A proposed definition of alignments.

[Kurt Kurageous]

This is a draft of a handout to players new to my table or to D&D in general. I think it's necessary to define alignment as it is a source of much grief for me when (most often Chaotic and Chaotic Neutral) is used as a justification for actions that sidetrack a session and can just wreck a campaign. Pre-sorries for the wall of text. Posted for comment.

1. Alignment just isn’t that important. Decide who you are, then choose an alignment that best describes your relation to your society.

2. What is Good? Good is what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities of the good-aligned races, which may also include humans. Good, therefore, is based on what promotes them, even at the expense of other beings, specifically the evil races. Good may also be anti-Evil if the creature is primarily a bane to Evil races or is primarily interested in the destruction of Evil creatures regardless of method or consequence.

3. What is Evil? Evil is what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations (if any), and communities of the evil aligned races, the largest of which are the goblinoids, orc, and giant. Evil may also be anti-Good if the creature is primarily a bane to Good races or is primarily interested in personal aggrandizement regardless of method or consequence.

4. What is Neutral (with respect to Good and Evil)? Neutral is what is in the interest and health of the natural world. Neutral stands against the expansion of civilization beyond it’s current bounds, and promotes the contraction of the current encroachments of all non-nomadic humanoid communities civilization.

5. What is Lawful? Lawful is a preferred approach to the goals of Good, Evil, or Neutral that involves suborning the goals of the individual to the authority of the collective. A Lawful approach is practical for the short lifespan races because it expresses the wisdom of the elders that cannot be perfectly learned, let alone maintained by all individuals in a lifetime. Whether expressed as a code, a tradition, or culture, this wisdom is the best means of ensuring the continuity of the collective. A Lawful alignment belief is one that looks for wisdom and guidelines before looking within for the answer.

6. What is Chaotic? Chaotic is a preferred approach to the goals of Good, Evil or Neutral that involves promoting the potential of the individual relative to the goals of the collective. A Chaotic approach is practical for the long lifespan races because it maximizes the individual’s possible contribution to their society. Chaotic belief places the individual as the one primarily responsible for the success of the collective. This Individual choice creates a greater chance of success of the society as a whole because the unfettered effort individuals free to exert themselves according to their strengths will mean more success for the group, more resources to be shared with the group, and more opportunities for the group.

7. What is Neutral (with respect to Lawful and Chaotic)? Neutral can be either an indifference to the approaches of Lawful and Chaotic or an elevation of animal instinct and natural selection over the abstractions of the Lawful or Chaotic. Neutral is an indifference to the will of an individual or their society in deference to understanding how each species has coexisted with each other in the past. It’s only law is the that the strong shall survive and flourish, the weak will soon perish, and all else interferes with understanding how the world is.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I don't think that's accurate to the intent of the system, but if it's what you think of the system, then it's great. Because all that really matters is getting the DM and the PCs on the same page.

[Mith]

For what it is worth to you, it isn't anything I would use at my table. I try not to associate alignment with specific races. An example being that my party had to go against some slavers that had an orc boy in a cage, specifically heading to the slave market. But since this is not in the interest of the Orc (Evil race), and is in the interest of the humans (Good race), it is a Good thing. My Half-Orc Barbarian disagrees.

I would rather write is as Good is going out of one's way in helping others, Neutral can help others, but generally sticks to their own little group, and Evil goes out to harm others. So Good is supportive, Neutral is Isolationist, and Evil is exploitive.

This isn't the only metric, but it is a general idea.

Your idea brings to mind the AD&D perspective on the world, which is fine, but is not my approach.

[Ethambutol]

I would rather write is as Good is going out of one's way in helping others, Neutral can help others, but generally sticks to their own little group, and Evil goes out to harm others. So Good is supportive, Neutral is Isolationist, and Evil is exploitive.

This isn't the only metric, but it is a general idea.

Your idea brings to mind the AD&D perspective on the world, which is fine, but is not my approach.

Personally I prefer a set of definitions that defines alignments by their positive attributes because it offers up more player options without causing party conflict. Obviously alignment is a spectrum but I like the system that views the strongest feature of each alignment as follows:

Good: Compassion
Neutral: Realism
Evil: Determination
Lawful: Reliability
Neutral: Pragmatism
Chaotic: Independence

In this way, you can have an evil or a chaotic character be true to their alignment but not disruptive to a party dynamic and I think emphasising the good qualities of the alignments makes for a more cohesive party in general. But yeah, different strokes.

[Anderlith]

Personally I prefer a set of definitions that defines alignments by their positive attributes because it offers up more player options without causing party conflict. Obviously alignment is a spectrum but I like the system that views the strongest feature of each alignment as follows:

Good: Compassion
Neutral: Realism
Evil: Determination
Lawful: Reliability
Neutral: Pragmatism
Chaotic: Independence


I would change Evil's into Self Interest/Cruelty. Thkse that act for themselves first & do not care for others & those hat are intentionally hurtful for whatever reason.

[Ethambutol]

I would change Evil's into Self Interest/Cruelty. Thkse that act for themselves first & do not care for others & those hat are intentionally hurtful for whatever reason.

