Are most people mostly neutral?

[Dalebert]

Yep. It's yet another alignment thread! If only I got some sort of points or even money for a thread with buzz power.

Anyway, someone mentioned recently in a controversial alignment thread (but that's redundant) that most people seem mostly kind of neutral.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20140724.png

Our passion for role-playing probably stems to some degree from wanting to play more dramatic characters--true heroes and villains. What do you think? Does this mean that many NPCs should generally just be neutral? Or is that sort of neutrality a luxury that we can experience in first world countries where we're generally not starving and fearing for our lives much of the time? Are first world problems (http://first-world-problems.com/) just not very nurturing of a strong alignment? If you're an NPC destitute peasant fighting every day to survive and feed your family, would this sort of "meh" also saturate your life or would you be more inclined to some sort of polarization of morality?

[Bronk]

I think most people in DnD worlds are mostly neutral... Maybe in 'good' lands they're mostly neutral good or true neutral, and in 'evil' lands they're mostly neutral evil.

I'd say PCs, as adventurers, are the ones who would break the mold and be exceptional.

[Fax Celestis]

It depends on if your aim is to create a simulationist universe, or a more narrative one. Stories need heroes and villains, antiheroes and moral clarity, but reality doesn't really have those things.

[Dalebert]

It depends on if your aim is to create a simulationist universe, or a more narrative one. Stories need heroes and villains, antiheroes and moral clarity, but reality doesn't really have those things.

True. I feel like you're mostly agreeing with me. Stories are dramatic and RPGs are about creating dramatic stories. Still, saying you need heroes and villains (and I agree) does not necessarily reflect much on the general population of unleveled people.

[A.A.King]

I think that most people, in general, aren't really good/evil/lawful/chaotic. A part from the ones who make it a point that they are Good/Lawful/'Chaotic" (most people won't call it Chaotic IRL but it's the same kind of thinking) (let's leave Evil out of the picture to keep it simple)

Main characters from either fiction or history are always more extreme then the average person. I think it's save to say most people are probably Lawful Neutral (with a large emphasis on the neutral) or Neutral Good (once again with a very large emphasis on neutral). Frankly, I think True Neutral truly fits most people best but it always sounds more indifferent then it really is

[Red Fel]

The thing to remember is that, in the D&D cosmology, unless you have an alignment subtype, your alignment is based in large part on how you see life, and what you do with that perspective.

Many NPCs in the D&D world either don't have the luxury of giving much thought to how they see life, or they don't have the opportunity to act on it. Your average Commoner may be too busy trying to earn a living, your average Expert may simply have never been powerful enough to become a murderer or rich enough to become a philanthropist. An Aristocrat may have the leisure of thinking about reality, but he may never have had to decide to be selfless, or honorable, or ambitious - he may simply drift from one day to the next on a cloud of luxury.

The average PC has both the opportunity to think about their place in the world and what's important, and the opportunity to act on those beliefs. As a result, he carves out an alignment for himself, based on his thoughts and his actions. I'd argue that, again unless you're inherently a given alignment, most people simply never reach the intersection of those two things to go beyond Neutral.

[nedz]

The rules are silent on this.

I think that it is setting dependant — so ask your DM :smallsmile:

If you were running a campaign on one of the outer planes then most people would be of an alignment similar to that plane — but on a Prime Material anything goes ?

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, most people are True Neutral, at least in real life.

Most will not seek harm for others, and only really "help themselves" when they don't expect it to cause significant problems for people, but at the same time will only help others if doing so doesn't cost anything they deem overly important: Neutral on the Good/Evil axis.
Most will prefer to obey the law... if they mostly agree with the law, expect to get caught breaking it, and/or if it's reasonably convenient to obey; if none of those are true, not so much: Neutral on the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

[atemu1234]

I could put this nihilistically and probably make others try to hang themselves, but I'll go through this quickly without putting people on suicide watch.

People are people. People do good and people do evil, and quite often those people are the same people. Does this make them good or evil? No, they're just people. Are they risking their lives to save others? No. Are they killing people for personal gain? No. They're neutral.

[StoneCipher]

If we are talking about commoners and the like, I'd say yes, most are neutral. If we are talking about significant NPCs of note, I'd think it depends on the campaign and DM.

[Neli42]

People are people. People do good and people do evil, and quite often those people are the same people. Does this make them good or evil? No, they're just people.

First off, I have to get the Depeche Mode tune out of my head...:smallwink:

I agree that all kinds of people make all kinds of choices, but I do think that individuals have a tendency toward the same sorts of decisions based on their own sense of morality and values, life experiences, goals, etc. That's why characters are like people: they mimic this tendency. For example, in your gaming group you can probably reliably predict who would lie about a die roll when given the opportunity and who would never even consider it.

In one of the gaming groups I play with regularly we all took an online "what character are you" quiz and none were surprised at how the real-life alignments shook out.

[kernal42]

Morality is both subjective and relative.

Considering that real, actual humans came up with the alignment scale it is almost necessary that "middle of the road" is where real, actual humans lie, at least in general. So yes, most people are mostly neutral by definition.

If, on the other hand, D&D were written by angels, then humans would generally lie toward "evil."

-Kernal

[Red Fel]

People are people. People do good and people do evil, and quite often those people are the same people. Does this make them good or evil? No, they're just people. Are they risking their lives to save others? No. Are they killing people for personal gain? No. They're neutral.

"Hey, I tell you what is. Big city, hmm? Live, work, huh? But not city only. Only peoples. Peoples is peoples. No is buildings. Is tomatoes, huh? Is peoples, is dancing, is music, is potatoes. So, peoples is peoples. Okay?"

Oh, Pete. Is there anything your folksy restauranteur wisdom can't make sense of? And can anyone make sense of your folksy restauranteur wisdom?

[Fax Celestis]

If, on the other hand, D&D were written by angels, then humans would generally lie toward "evil."

I don't know about you, but I think Bruce Cordell is pretty heavenly.

[caimbuel]

Gosh, from real world fantasy everyone was evil as hell by modern standards. From DnD 90%+ used to be plain neutral in that they did not care about any force enough to be on the fringe. And in my games it depends on the campaign but unless the players want a gritty gut wrenching campaign I mostly leave alignments abstract and other motivations as primary issues. The Duke is not "EVIL" but he does have plans that run contrary to the players.

[Duke of Urrel]

The rules are silent on this.

I think that it is setting dependant — so ask your DM :smallsmile:

If you were running a campaign on one of the outer planes then most people would be of an alignment similar to that plane — but on a Prime Material anything goes ?

I agree with this, but I'd like to offer my opinion as a DM.

Humans can be of any alignment, but what mix of alignments is most likely to make human civilization viable? I think it's fine for humans to distribute themselves all over the nine-alignment chart, but with a little more density in the morally or ethically Neutral alignments and even more concentration in the purely Neutral center. There's no need for the human species as a whole to lean toward Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. A simple balanced distribution works fine.

Why do I believe this works? I believe it works because morally Neutral beings favor Good allies over Evil ones. I do not interpret pure Neutrality as indifference to Good and Evil, because every rational being with even a little world experience must know that Good creatures are trustworthy, whereas Evil creatures are treacherous. Therefore, I believe that morally Neutral creatures, including human beings, are not indifferent toward Good and Evil. On the contrary, purely out of rational self-interest, morally Neutral creatures usually ally themselves with morally Good ones – not always, but usually. The alliance between morally Good and morally Neutral humans is far from ironclad, but it usually hangs together well enough to sustain human civilization as we know it.

Of course, Evil creatures, above all Evil human beings, constantly try to deceive, tempt, or intimidate morally Neutral humans into making deals with them, and they occasionally succeed in breaking the customary Good-Neutral alliance and replacing it here and there with a regional Evil-Neutral alliance. Sometimes, a regional Evil-Neutral alliance, under the direction of a crafty Evil despot, grows into a widespread system of political oppression. This makes for some "interesting times" in human history, when Evil tyrants command sprawling empires of oppressed human subjects who, like humans everywhere else, are mostly morally Neutral. Humans belonging to the Good minority in Evil empires like these tend to suffer a high death rate, and their example keeps most morally Neutral humans fearful of and obedient toward their Evil overlords. Fortunately, this kind of political development is the exception among humans, not the rule.

[eggynack]

The book is actually pretty explicit about this. On page 13 of the PHB, it says, "Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and the worst are found among them." So, no, most humans are not neutral, as there is apparently a pretty even split.

[Xuldarinar]

In a fantasy world, Good and Evil can be tangible forces. Black and white. Night and day.
In reality, morality is subjective. Now, to my definitions and my view of the D&D alignment system, I simply am going to tack up a quote.


