermore, my character believed that there was no purely lawful approach to the matter that would be practical as she's technically "the law", and is currently too powerful for our party to take on at this moment anyhow. As such, you can't really "apprehend" a sorceress that powerful; most likely the only way to stop her is through difficult, epic combat eventually.


As for myself...I also have trouble playing Lawful Good. I tried to basically play a Superhero Paladin in Mutants and Masterminds once. While it was loads of fun, my character had a habit of picking fights and causing needless mass destruction. Assassins tried to take out the party, as well as some bank tellers, and it was the LG guy's plan to pick up the bank floor and throw it at the terrorists instead of blocking their machine gun fire from killing scores of civilians. Turns out having Super-Strength to the point where my fists can shift the Earth's alignment? Not the best superpower when trying to avoid collateral damage

Sounds like your character meant well, so he's definitely good. It also seems like, while your character wasn't making the best decisions, he wasn't doing anything blatantly chaotic either. I dunno, it's a tough call. xD

[ArcturusV]

I suppose that's one interpretation of Chaotic Good. I dunno... as I said, I always had trouble with it. Even when you think Iconics. Who is the iconic example poster boy that Chaotic Good gets? Robin Hood.

... now ask yourself WHY...

Robin Hood has a sense of Personal Honor, he isn't just a cutthroat brigand, but only targets particular evil institutions, working for the glory of the Rightful King, protecting his crown while he's away, and what he sees as the right, divine law of the crown and how the country should be. He undoubtedly fits the "Good" metric. He steals from evil people, gives to the poor, downtrodden, and needy. He fosters a rebellion against an evil dictator, etc.

... but I never really understood why he gets pegged as "Chaotic" other than "... Umm... he's the prince of thieves, all thieves are chaotic!" sort of knee jerk reaction. Or the idea that he's a "rebel", even though he's actually fighting to uphold the rightful king of England, not really "rebelling" against the crown but trying to maintain the rightful rule of the King instead.

Consider instead a Paladin. Someone you KNOW has to be Lawful Good, and insert them into the typical Robin Hood Narrative. Would the story change in any particular way? I doubt it. The Lawful Good Paladin would definitely try to fight against a usurper to the throne. He would definitely be charitable to the poor and needy, and liberate needed food and gold from the evil forces who are trying to use their ill gotten gains to raise a mercenary army. He'd still form a rebellion against the false rulership of Prince John. He'd still do things like jump into an enemy castle to rescue his men and his love.

... and when there's no real variation between the paragon of Lawful Good, and the "iconic" Chaotic Good example... no wonder I have a hard time pegging down Chaotic Good. And maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just a moron who can't really grasp it, I admit that.

EDIT: Side note, I know at some times "Chaotic" is really defined as "Insane". Chaotic Evil types are generally considered insane on some measure. In some editions, like 2nd edition ADnD, Chaotic Neutral was flatly defined as being completely insane and incapable of rational thought. Chaotic Good never has gotten the "insane" wrap that I've seen before however. But if 2/3 alignments on an axis get "Insane" as their defining characteristic... that might be what I'm missing. Maybe Chaotic Good is supposed to be out of their freakin' minds... but with a good heart?

[hamishspence]

I suppose that's one interpretation of Chaotic Good. I dunno... as I said, I always had trouble with it. Even when you think Iconics. Who is the iconic example poster boy that Chaotic Good gets? Robin Hood.

... now ask yourself WHY...

Robin Hood has a sense of Personal Honor, he isn't just a cutthroat brigand, but only targets particular evil institutions, working for the glory of the Rightful King, protecting his crown while he's away, and what he sees as the right, divine law of the crown and how the country should be. He undoubtedly fits the "Good" metric. He steals from evil people, gives to the poor, downtrodden, and needy. He fosters a rebellion against an evil dictator, etc.

... but I never really understood why he gets pegged as "Chaotic" other than "... Umm... he's the prince of thieves, all thieves are chaotic!" sort of knee jerk reaction. Or the idea that he's a "rebel", even though he's actually fighting to uphold the rightful king of England, not really "rebelling" against the crown but trying to maintain the rightful rule of the King instead.

The Giant had a pretty good answer (I've underlined the important bit):




In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[ArcturusV]

Well, if you go with the idea that he has a code of honor, and he wants to uphold it, but he'll break it if he has to... doesn't that sound closer to Neutral Good than Chaotic Good? That and I ponder the validity of the "breaking all of his society's traditions" angle as well. I mean... he's a noble fighting to regain his unlawfully taken birthright, defend the divine rulership of King Richard, and trying to return the country to a status quo predating Prince John going usurper. I mean... he does form a group of rebels, yes.

.... I dunno. Like I said, I'm probably missing something obvious and my mind just can't make the connection.

[hamishspence]

There's also many versions of Robin- the idea of him as "King Richard's loyal minion, who only ended up turning outlaw in the first place for Richard's sake" is a rather new one.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I suppose that's one interpretation of Chaotic Good. I dunno... as I said, I always had trouble with it. Even when you think Iconics. Who is the iconic example poster boy that Chaotic Good gets? Robin Hood.

...

EDIT: Side note, I know at some times "Chaotic" is really defined as "Insane". Chaotic Evil types are generally considered insane on some measure. In some editions, like 2nd edition ADnD, Chaotic Neutral was flatly defined as being completely insane and incapable of rational thought. Chaotic Good never has gotten the "insane" wrap that I've seen before however. But if 2/3 alignments on an axis get "Insane" as their defining characteristic... that might be what I'm missing. Maybe Chaotic Good is supposed to be out of their freakin' minds... but with a good heart?

The thing is all of the alignments are inconsistently defined and, taken as written, are incoherent (ESPECIALLY Law and Chaos). The only way to make sense of them is to make your own interpretation where you keep the aspects of each alignment that you personally like and dump the ones you don't. And even then don't stick to it too much: I mostly find myself using my alignment interpretation when trying to figure out how best to play characters I didn't write, like NPCs in adventure modules (which have their alignments listed and usually no other RP details), or sometimes as a very broad starting point when coming up with PCs (I usually never even think about the alignment of NPCs I come up with myself). It's useless as a method of policing PC behavior as "in-character" or "out-of-character" no matter how you interpret it.


As for Robin Hood, something that should be kept in mind is that what comes to mind when most people think "Robin Hood" isn't that version, but instead he's made into some sort of anarcho-communist who wants to tear down the social order and redistribute the wealth. I *still* don't like that as the icon of Chaotic Good though.

[geonova]

i have trouble playing LG, all of my characters have trouble being altruistic and my standard answer to not having enough money is to steal from a nearby house

[Spore]

Chaotic anything really. I don't seem to be strict enough on my moral basis.

[NichG]

I'd guess I'd be pretty bad at LG, LN, and CE in particular. Justifications follow:

LG: I'd have trouble balancing two particular sets of values that often come into conflict. Basically its the 'serving two masters' problem. I could probably play someone who has certain principles they believe to be the definition of goodness and thereby follow those strongly, but as soon as those principles are shown to be in conflict with people actually benefiting the character would likely have a crisis and change to NG. The closest I played to this was actually in an L5R campaign: a Crane samurai who could not lie and refused to violate precepts of honor for any gain, but he had the advantage that he wasn't necessarily trying to be a 'good' person too, just an honorable one.

LN: Even more alien than LG to me, I'd find it hard to motivate this character without accidentally falling towards G or E, because I'd need a neutral answer to the question 'why is order/law/honor/etc important' that I can play. 'Because everyone's lives are better in an ordered state' means that they actually care about people's lives being better (so a tendency towards good), and personal reasons like 'I want order in my life and around me' can too easily slide to evil due to trying to be proactive and forcing order on people against their will. The closest I could get to this would be to go for some extreme caricature of a character, e.g. someone defined by their OCD or a pure academic with no concept of value or morality outside of their particular investigations.

CE: I just don't find this fun. The ultimate in kick in the door, burn down everything around you, etc. The other evils are fine - there's some concept of long-term goals and planning and so on, so I can have something to be proactive about and 'build' something to be interested in.

[molten_dragon]

I have trouble with True neutral because I can never figure out what my character's motivation should be.

And I'm bad at Lawful Good too. I can be one or the other, but for some reason when I try to play the two together, I always end up lawful stupid.

[hymer]

'why is order/law/honor/etc important'

Just had to jump in: Why is good/ethics/etc. important? Or evil/me/etc.? The LN characters find order to be the bedrock on which their personalities rests. It is intrinsically valuable beyond personal concerns.
This does not make less sense than NG to me, even if I disagree with it.

Edit: To answer the OP's question, my personal disfavourite is CN. I would play such a character as the steely individualist with the personal discipline of a monk; not the partially insane and utterly unpredictable half-wit the game seems to want.

[NichG]

Just had to jump in: Why is good/ethics/etc. important? Or evil/me/etc.? The LN characters find order to be the bedrock on which their personalities rests. It is intrinsically valuable beyond personal concerns.
This does not make less sense than NG to me, even if I disagree with it.


It's all about what makes enough sense for me to play convincingly. On a personal level, I can see an immediate reason to want to help someone else, or to want to help yourself. Its easy for me to justify why a character might risk themselves to protect or improve the lives of other people they care about, or to generally preserve a livable environment for everyone (thats also why I find it hard to run 'doctrinaire' good characters - good for goodness sake seems hypocritical to me).

In other words, for me a character's actions have to have some broader purpose than 'I care about this ideal', which is why I have a harder time with the L-alignments (e.g. with LE, I can spin it as 'I like to use order to achieve personal benefit at the cost of everyone else', but I couldn't really play 'evil is the right choice, and so I will pursue it faithfully')

CN isn't that hard for me, because its basically 'I do what I want when I want - its all about what I feel like and personal gratification, but the suffering of other people squicks me out enough that I have some limits'.

[Grim Portent]

I'm terrible at all the good alignments. I can do neutral and I can do evil just fine but whenever I try to play good I always wind up plotting against the rightful authorities and becoming evil.

[Pesimismrocks]

I'm terrible at all the good alignments. I can do neutral and I can do evil just fine but whenever I try to play good I always wind up plotting against the rightful authorities and becoming evil.

I suffer from similiar problems.

[Amphetryon]

CN and NE are both problematic for me. The former is hard to do, in my view, without falling into slapstick "I'm out of my mind" behaviors, while I tend to see NE as ultimately nihilistic to a degree I'm not comfortable portraying as a PC.

[Red Fel]

I have problems mostly with neutral and evil alignments. Sometimes it's me; sometimes it's the other players' expectations of me.

In neutral, I have problems with True Neutral, for reasons stated above - it's just hard to visualize. Is my character a simple beast, like an animal? A model of balance? What's going on there? Despite most people in real life falling into this alignment (in theory), it's just hard for me to play in a game.

Lawful Neutral is really quite easy for me, but tends to be off-putting to others when I play it. Because a DM may test my LN by giving orders which are, frankly, evil, and the way I play LN is "law and obedience above all things," the party freaks out that my LNs start doing bad stuff as well as the usual good or neutral stuff. This leads to awkward conversations where the phrase "just following orders" gets thrown around with Godwin-esque overtones.

Evil is also quite easy for me. Frighteningly easy for me. I tend to take evil seriously, and not just play a kick-the-dog, card-carrying for-the-evulz villain. Other players like the moral ambiguity I bring to the character. When I bring out methods of torture I studied in college while doing research into the Spanish Inquisition, they get a bit uneasy. I figure, I'm playing evil, I should be doing evil when it's appropriate.

I actually had one campaign where my character was intending to torture an innkeeper, for revenge, after the innkeeper had sent a band of orcs to my character's room in the middle of the night to... do something bad. My character was a demon, it was an evil campaign, and we were working for the Red Wizards. It was pretty clear that this guy had done a naughty and was going to have to pay for it. My party stopped me, because my actions were evil and I shouldn't do that.

Neutral Evil is also difficult for me. I can see Chaotic Evil as "I do naughty things because I like it." I can see Lawful Evil as "pragmatic evil." Chaotic Evil indulges, Lawful Evil plots. That's fine. I have no idea where NE fits there. In theory, I see NE as "evil whenever possible." But if that becomes too self-indulgent, it's CE; if it becomes too rigid and calculating, it's LE. NG is much simpler for me, by comparison; NE is hard.

[Firechanter]

Any Evil. I suck at them. The whole thing starts right at the motivation. I just don't get the mindset. I've tried it several times because my friends wanted to play an Evil campaign, but I got bored fast every time.
In short, I guess my own mindset is just too Good to play Evil.

My favourite alignments (and those I'm best at) are LG and CG. NG tends to be a bit bland.
I normally don't bother with Neutrals, except maybe LN.

I should note that LG is also not easy to get right. But if you picture Aragorn or Boromir, you are right on the mark. I used to suck at it, until at one time I was forced to play the alignment due to my desired multiclass combination, so I delved into it and eventually got the hang of it.

[Mnemnosyne]

LN: Even more alien than LG to me, I'd find it hard to motivate this character without accidentally falling towards G or E, because I'd need a neutral answer to the question 'why is order/law/honor/etc important' that I can play. 'Because everyone's lives are better in an ordered state' means that they actually care about people's lives being better (so a tendency towards good), and personal reasons like 'I want order in my life and around me' can too easily slide to evil due to trying to be proactive and forcing order on people against their will. The closest I could get to this would be to go for some extreme caricature of a character, e.g. someone defined by their OCD or a pure academic with no concept of value or morality outside of their particular investigations.Forcing order on people against their will isn't, in my view of the alignments, evil. It's simply Lawful. We don't find it a nice thing, but the Evil in Lawful Evil is using the rules to your advantage while harming others, and often looking for, creating, and otherwise enacting loopholes and trickery within the law rather than simply following law.

Someone who goes out and conquers places, then enacts laws that do not intentionally favor one group over another and are not designed to benefit one group or harm one group, is lawful neutral to me - he may be conquering places that don't want to be conquered, but he's not being evil about it. Imposing your will on others is not evil - good does this too (they impose their will to prohibit people from being evil).



Personally, I have difficulty with the chaotic alignments. While I understand that chaotic characters do not have to be crazy, wacky, and they can and do have long-term plans and goals and do things in a normal manner, I find it difficult to properly express chaoticness. Then again, perhaps I do a better job than I think sometimes - a number of my characters are very strongly in favor of individual rights above all others. It just often feels non-chaotic to me.

[Alleran]

I generally have trouble with True Neutral and the Chaotic alignments.

Since I usually try to help match them to archetypes for my characters, I never had much problem with LG ("Be Optimus Prime") or NG ("Generic Good"). In a pinch I'll roll with CG as "Kamina" but I usually default to NG. I'm not a huge fan of NE or CE either.

[hamishspence]

In neutral, I have problems with True Neutral, for reasons stated above - it's just hard to visualize. Is my character a simple beast, like an animal? A model of balance? What's going on there? Despite most people in real life falling into this alignment (in theory), it's just hard for me to play in a game.

It may be slightly commoner than the other alignments (thus becoming the "typical" alignment)- however, it may not be much more common.

Eberron takes the approach that something like 1 in 3 commoners are Evil (and probably, 1 in 3 are Good).

[Ansem]

Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral.... if I'm CG I'll easily start killing people I feel have done wrong, but that goes into CE in my opinion. And Chaotic Neutral... I'm not sure how you can be chaotic and keep balance.

[The Trickster]

Lawful Anything. I am sooooo not a "lawful" person, so playing one always makes me feel awkward. With that said, I am playing a Paladin-ish character now, so I'm hoping for the best.:smallbiggrin:

[Keneth]

Good anything. I am incapable of understanding the concept of morality. Killing is evil, except when it isn't? Helping an "innocent" victim is good even if it has negative consequences?

There's a reason why the primordial conflict in D&D is always chaos vs. law, and good vs. evil is just an afterthought. There's no real way to quantify what good and evil are supposed to be.

[Yawgmoth]

I'm bad at playing any alignment because I consider context and intent when performing actions and judging the actions of others.

[hamishspence]

BoVD and BoED actually recommend that you do that - to some degree.

[Adverb]

I have trouble with True neutral because I can never figure out what my character's motivation should be.

And I'm bad at Lawful Good too. I can be one or the other, but for some reason when I try to play the two together, I always end up lawful stupid.

I have this problem with Neutral characters, too. Every time I try to play one, I either shift into Neutral Good, or the character ends up saying something like "Fight the orcs that are about to burn down this town? That sounds an awful lot like it could get me killed. Y'all have fun with that, I'm leaving."

Lawful Good is also super hard. It's the alignment so punishing to play, they made an entire class to encourage it!

[malonkey1]

As far as I'm concerned, Lawful Good and Chaotic good are actually pretty easy, provided you and your DM understand them. (I'd go into more, but that's off-topic)

For me, Chaotic Evil is next to impossible for me. Chaotic Evil seems more appropriate for inhuman creatures and malevolent supernatural forces than player characters, because it's difficult to come up with coherent evil goals, and I hate playing villains that don't have some level of coherence. I know I'm probably Flanderizing it, but that's just how I see it.

[NichG]

Forcing order on people against their will isn't, in my view of the alignments, evil. It's simply Lawful. We don't find it a nice thing, but the Evil in Lawful Evil is using the rules to your advantage while harming others, and often looking for, creating, and otherwise enacting loopholes and trickery within the law rather than simply following law.

Someone who goes out and conquers places, then enacts laws that do not intentionally favor one group over another and are not designed to benefit one group or harm one group, is lawful neutral to me - he may be conquering places that don't want to be conquered, but he's not being evil about it. Imposing your will on others is not evil - good does this too (they impose their will to prohibit people from being evil).


The thing is that the means matter, and doing something like imposing order on the world seems to necessarily imply killing a lot of Good-aligned people along the way. Because of the double-standard between good and evil (killing a good person and killing an evil person makes you evil, not neutral), then unless you're clinically careful, you're going to slide towards evil if you seriously pursue this kind of goal.

To really pull it off, you'd need to do it via some sort of non-violent reform, or at least you'd have to have enough of a threat of violence that no one fights back. The thing is, if I had a character that really really 'cared' about Law above everything, I don't see that character flinching at committing irredeemable evil acts in the service of law, because good and evil don't matter to them.

[Cirrylius]

I've always had trouble distinguishing between NE and CE, too. The closest I can come to a litmus test is "how often does this character put the the public before himself", or "how many times can this character stomach doing something he doesn't want to do because it's expected/expedient". The more I think about it, the more Chaotic Evil becomes Batsh*t Evil.

As for TN, my favorite way to play it has always been Pragmatic Good. My titular character was a genuinely good person; easygoing, generous when he could afford to be, intolerant of oppression, mob rule, and ... and intolerance, willing to put himself in danger to help others; more or less the definition of Neutral Good...

...except for his practice of demonology, use of Evil spells, the (potential) practice of soul destruction, and willingness to cross the line from intimidation to torture if the wellbeing of others was on the line.

[hymer]

The thing is, if I had a character that really really 'cared' about Law above everything, I don't see that character flinching at committing irredeemable evil acts in the service of law, because good and evil don't matter to them.

The litmus test here between LE and LN is not whether they would do something considered evil. It's whether they do it as often as they want and can get away with (LE), or if they generally shun it, and openly face the music afterwards if they feel they must do it after all (LN).
But specific situations occur that evades this. And it's obviously easy for LN to slide towards evil when under extreme strain, like it is for any alignment.

"We were all Orcs [during WW1]." (Tolkien)

[Metahuman1]

None Good. And usually lawful or chaotic unless I really feel the DM is gonna work with me.

[Angelalex242]

Well, Chaotic Evil is the Joker in a nutshell. Lawful Evil is Lex Luthor in a nutshell.

Neutral Evil? I have a hard time coming up with a villain that represents it...

[hamishspence]

Generic crimelord?

If the Joker's a very Chaotic crimelord, and Lex a very Lawful one (when he's portrayed that way) - there's bound to be a few that fall mid way between the two.

Complete Scoundrel cites Magneto as LE, but Mystique as NE.

[Amphetryon]

Well, Chaotic Evil is the Joker in a nutshell. Lawful Evil is Lex Luthor in a nutshell.

Neutral Evil? I have a hard time coming up with a villain that represents it...

I have read threads arguing, apparently seriously, that the Joker was not Chaotic Evil because he made elaborate, multifaceted plans, which necessitated an ordered, logical train of thought incompatible with the Chaotic Alignment.

Yeah. . . . :smallsigh:

[Angelalex242]

Sure, but I'm trying to think of big name Neutral Evil...

Circe, maybe? Cheetah? Metallo? Parasite?

And Magneto is...Lawful Evil with Neutral tendencies. Magneto generally has more compassion then Luthor (Magneto is occasionally redeemable. Luthor is not.)

As opposed to, say, Catwoman...(CN with good tendencies, which reverses to CG with neutral tendencies when she's officially part of the Bat Family. One of the few villains on who redemption actually works...)

[ArcturusV]

Neutral Evil would be people like Doctor Octopus, The Lizard, Hydroman, etc, from Spiderman. As much as he gets a bad rap for lame villains, most of them are pretty decently in the "Neutral Evil" territory. Even the Scorpion is. Only real ones flitting into Chaotic Evil tend to be Green Goblin, Hob Goblin, Venom, and Carnage. Lawful Evil tending to be Kingpin, Smithe, etc.

[Dr. Cliché]

This is probably more of an aside, but I find that (particularly with evil characters), people often seem to confuse 'alignment' with 'motive'.

For example, I've often heard that a CE characters just slaughter everyone they meet, because they're CE.

NO! If they kill someone, they will have a reason. It probably won't be a *good* reason (they might have offended him in some way, they might be a race he hates, they might have something he wants etc.) but he will have a reason beyond just being CE.

He's CE because he slaughters people on a whim - not the other way around.

Or, to put it another way, alignment is the consequence of actions - not the cause of them.

[hamishspence]

Except in the rare cases of mindwarping magic (the notorious Helm of Opposite Alignment springs to mind) - in those cases- the alignment comes first, then the actions.

But it's a good general rule.

[Zanos]

This is probably more of an aside, but I find that (particularly with evil characters), people often seem to confuse 'alignment' with 'motive'.

For example, I've often heard that a CE characters just slaughter everyone they meet, because they're CE.

NO! If they kill someone, they will have a reason. It probably won't be a *good* reason (they might have offended him in some way, they might be a race he hates, they might have something he wants etc.) but he will have a reason beyond just being CE.

He's CE because he slaughters people on a whim - not the other way around.

Or, to put it another way, alignment is the consequence of actions - not the cause of them.
Yeah, this is something that bothers me a lot. Personality first, alignment second.

It sucks that a lot of my characters do end up somewhere in the Evil spectrum due to how far they're willing to go for what they believe.

[Dr. Cliché]

Except in the rare cases of mindwarping magic (the notorious Helm of Opposite Alignment springs to mind) - in those cases- the alignment comes first, then the actions.

But it's a good general rule.