Cruelty isn't exactly a positive aspect which undermines the purpose of this alignment interpretation. I think Determined emphasises the positive aspects of an 'Evil' alignment well. I don't think Evil characters are goalless or only in it to hurt others. I prefer to think of them as creatures that have a goal/ideal that they want to achieve and will pursue it relentlessly, which can be an admirable trait or can tip over into tyranny/cruelty.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

What you just posted is a tautology.

"Good is what is good. Evil is what is evil".

[Anderlith]

Cruelty isn't exactly a positive aspect which undermines the purpose of this alignment interpretation. I think Determined emphasises the positive aspects of an 'Evil' alignment well. I don't think Evil characters are goalless or only in it to hurt others. I prefer to think of them as creatures that have a goal/ideal that they want to achieve and will pursue it relentlessly, which can be an admirable trait or can tip over into tyranny/cruelty.

That is ambition,, not determination.

I only argue this because, to me, determination & outright refusal to see limitations to be the greatest aspect of mankind. To have that seen only as an evil trait irks me. Especially something as simple as determination, how many good guys win just be cause they never give up? Goonies never say die, Capt. America can do this all day, even GalaxyQuest has "Never give up, never surrender" etc.

John McClane is determined, Hans Gruber is ambitious

[Talamare]

2. What is Good? Good is what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities of the good-aligned races, which may also include humans.

3. What is Evil? Evil is what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations (if any), and communities of the evil aligned races, the largest of which are the goblinoids, orc, and giant.

That's literally racists

[Regitnui]

Good: Altruism - Do you put the needs of others before your own?

Evil: Selfishness - Do you prefer to look out for yourself first

Lawful: External Authority: Do you think that the world needs someone/something to lead it?

Chaotic: Freedom - Do you believe it's best if everyone is left to do as they will?

Those are my interpretations, since they make the world more dynamic and greyer. A Chaotic Evil person could work with a Neutral Good person against a tyrant, though their methods may differ, since the CE person objects to the tyrant and they have their life or belongings at stake.

These don't apply to outsiders; a demon is pure Chaos and pure Evil, and exists to destroy anything that isn't it. Devils cannot think outside their hierarchy, even as they try any means to succeed over their peers. Angels cannot think as freely as humans, and their Good is the greatest good as a whole for everyone. None are compatible with human society, though they may understand it.

[comk59]

> Sees the thread title.

http://i.imgur.com/NnoGhN1.gif


> Sees actual, thoughtful discussion.

Aw.

I have to admit, it's a fairly simplistic description of the alignments. Neutral especially rubs me the wrong way.
But I can also see the desire for a guide like this, especially for new players. As I learned recently, alignment is a common pitfall for newbies.

[MrFahrenheit]

I think 5e does a good job as pertains to how creatures behave with regards to society in determining alignment. That being said, it's still imperfect. The simplest/best fix they made was giving evil alignments a touch of preferring murder as a means to an end, with HOW the murder is preferred landing your character on the L-N-C axis.

The most all-encompassing change they made was to LN specifically. Personal code? LN. Maintaining order without killing or helping people? LN (used to be TN). Just following orders/tradition/ethical code (regardless of impact on world)? LN.

[Kurt Kurageous]

That's literally racists

Yes, quite. Which is why I prefer it. Makes things grey. I like to make it as hard on Good to be truly good as it is on Evil to be truly evil. Paladins in my world need almost equally heroic characters. Their gods appear to them in dreams to guide them on the path, because they flat out need it in this world.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I would rather write is as Good is going out of one's way in helping others, Neutral can help others, but generally sticks to their own little group, and Evil goes out to harm others. So Good is supportive, Neutral is Isolationist, and Evil is exploitive.

This is the problem I see with Good simply as doing good. No humor intended, it's just not 'good' enough for me. That's why I don't use it as a standard. It matters for whom and what purpose you do good. Simplistic example using the above standard of 'helping':

An orc warrior is healed by a orc healer so the warrior can go on and kill more elves later that day is...good. And an elf healer healing elf warriors trying to stop the orcs is...also good. The orc chief sending their warriors forward for the glory of the tribe (which naturally benefits the chief) is...evil. The charismatic elf king rallies their warriors to defend, which keeps the king in power is...evil. The dwarves who allow the elves to stand or fall on their own because they think they can defeat the orcs are...neutral?

I've heard that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Your definition of neutral is not neutral to me. I believe Burke's “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” rephrased becomes "Evil wins when Good acts Neutral."

To paraphrase the most banned one, who wouldn't do good for their own kind? That's just helping your own. Revolutionary good is the elves healing the orcs after the battle, or the orcs healing the elves. Now that's amazingly Good.

[Regitnui]

This is the problem I see with Good simply as doing good. No humor intended, it's just not 'good' enough for me. That's why I don't use it as a standard. It matters for whom and what purpose you do good. Simplistic example using the above standard of 'helping':

An orc warrior is healed by a orc healer so the warrior can go on and kill more elves later that day is...good. And an elf healer healing elf warriors trying to stop the orcs is...also good. The orc chief sending their warriors forward for the glory of the tribe (which naturally benefits the chief) is...evil. The charismatic elf king rallies their warriors to defend, which keeps the king in power is...evil. The dwarves who allow the elves to stand or fall on their own because they think they can defeat the orcs are...neutral?

