My interpretation of the D&D alignment system

[Elliot Kane]

Alignment seems to be one of the most debated things here, in terms of both what it is and what restrictions or otherwise it creates. None of the official rulebooks are ever very clear about it, which is why I created this a while back so my players know exactly what each alignment is and what I expect of them while playing it.

As an added note, the concept of Law & Chaos in D&D was taken originally from the writings of Michael Moorcock, and the use of the word 'Law' has thus proved incredibly baffling to many players who do not know the antecedents.

These definitions are in no way official, of course, but I hope they may prove useful - or at least of interest - to some of you.

***

Alignment

The Alignment characteristic is a basic indication of your character's behavioural tendencies. It is a tool to aid role-playing, not a strait-jacket in which your character will be forever confined. If you create a character with a starting Alignment that does not match the way you end up playing that character, you will be free to change it. Obviously this should be discussed with the DM, as he will definitely want to know.

Keeping your character's behaviour within the bounds of the Alignment you have given them will obviously gain you experience points for good role-playing. Serious deviation will equally result in EXP penalties.

The following Alignment definitions are used as a common standard within the context of the game. This is necessary to ensure that everyone has the same idea of what constitutes 'chaotic' behaviour, for example, thus avoiding any confusion.

These interpretations sre intended for game purposes only, not for use in real life.


General Concepts

Before we can get into specific alignments, it is necessary to examine the five underlying concepts behind them.

Good & Evil

In real life 'Good' and 'Evil' are concepts that have no meaning outside of the society that defined them. 'Good' acts are simply those of which society approves, while 'Evil' acts are those of which it strongly disapproves. A Viking bringing home a vast amount of loot from raiding, for example, would most likely be considered 'Good' by his fellows and 'Evil' by his victims. Over time, any given society will change its ideas of what constitute 'Good' and 'Evil' according to its current needs. Often, what is considered 'Good' by one generation will be considered 'Evil' by a later generation, and vice versa.

For the purposes of the game it is necessary to establish a set of absolute standards. Anything else results in total confusion and negates the entire point of having an Alignment system in the first place.

Good: is defined as unselfish and moral: doing things for others with no thought of personal gain, or simply because it is the right thing to do. Placing the welfare of others above your own.

Do as you would be done by

Note: 'Moral' is defined as obeying the general rules of personal behaviour layed down by the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is simply for the sake of convenience as everybody knows what these precepts are and they are well defined. Trying to use any other definition of 'Moral' is predicated once more upon social convention, hence unworkable.

Evil: is defined as selfish and immoral: doing things for yourself that inflict harm on others, or that you know to be wrong. The pursuit of self-gratification without worrying or caring about the pain you cause. Placing your own welfare above that of others.

Do it to them before they do it to you


Law & Chaos

Are in essence the forces of stability/pattern and change/randomness. Where 'Good' and 'Evil' are social constructs, Law (or 'Order') and Chaos are fundamental underpinning parts of the universe. Their natures are eternal and unchanging (which is certainly a paradox in the latter case). As such, definitions are not predicated upon any kind of social bias.

Law: is the force of stability and pattern (and has nothing to do with criminal law in any way shape or form). Lawful people enjoy working as part of a team, and will often be involved in organising, planning and general preparation. Lawful people generally think before they act..

Without stability there is no true progression

Chaos: is the force of randomness and change. Chaotic people are impulsive, and prefer to work alone rather than as part of a team. They dislike planning, finding it boring, and are always interested in new things. Many are highly creative. Chaotic people usually act before they think.

Without change there is only stagnation


Neutrality

Is not exactly a force, so much as the reconciling of opposites.

One who is Neutral in the 'Good'-'Evil' sense may not be particularly selfish or unselfish, or they may simply be amoral (in other words, they are unable to grasp moral concepts, or come from a society that has none). Others may view 'Good' and 'Evil' as forces that are both necessary, or simply consider them irrelevant (a Druid, for example, is far more concerned with animals than with people).

One who is Neutral in the Law-Chaos sense may not have a marked preference for either planning or spontaneous action, or they may simply allow others to dictate the course of events by just 'going with the flow'. Others may see the importance of both forces, and actively work to balance their lives accordingly. Many will be self-centred but not really selfish.

Without light there is no shadow


Specific Alignment Definitions

Lawful Good (LG): The LG character works towards bringing the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. S/he believes that a stable and well ordered society is the best hope of happiness for the majority of people. LG characters tend to become adventurers because they think they can do the most good over the long term by doing so.

Chaotic Good (CG): The CG character wants to help people now. S/he believes that it is up to every individual to do what they can to help others when they can. Individual freedom is the best way of guaranteeing happiness for all. CG people usually become adventurers when they are recruited on the spur of the moment to help destroy a local menace,

Neutral Good (NG): The NG character is not really bothered about the amount of social freedom granted by his government, only whether the people are happy or not. S/he will happily work with other people or alone as the need dictates. NG characters will usually become adventurers in order to protect others.

