Alignment for a Viking-esqe character?

[Trum4n1208]

Hey all,

I've got something of an issue. Right now, in our game, I am playing a level 4 Eldritch Knight fighter, who is Chaotic Good. This character is from a Viking Warrior society that places an emphasis on honor and loyalty and courage, but also an emphasis on combat, battle, raiding (at least in the past) and the pursuit of honor and glory. My issue is that I'm having trouble identifying this guy as chaotic good. He is a decent fellow, brave and loyal, but he also revels in combat and loot (which he does, in fairness, freely share amongst his companions). I have trouble justifying chaotic good with an eagerness for fighting.

Any suggestions?

[Laserlight]

I have trouble justifying chaotic good with an eagerness for fighting.

Depends on who he's fighting, doesn't it? If he's raiding peaceful farmers, then that's not good. If he's fighting raiders who're attacking his homeland, or he's raiding the hill forts of a declared enemy, or rasining his sword against troll kings and orc chieftains, that's rather more in line.

[Gurifu]

Being brave and loyal doesn't make you Good. All alignments, however, are compatible with violence. If you want to kick butts and be good, commence butt-kicking for goodness. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ePJYbkSykg)

[Grek]

Any suggestions?

For a viking, raids are just an established fact of life. Sometimes raiders come from across the sea, threaten you with a sword and put all of your valuables in a big burlap sack. And sometimes you do the same back to them, because that's just how things work. The flipside of that (at least for Good characters) is that there's a certain expectation of restraint. When you go raiding, you don't rape the women, burn the houses and put the peasants to the sword. Serfs are off limits for killing (robbing them is OK) and any warriors you meet should be captured and ransomed back after they are defeated (imprisonment is OK if their family won't/can't pay, execution is not, and you might consider mercy eventually). If you kill a warrior in combat, you be sure to return his body and grave goods to the family or, if you MUST have their magic sword, at least give the family your old one! If you kill a serf, you make restitution in the form of paying weregild to the family - money equal to the wages that family member would have earned over the course of the rest of their life if you hadn't killed them.

[Sigreid]

Remember, viking is a verb not a noun to them. You aren't a viking, you go a viking. Seriously though, read Beowulf. That's your model.

[hymer]

Any suggestions?

Are you trying to make your own version of 'good' fit his behaviour? Or are you looking for a way that your viking can consider himself good? Because dying bravely in battle is great. It means you go to Valhalla rather than Hel. So killing people in battle is really doing them a favour. So all you really need to do is not kill people unwilling or unable to fight.

[Giant2005]

I'd say either Lawful-Neutral or Lawful-Evil depending on how carried away you get on your raiding.

[Stan]

Given your character values both the honor and loyalty side of things and revels in combat, they sound mostly neutral to me on the law-chaos axis. If they enjoy fighting for its own sake, they're probably not good.

Maybe try true neutral?

[Dr. Cliché]

Just going to leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHHLFFy6CWs

[Gwendol]

Any alignment, really.

[Inevitability]

Ever heard of Kord? He's a CG deity also known as 'the brawler'. His dogma pretty much amounts to 'be strong, be brave, and use it to do good'. His followers organize various martial arts tournaments, and occasionally Kord sends an avatar to join in. He's the perfect example of why thirst for battle isn't necessarily evil, in my opinion.

[Trum4n1208]

Hey all,

First off, thank you for the replies and your time.

See, I think the problem is I'm looking at this guy/culture through my own cultural glasses, so to speak. I guess when I picture a kind of Pseudo-Norse society (Dr. Cliché, thanks for the video, it raises a valid point, I'll refer to him/his culture as Pseudo-Norse from here on out) that revels in battle, I have trouble picturing them as a good alignment. Even if they don't raid (this particular character hasn't been on a Raid, and his clan isn't currently doing them), that kind of aggressive mindset is making it tough for me to say 'Good.' Does that make sense? I already figure that he won't be killing just to kill. After all, in a society that values glory and renown, what does one really get out of slaying some peasant? So you'd have that. I figure that, as a part of the Clan Leader's family (basically Nobility if this were the mainland), he is expected to show restraint and some nobility in action (so that should cut out a lot of the really bad stuff, such as torture, rape, etc.). Would there be anything else I'm missing?

I figure that in his society, he'd be a good man, but what would he be in the grander scheme of things?

Grek, great suggestions, thank you!

Sigreid, funnily enough Beowulf was what made say "I want to play as Norseman who is aspiring to be a Hero." Love that story.

[Inevitability]

Take a look at some of the CG planes. Ysgard, for one, is made out of literal Good and Chaos, and it's a wild paradise where all death is temporary, all glory attainable, and all battles fightable. The fact that part of the universal manifestations of Good is a place of constant battle seems to indicate fighting isn't necessarily bad.

[Arkhios]

Well, actually... People often mistake vikings as being barbarians and therefore "chaotic" while they hold quite high value in code of honor. Backstabbing and cowardish poisoning is not the viking way. Lawful anything is the alignment for a viking. Not chaotic.

[Hoosigander]

Just to butt in, I think another tack that you could explore to elucidate the character is why the character could be potentially violent or inclined to violence. If your local library has any try to read some of the old Icelandic Sagas and see how the heroes conduct themselves. What you see, although characters differ, is that violence is almost always prompted by something. The heroes of Norse sagas are not wantonly violent, although they are quite willing to turn to it for reasons we would see as trivial or unworthy of violence, which is perhaps how they got that reputation. Egil Skallagrimsson is a great example of a Norse hero, he is certainly quite violent and a bit of a troublemaker when it comes to Kingly authority, but what prompts his violence is the fact that what he sees as his rights have been violated. I would not argue that Egil himself is CG character by your traditional D&D alignment chart, but that sort of character who is prickly in defense of his rights and sees violence as acceptable after other methods have been exhausted could fit within CG while still retaining a bit of Norse flavor.