I've heard that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Your definition of neutral is not neutral to me. I believe Burke's “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” rephrased becomes "Evil wins when Good acts Neutral."

To paraphrase the most banned one, who wouldn't do good for their own kind? That's just helping your own. Revolutionary good is the elves healing the orcs after the battle, or the orcs healing the elves. Now that's amazingly Good.

The thing is, is that there's no cosmic scorekeeper. Good acts (by your definition furthering the cause of Cosmic Good) don't rack up points. Neither do Evil acts. If there was one all-powerful alignment scorekeeper, surely the demons and devils would work together, rather than needing three planes' worth of intermediaries to deal with each other any more politely than a fireball to the face?

Outside of Eberron, the races are the playthings of the gods. Orcs are evil because Gruumsh One-Eye brainwashes them in the womb. Gnolls are evil because a demon lord cursed them with eternal, painful hunger. The drow hate surface elves because Lolth hates Corellon Larenthian. The kobolds eat gnomish babies and the gnomes smash kobold eggs because their gods hate each other. A red dragon is eternally nasty and spiteful because half their brain has Tiamat swearing at them.

There's no self-determination. The orcs can't choose to heal elves because they can't choose. Kobolds can't join mainstream society and redeem themselves because the gnomes inspire their god to go into foaming tantrums, which then makes the kobold go crazy because Kurtle the Turtle still hates Ridiculously Alliterative Name with Gold In. Because the evil races can't choose, neither can the "good" races. They're not brainwashed, but they have to exist in a state of perpetual war with the evil races. They murder warriors, kill children, steal land, burn villages, and are praised by Pelor because the victims were divinely brainwashed.

Treating Good and Evil (Lawful and Chaotic too, for that matter) as scorecards that nobody can ever measure up to is fine for a game. And we are playing a game. But don't claim it's morally grey when there's a shining pillar of Good and an all-devouring pit of Evil casting sharp shadows over the actions of players and DM alike.

Eberron is fairer. Evil is selfishness, and anyone from the kobold hatchling to the human king to the shining gold dragon can choose it. An Evil man can do Good and vice versa, without some spiritual Karma Meter counting whether they end up as celestial puppies or dretch poop in the afterlife. Orcs are heroic druids, holy barbarians, mad paladins or thuggish primitives. Elves are bloodthirsty marauders or necromancers worshipping their not-quite-dead great grandmother.

Here, the orc has a reason to fight an elf. He's protecting himself from a glory-seeking cavalryman with a double-ended scimitar. There's no god dictating the eternal rivalry of the races. The orc can choose to heal the elf. Self a determination. A player character does not dissolve into DM Control for not hurting the designated monster. Heck, in Eberron you can meet and get quests from a mind flayer determined to get revenge on the rest of his kind, while avoiding a mad, flesh-warping elf and working alongside friendly gnolls.

There's no point keeping track of alignment if you're holding it over the players as a behaviour control. You may as well take it out of their hands completely and assign their alignment if you're going to hold them to standards impossible in the world. Alignment is one aspect of a character, not a Karma Meter designed to railroad them.

[lunaticfringe]

The easiest fix for alignment problems in my experience is to remove it completely, not make it more strict or clearly defined.

[Ravinsild]

Gnolls are evil because a demon lord cursed them with eternal, painful hunger.

I hate Forgotten Realms so much. I hate that 5e is set in this "official campaign setting". For this reason alone we don't get PC official Gnolls. I'm so ****ing butthurt.

"Gnolls are inherently Demonic and Evil so no PC race for you"

Wizards plz

[Lord Haart]

Not going to butt in with another "that's not how i see alignments" comment; this thread is, quite clearly, about the author's proposed system with "red corner, team Good, right corner, team Evil" mentality seeming quite intended. However, a question on the integrity of a system (or on a possible lack of an alternate G-E neutral alignment): what, under this system, is alignment of a person who acts in best interest, health, and promotement of all cultures and races simultaneously? You can say that said person is bound to give one side an advantage over another and thus get Good or Evil, but a near-epic wizard can literally Wish to help anyone at no one's expense; and it's a but iffy if a less-powerful all-caring person would get its alignment flipped from Good to Evil and back every week depending on which race's village it is currently helping, while behaving in a consistent and non-changing way.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The thing is, is that there's no cosmic scorekeeper. There's no self-determination. Treating Good and Evil (Lawful and Chaotic too, for that matter) as scorecards that nobody can ever measure up to is fine for a game. And we are playing a game. There's no point keeping track of alignment if you're holding it over the players as a behaviour control. You may as well take it out of their hands completely and assign their alignment if you're going to hold them to standards impossible in the world. Alignment is one aspect of a character, not a Karma Meter designed to railroad them.

Which is why I wrote item 1.

I don't know (or care) how the gods will judge or reward the dead NPCs (since they all are at that point). I try to use alignment to encode/decode NPC motives more than anything else, and to revoke justification from a GTA5 style player nakedly abusing their power "because I'm CN" at my table. Nope, you are acting CE, and the world is gonna kick back and not give a flip about "alignment" if you are in any society with some small degree of property rights. Who you say you worship means nothing to the protectors of the society. And we will talk out of session about why you want to make the game about you, and whether I need to host a separate session to play out the consequences of your running rampage orphan killing spree while guard-slicing the king's own in the town of What Did We Do To Deserve This.