That's true, but even then they should still have a reason for their actions (not just that they're now CE or whatever).

Turning evil doesn't necessitate immediately killing everyone in a 3-block radius. :smallwink:

[Coidzor]

Hmm, LG, since most acts of heroics involve breaking the rules by going into places one shouldn't and murderkilling the rightful owner because they're crooks who won't surrender themselves, cultists that are either about to sacrifice babies or just have finished sacrificing them as one is kicking in the door, or something else suitably villainous. And LG is supposed to be le hero, because it's supposed to be Goodest Good despite the lipservice they pay otherwise.

Never really liked that LG was treated as being Goodest Good either, really, so I suppose that metagame resentment plays into things.

CE is difficult because it's typecast as being suicidally insane more often than not, so if one plays it as a pragmatic, able to be worked with CE, one gets accused of being NE. If one isn't babyeating and cackling and reveling in being evil for the evulz, one is accused of half-assing playing CN. Quite vexing.

TN is also a bit tricky, since it's the easiest alignment to leave, simply by consistently doing what murderhobos/heroes/adventurers do in the course of their jobs. And acting capriciously to try to avoid an alignment change is just likely to result in a slide to Chaos. And then it's about 50-50 whether the DM will steal your character and make it into an NPC because they banned CN as a PC alignment because they couldn't think of any other better way to deal with the spectre of people playing CN characters as if they were CE.

LE is easy for a bureaucrat or part of a government or other organization, but it's a bit tricky for me to play as part of a group of itinerant murderhobos or an adventuring company in any capacity beyond the leader or the leader's potentially mutinous right hand.

LN has similar issues where they seem much better as very specific sorts of characters or as characters that stay in one general area. If you were doing a detective company campaign or an urban campaign they seem fine, if you're doing a general adventuring game... not so much. A specific quest would work, I suppose.

[Firechanter]

LN is a typical alignment for a soldier. "We do it because it is our duty." As such, it is well suited for military campaigns.

[Sir Chuckles]

I'm a natural Chaotic Good (Heavy on the chaotic), and thus, in turn, I cannot bring myself to figure out Lawful anything.

I always end up, naturally, going against it. I can sometimes get away with it if I'm not the party's face, but when I put Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good on my character sheet, I will invariably end up at least one more step toward Neutral.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm surpised that more people don't say lawful :smallsmile:
You should always be consistent in things that you do when you're playing a lawful character. Since we, the players, are sometimes inconsistent, it's hard to find uncomprosing consistency with our characters. Mechanus in Lawful Neutral and do you think they'd ever do anything differently?

[Dr. Cliché]

If you have ordered your breakfast in a certain way in the first session, you should always order it exactly like that.

Sure you're not confusing lawful with OCD? :smallwink:

[hymer]

You should always be consistent in things that you do when you're playing a lawful character. [...] If you have ordered your breakfast in a certain way in the first session, you should always order it exactly like that.

wat

May I suggest you read this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)? Couldn't hurt. :smallsmile:

[Red Fel]

I'm surpised that more people don't say lawful :smallsmile:
You should always be consistent in things that you do when you're playing a lawful character. Since we, the players, are sometimes inconsistent, it's hard to find uncomprosing consistency with our characters. Mechanus in Lawful Neutral and do you think they'd ever do anything differently? If you have ordered your breakfast in a certain way in the first session, you should always order it exactly like that.

Lawful means honorable and often inflexible. It can mean ordered and structured. It does not mean robotic, with the exception of Mechanus. Mechanus, like many Outer Planes, is an alignment concept taken to extremes. It is the epitome, not the average, of Lawful Neutral. The average LN PC isn't going to be that OCD.

Natives of the Prime Material are not likely to be nearly as rigid as the natives of Mechanus, nor as noble as the natives of Celestia, nor as wicked as the natives of the Hells or Abyss, nor as mad as the natives of Limbo.

Frankly, I find LN is often mischaracterized as an alignment. I find that people often play LN as borderline robotic. That's fine if you're playing a Modron or Inevitable, but a native of the Prime Material is (or should be) more complex.

As a classic example, take a Cleric of Wee Jas. You serve in a rigidly hierarchical clergy of a deity who is actually called "The Stern Lady." You will obey. You are hardcore lawful.

Does that mean your day begins and ends with the Church and nothing else? Maybe, if you want to play a two-dimensional character. But there's a lot more to an LN character than simply "I obey" and "As you wish."

Ironically, I guess this makes LN an alignment that's both easy to play (if you short-change it as simply a robot) or hard to play (if you try to give the character depth and humanity).

[Coidzor]

Ironically, I guess this makes LN an alignment that's both easy to play (if you short-change it as simply a robot) or hard to play (if you try to give the character depth and humanity).

Pretty much. I suppose one could take a selective survey of Jean Luc Picard and manage something workable, maybe? :smallconfused:

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I'm pretty bad at anything Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis. I just can't imagine taking a moral stance and NOT having a particular way you like to have it enforced; order and freedom for Good, or tyranny and, well, chaos, for Evil. Just... Pure Good? But how does pure Good keep going? How will you make it keep going? You can't just make the world turn your way with your own actions...

Though, I always play characters with either high Intelligence or high Wisdom who would realize this. I guess Neutral Good/True Neutral/Neutral Evil makes sense on a character who doesn't have the worldview to realize the futility of a single person's actions if they cause no greater change.

[Jon_Dahl]

Nevertheless, lawful should be consistent with the things they do, because they don't like change.

[Subaru Kujo]

Chaotic Evil I just can't play. Never really feel comfortable doing so.

[hymer]

Nevertheless, lawful [...] they don't like change.

Where are you getting this? And by contrast, wouldn't it mean that playing chaotic characters is hard, because they want to change everything all the time?

[Coidzor]

Nevertheless, lawful should be consistent with the things they do, because they don't like change.

I'm pretty sure they're okay with change, considering they're generally considered as being in favor of moving from an inefficient system to an efficient one. The question is in the context of the change, what's being changed, and how it's being changed.

Enjoying more than one type of food or cuisine is not at odds with being Lawful, nor should it be a requirement for playing that character that they be distressed that they can't have the food that they always have because they're traveling or they're in a different city or they ended up running out of that kind of food while taking care of catering a late-night planning session. On the other side of that coin, having a "usual" on a chaotic character at a particular eatery that they favor should not automatically bump them to Neutral on the ethical axis.


I'm pretty bad at anything Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis. I just can't imagine taking a moral stance and NOT having a particular way you like to have it enforced; order and freedom for Good, or tyranny and, well, chaos, for Evil. Just... Pure Good? But how does pure Good keep going? How will you make it keep going? You can't just make the world turn your way with your own actions...

Though, I always play characters with either high Intelligence or high Wisdom who would realize this. I guess Neutral Good/True Neutral/Neutral Evil makes sense on a character who doesn't have the worldview to realize the futility of a single person's actions if they cause no greater change.

NG chooses the best tool for the job was my understanding, rather than refusing to be flexible in method or refusing to make use of bureaucracy and other tools of order. Which is kind of a problem of its own for LG and CG due to being defined by their refusal to use means that would help them accomplish their goals without actually being immoral, shady, or questionable or anything like that.

Any high level character that's not a glorified meat shield is capable of effecting a lot of change on their own (and even being able to throw around a lot of money can have an effect if it's thrown around in the right ways) and through their ability to get others on board. :smallconfused: Power equals power, after all.

[Jon_Dahl]

Where are you getting this? And by contrast, wouldn't it mean that playing chaotic characters is hard, because they want to change everything all the time?

"To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion [...] As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. "
Source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

OCD or not, you establish patterns and stick with them, by sticking with them.

[Seto]

I'm pretty bad at anything Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis. I just can't imagine taking a moral stance and NOT having a particular way you like to have it enforced; order and freedom for Good, or tyranny and, well, chaos, for Evil. Just... Pure Good? But how does pure Good keep going? How will you make it keep going? You can't just make the world turn your way with your own actions...

Though, I always play characters with either high Intelligence or high Wisdom who would realize this. I guess Neutral Good/True Neutral/Neutral Evil makes sense on a character who doesn't have the worldview to realize the futility of a single person's actions if they cause no greater change.

First, playing a Neutral Something character does not mean not wanting to see your opinions implemented. But you can wish to create an equilibrium : for example, a society with organized laws, but with easy and flexible ways to modify them or go easy on enforcing them. Or have some people be sort of "above the law". You can recognize the necessity of law while conceding that it can be too rigid sometimes and is no absolute way to behave. And that's if your character has dreams of an ideal society.
Because she doesn't have to. I strongly disagree when you say that a worldview needs an ethical stance, and that the lack of it stems from low Wis or Int. In fact, a position such as "Screw the big picture because I'm gonna get lost in it and give too much credit to ideas instead of actions, good-doers are people who devote themselves to the helpless everyday rather than ideologists trying to build a society of their own which is probably going to fail anyway", some might argue, is very wise and can be that of an accomplished philosopher.

[hymer]

@ Jon_Dahl: Thanks for the link!
If I write a blog going in the opposite direction, will that change your mind? :smallwink:

Notice, however, that even this description of lawfulness does not go so far as to OCD. It talks about how lawful is 'in favor of' conformity and consistency. Getting three meals a day is consistent. Having a regular world-famous artistically inclined cook make supper for you every day is consistent.
Favouring such things is hardly OCD. It doesn't seem to me to warrant the somewhat extreme view you put out earlier.
Which brings us to the unfortunate tendency of the alignment system of lumping things together.
Prefer to work alone? Chaotic.
Strong personal discipline? Lawful.
Ignores conventions and traditions? Chaotic.
Insists on a clear, written contract whenever possible? Lawful
Yet those four traits could easily be accomodated within a single personality, which would be hard pressed to go for neutral. After all, it's not that this person sometimes goes one way and sometimes the other, or that s/he doesn't care one way or the other.

[Jon_Dahl]

Hymer, you don't have to do that for my sake. Thank you! :smallsmile:

Ohhh, I do regret making that meal-ordering analogy earlier... My life in this thread would've been so much easier.

[Amphetryon]

"To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion [...] As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. "
Source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

OCD or not, you establish patterns and stick with them, by sticking with them.

There is a difference between being in favor of something and behaving slavishly according to that something. Establishing patterns is not the same thing as being unchanging, and they're certainly not the same thing as always doing things exactly the same way. The part of the quote such a belief appears to ignore is the end of the sentence "unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise." Those with severe OCD can't see a good reason to do otherwise, or can't overcome the disorder without help when they do see it; Lawful behavior need not have that limitation.

[gooddragon1]

Lawful Good: I don't like the idea of being forced by honor or something else to do something less than optimal for others.

Chaotic Good: I don't like the idea of disregarding a situation where the law could be beneficial for others.

Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil: I don't like the idea of not playing a good alignment.

If only there was an alignment that allowed me to use the law when it is useful and not be restrained by it when it isn't... (http://easydamus.com/neutralgood.html)

First character I ever played (other than that 1 shot D&D 3.5 session held at stores around the nation with the 10 charisma paladin and the hellcat) was lawful good. Right after I found out that a person of lawful alignment would have a hard time pardoning a repentant criminal I switched to neutral good. I've played neutral good ever since.

[Coidzor]

Ohhh, I do regret making that meal-ordering analogy earlier... My life in this thread would've been so much easier.

People take their food seriously. :smallbiggrin:

[Keneth]

Or, to put it another way, alignment is the consequence of actions - not the cause of them.

I would say alignment is the consequence of motive. If it were the consequence of actions, virtually all adventurers, being murderhobos, would be evil.


People take their food seriously. :smallbiggrin:

Especially fa/tg/uys. :smalltongue:

[Seto]

I would say alignment is the consequence of motive. If it were the consequence of actions, virtually all adventurers, being murderhobos, would be evil.

That's the point of discussing alignment and taking it seriously (of course nobody's forced to do that) : if "Good" adventurers are really murderhobos (killing every creature in their way to loot them, without being sure their actions are just), then they're getting it wrong.

[Epsilon Rose]

Pretty much. I suppose one could take a selective survey of Jean Luc Picard and manage something workable, maybe? :smallconfused:

Out of curiosity, why do you list Captain Picard as LN and not LG?

[Coidzor]

Out of curiosity, why do you list Captain Picard as LN and not LG?

Mostly the established tradition/convention of putting him as the LN option in the alignment grid memes. IIRC, it's a reference to how bad writing and producer disagreements led to some moral dissonance/inconsistency in the TNG-era, which then would even out to neutral along the moral axis.

I still think it requires a selective reading rather than the full breadth of the character.

[zlefin]

I find I can play any alignment, because I reinterpret them into something more realistically plausible and functional; so my uses of the alignment often don't align with others sense of that alignment.

[MukkTB]

I generally play C/E or C/G. My C/E plays like many peoples' C/N most of the time.

I have a real hard time getting behind L/N. I'm at home with discipline and the other trappings of law. I certainly would prefer a disciplined military organization to a chaotic one. But at the same time I value creativity and improvisation on a personal level. The problem with the pure lawful setup is that it doesn't seem to be there for anything to me. I just don't care for law for laws sake. I'm OK playing a L/G knight trying to hold to some code. I'm OK being a L/E dude carefully working his way to his goals of power, conquest, or whatever. I'm not OK trying to be some impartial representative of law.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

First, playing a Neutral Something character does not mean not wanting to see your opinions implemented. But you can wish to create an equilibrium : for example, a society with organized laws, but with easy and flexible ways to modify them or go easy on enforcing them. Or have some people be sort of "above the law". You can recognize the necessity of law while conceding that it can be too rigid sometimes and is no absolute way to behave. And that's if your character has dreams of an ideal society.
Because she doesn't have to. I strongly disagree when you say that a worldview needs an ethical stance, and that the lack of it stems from low Wis or Int. In fact, a position such as "Screw the big picture because I'm gonna get lost in it and give too much credit to ideas instead of actions, good-doers are people who devote themselves to the helpless everyday rather than ideologists trying to build a society of their own which is probably going to fail anyway", some might argue, is very wise and can be that of an accomplished philosopher.

See, I kind of disagree here. I don't expect every Good person to strive and try to build a utopia (honestly, thinking that that's possible is kind of its own low-Wis territory) but if you're a Good character in a campaign, your general goal is to change things for the better. While it's undoubtedly Good to go day to day helping people whenever you can, I think it would require something of a low-Int low-Wis perspective to think that things will get better if you don't do something about the source of the problem. And, generally, doing something about the problem implies working towards some certain end. For example, in my eyes, the Neutral Good character is the person who, when confronted with an oppressive dictatorship, will either 1) go from town to town, helping people who are hurt by the oppression and fighting against it, or, if high enough level, 2) go and kill the guy on the throne to remove the tyrant. Those are both helpful and Good, but it takes favoring Chaos or Law to move on from that point; instate a new government based on enforcing people's freedoms and having the government support the people, as a Chaotic Good character would, or change the laws, revise the system, and instate new but strict rules and officials to maintain order so there's no anarchy after the old system is gone (Lawful). The Neutral Good character might try to find a compromise in the system, but generally even doing that would be seen as extremely Lawful by the other members at the table.

Similar things could be said for the Evil axis, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here.

[Keneth]

That's the point of discussing alignment and taking it seriously (of course nobody's forced to do that) : if "Good" adventurers are really murderhobos (killing every creature in their way to loot them, without being sure their actions are just), then they're getting it wrong.

Justice is a lawful concept. They have to be sure that their actions are right, but righteousness depends on the point of view. You say that they're "getting it wrong", but that's based only on your own idea for morality. I'd be perfectly fine with a paladin killing someone in my game and then taking their stuff, depending on the situation and the character's motives.

[NichG]

"We were all Orcs [during WW1]." (Tolkien)

Its pretty much this, combined with the innate tendency of adventurers to seek out conflicts to participate in, that is the source of my trouble playing the alignment. It seems kind of hypocritical for a character to say 'well I'll do what I must, but if its evil I'll regret it and face the music' while at the same time seeking out situations that will effectively force the character to choose evil acts for sake of law or justice or order.

Maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a non-adventuring character, where you just go with the flow of whatever society happens to require of you today, so you tend to reflect society's alignment. For an adventurer though, I at least have problems with playing that character concept since I very strongly favor proactive play over reactive play.

Of course, there is a weird concept here. Someone who goes and does the horrible things that need to be done specifically to spare others from having to accept that weight on their souls. Absent a societal structure, it'd be in the NE/CE camp, but if you had a society that was absolutely and irrefutably going to do those horrible things with or without your help, it might manage to pass the bar into LN. I'm thinking in particular something like a town executioner - he doesn't get to ask if the people he's killing were good or evil, so he takes the risk of being the one to kill a good person so that someone else doesn't have to.

[erok0809]

I'm bad at playing Lawful anything. I'm not fond of sticking to laws and stuff where it might force me to take a loss on something. If I break a law, I'd rather fight my way out than submit to authority and waste my time in jail or whatever, and if there's something that I need that can only be gotten via stealing, I'm going to steal it, no questions asked. I just can't see crippling my ability to move forward by sticking to codes and respecting laws. I have my own (very changeable) laws.

[Coidzor]

Justice is a lawful concept. They have to be sure that their actions are right, but righteousness depends on the point of view. You say that they're "getting it wrong", but that's based only on your own idea for morality. I'd be perfectly fine with a paladin killing someone in my game and then taking their stuff, depending on the situation and the character's motives.

I think you guys just accidentally agreed for the most part. :smallconfused:

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm bad at playing Lawful anything. I'm not fond of sticking to laws and stuff where it might force me to take a loss on something. If I break a law, I'd rather fight my way out than submit to authority and waste my time in jail or whatever, and if there's something that I need that can only be gotten via stealing, I'm going to steal it, no questions asked. I just can't see crippling my ability to move forward by sticking to codes and respecting laws. I have my own (very changeable) laws.

You don't have to follow laws if you're lawful.
You can steal and still be lawful. You can steal everything, and more, and still be strictly lawful.

[Morithias]

Basically any kind of evil.

It's not that I'm a psycho party killer, rather the opposite.

My evil geniuses are too pragmatic and meta. They'll often ignore the obvious 'evil' action, in favor of a more legit route because it keeps the paladins off their back.

For example, my evil genius would build a weather control machine....call the world's governments....

....and offer to rent them the machine for large sums of money, rather than blackmail them.

After she's patented it of course.

[Psyren]

I'm terrible at TN - I almost always end up drifting towards LN, CN or NG.

[Grim Portent]

....and offer to rent them the machine for large sums of money, rather than blackmail them.

Now I would do this too, but then once I'd earned their trust for a decade or two I would repeal my services unless they payed me a large fee and a token amount of land for me to use as I see fit. Since the machine would have increased prosperity in their kingdoms by improving harvest rates and thus allowing more children to survive to adulthood without starving to death on the way. If I repeal my services crop yields go down and food shortages cripple the nations, provided I can defend myself and the machine from any acts of aggression I could gradually get quite a large piece of land this way.

[erok0809]

You don't have to follow laws if you're lawful.
You can steal and still be lawful. You can steal everything, and more, and still be strictly lawful.

How is this, exactly? The world we live in tends to have a "stealing is against the law" mindset, and so stealing from someone would not be a lawful act, at least the way I see it. Would you mind explaining?

[Razanir]

Yeah... I'd certainly consider the second story in the OP LG, and potentially also the first one. (The first one I'd pin as more NG. Not inherently lawful, but not out of character and chaotic either)

EASIEST alignments for me– LG, LN. It's what I am in real life.

Most difficult alignment to play, based on games I've been in– CN. I have several friends who all play CN as Chaotic Stupid.

[hamishspence]

How is this, exactly? The world we live in tends to have a "stealing is against the law" mindset, and so stealing from someone would not be a lawful act, at least the way I see it. Would you mind explaining?

A character with a very strong Personal Code- who goes to extreme lengths to stick with it - and punishes themselves every time they deviate from it.

[erok0809]

A character with a very strong Personal Code- who goes to extreme lengths to stick with it - and punishes themselves every time they deviate from it.

That's a fair point, but one of the things I said in my first post was that I don't like to stick to codes, which includes my own. I don't like the feeling of having an alignment issue cripple my abilities. I do what is necessary in a situation, what's practical for me living and getting some benefit out of it. If that requires me to murder 50 innocent people in one night, I will do it. If what's necessary is telling a noble's daughter a bedtime story, I'll (uncomfortably) do that too. I don't like to define a personal code of behaviors, because it limits me, the same way the laws of a country do. I'll follow them, grudgingly I'll admit, if it's what's necessary for me to live at the time, but I won't like it.

[Shining Wrath]

Neutral evil.

It goes against my grain to always think about "How can I win while everyone else loses" all the time.

[Snowbluff]

I make a terrible evil. I can kill governors in their sleep for oppressing me as a chaotic neutral, but ask me to do something unreasonable, selfish, or evil and I will probably not be able to do it. I was in an evil campaign once, and my pillaging level was waaaaaay below par, and I only killed a couple of guys in self-defense.

[Kuulvheysoon]

EASIEST alignments for me– LG, LN. It's what I am in real life.

Fist bump, bro. I'm the same way.

For me, I have trouble playing CN and CE. And I tend to play TN as LN, much to my chagrin.

[jhardin87]

Right now I'm trying to play a lawful neutral dwarven mercenary. Basically loyal to the contract and that's it. He'll do whatever you pay him to be it guarding a caravan or raiding someone's estate or even just straight up killing a guy in cold blood. However if you want him to violate a bunch of laws and potentially get locked up for a long time you better be willing to shell out enough gold to offset that. Basically a more loyal version of Bronn the sellsword from GoT. Problem is as much as I try to play it cold and mercenary I'm essentially a Good Guy Greg at heart and keep on sliding into the noble hero role without realizing it.

As for the whole CN/CG debate I've always pictured CN as like Han Solo in episode 4. Definitely self centered and self serving, in it for the money. Despite what George Lucas said HAN SHOT FIRST!! Lol. Definitely not a good act. Eliminating a threat preemptively and permanently. However he's also not fully evil cause he threw away a promising military career in the imperial navy to rescue chewie from slavery. However by the 6th film he's definitely succumbed to peer pressure from leia and the others and gone more CG, fully embracing the cause of the rebellion.

[hamishspence]

Complete Scoundrel treats Han as True Neutral rather than Chaotic Neutral. Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean is one of the examples it gives for CN.

[jhardin87]

Ya but I've never really seen chaotic as necessarily chaotic in their mental state although sometimes that does apply, I've always viewed it as more chaotic in their methods and motives. For me true neutral has always been more of the zen master type. Striving for balance between good/evil, light/dark, law/chaos, yen/yang. One cannot exist without the other. Good needs evil to define it. Law cannot exist for laws own sake, it is there to bring order to chaos. Likewise one can't truly understand chaos without law to compare it against. A true neutral individual realizes the necessity and inevitability of both without championing the cause of either

[Morithias]

Now I would do this too, but then once I'd earned their trust for a decade or two I would repeal my services unless they payed me a large fee and a token amount of land for me to use as I see fit. Since the machine would have increased prosperity in their kingdoms by improving harvest rates and thus allowing more children to survive to adulthood without starving to death on the way. If I repeal my services crop yields go down and food shortages cripple the nations, provided I can defend myself and the machine from any acts of aggression I could gradually get quite a large piece of land this way.