Of course there is quite a bit of values dissonance between us and the heroes of the sagas. Thorstein, Egil's son, responds to someone grazing cattle in his fields by killing the slaves sent to tend the cattle (After warning the cattle-owner that he intends to do so) on several separate occasions. This is not presented as a dishonorable act and although usually someone who harmed a slave would have to pay compensation to the owner, since the owner was himself committing a crime by sending the slaves, Thorstein gets off scot free. It is worth noting that the saga presents Thorstein as being one of the more moderate, conciliatory, and less troublesome members of the family. So in that light, it probably impossible to wholly reconcile the ethics of the sagas with the Good side of the D&D alignment spectrum.

[Socratov]

1st: the people we see as Vikings are the Danes, Norse, Swedes and before Iceland became a thing, also the Finns.

they hail from a harsh climate and thus they need to go viking from time to time, or, raiding to gain the neccessary resources.

That said, you can't navigate open sea without a modicum of order aboard. What's more, try leading a effective couple of raids with a bunch of raving lunatics.

Also, while you are at it, try surviving with a community of people who are so individualist that they don't always play along to the community's interests. the laws were brutal and insubordination was met with swift and harsh punishment.

So clearly lawful, but to justify the raids for your tribe make it a cultural thing: taking care of your won, though at the expense of another. By then it's not so much a good vs. evil thing, but it's become us vs. them. Which is on a wholly other plane of alignment debates.

Funny thing is, as the viking norse/danes/swedes got around, quite a lot of them were taken on as bodyguards by foreign dignitaries because they were impressed by the norse/swede/dane's discipline, dedication and skills.

However, this depends on you having a mature DM: one who understands cultural differences and what makes lawful, chaotic, good and evil behaviour and how those concepts are relative to the grander scheme of things and rarely absolute.

tl;dr: you can make your viking character any alignment as long as it isn't chaotic or at the least has lawful leanings.

[brainface]

I'd suggest you ignore alignment and continue playing your character.^^ Alignment exists to help you establish your personality, and it sounds like you've already done that.

[Iguanodon]

Well, actually... People often mistake vikings as being barbarians and therefore "chaotic" while they hold quite high value in code of honor. Backstabbing and cowardish poisoning is not the viking way. Lawful anything is the alignment for a viking. Not chaotic.

This. OP, you mention honor and loyalty, which are both lawful ideals rather than good ideals. My vote would be for lawful neutral, since it sounds like the fighting is a fact of life for this character rather than a means to a good or evil end.

[Firechanter]

Of course real life does not match up to D&D alignments, but if I had to assign any label to the viking culture, it would probably be Lawful Evil.
- Law and tradition played a really, really big role in everyday life. Also in combat, they did have a sense of honour, but a bit different from what we are typically used to from literature tropes. Also, civil disputes were generally settled by trials, according to old laws and custom.
- However, these laws and customs often seem weird to us, and some might qualify as Evil. Not "kill babies and drink their blood" Evil, but kinda unfair by our standards. Also, they did have a certain Might Makes Right attitude.

Again, it's just a rough approximation, and by no means as Evil as most Evil fantasy races or cultures -- just kinda dickish here and there.

[hymer]

This. OP, you mention honor and loyalty, which are both lawful ideals rather than good ideals.

Let me hust voice some opposition to the notion that honour and loyalty is Lawful. Loyalty to one's friends and one's family is not inherently one or the other, it's human nature. Loyalty to a strong state could certainly be seen as lawful, but loyalty to a society that values individual freedom highly could be chaotic. And a chaotic's sense of honour can be very strong. It may not conform to society's standards, but their personal code can be very strong indeed.


Of course real life does not match up to D&D alignments, but if I had to assign any label to the viking culture, it would probably be Lawful Evil.
- Law and tradition played a really, really big role in everyday life. Also in combat, they did have a sense of honour, but a bit different from what we are typically used to from literature tropes. Also, civil disputes were generally settled by trials, according to old laws and custom.
- However, these laws and customs often seem weird to us, and some might qualify as Evil. Not "kill babies and drink their blood" Evil, but kinda unfair by our standards. Also, they did have a certain Might Makes Right attitude.

Again, it's just a rough approximation, and by no means as Evil as most Evil fantasy races or cultures -- just kinda dickish here and there.

"Tider skifter og sæder mildnes" - Times change, and customs become milder.

I see what you mean. To put it in some context: I'm thinking we'd be hard pressed to find societies from those times that seem fair by our standards. Executions and other dire punishments on flimsy pretexts, rigid social classes with oppression, slavery and serfdom, and of course the lack of rights and social standing of women. Apparently the old Norsemen were likely to be less hard on the old Norsewomen, at least, than was customary in Europe.
These were the sorts of things that went on. I think you'll find at least some of these in any sizable culture within a few hundred years on both sides of the Viking age.

[Logosloki]

With or without horns? The northern people who went a viking would be neutral with both lawful and evil tendencies. With the horns those that go a viking would be any alignment but more leaning to chaotic.

[Arkhios]

With or without horns? The northern people who went a viking would be neutral with both lawful and evil tendencies. With the horns those that go a viking would be any alignment but more leaning to chaotic.

nitpickinging: Vikings having horned helmets is a myth. There's no historical proof that vikings wore horned helmets.

Also, here's the Nine Noble Virtues that most vikings held in high value: Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Self Reliance, Industriousness, and Perseverance. Each of us can make our own interpretations but to me those have more lawful than chaotic essence.