Free-will is both a blessing and a curse. There are those who use their free-will poorly, taking from the free-wills of others without any greater reason than their own pleasure (Chaotic Evil). Those that embrace freedom and use their free-will to treat others with compassion are those to look to, for these are beings unrestrained and capable of great expression (Chaotic Good). Order can be used to give direction to good and to hold back many from falling into darkness, leading the sheep towards greener pastures, not at the cost of free-will but at the cost of some freedoms (Lawful Good). Sadly, order can just as easily be abused by people's own ambitions, cruelty and selfishness supporting the laws which some press upon others (Lawful Evil). There are men who wish to do good, and accept a balance of freedoms and rules (Neutral Good), and men who wish to do harm to others, bound to neither anarchy nor tyranny (Neutral Evil). Some embrace free-will and freedom alike, but care little for right or wrong, doing as they please and doing as much harm as good (Chaotic Neutral). Others obsess over rules, repressing freedom for it goes against the order of things, the system. It is amoral but not immoral (Lawful Neutral). And then there are those that fall on all lines. Those that are neither moral nor immoral, neither bound to the laws of man nor do they throw caution to the wind. Some embrace this, others lack the capacity to go anywhere else (Neutral).

But there are many that go against these arbitrary labels. The man who kills all save for women and children is the same as a man who will commit atrocities to protect those they care for, held back only by their compassion and rules, conscious or subconscious, that separate them from the truly fallen (Lawful Evil). Then again, there are those who in their free-will more often commit atrocities, perhaps it is because the society in which they grew was vile and such things are deemed at times acceptable in their own minds, but because of their free-will they will still preform acts of good, for it is something they wish to do but its a concept they cannot hope to truly embody (Chaotic Evil). If you kill a man it is evil, for you take away his free-will, not to mention his life. But if you kill a man for there is no other way to protect, we fall towards the grey.

Free-will and freedom are differing concepts. Freedom is the ability to say and do as you please without the rules and actions of others getting in the way, free-will is the ability to do as you please regardless. One is to move unrestrained, the other is the ability to move at all.

In this world, most people have at least one neutral alignment, many are true neutral. Typically, it is neutral on the good/evil axis. When someone is not neutral an this axis, more often than not it is because they are evil, not lawful or chaotic. Corner alignments, in order of most common to least, are: Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Good. Many who are good aligned still need the backing of at least some rules to be good. Without, they drift or even fall.

[jiriku]

My own experiences would tend to make me think that while Neutral is the most common alignment, it is a minority, and that most people are some non-neutral alignment. Cultures do carry considerably impact. I live in Texas, USA, a very individualist state with a strong Libertarian streak in an individualist country -- people love them some freedom around here and Chaotic alignments are common. I've known some deeply Good people, some mostly selfish or indifferent people, and a few Evil people who actively enjoyed inflicting misery and loathed the very thought of helping others.

We are all sorts, we humans.

[nedz]

The book is actually pretty explicit about this. On page 13 of the PHB, it says, "Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and the worst are found among them." So, no, most humans are not neutral, as there is apparently a pretty even split.

Well you could view that statement as being a meaningless platitude; also are humans the dominant race in the setting you are playing in ?

[Xuldarinar]

I think one question we should settle that would help things is, what does it take to become an alignment?


What does it take to be good aligned? How far does one have to fall before they are evil? To what degree does one need to deal in order before they are lawful? At what point does one become chaotic?

If a man cares for his friends and family, helps them, but does absolutely nothing for those outside his circle, is good aligned?

If a lawmaker is elected to their position and then instead of doing things for the people and does things because their party tells them to and to keep their job, are they neutral or are they evil? Are they lawful in defying the purpose of their position?

Is alignment a matter of action? Is it a matter of intention? Is it a matter of beliefs?

[AMFV]

It depends heavily on setting. RAW One third of all humans get each alignment, because you don't have to be very evil to be evil as a level 1 commoner. Essentially you have less opportunity to be evil, and therefore whatever evil you do will weigh more heavily against you.

[Fax Celestis]

It depends heavily on setting. RAW One third of all humans get each alignment, because you don't have to be very evil to be evil as a level 1 commoner. Essentially you have less opportunity to be evil, and therefore whatever evil you do will weigh more heavily against you.

One ninth*, Mr. President.

[AMFV]

One ninth*, Mr. President.

I misspoke, I meant on the good evil axis since that seemed to be the focus. Well in any case, I stand corrected

[Person_Man]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people currently on our planet and in most modern day fantasy settings are Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral most of the time.

My evidence:

We only imprison around 1%ish of our population.
Only 1%ish of our population is employed in law enforcement.
The laws that are most commonly broken are related to driving or recreational alcohol/drug use, both of which are arguably "victimless crimes." If you speed or do drugs, people typically aren't thinking "screw the law, if others are killed by my actions I don't care, the weak deserve to die" - and thus they're not intentionally committing a Chaotic or Evil act. They're just not paying attention, don't understand the implications of their actions, give into momentary temptations, youthful inexperience, not doing anything that would harm another person, etc.
The vast majority of disputes between individuals are resolved without violence or Evil actions, and when not resolved amicably between individuals they're generally resolved by authority figures (by involving a parent, police, government officials, clergy, etc) or lawsuits (ie, the Lawful government process).
The general consensus of the vast majority of people is that lying, killing, stealing, etc., are all bad/Evil things that deserved to be punished by the government/law enforcement, or they are sins that will be punished by god(s). In other words, most people are generally Good people. Even when people commit those Evil acts typically understand that what they did was wrong, and show regret and/or remorse. The small number of people who don't are mentally insane psychopaths.
In most fantasy settings (and fiction in general), the default society is almost always Lawful Good-ish, so as to contrast it against the actions of the Chaotic and/or Evil Antagonists.
Chaotic societies are incapable of functioning with a large population. Small bands of nomads or rural villages can get by fine with a minimum of hassle. But once you start having to build roads, sewer systems, garbage collection, aqueducts, and other such services, you need a Lawful government, and the vast majority of the people must support that government or a revolution will eventually occur and it is replaced with a different Lawful government.


Being mediocre or agnostic or non-judgmental does not mean you are Neutral. It just means that you're average and/or don't have a strong opinions and/or are not willing to risk your life for any particular set of beliefs. Your day to day actions will almost always be Lawful Good, and its your actions that truly define who you are.

[Xuldarinar]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people currently on our planet and in most modern day fantasy settings are Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral most of the time.

My evidence:

We only imprison around 1%ish of our population.
Only 1%ish of our population is employed in law enforcement.
The laws that are most commonly broken are related to driving or recreational alcohol/drug use, both of which are arguably "victimless crimes." If you speed or do drugs, people typically aren't thinking "screw the law, if others are killed by my actions I don't care, the weak deserve to die" - and thus they're not intentionally committing a Chaotic or Evil act. They're just not paying attention, don't understand the implications of their actions, give into momentary temptations, youthful inexperience, not doing anything that would harm another person, etc.
The vast majority of disputes between individuals are resolved without violence or Evil actions, and when not resolved amicably between individuals they're generally resolved by authority figures (by involving a parent, police, government officials, clergy, etc) or lawsuits (ie, the Lawful government process).
The general consensus of the vast majority of people is that lying, killing, stealing, etc., are all bad/Evil things that deserved to be punished by the government/law enforcement, or they are sins that will be punished by god(s). In other words, most people are generally Good people. Even when people commit those Evil acts typically understand that what they did was wrong, and show regret and/or remorse. The small number of people who don't are mentally insane psychopaths.
In most fantasy settings (and fiction in general), the default society is almost always Lawful Good-ish, so as to contrast it against the actions of the Chaotic and/or Evil Antagonists.
Chaotic societies are incapable of functioning with a large population. Small bands of nomads or rural villages can get by fine with a minimum of hassle. But once you start having to build roads, sewer systems, garbage collection, aqueducts, and other such services, you need a Lawful government, and the vast majority of the people must support that government or a revolution will eventually occur and it is replaced with a different Lawful government.


Being mediocre or agnostic or non-judgmental does not mean you are Neutral. It just means that you're average and/or don't have a strong opinions and/or are not willing to risk your life for any particular set of beliefs. Your day to day actions will almost always be Lawful Good, and its your actions that truly define who you are.

I have to disagree.

A chaotic individual doesn't necessarily actively oppose law, nor are individuals who break laws necessarily chaotic.

Im also not getting how one's day to day actions will almost always be Lawful Good. Every time someone follows a rule doesn't mean they are lawful, and not doing something evil doesn't mean one is doing good. Lets say this: A man wakes up, takes a shower, gets on clean clothes, eats breakfast, drives to work, does his job, has lunch, does more work, comes home, has dinner, watches tv/visits his favorite websites/ect., and then goes to bed. Somewhere in there they interact with friends, acquaintances, so on.

Not getting Lawful Good out of that. I barely get lawful out of it and it doesn't even guarantee that. Lets say they donate to a charity. It is a good act but it doesn't mean they are good. They pay their taxes, which is required by law, doesn't make them lawful.

[Psyren]

Merely following the law does not make you lawful. Laws are followed due to fear of punishment, not out of any attraction to the state of law itself. If people were simply allowed to not pay taxes if they didn't feel like it, or to not renew their car registration every year if they didn't want to, most would avoid these activities. So the fact that most people follow the law does not make them lawful.

[Slithery D]

^^^ Agreed.