Alignment is a tool that may have outlived its usefulness. Honor, Sanity, and Acclaim may soon overtake it.

D&D with alignment absolutes is boring to me. But who comes to table to play a few hands of existential angst in fantasyland? I'm trying to avoid relativism and promote non-determinism without completely chucking the old alignments. If I can't find a way, chucking them is next on the possible house rules.

[Regitnui]

I've said how I read the alignments as equal to Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws. It's just a description, not a definition. It's a reason I enjoy Eberron; the second-in-command of the Lawful Good church is Lawful Evil...

I want to apologise if I went a bit over the top earlier.

[Mith]

This is the problem I see with Good simply as doing good. No humor intended, it's just not 'good' enough for me. That's why I don't use it as a standard. It matters for whom and what purpose you do good. Simplistic example using the above standard of 'helping':

An orc warrior is healed by a orc healer so the warrior can go on and kill more elves later that day is...good. And an elf healer healing elf warriors trying to stop the orcs is...also good. The orc chief sending their warriors forward for the glory of the tribe (which naturally benefits the chief) is...evil. The charismatic elf king rallies their warriors to defend, which keeps the king in power is...evil. The dwarves who allow the elves to stand or fall on their own because they think they can defeat the orcs are...neutral?

I've heard that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Your definition of neutral is not neutral to me. I believe Burke's “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” rephrased becomes "Evil wins when Good acts Neutral."

To paraphrase the most banned one, who wouldn't do good for their own kind? That's just helping your own. Revolutionary good is the elves healing the orcs after the battle, or the orcs healing the elves. Now that's amazingly Good.

Helping your own is a Neutral act in my view, since they are part of your tribe. I am using the Good Samaritan as a guide for such actions (although perhaps I didn't word things so well).

I generally try not to use deterministic principles in any game system where one can play multiple races (such as Half Orcs, kobolds, etc.) that are traditionally "Evil", as it limits player choices.

[Kurt Kurageous]

what, under this system, is alignment of a person who acts in best interest, health, and promotement of all cultures and races simultaneously?

I...don't...know.

Closest I can think is the old "true neutral" where you favor the status quo and natural order of things.

Your question utterly exposes the flaw the two dimensional model of alignment by suggesting a third dimension (holding more than one direction as desired) to the simulation. Great job.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've said how I read the alignments as equal to Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws. It's just a description, not a definition. It's a reason I enjoy Eberron; the second-in-command of the Lawful Good church is Lawful Evil...I want to apologise if I went a bit over the top earlier.

No offense taken, as I'm not easily offended. And if you DON'T go over the top, how will you ever know where the top is? Spirited discussion means you just might get carried away!

[Regitnui]

I...don't...know.

Closest I can think is the old "true neutral" where you favor the status quo and natural order of things.

Actually, that falls under Neutral Good. Altruism without a focus on structure or freedom.

Someone trying to create a better world for no benefit to themselves is certainly Good, in my opinion. By disregarding creeds, races and whatever else, they're leaning to Chaotic, but if they're not looking to explicitly break traditions, they're not definitely Chaotic.

[Anderlith]

To me, true neutral is either apathy, or the philosophy of keeping your head down & not trying to attract trouble

[Kurt Kurageous]

Someone trying to create a better world for no benefit to themselves is certainly Good, in my opinion. By disregarding creeds, races and whatever else, they're leaning to Chaotic, but if they're not looking to explicitly break traditions, they're not definitely Chaotic.

In the structure I propose, mortals aligned with Good, Evil, and Neutral all stand for something and also against the other two. In this structure, you CAN'T be 'for' everyone and everything.

As Talamare said, it's racist. Well, mostly racist. The Good/Evil spectrum is the race's tendency to create or destroy civilizations that advance the standard of living of all within its borders. Neutral opposes Good because borders and civilization are artificial constructs of humanoids. Evil is selfish if it is within a Good civilization, otherwise it's just a racial bias or relative perspective. Orcs gotta orc, and to orc is to contribute to the tribe/clan/species long term survival. To an orc, that's "good", but we have labeled them Evil, which is to say not Good.

This can lead to some dark places, namely striving for racial purity in the name of upholding the predominant race/culture of a civilization. And that's ok. Heck, it's an adventure hook!

Did you ever wonder why there are half-elves but no half-dwarves? And humans, geeze, we breed with anything!

Yeah, fiends, angels and other semi-mortals or immortals are less concerned about petty matters of race and more on their own power. It just works out that their efforts on their own behalf tend to benefit the Good/Evil races that match their alignment.

[Regitnui]

In the structure I propose, mortals aligned with Good, Evil, and Neutral all stand for something and also against the other two. In this structure, you CAN'T be 'for' everyone and everything.
.