[Regitnui]

I find an awful lot of people arguing that the Chaotic alignment is out of the question because a Chaotic can't work within a community. Er... What? Chaotic doesn't arbitrarily break laws because they're there, they just value individual freedom more than the rule of law; If the Norse system is keeping everyone alive, there's no reason for a Chaotic Good to start destabilizing it. Chaotic Evil, maybe, but that's not the alignment under question. A norse can certainly be Chaotic Good. While the Society as a whole may be Lawful Neutral (harsh because it needs to be), that isn't an inhospitable environment for individual freedom.

Take the sagas mentioned earlier. Thorstein Egilsson kills the slaves of his neighbour. Leaving aside the relation of the concept of slaving to Good, how is this not an Evil act? Well, firstly, the neighbour was warned several times. There's not much difference between "Stop letting your dogs poop on my lawn" and "This is my grazing, keep your cattle off it". Modern society frowns on violent solutions, but find me one person who hasn't had to resist using a violent solution to a problem that annoys them. Norse society didn't frown on necessary violence.

Chaotic; Killing the slaves instead of taking the matter to the Jarl (higher authority/community law)
Good; Killing only the slaves as a last resort and (presumably) returning the cattle.

An Evil reaction would have been to kill the slaves and keep the cattle the second it was on his land instead of his neighbour's.


Also, here's the Nine Noble Virtues that most vikings held in high value: Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Self Reliance, Industriousness, and Perseverance. Each of us can make our own interpretations but to me those have more lawful than chaotic essence.

Those are certainly Good, so any of the three 'upper' alignments can hold them. Heck, I can put together a bard who follows those and is perfectly chaotic.

[uraniumrooster]

With or without horns? The northern people who went a viking would be neutral with both lawful and evil tendencies. With the horns those that go a viking would be any alignment but more leaning to chaotic.


nitpickinging: Vikings having horned helmets is a myth. There's no historical proof that vikings wore horned helmets.

Also, here's the Nine Noble Virtues that most vikings held in high value: Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Self Reliance, Industriousness, and Perseverance. Each of us can make our own interpretations but to me those have more lawful than chaotic essence.

I could be wrong, but i think Logosloki was getting at pretty much the same thing you said.

The real (non-horned) people who inhabited northern Europe during the viking era tended toward lawful (and evil, presumably judging their habit of raiding and pillaging other civilizations, which by modern standards does seem to fall into evil territory... but then, most ancient and medieval civilizations would probably be evil by that standard).

The mythical (horned-helmeted) Vikings are depicted as barbarous and wild, and would tend toward chaotic alignments.

Thanks for sharing the Nine Noble Virtues, those are interesting. They seem to encompass a lot of alignments, I see Good (Courage, Honor, Hospitality), Law (Truth, Fidelity, Discipline), Chaos (Self Reliance, Industriousness), and a few of them are Neutral enough that they could be embodied in and Evil character (Discipline, Self Reliance, Industriousness, Perseverance).

[Malifice]

nitpickinging: Vikings having horned helmets is a myth. There's no historical proof that vikings wore horned helmets.

Also, here's the Nine Noble Virtues that most vikings held in high value: Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Self Reliance, Industriousness, and Perseverance. Each of us can make our own interpretations but to me those have more lawful than chaotic essence.

Self reliance sounds very darn chaotic.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/95ccbd9df58f991e00bb6a070ecfd78e/tumblr_nj2um62AJA1siq8rfo3_500.png

Pretty chaotic 'code' really. Can be summed up as: 'Work hard, dont quit, do your own thing, be loyal to those who earn that loyalty.'

I'd put your average Viking as CN. Your more heroic types would be more along the line of CG and your more rapacious and violent types as CE. A strong leader would attract a band of reavers, and they would set off to go viking (a combination of raiding/ exploring/ adventuring).

Rollo from Vikings (TV series) is clearly of the CE variety. Repeated rape, murder, brutality and treachery (of his Earl and his own brother no less). He regularly engages in betrayal, arbitrary violence, bullying and slaughter for fun, his own amusement and profit. Pretty starkly CE type.

His brother Ragnar is presented as leaning more towards the CG variety. He ignores the edicts of his Earl (who is a LE type) to sail west to England instead, acts according to his own whims and desires, but treats people (generally) with kindness while avoiding unecessary slaughter and mayhem. He comes to wanting to farm the land instead of plunder it, and seeks to work with the Saxons, not butcher them out of hand.

That said, he did lead the assaut on Lindesfarn monestary, where a bunch of defencless monks were slaughtered, however the show didnt depict him directly taking part in the slaughter. Thats one black mark against his name. The gruesome punishment and execution of Jarl Borg via 'the Eagle' is another black mark as well. Overall we can call him a generally good person though (with neutral tendencies) or maybe the other way around.

Floki is pretty textbook CN.

Earl Haraldson was pretty clearly LE (power for powers sake, arbitrary abuse of power, tyrannical type).

Like any society, all alignments can be found among them, but CN would be the 'default' for mine.

[Logosloki]

Self-reliance is more a neutral virtue that with context can change. Whilst perfect self-reliance is probably not attainable by a mortal (Though people who turn to lichdom certainly try), the more self-reliance in a population the more people can rely on each other to perform the tasks necessary to keep society growing and/or being maintained.

[Gwendol]

Let me direct you to scholars discussing this very question:
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122294/

The Norse valued battle and honor more than anything. But their idea of honor is very different from the knightly ideals of the middle ages. In battle, tricks and ruses are highly valued, as were skill and strength. Therefore, play your norseman as you see fit, confident there was room for more than one alignment in that society.

[Grey Watcher]

Not commenting on the Law/Chaos part, but as far as being Good and enjoying violence, just remember this quote from Futurama when Leela, Fry, and Bender became superheroes: "I've been looking for a way to serve the community that incorporates my violence." :smallbiggrin:

[RedMage125]

Remember, viking is a verb not a noun to them. You aren't a viking, you go a viking.
Thank you for this. Makes me happy to see other people on this point.