That's the thing. My character would mock you for even considering that.

"Let me get this straight, you want land, and money, money you're already getting tons of from the machine, with which you could use to BUY land, and you want to hold the villain ball and do some extortion? You're assuming you're going to be able to protect the machine, and that some paladin isn't going to break in and cave your skull in with a mace. You're getting greedy, and you're going to fall flat on your face because of it."

She leans in closely. "You want to know my secret to how I've defeated every hero that's ever been near me? I never give them just cause to attack me. Go ahead and use your machine to blackmail. I will plane shift to Baator to mock your soul once an adventuring party caves in your head."

The best way to beat the good guys, is to never give them a reason to target you. Then you get to sit back, smoke cigars, and watch the gold pile up, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

[Jon_Dahl]

How is this, exactly? The world we live in tends to have a "stealing is against the law" mindset, and so stealing from someone would not be a lawful act, at least the way I see it. Would you mind explaining?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

You don't have to follow the letter of the law. And I will continue:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her

Choose Thieves' Code. If you don't want to write your own, choose one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief_in_law#Set_of_rules_according_to_Aleksandr_G urov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Ten_Commandments
Explain this to your DM. He or she will hopefully never comment your character's habit of breaking the law.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That's the thing. My character would mock you for even considering that.

"Let me get this straight, you want land, and money, money you're already getting tons of from the machine, with which you could use to BUY land, and you want to hold the villain ball and do some extortion? You're assuming you're going to be able to protect the machine, and that some paladin isn't going to break in and cave your skull in with a mace. You're getting greedy, and you're going to fall flat on your face because of it."

She leans in closely. "You want to know my secret to how I've defeated every hero that's ever been near me? I never give them just cause to attack me. Go ahead and use your machine to blackmail. I will plane shift to Baator to mock your soul once an adventuring party caves in your head."

The best way to beat the good guys, is to never give them a reason to target you. Then you get to sit back, smoke cigars, and watch the gold pile up, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

Well MY Evil characters would never give a competitor advice. She'd just hire some adventurers to take care of him.

A Neutral character is just a sufficiently pragmatic Evil one.

[Zanos]

That's the thing. My character would mock you for even considering that.

"Let me get this straight, you want land, and money, money you're already getting tons of from the machine, with which you could use to BUY land, and you want to hold the villain ball and do some extortion? You're assuming you're going to be able to protect the machine, and that some paladin isn't going to break in and cave your skull in with a mace. You're getting greedy, and you're going to fall flat on your face because of it."

She leans in closely. "You want to know my secret to how I've defeated every hero that's ever been near me? I never give them just cause to attack me. Go ahead and use your machine to blackmail. I will plane shift to Baator to mock your soul once an adventuring party caves in your head."

The best way to beat the good guys, is to never give them a reason to target you. Then you get to sit back, smoke cigars, and watch the gold pile up, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.
I'm not entirely certain what sort of world you play in where a paladin could reasonably cave in a greedy inventor's soul without falling. Sure it's not nice to ask for more money, but it's also not punishable by death to ask for more money for someone to continue to use something that belongs to you.


Well MY Evil characters would never give a competitor advice. She'd just hire some adventurers to take care of him.

A Neutral character is just a sufficiently pragmatic Evil one.

Did you mean that the other way around? I would think that a neutral character would begin to become evil when their pragmatism passed the point of "I avoid murder if possible, but will use it to further my aims."

[Keneth]

That's a fair point, but one of the things I said in my first post was that I don't like to stick to codes, which includes my own. I don't like the feeling of having an alignment issue cripple my abilities. I do what is necessary in a situation, what's practical for me living and getting some benefit out of it. If that requires me to murder 50 innocent people in one night, I will do it. If what's necessary is telling a noble's daughter a bedtime story, I'll (uncomfortably) do that too. I don't like to define a personal code of behaviors, because it limits me, the same way the laws of a country do. I'll follow them, grudgingly I'll admit, if it's what's necessary for me to live at the time, but I won't like it.

That sounds suspiciously like a strong personal code. :smallbiggrin:

[erok0809]

That sounds suspiciously like a strong personal code. :smallbiggrin:

I suppose so, if a willingness to change based on what's necessary at the time can be thought of as a code, although I don't see it as a very strong one if it does count as a code at all. I tend to think of a code, whether we're talking about laws, behavior, or otherwise, as something that doesn't allow for that much freedom in terms of behavior. If a personal code allows so much lenience that it includes both vicious murder and defending the innocent, and also allows for submission to authority and rejection of authority, then it's not really much of a code. The more I think about it though, the more my views do seem like a personal code, but it's almost like a personal code where by following it, you end up free from other codes. It's a Lawful way to be Chaotic, or something. I'll have to think on this some more. Maybe I'll be able to play lawful characters a bit better now.

[Talderas]

And the second character...was combating an unlawful, illegitimate government.

Succession is a messy mess. It's generally a bad idea to call anyone ruling after a change to the throne illegitimate or unlawful without knowing the precise succession laws as well as other laws of the kingdom in question. That aside, the LG character is running a fine line as he's dealing with a successor rather than a pretender. With a pretender, it's quite lawful to sieze the throne for the pretender. With a successor the ruler needs to die or abdicate to the successor thus really narrowing the options available to achieve the end result desired.

[Hyena]

My character would mock you for even considering that.
Are you the same player with that mary-sue queen character, who is evil without being too evil and runs the empire without ever facing any real problems?

[Morithias]

Did you mean that the other way around? I would think that a neutral character would begin to become evil when their pragmatism passed the point of "I avoid murder if possible, but will use it to further my aims."

Now we enter into the debate that surrounded the character.

When does being "wise" become "being good" or "being neutral"?

Because let's face it, most villains are very unwise.

The author will go on and on about how they're some evil genius, yet they basically don't apply anything resembling rational to their work.

The obvious answer to why most villains are like that is well...there wouldn't be a story if the villain was smart.

If the Weather Wizard hadn't threatened metropolis, Superman couldn't have saved the day, and the story would've been over from the get go.

I also love how apparently realizing this is "mary sue".

"Ok I want power. I can either be a cheating brutal tyrant that causes a rebel army to rise up and kill me, or I can be a legit ruler who is fairly nice, and have a fairly stable kingdom with only minor problems but I have a slightly smaller gold chamber....oh wait I don't value jewelry, and I own the government that mints the coins."

Again I remind you that the original campaign she was from, was a WAR campaign. Complaining the country has no political instability would be like complaining the pawns in chess can't rebel.

The campaign was originally going to be Kingmaker, but the DM threw that out, when he realized it would just lead to us over optimizing the system, and passing every check anyway. He'd rather have the country run on his terms, so we're not passing economy checks by insane amounts and bringing in like 30 Bp a month.

[Sam K]

Wow, there are so many posts I want to reply to! I'll just have to pick a few things or I'll be up all night!

Regarding Robin Hood: Hood is chaotic because he systematically breaks the law and undermines the lawful authority. He doesn't just target a few wicked, corrupt nobles, he will steal from anyone who has “too much” money, including the church (a cornerstone of society in that age). While he may have some long term goal to restore the rightful king (in some interpretations of the legends), Prince John is the lawful authority (he just honors the letter, not the spirit, of the rules). Finally, he doesn't just break the law, he undermines the tradition of knightly honor and chivalry. Arming commoners to fight against nobles (especially using archery and ambush tactics) isn't just an attack on those nobles, it's an attack on the system that gives them their power.

While a NG or even LG character could use chaotic means to fight a corrupt authority, the systematic undermining of the system the corrupt authority derives from pegs him as clearly chaotic in my book.

Regarding true neutral: I think the vast majority of true neutral characters aren't concerned with balance, they are interested in something else than good/evil or law/chaos. For example, an artist who is completely absorbed with perfecting his craft, or a sage who wants nothing more than to pursue the knowledge of her library of ancient tomes, could easily be true neutral. They don't care about making the world a better place (except maybe as far as their contributions to their discipline would make it so), but neither do they seek to harm anyone. They don't care much about who rules as long as they are allowed to pursue their passion, and will acknowledge any authority (or the lack of one) if it means they get to get on with their business.

Regarding law and chaos: To me, the “lowest common denominator” for lawful is that you have a general respect for law and tradition, even if you don't follow it or it doesn't apply to you. “It's traditional” is an acceptable explanation for why people act in certain ways (within reason, of course). Likewise, lawful people generally try to respect the rules. You will usually tolerate being inconvenienced by someone who is following the rules (although LE characters are good at knowing when there are rules that say they shouldn't be inconvenienced). A lawful person is the person who say “Well, there are rules for a reason...”, and think that existing rules should be followed. If a rule is stupid or obsolete, reasonable lawful people will want to change it or remove it in a controlled way.

On the flip side, chaotic characters are, at the core, individualists. They do not have to be, and usually are not, anarchists, insane or incapable of planning. They are however the people that, when told there's a rule against what they want to do, answers “So?” To a chaotic character, inconveniencing yourself because of tradition or social protocol is stupid. If they think a rule is stupid, they will ignore it if they think they can get away with it. A CG character may ask “Will anyone get hurt?”, while a CE character will usually ask “Will I get hurt?”, when considering breaking a rule.

Wisdom also plays into how an alignment manifests itself. Lawful characters with low wisdom become nitpickers who will happily see nothing get done if the rules are unclear. High wis lawfulness is characterized by trying to understand the intention of the rules and different ways they can be applied(if you decide do APPLY the rules according with their intention will depend on your alignment, though). High wisdom chaotic people may consider rules as obstacles that prevents one from reaching one's full potential (the rules were written by other people who did not know the situation you're facing right now, after all), while low wisdom chaotics tend to resemble rebellious teenagers (“You're not the boss of me, I can do what I want, you cant stop me!”).

Regarding evil “role models: Since a lot of people seem to think this one is tricky, I find a good source or evil characters that aren't just “archetype evil” is Game of Thrones (the following text may contain trace of nuts or GoT plot developments):

The best example I can think of for NE is Bronn: the guy is a stone cold killer, with no concerns regarding the cause he fights for. He changes loyalty several times, but never actually breaks a contract, he just refuses to renew them or add to his duties when it becomes obvious he could get a better deal elsewhere.

Jaime Lannister is a good example of non-demonic CE (atleast in the first book/season, he kind of shifts towards CN later). While he has some loyalties (to his family), he ignores oaths, laws, honor, traditions and the lives of innocents. He's not demonic, it's just that he takes what he wants, and he has the skill, money and connections to get away with it... for a while.

Tywin Lannister is an awesome example of LE. The guy will happily unleash his collection of freaks, sociopaths and murderers on innocents, but he does it according to the rules. He doesn't seize power, he puts himself in a position where power falls into his hands. He will use people and (while playing within the rules) discard them when they are no longer needed. He's devoted to his legacy and the legacy of his house, but will sacrifice even his family to build on that legacy.


FINALLY, regarding the original question: anything good. I find it hard playing “good” in a game where one of the basic premises is that reckless genocide on intelligent, free thinking creature that are arbitrarily declared as “evil” and “lesser” is considered an acceptable path of social and personal progression.

[hamishspence]

I agree with this.

Regarding the last- I tend toward the view that Good doesn't just go out and "massacre the Evil races because they're there" - it takes a lot more justification before a strongly Good being will go after an Evil one.

Putting a stop to repeated unprovoked raids, for example.

[bekeleven]

I have trouble playing evil, possibly for similar reasons to Morithias - The whole "Evil isn't just looking out for number one, it's looking out for number one while grinding your boot into the face of number two" makes it challenging for me to figure out a realistic character model to portray.

One time I played chaotic neutral where I rolled a D% to decide certain actions. The system evolved over time and got rather convoluted but the basic rule was that every time my personal well-being conflicted with the goals of the party, I would add some modifiers - the other players helped me with this, we all got into it - and roll the odds of me coming to their aid. For instance, if I was looking ahead to the next room, found a very small, valuable gem? I'm carring a personal haversack (+10), I have a significantly higher buff than any of their sense motive (+10), I am saving for a better dagger (+10), the paladin's sword was just sundered (-15). Then I roll my D% and under 65 I pocket it. Or we're battling the BBEG and the paladin needs a flank. The paladin is a more imposing target (-10), I'm at low health after the goblin archers nat-20d their spots (+15), but more importantly the BBEG is intelligent enough to realize that I could be dropped in 1-2 hits (+20), I could deal sneak attack and possibly finish the fight much faster (-15), The paladin will die without me (-25). Then I roll and help if I get above 35 I charge in. Below, and I draw my bow, best of luck to ya pally.

As for lawful good, I suggest anybody confused about the alignment read about the three stages of lawful good (http://i.imgur.com/fQWag.png). In summary:


Realizing that you don't have to play lawful good
Realizing that lawful good is the worst alignment
finding out that lawful good is, in fact, the best alignment.

[Telonius]

I'm terrible at Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. I find that the decisions that kind of a character makes will almost always slide to either the Good or Evil end of the alignment axis. Unless I'm playing a character with actual sociopathic tendencies, it's hard for me to imagine somebody making decisions based chiefly on law or chaos.

[Zanos]

-Snip-
I'm not really sure how any of that relates to the segment of my post that you quoted. Where you responding to something I said specifically, or just in general?:smallconfused:

As far as I'm concerned a 100% pragmatic character is Neutral Evil assuming their goal isn't extreme on the Law or Chaos axis. A completely pragmatic character will kill innocent people, commit genocide, or burn worlds if they believe it is the most expedient, efficient, or convenient method to achieve whatever it is that they want. They likewise won't shy away from building orphanages if they think it would help their goal, and those who plan to live for an especially long time(more than a month) should probably see the value in not being a major public figure or irritating very many people.

Extreme pragmatists are fun to play because it's interesting writing goals that a person is willing to throw away all their morals to see complete. I'm actually playing a wizard now who wants to restore Netheril to it's former height of power. I don't think he's Evil, but he's already done a few pretty questionable things. I had him pegged as Lawful Neutral due to the whole "undying loyalty to country" deal, but I'm not really sure.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Did you mean that the other way around? I would think that a neutral character would begin to become evil when their pragmatism passed the point of "I avoid murder if possible, but will use it to further my aims."

She was talking about an Evil character like this:

"My evil geniuses are too pragmatic and meta. They'll often ignore the obvious 'evil' action, in favor of a more legit route because it keeps the paladins off their back."

In my mind, a Good character is one that goes around performing good deeds, even when it inconveniences them. The more you're willing to inconvenience yourself to help others, the more Good you are: A Good character only performs an outright Evil act in exceptional circumstances. Likewise, an Evil character is one that goes around performing Evil needs even when it inconveniences them. The more you're willing to inconvenience yourself to hurt others, the more Evil you are.

If you never take risks or do anything inconvenient for yourself, you're neutral.

"Stupid Evil" exists as a trope because if you take this concept too far, the character becomes flat and one-dimensional. "Stupid Good" can be this too: A completely pure character with no weaknesses or boundaries as to their goodness is uninteresting (though we tend to not think of such behavior as "stupid").

[Zanos]

If you never take risks or do anything inconvenient for yourself, you're neutral.
While I can respect that line of reasoning, it seems odd that a character who would kill an innocent person because it was convenient is Neutral. If you put a lot of weight on being in a certain alignment bracket such that you have to be devilish/demonic to be Evil, that fits. By the book, neutral characters do have problems with killing innocent people.

I can agree that an intelligent villian would make decisions that did not draw a lot of attention to themselves. The more people that are mad at you, the higher the chances are that someone possesses the ability to do something about it. That goes both ways, though. If a villain is extremely smart or wise, ideally nobody would know who they are at all.

[Seto]

See, I kind of disagree here. I don't expect every Good person to strive and try to build a utopia (honestly, thinking that that's possible is kind of its own low-Wis territory) but if you're a Good character in a campaign, your general goal is to change things for the better. While it's undoubtedly Good to go day to day helping people whenever you can, I think it would require something of a low-Int low-Wis perspective to think that things will get better if you don't do something about the source of the problem. And, generally, doing something about the problem implies working towards some certain end. For example, in my eyes, the Neutral Good character is the person who, when confronted with an oppressive dictatorship, will either 1) go from town to town, helping people who are hurt by the oppression and fighting against it, or, if high enough level, 2) go and kill the guy on the throne to remove the tyrant. Those are both helpful and Good, but it takes favoring Chaos or Law to move on from that point; instate a new government based on enforcing people's freedoms and having the government support the people, as a Chaotic Good character would, or change the laws, revise the system, and instate new but strict rules and officials to maintain order so there's no anarchy after the old system is gone (Lawful). The Neutral Good character might try to find a compromise in the system, but generally even doing that would be seen as extremely Lawful by the other members at the table.

Similar things could be said for the Evil axis, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here.

Ok, I see your point. It's actually a pretty good point. Although having to decide how a kingdom would be ruled is a very specific situation. Yeah, I think a NG-type would probably not start from scratch, but instead take the situation into account and somehow work from there. What you're basically saying is that the only two models of government are Chaos and Law, and that the Neutral guy will have to choose one of those two eventually, or a mixture of the two. I think that what makes him Neutral is that his choice will not be based solely on his worldview, but on the requirements of the situation, whether they be historical, political (allies, etc.), or simply what the inhabitants would rather have. In other words, faced with this kind of choice, a NG can make a choice, but he might do it differently if he has to do a similar choice again with a different kingdom. And his choice will include elements of both Law and Chaos : while being maybe inclined to one of the two, the result will never be ideologically pure.

So, what we agree on, I guess, is that there is no "Neutral" way to build a government, but only Neutral people who sometimes have to govern. In this case, the "Neutral" mindset would be the absence of ideology, and a willingness to choose what the character thinks the situation requires, without being too blunt or absolute about it. I still fail to see how this indicates a low Wis-Int.
(I hope what I'm writing makes sense, I'm wicked tired)


Justice is a lawful concept. They have to be sure that their actions are right, but righteousness depends on the point of view. You say that they're "getting it wrong", but that's based only on your own idea for morality. I'd be perfectly fine with a paladin killing someone in my game and then taking their stuff, depending on the situation and the character's motives.

I disagree with the first part of your answer, as I'm operating under the consensus that D&D has objective morality. I'm going by it, which doesn't make it "my own idea of it" or my "point of view". Granted, the standard D&D definition of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos is at best unclear and unstable. But the point of debates like this is to make more sense of it and make it more precise/RAI/workable in a game. (Besides, I'd peg justice more as a Good concept : LG thinks that justice can and should be institutionalized, CG thinks that laws fail to do justice justice (:smallbiggrin:), and wants to bring justice extra-legally (Robin Hood is a Justiciar, so is Batman). But they might agree on what justice is and should do, if not on how it should do it. Whereas LE is looking for order rather than justice. And for those LEs looking for justice, the LE's idea of justice just doesn't mesh well with LG's : it's a different concept hidden under the same name.)

With the second part I agree. Of course a paladin can kill and loot. I'm just saying that "I cast detect evil on this guy : does it work ? Yes ? Ok, I rip his head off and wipe the floor with it because he's evil anyway. Oh, look at all the rubies he was carrying !" (which is my definition of murderhobo) is a pretty stupid way to play "Good". At least ask questions.
It's possible to play Good in a world where you kill creatures and loot. Look at Buffy (I apologize if you're not familiar with the series) : she's named "the Slayer". She does not make a living of it, but she definitely could if vampires and demons walked around with "standard D&D gold". But look at those times when she thinks she has killed humans, or participated in it (at least three times off the top of my head) : she freaks out and completely breaks down. And hell, if she finds out there are specimens of "Always chaotic evil" monsters that are, in fact, Good, she goes out of her way to protect them, maybe even become friends with them, defending them against murderhobos who think that's okay to kill them just because they're freaks. If one's looking to play Good, that's a pretty good start.

[QuintonBeck]

Easiest by far for me is LN, either do what your superior on the chain of command tells you t do (you can talk to them if you think it may be too naive/good or merciless/evil but ultimately you listen to their word) or do what society would expect and need someone in your position to do.

CN and CG are the two hardest for me probably and any sort of extended CE. I'm no good at being chaotic. I'm also not that great at LG either though because while I have inclinations to treat others fairly I don't automatically default to being the nicest person around, just fair.

CE is the easiest Chaotic for me to play probably because to me the Chaotic alignments act without thinking long term and CE means a lot of simple, brutal methods of expediating and disposing of potential issues the moment they pop up. Being charged too much by someone/offended? Threaten or kill them. He's vowing a blood oath of vengeance? Cut his head off. Don't think, just do.

I guess in some respects I have the viewpoint espoused in older editions of D&D when it was just Law vs. Chaos wherein Chaos represented bad and law represented good. With the varying shades of the alignment scale I can see and understand the perspectives there and it adds a depth deeper than black vs white, but I still essentially see the conflict as one of order vs disorder.

CG is perhaps the most difficult one for me to understand, to me it's the alignment that says everyone should be completely free and independent to make their own choices and be take care of themselves, that people are inherently good so giving them that will be absolutely hunkie dorey. I guess CG just seems naive from my perspective, you have to know there are evil people out there, you're fighting against them, why wouldn't you want some institution that could protect people from them? Not everyone is cut out to be a super mega awesome adventurer and not everyone can defend themselves if they're left standing in front of someone who wants to hurt them. CG is to me like the naive idea that complete anarchy would lead to everyone getting together and singing kumbaya. So if I were to make a CG character (or more likely NPC considering my proclivity for DMing) they would either be young or powerful and unaware that other people weren't as powerful as themselves or in some way unaware of the world at large.

[Grim Portent]

That's the thing. My character would mock you for even considering that.

"Let me get this straight, you want land, and money, money you're already getting tons of from the machine, with which you could use to BUY land, and you want to hold the villain ball and do some extortion? You're assuming you're going to be able to protect the machine, and that some paladin isn't going to break in and cave your skull in with a mace. You're getting greedy, and you're going to fall flat on your face because of it."

She leans in closely. "You want to know my secret to how I've defeated every hero that's ever been near me? I never give them just cause to attack me. Go ahead and use your machine to blackmail. I will plane shift to Baator to mock your soul once an adventuring party caves in your head."

The best way to beat the good guys, is to never give them a reason to target you. Then you get to sit back, smoke cigars, and watch the gold pile up, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

Extortion? I would never dream of extorting anything from anyone. It would be a simple declaration that due to increasing maintenance costs on my weather control mechanism I need more resources. I would inform my clients that material goods or property would be considered acceptable payments and let them think their way to the logical conclusion.