Lawful Neutral (LN): The LN character wants a nice quiet world in which everybody has the security of knowing their place and nothing ever changes. S/he enjoys routine and dislikes surprises. Those few LN characters who become adventurers usually do so because they feel that they cannot get the quiet life they want as long as outside menaces exist. They tend to be pretty annoyed about it too.

Chaotic Neutral (CN): The CN character craves adventure and excitement - now! Always fascinated by new things, and utterly bored without change, the CN character is the ultimate butterfly. S/he is highly inquisitive and often very quick witted. Most are wanderers who wish to see the world, or exist in a mad social whirl. Those who become adventurers do so for the excitement.

True Neutral (TN): The TN character either believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all intrinsically necessary to the world and its people - part of a vital balance of forces that should not ever be allowed to tip too far in any direction - or has completely abandoned all interest in human affairs. The majority of TN people are Druids or hermits, who fall into the latter category. TN characters who go adventuring will usually do so in order to preserve the balance or to counteract a threat to nature.

Lawful Evil: The LE character will work to gain the greatest long term benefit to him/herself. If other people get hurt in the process, well, so what. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? LE characters dream of a nice ordered society with them on top - or at least pulling the strings behind the scenes. LE characters who go adventuring usually do so in order to gain resources that will allow them to become more powerful or otherwise support their long-term aims.

Neutral Evil: The NE character will certainly accept any reasonable opportunity to gain personal benefits or self gratification, but will tend to weigh the risks before doing so. S/he doesn't care if other people get hurt, but certainly cares about whether s/he will have to face any consequences as a result. NE characters who go adventuring usually do so because they think that the possible gains outweigh the risks.

Chaotic Evil: The CE person wants self gratification now. If s/he sees something s/he wants and is strong enough to take it, s/he will do so (Note that 'strong' is not used here to refer only - or even primarily - to physical strength. Use of superior wit or charm or anything else is also included). There is no point worrying about possible consequences, as they may or may not happen. The strong prey on the weak, and that's just the way of the world. CE characters who go adventuring will usually do so on impulse and with the promise of easy loot.


End Note: The vast majority of people of all races have no means of identifying alignment, and only work on whether they like someone or not. A Merchant Prince may well be LE, but he may still be a good employer who deals fairly with his customers - both things that will undoubtably benefit him enormously in the long term. He may have a better general reputation than a LG Merchant Prince who is socially inept but secretly sets up a number of charitable foundations. Evil, like good, comes in many degrees, and is not always interested in ruling the world, or even a tiny part of it.

There is however one peculiar aberration common to people of all races: whatever they may do in pursuit of their goals, no sane person ever thinks of themselves as evil. Everyone, without exception, justifies what they do by reference to religion, social injustice or personal circumstance. They often maintain that everyone else would do the same things if they had the courage, the will, or the intelligence to do so. Sometimes they could not help themselves, had no choice or were simply obeying orders. Matters were taken out of their hands. It was a cry for help.

The excuses are endless, but the end result is this: do not accuse anyone of being evil unless you wish to deeply offend them!

[Arakune]

you know, THAT should be in the DND player handbook ;)

[shaka gl]

Yeah, its a lot like what I always thought Alignment should be.

[Shazzbaa]

Well, most of this seems pretty well in line. I could nit-pick a few phrases I don't like or a few things that seem irrelevant, but overall most of it's decent; the one thing that really bothers me is this:


Keeping your character's behaviour within the bounds of the Alignment you have given them will obviously gain you experience points for good role-playing. Serious deviation will equally result in EXP penalties.I think this is the unfortunate reason why many people hate alignment so much -- because it tends to be looked at this way.
I'd argue that the way you play a character is who he is. Alignment can certainly be looked at as a guide for getting into your character's head, in what may be a very alien motivation (for example, playing a LG character when you can relate most to a CN mentality), but I don't think you should define your character with it.

If the way you play your character is out of line with his stated alignment... then that is clearly not his alignment any longer. If your supposedly Lawful fighter is acting more and more Chaotic, then you should simply discuss an alignment change, rather than rewarding people for sticking their characters in a box and punishing them for changing. I think the idea of alignment as being something you "have to do" is the problem that a lot of people have with it, and I just don't feel that alignment should be that way.

Alignment should describe your character. It is not a code, it is a description.

****

Hmm. Another thought. I think I actually don't like defining the individual alignment combinations (e.g. LG, LN, CG, etc.). The more threads like this I see, the more it seems that the individual descriptions are the ones I feel are the most... restrictive. I like the idea of alignment being your position on each of the two axis, just combined. The idea of LG being a combination of "Lawful" and "Good," rather than a separate alignment descriptor. You may be very Lawful and only sort of Good, or you may be zealously Good and as Lawful as you can possibly be, or you may prioritise Good and just barely be Lawful enough to bump yourself up from Neutral. All of these are LG. It makes more sense to me to define Law,Neutral,Chaos... and Good, Neutral, Evil... and then pick your spot on each axis.

Thinking of LN as being a specific personality and LG as being another seems like it would create the problem of alignment feeling like a set of rules for your character (i.e., "if you're LG you must be like this"), rather than just letting the character exist and letting alignment describe them.