Well, actually... People often mistake vikings as being barbarians and therefore "chaotic" while they hold quite high value in code of honor. Backstabbing and cowardish poisoning is not the viking way. Lawful anything is the alignment for a viking. Not chaotic.
Arkios, this is for you and all the other "don't be chaotic" people. Also, thanks to Regitnui who started in on this point.

Lawful/Chaotic alignment has NOTHING to do with laws or traditions. You can be Chaotic and follow your tribal/societal laws. You can be Lawful and break the law (organized crime syndicates based off the mafia are Lawful Evil criminal organizations).

One of the WORST anti-alignment points I have ever heard was how (3e) Barbarians should be allowed Lawful alignments "because historical and even fantasy barbarian cultures usually had rigid tribal laws and traditions". It's a stupid argument. Not because the idea of Lawful Barbarians is a bad one (it's perfectly fine), but because the reasoning is based on the idea that Law/Chaos in alignment means ANYTHING in regard to civil laws in any way, shape or form. 3e Barbarians were prohibited from Lawful alignment because the class was designed to adhere to a specific archetype of a wild/tribal savage who lived outside of "civilized" lands. Their rage is supposed to be a "letting go" of restraint and control, "surrender" if you will, to the savagery in their hearts. It's not just "getting angry". A better "Lawful Barbarian" argument would be to use the example in Legend of the Five Rings. The Hida family of the Crab Clan trains "dead-eyes berserkers". Their "rage" is a cold and calculated state of heightened battle senses, allowing them to strike harder and endure more pain (represented mechanically by increased STR and CON). Such a character is still a bushi (samurai) of his clan, even though his class is Barbarian. He is disciplined and focused, adheres to bushido, and is conscious of how his actions reflect on his family and Clan. He should also be literate. Such a character COULD also be chaotic, but there's a lot of room for that character to be anywhere on the alignment scale. Point is that while a Lawful Barbarian could be a great concept, hinging it on the reasoning of "tribal cultures had laws" is flimsy reasoning. You can adhere to a code of honor in combat (no poison/backstabbing/etc) and still be chaotic, because you value your freedom and like to do as you like, within your personal code of guidelines.

Similar is the "Chaotic Monk" argument. Monks in 3e wre restircted to Lawful alignments because the class was designed to adhere to a specific archetype of "monk", which was a disciplined, wuxia-style martial artist. You will note that other monk abilities from that edition (such as Still Mind) denote that the abilities come from "hours spend in meditation". 3e Monks were not just "a guy who learned martial arts", they were more than that. You want a chaotic brawler who knew martial arts? Take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Someone could conceivably come up with a good character concept for a monk with a chaotic alignment, but it would work better if some class abilities were changed to reflect the alteration to the archetype the class was based off of. I know Dragon Magazine had a "chaotic monk" variant in one issue, and several alternate class features were proposed.

Back on topic, Lawful/Chaotic in alignment means more about how your character acts when he gets to do what he wants, rather than what rules he follows when they will be enforced. A lawful person in a pseudo-Nordic society may believe that those laws follow him wherever he goes and adheres to them, or he may be a person who twists the wording of those laws to suit his desires, following the letter, if not the spirit of them. A chaotic member of the same society MIGHT be someone who breaks the laws when it suits him, or he may be someone who follows those laws all the time, but does it in his own way. Or he could be someone who acts wild and reckless, adhering to the laws some of the time, but not when it's contrary to how he feels at any given moment. Point is, those laws in a pseud-Nordic society mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to individual alignment.

Of course, being 5e, classes are not strictly limited to alignments anymore. But the point about what alignment does (and does NOT) mean still stands. Don't let the idea that a culture has laws and traditions trap you into the idea that a person from that culture somehow "must" be lawful.

And this all ties back to "viking" being a VERB. Most Nordic people, as the video pointed out, were regular people. They were farmers, fishermen, traders, craftsmen, etc. Some members of their society would occasionally get a little rambunctious. They wanted conflict, battle, and glory. Since their (mostly peaceful) society didn't want that kind of disruption, they put these people on a boat, gave them weapons and fishing poles and sent them "a-viking". Sometimes they just raided other communities and brought back wealth, food, or slaves. Sometimes they conquered and settled, sending back to their homelands for more settlers to come and allowing their people to expand their territories. Either way, they were turning their destructive impulses into something productive for their community.

So just remember, if your character is "a-viking", he's a warrior. Most of the rest of his people are NOT warriors. What does that mean for him? What does that mean for his INDIVIDUAL outlook and beliefs? Because THAT is what should shape your alignment decision more than anything.

[Trum4n1208]

Thanks all! Got a lot of great and helpful responses here, too many for me to point out individually, so thank you all so much. Huge help! :smallbiggrin:

[Arkhios]

Thank you for this. Makes me happy to see other people on this point.


Arkios, this is for you and all the other "don't be chaotic" people. Also, thanks to Regitnui who started in on this point.

Lawful/Chaotic alignment has NOTHING to do with laws or traditions. You can be Chaotic and follow your tribal/societal laws. You can be Lawful and break the law (organized crime syndicates based off the mafia are Lawful Evil criminal organizations).