[Scumbaggery]

Lawful Good.

Or actually, anything good for that matter. I do neutral at best, evil 90% of the other times. Even in good campaigns.

[ArcturusV]

Regarding true neutral: I think the vast majority of true neutral characters aren't concerned with balance, they are interested in something else than good/evil or law/chaos. For example, an artist who is completely absorbed with perfecting his craft, or a sage who wants nothing more than to pursue the knowledge of her library of ancient tomes, could easily be true neutral. They don't care about making the world a better place (except maybe as far as their contributions to their discipline would make it so), but neither do they seek to harm anyone. They don't care much about who rules as long as they are allowed to pursue their passion, and will acknowledge any authority (or the lack of one) if it means they get to get on with their business.

Being one of those who mentioned True Neutral I like the discussion.

But anyways... your examples don't particularly strike me as "True Neutral" but either Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Neutral. Because Chaotic is defined (Among other things like insane and anarchists for the sake of anarchy) as being free thinkers and the various types of buzzwords we do attach to the Artist crowd (Though as a lay student of art I do know it's very Rules Intensive actually despite the common view that it's about expression and screw the rules). Where as the scholar is a man of order in a lot of ways, their mind filled with systems, codes, the sense that things belong in certain orders, rules to how things should be, where they should be, etc.

It just... every time I hear something about what "True Neutral" means for a humanoid it seems off. Consider the end line there about someone who just wants to be left alone to perfect their crafts. That sounds a lot like the fluff regarding the Monk class. Holed up in monastaries, removed from the world where they seek to become enlightened and balance spirit and body. Yes Monks are Alignment: Must Be Lawful. Because of the reasons that it is about order and discipline in their life. So it seems odd to say someone who's chief concern is "Bugger off world and let me follow my goals in peace" is True Neutral.

Like... the more I think about it, the more I think it requires even more apathy... but in a way that it'd be almost unplayable as a PC. I mean think of True Neutral Gods. They tend to mostly be Gods of Nature. Which I can understand. Animals are True Neutral because the lack the developed mind to have morality, okay. The Nature Gods are neutral because they don't really give two yanks about good, evil, law, and chaos, so much as they do about the system just working on a primal, instinctual level. Balance between the Lawful Patterns of Nature (Like the insane amount of times that 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc pattern appears in nature. The following of the seasons, etc) and the Chaotic mutations and unlikely events that happen which creates a living dynamic to nature, keeping up the arms race between predator and prey, the ability to kill or be killed, etc. And they don't care about Good or Evil because in the end things like a Forest Fire isn't "Evil". Isn't "Good"... but it's necessary. Same with the wolf who snaps down a rabbit, etc.

But if you'd think about how to say, play a True Neutral Druid who tries to follow that path (As is logical and common in their fluff after all)... they'd be very passive characters. They aren't really proactive because they recognize the balance between Order and Chaos, that Chaos in and of itself in nature balances out with Order. Even their fluff from older editions mentions they aren't Anti-Civilization really, as they recognize the need for humanoids to hunt, fish, cut timber, domesticate animals, etc.

So you're left with a character who has a belief and a subset of morality that boils down to complete apathy and "Eh... nature sorts it out anyway..." who probably wouldn't care about actually getting off their ass to solve anything unless it reached the scale of something like "Orcus is conducting a ritual which will tear the entire planet into a layer of the abyss". Maybe.

So it'd be hard to be a PC like that.

When you start going out and doing stuff, you start to drift. You're being a hero, doing good things, without really embracing order or chaos, good news, you're Neutral Good. You start realizing that the world is built for predators and that you should take everything that you can hold onto. You're drifting towards evil. Or you try to impose your beliefs on other people, mandating your philosophy as Law... ah we're getting into Lawful territory. Or you try to burn down the structures of the world in some effort to go Poison Ivy/Raz Al'Ghul on the world and make the embrace nature again after all their cities burn... you're going into Chaos.

I mean even when I think I have a handle on what is a prototypical, obvious, anyone could agree on it True Neutral I find myself still thinking that it can't be. Or at least can't be as a player character concept. Even if you were the apathetic True Neutral who doesn't get off their butt until Orcus forces your hand.. which would happen in a campaign because the DM and the players want Adventure and not to run around playing Harvest Moon: DnD Edition... you're going out and smiting demons in order to put something to right... you're still drifting to Good.

And it's not like there are "Alignment Points", and there really shouldn't be, so you can't "game" a system and say something like "Yesterday I was Lawful and returned a king to his throne.. so today I'm going to spark a rebellion against the king to keep my neutrality". That sort of insanity and backstabbing is still gonna toss you into basically the definition of Chaotic Neutral.

I dunno. I have a hard time with it. Which is why I said I have a hard time playing it.

[pwykersotz]

I have real trouble with Chaos. In real life I tend heavily toward law, and the concept of doing something on a whim weirds me out. Thus, any whimsical character is just difficult. My friend laughed at me because when I played a chaotic character once, I had to figure out a whole system to calculate the chaos...yeah...

On the other hand, I have no problem as a GM with chaotic NPC's. I think it comes from a lack of investment in who they are, I can have them take more random actions and not feel bad about it.

I also have no trouble with Good and Evil. When playing good, I just make sure to care about the well-being of everyone, simple enough. When playing evil, I just make sure to have the destruction of one group or another as the end result of whatever plan I have in motion. Sort of a 'global' evil.

Edit: And to add to the TN discussion, my buddy played a TN Wizard once. His whole goal was to even out the craziness the rest of his party got into. They were true chaos, and would shift alignments at whim. He used every ounce of cunning he had to bring whatever craziness they enacted back towards balance.

[Keneth]

I disagree with the first part of your answer, as I'm operating under the consensus that D&D has objective morality.

Objective morality is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned. And since morality is largely undefined in D&D (or in general), any idea of what is right, is almost entirely one's personal idea of what is right. There are some rules in D&D that dictate which actions are considered corrupt or evil (e.g. torture), and even these are largely disputable, but there are no rules dictating when actions are good (that I'm aware of). So, I stand by my statement that it is motives and not actions that define a creature's alignment.


(Besides, I'd peg justice more as a Good concept.)

Err no, justice entirely a lawful concept and has nothing to do with good. To determine whether an action is just, one must have a very specific set of rules dictating that course of action, which is based on either rationality, law, religion, or some other ordered system. Or in other words, justice can certainly be based on a system of virtues to determine the morally right course of action, but it can also be entirely devoid of any such concepts. So the difference between the justice of "good" creatures, and the justice of "evil" creatures, is the amount of equity and bias, but the laws of devils are as just as the laws of heavens.


With the second part I agree. Of course a paladin can kill and loot. I'm just saying that "I cast detect evil on this guy : does it work ? Yes ? Ok, I rip his head off and wipe the floor with it because he's evil anyway. Oh, look at all the rubies he was carrying !" (which is my definition of murderhobo) is a pretty stupid way to play "Good". At least ask questions.

Granted, but you fall into the same question as initially: When is killing righteous? Even if you determine that it is just, at what point does it become morally right?

[Razanir]

You don't have to follow the letter of the law. And I will continue:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments

The interpretation I go with is that Lawful characters respect any reasonable authority. So do they listen to legitimate government officials more often than a Chaotic character? Yes. Do they necessarily agree with every law? No.

[Coidzor]

Objective morality is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, so you don't like the morality model of D&D 3.5. Join the club.

[Morithias]

I can agree that an intelligent villian would make decisions that did not draw a lot of attention to themselves. The more people that are mad at you, the higher the chances are that someone possesses the ability to do something about it. That goes both ways, though. If a villain is extremely smart or wise, ideally nobody would know who they are at all.

Exactly.

The other factor comes in that often in games doing the good-aligned thing is objectively better.

Like in Tropico 4 the videogame. I once tried to play the "military tyrant" everyone kept telling me to do.

It was hell. I had a population of only like 400 people, I had low profits because I kept having to make a tenth of those military people to keep the rebels at bay, people kept going on strike, rebels blowing up my factories, and so on.

So then I restarted on the same map, and I played the "benevolent" tyrant. Although my expenses were higher, the fact I had a population of over 800 people, no rebels, and people constantly at work in the factories, and high approval ratings all around countered that.

And since I was building more buildings, the building permit put more in my swiss bank account, and since I exporting more, customs duty evasion put more money in my swiss bank account too.

So logically if I was in the government business for the money, objectively being the benevolent dictator was the smarter choice. The fact no one wanted to kill me was just a bonus.

Also it's fun to not rig the elections and win them 906 people to 17.

I'm just saying, look at the history of fantasy, you can sum up almost every fantasy novel, or novel in general as the following.

1. Bad guy appears
2. Bad guy does evil thing that hurts people
3. Hero appears
4. Hero defeats bad guy

But without #2, the hero has no basis to go after the "villain".




In my mind, a Good character is one that goes around performing good deeds, even when it inconveniences them. The more you're willing to inconvenience yourself to help others, the more Good you are: A Good character only performs an outright Evil act in exceptional circumstances. Likewise, an Evil character is one that goes around performing Evil needs even when it inconveniences them. The more you're willing to inconvenience yourself to hurt others, the more Evil you are.


You see that's the thing.

In my mind "Evil" is determined by what lines you're willing to cross. Do you have no moral objections against doing certain acts?

It doesn't mean you're a snidely whiplash idiot who doesn't realize what rational analysis is. There's no point to kicking the dog if you get nothing out of it.

Your evil aligned person kicks the dog.

My evil aligned person is WILLING to kick the dog, but doesn't because adopting it and training it as a guard dog is more profitable.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Morithias, I think I see what the problem is. Your version of Evil is what everybody else considers Neutral. Your Evil seems like the type who would try to out-business competition with intelligent ploys and possibly inserting some destructive employees into the other company, while most people's version of Evil would hire somebody to "take care of" the other company's most important officials. You probably motivate yourself and make more money your way and don't have to worry about a bad reputation on suspicion of using assassins, but you still have a potential competitor there, while Evil is generally described as "instructions for Number 1: please insert heel of boot into mental outline on Number 2's face".

[Morithias]

Morithias, I think I see what the problem is. Your version of Evil is what everybody else considers Neutral. Your Evil seems like the type who would try to out-business competition with intelligent ploys and possibly inserting some destructive employees into the other company, while most people's version of Evil would hire somebody to "take care of" the other company's most important officials. You probably motivate yourself and make more money your way and don't have to worry about a bad reputation on suspicion of using assassins, but you still have a potential competitor there, while Evil is generally described as "instructions for Number 1: please insert heel of boot into mental outline on Number 2's face".

Pretty sure my way of thinking is the standard of Eberron, but I'd have to double check that.

Yes, kicking people when they're down. That hasn't ended poorly for 99% of the villains in fiction.

[Zanos]

Morithias, I think I see what the problem is. Your version of Evil is what everybody else considers Neutral. Your Evil seems like the type who would try to out-business competition with intelligent ploys and possibly inserting some destructive employees into the other company, while most people's version of Evil would hire somebody to "take care of" the other company's most important officials. You probably motivate yourself and make more money your way and don't have to worry about a bad reputation on suspicion of using assassins, but you still have a potential competitor there, while Evil is generally described as "instructions for Number 1: please insert heel of boot into mental outline on Number 2's face".
The SRD does specifically state that Neutral characters have compunctions with killing innocent people. The character described does not, and is therefore Evil.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

The SRD does specifically state that Neutral characters have compunctions with killing innocent people. The character described does not, and is therefore Evil.

You did pick out that I was describing two different characters in that post, yes?

[Zanos]

You did pick out that I was describing two different characters in that post, yes?
Yes, the character Morithias described and the theoretical one you described.

Both characters are evil because they do not have compunctions about killing innocents. The SRD is specific on this case, Neutral characters have compunctions about killing innocent people. A character that does not is not Neutral, and is certainly not Good.

[NichG]

CG is perhaps the most difficult one for me to understand, to me it's the alignment that says everyone should be completely free and independent to make their own choices and be take care of themselves, that people are inherently good so giving them that will be absolutely hunkie dorey. I guess CG just seems naive from my perspective, you have to know there are evil people out there, you're fighting against them, why wouldn't you want some institution that could protect people from them? Not everyone is cut out to be a super mega awesome adventurer and not everyone can defend themselves if they're left standing in front of someone who wants to hurt them. CG is to me like the naive idea that complete anarchy would lead to everyone getting together and singing kumbaya. So if I were to make a CG character (or more likely NPC considering my proclivity for DMing) they would either be young or powerful and unaware that other people weren't as powerful as themselves or in some way unaware of the world at large.

I've played a CG-leaning character whose thing was basically 'I will go and make everyone stronger, so that they may impose their will upon the universe and forge it in their own image.' He didn't think that giving everyone power would make the world a nicer place, but in general any individual he met, he would try to both empower them and also guide them philosophically to a place where they could be satisfied, productive, and proactive.

Sometimes that meant giving evil people power and trying to convince them that comic book moustache twirling evil is stupid. Usually it meant helping the underdog or the oppressed though. But at the end of the day, he was willing to sacrifice a lot personally to lift other people up. I would argue that is basically CG, even though its not like 'the world will be perfect if I do this', because he wasn't aiming to create some 'perfect' world (nor did he think that would be desirable - conflict is a necessary part of interesting existence) - he was aiming to improve the lives of as many people as possible.

[Coidzor]

Pretty sure my way of thinking is the standard of Eberron, but I'd have to double check that.

No, Eberron is "**** is complicated, yo." Yours seems to be "I'm-I mean, this character is evil, but I don't actually do anything evil or have evil plans, and while I said that this was a problem for me with playing evil characters earlier, now I'm acting like it isn't an issue at all, because doing evil can attract opposition and who wants to deal with that kind of hassle to one's legitimate business transactions?" Admittedly it's a little bit confusing to follow so I might have missed one of the twists and turns so far.


Yes, kicking people when they're down. That hasn't ended poorly for 99% of the villains in fiction.

That's... :smallconfused: That's the idea, yes. :smallconfused:

What do you want, Villain Sues to be the rule? :smallconfused:

[ArcturusV]

Nah, kicking them while they are down isn't what messes up villains. NOT kicking them when they're down is what messes them up. Hubris, all that "I shall leave you alive because you aren't a threat to me!" or "I want you to spread the tale of how I easily bested you today!" instead of just killing them. Or at the very least taking measures to prevent them from bouncing back like... I dunno, cut off their legs. Paladin MacPharsen isn't gonna be charge smiting you without legs. Burn the legs, or stuff them and mount them on your wall so he can't regen.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Nah, kicking them while they are down isn't what messes up villains. NOT kicking them when they're down is what messes them up. Hubris, all that "I shall leave you alive because you aren't a threat to me!" or "I want you to spread the tale of how I easily bested you today!" instead of just killing them. Or at the very least taking measures to prevent them from bouncing back like... I dunno, cut off their legs. Paladin MacPharsen isn't gonna be charge smiting you without legs. Burn the legs, or stuff them and mount them on your wall so he can't regen.

Wrong definition interpretation. Kicking somebody while they're down is different from murdering somebody you've just beaten. I support the second, but kicking people while they're down of your own volition is more described as slaughtering the people close to somebody, then retreating before he finds it so that you can fight him later, once he's discovered the bodies and is emotionally destroyed. Seems like a sound plan in the moment, until the guy turns out to be a Cold Bad*** Avenger instead of a crying shaking mess.

[Morithias]

No, Eberron is "**** is complicated, yo." Yours seems to be "I'm-I mean, this character is evil, but I don't actually do anything evil or have evil plans, and while I said that this was a problem for me with playing evil characters earlier, now I'm acting like it isn't an issue at all, because doing evil can attract opposition and who wants to deal with that kind of hassle to one's legitimate business transactions?" Admittedly it's a little bit confusing to follow so I might have missed one of the twists and turns so far.

That's... :smallconfused: That's the idea, yes. :smallconfused:

What do you want, Villain Sues to be the rule? :smallconfused:

I was under the impression that in Eberron, your alignment does not represent your goals, it "reflects the manner in which they pursue those goals."

Also again, I don't get the whole "this person is genre savvy, and realizes that dealing with rebels, and heroes is a bad idea" is "villain sue".

Let me sum up what it sounds like you people are saying.

You have two options.

1. You receive $200

or

2. You kick a dog and receive $100.

I'm arguing that an evil person who is actually smart would take option 1. You're arguing they should take option 2, for no other reason than they're a total jerk.

Being evil does not magically make you irrational.

[ngilop]

anything Evil.. even if it is just for RP purposes

I just cannot get behind being evil. its just too utterly opposite my normal character.

[erok0809]

Let me sum up what it sounds like you people are saying.

You have two options.

1. You receive $200

or

2. You kick a dog and receive $100.

I'm arguing that an evil person who is actually smart would take option 1. You're arguing they should take option 2, for no other reason than they're a total jerk.

There is always the chance that getting the chance to kick a dog is worth giving up the extra $100 to them. I know at least one character of mine would gladly take the $100 and kick the dog, although that's only because $100 is not a large amount to him, and so the pleasure he would take from knowing he inflicted pain on the dog greatly outweighs the "pain" of the monetary loss.

[Morithias]

There is always the chance that getting the chance to kick a dog is worth giving up the extra $100 to them. I know at least one character of mine would gladly take the $100 and kick the dog, although that's only because $100 is not a large amount to him, and so the pleasure he would take from knowing he inflicted pain on the dog greatly outweighs the "pain" of the monetary loss.

Yeah, and the point I'm making is that plenty of my villains, do not get pleasure from shall we say such "Petty" acts.

Hell the Empress didn't even like non-magical jewelry, she saw it as an insulting gift. "You think I am such a primitive ape, that I would impressed by SHINY ROCKS?!"

What she valued was power, above all else, but she also realized one key thing that many villains do not.

In the long term, respect and diplomacy are more powerful than fear and violence.

The best way to keep yourself in power, is to have the people WANT you there.

You want person a to do action b. You have two ways to get them to do it. 1. ask nicely, or 2. Point a gun at them.

Both will work, although asking nicely might take a small bribe, but you know what pointing the gun is going to do?

It'll make them hate you, and over time, they will turn on you.

It also helps that kicking the dog, might kind of get the cops after you depending on what kind of action it is.

I stand by the weather wizard example. Patent the machine and market it legally, bam superman and the flash don't show up to ruin everything, and you get all the money you would want anyway.

The only real reason a truly 'wise' villain wouldn't do that, is quite frankly we wouldn't have a story otherwise.

Edit: Also let's say it wasn't $100, for your "rich" boy.

How about $2000000000000000 versus $1000000000000000.

You get my point.

[Seto]

Objective morality is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned. And since morality is largely undefined in D&D (or in general), any idea of what is right, is almost entirely one's personal idea of what is right. There are some rules in D&D that dictate which actions are considered corrupt or evil (e.g. torture), and even these are largely disputable, but there are no rules dictating when actions are good (that I'm aware of). So, I stand by my statement that it is motives and not actions that define a creature's alignment.

You're talking about how the alignment system should be, not how it is. I suggest you go and see Magiconomicon's Real Alignments System, that's sounds exactly like what you're looking for.
As for the "motives and not actions" thing, D&D quite clearly states that, while you can be Evil and do Good things (so, having Evil motives), you won't get away with thinking you're Good and doing Evil things. Double-standard thing.


Err no, justice entirely a lawful concept and has nothing to do with good. To determine whether an action is just, one must have a very specific set of rules dictating that course of action, which is based on either rationality, law, religion, or some other ordered system. Or in other words, justice can certainly be based on a system of virtues to determine the morally right course of action, but it can also be entirely devoid of any such concepts. So the difference between the justice of "good" creatures, and the justice of "evil" creatures, is the amount of equity and bias, but the laws of devils are as just as the laws of heavens.

Ok so we have a different definition of justice.


Granted, but you fall into the same question as initially: When is killing righteous? Even if you determine that it is just, at what point does it become morally right?

My point exactly : for me, "just" is the same as "morally right" : that's why CG types will ignore the law and try to do justice themselves. And "morally right", while subjective in real life (that, I couldn't agree more on) is objective in D&D. It's an oxymoron in real life, not in D&D. That's not a problem. In real life, you hesitate between different ways, you don't know which is "right", and finally you realize none is inherently right, and your choice and motives make it so (that's my vision of it at least). In D&D, you have Outsiders or Gods that tell you : "yeah, that's Evil (or Good), that's what I would do". Morality is objective because you have reference points for it, and you need to be able to cast [Detect alignment]. You may think that's screwed up, but that's the way it is.

I'm not gonna argue longer when you just ignore my examples and discuss my final statements only. That sort of debate can't go well. Have a good day ;)

[Coidzor]

I was under the impression that in Eberron, your alignment does not represent your goals, it "reflects the manner in which they pursue those goals."

Also again, I don't get the whole "this person is genre savvy, and realizes that dealing with rebels, and heroes is a bad idea" is "villain sue".

Goals are never defined by alignment, but a person's particular goals can help shape and define their alignment, and Eberron doesn't have any effect on that. Mostly Eberron brings in a bit more shades of grey and plays with the idea that not every person who has an Evil alignment is going to necessarily be best dealt with by murdering them in the face, especially if they're a politically influential Cardinal or nobleman as I recall it. Though there's also the bit where one doesn't have to be within 1 step of one's deity's alignment as a cleric or else take a feat.

Nah, that was more in response to the idea that the villains should be expected to win when the stories are set up in such a way that a villainous win wouldn't make any sense in terms of theming or narrative.


Let me sum up what it sounds like you people are saying.

You have two options.

1. You receive $200

or

2. You kick a dog and receive $100.

I'm arguing that an evil person who is actually smart would take option 1. You're arguing they should take option 2, for no other reason than they're a total jerk.

No, we're* arguing that if they're always taking option 1, we have nothing to go on for why they'd count as evil. Even in Eberron people who have Evil alignments earn them same as anyone else, but you seem to be saying that Evil people don't have to actually do or be Evil in order to be... Evil. It's something intrinsic to them, like their dominant hand or natural hair color.

Also, your scenario is either not a very good model or goes straight to being disingenuous, since there's also the question of degrees and situations which are not clear cut or are even actually ambiguous.

*well, my position/understanding and what I think has been expressed by others so far as well.

[erok0809]

Yeah, and the point I'm making is that plenty of my villains, do not get pleasure from shall we say such "Petty" acts.

Hell the Empress didn't even like non-magical jewelry, she saw it as an insulting gift. "You think I am such a primitive ape, that I would impressed by SHINY ROCKS?!"

What she valued was power, above all else, but she also realized one key thing that many villains do not.

In the long term, respect and diplomacy are more powerful than fear and violence.

The best way to keep yourself in power, is to have the people WANT you there.

You want person a to do action b. You have two ways to get them to do it. 1. ask nicely, or 2. Point a gun at them.

Both will work, although asking nicely might take a small bribe, but you know what pointing the gun is going to do?