But such is only my opinion.

****

I do, however, like the note that Evil people don't think of themselves as such, I think that's a good distinction to make, and it's well-said.

[NullAshton]

Hmmm. I think this is about the third, maybe fourth time that I've seen someone posted this, with pretty much the same thing said.

Still good, though.

[Matthew]

I can't seem to see a 'Neutral', rather than 'True Neutral'. In my opinion, most people are Neutral, as in not committed to any extreme, and would have to work pretty hard to acquire a 'Good' or equivalent Aignment.

[Everyman]

First off, welcome to the forums!

Second, I'm impressed that you spent this long defining an alignment system. You set-up a system of moral/ethical balance that does an excellent job at regulating the alignment and for that...kudos.

My only comment is one that I share with our dear Shazzbaa: the wincing at the definitions of specific alignments. Over the years, I've noticed that I could have 100 players in a room with the same two letters on their character sheet and not one would play completely alike. For example, I've seen a LE character go out of his way to trap victims to commiting their lives to him. However, I've also seen another LE character wander from town to town, slaying the greatest warrior. When that character slayed a person with a family, he would not leave without giving the family a substantial amount of gold and the oldest male (if any) a sword. Your definition of LE would support the first example, but the second example woobles between LN and LE definitions (though I would give the nod to LE). I would suggest that a list of characteristics would be more helpful than just a description.

Overall, you did summarize the most common viewpoints and tendencies and it looks very good. Nice.

[Elliot Kane]

Thanks, everyone :) That took me a while and a lot of thinking, as you might imagine :)

To address a few specific points:

Shazzbaa - I refer you to the first paragraph under 'Alignment' :) I have always allowed my players to change their character's alignment if the character develops past the initial conception in unexpected ways, and I have never penalised them for doing so. The main thing is absolutely characterisation, and alignments - to me - should be chosen to reflect personality and not the reverse. Good alignment play is simply one way of many to gain role playing EXP in my games :)

Defining specific alignments: I did that because the article would be incomplete without it, not because those are the only possible ways to play each alignment. There is immense variation within each alignment, of course. I probably did need to make that clearer. If I had not included them though, a lot of people would be asking for them. Those are examples only, not straitjackets :) The system works best when you ignore the examples of specific alignments and concentrate on the possible combinations from the term definitions - they're pretty broad, I'd say :)

NullAshton - I created my version because I had never seen the alignment system properly described anywhere else. I am new here, and obviously haven't looked through all the old threads. If anyone else has worked all this out too, though, good for them :)

Matthew - I think most ordinary people are aligned, but not necessarily strongly. You can be a good person just by being nice to everyone and helping out in small ways where you can; a lawful person by planning your life to a firm routine and sticking with it, etc. Alignment doesn't have to be about taking a firm stand, it's just who someone is.

Tarkahn - thanks for the welcome :) The wandering swordsman would indeed be LE, because he is pursuing his own long term goals at the expense of others and with no regard to whom he harms along the way (Evil) and by following a rigid code of his own devising, he is clearly Lawful.

[Fax Celestis]

Tarkahn - thanks for the welcome :) The wandering swordsman would indeed be LE, because he is pursuing his own long term goals at the expense of others and with no regard to whom he harms along the way (Evil) and by following a rigid code of his own devising, he is clearly Lawful.

I would argue that he does have regard for whom he harms. After all, he provides for the family after their patron's death as well as combats his opponents on equal terms. Which would, of course, make him LN.

[Elliot Kane]

I would argue that he does have regard for whom he harms. After all, he provides for the family after their patron's death as well as combats his opponents on equal terms. Which would, of course, make him LN.

Only if he gives them a choice of whether or not to fight. From Tarkahn's description I gather he will allow them no choice at all in the matter, which is certainly evil.

There is also the fact that he is deliberately setting out to kill other sentient creatures based not on anything they have done, but simply because he desires to do so.

I doubt very much that a widow and orphans will care how much money they are given as compensation while they are burying their husband/Father...

To clarify, though, if he DOES give the people he duels a choice as to whether or not to fight him to the death then yeah, I'd go with LN.

[Leush]

Yes, yes yes yes. This works. You haven't defined specific acts as good as evil, rather the intent behind them. This is the way it should be. Vaguely. This deserves a cookie.

[Yakk]

Lawful and Chaotic can be viewed as a social structure even moreso than Good and Evil.


Absolutes:
Someone that is Good is willing to sacrafice himself in exchange for a random other person's wellbeing.
Someone that is Evil is willing to sacrafice a random other person's wellbeing in exchange for their own.

Someone that is Lawful is organized, patterned and structured.
Someone that is Chaotic is random, unpredictable and whimsical.

Relative:
Lawful is belief that relationships between people should be structured, and that structure should be respected. Heirarchies, rules and predictable behaviour is viewed favourably. One's authority should be obeyed, and one should obey authority.

Chaos is the belief that structured relationships are irrelivent. Social constructs, heiarchies, and rules are simply threats, and should be responded to as such.