An example of real Lawful behavior would be the Swiss/(west) Germans, who I'm always reading about waiting for a walk signal when there's no traffic and refusing to jaywalk, while glaring at Americans who don't waste their time and just cross.

[hamishspence]

The book is actually pretty explicit about this. On page 13 of the PHB, it says, "Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and the worst are found among them." So, no, most humans are not neutral, as there is apparently a pretty even split.

Not perfectly even, of course - otherwise humans would not be in the TN slot for "typical alignment" in the PHB. Still, TN won't be much more common than the other alignments, either.

[eggynack]

Well you could view that statement as being a meaningless platitude; also are humans the dominant race in the setting you are playing in ?
I don't think it's all that meaningless, given that it's in the place where all of that alignment stuff is defined. As for the other question, it's pretty irrelevant. I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that we were talking about only humans (Mostly because other races have this stuff better defined), but if other races are being factored in, then those races also have general alignment preferences listed, so you can just line those up against the demographics of a given setting, and you'll have your answer. The numbers won't be perfect, because the data on this stuff is similarly imperfect (We know that standard dwarves are about 40-50% lawful good, but we don't know the breakdown of everything else about them, even if we can make an educated guess), but they're the best numbers we have, to my knowledge.

[Phelix-Mu]

Virtue and villainy don't require levels.

An Illustration:

Johnny the Bartender is a commoner, and can exist in the real world or the game world. He spends his days (but mostly nights) serving drinks, washing glasses, and listening to semi-drunk to drunk peoples' problems. In his spare time, he enjoys various activities that all average out to be neutral, but he has a particular investment in....

[And here is the exciting "choose your own adventure" bit...]

A.) Kicking puppies. Yes, cruelty to animals is one of Johnny's true joys in life. This may not make him especially evil, but it definitely and decidedly outweighs any good acts or his decidedly average existence. While he isn't massacreing puppies, he is certainly going out of his way to inflict undue suffering on innocent creatures for no reason other than personal pleasure. Johnny is evil.

B.) Charity. Whether it's spending weekends building houses for the homeless, giving his jacket to a beggar, or tithing to the local good-aligned charitable organization, Johnny is committed to improve the welfare and lives of others, alleviating the small, day-to-day suffering of those around him. This isn't big or flashy, but it is highly virtuous, and much more than average people engage in. He is good, although not superbly so.

Now, the degree to which we believe that Johnny does or does not typify the average person in either of his incarnations determines whether we can call most people neutral or not. How good do you need to be to be good? Well, in the game, the good is typically big and shiny. But in actual morality, it's not so much about size or narrative coolness. Same with evil; even the small evil is evil, and while a person needs to repeat it to stray from neutral, stray they will without sufficient good added on to offset the evil (like efforts to reform or to limit the influence of their corruption to certain areas of their life).

Generally, I view an action's alignment as absolute, but a person's alignment as a kind of composite of all of their various actions and behaviors. The result is more of a graph than a two-word designator, but, to me, most people are neutral.

Now, I think it bears repeating in big letters that there is nothing wrong with being neutral. I'm human. There is a pretty solid chance that most of y'all are human as well. *snicker* Being human is about starting at x and moving along the path you choose, even if that path isn't always clear or is oft perilous/obstructed, even if you change your mind at some point and head a different way. Chances are that not every step will be laudable, not every spur on the path will lead toward the dreamed-of destination. We are imperfect (or at least I am). This movement may make one average, on average, but that does not make it small, insignificant, or undignified.

I would argue that even the most common, most average of lives is heroic. Now, it just so happens that our desire for narratives doesn't just tend toward heroic, but usually has to also be notable, in some respect; while we want to empathize with our heroes, we also want heroes that somehow embody that thing that is just out of our reach or somehow a manifestation of our fancy. Thus, we often desire big, epic storylines with characters that do grand things on a big stage, the definition of "exceptional." Sometimes, not always, being of one extreme alignment or another is part of this exceptionality. Other times it's not so important, but many heroic/antiheroic archetypes are rooted in one brand of morality/moral action or another. Thus, there is a tendency of thinking of anything not in these epic terms as being "average" and neutrality is often viewed thus.

OMG. Really, another alignment thread? This forum will be the end of me.

[AMFV]

^^^ Agreed.

An example of real Lawful behavior would be the Swiss/(west) Germans, who I'm always reading about waiting for a walk signal when there's no traffic and refusing to jaywalk, while glaring at Americans who don't waste their time and just cross.

Actually both of those actions could be equally lawful. Lawfullness is defined as adherence to rules which may or may not be the rules of the land. For example if my personal rule regarding jaywalking is: "If there are no cars coming jaywalk", then I'm still following an internal set of rules. In fact I believe that lawful people are just as capable of violating the law, more so in some ways since when their internal beliefs conflict with the law they would try to follow their internal beliefs over the law rather than simply going with the flow.

A lawful person is very likely going to be able to explain their actions with some sort of rationale, not always a good one. For example if you ask a lawful person why they're eating, they might say: "Because I was hungry", or at the most lawful point: "Because it is the time to eat". A chaotic might not have a good answer, or be able to formulate an answer in words, because a chaotic person might on occasion not eat when they're hungry, or they might eat, their behavior is non-formulaic and therefore is more difficult to describe.

A truly chaotic person when confronted with the jaywalking scenario, will sometimes try to cross even if there is some traffic, and will sometimes not cross even if it's completely clear, depending on their feeling at that second in time. A lawful person will use a formulaic set of rules, which may even be fairly complicated such as: "In areas with a speed limit of 35 or less it is generally alright to jaywalk under mild traffic conditions as long as the traffic is not within a certain distance (probably around 500-1000' feet)". And a chaotic might come to the same conclusion but they come to it for very different reasons.

In essence this means that law and chaos can result equally in the same action, because law and chaos are neither of them as concerned with ends and means as they are with process, they're defined by their process. Which is why the representatives of law are constructs, who are essentially computers they follow exact directions, whereas chaos gets represented by beings that are intended to be entirely random. Also this is why chaos is typically seen as more creative, because they tend to act without trying to follow guidelines and therefore can develop ideas that would have been thought of by a lawful person, but they are also less consistent.


Virtue and villainy don't require levels.

An Illustration:

Johnny the Bartender is a commoner, and can exist in the real world or the game world. He spends his days (but mostly nights) serving drinks, washing glasses, and listening to semi-drunk to drunk peoples' problems. In his spare time, he enjoys various activities that all average out to be neutral, but he has a particular investment in....

[And here is the exciting "choose your own adventure" bit...]

A.) Kicking puppies. Yes, cruelty to animals is one of Johnny's true joys in life. This may not make him especially evil, but it definitely and decidedly outweighs any good acts or his decidedly average existence. While he isn't massacreing puppies, he is certainly going out of his way to inflict undue suffering on innocent creatures for no reason other than personal pleasure. Johnny is evil.

B.) Charity. Whether it's spending weekends building houses for the homeless, giving his jacket to a beggar, or tithing to the local good-aligned charitable organization, Johnny is committed to improve the welfare and lives of others, alleviating the small, day-to-day suffering of those around him. This isn't big or flashy, but it is highly virtuous, and much more than average people engage in. He is good, although not superbly so.

Now, the degree to which we believe that Johnny does or does not typify the average person in either of his incarnations determines whether we can call most people neutral or not. How good do you need to be to be good? Well, in the game, the good is typically big and shiny. But in actual morality, it's not so much about size or narrative coolness. Same with evil; even the small evil is evil, and while a person needs to repeat it to stray from neutral, stray they will without sufficient good added on to offset the evil (like efforts to reform or to limit the influence of their corruption to certain areas of their life).

The problem is that you don't talk about Johnny's character, character is all-defining, good actions are poisoned by evil character and vis versa. One can be habitually evil and still be good, only the Exalted have a restriction to that level.

For example Johnny loves power, he loves to exert his will over things to rule them cruelly. He kicks puppies because it reminds him of how powerful he is, and how insignificant they are. He does give to charity, in fact he does this more often than he kicks puppies, but it's not out of compassion, it's because in so doing he is able to exert a little bit of control over the lives of others, without him they would starve and it's only because of him that they live. This Johnny is pretty evil, almost unequivocally so.

Let's try another, Johnny was brought up by strict parents, brought to services every week and forced to follow a rigid routine. He kicks puppies on his property, because he was taught by his father at an early age that this is the way things are, puppies aren't allowed. He gives to charity for much the same reason because "it's what we do." As he was told many times, he doesn't take particular joy or pleasure in either of these things, but he does them. This Johnny is Lawful, because the reason he is doing things isn't because of their inherent badness or goodness, but because it is what he believes he is supposed to do.

Let's keep moving: Johnny is rather flighty, sometimes he'll find himself kicking a puppy and not even realize why he's doing it, sometimes he'll pass a dog and feel nothing at all. Once he gave all of his monetary earnings on a whim to a lady who he'd heard was going through some hard times, although for Johnny money is always tight, seemingly flowing out of his hands as quickly as it flows in. He'd give more, but he doesn't always feel like it. This Johnny is chaotic, motivated mostly by his feeling at any particular moment, not really selfish, but not really concerned with others.