It'll make them hate you, and over time, they will turn on you.

It also helps that kicking the dog, might kind of get the cops after you depending on what kind of action it is.

I stand by the weather wizard example. Patent the machine and market it legally, bam superman and the flash don't show up to ruin everything, and you get all the money you would want anyway.

The only real reason a truly 'wise' villain wouldn't do that, is quite frankly we wouldn't have a story otherwise.

Edit: Also let's say it wasn't $100, for your "rich" boy.

How about $2000000000000000 versus $1000000000000000.

You get my point.

You make a very good point. It's certainly smarter for the villain to make it so that there is no reason for a hero to intervene. They live longer that way, being diplomatic and respected as you said. The only thing is that in terms of D&D's alignment system, you're entering neutral territory at this point. A desire to rule over others alone doesn't make you Evil with no Evil actions behind it. When a person consistently takes an action that raises themselves up while not putting down anyone else, especially if there's an option that does put others down, that's pretty Neutral. In general, Evil characters will probably rule by not only pointing the gun, but shooting it too. They won't be as good a ruler as someone who asks nicely, and will most likely eventually provoke attacks from heroes or the oppressed. But they're being Evil while doing it, whereas the ruler who asks nicely and then takes a small bribe is Neutral.

The same principle applies to the Superman example. If you patent the machine legally and make all the money you want legally, you aren't a villain anymore, since you've done nothing wrong. Not until you use the machine for Evil will you have committed an Evil act, but then now that you've been outwardly Evil, you provoke heroes to attack you as before.

Basically, in the D&D 3.5 alignment system, at least the way I see it (actions matter a lot more than motives to me, since a motive is just going to lead to future actions anyway. You aren't Evil until you do Evil things.) it's extremely difficult to be Evil without doing Evil acts, which are defined objectively, since the world has an absolute system of Good and Evil. It may not be the best or most logical way of going about it, but it is what it is in this system.

[Morithias]

I suppose we both have a point. The problem is we define evil differently, and the fact that SETTINGS define evil differently doesn't help.

At least you aren't insulting my characters.

[erok0809]

Oh no, I love that type of character, the smart and calculating villain. It's much tougher for the "heroes" of the story when there's no real villain to fight, or when it's even worse and society actually likes the person you're trying to eliminate. That can lead to some fun post-boss shenanigans as now the world is against you until you can prove that killing the ruler was just, if you can at all. It's a character archetype that I very much like, and have used and will use again in the future; the only difference between mine and yours is that I write Neutral on the character sheet.

[Story]

I don't know about myself, but one person in our group has trouble playing Good. In a party with a NE Ninja and a CN Anima Mage, the LG Cleric is the most evil of all.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Let's not forget that the moment an alignment discussion becomes useless is the moment we start quoting passages from the books to support our interpretations. More than anything else in the rules alignment needs human interpretation to make any sense at all. Using RAW in an alignment debate proves nothing, except that using RAW to interpret alignment is stupid.


While I can respect that line of reasoning, it seems odd that a character who would kill an innocent person because it was convenient is Neutral. If you put a lot of weight on being in a certain alignment bracket such that you have to be devilish/demonic to be Evil, that fits. By the book, neutral characters do have problems with killing innocent people.

I can agree that an intelligent villian would make decisions that did not draw a lot of attention to themselves. The more people that are mad at you, the higher the chances are that someone possesses the ability to do something about it. That goes both ways, though. If a villain is extremely smart or wise, ideally nobody would know who they are at all.

Well, imagine this, you're traveling through the wilderness and there's a huge bounty on your head, dead or alive. On the road, you meet a defenseless peasant who recognizes your face from the wanted posters and runs off to alert the authorities. Do you:

- Start running as fast as you can and hope the authorities can't find you.

- Shoot the peasant the peasant to silence him.

I'd interpret the second option as a Neutral one, because you're attacking the peasant to protect yourself, not really out of malice. It's self-defense, if indirect. The first option I'd interpret as a Good one, since you're putting yourself in a lot of danger for no particular reason except you want to avoid hurting the random stranger you met.

(The middle way is to shoot him through the leg to wound him so it'll take him much longer to reach help, giving you plenty of time to escape.)


CG is perhaps the most difficult one for me to understand, to me it's the alignment that says everyone should be completely free and independent to make their own choices and be take care of themselves, that people are inherently good so giving them that will be absolutely hunkie dorey. I guess CG just seems naive from my perspective, you have to know there are evil people out there, you're fighting against them, why wouldn't you want some institution that could protect people from them? Not everyone is cut out to be a super mega awesome adventurer and not everyone can defend themselves if they're left standing in front of someone who wants to hurt them. CG is to me like the naive idea that complete anarchy would lead to everyone getting together and singing kumbaya. So if I were to make a CG character (or more likely NPC considering my proclivity for DMing) they would either be young or powerful and unaware that other people weren't as powerful as themselves or in some way unaware of the world at large.

A philosophical-type CG character might answer: "Anyone who would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both. I don't deny that brigands and murderers are dangerous, but they're not the real threat: The greatest danger to society are those who would pretend to protect us from them."

[Sam K]

CG is perhaps the most difficult one for me to understand, to me it's the alignment that says everyone should be completely free and independent to make their own choices and be take care of themselves, that people are inherently good so giving them that will be absolutely hunkie dorey. I guess CG just seems naive from my perspective, you have to know there are evil people out there, you're fighting against them, why wouldn't you want some institution that could protect people from them? Not everyone is cut out to be a super mega awesome adventurer and not everyone can defend themselves if they're left standing in front of someone who wants to hurt them. CG is to me like the naive idea that complete anarchy would lead to everyone getting together and singing kumbaya. So if I were to make a CG character (or more likely NPC considering my proclivity for DMing) they would either be young or powerful and unaware that other people weren't as powerful as themselves or in some way unaware of the world at large.

That's the thing: chaotic, especially chaotic good, doesn't have to be anarchistic, iconoclastic or anything like that. They can be (an anarchist who truly believes anarchy is the best path, and tries to do good to prove it), but it's not a requirement. A CG chracter could reason that "Most people seem to prefer rules to govern their lives instead of trusting to themselves and their own abilities, and that's cool with me, but I want no part of it." Or they could figure that society seems to work for most things, but there are cases when you just need to get things done without a bunch of rules, and they take on that role; many adventurers seem to default to this position, they're not against society but they clearly chose to stand apart from it.


Being one of those who mentioned True Neutral I like the discussion.

But anyways... your examples don't particularly strike me as "True Neutral" but either Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Neutral. Because Chaotic is defined (Among other things like insane and anarchists for the sake of anarchy) as being free thinkers and the various types of buzzwords we do attach to the Artist crowd (Though as a lay student of art I do know it's very Rules Intensive actually despite the common view that it's about expression and screw the rules). Where as the scholar is a man of order in a lot of ways, their mind filled with systems, codes, the sense that things belong in certain orders, rules to how things should be, where they should be, etc.

The fact that you tend to organize information in a specific way doesn't make you lawful though. It means you have high(ish) intelligence. All wizards must be able to organize vast amount of information (it's part of learning to be a wizard) but that doesn't mean they cant be chaotic. Besides, while the scholar in my example may be very organized in a very specific area of his life, he may well be very chaotic in some others. Take your stereotypical scientist, who knows EVERYTHING about one field but can't remember (or care) that it's christmas, who is king these days, or what the law actually says about building 50 tonne telescopes on your balcony.

As for the artist, some performers (rock star types) may drift towards chaotic, but then they're really more about rebells who use their art as a way to express their rebellion. But like you say yourself, while we may assign the lable of "free spirit" to many artists, it's not that simple in practice. Art requires some discipline, but also some creativity and willingness to break the rules (atleast if you want to create something truly new). That sounds like a pretty balanced (neutral) approach to me. It's not about law or chaos. It's not about good or evil. It's about something that falls outside those axis.

[hamishspence]

Well, imagine this, you're traveling through the wilderness and there's a huge bounty on your head, dead or alive. On the road, you meet a defenseless peasant who recognizes your face from the wanted posters and runs off to alert the authorities. Do you:

- Start running as fast as you can and hope the authorities can't find you.

- Shoot the peasant the peasant to silence him.

I'd interpret the second option as a Neutral one, because you're attacking the peasant to protect yourself, not really out of malice. It's self-defense, if indirect. The first option I'd interpret as a Good one, since you're putting yourself in a lot of danger for no particular reason except you want to avoid hurting the random stranger you met.

(The middle way is to shoot him through the leg to wound him so it'll take him much longer to reach help, giving you plenty of time to escape.)
See PHB "A neutral person has compunctions against harming the innocent."

[NichG]

Puppy-kicking evil is pretty shallow though. You can run evil without either being 'neutral with a darker cloak' or 'moustache-twirling'. I disagree that Morithias' character is evil necessarily, but I also disagree that anything but 'dumb evil' is 'villain Sue'.

IMO the best way to get a rational evil is to take rationality to a cold extreme. They don't go out of their way to cause pain and suffering for its own sake, but they totally lack a feeling of the inherent value of life and happiness of others. Then, take that character and put them into a position where they're making lots of important decisions that can affect people standing by.

So, for example, a military commander that refuses to send military aid to a small village that got caught in the middle of a war because of their own choice of engagement area, not because they want to destroy the village, but because the village has no innate value to the conflict. They have basically indirectly slaughtered the village, but not because 'I love the smell of roasting bodies in the morning', just because they were in the way and they weren't important enough to preserve.

They're not going to completely evade the paladin patrol of course, but they can very often redirect those paladins to another target 'we can't spare the men to protect the village right now, but if you took out some of our enemies we might be able to'

[Morithias]

Alright I went over the setting notebook that we use and I think I can sum up where our disagreement over evil is coming from.

In the setting we play, Evil is caused by the taint that plagued the setting from the "First Evil", when he fought the Creator aka the first good.

In this setting, Evil does not taint your soul, rather the opposite. Having a tainted soul makes you do evil, and this taint is very, very, very, hard to remove.

Basically 'evil' in this setting is defined as 'how much of a link to the first evil do you have?'

And since the "villain sue" character, basically worked for the first evil, she was obviously very tainted....mainly because even being in the presence of the first evil, would drive even a devil mad.

Your setting defines evil as "what a person becomes after they do evil actions"

Our setting defines evil as "The taint upon a person's soul that causes them to do evil actions."

I think this is where the disagreement is coming from.

[NichG]

Honestly, I think that just makes the character more confusing. What 'evil actions' in particular is she being driven to do? Basically it seems like most of what she's doing is neutral.

[Kalmageddon]

Probably Lawful Neutral, but only because of the very narrow definition that people seem to have.
When I play a Lawful Neutral I have no problem in making him a loud drunk, a ladies man or whatever else I might think is fun, while still roleplaying him as very attached to tradition and respectful of authority.
But apparently what most people think is a Lawful Neutral is someone that never has fun, ever, is always serious and generally acts like an inquisitor.

I personally disagree.

[hamishspence]

When I play a Lawful Neutral I have no problem in making him a loud drunk, a ladies man or whatever else I might think is fun, while still roleplaying him as very attached to tradition and respectful of authority.
But apparently what most people think is a Lawful Neutral is someone that never has fun, ever, is always serious and generally acts like an inquisitor.

I personally disagree.
The PHB does say that alignments are not straitjackets.

[Lorsa]

I really haven't played many characters to find out what alignments I am terrible at playing. As for NPCs I usually manage to portray them pretty well regardless of alignment.

I suppose the one I have most difficulty narrowing down is Neutral Good. The problem may be that if viewed just on a few single occasions, it easily comes across as either lawful or chaotic.

I've never really had a problem with Chaotic Good (that some people seem to). That's probably because I consider myself to be of that alignment.

Of the evil alignments I guess Chaotic Evil is the one I'd have most trouble playing as a PC. Neutral Evil is the one that made most sense to me on that axis because if you're going to put yourself above all else (and forget such petty things like morals) then the lawful-vs-chaotic fight is just going to get in the way.



You have two options.

1. You receive $200

or

2. You kick a dog and receive $100.

I would make the option as such:

1. You receive nothing
2. You kick a dog and receive $100

Now if you pick #2 I would consider you to be evil.

[hamishspence]

Of the evil alignments I guess Chaotic Evil is the one I'd have most trouble playing as a PC.

How about as CG plus "Extremely ruthless in furtherance of ideals"?

Sort of like the many LE "Well intentioned extremists" but for a Chaotic ideal rather than a Lawful one?

[Lorsa]

How about as CG plus "Extremely ruthless in furtherance of ideals"?

Sort of like the many LE "Well intentioned extremists" but for a Chaotic ideal rather than a Lawful one?

I suppose that might work, it just seems to me that being "extremely ruthless in furtherance of ideals" just makes you Evil. Being Chaotic Evil seem to imply that not only will you do whatever it takes to reach your goals, you are also actively avoiding any authority, breaking rules out of spite etc.

In my mind, for the depiction of CE that you want to imply to work; Neutral Evil needs to go. So perhaps there is a trouble for me to know the distinction between those two.

A Neutral Evil character will backstab his allies if the outcome will be favourable for him. A Chaotic Evil character will backstab his allies just for the fun of it. That's how it looks to me anyway.

A Chaotic Good character will value what is morally right over what is legally right but they won't necessarily go out of their way to create a socio-anarchistic society, no matter how alluring that ideal might be. They can live in a society with laws, they just selectively choose which ones to follow.

A Neutral Evil character will value himself and his goals over everything else. He doesn't care about laws, he doesn't care about much of anything really. So for the Chaotic Evil character to be any different there needs to be some other motivation that would differ him from the NE one. I've always thought that was the desire to break rules and go against authority. So in a way the CE individual would be an additional motivation over the NE one. Perhaps I am wrong there?

In the same manner, a CG person will follow laws and rules that are in line with her moral compass whereas I thought a CE person would actively work against laws and rules simply out of spite. That's not really taking CG and applying "extremely ruthless" to it.

So, where is my interpretation wrong? Can you explain better how a CE thinks as opposed to a NE one?

Oh, as you might have noticed; I think there are 9 distinct alignments and while part of their names might be similar, Lawful Evil isn't just Lawful Good with the Good switched to Evil. They represent very different personality types and just happen to have one word the same when describing them.

[hamishspence]

I suppose that might work, it just seems to me that being "extremely ruthless in furtherance of ideals" just makes you Evil. Being Chaotic Evil seem to imply that not only will you do whatever it takes to reach your goals, you are also actively avoiding any authority, breaking rules out of spite etc.

In my mind, for the depiction of CE that you want to imply to work; Neutral Evil needs to go. So perhaps there is a trouble for me to know the distinction between those two.

A Neutral Evil character will backstab his allies if the outcome will be favourable for him. A Chaotic Evil character will backstab his allies just for the fun of it. That's how it looks to me anyway.

A Chaotic Good character will value what is morally right over what is legally right but they won't necessarily go out of their way to create a socio-anarchistic society, no matter how alluring that ideal might be. They can live in a society with laws, they just selectively choose which ones to follow.

A Neutral Evil character will value himself and his goals over everything else. He doesn't care about laws, he doesn't care about much of anything really. So for the Chaotic Evil character to be any different there needs to be some other motivation that would differ him from the NE one. I've always thought that was the desire to break rules and go against authority. So in a way the CE individual would be an additional motivation over the NE one. Perhaps I am wrong there?

In the same manner, a CG person will follow laws and rules that are in line with her moral compass whereas I thought a CE person would actively work against laws and rules simply out of spite. That's not really taking CG and applying "extremely ruthless" to it.


Not all CE types would have the trait I suggest- mine is simply the "Well Intentioned Extremist Evil Character" archetype extrapolated to Chaotic Good rather than the usual Lawful Good.

"Chaotic Good" are his ends, "Extremely Evil" are his means.

A NE Well Intentioned Extremist would have Good ends, and Evil means in general- they might exhibit a mix of mildly Chaotic and mildly Lawful traits.

[NichG]

In my mind, the difference between neutral evil and chaotic evil is how much lip service the character pays to the law. Lets take the Snidely Whiplash 'steal away the damsel' archetype for example.

A lawful evil character might make an arragement with the damsel's family and would thereby acquire a socially acceptable arranged marriage that still basically forces someone into a marriage against their will (so both lawful methods and evil actions).

A neutral evil character might, for example, blackmail the damsel with threats against other people she cares about or their businesses or whatever. Most likely illegal, but still pays lip-service to 'I want to continue living in this society after this event is done'.

A chaotic evil character on the other hand might very well just kidnap the target of their affections.

Another example: you have an evil king who wants to kill someone who is thwarting his personal goals within the kingdom. A lawful evil king might send him to the front lines in an under-equipped unit stretched too far into enemy territory, basically letting the enemy kill the guy for him. A neutral evil king might frame him for some crime and execute him for it. A chaotic evil king might just have him killed without cause other than 'I'm the king and I say he dies'

[Morithias]

Honestly, I think that just makes the character more confusing. What 'evil actions' in particular is she being driven to do? Basically it seems like most of what she's doing is neutral.

Well let's see, Wage war upon an entire world to conquest it, rise herself to godhood upsetting the balance between good and evil, travel to another world and team up with a Mutants and Masterminds character to take over a world where good has won over evil...establish a state government where she has absolute power and complete control over the media, basically making a loyalist state...

Oh and brainwash 7 Saints into sex slaves.

[Grim Portent]

she has absolute power and complete control over the media, basically making a loyalist state...

Oh and brainwash 7 Saints into sex slaves.

Those are the only parts I'd consider evil. Conquest is more of a neutral thing in and of itself.

[hamishspence]

It can certainly qualify as "hurting, oppressing, and killing people without Good reason" - especially if it comes without provocation.

In and of itself it's "Evil unless you can provide a very convincing justification otherwise to the DM" - I'd say.

Conquering a nation that's been a constant thorn in your side, launching unprovoked raids into your territory - that might be such a "nonevil conquest".

[ArcturusV]

The difference I'd see is... the typical DnD evil sees War as the first resort. Which is Stupid Evil by the way. Non-Evil will probably at least try diplomacy first, then go kick their ass.

Granted, other game based off d20, but it listed their "Evil Empire" as specifically saying, "Yeah, they don't just go to war for everything they want. They just don't go the extra mile to make war the LAST resort. The Empire knows it's resources is limited, it can't afford to fight everyone all the time. And it's usually worth just asking for something, or buying it, or cutting a deal or making threats."

[Red Fel]

Agreed. Consider an expansionist, militaristic Lawful Neutral society.

They will spread, expanding their borders and claiming the land. Where they meet no resistance, they do not engage in violence, as it is unnecessary. Where they face resistance, they fight as much as is necessary to achieve and maintain dominance. They do not oppress the local population; frankly, if they meet no resistance, they may not even acknowledge the local population, depending on their focus.

Conquest, expansion, military establishment - these things are Neutral. It is only when your conquest becomes abusive, aggressive, torturous and violent that it is Evil.

If you have a ruler who initially intended to become a cruel, despotic tyrant, but soon realized it would be easier simply to expand his borders without abuse, to tax his people but not egregiously, and to use diplomatic measures for self-promotion without being devious or underhanded, he is being Neutral, not Evil.

It is entirely possible for a Neutral character to crave power. Power as its own goal, without regard for Good or Evil, may not be Evil if it is not achieved and wielded in an Evil manner. A Good character may have ambitions for power as well, and if they intend that power for Good purposes, and use it for Good purposes, it is Good. In Morithias' example, a character desired power and to keep it; clearly she did not desire to wield it unjustly, or else she would have. She simply wanted to stay in power. That is not, by standard D&D definitions (acknowledging that the setting had a different definition) an inherently Evil act. She avoided kicking the dog, she avoided threats and abuses, she avoided any overtly negative acts which would draw the attention of would-be heroes. In short, she employed her power for self-promotion, but not in an Evil manner; she was Neutral.

[Morithias]

What would luring people into war against you count as, so you could claim the "moral high ground" as you conquer them?

[hamishspence]

You mean like a sting operation (only conducted against law-abiding people specifically in order to tempt them into crime), but on a massive scale?

[ArcturusV]

I don't think it would impact the war in any real measure. because... subterfuge itself isn't Aligned. I mean a Chaotic Good character can lie, cheat, steal, etc, just fine. Heck, Rogukan was a third edition DnD setting, where the culture is based off lying and subterfuge quite a lot (Blunt honesty is dishonorable, pleasant lying isn't) and it's a very Lawful setting, so you can't even really argue that subterfuge is Chaotic. At least not in any way that it's clear compared to any other alignment.

Even the forces of Good don't really have any compunctions against letting evil dig it's own grave.

[hamishspence]

They don't, however, like those who tempt others into Evil so that they can punish them.

At least going by Fiendish Codex 2.

[Red Fel]

What would luring people into war against you count as, so you could claim the "moral high ground" as you conquer them?

Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_%28game%29).

[Lorsa]

In my mind, the difference between neutral evil and chaotic evil is how much lip service the character pays to the law. Lets take the Snidely Whiplash 'steal away the damsel' archetype for example.

A lawful evil character might make an arragement with the damsel's family and would thereby acquire a socially acceptable arranged marriage that still basically forces someone into a marriage against their will (so both lawful methods and evil actions).

A neutral evil character might, for example, blackmail the damsel with threats against other people she cares about or their businesses or whatever. Most likely illegal, but still pays lip-service to 'I want to continue living in this society after this event is done'.

A chaotic evil character on the other hand might very well just kidnap the target of their affections.

Another example: you have an evil king who wants to kill someone who is thwarting his personal goals within the kingdom. A lawful evil king might send him to the front lines in an under-equipped unit stretched too far into enemy territory, basically letting the enemy kill the guy for him. A neutral evil king might frame him for some crime and execute him for it. A chaotic evil king might just have him killed without cause other than 'I'm the king and I say he dies'

Part of it I agree with you and part of it I don't.

The way I see it, the NE character could do either of the scenarios listed there; it would all be a matter of what would give the best result to the specific situation.

I tend to think of NE as being very pragmatic people. They look at their goals and think "how do I best accomplish these". If "best" is "abiding by the laws" because of how easy it is to get caught or for appearance sake (building trust for the future) or whatever, they will do so. If "best" is having 10 people brutally murdered by a group of assassins then that's what they will do. They don't care about following the rules but they don't care about not following them either. The results is all that matters.

For a LE or CE person, that's not the case anymore. A LE person gets his kicks out of beating people and accomplsih his goals while following the rules and laws. The goals are no longer the most important, it also matters how they are accomplished. For whatever reason (superiority complex, a weird sense of gentleman's code or something) when faced with a problem they won't choose the "best" solution to achieve their goals, they will choose the solution that is in tune with their criteria of lawful conduct.