One of the WORST anti-alignment points I have ever heard was how (3e) Barbarians should be allowed Lawful alignments "because historical and even fantasy barbarian cultures usually had rigid tribal laws and traditions". It's a stupid argument. Not because the idea of Lawful Barbarians is a bad one (it's perfectly fine), but because the reasoning is based on the idea that Law/Chaos in alignment means ANYTHING in regard to civil laws in any way, shape or form. 3e Barbarians were prohibited from Lawful alignment because the class was designed to adhere to a specific archetype of a wild/tribal savage who lived outside of "civilized" lands. Their rage is supposed to be a "letting go" of restraint and control, "surrender" if you will, to the savagery in their hearts. It's not just "getting angry". A better "Lawful Barbarian" argument would be to use the example in Legend of the Five Rings. The Hida family of the Crab Clan trains "dead-eyes berserkers". Their "rage" is a cold and calculated state of heightened battle senses, allowing them to strike harder and endure more pain (represented mechanically by increased STR and CON). Such a character is still a bushi (samurai) of his clan, even though his class is Barbarian. He is disciplined and focused, adheres to bushido, and is conscious of how his actions reflect on his family and Clan. He should also be literate. Such a character COULD also be chaotic, but there's a lot of room for that character to be anywhere on the alignment scale. Point is that while a Lawful Barbarian could be a great concept, hinging it on the reasoning of "tribal cultures had laws" is flimsy reasoning. You can adhere to a code of honor in combat (no poison/backstabbing/etc) and still be chaotic, because you value your freedom and like to do as you like, within your personal code of guidelines.

Similar is the "Chaotic Monk" argument. Monks in 3e wre restircted to Lawful alignments because the class was designed to adhere to a specific archetype of "monk", which was a disciplined, wuxia-style martial artist. You will note that other monk abilities from that edition (such as Still Mind) denote that the abilities come from "hours spend in meditation". 3e Monks were not just "a guy who learned martial arts", they were more than that. You want a chaotic brawler who knew martial arts? Take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Someone could conceivably come up with a good character concept for a monk with a chaotic alignment, but it would work better if some class abilities were changed to reflect the alteration to the archetype the class was based off of. I know Dragon Magazine had a "chaotic monk" variant in one issue, and several alternate class features were proposed.

Back on topic, Lawful/Chaotic in alignment means more about how your character acts when he gets to do what he wants, rather than what rules he follows when they will be enforced. A lawful person in a pseudo-Nordic society may believe that those laws follow him wherever he goes and adheres to them, or he may be a person who twists the wording of those laws to suit his desires, following the letter, if not the spirit of them. A chaotic member of the same society MIGHT be someone who breaks the laws when it suits him, or he may be someone who follows those laws all the time, but does it in his own way. Or he could be someone who acts wild and reckless, adhering to the laws some of the time, but not when it's contrary to how he feels at any given moment. Point is, those laws in a pseud-Nordic society mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to individual alignment.

Of course, being 5e, classes are not strictly limited to alignments anymore. But the point about what alignment does (and does NOT) mean still stands. Don't let the idea that a culture has laws and traditions trap you into the idea that a person from that culture somehow "must" be lawful.

And this all ties back to "viking" being a VERB. Most Nordic people, as the video pointed out, were regular people. They were farmers, fishermen, traders, craftsmen, etc. Some members of their society would occasionally get a little rambunctious. They wanted conflict, battle, and glory. Since their (mostly peaceful) society didn't want that kind of disruption, they put these people on a boat, gave them weapons and fishing poles and sent them "a-viking". Sometimes they just raided other communities and brought back wealth, food, or slaves. Sometimes they conquered and settled, sending back to their homelands for more settlers to come and allowing their people to expand their territories. Either way, they were turning their destructive impulses into something productive for their community.

So just remember, if your character is "a-viking", he's a warrior. Most of the rest of his people are NOT warriors. What does that mean for him? What does that mean for his INDIVIDUAL outlook and beliefs? Because THAT is what should shape your alignment decision more than anything.

No need to get so up close and personal, mate. I just laid out my point of view. Simple "all you "don't be chaotic" people" would've sufficed, thank you.
You have a point, though. I admit I may have had wrong perspective on this.

[Grey Watcher]

Actually, I think I will weigh on the Law/Chaos thing, if only in the broadest terms, and not how they apply to a specifically Norse/Viking story-inspired character:

First, a disclaimer: there's a lot of writing out there about just what "Law" and "Chaos" means, much of it contradicts much of the rest. So what follows is basically my own particular spin on what they mean, and a way of understanding them that "feels" right and seems to bring relatively few internal contradictions and other weirdness. Borrow/steal from it as you see fit.

So, to my way of thinking, Law and Chaos refer to a character's response to an outside authority. Not necessarily any outside authority, but some authority outside/above themselves. A righteous Paladin, for example, is not going to kow-tow to the Evil Tyrant, even in the heart of said Tyrant's capital, where her and her fore-parents' word has been law for untold generations. Whether it's a church, a government, a family, a crime syndicate, a family, or whatever, the central part of being Lawful is that one is willing to let one's own judgement be overridden by whatever it is one has promised (explicitly or implicitly) to obey. Again, an example, even if he's personally convinced of your innocence, the Lawful sheriff is still going to insist on bringing you in so that you can clear your names properly at trial.

Conversely, a Chaotic character's central thing is that personal judgement overrides the organization. After all, the individual is the one who's there in the thick of the situation, and can see for themselves what some distant king or high priest might not.

Personal discipline (or lack thereof) isn't a factor. The fact that the monk gets up and practices her forms every day at dawn without fail doesn't make her Lawful. But doing so because that was the longstanding tradition at the monastery just might.

Loyalty to individuals is also not a factor in Law/Chaos: you might, for example, be willing to defer to the King not because he is King, but because you know him and trust him, specifically. If he were to abdicate, you might not be willing to grant that same trust to his successor. (Side note: this to me is why Shojo's rule of Azure City made things more Chaotic; he made the whole thing dependent on his personal intervention. Once he was removed, the whole thing kinda collapsed.) The line between "I follow him because he is King" and "I follow him because he's led our nation to glory" is a fine one, but it's where I feel it is.