Finally. Johnny is a bartender who owns a bar near an area where there are often feral dog infestations. Children often come to his tavern, he kicks puppies near it to drive them off so they don't become accustomed to the place and possibly bite or injure a child, he loathes that this is necessary, but there isn't always another way. He also gives freely and often, of his time, his money, and his experience. He loves to improve the lot of others, even at his own expense. So good.

Of course we could do all nine alignments but that would get tedious, as you can see character is more complex than simply action, it's very involved.




Generally, I view an action's alignment as absolute, but a person's alignment as a kind of composite of all of their various actions and behaviors. The result is more of a graph than a two-word designator, but, to me, most people are neutral.

Now, I think it bears repeating in big letters that there is nothing wrong with being neutral. I'm human. There is a pretty solid chance that most of y'all are human as well. *snicker* Being human is about starting at x and moving along the path you choose, even if that path isn't always clear or is oft perilous/obstructed, even if you change your mind at some point and head a different way. Chances are that not every step will be laudable, not every spur on the path will lead toward the dreamed-of destination. We are imperfect (or at least I am). This movement may make one average, on average, but that does not make it small, insignificant, or undignified.

The problem is that alignment isn't just a composite of how someone has acted, it includes how someone will act. For example if you gave Johnny all the power in the universe, Johnny becomes Pun Pun, then how he would act under those circumstances defines his alignment. If he would be compassionate above all, he's Good, if he'd use the power to his own ends at the expense of others he's Evil.

The reason, I suspect, that people are inclined to declare people to be Neutral is that they don't realize that Good people are not perfectly Good, for example a Paladin might occasionally do something profoundly selfish, a Good Fighter might have a bad habit, a Good Wizard might cut corners and use some very dubious spells to good ends. The thing is that character is not just defined by what we do, but what we would do, by what we consider untenable, what we try to do is also important.




I would argue that even the most common, most average of lives is heroic. Now, it just so happens that our desire for narratives doesn't just tend toward heroic, but usually has to also be notable, in some respect; while we want to empathize with our heroes, we also want heroes that somehow embody that thing that is just out of our reach or somehow a manifestation of our fancy. Thus, we often desire big, epic storylines with characters that do grand things on a big stage, the definition of "exceptional." Sometimes, not always, being of one extreme alignment or another is part of this exceptionality. Other times it's not so important, but many heroic/antiheroic archetypes are rooted in one brand of morality/moral action or another. Thus, there is a tendency of thinking of anything not in these epic terms as being "average" and neutrality is often viewed thus.

OMG. Really, another alignment thread? This forum will be the end of me.

Which is exactly why people who are regular average people are just as capable of good or evil as anybody, and they certainly don't tend towards any one way.

[Phelix-Mu]

I dunno. Personally, judging people on what they will do in some vague future is not very feasible, but maybe more so inside a game where the player can, with some degree of certainty, say what their character might do. Judgment should be made on actions that have actually transpired, as opposed to some theoretical eventuality, because there exists for almost anyone some possible circumstance in which they commit an action that is the opposite of their alignment (if only because of misjudgment or some other flawed perception of what they were doing). If non-events as well as events are important, then determining an actual morality for anyone becomes more like horseshoes, less like darts. (RAW it's darts.)

And, as to character, or the reason why someone does something, it's not irrelevant, but it certainly is less relevant than what the person does. There's a reason that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and it's not because good intentions make your actions more or less reprehensible. Thus, even if Johnny kicks puppies out of a conviction that it's actually all necessary to save everyone he's ever loved, he's still kicking puppies. Now it just turns out he's also wrong about that conviction as well.

Johnny Lawful is actually still evil if he does it with any regularity. His excuse doesn't matter in D&D's objective alignment setup; cruelty is evil, even if you have a reason for doing it. If he does it enough (and "enough" is basically DM's territory), he becomes evil. He may also be evil, but doing an evil action because it's also lawful doesn't stop it from being evil. Actions can ping on more than one alignment axis.

In general, AMFV, I agree with your stance that alignment is taken too strictly in many circumstances, and action alignment doesn't = character alignment. But there has to be a very, very strong correlation, or otherwise the whole system is rendered useless. I suspect we agree quite a bit, but the matter is more one of degree than substance.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd say that most people in the world are neutral. They don't care much for the problems of strangers, just people they know, but they are not going to hurt them either. They just mind their own business.

However, by "most people", I mean "somewhere between a half and two thirds", not 99%. Just helping strangers with small everyday things on an everyday basis, or doing something for charity, is enough to count as good if you don't really do anything evil. And just being an ******* who purposely ruins other people's day is enough to count as evil, if you don't really do anything good.

Some people say that being good or evil requires exceptional dedication to them, that only a saint is good and only Hitler is evil. I don't agree with those people. If you would call someone a good guy in real life, and that's who they are for real and they're not just pretending while hiding a much more nasty nature underneath, then they're probably good in DND.

[AMFV]

I dunno. Personally, judging people on what they will do in some vague future is not very feasible, but maybe more so inside a game where the player can, with some degree of certainty, say what their character might do. Judgment should be made on actions that have actually transpired, as opposed to some theoretical eventuality, because there exists for almost anyone some possible circumstance in which they commit an action that is the opposite of their alignment (if only because of misjudgment or some other flawed perception of what they were doing). If non-events as well as events are important, then determining an actual morality for anyone becomes more like horseshoes, less like darts. (RAW it's darts.)

That's the point, alignment isn't just the one thing it isn't the sum of what you've done, it's a sum of what you are. I've added some emphasis, players can reasonably state their alignment because they can predict actions. Furthermore I don't think it's possible to act against your alignment, at least unintentionally. You could do something that had a bad result, but what you were doing isn't made bad by that. See the four or five threads on Paladin falling for this. I'm pretty sure that there is a general consensus that Paladins cannot fall on a trick, and if Paladins can't then really nobody should be.

Yes people will act counter to their alignment, but alignment isn't magical. Doing something Evil does not suddenly dye your hair black and make you Evil. It's more complex than that. Like I said a good person could do habitual Evil things and still remain Good, if they did more Good things in the end.



And, as to character, or the reason why someone does something, it's not irrelevant, but it certainly is less relevant than what the person does. There's a reason that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and it's not because good intentions make your actions more or less reprehensible. Thus, even if Johnny kicks puppies out of a conviction that it's actually all necessary to save everyone he's ever loved, he's still kicking puppies. Now it just turns out he's also wrong about that conviction as well.

But what we're doing is changing the action. Kicking puppies isn't just one thing. If I'm kicking puppies because I'm a dog trainer and I'm teaching them something, potentially something life-saving, then it isn't just kicking puppies, it's training puppies. If Johnny Good is trying to keep puppies from eventually harming children then kicking is a method, but it isn't the action anymore.

Intention changes action, even if the same action is done for different it can be a different action. If I'm a dog trainer who also kicks dogs because I'm a sadistic bastard, then reasonably it'd be more Evil.



Johnny Lawful is actually still evil if he does it with any regularity. His excuse doesn't matter in D&D's objective alignment setup; cruelty is evil, even if you have a reason for doing it. If he does it enough (and "enough" is basically DM's territory), he becomes evil. He may also be evil, but doing an evil action because it's also lawful doesn't stop it from being evil. Actions can ping on more than one alignment axis.

Absolutely not, he's not doing it because he's selfish, or cruel. And he isn't doing it to be cruel. It's only cruel if it's suffering inflicted without purpose, and it isn't. It's suffering inflicted for a purpose, which is not cruelty. If he were inflicting undue suffering or unjust suffering it would be Evil, undue would be still lawful, and unjust would be pulling more towards NE (although still somewhere in the lawful area likely).



In general, AMFV, I agree with your stance that alignment is taken too strictly in many circumstances, and action alignment doesn't = character alignment. But there has to be a very, very strong correlation, or otherwise the whole system is rendered useless. I suspect we agree quite a bit, but the matter is more one of degree than substance.

Action Alignment does matter, but changing the intent changes the action. For example if I break a kid's arm trying to push him out of the way of a train that's good. But if I happen to push a kid of the way of a train while I'm trying to break his arm. It's a different action altogether, even if functionally it's the same thing, it's different on a moral level.


I'd say that most people in the world are neutral. They don't care much for the problems of strangers, just people they know, but they are not going to hurt them either. They just mind their own business.

However, by "most people", I mean "somewhere between a half and two thirds", not 99%. Just helping strangers with small everyday things on an everyday basis, or doing something for charity, is enough to count as good if you don't really do anything evil. And just being an ******* who purposely ruins other people's day is enough to count as evil, if you don't really do anything good.

Some people say that being good or evil requires exceptional dedication to them, that only a saint is good and only Hitler is evil. I don't agree with those people. If you would call someone a good guy in real life, and that's who they are for real and they're not just pretending while hiding a much more nasty nature underneath, then they're probably good in DND.