Emphasis added. The fact that the question can't be covered by your interpretation is a shortcoming of your interpretation, not of the alignment system. If we instead interpret Good as Altruism, there's no conflict. Someone who wishes to work for the betterment of everyone even to their own detriment falls under Neutral Good. A rather extreme NG, but NG nonetheless. The alignment system can cover that personality type, along with the appropriate Ideal: [u]I want to make the world better, even for my enemies.[/b] That phrasing is contradictory; what the player wants and what their enemies want may be different. This makes for compelling roleplay, and may even lay the groundwork for a NG villain.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The fact that the question can't be covered by your interpretation is a shortcoming of your interpretation, not of the alignment system.

Yes, it certainly is. Discovering the shortcomings (assuming more will be uncovered) is why I posted this to begin with.

I like the NG answer, probably with a bond/flaw associated with trying to do good to those who would harm you. I only know of one who actively espouse this approach to life. It didn't turn out so well for them personally, but their legacy is magnificent.

In the end, alignment just isn’t that important. Decide who you are, then choose an alignment that best describes your relation to your society.

[Regitnui]

In the end, alignment just isn’t that important. Decide who you are, then choose an alignment that best describes your relation to your society.

This is the thing most people coming from old editions miss. Alignment is another trait, like bonds, ideals and flaws. It's no longer as important as race and class. I agree with your priorities.

[Biggstick]

5. What is Lawful? Lawful is a preferred approach to the goals of Good, Evil, or Neutral that involves suborning the goals of the individual to the authority of the collective. A Lawful approach is practical for the short lifespan races because it expresses the wisdom of the elders that cannot be perfectly learned, let alone maintained by all individuals in a lifetime. Whether expressed as a code, a tradition, or culture, this wisdom is the best means of ensuring the continuity of the collective. A Lawful alignment belief is one that looks for wisdom and guidelines before looking within for the answer.

6. What is Chaotic? Chaotic is a preferred approach to the goals of Good, Evil or Neutral that involves promoting the potential of the individual relative to the goals of the collective. A Chaotic approach is practical for the long lifespan races because it maximizes the individual’s possible contribution to their society. Chaotic belief places the individual as the one primarily responsible for the success of the collective. This Individual choice creates a greater chance of success of the society as a whole because the unfettered effort individuals free to exert themselves according to their strengths will mean more success for the group, more resources to be shared with the group, and more opportunities for the group.

To start it off, your absolutes for Good and Evil are pretty harsh. it's been hashed out by above posters, so I won't go further into it.

I'd also really like to point out something in your descriptions of Lawful and Chaotic. I absolutely disagree with the bolded parts above. Here are the long lived races that are primarily Lawful: Dwarf, Halfling (150+ years), Gnome, and Triton. I'm justifying Gnome under Lawful because Sages, Engineers, Researchers, Scholars, Investigators, and Inventors are the Gnomes who advance Gnomish Society. Not the Chaotic Minstrels, Tricksters, Wanderers, and fanciful Jewelers.

Now on the opposite side of the spectrum, long-lived races that are primarily Chaotic include: Elves and Half Elves. That's it buddy. In fact you're more likely to find the Chaotic-bent races tend to be on the short lived side. I'll list those for you in case you're doubting my opinion: Half Orc, Tiefling, Kenku, Tabaxi, Bugbear, Goblin, and Orc.

Just so it's out in the open, let's include a list of the short-lived races that are primarily Lawful: Dragonborn, Goliath, Hobgoblin, and Kobolds.

Based on these observations, I feel like there might need to be some sort of change in how you've written out what is Lawful and what is Chaotic. You surely can't believe that all those Lawful long lived races, with all the time they have to be alive, can't learn the wisdom of their elders in 100 years? And for Chaotic your only evidence of long lived races that act to better their society are the Elves and Half Elves. That's it, and while it's a pretty solid card to play, it's your only one.

[Kurt Kurageous]

To start it off, your absolutes for Good and Evil are pretty harsh. it's been hashed out by above posters, so I won't go further into it.

I'd also really like to point out something in your descriptions of Lawful and Chaotic. I absolutely disagree with the bolded parts above. Here are the long lived races that are primarily Lawful: Dwarf, Halfling (150+ years), Gnome, and Triton. I'm justifying Gnome under Lawful because Sages, Engineers, Researchers, Scholars, Investigators, and Inventors are the Gnomes who advance Gnomish Society. Not the Chaotic Minstrels, Tricksters, Wanderers, and fanciful Jewelers.

Now on the opposite side of the spectrum, long-lived races that are primarily Chaotic include: Elves and Half Elves. That's it buddy. In fact you're more likely to find the Chaotic-bent races tend to be on the short lived side. I'll list those for you in case you're doubting my opinion: Half Orc, Tiefling, Kenku, Tabaxi, Bugbear, Goblin, and Orc.

Just so it's out in the open, let's include a list of the short-lived races that are primarily Lawful: Dragonborn, Goliath, Hobgoblin, and Kobolds.

Based on these observations, I feel like there might need to be some sort of change in how you've written out what is Lawful and what is Chaotic. You surely can't believe that all those Lawful long lived races, with all the time they have to be alive, can't learn the wisdom of their elders in 100 years? And for Chaotic your only evidence of long lived races that act to better their society are the Elves and Half Elves. That's it, and while it's a pretty solid card to play, it's your only one.

That's a pretty thorough trashing of my proposal, thanks (no sarcasm).