On the other hand, a CE person will get his kicks out of actually breaking the rules. Similarly to a LE person, the goal isn't the only thing that matters anymore, but unlike a LE person, the CE one will want to backstab, kick people when they're down and do things "just because it felt good at the moment". They can choose paths that won't bring the "best" result (in the long run) just because it brought some form of immediate pleasure or just because noone expected it. If at the end of the dungeon with an ally it is impossible for one of them to carry more than half the treasure with them, the CE person might kill his ally anyway just for kicks. A NE would have no such inclination as it won't bring more treasure and the LE person might actually value the supposed alliance but set up a plan for how to get the treasure from his ally later on when the alliance is broken.

[NichG]

The thing I disagree with there is mostly the idea that alignment determines what someone likes. I don't really see it that way - alignment is more like a label you get for behaving in certain ways over a period of time.

Someone could be Evil and hate being evil - e.g. they derive no fun or pleasure from the suffering of others, but some character flaw drives them to continue doing evil things. For instance, you could have someone who is a coward to the extent that they commit murders to cover up much lesser actions on their part, or even for fear of being ostracized when their secrets are made public. They don't 'like' murder or get a kick out of it, but they're still Evil for it.

I think this is particularly important to portray Law/Chaos rationally. A chaotic person doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is like 'yay anarchy, praise Discordia, etc!' They could just be someone who has a problem with authority and following orders - the kind of person who reverse psychology works on all too well, because basically if someone tries to exert dominance in any form, even mild ones, they have an instant instinctual response to resist. They don't necessarily get a kick out of it, they just tend to react a certain way.

[hamishspence]

The thing I disagree with there is mostly the idea that alignment determines what someone likes. I don't really see it that way - alignment is more like a label you get for behaving in certain ways over a period of time.

Someone could be Evil and hate being evil - e.g. they derive no fun or pleasure from the suffering of others, but some character flaw drives them to continue doing evil things. For instance, you could have someone who is a coward to the extent that they commit murders to cover up much lesser actions on their part, or even for fear of being ostracized when their secrets are made public. They don't 'like' murder or get a kick out of it, but they're still Evil for it.

I think this is particularly important to portray Law/Chaos rationally. A chaotic person doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is like 'yay anarchy, praise Discordia, etc!' They could just be someone who has a problem with authority and following orders - the kind of person who reverse psychology works on all too well, because basically if someone tries to exert dominance in any form, even mild ones, they have an instant instinctual response to resist. They don't necessarily get a kick out of it, they just tend to react a certain way.
That's a pretty fair summary.

The PHB even phrases it that way, regarding Neutrality on the Law-Chaos axis:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.

[Red Fel]

The thing I disagree with there is mostly the idea that alignment determines what someone likes. I don't really see it that way - alignment is more like a label you get for behaving in certain ways over a period of time.

Someone could be Evil and hate being evil - e.g. they derive no fun or pleasure from the suffering of others, but some character flaw drives them to continue doing evil things. For instance, you could have someone who is a coward to the extent that they commit murders to cover up much lesser actions on their part, or even for fear of being ostracized when their secrets are made public. They don't 'like' murder or get a kick out of it, but they're still Evil for it.

This is a perfect statement of a dark-avenger-taken-to-extremes. A person who does unspeakable things to stop evil. They cross those lines that Good cannot cross, in an effort to obliterate evil. Because of their actions, they are Evil, but they take no pleasure in it. Indeed, they may likely embrace the mentality that, "Once my work here is done, the last life my blade will take... Will be mine."


I think this is particularly important to portray Law/Chaos rationally. A chaotic person doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is like 'yay anarchy, praise Discordia, etc!' They could just be someone who has a problem with authority and following orders - the kind of person who reverse psychology works on all too well, because basically if someone tries to exert dominance in any form, even mild ones, they have an instant instinctual response to resist. They don't necessarily get a kick out of it, they just tend to react a certain way.

A Chaotic person may have no particular feeling about laws at all. Chaos on the Law-Chaos spectrum doesn't inherently mean unlawful, it means self-deterministic. Chaotic means free, ruggedly individualist, proud and full of self-expression. A Chaotic person might actually like laws which ensure their freedom to be who they feel themselves to be, to express themselves as they so choose, to live the life they want.

But I see your point. It is possible to be Chaotic/Lawful and not derive joy from it. Think of C3P0 from Star Wars. "We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life." Here is a being designed to serve, literally, and who does so readily. Yet he also resents and complains bitterly about his servile role. Despite his misgivings, however, he serves his fundamental nature - Lawful - and obeys.

[Coidzor]

Let's not forget that the moment an alignment discussion becomes useless is the moment we start quoting passages from the books to support our interpretations. More than anything else in the rules alignment needs human interpretation to make any sense at all. Using RAW in an alignment debate proves nothing, except that using RAW to interpret alignment is stupid.

Well, the primary problem is that the designers weren't in agreement, so really, the ultimate problem with alignment is people being incapable of coming to any kind of agreement or consensus.

On the other hand, when you're flagrantly departing from what guidelines we do have to bicker and fight over what they actually mean, you're really better served by just making your own rather than pretending to talk about the same system as the rest of us are fighting over.


Well let's see, Wage war upon an entire world to conquest it, rise herself to godhood upsetting the balance between good and evil, travel to another world and team up with a Mutants and Masterminds character to take over a world where good has won over evil...establish a state government where she has absolute power and complete control over the media, basically making a loyalist state...

Oh and brainwash 7 Saints into sex slaves.

And that was somehow less pertinent than being a business person? :smallconfused:

[Cirrylius]

They will spread, expanding their borders and claiming the land. Where they meet no resistance, they do not engage in violence, as it is unnecessary. Where they face resistance, they fight as much as is necessary to achieve and maintain dominance.
"What's the big deal? I told him quite clearly that if he didn't give me his wallet I'd resort to force, and never once was his life in danger by the carefully administered beating I gave him. I gave him every chance to do what I wanted before I took what I wanted instead"

War is only neutral if the reason for the war is neutral. And yes, I believe that neutral reasons for war certainly do exist, but expansionism (for the sake of expansionism) isn't one of them.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well, the primary problem is that the designers weren't in agreement, so really, the ultimate problem with alignment is people being incapable of coming to any kind of agreement or consensus.

On the other hand, when you're flagrantly departing from what guidelines we do have to bicker and fight over what they actually mean, you're really better served by just making your own rather than pretending to talk about the same system as the rest of us are fighting over.

I don't think coming to an agreement or consensus on it is possible, or even desirable, really. The only productive thing you can get out of this sort of discussion, I think, is "Hey, that's an interesting character/plot/setting idea."

[Coidzor]

I don't think coming to an agreement or consensus on it is possible, or even desirable, really. The only productive thing you can get out of this sort of discussion, I think, is "Hey, that's an interesting character/plot/setting idea."

I dunno, it certainly seems like it'd be desirable to have an agreement between the DM and players rather than having a whole lot of fights and my way or the highway brinksmanship.

And if none of us can ever agree on even the most basic of terms... :/

[Craft (Cheese)]

I dunno, it certainly seems like it'd be desirable to have an agreement between the DM and players rather than having a whole lot of fights and my way or the highway brinksmanship.

And if none of us can ever agree on even the most basic of terms... :/

With other rules sure, but with alignment? Agreement is only necessary if you police alignments by penalizing players for not playing their character "correctly." And, well, I think this is a universally terrible idea.

[ArcturusV]

I think this is particularly important to portray Law/Chaos rationally. A chaotic person doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is like 'yay anarchy, praise Discordia, etc!' They could just be someone who has a problem with authority and following orders - the kind of person who reverse psychology works on all too well, because basically if someone tries to exert dominance in any form, even mild ones, they have an instant instinctual response to resist. They don't necessarily get a kick out of it, they just tend to react a certain way.

Kind of the reason I always had a hard time playing Chaotic Good. The discord between Good, which is very "team player" orientated,never supposed to quarrel among one another (Not like there's a good aligned version of the Blood War after all), always able to put aside their differences for the sake of Good, etc. And chaotic being well... the Rebel. The Free Spirit. The guy who is more likely to say "Bugger off with your bullying, I'mma do what I want".


A Chaotic person may have no particular feeling about laws at all. Chaos on the Law-Chaos spectrum doesn't inherently mean unlawful, it means self-deterministic. Chaotic means free, ruggedly individualist, proud and full of self-expression. A Chaotic person might actually like laws which ensure their freedom to be who they feel themselves to be, to express themselves as they so choose, to live the life they want.

Whereas this would seem to be the attempt to reconcile the Chaotic with the Good points of view. But seems like it's more towards the Good, as they give up their "Rebel" nature to support things which they think are good. And the sort of "Eh... I can give it up for a better cause..." mindset seems more Neutral Good to me, caring more about Good than Law or Chaos, able to embrace either/or as the moment and cause suits you.

On the Human Factor:

I mostly agree with Craft (Cheese). The RAW is... sketchy sometimes. I've run very RAW alignment definitions that are really, really weird and wonky. For example having very bloody, terrible tyrants, bigots, etc, who were the epitome of Lawful Goodness by RAW and had my players chomping at the bits to kick that guy square in the nuts. Or having very likeable, warm people who worked to build up a better society in a fair manner that most of my players considered Good that was entirely Chaotic Evil by RAW. So at some point you gotta bring the human factor into it. I'm no master philosopher in the slightest. But I recognize that the standards of porn applies to alignment. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

[hamishspence]

For example having very bloody, terrible tyrants, bigots, etc, who were the epitome of Lawful Goodness by RAW and had my players chomping at the bits to kick that guy square in the nuts.

Exactly how did they avoid acts that could at least arguably qualify as Evil? Or did their Good acts outweigh their Evil ones in this case?

[Telonius]

While I can respect that line of reasoning, it seems odd that a character who would kill an innocent person because it was convenient is Neutral. If you put a lot of weight on being in a certain alignment bracket such that you have to be devilish/demonic to be Evil, that fits. By the book, neutral characters do have problems with killing innocent people.

I can agree that an intelligent villian would make decisions that did not draw a lot of attention to themselves. The more people that are mad at you, the higher the chances are that someone possesses the ability to do something about it. That goes both ways, though. If a villain is extremely smart or wise, ideally nobody would know who they are at all.

You're not the only one to notice that...:smallamused:


It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above, but it is most essential that he should seem to have them; I will even venture to affirm that if he has and invariably practises them all, they are hurtful, whereas the appearance of having them is useful. Thus, it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and also to be so; but the mind should remain so balanced that were it needful not to be so, you should be able and know how to change to the contrary.
And you are to understand that a Prince, and most of all a new Prince, cannot observe all those rules of conduct in respect whereof men are accounted good, being often forced, in order to preserve his Princedom, to act in opposition to good faith, charity, humanity, and religion. He must therefore keep his mind ready to shift as the winds and tides of Fortune turn, and, as I have already said, he ought not to quit good courses if he can help it, but should know how to follow evil courses if he must.

[ArcturusV]

He avoided overt obvious "This is Evil" stuff, as in the acts could never be mitigated, the cause and reasoning didn't matter, they were just flat "This is Evil" stuff. No creating undead. No binding fiends to their cause, no casting evil spells. The stuff that is clearly, unmitigated "Evil Act". As mentioned things like "Killing" aren't really evil in and of itself (Otherwise all good characters would effectively have to take Vow of Peace and Vow of Non-Violence because they couldn't do jack to break the vows anyway). And the intent was this guy who was very lawful, and very good, and very self sacrificing (Was a Paladin King). Who basically went like the King-Priest of Ishtar and decided it was his sacred duty to wipe out all evil, everywhere. Meaning he had to control everything and enforce morality, everywhere. He cared for his people. He kept things orderly. Didn't fall into acts like torture for the sake of torture or turning executions into "shows", and such. But he had no compunction against putting entire cities to the sword if they were 'Evil'. He had no problem at all running the Big Brother Thought Police sort of thing. Virtue and honor were the law, not merely ideals, and were efficiently enforced. And he lived up to his own standards. He wasn't someone who was building a false structure planning on reaping the rewards. In fact his plan was always that he had to kill himself... last. Because he would be the last potential Evil on the planet. There would be no more evil to fight in the mortal world, only in the outer planes and the after life, with no evil to fight he felt he was destined to fall like so many blackguards in some sick twist of fate, so once evil was gone, he had to take his own head.

By RAW, he was a compassionate man, who cared for the good of society and the world, promoting the sanctity of good life, striving to protect the weak and downtrodden, etc, etc, etc. Very Lawful obviously. But also a guy who was going on nigh genocidal campaigns where entire cultures were being put to the sword.

Granted in the human, logical sense we'd say "Well yeah he's evil". But by RAW he skirted it.

Good Ideals: Protects innocent life. He did that.
Evil Ideals: Destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Never did that.
Good Ideals: Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, good character make personal sacrifices to help others.
The only one you could argue against was "respect for life". He was a frontline commander, never asked anyone to do something he wouldn't, always took the greatest risks for himself. Very charitable soul, giving, etc. He respected life and it's sanctity, which is why he defended it with all the power available to him, so it could flourish.
Evil Ideals: Hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Well, he's a Paladin. He's not serving Evil directly. And he didn't just indiscriminately kill. There might have been some argument that he was oppressive and the "Killing others" (Though he avoided unnecessary pain so Hurting doesn't really qualify in any metric). But then again "killing" isn't really RAW Evil. If it was Paladins would get Tickle Evil, not Smite Evil. The lands he ruled were orderly, people had their freedom within the structures of the Law. There was the "thought police", granted. Diviners scanning for cultists, etc. But again in DnD RAW abject morality "Quashing Evil" isn't an Evil act of oppression, it's a good act of Justice.

[hamishspence]

Didn't fall into acts like torture for the sake of torture or turning executions into "shows", and such. But he had no compunction against putting entire cities to the sword if they were 'Evil'.
...
By RAW, he was a compassionate man, who cared for the good of society and the world, promoting the sanctity of good life, striving to protect the weak and downtrodden, etc, etc, etc. Very Lawful obviously. But also a guy who was going on nigh genocidal campaigns where entire cultures were being put to the sword.

BoVD:


"Good characters shouldn't commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they're absolutely sure there's no other way to succeed. It's rarely a good idea to destroy a town full of Evil people, because there might be at least a few good people in the town as well."

Darkness Like The World Has Never Seen Before
Generally unique in all the world, such an event scars the nature of reality. Such a scar will probably never heal. This worst of all events might include the following:

1: an act of genocide
2: the birth of an evil god
3: the murder of a god, demigod, or legendary hero of light

BoED:


"In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm."
...
"Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenceless."

[Red Fel]

But he's not LG anymore.

As soon as he has decided to "put entire cities to the sword," he is Evil, even if his intentions are pure. Even if he manages to kill some bad guys. Even if the vast majority of people in a city are evil.

A Paladin doesn't have an obligation to kill every evil thing he finds. (Outsiders are an exception.) In fact, some Paladins may fall as a result of such indiscriminate killing. Some deities prefer mildly evil things be redeemed, not slaughtered.

You say he didn't torture for the sake of torturing. But did he torture at all? That's generally fall-worthy for a Paladin. Evil.

Remember, there are lines Good will not cross. Intentions are not relevant.

I would argue that he was not, by RAW, LG. He was, at best, LN.

Even if we accept that the order he sought to impose was the rule of LG, the methods by which he sought to impose it were LN; they ignored, or at best skirted, the bounds of Good and Evil. They were utilitarian, and not excessive, but I see no mention of mercy or the offer of redemption for the enemy. Atonement is a spell for a reason, and that reason isn't only to help Paladins un-fall.

[ArcturusV]

Granted the Book of Vile Darkness bit doesn't apply. Because there would be no other way to reasonably succeed (Particularly that a 12 wisdom character would figure out) on "Wipe out all evil in the mortal world".

The Exalted Deeds one might have come closer to biting him in the ass. But it's also a weird conflicting thing, as on one hand they treat Evil like it's a toxin. That the mere presence of evil invites more evil in. Thus why killing cultists, people who worship fell gods, etc, isn't an "evil" act.

And I always hate the 'Orc babies' argument... it's always Orc Babies too. No one ever says something like Koa-Toa Hatchlings or Red Dragon Wyrmlings. But it's also not entirely applicable to him. As he did have Orcs living in his lands, those who had renounced their Evil culture and such. Those who surrendered were taken alive, because Mercy is a virtue of Good. They were given their shot at redemption and renouncing evil. But if they didn't? Well... nothing evil about executing people who spit in your eye when you offered them salvation and swore themselves to darkness.

EDIT: Also worth mentioning this campaign was before I actually had Vile Darkness or Exalted Deeds, so the RAW standards were PHB level.

[hamishspence]

A Paladin doesn't have an obligation to kill every evil thing he finds. (Outsiders are an exception.) In fact, some Paladins may fall as a result of such indiscriminate killing. Some deities prefer mildly evil things be redeemed, not slaughtered.

Especially in Eberron:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.

[ArcturusV]

Torture? No. He didn't actually torture. Well... depends I guess. I mean when he took a city and there were captives, he'd line them up and say things like "You know what... I just care about getting rid of evil. That's all. I can ping you, I see you're evil. But I'm a fair man. If you renounce your evil... you're free. I'll give you some gold, a bit of land, set you up in my kingdom, help you rebuild your life and dedicate it to good. Course... if you renounce the offer... well I can't have you going around raising altars to evil gods and practicing foul arts."

On the human side, myself as the DM, and my players are looking at this offer, and the fact that he'd just coldly coup de grace captives who refused as an intimidation tactic and torture on the rest as they watched, etc. But it's not like he put the thumb screws to them for confessions.

I mean I fully admit he was a villain. And that in a "Human logic" sense he was clearly Lawful Evil, MAAAYBE Lawful Neutral. In a "Silly RAW" sense (Particularly at the time with only the PHB covering alignments) he was Lawful Good. Which I used as just a twist to play on my players perceptions and have them wondering how this defender of Lawful Goodness, this Paladin, still had his powers when he was so clearly "evil".

[hamishspence]

What did he do with all the children and infants of the "Evil cities" he conquered?

Since paladins are supposed to "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" invading an enemy city full of children as well as adults is going to be somewhat tricky.

[Red Fel]

Torture? No. He didn't actually torture. Well... depends I guess. I mean when he took a city and there were captives, he'd line them up and say things like "You know what... I just care about getting rid of evil. That's all. I can ping you, I see you're evil. But I'm a fair man. If you renounce your evil... you're free. I'll give you some gold, a bit of land, set you up in my kingdom, help you rebuild your life and dedicate it to good. Course... if you renounce the offer... well I can't have you going around raising altars to evil gods and practicing foul arts."

On the human side, myself as the DM, and my players are looking at this offer, and the fact that he'd just coldly coup de grace captives who refused as an intimidation tactic and torture on the rest as they watched, etc. But it's not like he put the thumb screws to them for confessions.

Oh, that's not torture, I'll give you that. That's executing a helpless prisoner.

As a rule, executing a helpless prisoner is frowned upon in Paladin circles until and unless they've been properly tried and judged guilty of their crimes. Generally, "Evil in Public" isn't a capital offense. Even if it were, pretty sure the Paladin would feel unworthy to pass judgment in the absence of some independent arbitrator. But that's a value judgment, I suppose.


I mean I fully admit he was a villain. And that in a "Human logic" sense he was clearly Lawful Evil, MAAAYBE Lawful Neutral. In a "Silly RAW" sense (Particularly at the time with only the PHB covering alignments) he was Lawful Good. Which I used as just a twist to play on my players perceptions and have them wondering how this defender of Lawful Goodness, this Paladin, still had his powers when he was so clearly "evil".

I still can't see how he would have his powers. If this were a PC doing these things, I'm pretty sure he'd fall so fast his head would spin. Would you let one of your PCs do this?

I get the flavor. I honestly love it. It's a great exercise in moral ambiguity in villains. But in a multiverse where good and evil are rigidly defined, it's hard to swallow that a Paladin could do this stuff and keep his powers.

[ArcturusV]

Honestly it never came up with the babies thing in the game. It was a darker campaign as is. I didn't want to toss in Baby Morality on top of it. Light touch on the darkness after all. Based on what I'd know of him, and the fact that he did have native/redeemed "evil" races in his lands, probably toss them to a state orphanage, raise them in a temple devoted to his Goddess, etc.

Edit: As for PC paladins and falling?

I'm notoriously "nice" for it. I've only ever had one Paladin fall, and that was in a much more black and white setting and game where she did things like kill hostages to get at villains, then looted the hostage afterwards, burned down buildings to 'flush out the bad guys' when she didn't even know if they were in there, sic dogs on helpless peasants 'as a distraction', etc. The hostage who had been begging the Paladin for help. Killed on the justification of "Well the villain was going to kill her anyway so I saw no reason not to just run her through".

Heh. But in that setting in that game, running how it was? To quote someone, "I'm the goddamn Avatar, not Santa Claus!" Paladins were the SWORD of righteousness, emphasis on the Sword part. They are meant to be offensive, and smite, rather than heal and defend (That's more the cleric's schtick really). Their gods empowered them to go out and put the boot in evil cultists, demons, etc, not to coddle.

Double Edit:

Then again the entire example was to show what happens when you try to stick to RAW silliness on a subject like Alignment and Morality. There's a lot of odd, conflicting information out there, some counter intuitive stuff, etc. I'm much in favor of the "Human logic" approach to it.

[Ghost Nappa]

I personally think there are in practice only nine alignments, but five of them have a sort of sub-alignment to them. Pardon the use of pronouns: I go all of the place between first and third (perhaps even fourth) person, and I'm sure someone will regret it later.

tl;dr version:
Lawful: Create a system and follow a system.
Chaotic: Make it up as you go.
Good: Do things to help others.
Evil: Do things to hurt others.
Stupid: Don't consider the consequences.


Number 1, Lawful Good: Creates and establishes societies and cities to empower and defend the people. Law is a means with which to direct Good: I create the law to defend or prevent certain things: if the law is doing bad, we change it if we must. LG respects loyalty and honor and feels a need to maintain them. Easy to try, hard to pull off.

Number 2, Lawful Neutral: The law is the means with which we control society. We are interested in the status quo and we do not want sudden, drastic change. This is conservatism. This is tradition. We do not deviate from it unless deviation is preferable for maintaining order. Moderately difficult to play.

Number 3, Lawful Stupid (mechanically LN): FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW. DO NOT THINK ABOUT WHY IT WAS CREATED. This is less about maintaining order and more about viewing a created system as the be-all-and-end-all. The law serves no greater purpose: the law is the greatest purpose. Rejection of the law or deviating from it is treasonous and punishable by the strictest standards. Easy to play, hard to make likable.

Number 4, Lawful Evil: This is a Machivellian idea. You take an established purpose and you use all of the loopholes, clever wording, resources, and contacts you have to bend the law to give you what you want. LE does not break the law, it bends it to its will, it has other people break the law to create a good image of itself and put itself into power, and then abuse it for all its worth. Easy to try, hard to pull off.