Well RAW, you'd find that 4/9 of all people fall into one neutral axis or another, of course this includes NE, NG, LN, and CN. If you want to be more specific you'd find that it's probably around one-ninth.

[Phelix-Mu]

Absolutely not, he's not doing it because he's selfish, or cruel. And he isn't doing it to be cruel. It's only cruel if it's suffering inflicted without purpose, and it isn't. It's suffering inflicted for a purpose, which is not cruelty. If he were inflicting undue suffering or unjust suffering it would be Evil, undue would be still lawful, and unjust would be pulling more towards NE (although still somewhere in the lawful area likely).

I can see your point right up until about here. How does acting cruelly vary from being cruel? If an action has an alignment, then in that action, the person is behaving in that way, even if generally they may be otherwise. If Mother Theresa kicks a dog, it's still cruel, and she was cruel in doing so. Period. And that makes the action evil (the game says being cruel is evil).

Now, a person may still be a saint that did something evil that once, but you are coming close to insinuating that X action, objectively evil, has no impact on a person's alignment, which the game doesn't support. A good person may commit an evil action, but it's still evil, just as evil as when the evil person does it. That the good person doesn't become evil is down to other influences, but doing evil doesn't do anything, ever, except make the person doing it more evil (though this movement may still land them inside good or neutral territory). Mitigate it however you wish, but that's the way in which the game treats things.

[AMFV]

I can see your point right up until about here. How does acting cruelly vary from being cruel? If an action has an alignment, then in that action, the person is behaving in that way, even if generally they may be otherwise. If Mother Theresa kicks a dog, it's still cruel, and she was cruel in doing so. Period. And that makes the action evil (the game says being cruel is evil).


I'm saying that doing something that might be cruel in some circumstances, might not be cruel in other circumstances. If I kick a dog because I like to see animals in pain, then that's cruel. If I kick a dog to teach it not to run out into the street it's not cruel, and may in fact be necessary. Cruelty is determined by the effect of one's action.



Now, a person may still be a saint that did something evil that once, but you are coming close to insinuating that X action, objectively evil, has no impact on a person's alignment, which the game doesn't support. A good person may commit an evil action, but it's still evil, just as evil as when the evil person does it. That the good person doesn't become evil is down to other influences, but doing evil doesn't do anything, ever, except make the person doing it more evil (though this movement may still land them inside good or neutral territory). Mitigate it however you wish, but that's the way in which the game treats things.

Actually the game has NO rules for changing alignment, it's left entirely up to the DM.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, granted I agree with you there. But there are two ways that I see to determine changes in alignment, and the game does imply that it can/does change, despite vagueness about how.

Method 1: What a person does matters.

Method 2: What a person does doesn't matter, or only matters if they (or their player) don't have a reasonable excuse for why action X wasn't their original alignment.

In short, while a given action may or may not affect alignment, I as DM have only the character's actions, and the player's claims to go by when determining when/if alignment change occurs. And the player's claims makes the situation almost strictly subjective, as it's not a universally safe assumption that players think objectively about their character's nature.

I'm not saying that intent is irrelevant or that there are no excuses that mitigate puppy-kicking. I am just saying that puppy kicking remains puppy kicking, and cruel, regardless of that mitigation. Inflicting suffering, even with a purpose, is still inflicting suffering, and is at best neutral.

I'd also point out that you just said that the effect of an action determines its alignment implications. Or that ends justify the means. I hope that's not exactly how you meant that.

[AMFV]

Well, granted I agree with you there. But there are two ways that I see to determine changes in alignment, and the game does imply that it can/does change, despite vagueness about how.

Method 1: What a person does matters.

Method 2: What a person does doesn't matter, or only matters if they (or their player) don't have a reasonable excuse for why action X wasn't their original alignment.

In short, while a given action may or may not affect alignment, I as DM have only the character's actions, and the player's claims to go by when determining when/if alignment change occurs. And the player's claims makes the situation almost strictly subjective, as it's not a universally safe assumption that players think objectively about their character's nature.

I'm not saying that intent is irrelevant or that there are no excuses that mitigate puppy-kicking. I am just saying that puppy kicking remains puppy kicking, and cruel, regardless of that mitigation. Inflicting suffering, even with a purpose, is still inflicting suffering, and is at best neutral.

Inflicting suffering isn't Evil though, cruelty is. For example if I stab a guy in self-defense, that's going to make him suffer. But that's not evil. If I stab a demon repeatedly, they're going to suffer, and they'll cease to exist eventually, and that is explicitly good.

Suffering in and of itself isn't evil. Cruelty is, but you can't have cruelty that is deserved or reasonable, or expected. Furthermore I'm not even sure if in all cases cruelty is evil.

I feel that alignment is more a matter of player control, than character control. I mean as far as roleplaying goes, a character might be aware that they're slipping (particularly if they're a Paladin), but they're not going to be tricked by it. As such I don't tend to force alignment changes on players, but discuss their alignment plans with them.

[Phelix-Mu]

I also tend to involve my players in their character's alignment, but I don't let them entirely whitewash stuff to suit their character's own internal narrative. A good example is a CN shifter scout and the party happened upon a bandit ambush. The party wasn't even vaguely in danger when the bandits launched a poorly thought-out assault, and they were summarily dispatched, though a couple made it back to their camp, telling everyone there to flee. The scout then tracked the bandit's trail back to their camp, and began to slaughter the rest of the people there, who all did nothing besides dropping their weapons and fleeing. He pursued them all, killing them as they fled.

Now, I am right with you that this is probably within neutral territory. The bandits were bad and dangerous, and killing them was within the game's scope of "good" behavior. Killing those that surrendered, not so much, but still neutral.

However, several of them ran, and I explained in some detail that they weren't a threat anymore, and were just scared; he stuck to his guns and murdered them in much gory detail with his hatchet (though I might have provided some of that detail in order to illustrate just how this was going down). Moreover, while he knew the bandity bandits that did the ambush were good targets, he should be careful about just assuming that everyone associated with those bandits could also be slain on sight; killing without justification goes quickly from good to evil, with little room in the middle for "whoops" or "just couldn't be sure." Especially as this was all under the guise of his character's mental instability.

And mental instability is fine. But I was clear with the player that, if his character's primary manifestation of mental instability was slaughter with no questions asked, and if he wanted to stick with that instability, then the days of CN would be short-lived. CE is also fine; I have nothing against evil PCs, I just wanted the player to be aware of the likelihood of drift and the change in party dynamics that were likely to occur as his fellow pcs realized that they were adventuring with an unpredictable psychopath.

Again, I like exploring evil/neutral/good/lawful/chaotic stuff. But I dislike steps to muddy the issue more than it is, as it is already super vague. My views are my own, however, and I like to hear how everyone else handles things, too.

[Ettina]

Does this mean that many NPCs should generally just be neutral? Or is that sort of neutrality a luxury that we can experience in first world countries where we're generally not starving and fearing for our lives much of the time? Are first world problems (http://first-world-problems.com/) just not very nurturing of a strong alignment? If you're an NPC destitute peasant fighting every day to survive and feed your family, would this sort of "meh" also saturate your life or would you be more inclined to some sort of polarization of morality?

I'd actually expect a peasant fighting every day to survive and feed his family to be more likely to be neutral than a 1st world type, because the 1st world type has the free time to figure out how they stand on things, morally. (There are still people who don't do this, but fewer than before.) If you've never stopped to think about what's right and wrong, you'll default to a typical alignment for your race, while people who actively ponder these questions could end up anywhere.

Neutral doesn't mean not caring about anything. From my understanding, it essentially means being selfish. You won't go out of your way to help or harm random innocent people. But you will go out of your way to help yourself or your loved ones, or possibly harm those who harmed you or your loved ones.

A peasant farmer fighting to survive and feed his family, by my definition, would qualify for neutral. If he shares what little he has with a starving hobo who turns up at his door, that tips him into good. If he kills said hobo and loots what little the hobo has (maybe even just clothing) he'd tip over into evil. If he turns the hobo away saying 'sorry, I don't have anything to give you' he's still neutral.

[Tvtyrant]

To an earlier poster, if you are all powerful the only way you could hurt someone to get to your own advancement is if you consider hurting someone a form of advancement by itself. Given supreme power means that an evil individual keeps hurting people, even though it no longer gains you anything.

Good people would presumably try to help everyone, as they now have the power to.

Neutral people would take up really complicated juggling.

[Neli42]

I know this thread has been quiet for several days, but I was camping and just got home and caught up. I need to comment on this from Tengu-temp:

I'd say that most people in the world are neutral. They don't care much for the problems of strangers, just people they know, but they are not going to hurt them either. They just mind their own business.That's not neutrality, it's apathy.

[Agrippa]

I know this thread has been quiet for several days, but I was camping and just got home and caught up. I need to comment on this from Tengu-temp:
That's not neutrality, it's apathy.

In D&D it's the same thing.

[Red Fel]

In D&D it's the same thing.