The G and E, again, is racially relative. I don't know why you'd call it harsh. It's very arbitrary, that much I'd say for sure.

I think my lifespan justification L or C is weak. It was based on a Tolkein-centric (1e) view. The races mentioned arrived long after 1e.

The short-lived chaotics you've listed are E races. Besides Evil, they tend to be nomadic or outcasts (hence C), and in many cases viewed as opposed to civilization.

Kobolds (in 5e anyway) are potentially long-lived.

Thanks, and keep swinging. I'm gonna keep rethinking.

[Falcon X]

If you want some inspired reading, this is one of the best discussions on alignment, mostly because it focuses on specific mindsets and in-between alignments.
It doesn't talk about "good" It talks different kinds of morality in D&D.
http://mimir.net/essays/morals.html

[Regitnui]

It was based on a Tolkein-centric (1e) view.

Elves have always been Chaotic, and dwarves always Lawful. We go back at far and your "Tolkienesque" Law=short lived and chaos=long lived fails. Hobgoblins are Lawful Evil for their habit of living in fortress cities and rigid caste society that includes their sister races. Hobgoblins also have civilizations rivalling humanity's.

Also, your racial alignment fails to account for Chaotic Neutral dwarves, Neutral Evil humans or Lawful Good drow. As much as I dislike the "Drizzt" character mold, it does exist. How does your interpretation handle them?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Elves have always been Chaotic, and dwarves always Lawful. We go back at far and your "Tolkienesque" Law=short lived and chaos=long lived fails. Hobgoblins are Lawful Evil for their habit of living in fortress cities and rigid caste society that includes their sister races. Hobgoblins also have civilizations rivalling humanity's.

Also, your racial alignment fails to account for Chaotic Neutral dwarves, Neutral Evil humans or Lawful Good drow. As much as I dislike the "Drizzt" character mold, it does exist. How does your interpretation handle them?

Elves live longer than dwarves. I concede that the "L short C long" is a conclusion not consistently supported by evidence. I was searching for a reason as a possible anthropological explanation of why certain cultures tend L or C.

Hobgoblins are labeled E only because they are known to war upon the G races (like other goblinoids), and not for much more. The G and E labels in D&D seem arbitrary, human/dwarf/elf/gnome-centric.

The racial alignment is not an absolute guarantor, so you can have CN dwarves or any other exception. The exception should be justified in backstory or in the player's concept of the character (PHB122). Like the PHB says, race x "tends towards" whatever. The system 'handles them' because it does not claim to explain outside of the typical.

In my system, humans who live in settlements should be listed in PHB as tending towards G, nomadic more to N. Of course, lawbreaking is an E act, and if it's your career, then you are likely to be labeled E.

What I'm trying to do here is move the definition of G and E away from a "moral choice" (again PHB122) towards "how should the world be ordered, resources shared" which is the essence of the political. I started this to prevent declared CN players from thinking it (CN) meant their character could play GTA5e medieval setting and be in character. I think my new goal now is to make it possible for G, N, and E characters to openly coexist in the same party. They will have opposing political opinions, which will create tensions. But this should be no different or greater than the tensions between the L, N, and C characters.

A good test case is hobgoblins. The L or C is easy to see, but why are they E? They do not arbitrarily murder or make war, it's all very deliberate. War is just one instrument of power (economic, technology, diplomatic, etc.), and labeling an entire race E 'just because' is pretty flimsy. Think Bush labeling nations an "axis of evil." That was a political distinction. I'm arguing that G in 5e is not what the book says, "helping others." Hobgoblins help hobgoblins, so what? The real question in terms of alignment is "who do you actually help and why." And that is politics.

Consider a (crazy) LG elf who takes on a mission to go and live among orcs to teach them a better way to live (language, culture, etc.). The assumption is that they, the elf, are the G, and the orcs are E. If somehow our hero is successful, they will have moved that group of orcs away from E. Why? Because those orcs are less likely to enter conflict with a certain group of elves. Flip the script, and the result is the same.

Keep it coming. It's all helpful. That which does not kill it will make it stronger.

[M Placeholder]

Hobgoblins are labeled E only because they are known to war upon the G races (like other goblinoids), and not for much more. The G and E labels in D&D seem arbitrary, human/dwarf/elf/gnome-centric.


A good test case is hobgoblins. The L or C is easy to see, but why are they E? They do not arbitrarily murder or make war, it's all very deliberate. War is just one instrument of power (economic, technology, diplomatic, etc.), and labeling an entire race E 'just because' is pretty flimsy. Think Bush labeling nations an "axis of evil." That was a political distinction. I'm arguing that G in 5e is not what the book says, "helping others." Hobgoblins help hobgoblins, so what? The real question in terms of alignment is "who do you actually help and why." And that is politics.



Hobgoblins are E due not just for their warmongering, but for their use of laws in their society to enforce conformity and strip individuality from the masses, and the elite of their society use those rules to crush dissent and enforce their rule. That's also a part of what makes them (or rather, their society) E.

"Their home is ours to conquer,
Their Children our slaves"

Pretty LE.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Hobgoblins are E due not just for their warmongering, but for their use of laws in their society to enforce conformity and strip individuality from the masses, and the elite of their society use those rules to crush dissent and enforce their rule. That's also a part of what makes them (or rather, their society) E.