Number 5, Neutral Good: Neutral is interested in altruism. It's about protecting the people, it's about being the hero. The difference been NG and LG lies in that LG establishes authority and uses it to spread Good, NG neither makes claims for or against authority (or makes both). Authority is an afterthought, and will seek to break ties (respectfully) when push comes to shove. Easy to play.

Number 6, Stupid Good (mechanically NG): This is in some ways Elan. We want to do Good, and we go out to do Good, but we don't understand what ultimately Good is, and we do not consider the consequences of our actions. We are suffocatingly Good to the point where it may unintentionally weaken or hurt others in the long run. If you've played KOTOR 2, Kreia tries to open your eyes to this on Nar Shadaa if you pick LS. Easy to play.

Number 7, True Neutral: True Neutral and Unaligned are different concepts for me. True Neutral is a rejection of other philosophies in a quest for balance. This is a commitment to Neutrality and has no interest or desire to uphold any sort of moral code. TN does consider Good better than Evil, but does not feel compelled to act so. Extremely difficult to play.

Number 8, Unaligned (mechanically TN): True Neutral and Unaligned are different concepts for me. Unaligned is a lack of conviction to an abstract concept of Good, Evil, Law of Chaos. Unaligned is a lack of interest or understanding in it all. The Animal/Baby Alignment. This is very much a go-with-the-flow attitude. Easy to play.

Number 9, Neutral Evil: Neutral Evil is the polar opposite of Neutral Good. Neutral Evil has no qualms killing the helpless, taking what they wish, or anything of the sort, but like LN, they do NOT want to interrupt the status quo too much. Except while LN wants the status quo for the sake of Order, NE wants it so they can control the playing field. Neutral Evil is the alignment of gangsters. If they want something and they can get it through the law, they will. If the law doesn't allow it, then they will cover their tracks as best they can and still get it. Hard to understand, easy to try.

Number 10, Stupid Evil (mechanically NE): Like SG and LS, Stupid Evil has no interest or time to consider the consequences of their actions. You might also call this, "Petty Evil." Stupid Evil does not cover its tracks, but it does punch everyone in the face along the way. This is the Linear Guild, acting in response to quasi-imagined slights. "That man got ice cream on my new shoes! ...Let's go kill him!" The difference between SE and CE is a bit hard to explain at times, but I think the main difference comes in execution and scale. SE is more impulsively evil than CE. Hard to understand, easy to play.

Number 11, Chaotic Good: This is the hero of the people stuff. Zorro and such. A single individual in the right place can change the world for the better. They want to help, but they may not have the patience of understanding of the law to do so. Perhaps they hate being told what to do. They act only in response to their conscience, and usually resent authority but do not act against it unless it is oppressive. Easy to try.

Number 12, Chaotic Neutral: There are three things to be concerned of: me, myself, and I. How does this benefit me? What does this get me? Me, me me. The selfish alignment or the Munchkin Alignment. We have no interest in others or acting with others, unless it benefits us. We are interested in a long-term pay-off and we resent being controlled or manipulated. Easy to play, hard to make likable.

Number 13, Chaotic Stupid: This is perhaps the closest to an Anarchist Alignment. We oppose the law, because reasons! You don't need it, you don't want it! Like CN, it is a sort of Munchkiny alignment, but it doesn't really have any plans. It doesn't care if it helps or hurts so long as it gets what is wants. We have no regard for anyone or anything and we can and will oppose anyone who tries to stop us. The easiest alignment to play, but the hardest to make likable.

Number 14, Chaotic Evil: Chaotic Evil is what happens when you take Stupid Evil and Chaotic Stupid, throw them together and damn the consequences. We don't just want to see the world burn, we want to watch it burn and dance on the ashes. Kill everyone, make everyone suffer, and do whatever we want. There is no respect and any sort of control comes of charisma or force. The Joker lives here and we can range from the pettiness of splashing water on someone and running away to nuking the entire known world for the evulz. Easy to play, hard to survive.

Edit: To elaborate on a comment I made, I think the HARDEST alignment to play is True Neutral. To be so utterly interested in balance while not somehow becoming Stupid Neutral (whatever it would be, perhaps the Golden Mean Fallacy?) I find very hard to pull off. It's not quite like a Two-Face character as there is an obsessive method to the madness there that's very LS, it's more of a rejection. You sort of passive-aggressively backstab your friends and allies by not helping, but don't feel any qualms about it, nor do you later shun them. I just don't... it's weird.

[Tectonic Robot]

I'm terrible at being evil. Squeamish and kind by nature, doesn't mesh well with... I dunno, evil things.

Sometimes have a bit of trouble with lawful, too, although that may be because my current DM is my brother and we get into brotherly spats during the game. >_>

[Lorsa]

The thing I disagree with there is mostly the idea that alignment determines what someone likes. I don't really see it that way - alignment is more like a label you get for behaving in certain ways over a period of time.

Someone could be Evil and hate being evil - e.g. they derive no fun or pleasure from the suffering of others, but some character flaw drives them to continue doing evil things. For instance, you could have someone who is a coward to the extent that they commit murders to cover up much lesser actions on their part, or even for fear of being ostracized when their secrets are made public. They don't 'like' murder or get a kick out of it, but they're still Evil for it.

I think this is particularly important to portray Law/Chaos rationally. A chaotic person doesn't necessarily have to be someone who is like 'yay anarchy, praise Discordia, etc!' They could just be someone who has a problem with authority and following orders - the kind of person who reverse psychology works on all too well, because basically if someone tries to exert dominance in any form, even mild ones, they have an instant instinctual response to resist. They don't necessarily get a kick out of it, they just tend to react a certain way.

I agree someone could be evil without liking the suffering of others. They simply see it as an acceptable way of acheiving personal goals. I find it's easier to see good/evil purely on behavioral basis.

Now the law-chaotic part is a bit trickier as I don't think it's quite as easy to see just from their behavior. It has more to do with internal thinking and two people could act in the same way but still be different on the lawful-chaotic spectrum.

Oh, and anarchy and discord are two very different things I believe.


Kind of the reason I always had a hard time playing Chaotic Good. The discord between Good, which is very "team player" orientated,never supposed to quarrel among one another (Not like there's a good aligned version of the Blood War after all), always able to put aside their differences for the sake of Good, etc. And chaotic being well... the Rebel. The Free Spirit. The guy who is more likely to say "Bugger off with your bullying, I'mma do what I want".

It's not "I'mma do what I want", it's more like "I'mma do what is the right thing to do!". The discord between Good and Chaotic only happens if you by good means "following rules and laws". A CG person has a very strong conscience and will follow it in every situation presented. He will be considerate to others and treat them with respect because thats the right thing to do. It's not like good aligned people can never quarrel. Of course they can! I'm sure it happens all the time.

[Amphetryon]

It's not "I'mma do what I want", it's more like "I'mma do what is the right thing to do!". The discord between Good and Chaotic only happens if you by good means "following rules and laws". A CG person has a very strong conscience and will follow it in every situation presented. He will be considerate to others and treat them with respect because thats the right thing to do. It's not like good aligned people can never quarrel. Of course they can! I'm sure it happens all the time.
Problems may arise when "I'mma do what is the right thing to do!" happens to also be the Lawful thing to do. I have known more than one DM who would count that as a Lawful act; do the "right" thing often enough within those parameters under those DMs, and the "Chaotic" on your Character Sheet gets erased.

[ScrambledBrains]

A bit different, but this seems to be the appropriate thread for it: What I'm about to write about isn't an alignment I'm terrible at playing, but one I'm baffled by trying to understand.

I'm talking about Lawful Neutral.

I can understand...pretty much every other alignment. I mean, Chaotic Evil is versatile and flexible evil, Neutral Evil is pragmatic evil, and Lawful Evil is long-term, planning evil.

And it's the same for the goods, but reversed morally. Heck, I can even understand Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral, one being about being anti-law and code of any sort with no real moral leanings, and one having no leanings whatsoever...

But Lawful Neutral? How, in the name of the Abyss, can someone only support the law, but not care who that law hurts or helps? How can they just...not care? I mean...this seriously strikes me as the alignment of guards and some outer planes...whatevers, and no one else. Has anyone ever actually played one of these that they liked and felt they stayed Lawful Neutral throughout the whole campaign?

[hamishspence]

I see that description as representing only the more extreme LN types.

"Mildly LN" might be, basically, a very dilute LE or LG archetype.

"Would be LG if it wasn't for the fact that they tend to avoid making personal sacrifices for strangers"

or perhaps

"Would be LE if it wasn't for the fact that they don't really hurt, oppress, or kill anyone - they're just very callous to the suffering of strangers."

[Amphetryon]

But Lawful Neutral? How, in the name of the Abyss, can someone only support the law, but not care who that law hurts or helps? How can they just...not care? I mean...this seriously strikes me as the alignment of guards and some outer planes...whatevers, and no one else. Has anyone ever actually played one of these that they liked and felt they stayed Lawful Neutral throughout the whole campaign?

Yes, I have, on more than one occasion. They were Characters who trusted that the "Lawful" they followed, be it tribal tradition or word of the Oracle or the Knight's Code or city-state law, was for the benefit of society as a whole, or at least, saw no reason to stray from those codes and traditions on a regular basis. Remember, Alignments are guidelines, not straitjackets. If a single act changes your Character's Alignment in your campaigns, then Alignment is fundamentally unplayable; Paladins may lose their powers for a single Evil act (and Good is generally less forgiving of acts outside Alignment than Evil), but I don't recall any RAW verbiage that requires them to change their Alignment overall as a result of that single act. Perhaps hamishpence will be along shortly with the relevant text that I've forgotten.

[hamishspence]

The DMG does say (p134) "changing alignment usually takes time" although also that "there are exceptions".

Same tends to apply to older editions.

[Sam K]

But Lawful Neutral? How, in the name of the Abyss, can someone only support the law, but not care who that law hurts or helps? How can they just...not care? I mean...this seriously strikes me as the alignment of guards and some outer planes...whatevers, and no one else. Has anyone ever actually played one of these that they liked and felt they stayed Lawful Neutral throughout the whole campaign?

They can just feel that the benefits of a strong society have priority over good or evil. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than any other suggestion they've seen. Or they can be passive "play by the rules types", who keeps their heads down and just tries to stay out of trouble.

Plenty of both types in modern society. I find LN to be a bit harder for adventurers because being an adventurer usually means living outside of the system, atleast partly.

[NichG]

Kind of the reason I always had a hard time playing Chaotic Good. The discord between Good, which is very "team player" orientated,never supposed to quarrel among one another (Not like there's a good aligned version of the Blood War after all), always able to put aside their differences for the sake of Good, etc. And chaotic being well... the Rebel. The Free Spirit. The guy who is more likely to say "Bugger off with your bullying, I'mma do what I want".


I wouldn't say good is 'team player' oriented per se. Good can quarrel amidst itself when it disagrees about the right way to go forward. If you have a perfect team of people who all interpret good and situations in exactly the same way, that is probably going to mask the law/chaos parts of them. But if there are differences in the team, the chaotic people are the ones who will say 'I don't care if we agreed to do it this way, I'm doing it my way because its better', whereas the lawful people will abide by a group agreement even if they personally think it's foolhardy.

For example, my 'effectively CG' character (the game didn't really have alignments per se, but the character would have been CG) was going with the party to rescue someone from a mining colony where the souls of the miners were being eroded into material to fuel the plane (Gray Waste in a bottle, if you like). He started freeing the miners from their shackles, much to the chagrin of the other party members who felt that calling attention to ourselves by messing with the miners would jeopardize the rest of the mission (which ostensibly was more important for the cause of good than saving the individual miners).

My character thought we could have it both ways, the others didn't, and so the 'chaotic' nature of the character was revealed in ignoring the group consensus to take decisive action.

This happened so often that the character was dubbed 'the natural enemy of pattern recognition' by some of the other party members (who were actually part of a military hierarchy and tended to be very 'lawful' as a result - they wanted to assign command duties, standard operating procedures, etc to the party).

[Lorsa]

Problems may arise when "I'mma do what is the right thing to do!" happens to also be the Lawful thing to do. I have known more than one DM who would count that as a Lawful act; do the "right" thing often enough within those parameters under those DMs, and the "Chaotic" on your Character Sheet gets erased.

That's a problem with the DM and not with the alignment though.

[Amphetryon]

That's a problem with the DM and not with the alignment though.

Labeling it such indicates that there's a clear "right" and "wrong" way to codify Alignments and how the actions of a Character fit within those Alignments. A quick perusal of virtually any D&D forum's topics of discussion would indicate that's not true. See also: This very topic.

[NichG]

Well one can assume that a particular model of alignment that makes it actually impossible to play certain alignments is 'wrong' since those alignments are called out as existing in the rules that define them.

There's a lot of leeway for interpretation, but if your DM's interpretation is 'I can't understand CG so I'm going to force anyone who claims to play it to be NG instead' then I think its safe to say that's beyond the realms of leeway and into Rule 0 land.

[Lorsa]

Labeling it such indicates that there's a clear "right" and "wrong" way to codify Alignments and how the actions of a Character fit within those Alignments. A quick perusal of virtually any D&D forum's topics of discussion would indicate that's not true. See also: This very topic.

I do believe what I should say is that it is a problem with a discrepancy between what the player and the DM considers to be chaotic/lawful good, not with the actual alignments themselves. There is certainly difference in opinion for how to interpret the alignments, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a right or wrong way; just that it isn't always apparent to everyone or that we haven't found it yet.

I would say that failing to understand that two characters with different alignment can choose to do the same action in a specific situation is wrong. Sometimes (read quite often) the reason of doing the action is just as or more important. It is quite clearly stated in the chaotic good alignment that they follow their inner conscience and as good individuals they will do "the right/moral thing". It is quite natural that will very often coincide with what a lawful good character would do since they are both good! More often than not, the Good/Evil axis is what will be visible.

[Adverb]

But Lawful Neutral? How, in the name of the Abyss, can someone only support the law, but not care who that law hurts or helps? How can they just...not care? I mean...this seriously strikes me as the alignment of guards and some outer planes...whatevers, and no one else. Has anyone ever actually played one of these that they liked and felt they stayed Lawful Neutral throughout the whole campaign?

How many people have you seen say "Well, RAW says I can, so I will" without regard for whether or not it's fun for anyone else at the table? They're not actively out to stomp on their fellow players, but they're not out to really help them either.

[ScrambledBrains]

How many people have you seen say "Well, RAW says I can, so I will" without regard for whether or not it's fun for anyone else at the table? They're not actively out to stomp on their fellow players, but they're not out to really help them either.

None, actually. My first campaign was, except for the DM, all newbies, and my second(with the same people) ended when they told me my DM-ing sucked. :smallfrown:

I've played in some PBP games since then, but no one has ever done anything like that in any of those either.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I wasn't the DM in the first campaign mentioned, but I became one(temporarily) for the second.

[Amphetryon]

None, actually. My first campaign was, except for the DM, all newbies, and my second(with the same people) ended when they told me my DM-ing sucked. :smallfrown:

I've played in some PBP games since then, but no one has ever done anything like that in any of those either.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I wasn't the DM in the first campaign mentioned, but I became one(temporarily) for the second.

Are you, perhaps, familiar with Javert's pursuit of Jean Val Jean? I'd peg the former's motives as pretty close to LN.

[Red Fel]

The thing that's both easy to explain and hard to grasp about LN is the idea that whatever concept of law to which you adhere (e.g. loyalty, actual laws, honor) takes precedence over all things, even morality. Some people will play that off as being almost robotic. Others will play it as a Javert, as Amphetryon mentioned. I like playing it more as a soldier.

I had one concept for an LN RKV. In her spare time, she's a rose gardener. She is fiercely, zealously loyal to the Church of Wee Jas, but has a life apart from it. She is arguably a decent person, bordering on Good, and generally quite friendly and pleasant to be around... Until she puts her game face on. When dispatched on a mission by the Church, she becomes a machine - ruthlessly efficient, precise, deadly. She will do whatever is asked of her by the Church, without hesitation or pause - even if it means betraying her friends.

It's hard to pull off, because it can come across as almost sociopathically zealous. But doing it well often means that the character has a concept of law to which they owe absolute obedience, which they put above themselves and everyone else.

Picture the scientist feverishly dedicated to his invention or his thesis, no matter the cost; the Samurai who serves his master with unwavering loyalty, even if it means executing innocent villagers; the wandering immortal who cannot rest until his promise is fulfilled. These are people for whom "Good" and "Evil" are simply words; they have a duty, a binding and all-encompassing obligation which must be satisfied. Everything else is secondary.

That is Lawful Neutral.

[NichG]

Red Fel, can you take that idea and make a proactive character out of it? Basically, someone who is directly trying to achieve something rather than just following orders. Thats kind of where I get stuck.

[hymer]

@ NichG: Proactive lawful could be making a code of law without loopholes, founding a monastery to teach others your lawfulness, reform a police force which is inadequate/corrupt/malfunctioning, search for the principle behind the laws of physics, earn enough money to buy yourself free from your owner, and playing/witnessing the perfect game of chess.

But of course, LNs can have plenty of aims and hopes which aren't so easily codified by lawfulness.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel, can you take that idea and make a proactive character out of it? Basically, someone who is directly trying to achieve something rather than just following orders. Thats kind of where I get stuck.

You can make a proactive character out of it, but it's hard. As a rule, I find that Neutral on the Good-Evil spectrum is more reactive than proactice. That said, it's not hard to write motivation into your backstory, or to get your DM on board to motivate you. Particularly creative DMs might even relish the chance, as there are no bigger plothooks than those which command absolute obedience from a player.

Here's an example, using the character I outlined above. She acts as a cleric in her small hometown, grooming her garden and performing funerary rites. She receives a missive from the Church, informing her of, say, a nearby kobold peril, and advising her that where there are menaces to society, adventurers are rarely far away. The Church has a vested interest in its operatives maintaining their combat skills, and instructs her to watch for a party of adventurers to join. Covertly, of course. She is further instructed to ally herself to them, and obey their instructions, except where they conflict with her ethos or the orders of the Church.

Or here's another one. When she's not on official assignment for the Church, she has an overarching objective - to seek out powerful sources of arcane magic and study them on behalf of the Church. Remember, Wee Jas covers Death and Magic. Then a party comes to town with a powerful Sorcerer in tow. You have her attention. She wants to see what this guy can do, and if he is a "person of interest" to the Church. She now has an interest not only in traveling with the party, but in protecting (and possibly sacrificing) the Sorcerer specifically.

Bam. You now have a character's motivation for joining the party. She has a reason to stay with and help them, she has a hidden agenda, she has flavor and style and will kill the crap out of things. Being LN doesn't stop her from being heroic at times; on the contrary, heroism balances out the fact that she assassinates the crap out of things.

Like I said. It can be done, but it's tough.

[NichG]

@ NichG: Proactive lawful could be making a code of law without loopholes, founding a monastery to teach others your lawfulness, reform a police force which is inadequate/corrupt/malfunctioning, search for the principle behind the laws of physics, earn enough money to buy yourself free from your owner, and playing/witnessing the perfect game of chess.

But of course, LNs can have plenty of aims and hopes which aren't so easily codified by lawfulness.

Some of those are still reactive, like reforming a corrupt police force or buying onesself free from one's owner - they require the game to present you with a problem to fix before you can act.

Discovering the 'perfect' code of law that works flawlessly for all cultures and people seems like what I was looking for though. The scope is wide enough that it could last a campaign, its proactive, and it doesn't inherently seem to push the character towards good or evil (though probably running 'experiments' to test out various laws could nudge a bit towards evil).

Just a side comment, but from personal bias I'm not sure the scientist example is really lawful :smallsmile: Its the same way I wouldn't say that a wizard is automatically lawful just because they systematically study magic. In my interpretation at least, 'dedicated' isn't the same as lawful - you can be chaotic and yet be consistently dedicated towards some goal, so long as that goal is individualistic. So for the scientist example it might be more like 'I will deliver the Truth unto humanity' for a lawful bent, whereas the chaotic scientist would be more like 'if I learn all of this, just think what I could accomplish' - emphasis on self rather than society.

[Red Fel]

Just a side comment, but from personal bias I'm not sure the scientist example is really lawful :smallsmile: Its the same way I wouldn't say that a wizard is automatically lawful just because they systematically study magic. In my interpretation at least, 'dedicated' isn't the same as lawful - you can be chaotic and yet be consistently dedicated towards some goal, so long as that goal is individualistic. So for the scientist example it might be more like 'I will deliver the Truth unto humanity' for a lawful bent, whereas the chaotic scientist would be more like 'if I learn all of this, just think what I could accomplish' - emphasis on self rather than society.

I consider the scientist to be Lawful in the sense of academic rigor. He is intellectually honest. He holds pure science as an ideal above all things, and dedicates himself tirelessly to that ideal. He will not cheat with regard to his experiments, will not fabricate or lie about results. He will abide the results of his research, even if the outcome is not what he desired. He will pursue his experiments even knowing it will likely get him dismissed from the university, because the science is more important than he is. He is, in essence, Science Honorable, bordering on fanatical. Obedient to the tenets of his discipline, tireless in pursuit of his calling, unswerving in his aims of comprehension.

But I'll acknowledge it's arguable.

[hymer]

Just for clarity, I was aiming more at an ancient Greek philosopher with the scientist thing. You know, aiming to find the truth with logic and observation. I agree that wizards are not automatically lawful. On the other hand, I don't think wizards are said to be more than leaning slightly towards lawful.

@ NichG: Aren't most chaotics' goals reactive as well? I mean, isn't it usually a matter of there being a problem of some sort, and you want to fix it?

[Coidzor]

Just for clarity, I was aiming more at an ancient Greek philosopher with the scientist thing. You know, aiming to find the truth with logic and observation. I agree that wizards are not automatically lawful. On the other hand, I don't think wizards are said to be more than leaning slightly towards lawful.

@ NichG: Aren't most chaotics' goals reactive as well? I mean, isn't it usually a matter of there being a problem of some sort, and you want to fix it?

Most character goals are generally reactive, with proactive goals being in the minority as I recall, so I don't think it's necessarily a bug with the individual alignment(s) that the majority of goals thought of in line with any given alignment would be reactive.

As for whether it's a bug with the system that such is the case, well, I think that depends upon personal/group points of view. I certainly believe that people have a valid point of view when they approach the D&D framework and decide that it's weighted towards reactive play and reactive thinking and the group has to make an active shift to play the game proactively.

[Amphetryon]

Most character goals are generally reactive, with proactive goals being in the minority as I recall, so I don't think it's necessarily a bug with the individual alignment(s) that the majority of goals thought of in line with any given alignment would be reactive.

As for whether it's a bug with the system that such is the case, well, I think that depends upon personal/group points of view. I certainly believe that people have a valid point of view when they approach the D&D framework and decide that it's weighted towards reactive play and reactive thinking and the group has to make an active shift to play the game proactively.

I would speculate that an overwhelming majority of Character goals are ultimately reactive, since they depend upon the surrounding environment provided by the DM to varying degrees.