As I said at the outset, these are just my thoughts on how I would play a Lawful or Chaotic character in a way that would feel internally consistent without falling into some of the more ridiculous taken-to-the-absurd-extreme pitfalls. (eg, the Chaotic Good character who decides murder must be good simply to be contrarian against the government that said murder was bad, or the Lawful character who switches allegiances depending on what side of the border he's standing on).

[Regitnui]

For Eberron's less-extremist morality, I usually explain the alignments as "altruism vs self-concern" and "higher authority vs personal accountability".

On the mortal level, a Chaotic Evil shopkeeper doesn't deal in poisons and sacrifice cats to demons, but instead believes that his high prices are justified because he needs the money to move out of the slums. A Lawful Good shopkeeper may instead charge less than the goods' value to help the community while trusting that the lord's men will enforce the peace. Yeah, one will ping the Paladin's Smite Evil, but neither are obviously bad people.

Outsiders are paragons of their alignments; angels do the highest Good, slaadi destroy because anarchy is their worldview, yugoloths simply cannot care about anyone other than themselves. Aberrations sit completely outside this system, their motivation really running along a third axis that we can only interpret as Evil because it is antithetical to our morality. Fey just act on their whims, doing good, kowtowing to queens, plucking mortals' heads from their shoulders or claiming an entire forest as their own property.

[RedMage125]

No need to get so up close and personal, mate. I just laid out my point of view. Simple "all you "don't be chaotic" people" would've sufficed, thank you.
You have a point, though. I admit I may have had wrong perspective on this.
Apologies, it was not intended to be personal. I had intended to respond to you with a quote, and tagged your post for a multi-quote, but as I read on, there were others who espoused the same position. So I deleted the quote from you, but since I had it in my reply box, I still had your name.

That was not intended to be an "attack" of any kind on you, personally, and I am sorry if I made you feel singled out.

I am, however, happy that I have helped you broaden your perspective on Law/Chaos alignments.


For Eberron's less-extremist morality, I usually explain the alignments as "altruism vs self-concern" and "higher authority vs personal accountability".

On the mortal level, a Chaotic Evil shopkeeper doesn't deal in poisons and sacrifice cats to demons, but instead believes that his high prices are justified because he needs the money to move out of the slums. A Lawful Good shopkeeper may instead charge less than the goods' value to help the community while trusting that the lord's men will enforce the peace. Yeah, one will ping the Paladin's Smite Evil, but neither are obviously bad people.
Nice. I frequently use the Neutral Evil barkeep example, which is not too dissimilar from yours when I explain why alignment is not the be-all-end-all of valid target determination.

Eberron has the added example of the Lawful Evil Cardinal of the Silver Flame. A man who, were he to become a patron to a group of adventurers, would only sanction quests that further the cause of the (Lawful Good) church. He personally, however, cares only for his own power and station, but due to his position, he is well served by being publicly connected to people doing Good.


Outsiders are paragons of their alignments; angels do the highest Good, slaadi destroy because anarchy is their worldview, yugoloths simply cannot care about anyone other than themselves. Aberrations sit completely outside this system, their motivation really running along a third axis that we can only interpret as Evil because it is antithetical to our morality. Fey just act on their whims, doing good, kowtowing to queens, plucking mortals' heads from their shoulders or claiming an entire forest as their own property.

That's outstanding. I have the same view on fey (whom I largely consider to be Chaotic Neutral of the "do what I feel like at any particular moment and attention span of a squirel variety). But your stance on aberrations is amazing. While I recognize that their mindsets and motivations are entirely alien, I never thought of them as on an unseen "third axis" of morality, and that their evil alignment is a matter of perception.

The only issue I have with this is that in D&D alignment forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are absolute. Evil is something that can be defined, quantified, measured, and wielded like a hammer. May I instead offer an addendum that makes your definition work within the D&D moral spectrum? It's not our perception of morality that makes aberrations "evil". Aberrations are, in fact, foreign to this entire REALITY. The Far Realm exists outside the Great Wheel, and even outside the Axis cosmology of 4e. As such, the objective morality of OUR reality is what causes them to register as Evil. The actions they commit, and the desires in their hearts resonate most closely with Evil in this cosmos, whereas perhaps it did not in their native reality.

It may seem like a small change, but it is an important distinction that point of view and perspective are not factors in alignment. A man who believes a prophecy that an orphan will summon Demogorgon and takes it upon himself to indiscriminately slaughter orphans in the hopes of eliminating this summoner may view himself as serving the greater good, but his alignment will, in fact, be Evil.

[EscherEnigma]

I suspect the reason 5e pushed alignment onto the back-burner is because it's such a philosophical concept. If morality/ethics correlated to alignment, and alignments are absolute (that is, the same person is "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil" whether they're plopped into 4th century BC Athens, 8th century Germany, 1800s China, or 2020 America), you're forced to one of two conclusions.

Either (A) "Good" and "Evil" (as far as the alignment scale is concerned) either don't care much about many injustices that we care about today (slavery, human dignity, born equal, etc), and really focuses on the "big picture" such that you have to be really really "good" to be "Good" (and vice-versa for evil) with most people lumped in neutral...

or (B) most of humanity was pretty evil for most of history. Just take slavery, for example. By today's standards, slavery is "Evil" with a capital 'E'. So it's not hard to argue that any society that practiced and supported it must also be evil. Well, there goes most of history into the "Evil" bin.

However, if instead of this kind of absolute morality, you prefer a "relative" or "cultural" morality, then you can say that "by their standards, he was Good", thus allowing a "Viking" raider to be "Good". But then you have the problem that if you drop that same "Viking" raider in modern New York City and suddenly he's gone from being "Good" to being "Chaotic Evil" (stealing, kidnapping, ransom, occasional murder, and so-on? Yeah, that's "Chaotic Evil" by modern standards.)