"Their home is ours to conquer,
Their Children our slaves"

Pretty LE.

"use those rules to crush dissent" Yeah, but that's the rulers alignment LE. What of the oppressed commoners? Why are they E?

All heavy handed lawful societies "enforce conformity and strip individuality." That's not inherently evil, just oppressive.

I played with the idea of making slavery the litmus test instead of politics. You tolerate slavery? Big E. No tolerate? Big G. It's because slavery is a property rights issue for the individual. If the individual has no right to themselves, they do not exist in the society. Any society that does not value the individual gets the big E.

[Regitnui]

I suggested a perfectly fine system about a page ago. If an Evil character sees benefit for themselves in Good quests, there's no reason they wouldn't do it. If a Good character sees how many can benefit from an Evil action, the only thing stopping them is moral qualms. A Lawful character can be persuaded to work outside the law and a Chaotic character can choose to obey orders.

The Chaotic Neutral problem (or Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid) problem) is not the alignment system, but the player. Chaotic Neutral does not mean insane. It means a distaste for authority. Does an anarchist randomly do stupid things? No. Every action is thought out, to a degree. The Joker doesn't commit crimes because he's crazy. He commits crimes because he wants people to laugh at the absurdity of life. He is, undoubtedly, insane. But his actions make sense to his twisted logic. If your Chaotic Neutral player cannot answer why they did something blatantly unfun for the party and DM and their excuse is alignment, they should be rebuked.

With a holy symbol made of lead as big as a man's torso.

If we rewrite Chaotic Neutral as "Freedom always", with Chaotic Good becoming "Freedom for All" and Chaotic Evil becoming "Freedom for Me", it stops being a license to be stupid.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I suggested a perfectly fine system about a page ago. If an Evil character sees benefit for themselves in Good quests, there's no reason they wouldn't do it. If a Good character sees how many can benefit from an Evil action, the only thing stopping them is moral qualms. A Lawful character can be persuaded to work outside the law and a Chaotic character can choose to obey orders.

The Chaotic Neutral problem (or Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid) problem) is not the alignment system, but the player.

I totally agree with the concept of good deeds vs selfishness, but I'm going away from a moral question towards a political one. Sure, an evil (defined as selfish) can work for a good (defined as altruism) cause, and vice versa. But there's the argument that people only do things for selfish reasons, even if we call it enlightened self interest. It's because of this question of selfishness that I've moved away from a moral definition for G and E.

I totally agree that the Chaotic Stupid problem is a player problem. Id say it's also on the GM for allowing it to happen. I try to warn, but some do it anyway.

But my definition of G and E for mortal beings are not moral ones. A half-orc who believes that the orc way is a better way than the civilization they currently live in, and secretly wish for or even work for the downfall of the civilization is E. That doesn't make them selfish, just E in this construct.

[Tanarii]

Why don't you just direct players to read the section of the PHB / Basic Rules on Alignment and Personality? It's pretty comprehensive, in a low-key way.

In a nutshell, the PHB says:
1) Alignment is about moral and social attitudes, but doesn't define everything about your character's personality. It's just one aspect.
2) Here's a single sentence on general behavior derived from alignments for you to consider when making in character decisions. It's not required to be slavishly followed, nor is it to be considered as the most important aspect of personality.
3) Choose 1-2 Personality Traits, 1 Ideal, 1 Bond and 1 Flaw. Each should be one sentence to consider when making in character decisions. Generally speaking, these are more important than Alignment when it comes to making in-character decisions.
4) Go play your character. Don't be a slave to your personality (including Alignment), instead use it as a guideline to playing a character who is not yourself when making in character decisions.

Some of that is personal interpretation, but IMO it's what the 5e personality section is trying to tell you to do. Generate a set of 5-6 sentences total that help you determine motivations for a fictional character that is not you the player.

[Arelai]

Good is altruistic
Evil is Selfish
Lawful follows a code, custom or law
Chaos breaks rules and conventions

And neutral is a combination of aspects from both.

[hamishspence]

I hate Forgotten Realms so much. I hate that 5e is set in this "official campaign setting".

Pre 4e/5e, Forgotten Realms Gnolls tended to be devoted more to the god Gorelikk, than the demon Yeenoghu - one of the Harpers novels was focused around freeing a knoll tribe from the ice devil that had enslaved them - and the most interesting character in the story was the gnoll shaman working with the protagonist.

So "The Realms" may not be at fault here - it may be more "The 4e and 5e designers".

[M Placeholder]

Pre 4e/5e, Forgotten Realms Gnolls tended to be devoted more to the god Gorelikk, than the demon Yeenoghu - one of the Harpers novels was focused around freeing a knoll tribe from the ice devil that had enslaved them - and the most interesting character in the story was the gnoll shaman working with the protagonist.

So "The Realms" may not be at fault here - it may be more "The 4e and 5e designers".

Thay had one of the largest populations of Gnolls on Toril. When the Red Wizards launched their rebellion against Mulhorand, large numbers of Gnolls were enlisted, and after Thay was established as a separate nation, the Gnolls settled and many of them became law enforcers in that new land. Being Thay, the Gnolls enjoyed their place in Thayan society. The Gnolls that inhabited the South were just as unpleasant and pretty devoted to Yeenoghu.