Good people are people who place the good of the society as a whole above their own needs and wants.

Evil people are people who place the good of the society as a whole below their own needs and wants.

...

If you want a better alignment system, go with one that isn't two-dimensional.

A given mythos might have one or two major axis that have game mechanics implications, and multiple other axis that simply describe the character.

[Elliot Kane]

Leush - thanks :)

Yakk - if all sentient creatures died out, good & evil would cease to exist because there would be nothing to define them. Order & Chaos would still exist as long as there is pattern and change - hence 'fundamental underpinning parts of the universe' :)

[Yakk]

/shrug, the existance of order and chaos without intelligence is a matter of definition. If you define your alignments based off of interpersonal interaction, none of them exist without other people.

If you define your alignments not using interpersonal interaction, they exist without other people.

All of these alignments are defined by the actor -- none of them exist without the being they are ascribed to.

Imagine the last human on earth -- one could imagine argueing that destroying great works of art on a whim would be "evil", even if there is nobody else to be hurt. That just requires a definition of good that doesn't rely on interpersonal interactions. :)

[Elliot Kane]

It's all a matter of definition, Yakk :) What I was aiming at was a system that has values one could consider to be free of cultural or social bias, simply because any system based on relative values is deeply confusing.

Most people who hate the alignment system do so, I suspect, because no two people in any gaming group will agree exactly on what each alignment is and the official rulebooks are so vague on the matter as to be virtually useless. This leads, understandably, to incredible frustration and a lot of arguing between players & GM.

You're right, of course, that all alignments come down to people in the end :)

[Everyman]

Ugh...please do not discuss law and chaos too much. It makes my head do 'splodey things.

In response to...your response, I would give the swordsman the LE alignment too. I forgot to make the word "slay" bold and to mention that opponents have no choice. The money he grants is just to continue a strong bloodline and the sword is given so the young lad can perhaps train and become strong enough to the slay the LE swordsman back (another opponent).

Again though, nice job. I'ma copy and paste this for my gaming group newbies, as it is much easier to digest and understand than the brief section they give in the Player's Handbook.:smallsmile:

[Elliot Kane]

I figured the reasoning for the travelling swordsman handing out swords, Tarkahn. Reminded me very much of The Bride in Kill Bill: "If you want to hunt me down and try to kill me when you're older, I will understand." Thanks for confirming my guesses, though :)

[Beleriphon]

I'd suggest that your alignment descriptions are fairly accurate for a non-D&D game. That is a game using D&D rules but not using the D&D paradigms. In D&D Good and Evil are very much universal concepts. There are two separate groups of Evil creatures killing each other endless over the concept itself, and made of Evil as physical manifestations.

In D&D Good is Good and Evil is Evil. There is no social structure implied in them. Even if all sapient life died off Good and Evil would still exist as universal constants. Baator and the Abyss are literally made of Evil in the same way that Mount Celestia and Bytopia are made of Good.

Still, a fine analysis that allows a wide range of options, even for alignment restrictions. Bob the Paladin can be kind and charitable, and Chuck the Paladin can be unpleasant and stern. Both are still lawful good, but with radically different ways of displaying that alignment combination.

[Elliot Kane]

Very true, Beleriphon :)

But even where the gods have set down what is good & what is evil in clear black & white, my system is still useful. The actual alignment concepts remain the same; only the source of 'Good' and 'Evil' differs.

I thought it best to draw a clear distinction between the game and real life, however, to put a stop to 'it doesn't really work like that' type arguments with my players before they began :)

[Shazzbaa]

Shazzbaa - I refer you to the first paragraph under 'Alignment' :) I have always allowed my players to change their character's alignment if the character develops past the initial conception in unexpected ways, and I have never penalised them for doing so. The main thing is absolutely characterisation, and alignments - to me - should be chosen to reflect personality and not the reverse. Good alignment play is simply one way of many to gain role playing EXP in my games :)

Oh, no, I did see that you allow players to change alignments; I just personally prefer the idea of the DM saying "You're starting to act pretty chaotic. If you wanna keep that, I'm going to change your alignment," rather than "You're acting pretty chaotic. If you don't change that, I'll be docking EXP."

But although I constantly make the point that alignment is a description rather than a code to be followed, I can see how asking people, particularly newer players, to "act within their alignment" would be helpful for getting people to think outside of themselves.


Defining specific alignments: I did that because the article would be incomplete without it, not because those are the only possible ways to play each alignment. There is immense variation within each alignment, of course.

Understood. That was less of a particular critique, and more of a sudden thought. I wonder how well it would work if players were introduced to the two axis and asked to come to their own conclusions about how they would combine....

In a bit of a nitpick, though I can see where it came from, I'm not so sure that Lawful people prefer a group while Chaotics prefer to work alone. It's just that a Chaotic group would work very much differently from a Lawful group.
I lean Lawful, but in school I always hated working in a group because people were so difficult to organise, and I felt like only when working alone could I get the order and structure that I needed to make the project as good as it could be. In contrast, a group of Chaotic people working together would probably be perfectly content to handle completely different parts of the project, do what they liked with them, and bring them all together at the end.
It's more that Lawful people like to work within a structure or a system, while Chaotic people prefer to be able to do things their own way.