Conclusion: most groups are not interested in this level of moral and ethical debate. So instead of arguing whether Odysseus is Neutral Good (classic Greek interpretation) or Chaotic Evil (by applying modern morality), I suggest you just talk to the GM about how the words on your character sheet will inform your roleplay.

[Wymmerdann]

In a setting with the kind of absolute morality we see in typical D&D, seeking out communities [often undefended] that have done you no wrong, and then committing murder and rape for the purpose of building your own reputation [individually and as a people] and for committing mass theft seems pretty clearly evil. Yes, Danish traders and Norse explorers did more than that, yes the sagas get pretty darn heroic, but if we're defining a practice, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the highlight reel. The arguments that run the other way seem prepared to paint just about anything as virtuous.

I'm not sure if arguing about the inherent chaos or order of a society has any real bearing on an individual within that society, since alignment tends to be personal, rather than social [even when books make calls about "some" "most" "all"]. Frankly, even when books explicitly call out Elven society as chaotic, and Dwarven society as Lawful, I think the idea is fairly half-baked once we actually get a look at those societies.

If we were to ask that kind of question though, I think the actual values and virtues are probably less important than the degree to which they were mandated within the society, and the degree to which unorthodoxy was persecuted. Without getting too "real", there are several real-world cultures that place a higher importance on orthodoxy, and persecuting dissent, while others play fast and loose and tend toward decentralised cultural/religious authority. To my mind, this is more important than the words in any particular creed, if our programme is Law vs Chaos.

[Sigreid]

The only issue I have with this is that in D&D alignment forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are absolute. Evil is something that can be defined, quantified, measured, and wielded like a hammer. May I instead offer an addendum that makes your definition work within the D&D moral spectrum? It's not our perception of morality that makes aberrations "evil". Aberrations are, in fact, foreign to this entire REALITY. The Far Realm exists outside the Great Wheel, and even outside the Axis cosmology of 4e. As such, the objective morality of OUR reality is what causes them to register as Evil. The actions they commit, and the desires in their hearts resonate most closely with Evil in this cosmos, whereas perhaps it did not in their native reality.


I honestly think this was set as the standard years ago simply to take stigma off of the killing. Originally you didn't have to worry about sparing the orc women and babies because they were orcs and orcs are evil monsters who can never be good. Meaning you can kill them without the slightest remorse or questioning of your morality. As the game, and I dare say its players, has matured and gained a broader world view we have introduced grey areas where the original designers never intended for them to be. It makes for a more immersive and realistic world, but now we have debates over the morality of wiping out the entire orc village.

[Sigreid]

In a setting with the kind of absolute morality we see in typical D&D, seeking out communities [often undefended] that have done you no wrong, and then committing murder and rape for the purpose of building your own reputation [individually and as a people] and for committing mass theft seems pretty clearly evil. Yes, Danish traders and Norse explorers did more than that, yes the sagas get pretty darn heroic, but if we're defining a practice, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the highlight reel. The arguments that run the other way seem prepared to paint just about anything as virtuous.

I'm not sure if arguing about the inherent chaos or order of a society has any real bearing on an individual within that society, since alignment tends to be personal, rather than social [even when books make calls about "some" "most" "all"]. Frankly, even when books explicitly call out Elven society as chaotic, and Dwarven society as Lawful, I think the idea is fairly half-baked once we actually get a look at those societies.

If we were to ask that kind of question though, I think the actual values and virtues are probably less important than the degree to which they were mandated within the society, and the degree to which unorthodoxy was persecuted. Without getting too "real", there are several real-world cultures that place a higher importance on orthodoxy, and persecuting dissent, while others play fast and loose and tend toward decentralised cultural/religious authority. To my mind, this is more important than the words in any particular creed, if our programme is Law vs Chaos.

I think most societies work out to be neutral. Most people are decent enough, and will help those they care about, and often those right in front of them if it doesn't put them at risk; but can't be bothered to do much to change the situation of people they'll never see/meet. Likewise, people understand that there are rules that are necessary for us to live together and not descend into barbarism like not killing, stealing or raping, but there are plenty of laws that are just ignored when no one is likely looking (I personally take the speed limit as just a suggestion if I can go faster without putting others at excessive risk and there are no cops around). So, decent enough of people and obey the rules they see as are important, but otherwise do as they please if they don't see it as causing harm to others.

[Regitnui]

I honestly think this was set as the standard years ago simply to take stigma off of the killing. Originally you didn't have to worry about sparing the orc women and babies because they were orcs and orcs are evil monsters who can never be good. Meaning you can kill them without the slightest remorse or questioning of your morality. As the game, and I dare say its players, has matured and gained a broader world view we have introduced grey areas where the original designers never intended for them to be. It makes for a more immersive and realistic world, but now we have debates over the morality of wiping out the entire orc village.

Alignment is a tool, so really is no excuse for justifying your own evil. But yeah, as a game mechanic, it was designed to designate "hero" and "villain".


That's outstanding. I have the same view on fey (whom I largely consider to be Chaotic Neutral of the "do what I feel like at any particular moment and attention span of a squirel variety). But your stance on aberrations is amazing. While I recognize that their mindsets and motivations are entirely alien, I never thought of them as on an unseen "third axis" of morality, and that their evil alignment is a matter of perception.

The only issue I have with this is that in D&D alignment forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are absolute. Evil is something that can be defined, quantified, measured, and wielded like a hammer. May I instead offer an addendum that makes your definition work within the D&D moral spectrum? It's not our perception of morality that makes aberrations "evil". Aberrations are, in fact, foreign to this entire REALITY. The Far Realm exists outside the Great Wheel, and even outside the Axis cosmology of 4e. As such, the objective morality of OUR reality is what causes them to register as Evil. The actions they commit, and the desires in their hearts resonate most closely with Evil in this cosmos, whereas perhaps it did not in their native reality.