Pretty much this. A truly Good person can't simply stand by when bad things happen; he has to act. A truly Evil person can't simply stand by when bad things happen, either; he'd rather be causing them. These things define them, prevent them from simply being apathetic.

A Neutral person can be apathetic. He needn't be defined by it; there are ways to be Neutral without being apathetic. But it's hard to be apathetic unless you're Neutral.

[Talionis]

I think people get a little too carried away on alignments. Everyone has tendencies, and for no one the sum of those tendencies isn't that far from True Neutral. Since the alignments are more tendencies and none of them are that far from Neutral. Even a Neutral Good person kicks a dog if it really does real damage, just to get and keep the dog off him. In other words in most situations alignment doesn't impact responses because most people regardless of alignment behave the same way. Few choices really impact alignment.

A good example is reading the Complete Scoundrel and they talk about all the different scoundrels of all the different alignments of characters from fiction.

I also tend to play Evil as selfish, not truly Evil. Most Evil people don't identify themselves as Evil. Even Demons and Devils who might identify as Evil don't necessarily deal with members of their own race in an Evil way. A Lawful Good Paladin would kill a Devil on sight, but from the Devils perspective is the Paladin Evil? In my eyes, Evil and Good are more a line of Selfish vs Selflessness.

Lawful people are planners, Chaotic people are seat of the pants ers.

I would separate out all the classes with Oaths. The Oaths are rules to live by that are intended to make life difficult in a role play session.

But if you look at most people as just people then you can look at alignments as less powerful and controlling. And more the collection of tendencies that sum their actions on the margins.

[atemu1234]

I think people get a little too carried away on alignments. Everyone has tendencies, and for no one the sum of those tendencies isn't that far from True Neutral. Since the alignments are more tendencies and none of them are that far from Neutral. Even a Neutral Good person kicks a dog if it really does real damage, just to get and keep the dog off him. In other words in most situations alignment doesn't impact responses because most people regardless of alignment behave the same way. Few choices really impact alignment.

A good example is reading the Complete Scoundrel and they talk about all the different scoundrels of all the different alignments of characters from fiction.

I also tend to play Evil as selfish, not truly Evil. Most Evil people don't identify themselves as Evil. Even Demons and Devils who might identify as Evil don't necessarily deal with members of their own race in an Evil way. A Lawful Good Paladin would kill a Devil on sight, but from the Devils perspective is the Paladin Evil? In my eyes, Evil and Good are more a line of Selfish vs Selflessness.

Lawful people are planners, Chaotic people are seat of the pants ers.

I would separate out all the classes with Oaths. The Oaths are rules to live by that are intended to make life difficult in a role play session.

But if you look at most people as just people then you can look at alignments as less powerful and controlling. And more the collection of tendencies that sum their actions on the margins.

That's why I made characters with extreme alignments (IE anything without a neutral component) write tendencies for concise characters. For example, a Lawful Good character could tend towards neutral good or lawful neutral, usually. Some just had an odd way of going about things. I had a character who was Chaotic Good but exemplified good is not nice so strongly her tendency was Chaotic Evil.

It was an interesting set of games. Paladins in particular found it useful.

[bjoern]

I've always imagined people in the D&D world as being similar to real world people. You've got extremes on both ends of the scale. The serial killer and the nice sweet old lady next door who brings over cookies when she knows your home.

I'd have to say over all people are lawful. Criminals are a small percentage of the populace. Most people follow the law because its what they were taught and doing so makes everything easier and safer for everybody. Now are they lawful because they love the law or because they are good and want to live and let live and be happy? I'd say because they're good.

Now, sometimes the law fails and that baby killer gets off due to a technicality. Do the people give him a hug and tell him sorry for the inconvenience due to the fact that he is by the letter of the law innocent? No they are upset at the injustice and may take matters into their own hands. This is where the structure of law breaks down and the masses fall to chaos.
But are they a marauding mob? No, they want justice for the terrible thing the killer did for the sake of good (and revenge)

So in a nutshell, id say people on a whole are CG.

[Coidzor]

Well, most actions that most people engage in are neutral. Getting up, taking care of business, putting food on the table, taking care of the kids, minding their own corner of the world.

[AMFV]

Well, most actions that most people engage in are neutral. Getting up, taking care of business, putting food on the table, taking care of the kids, minding their own corner of the world.

Neutral in that they really don't have a strong alignment component. Not neutral in that they pull towards neutrality.

[VoxRationis]

First, I'd like to point out that adhering to your own moral compass is not really Lawful behavior. The wanderer who lives by his own heart dictates as he ignores or flat-out actively disobeys the laws of the land is Chaotic.

Secondly, regarding human alignment, I see several main ways to interpret the default alignment of "Neutral."

1) Most humans, a majority of them, are True Neutral. They prefer Good by virtue of self-interest but lack the desire to go out of their way for it, at least most of the time. They fall in line for the most part, and sometimes even act in accordance with the "law," whatever that might be, when it isn't enforced, but at the same time are more than willing to break the law if the law inconveniences them and they can get away with it.

2) Humans are not True Neutral in the majority. They incline to take sides in the struggle between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, albeit sometimes in minor ways, like being a meter maid or giving clothes to the needy. But the proportions of the human population which incline to the different alignments are mostly equal, so that the human race as a whole balances out to True Neutral.
2a) Humans are balanced out fully, 1/9 to each alignment.
2b) Humans tend to favor the extreme alignments.
2c) Humans tend towards the "cross" alignments, the ones with one or more aspects of Neutrality, but not necessarily True Neutral. Lawful Good, for example, is comparatively rare, next to Neutral Good.

[Psyren]

Neutral in that they really don't have a strong alignment component. Not neutral in that they pull towards neutrality.

That would be "unaligned," like animals are. Not that there is a mechanical difference between the two.

[AMFV]

First, I'd like to point out that adhering to your own moral compass is not really Lawful behavior. The wanderer who lives by his own heart dictates as he ignores or flat-out actively disobeys the laws of the land is Chaotic.

First I'd like to say that you are mistaken. Otherwise a Lawful Person's morality changes depending on where they are located. That is not consistent with the description and behavior of Lawful people. A lawful person follows a strict code, not "their own moral compass" necessarily, but if the Wanderer has a set moral code, that he follows consistently he's lawful.



Secondly, regarding human alignment, I see several main ways to interpret the default alignment of "Neutral."

1) Most humans, a majority of them, are True Neutral. They prefer Good by virtue of self-interest but lack the desire to go out of their way for it, at least most of the time. They fall in line for the most part, and sometimes even act in accordance with the "law," whatever that might be, when it isn't enforced, but at the same time are more than willing to break the law if the law inconveniences them and they can get away with it.

Well except that according to the books that's explicitly incorrect.



2) Humans are not True Neutral in the majority. They incline to take sides in the struggle between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, albeit sometimes in minor ways, like being a meter maid or giving clothes to the needy. But the proportions of the human population which incline to the different alignments are mostly equal, so that the human race as a whole balances out to True Neutral.
2a) Humans are balanced out fully, 1/9 to each alignment.
2b) Humans tend to favor the extreme alignments.
2c) Humans tend towards the "cross" alignments, the ones with one or more aspects of Neutrality, but not necessarily True Neutral. Lawful Good, for example, is comparatively rare, next to Neutral Good.

2A is according to the books the correct interpretation.


That would be "unaligned," like animals are. Not that there is a mechanical difference between the two.

Animals are neutral in 3.5. What would make the behavior pulling towards neutrality is if you were spreading it. If you were encouraging people to live more like animals as Druids do, which is why they pull towards neutrality. Minding your own business isn't necessarily enough to pull somebody towards a neutral alignment if they aren't already. Telling your neighbors that they should mind their own business and see to their own affairs would be because it pulls towards neutrality on a cosmic scale.

[atemu1234]

That would be "unaligned," like animals are. Not that there is a mechanical difference between the two.

Not really. In the alignment bar, be you true neutral by virtue of choice or by animal type, you have the True Neutral alignment.

And also, having your own moral compass can be lawful. It all depends on to what extent it is; if it is an unflinching system you follow regardless of the consequences, it can be construed as lawful. If you break it often enough (IE The Pirate's Code is more guidelines than actual rules) you are chaotic. If you break it when there's real need, you're neutral.

[Anlashok]

First, I'd like to point out that adhering to your own moral compass is not really Lawful behavior.
The books explicitly call out someone with a strict personal code of ethics as "Lawful". In fact, 3.5's description of Law doesn't actually mention law (note the capitalization) directly at all.

[Hecuba]

The books explicitly call out someone with a strict personal code of ethics as "Lawful". In fact, 3.5's description of Law doesn't actually mention law (note the capitalization) directly at all.

Yes, but a strong personal code and a personally consistent behavioral pattern are not the same thing. The former implies, at least to my eye, am established and orderly approach to decision making. The latter merely requires a consistent set of ends and means.