Still, a fine analysis that allows a wide range of options, even for alignment restrictions. Bob the Paladin can be kind and charitable, and Chuck the Paladin can be unpleasant and stern. Both are still lawful good, but with radically different ways of displaying that alignment combination.
Indeed. :3 As it should be.

[Yakk]

KISS:

The universe has 4 prime forces.

Law, Chaos, Good and Evil.

Law and Chaos oppose each other, and Good and Evil oppose each other.

The force of Law is in favour of order, rules, hierarchy, tradition and structure.

The force of Chaos is in favour of freedom, choice, equal oppertunity and chance.

The force of Good is in favour of life, peace, innocence and safety.

The force of Evil is in favour of death, war, corruption and destruction.

Your alignment is your allegance to these powers. You can choose to be neutral. Failure to live up to the standards of the powers results in your allegance being rejected, hence a change of alignment.

By personifying the powers, your alignment becomes about something other than your own personal beliefs. It become what the powrs of good, evil, law and chaos think of your actions.

You could even extend this to other axis -- the elemental powers could accept the allegance of characters, for example.

[Elliot Kane]

Oh, no, I did see that you allow players to change alignments; I just personally prefer the idea of the DM saying "You're starting to act pretty chaotic. If you wanna keep that, I'm going to change your alignment," rather than "You're acting pretty chaotic. If you don't change that, I'll be docking EXP."

It's more an either/or thing. A player has the option of changing alignment, but if they choose not to and keep acting contrary to alignment it's bad role playing - ergo gets a penalty :)


But although I constantly make the point that alignment is a description rather than a code to be followed, I can see how asking people, particularly newer players, to "act within their alignment" would be helpful for getting people to think outside of themselves.

Not everyone is a natural born actor; not everyone has an interst in philosophy - which you kinda need to get to grips with the alignment system.

So yes - it's all about creating a useful guide. At least it is, to me :) And also saving myself huge amounts of "Why can't I play CN as utterly selfish, self-centred and greedy all the time?" type arguments. I suspect every GM has had those.


Understood. That was less of a particular critique, and more of a sudden thought. I wonder how well it would work if players were introduced to the two axis and asked to come to their own conclusions about how they would combine....

I hope with less trouble than the PHB descriptions cause, but without some type of examples, I still foresaw possible problems.

It doesn't take a player too long to realise that, for example, Lawful Good can be played as:

LG, lg, Lg, lG - with a different emphasis on a different part giving very different personalities. And that's just the start of how they could look at it :)


In a bit of a nitpick, though I can see where it came from, I'm not so sure that Lawful people prefer a group while Chaotics prefer to work alone. It's just that a Chaotic group would work very much differently from a Lawful group.
I lean Lawful, but in school I always hated working in a group because people were so difficult to organise, and I felt like only when working alone could I get the order and structure that I needed to make the project as good as it could be. In contrast, a group of Chaotic people working together would probably be perfectly content to handle completely different parts of the project, do what they liked with them, and bring them all together at the end.
It's more that Lawful people like to work within a structure or a system, while Chaotic people prefer to be able to do things their own way.

You're right :)

The tendency for Lawful people to prefer teams (Not groups - 'team' implies a degree of co-operative planning where 'group' does not) is most certainly not always going to apply to every Lawful person. It's having a structure that makes them Lawful.

***

Yakk...

How will you explain the Neutral alignments to your players with that system?

[TheOOB]

I think Yaks got it right, alignment really isn't that complicated. Good people make sacrifices to help others then don't know, Evil people hurt others they dont know, lawful people are predictable, organized, and stable, chaotic people are unpredictable, free, and unreliable.

It is also very important when talking about alignment to note one specific fact, that the primary effect of alignment is how alignment based magic effects you, as in do you register to detect good, will you take damage from a chaos hammer and so on. Barring paladins, alignment isn't something you choose, alignment is simply a measure of how magic affects you based on your actions. Also, since alignments effects are primarly magical, and magic in D&D doesn't really discriminate, your personal philosophy matters nothing to alignment. It doesn't matter what your philosophical justifications for your actions is, people who do evil things are evil, people who do good things are good, and so on.

[Beleriphon]

Very true, Beleriphon :)

But even where the gods have set down what is good & what is evil in clear black & white, my system is still useful. The actual alignment concepts remain the same; only the source of 'Good' and 'Evil' differs.

I thought it best to draw a clear distinction between the game and real life, however, to put a stop to 'it doesn't really work like that' type arguments with my players before they began :)

Thats a good point, but my distinction goes farther then even deities laying down the law. Bane didn't make Evil, he just is because of what he does and what he stands for (Bane is from Forgotten Realms and is the LE greater deity of Tyranny among other things). I think its an important distinction that differs greatly from morality, but you've labeled the source of good/evil from a Judaeo-Christian context so that suffices equally as well and its generally what D&D uses.