[Sam K]

Red Fel, can you take that idea and make a proactive character out of it? Basically, someone who is directly trying to achieve something rather than just following orders. Thats kind of where I get stuck.

Does the alignment really have to be what provides the motivation? A character could be proactive for non-alignment related reasons, such as wanting to improve their position in society or their personal power. Alignment would be the rules they play by, not their reason for playing.

But ok, LN motivated adventurer:

Youngest child of a minor noble house with lots of heirs. No chance to inherrit land or money. Honor forbids the character to take up a trade (unthinkable for many nobles) or beg (for obvious reasons). The choices are the church or becoming a free lance (a higher class of mercenary). Very real scenario during the dark ages where many young nobles had to live by selling their skill of arms. Short step from that to adventurer. The character still lives by the rules of honor and nobility, and wont dishonor themsleves or allow their family name to be shamed, so no "illegal" adventures for them.

[NichG]

@ NichG: Aren't most chaotics' goals reactive as well? I mean, isn't it usually a matter of there being a problem of some sort, and you want to fix it?


Most character goals are generally reactive, with proactive goals being in the minority as I recall, so I don't think it's necessarily a bug with the individual alignment(s) that the majority of goals thought of in line with any given alignment would be reactive.

As for whether it's a bug with the system that such is the case, well, I think that depends upon personal/group points of view. I certainly believe that people have a valid point of view when they approach the D&D framework and decide that it's weighted towards reactive play and reactive thinking and the group has to make an active shift to play the game proactively.


I would speculate that an overwhelming majority of Character goals are ultimately reactive, since they depend upon the surrounding environment provided by the DM to varying degrees.

I find that tabletop games work best when playing a proactive character, to the extent that I wouldn't want to play a character that is primarily reactive at all. Examples from previous characters:


A dragonblooded exalt trying to manipulate his way around his family to achieve crazy personal goals (marry a non-exalt for love), a 1900s-era scientist who uncovered the existence of magic and wanted to use it to bring about world peace and utopia (in the end he failed for the most part, but the goal was the important thing), a fallen deity who basically wanted to raise all mortals up beyond the level of gods (D&D campaign), and a wizard who wanted to discover a way to safely use teleportation magic in a setting where teleportation basically sends you through the Far Realms with a neon red shirt (D&D/Slayers d20). In each case, the character had 'something to do' when things got quiet and things to pursue beyond whatever the most recent trouble was.


Basically, every game has its dead spots where the DM doesn't quite know what to do, or isn't immediately threatening the party, or whatever. Or even just points where the party lacks something to do next. Rather than sit there waiting for the DM to send kobolds or something, its good to have a character who can say 'okay, this is what I'm doing next because I care about this thing, who's with me?'

From the DM point of view, proactive players are much better than reactive ones because they remove some of the burden of always having to have the right carrot and stick to get the party to do something interesting, and it lets you use more subtle influences by referencing the characters' personal goals and how plot-point-of-the-week could help advance them.

[Red Fel]

I find that tabletop games work best when playing a proactive character, to the extent that I wouldn't want to play a character that is primarily reactive at all. Examples from previous characters:


A dragonblooded exalt trying to manipulate his way around his family to achieve crazy personal goals (marry a non-exalt for love), a 1900s-era scientist who uncovered the existence of magic and wanted to use it to bring about world peace and utopia (in the end he failed for the most part, but the goal was the important thing), a fallen deity who basically wanted to raise all mortals up beyond the level of gods (D&D campaign), and a wizard who wanted to discover a way to safely use teleportation magic in a setting where teleportation basically sends you through the Far Realms with a neon red shirt (D&D/Slayers d20). In each case, the character had 'something to do' when things got quiet and things to pursue beyond whatever the most recent trouble was.


Basically, every game has its dead spots where the DM doesn't quite know what to do, or isn't immediately threatening the party, or whatever. Or even just points where the party lacks something to do next. Rather than sit there waiting for the DM to send kobolds or something, its good to have a character who can say 'okay, this is what I'm doing next because I care about this thing, who's with me?'

From the DM point of view, proactive players are much better than reactive ones because they remove some of the burden of always having to have the right carrot and stick to get the party to do something interesting, and it lets you use more subtle influences by referencing the characters' personal goals and how plot-point-of-the-week could help advance them.

So, by proactive, you mean they have goals they pursue, independently of or in addition to the storyline?

Because it's very easy for an LN character to have goals. In the example with my RKV, when she isn't tending to her garden, tending to the deceased or off on missions, she is engaged in self-improvement through combat, training and meditation. She will readily join up with adventurers, provided this does not contradict her orders, in order to become stronger. Her ultimate ambition is to emulate her Stern Lady. Since she lacks arcane skill, she instead seeks to emulate the Ruby Sorceress' strength of character, keen mind, and great power. Towards that end, her goal is to be bigger, be stronger, be worthy of her goddess' attentions.

That said, these goals are not alignment-dependent. You could slap the same things on an LG Paladin or an LE Necromancer, effortlessly. In the alternative, you could slap a completely different goal on her or any other character.

Say, for example, she wants to discover the truth about her great-grandfather, an assassin who came to the Church of Wee Jas years ago and swore his line to the Church's service in exchange for sanctuary. Or perhaps she is more aggressive, actively seeking out large-scale violations of the natural order of death (like a Marut, but squishier).

It seems that, when you describe proactive, you mean goal-oriented. I don't see how any alignment prevents a character from pursuing goals.

[NichG]

So, by proactive, you mean they have goals they pursue, independently of or in addition to the storyline?

Because it's very easy for an LN character to have goals. In the example with my RKV, when she isn't tending to her garden, tending to the deceased or off on missions, she is engaged in self-improvement through combat, training and meditation. She will readily join up with adventurers, provided this does not contradict her orders, in order to become stronger. Her ultimate ambition is to emulate her Stern Lady. Since she lacks arcane skill, she instead seeks to emulate the Ruby Sorceress' strength of character, keen mind, and great power. Towards that end, her goal is to be bigger, be stronger, be worthy of her goddess' attentions.


I kind of feel this is different though. 'Become stronger' is sort of hard to actually be proactive about in game, since its all going to tie to the leveling process anyhow - it turns into fluff of 'during downtime I do this thing' but its not really something that you can pursue as a player during game all that much.



Say, for example, she wants to discover the truth about her great-grandfather, an assassin who came to the Church of Wee Jas years ago and swore his line to the Church's service in exchange for sanctuary. Or perhaps she is more aggressive, actively seeking out large-scale violations of the natural order of death (like a Marut, but squishier).

It seems that, when you describe proactive, you mean goal-oriented. I don't see how any alignment prevents a character from pursuing goals.

Well it depends on the goals, right? Take my former characters - the fallen deity couldn't really be lawful, because the natural extent of his goal was certain to cause all manner of chaos and totally demolish the existing order of things, both at the societal level and in the sense of 'natural law' with gods being above and mortals below. The scientist who wanted to create a utopia was pretty much pursuing a 'Good-aligned' goal.

The most recent character - the exalt - is probably at best on the neutral side of lawful in D&D alignment since although he's using manipulation and political maneuvering to achieve his goals, he's also sort of directly denying the order of his family and society to pursue personal happiness.

Since many goals will tend to 'drift' a character towards this or that alignment even if they're not 'venerate X alignment' goals, thats kind of why I'm asking about LN-proactive stuff - that is to say, goals that will tend to drift the person who cares about them towards LN.

[Amphetryon]

I find that tabletop games work best when playing a proactive character, to the extent that I wouldn't want to play a character that is primarily reactive at all. Examples from previous characters:


A dragonblooded exalt trying to manipulate his way around his family to achieve crazy personal goals (marry a non-exalt for love), a 1900s-era scientist who uncovered the existence of magic and wanted to use it to bring about world peace and utopia (in the end he failed for the most part, but the goal was the important thing), a fallen deity who basically wanted to raise all mortals up beyond the level of gods (D&D campaign), and a wizard who wanted to discover a way to safely use teleportation magic in a setting where teleportation basically sends you through the Far Realms with a neon red shirt (D&D/Slayers d20). In each case, the character had 'something to do' when things got quiet and things to pursue beyond whatever the most recent trouble was.


Basically, every game has its dead spots where the DM doesn't quite know what to do, or isn't immediately threatening the party, or whatever. Or even just points where the party lacks something to do next. Rather than sit there waiting for the DM to send kobolds or something, its good to have a character who can say 'okay, this is what I'm doing next because I care about this thing, who's with me?'

From the DM point of view, proactive players are much better than reactive ones because they remove some of the burden of always having to have the right carrot and stick to get the party to do something interesting, and it lets you use more subtle influences by referencing the characters' personal goals and how plot-point-of-the-week could help advance them.
From where I sit, all those things rely on the DM agreeing that they're in the world, and then having the PC react to them. In other words, the Characters are still reactive, they're just reacting to the background YOU provided rather than the storyline the DM provided. That is, unless the DM is one who incorporates backstories into the overall storyline, which is often cited as "Good DMing," for whatever that citation may be worth, in which case the Characters are reacting to the DM's provided storyline, it just happens to dovetail with the stuff on the Character sheet.

[Coidzor]

It seems like framing is essential here, really.

[NichG]

From where I sit, all those things rely on the DM agreeing that they're in the world, and then having the PC react to them. In other words, the Characters are still reactive, they're just reacting to the background YOU provided rather than the storyline the DM provided. That is, unless the DM is one who incorporates backstories into the overall storyline, which is often cited as "Good DMing," for whatever that citation may be worth, in which case the Characters are reacting to the DM's provided storyline, it just happens to dovetail with the stuff on the Character sheet.

I agree that the exalt requires the DM to work with the background, but how do 'trying to create a utopia', 'trying to raise all mortals above gods', etc require the DM to agree they're in the world?

And in the case of the teleport-wizard, it was taking something in the setting details (e.g. provided by the DM/source books), and deciding to make it a goal after receiving that info.

[Amphetryon]

I agree that the exalt requires the DM to work with the background, but how do 'trying to create a utopia', 'trying to raise all mortals above gods', etc require the DM to agree they're in the world?

And in the case of the teleport-wizard, it was taking something in the setting details (e.g. provided by the DM/source books), and deciding to make it a goal after receiving that info.

DM creates pirate adventure. Player creates Character trying to make a utopia. Hilarity ensues as the Character:
a) almost never works toward the stated goal because pirates keep interfering (reacting to DM, ie reactive)

b) ignores the plot and works toward goal of utopia, quite possibly frustrating the rest of the PCs and the DM since that's not the game they sat down to play (theoretically proactive, except there's no meaningful interaction with the game everyone else is playing, so, yeah)

c) works toward making the pirate kingdom a utopia of his own design (reactive toward the plot the DM threw out)

d) DM says "Heck with pirates, Nich has this kewl utopia thing going on. Let's do that," and starts to tailor the game toward the utopia Character, who reacts to the plot put forward (requires DM to be on-board, is still reactive).

* * *


What is the Teleport-Wizard teleporting to or from? Is it, perhaps, something to which the Wizard is reacting? If the Teleport-Wizard isn't reacting to anything, then why is he teleporting?

[NichG]

DM creates pirate adventure. Player creates Character trying to make a utopia. Hilarity ensues as the Character:
a) almost never works toward the stated goal because pirates keep interfering (reacting to DM, ie reactive)

b) ignores the plot and works toward goal of utopia, quite possibly frustrating the rest of the PCs and the DM since that's not the game they sat down to play (theoretically proactive, except there's no meaningful interaction with the game everyone else is playing, so, yeah)

c) works toward making the pirate kingdom a utopia of his own design (reactive toward the plot the DM threw out)

d) DM says "Heck with pirates, Nich has this kewl utopia thing going on. Let's do that," and starts to tailor the game toward the utopia Character, who reacts to the plot put forward (requires DM to be on-board, is still reactive).


All you're saying here is that the character has to be appropriate to the campaign, which is not the same as a 'reactive' character.

A 'reactive' character is one who is basically in equilibrium until some event triggers a need to adventure, whereby the adventure then seeks to restore equilibrium. In other words, if the DM showed up and just sat with his hands folded, a reactive character is one who'd be like 'okay, I go party at the tavern until I hear a rumor' or 'I train' or 'I garden' or whatever.

A proactive character is one who has enough of a goal so that they can initiate action absent a 'hook'. Its not about whether the DM is on board with the idea or not, its whether or not change can initiate from the character, or whether change has to come from external forces that the character then 'awakens' in order to respond appropriately to, before they return to a steady-state.



What is the Teleport-Wizard teleporting to or from? Is it, perhaps, something to which the Wizard is reacting? If the Teleport-Wizard isn't reacting to anything, then why is he teleporting?

'Because its there'. Its a setting with relatively easy magic that basically sends you to a realm of near-certain death even for epic level characters, but a 1% chance of getting lucky and successfully teleporting. So he sought a way of doing it safely in order to do something no one else had managed to do.

[shadow_archmagi]

But Lawful Neutral? How, in the name of the Abyss, can someone only support the law, but not care who that law hurts or helps? How can they just...not care? I mean...this seriously strikes me as the alignment of guards and some outer planes...whatevers, and no one else. Has anyone ever actually played one of these that they liked and felt they stayed Lawful Neutral throughout the whole campaign?


I see that description as representing only the more extreme LN types.

"Mildly LN" might be, basically, a very dilute LE or LG archetype.

"Would be LG if it wasn't for the fact that they tend to avoid making personal sacrifices for strangers"

or perhaps

"Would be LE if it wasn't for the fact that they don't really hurt, oppress, or kill anyone - they're just very callous to the suffering of strangers."

This is more or less my view as well. Lawful Neutral people hit all the key traits of Law (Enjoy routine, reliability, consistency, having established systems for dealing with things) while also lacking the key traits of Good and Evil.

Examples of Lawful Neutral characters:

Baker Steve likes to wake up every morning at the exact same time, and then proceeds to follow his recipes to the letter, using precise measurements and deviating from them only occasionally, using resources specially set aside for experimentation. He is upset about all the foreigners moving into the neighborhood, as he dislikes change. He hopes his daughter will marry a wealthy man and be happy.

Warblade Jericha has spent her whole life with a sword in her hand. She drills every morning to hone the methodical precision with which she fights. She didn't really have a choice- she comes from a large clan of mercenary warriors. She'll work for whoever pays her. Sometimes she gets hired to kill a troll, and she does enjoy the sight of grateful people, but trolls are dangerous and not every village has one or can afford to pay to get rid of it, so most of the time she moves from city to city and participates in pointless bloody skirmishes between lords. She recognizes that killing people because of their flag may not be the most moral thing to do, but hey, they signed up to be soldiers, and such is life.

Geometer Archibald wants to figure out the shape of the universe. All of his time and energy is going into the creation of elemental exploration spheres to chart the planes. He doesn't kill people (except indirectly, as planar exploration is very dangerous, and despite his best safety precautions some do not return). He also doesn't help people (Well, it's possible that his research will improve the lives of some, or have a benefit down the road, but those are both intangible and tangent to his motives; he just wants to know.)

[Amphetryon]

All you're saying here is that the character has to be appropriate to the campaign, which is not the same as a 'reactive' character.

A 'reactive' character is one who is basically in equilibrium until some event triggers a need to adventure, whereby the adventure then seeks to restore equilibrium. In other words, if the DM showed up and just sat with his hands folded, a reactive character is one who'd be like 'okay, I go party at the tavern until I hear a rumor' or 'I train' or 'I garden' or whatever.

A proactive character is one who has enough of a goal so that they can initiate action absent a 'hook'. Its not about whether the DM is on board with the idea or not, its whether or not change can initiate from the character, or whether change has to come from external forces that the character then 'awakens' in order to respond appropriately to, before they return to a steady-state. If you do not believe that the DM needs to be on board with a proactive Character's goals in order to have those goals impact the plot, then your understanding of the DM's role is vastly different than mine. If, once those goals are integrated into the plot, you don't think that a Character you've called 'proactive' is REACTING to the way those goals and the plot intertwine, then our definitions of proactive and reactive will forever be incompatible.




'Because its there'. Its a setting with relatively easy magic that basically sends you to a realm of near-certain death even for epic level characters, but a 1% chance of getting lucky and successfully teleporting. So he sought a way of doing it safely in order to do something no one else had managed to do.

"Because it is there" is a REACTION to the thing being there. The nature of the setting made him REACT to the limitations on teleportation by trying to minimize those risks. If you disagree with this, our definitions of "reactive" and "proactive" will forever be incompatible.

[hamishspence]

Warblade Jericha has spent her whole life with a sword in her hand. She drills every morning to hone the methodical precision with which she fights. She didn't really have a choice- she comes from a large clan of mercenary warriors. She'll work for whoever pays her. Sometimes she gets hired to kill a troll, and she does enjoy the sight of grateful people, but trolls are dangerous and not every village has one or can afford to pay to get rid of it, so most of the time she moves from city to city and participates in pointless bloody skirmishes between lords. She recognizes that killing people because of their flag may not be the most moral thing to do, but hey, they signed up to be soldiers, and such is life.

Tarma and Kethry in Mercedes Lackey's Vows and Honor books are mercenaries much like this. With the proviso that Kethry's magic sword forces them to help women in need. They find their growing reputation as do-gooders quite problematic, since they really prefer to be rewarded when reasonably possible.

[shadow_archmagi]

If you do not believe that the DM needs to be on board with a proactive Character's goals in order to have those goals impact the plot, then your understanding of the DM's role is vastly different than mine. If, once those goals are integrated into the plot, you don't think that a Character you've called 'proactive' is REACTING to the way those goals and the plot intertwine, then our definitions of proactive and reactive will forever be incompatible.

"Because it is there" is a REACTION to the thing being there. The nature of the setting made him REACT to the limitations on teleportation by trying to minimize those risks. If you disagree with this, our definitions of "reactive" and "proactive" will forever be incompatible.

While it's true that your definition of reactive is probably the technically correct one, it's an utterly unhelpful one. If everything is reactive (and indeed, all actions at all times are influenced primarily by past events (everything can be explained by because something) then it's meaningless to label something as a reaction.

As such, it's probably better to use a more narrow definition of reaction- one that only includes recent events or things that directly impact the character.

[ArcturusV]

On Proactive and Reactive via Alignment:

I think it's less of an "Alignment" issue than it's a human issue. It seems like we're saying that certain alignments are reactive because someone has to poke the bear before they go do stuff. But that's kind of human nature for the most part. Most people have goals because of X. Like if I was to draw on my own life and its goals:

Family: I want a proper family because I never had one. I wasn't an orphan, but my family was petty, abusive, a wreck, and I wanted a chance to know what it was like to have a "real" family like I tend to hear about. I want to have that group of people that I can love unconditionally. It's not a proactive goal so much as a reaction to never having it myself, but only having seen it from the outside.

Home: I want a home of my own. A house I own outright, on a bit of land I own outright. Doesn't have to be fancy, huge, etc. But it does have to be mine. Again, this is because I've been without. I've been homeless. I've been living since in these situations where if something went wrong, lost my job, couldn't get a new one, etc, I could be right back in that situation. It's the fear of being in that situation again which drives me towards this goal, reactive.

It just seems like human nature. It's rare, and I think special, that someone, without any prodding or cause just sits up and says something like "I'm going to be an Astronaut". I mean it probably does happen. Not saying it doesn't. But even in the case of natural savants and talents you tend to see them striving to succeed because someone beat ambition into them, etc.

So it's not something where Neutral isn't really "Proactive", so much as just humans. But we think Neutral isn't because Good and Evil have built in reasons to start with. If you're evil, and thus willing to stomp over number 2 to be number 1... you probably already have those reasons built in. If you're good, the sheer existence of evil is often enough of a reason to cowboy up. Neutrals however... I mean their sheer "I don't want to be good or evil" seems to come off as suggesting they don't naturally have these reasons. And I admit that's part of the reason I have a problem with True Neutral. Because the character is so detached from Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil it's hard for me to get a handle on something that could really be True Neutral (And not being pushed towards one alignment or another) and still be a proactive, active, solving problems and plots Player Character.

[TuggyNE]

I think the dichotomy between reactive and proactive is a little too simplistic. Instead, let's try a trichotomy, including interactive in the mix. Thus, a "reactive" PC is one that has few or no goals or independent desires; nearly all their actions are in response to an NPC requesting or demanding something, or the party as a whole deciding to do something; an "interactive" PC is one that is working toward some larger goal or has some substantial driving desires that come up from time to time, but whose actions day to day are still often shaped by circumstance rather than planning; and a "proactive" PC is one that arranges events in order to achieve their goals, such that most of the plot is driven by NPCs reacting to these actions.

[NichG]

If you do not believe that the DM needs to be on board with a proactive Character's goals in order to have those goals impact the plot, then your understanding of the DM's role is vastly different than mine. If, once those goals are integrated into the plot, you don't think that a Character you've called 'proactive' is REACTING to the way those goals and the plot intertwine, then our definitions of proactive and reactive will forever be incompatible.


I do not believe that whether or not the DM is on board has any impact on the meaning of the word 'proactive'. You can have a proactive character that the DM resists at every turn - it will be a dismal failure, but it still falls under the definition of 'proactive'.

Similarly, if the character reacts to something that happens, that doesn't mean that they are not a 'proactive' character. That just means that they now have to balance their proactive goal with the realities of the world around them. The key point of a 'proactive' character is that left alone, they will try to drive plot. Basically the distinction is clearest in the presence of a 'passive' DM, someone who just comes to the table and adjudicates, but does not generate plotlines or plothooks or try to get the characters involved in any way.

Comparatively, a purely 'reactive' character has no way to initiate plot on their own. They can only respond to external changes in the nature of their world, but do not have a reason to change things from the current status quo of the world or their life (beyond fluff changes).



"Because it is there" is a REACTION to the thing being there. The nature of the setting made him REACT to the limitations on teleportation by trying to minimize those risks. If you disagree with this, our definitions of "reactive" and "proactive" will forever be incompatible.

I disagree with this, because you seem to be missing the entire point of the distinction - its about whether or not the character can drive things on their own in the context of a purely passive DM, not moving the goalpost back such that the character must somehow not have seen or heard or thought anything before deciding their actions. 'Proactive' doesn't mean 'dumb' or 'ignoring reality', it just has to do with where the impetus for action originates.

A character who the DM has to 'work' to get involved in the campaign is reactive. A character who can involve themselves is proactive.

A character in Planescape that really wants to see Elysium? Thats proactive, because within the context of the game (Planescape) there is something that they want to achieve independent of the specific plot hooks that the DM provides during play. If the DM is utterly passive, game will still occur because they will 'proactively' seek ways to get to Elysium.

On the other hand a 'reactive' character would perhaps bum around Sigil, wondering when there was going to be a juicy plot hook dropped in front of them to follow. Independent of the DM making the world 'do' something to involve them, they have no impetus to be involved in the world.