Ultimately, I see Law as being about Order vs. Freedom as ends in themselves. A LG character might choose to break a specific law in service of a higher duty, but they will still view laws as a hole as a desirable and positive aspect of society. Likewise, a CG character won't necessarily break every law simply out of spite for their existence, but they will view laws add a whole as tyrannical.

To use a different driving example, consider mandatory seat belt laws:

A Lawful person buckle up before they start to move, even if they don't think it will matter because they are only going a short distance at add low speed.
A Chaotic person will not buckle up because feel spiteful about the government telling them what to do.
A Neutral person will make their decision based on their personal comfort and their risk preferences (for both bodily injury and seat belt tickets).

[Coidzor]

And also, having your own moral compass can be lawful.

Or even chaotic. :smalltongue: It's almost like the capacity to have moral values isn't limited by the law-chaos axis of alignment.

[AMFV]

Yes, but a strong personal code and a personally consistent behavioral pattern are not the same thing. The former implies, at least to my eye, am established and orderly approach to decision making. The latter merely requires a consistent set of ends and means.

Ultimately, I see Law as being about Order vs. Freedom as ends in themselves. A LG character might choose to break a specific law in service of a higher duty, but they will still view laws as a hole as a desirable and positive aspect of society. Likewise, a CG character won't necessarily break every law simply out of spite for their existence, but they will view laws add a whole as tyrannical.

Not necessarily. A lawful person will view order as good, not necessarily laws. You could have a Lawful Anarchist, if he believes that people have specific obligations that he follows explicitly but believes that laws themselves hinder this. Laws after all introduce complexity that can distort things and distortion of truths is to him chaotic, so having more laws than is absolutely necessary is Chaotic (in his mind). And that would violate his sense of principles.



To use a different driving example, consider mandatory seat belt laws:

A Lawful person buckle up before they start to move, even if they don't think it will matter because they are only going a short distance at add low speed.
A Chaotic person will not buckle up because feel spiteful about the government telling them what to do.
A Neutral person will make their decision based on their personal comfort and their risk preferences (for both bodily injury and seat belt tickets).


Here is where I disagree.

A Lawful person will always buckle up or will never buckle up, depending on their moral code. I for example, almost never buckle up my seat-belt. Because I've seen people die that way, and I'd much rather die quickly than by drowning or burning. So my internal set of moral principles prevent me from fastening my seat-belt. Ever. Since I'm doing this out of a rigid internal code, that means that it's lawful behavior rather than chaotic behavior.

A Chaotic Person, may or may not buckle their seatbelt, if they're feeling spiteful towards the government that day, or if they're feeling nervous that particular day. It would depend. They would have no hard and fast rule to determine this. And it would vary from day to day. Depending on their mood, on what's happening that day, on how much of a hurry they're in. You wouldn't be able to predict if they would fasten their seatbelt or not.


Or even chaotic. :smalltongue: It's almost like the capacity to have moral values isn't limited by the law-chaos axis of alignment.

It's almost like there's some other axis that would determine your moral values. Some kind of axis that chooses between things that are Good and things that are non-good.

[Hecuba]

Here is where I disagree.

A Lawful person will always buckle up or will never buckle up, depending on their moral code. I for example, almost never buckle up my seat-belt. Because I've seen people die that way, and I'd much rather die quickly than by drowning or burning. So my internal set of moral principles prevent me from fastening my seat-belt. Ever. Since I'm doing this out of a rigid internal code, that means that it's lawful behavior rather than chaotic behavior.

A Chaotic Person, may or may not buckle their seatbelt, if they're feeling spiteful towards the government that day, or if they're feeling nervous that particular day. It would depend. They would have no hard and fast rule to determine this. And it would vary from day to day. Depending on their mood, on what's happening that day, on how much of a hurry they're in. You wouldn't be able to predict if they would fasten their seatbelt or not.

I'll certainly conceed that I didn't structure the example to cover in principle objections to the specific law.
I should have predicated the example on the person not having any actual opinion on seat belt themselves.

I do not, however, see your description of your actions (as presented - I don't presume to know the fullness of your mind from a single post) as rising to the level of a moral code. Mere consistency does not equate to a code to my eye. If it were really a rigid internal code, you would follow it even if it ram counter top your preferences. The reasons you provide, however, are strictly utility outcome for your stated preferences.

If it were a bona-fide lawful code, you would continue to follow it even if you magically became immune to fire and drowning and any other utilitarian concerns that drive you to currently forgo the seatbelt but remained vunerable to death by ejection through windshield.

Your description of a chaotic person is likewise driven by utilitarian concerns. They are certainly inconsistent, but that does not make them Chaotic. A chaotic character is not obliged to act randomly.

Law and Chaos are ethical concerns. If a character is making a decision for utilitarian reasons, then it is not Law or Chaos that is driving the decision. The resulting actions themselves may be Lawful or Chaotic, but Neutral characetrs often take non-Neutral actions.

Setting aside the problematic words with the capital letters for a moment, the fundamental wuestion of the Ethical axis is, to my eye:
Are rules, in the abstract, good or bad? (Note the little letters).
Do they protect and guide us? Do they subvert our freedom and infringe upon free will?
I find a good definition of Neutrality on this axis to be someone who answers either "I don't care" or "It depends on the rule. "

[AMFV]

I'll certainly conceed that I didn't structure the example to cover in principle objections to the specific law.
I should have predicated the example on the person not having any actual opinion on seat belt themselves.

Well even that doesn't matter, it is nearly impossible to have an issue on which there is no opinion at all. If a Person is a lawful Anarchist, then they would choose not to wear their seatbelts because disobeying laws is good, since laws themselves are bad. And that's the same action as your presented chaotic person.



I do not, however, see your description of your actions (as presented - I don't presume to know the fullness of your mind from a single post) as rising to the level of a moral code. Mere consistency does not equate to a code to my eye. If it were really a rigid internal code, you would follow it even if it ram counter top your preferences. The reasons you provide, however, are strictly utility outcome for your stated preferences.

Well not dying is my stated preference. The manner of my death is a moral choice.



If it were a bona-fide lawful code, you would continue to follow it even if you magically became immune to fire and drowning and any other utilitarian concerns that drive you to currently forgo the seatbelt but remained vunerable to death by ejection through windshield.


You are again, mistaken, because for that to be true it would have to be a moral code that never varied, and there are NO such moral codes. All moral codes must make at some level an allowance for circumstances. In my case it is a moral obligation because of the danger of dying in that particular manner. I don't think that it is an appropriate way for a man to die. As such I have to structure my actions to avoid that. The moral impetus is caused by the effect of the action in this case, not the action itself. You can't really apply strict utilitarianism to D&D morality, because it's not one or the other.

I don't fasten my seat belt, not because of the inherent moral danger that seat belts bring, which would be lawful also, although that would fit your setting. But because putting myself at greater risk for dying in a particular way is to my mind immoral. So if that were not a factor, then yes, my answer might change, but that doesn't mean that I'm not following a wrote code, only that you're singling out parts of the code which when taken individually appear inconsistent.



Your description of a chaotic person is likewise driven by utilitarian concerns. They are certainly inconsistent, but that does not make them Chaotic. A chaotic character is not obliged to act randomly.


No, but a chaotic character will not act predictably, which is different from acting randomly. A character who is truly Representative of chaos would act differently every time a scenario arises, constructing a different solution to each problem. These solutions would not be random, for example he wouldn't likely leap off a bridge instead of crossing it. But he might cross differently every time, or use a different bridge.



Law and Chaos are ethical concerns. If a character is making a decision for utilitarian reasons, then it is not Law or Chaos that is driving the decision. The resulting actions themselves may be Lawful or Chaotic, but Neutral characetrs often take non-Neutral actions.

But I was discussing ethical concerns, as opposed to pure utility. Law and Chaos are procedural Ethical concerns not simply ethics as a whole. If you could write a system of ethics in such a manner that a computer could follow it, then it is lawful. If your ethical system involves any measure of gut instinct or feeling then it is chaotic.



Setting aside the problematic words with the capital letters for a moment, the fundamental wuestion of the Ethical axis is, to my eye:
Are rules, in the abstract, good or bad? (Note the little letters).
Do they protect and guide us? Do they subvert our freedom and infringe upon free will?
I find a good definition of Neutrality on this axis to be someone who answers either "I don't care" or "It depends on the rule. "

But it will always depend on the rule. Lawful people are not required to believe that all rules are inherently good. And chaotic people are not required to believe that all rules are bad. One could very easily have a lawful anarchist as I posited, with literally no problems. He has a system of laws that he follows, he never follows the government's laws whenever possible, because he believes that inherently those are flawed laws and his own personal code comes from a higher principle. You could have a chaotic person who would never violate the law, just because their gut has always been against it. They've had a bad feeling about that sort of thing, and they've seen people that violate the laws, and they don't want to do that.

Neutrality is not a high point between the spectrum, but the middle ground. Somebody who generally follows a code but makes frequent exceptions based on their emotional ground would be neutral on the law-chaos axis.

Edit: Also utility isn't necessarily the question for law and chaos, since they don't deal with needs really at all. That'd be on the Good-Evil scale, since they deal with the affect of what you want on others. Law and Chaos are pretty nearly entirely and explicitly procedurally focused.