I think that Yakk uses neutral to mean the same thing that I would. Its a person with no clear stance on the whole issue, in other words most of us. We would all prefer to live a Good society, with Good neighbours, its only logical that we would. However, we probably aren't willing to actually do anything about it if we don't have a Good society and Good neighbours. Taking an alignment beyond True Neutral should mean the character will do something if they come across a situation they dislike.

To use an example of a kingdom run by a lawful evil king. He's the king, he taxes his subjects mercilessly, he tortures peoples, he keeps his subjects in line through fear, and he's an all around mean guy. But most of his people will be neutral, thus they want a nice guy king but they wont change anything since it would upset their personal life. If a hero came along and rallied them all up to overthrow the evil king they'd probably do if they felt they could win.

I do this all the time, but I'm going to attach some famous DC characters and villains to EK's descirptions just to see how well they work in narrative context. I'll even try to reason it out, in some cases I wont bother since I hope that it would be abundantly clear why I've chosen that person.



Lawful Good (LG): The LG character works towards bringing the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. S/he believes that a stable and well ordered society is the best hope of happiness for the majority of people. LG characters tend to become adventurers because they think they can do the most good over the long term by doing so.
Superman: He fits the above description in words and actions more then any other character that I can think of short of pulling out a D&D paladin. He has his principles, he sticks to them and works towards bettering society as a whole. Doesn't hurt that he's a near immortal with the powers of a god. :smallbiggrin:

Captain Marvel: I'd put the Big Red Cheese in here as well. He's the perfect example of 1950's comic book morality, and that just smacks of lawful goodness taken to almost stupid extremes. He's as powerful as Superman but has the personality of a 12 year old boy.



Neutral Good (NG): The NG character is not really bothered about the amount of social freedom granted by his government, only whether the people are happy or not. S/he will happily work with other people or alone as the need dictates. NG characters will usually become adventurers in order to protect others.
Batman: Batman for me is the epitome of neutral good. He isn't worried about bending the rules, or outright breaking them, as he is about making sure that good is done. It makes for a neat idealogical difference with Superman. Batman is willing to beat a man senseless as his first recourse, without concern about what the means to society as a whole if it stops the criminal, but he is still concerned with keeping society as a whole safe as his primary goal. Thus the neutral part, his methods are more chaotic, but his goals and general personality make him more lawful. So he falls some where in the middle with neutral.



Chaotic Good (CG): The CG character wants to help people now. S/he believes that it is up to every individual to do what they can to help others when they can. Individual freedom is the best way of guaranteeing happiness for all. CG people usually become adventurers when they are recruited on the spur of the moment to help destroy a local menace.
Green Arrow: Alright this one is a harder sell with Ollie being the mayor of Star City. Still I see him very much like Shojo in that he's willing to public denounce GA as Mayor Oliver Queen, but then order the police to help his crime fighting persona. Even his mayorialship is chaotic, he uses it as a grandstand to make extreme statements to get what he thinks the city needs now. Its all about what Ollie thinks, even if he's right, he rarely takes into consideration what others around him think or want.



Lawful Neutral (LN): The LN character wants a nice quiet world in which everybody has the security of knowing their place and nothing ever changes. S/he enjoys routine and dislikes surprises. Those few LN characters who become adventurers usually do so because they feel that they cannot get the quiet life they want as long as outside menaces exist. They tend to be pretty annoyed about it too.
The Spectre: The Spectre is about avenging wrath, justice brought to injust with no thought about good or evil. He does what he does because that's the way the universe works.



True Neutral (TN): The TN character either believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all intrinsically necessary to the world and its people - part of a vital balance of forces that should not ever be allowed to tip too far in any direction - or has completely abandoned all interest in human affairs. The majority of TN people are Druids or hermits, who fall into the latter category. TN characters who go adventuring will usually do so in order to preserve the balance or to counteract a threat to nature.
I'm actually at a loss here. I can't honestly think of a character that works as a true neutral, at least not from comic books at any rate. So I present myself. I quite frankly don't care enough either way to make a distinction.



Chaotic Neutral (CN): The CN character craves adventure and excitement - now! Always fascinated by new things, and utterly bored without change, the CN character is the ultimate butterfly. S/he is highly inquisitive and often very quick witted. Most are wanderers who wish to see the world, or exist in a mad social whirl. Those who become adventurers do so for the excitement.
Harely Quinn: I know, she's a villain, but she's never struck me as outright malicious as the Joker. She's probably on that border right between CN and CE.