Xoriat exists within Eberron's orbiting planes model, but the sheer strangeness of 'life' there as opposed to the material makes their morality vague by our standards. Evil still isn't an absolute, just an ideal. The purest representations of the alignments can still be fallible; not even angels and demons are absolutely Good or Evil. The Lawful modrons can go rogue, and slaadi can be disciplined enough to study for years on end to evolve. There is no Absolute alignment, just purer and purer philosophical representations of it.

[Socratov]

On the third axis: this is basically what it's about (image shamelessly storen from http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/BaconAndNecktieMoralityGraph_6986.png

clearly aberrations are Chaotic Bacon.

[Sigreid]

Alignment is a tool, so really is no excuse for justifying your own evil. But yeah, as a game mechanic, it was designed to designate "hero" and "villain".

.

To be honest, when I was a kid playing boxed and then 1e, I don't think we ever once encountered an orc child or non-warrior woman. It really was black and white once you got out of town.

[RedMage125]

I honestly think this was set as the standard years ago simply to take stigma off of the killing. Originally you didn't have to worry about sparing the orc women and babies because they were orcs and orcs are evil monsters who can never be good.


Alignment is a tool, so really is no excuse for justifying your own evil. But yeah, as a game mechanic, it was designed to designate "hero" and "villain".

:rollseyes:
Right, because giving mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy such as palpable, tangible evil or pure good wasn't a design consideration...

Nevermind that objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is required for spells like Detect Evil to work, which plays into the classic fantasy trope of a hero being able to sense the taint of evil. Or magic items like a Holy weapon...without objective alignment forces, "evil" becomes merely a point of view. And then who determines whether or not a creature takes extra damage from the sword? The DM's whimsy? Fiends are literally MADE OF EVIL in D&D. Without objective alignment forces, demons are just outsiders with a different point of view, which is not as conducive to heroic high fantasy as a slavering horde of pure evil.

So while objective evil does lay down a few "these guys are SUPER bad" and "these guys are SUPER good" in terms of a specific subset of creatures...don't lose sight of the fact that such is part of a LARGER design goal, which was to have mechanics that reflected and promoted classic tropes of fantasy.




Xoriat exists within Eberron's orbiting planes model, but the sheer strangeness of 'life' there as opposed to the material makes their morality vague by our standards. Evil still isn't an absolute, just an ideal. The purest representations of the alignments can still be fallible; not even angels and demons are absolutely Good or Evil. The Lawful modrons can go rogue, and slaadi can be disciplined enough to study for years on end to evolve. There is no Absolute alignment, just purer and purer philosophical representations of it.
Xoriat may be included in the model, but it doesn't orbit into Eberron Prime Material like the others do. The last time it was conterminous, the overlap lasted years and was only ended by the Gatekeepers, whose seals even now keep Xoriat from ever coming into overlap again.

However, back to "core" planar cosmologies...yes, Evil is absolute. This was spelled out more clearly in older editions, such as 3e. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are "the forces that define the cosmos" as per the RAW. Just because one demon in a million COULD be non-evil (same with a lawful slaad, etc), has no bearing on the absolute nature of the Evil force that comprised its being. The creatures which you see as the "purest representations" of those alignment forces are still individuals, the objective force is still absolute and unyielding. Going with 3.5e mechanics here to prove a point, the oft-vaunted succubus paladin...she's STILL an outsider with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes. Which means she registers on Detect Evil, Chaos, AND Good. She'd be hurt by Holy Smite AND Unholy Blight. As an outsider, she cannot be raised if killed, and due to her subtypes, if she was killed, her energies would return to a Chaotic Evil plane and make a new succubus, which-statistically-would likely be Evil. Only by undergoing rituals that remove her old subtypes (i.e. magically alter the nature of the energies that compose her body) can she ever escape being affected as a demon in all ways.

There IS absolute alignment in D&D cosmology. Just because no being is a flawless representation of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a shapeless, formless cosmic force.

[Regitnui]

Yes, the alignment system was meant to invoke high fantasy. Therefore, it also delineated hero and villain. You're just quibbling about chicken-and-egg. Orcs in early D&D also just appeared out of Gruumsh One-Eye's sheer loathing for elves and dwarves instead of having children and families.

I don't want this to turn into an argument, but i disagree. There is no fully-incarnated Pure Evil, Good, Law, Chaos, Blue or Orange. The alignments are ideals. An angel is the closest living (because they are alive) thing to Pure Good in most D&D worlds, just as fiends, modrons and slaadi embody their alignments. But here's the thing: none of them are completely their alignments. A devil isn't Pure Evil; its essence is equally Lawful. There's a reason Evil has a Blood War on the Great Wheel and Good does not. The devils cannot stand the demons because one faction is Lawful and the other Chaotic.

On top of that, you cannot have a self-aware mind made of one thing. Elementals are always neutral because they do not have enough self-awareness to make a conscious choice. A devil must consistly choose to be Lawful and Evil. An angel must choose to be Lawful and Good. This choice is written into their natures to the point where they may be unaware than there is another choice to be made, but occasionally one will; Angels fall to become Radiant Idols, Modrons go rogue, and slaadi behave consistently. No outsider is the absolute of the ideal. The ideals exist, i'll concede. Not even gods are perfect alignments, and all outsiders are lesser than gods.

[Sigreid]

On a metaphysical level I like to think the prime material plane is the center point where all the planes touch and mingle. That's why it's unique in having the grey areas, good and evil, fire and water, air and earth and so on are all mixing and mingling, none existing in their pure forms there unless they get temporary passage from their native source.

[Bohandas]

Unless 5e changed it, Asgard is canonically a Chaotic Neutral plane (with some chaotic good traits)