It's probably easiest to look at them in terms of their purest form.

A Pure Chaotic Person would as I said invent a new solution for every problem every single time. That's the essence of creation they create and innovate and respond emotively and experientially.

A Pure Law Person, would use the same exact of rules to apply to every single circumstance, without ever wavering. They'd evaluate these rules with heavy rationality and a focus on adhering to both the spirit and letter of the rules.

[Hecuba]

You are again, mistaken, because for that to be true it would have to be a moral code that never varied, and there are NO such moral codes

Of course there are. Strict adherence to any of several real-world ethical codes would qualify. To stay clear of the ban of RL religous or political discussion, the best example would be the asorted proscriptions against purgery in, as examples, the Codes of Hammurabi, Assura, and Ur-Nammu. Someone would strictly adhered to any of those would not lie under oath, even if it would help them from a utilitarian standpoint.


But it will always depend on the rule. Lawful people are not required to believe that all rules are inherently good. And chaotic people are not required to believe that all rules are bad.

I would agree that a Lawful person need not see every single rule as good, nor even believe that governments/societies have the right to impose rules. The may hold that rules should be strictly internal. But basic Lawful outlook is that rules and order are desirable, even though some individual implementation may be deeply flawed.

A Chaotic person, would find it desirable to preserve freedom of choice. They need not go around breaking rules for the heck of it, particularly when they agree with the ends of the rule in question. But the basic Chaotic outlook is that freedom and choice are desirable, and that rules constraining them are at best necessary sacrifices.


Neutrality is not a high point between the spectrum, but the middle ground. Somebody who generally follows a code but makes frequent exceptions based on their emotional ground would be neutral on the law-chaos axis.
That's certainly a path to ethical Neutrality. I would say that not having any particular attachment to the ideas of Order or Freedom would be another.


Edit: Also utility isn't necessarily the question for law and chaos, since they don't deal with needs really at all. That'd be on the Good-Evil scale, since they deal with the affect of what you want on others. Law and Chaos are pretty nearly entirely and explicitly procedurally focused.
Utility interacts with both the moral and ethical axes: it is quite possible for your adherence to a personal or external code of behavior to run counter to your other goals, thus diminishing your utility. It is also possible for the best path from a strictly utilitarian point of view to require some concession of your freedom (example:protective custody).

[AMFV]

Of course there are. Strict adherence to any of several real-world ethical codes would qualify. To stay clear of the ban of RL religous or political discussion, the best example would be the asorted proscriptions against purgery in, as examples, the Codes of Hammurabi, Assura, and Ur-Nammu. Someone would strictly adhered to any of those would not lie under oath, even if it would help them from a utilitarian standpoint. [/Quote

Yes, but even those have some pretty discussion and precedence. Just because a real-world code looks it's easy to apply doesn't mean that is. And application is where they break down into systems where there is argument. Show me a rules-system where there is no argument. The Law in the US is intended to be absolute and precedent and debate still exists.

[QUOTE=Hecuba;17991249]
I would agree that a Lawful person need not see every single rule as good, nor even believe that governments/societies have the right to impose rules. The may hold that rules should be strictly internal. But basic Lawful outlook is that rules and order are desirable, even though some individual implementation may be deeply flawed.

I concur. I suspect that the problem is that you are assuming that somebody who values order, would inherently value all order equally, or even most order. Somebody who values order is actually IMHO more likely to disagree with systems of order that don't agree with them and resist them than a chaotic person might. Lawful people are by definition less flexible, and being less flexible makes them more likely to oppose alternative systems.

The problem is that you are ascribing a "basic outlook" to a philosophical side that can have dozens of outlooks. A lawful person acts based on a set of wrote rules, or as closely as they can. They can believe any number of things, they could be an Anarchist fairly easily, but they're still going to act rigidly. This means that they are less likely to come up with innovative solutions to problems, but they are also unlikely to attempt something disastrous as a solution.



A Chaotic person, would find it desirable to preserve freedom of choice. They need not go around breaking rules for the heck of it, particularly when they agree with the ends of the rule in question. But the basic Chaotic outlook is that freedom and choice are desirable, and that rules constraining them are at best necessary sacrifices.

Well that's part of Chaos, but that's not the whole of their outlook. A chaotic person acts in a manner that inherently involves being creative or freed. They tend to act without a set of wrote rules, a chaotic person could believe in an oppressive ideology, for a number of reasons, but their actions would still be chaotic. It's the same way you can rulers in Limbo and in the Abyss, because Chaos isn't about Freedom, it's about doing things creatively mostly. Having no ties to a wrote set of formal rules.



That's certainly a path to ethical Neutrality. I would say that not having any particular attachment to the ideas of Order or Freedom would be another.


Well it's difficult to not have any attachment to either. Much harder than it is on the Good-Evil axis actually. Because the Chaos-Law axis is so procedurally focused, just acting in any manner is likely to push you to one side of it. If I follow a routine rigidly that's pushing me towards Law regardless of my feelings on the matter.



Utility interacts with both the moral and ethical axes: it is quite possible for your adherence to a personal or external code of behavior to run counter to your other goals, thus diminishing your utility. It is also possible for the best path from a strictly utilitarian point of view to require some concession of your freedom (example:protective custody).

Possibly, but accepting the laws in this case, would stem from other reasons likely than simply law or chaos. Protective Custody is intended to protect an innocent person from a guilty person, so that's already moving towards good on the Axis, regardless of how lawful it might be. So that'd be both lawful and Good, rather than only lawful.

[Hecuba]

Of course there are. Strict adherence to any of several real-world ethical codes would qualify. To stay clear of the ban of RL religous or political discussion, the best example would be the asorted proscriptions against purgery in, as examples, the Codes of Hammurabi, Assura, and Ur-Nammu. Someone would strictly adhered to any of those would not lie under oath, even if it would help them from a utilitarian standpoint.

Yes, but even those have some pretty discussion and precedence. Just because a real-world code looks it's easy to apply doesn't mean that is. And application is where they break down into systems where there is argument. Show me a rules-system where there is no argument. The Law in the US is intended to be absolute and precedent and debate still exists.

Actually no, most ancient Mesopotamian legal systems ran under the strictest form of civil law, and Precidence is a feature of the common law tradition. The only two questions for the "court" under the code of Hammurabi would have been:

Are the facts of the accusation true?
If the crime is one that is explicitly called out in the law as one where intent matters, can the accuser present evidence of intent?


Further, the majority of the law in the US is not absolute: the US uses Common Law, where precedence has legal force. Common law is built on change through argument: it is by design, neither static nor absolute.


I concur. I suspect that the problem is that you are assuming that somebody who values order, would inherently value all order equally, or even most order. Somebody who values order is actually IMHO more likely to disagree with systems of order that don't agree with them and resist them than a chaotic person might. Lawful people are by definition less flexible, and being less flexible makes them more likely to oppose alternative systems.
I'm not presuming that a lawful person would not break laws nor necessarily respect a specific legal system. I'm merely presuming that they consider order, in whatever manner there subscribe to it, to be an ends to be pursued, by some means or another. It need not be their only ends, nor their primary one. But to be meaningfully Lawful, the must view order, in some form, to be good (little g, not Good).


The problem is that you are ascribing a "basic outlook" to a philosophical side that can have dozens of outlooks.
And to be Lawful, those outlooks must values order in some form.


Well that's part of Chaos, but that's not the whole of their outlook. A chaotic person acts in a manner that inherently involves being creative or freed. They tend to act without a set of wrote rules, a chaotic person could believe in an oppressive ideology, for a number of reasons, but their actions would still be chaotic. It's the same way you can rulers in Limbo and in the Abyss, because Chaos isn't about Freedom, it's about doing things creatively mostly. Having no ties to a wrote set of formal rules.
"Rule" of the abyss is based purely on the exercise of might: you are free to do whatever you want. The more powerful demons are also free to make the results of your actions unpleasant. Freedom does not imply the absence of consequences.


Well it's difficult to not have any attachment to either. Much harder than it is on the Good-Evil axis actually. Because the Chaos-Law axis is so procedurally focused, just acting in any manner is likely to push you to one side of it. If I follow a routine rigidly that's pushing me towards Law regardless of my feelings on the matter.
I disagree: again, mere pattern does not make a character Lawful. Rather, we must have pursuit of pattern. Waking up reliably at 6:03 am because that is when the sun rise wakes you up is not Lawful. Waking up intentionally at 6:03 am because you like the regularity or because you build it into your schedule is.


Possibly, but accepting the laws in this case, would stem from other reasons likely than simply law or chaos. Protective Custody is intended to protect an innocent person from a guilty person, so that's already moving towards good on the Axis, regardless of how lawful it might be. So that'd be both lawful and Good, rather than only lawful.

I never said that the decision was based purely on the ethical axis, nor that a Chaotic Character would never take part. I'm merely saying they won't like the solution. That may be overridden by other philosophical or utilitarian concerts.