Lawful Evil: The LE character will work to gain the greatest long term benefit to him/herself. If other people get hurt in the process, well, so what. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? LE characters dream of a nice ordered society with them on top - or at least pulling the strings behind the scenes. LE characters who go adventuring usually do so in order to gain resources that will allow them to become more powerful or otherwise support their long-term aims.
Lex Luthor: Do I have to explain this one. If I had to pick a poster boy for Lawful Evil its a toss up between Lex and Dr Doom. I'd take Lex, he looks better on the poster. :smallwink:



Neutral Evil: The NE character will certainly accept any reasonable opportunity to gain personal benefits or self gratification, but will tend to weigh the risks before doing so. S/he doesn't care if other people get hurt, but certainly cares about whether s/he will have to face any consequences as a result. NE characters who go adventuring usually do so because they think that the possible gains outweigh the risks.
Ra's al Ghul: Ra's was going to be the LE guy, but then a stopped to think. He certainly as the long term planning thing down, but thats more a function of benefits from Lazurus pits. One of his ultimate goals is actually wiping out a large portion of humanity for his own ends, this makes him different then Lex who wants as many people to live so they can all bask in his glory. At any rate Ra's strikes me as neutral evil.



Chaotic Evil: The CE person wants self gratification now. If s/he sees something s/he wants and is strong enough to take it, s/he will do so (Note that 'strong' is not used here to refer only - or even primarily - to physical strength. Use of superior wit or charm or anything else is also included). There is no point worrying about possible consequences, as they may or may not happen. The strong prey on the weak, and that's just the way of the world. CE characters who go adventuring will usually do so on impulse and with the promise of easy loot.

The Joker: Here he is mister chaotic evil himself. He's very much into the chaotic part, and equally into the evil. While admittedly mentally unstable The Joker still manages to cover the bases of the alignment. He doesn't care who or what he hurts in his mad schemes, up to and including Harely or his goons. He also manages to prove that chaotic characters are perfectly capable of long term planning since a good number of his scheme require a fair bit of setup to pull off, although most of them end with a surprisingly short term goal.

[Elliot Kane]

Belleriphon...

Some great examples, there :) I'd say Batman was Lawful due to his almost insane levels of preparedness, and Ra's the same, but I don't think I'd quibble the rest at all. The TN, NG and NE are always the hardest to find examples for, I think, because few literary characters (Comics, novels, or anything else) are not either masterminds (Usually Lawful) or thugs (Usually Chaotic). Memorable characters simply tend to the extremes.

I think Spider-Man might qualify as NG, as he can be impulsive sometimes but plans a lot when he has to. For NE and TN though, I'm drawing blanks.

***

For most societies throughout history, 'good' and 'moral' have been defined as 'obeying the will of the gods' - whose values tend to underpin any given society's values. A 'moral' viking warrior seeks death in battle, for example, because it gets him into Norse Heaven - Valhalla.

Quite which is the horse and which the cart in terms of religious values & societal ones I leave to each person to decide for themselves :)

***

In the case of your LE king, I don't think it's quite as simple as 'good men act'. If the LE king has a way of doing nasty things to the family of anyone opposing him - or if the person is simply not strong enough to do anything - there may be little or no outright opposition. Not due to a lack of good people, but through fear or a lack of leaders. Good does not mean suicidal, and not every good person is capable of leading or otherwise instigating a revolt.

A farmer might be a dab hand with a pitchfork, but however much he hates the LE king he probably can't fight very well compared to a fully armoured knight and his wife & kids are going to be far more important to him than anything else, as they should be. He might join in if there's a general revolt already under way, but inaction under normal circumstances doesn't stop him being a good person. Not all good people are paladins.

Similarly, anyone opposing the LE king will not necessarily do so because they are good. Many evil individuals might do so because they want the power themselves, or because their own interests are threatened. Chaotic people may rebel because they feel the laws are far too restrictive of their personal freedoms. Many evil leaders (And not a few good ones) have been overthrown in a moment of weakness from within their own ranks, and mostly by someone as evil (Or worse) as they.

Alignment is probably one of the most complex D&D concepts because it's not eight positions so much as it's a graph with plotted positions :)

[Beleriphon]

A farmer might be a dab hand with a pitchfork, but however much he hates the LE king he probably can't fight very well compared to a fully armoured knight and his wife & kids are going to be far more important to him than anything else, as they should be. He might join in if there's a general revolt already under way, but inaction under normal circumstances doesn't stop him being a good person. Not all good people are paladins.


Just to clarify I'm distinguishing between Good and good with capitalization. Good is the D&D alignment/philosophical stand point and good is being a nice person. There is a huge difference in D&D, since an Evil guy can still be a perceived as a good person.

I do think that it comes down to good men act, even if its only in small ways. A farmer may not be able to overthrown the king by himself, but he can help feed the poor, or share food with those who have been taxed the worst. That would indicate a Good alignment.

Now, I'm not suggesting our lonely farmed isn't a nice guy, but his isn't big G Good unless he does something outside of acting like one would expect of a father and husband. The alignment system is as much about action as it is intention. Having an alignment of other than true neutral shows a willingness, and more importantly, a desire to act in that way. I'd still wager most people should end up true neutral, they just don't care enough one way or another to act towards anything but self interest.

Lets say its against the law to help strangers without travelling papers in the kingdom of our evil king. Well most farmers wont help our poor hapless hero since he has no papers since they would get in trouble if caught. This doesn't make them bad people, but if thats the way that act in most circumstances then they are true neutral. A Good character would need to actually need to perform Good acts most of the time to be Good.

[Khantalas]

What about Galactus? As a force of nature, wouldn't he be TN?

[Elliot Kane]

Beleriphon...

Thanks for clarifying :) I understand your thoughts now - and disagree with them. I don't see why alignment has to be an extreme thing at all to detect as more than TN.

Certainly the vast majority of non-human races are given general alignments as standard (Unless that's changed in 3.5?). One of the biggest cliches in D&D at low level is the Orc or Goblin raiders (A cliche turned wonderfully on its head by the Goblins web comic), who are invariably going to detect to a paladin as evil. Indeed, anything past animal intelligence in D&D will detect as having an alignment and almost invariably it will be other than TN.

TN (In non-animals) supposes a lack of interest in human affairs (Or those of their own race of course) or a devotion to the balance. Not a lack of ability to do anything about those affairs.

How one acts in their everyday life determines alignment. If you draw a graph, plotting the X-axis as Law-Chaos and the Y-axis as Good-Evil (Or vice versa - doesn't matter :)) it's pretty obvious that there's an enormous amount of variation possible within any alignment - from GOOD to good to evil to EVIL, if you will - and not all of that variance is going to be Earth-shattering.

Going by - 'only those who are seriously pro-active have alignments' then almost everything in the game world would be TN, not just humans. Because anything that does not challenge the status quo in some way is effectively passive.

Indeed, it could be argued that because the Orc raiders are only doing what their society expects of them they too are TN... It's not a position I would personally support :)

***

Khantalas...

Galactus is a sentient creature, and thus entirely responsible for his own actions. He needs to devour the life energy of worlds in order to survive, but he does not have to choose those inhabited by sentient creatures. That he does because he simply couldn't care less about those creatures.

He certainly is not impulsive, but he doesn't seem to plan much either... I'd say NE.

[Yakk]

Yakk...

How will you explain the Neutral alignments to your players with that system?

A neutral person is someone without allegiance to those ideals.

Someone neutral on the law/chaos scale likes laws and rules when it is convienient. Laws that get in their way, they dislike. They feel nervious about completely throwing away all rules.

Someone netural on the good/evil scale cares about people they are friends with, but won't risk themselves for the benefit of strangers. They feel bad if an innocent is hurt, but they don't feel it to be their responsibility.

Most people are neutral in both the good/evil and chaos/law axis. Someone neutral in both is just an average person.

...

Now, as noted, you can have other great powers that you can have allegance to.

Balance vs Progress might be another axis, framed correctly.

Life vs Death could be an axis that nearly all humanoids are on the side of Life -- except for a few abberant necromancers.

[hewhosaysfish]

A neutral person is someone without allegiance to those ideals.

Someone neutral on the law/chaos scale likes laws and rules when it is convienient. Laws that get in their way, they dislike. They feel nervious about completely throwing away all rules.

Someone netural on the good/evil scale cares about people they are friends with, but won't risk themselves for the benefit of strangers. They feel bad if an innocent is hurt, but they don't feel it to be their responsibility.

Most people are neutral in both the good/evil and chaos/law axis. Someone neutral in both is just an average person.




What do people think of the idea of characters who are deliberately neutral, rejecting or balancing two extremes for the sake of some sort of cosmic equilibrium.
Personally, I think it's nonsense but I won't to hear read other people's thoughts on it.

[Elliot Kane]

Yakk...

Interesting thoughts :) I can't say your system would work for me, but I can see how it might work for you :)

***

hewhosaysfish...

I have played a character like that, but it's a real headache and honestly very restrictive. It's also a pain for the GM when you're more concerned about how the balance might be tipped by your actions than acting out of more normal motives.

I honestly think it's a totally inhuman viewpoint, and I wouldn't recommend it.

[Mewtarthio]

Khantalas...

Galactus is a sentient creature, and thus entirely responsible for his own actions. He needs to devour the life energy of worlds in order to survive, but he does not have to choose those inhabited by sentient creatures. That he does because he simply couldn't care less about those creatures.

He certainly is not impulsive, but he doesn't seem to plan much either... I'd say NE.

As I recall, Galactus initially spent his time looking for living worlds without sapient life so that he could eat them without destroying anything else. He can't find any sustenance from non-living worlds. That's why he has his famously powerful heralds: They run around, warning people when Galactus is about to eat their planets. Johnny Storm recently became Galactus's herald, and he couldn't find any suitable planets that did not contain sapient life.

Of course, if you're looking in Marvel, there are lots of pseudo-deities that are likely True Neutral. The Watcher springs to mind. Well, ostensibly, anyway: He has a tendancy to jabber on about how he's forbidden to interfere before pulling out the Ultimate Cosmic Deus Ex Machina and giving it to Reed. Maybe whatever group it is that the Watcher represents.

[Elliot Kane]

The Watchers generally are TN I'd agree, yes. They are historians and chroniclers that don't get involved no matter what. From time to time, Earth's Watcher has gotten into trouble with his people for helping the humans, IIRC, which means he is probably TN with good tendencies.