So, Gnolls were still generally evil in The Realms before 4th edition, though no doubt you could get neutral or good alligned tribes. It was just harder for them to choose, considering that their patron was an Abyssal Lord and there being no good Gnoll diety who had power comparable to Yeenoghu to speak up for them. Which is a theme for most generally evil alligned races. The Drow have Eilistraee, but apart from that? No good Orc powers, no good Kobold powers - for them, there is no choice. Out of all the generally evil alligned races, I can name only one (Firenewts) that worshipped a power that was neutral, and that was only due to the decree of the Church of Kossuth stating that they were the embodiement of elemental fire.

In the Realms, evil alligned races don't have much choice in divine guidance.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Why don't you just direct players to read the section of the PHB / Basic Rules on Alignment and Personality? It's pretty comprehensive, in a low-key way.

In a nutshell, the PHB says:
1) Alignment is about moral and social attitudes, but doesn't define everything about your character's personality. It's just one aspect.
2) Here's a single sentence on general behavior derived from alignments for you to consider when making in character decisions. It's not required to be slavishly followed, nor is it to be considered as the most important aspect of personality.
3) Choose 1-2 Personality Traits, 1 Ideal, 1 Bond and 1 Flaw. Each should be one sentence to consider when making in character decisions. Generally speaking, these are more important than Alignment when it comes to making in-character decisions.
4) Go play your character. Don't be a slave to your personality (including Alignment), instead use it as a guideline to playing a character who is not yourself when making in character decisions.

Some of that is personal interpretation, but IMO it's what the 5e personality section is trying to tell you to do. Generate a set of 5-6 sentences total that help you determine motivations for a fictional character that is not you the player.

I agree that RAW is playable. I am trying to unmask the human/elf/dwarf-centric view of alignment and show that G is really a function of racial (political) perspective.

[Ravinsild]

Thay had one of the largest populations of Gnolls on Toril. When the Red Wizards launched their rebellion against Mulhorand, large numbers of Gnolls were enlisted, and after Thay was established as a separate nation, the Gnolls settled and many of them became law enforcers in that new land. Being Thay, the Gnolls enjoyed their place in Thayan society. The Gnolls that inhabited the South were just as unpleasant and pretty devoted to Yeenoghu.

So, Gnolls were still generally evil in The Realms before 4th edition, though no doubt you could get neutral or good alligned tribes. It was just harder for them to choose, considering that their patron was an Abyssal Lord and there being no good Gnoll diety who had power comparable to Yeenoghu to speak up for them. Which is a theme for most generally evil alligned races. The Drow have Eilistraee, but apart from that? No good Orc powers, no good Kobold powers - for them, there is no choice. Out of all the generally evil alligned races, I can name only one (Firenewts) that worshipped a power that was neutral, and that was only due to the decree of the Church of Kossuth stating that they were the embodiement of elemental fire.

In the Realms, evil alligned races don't have much choice in divine guidance.

Why do you think I'm mad? I would prefer a setting that is like "Alright fine, 99.9% of X population is super evil but it's not...divinely wickedly infused. They're that way for one reason or another but some...raised by humans or some other caveat can choose to be good and don't struggle every day like Edward Cullen trying not to eat his girlfriend...." Something like Warcraft. Some Orcs like Gul'dan knew full well the demonic powers at be and said "worth it" and made a pact with the devil. Others like Thrall believed in the best of their race and fought against the demonic corruption for freedom of choice, to be good and honorable like Varok Saurfang and many others.

Some were just sort of Nuetral...like Grom Hellscream. They just sort of killed whatever and were raging Barbarians without any real moral guidelines. Warriors for Warriors sake.

There's a specturm of Orcish alignment in Warcraft from really good and honorable and 100% good guy to super grim dark mega evil man. Forgotten Realms doesn't seem to give you that choice. "Gruumsh says your bad so you're bad forever. Even as a Half-orc Gruumsh tickles your butthole every night to remind you that you're actually bad deep down inside." Same with Gnolls.

Some of us like redeemed savage character tropes and the ideas of a noble savage that chooses to better himself and try to make it in a world thats against them because monsters are fun and look cool.

When I open the "Giant List Of Optinal PC Races" my eyes are drawn to muscular Orcs with huge tusks, mighty Minotaurs powerful and huge with giant horns, lithe and cunning trolls, shadowy and mysterious. Also Hyenas are my favorite animal. Gnolls = Hyena people. Gnolls are to Hyenas as Minotaurs are to Bulls as Werewolf Hybrid Form is to Wolves. Savage Beast People are my thing. Forgotten Realms says "Suck to be you. Gonna have a real bad time being an Orog in this campaign."

My eyes are not drawn to "Really Pretty Human with Pointy Ears" "Really Grumpy Short Human with Huge Beard" "Tiny Human With Beady Eyes That Tinkers" and so forth. Just doesn't resonate with me.

That's one of the reasons I love Warcraft, it let monsters be PCs and not necessarily evil. D&D provides that too in...most campaign or homebrewed settings. But when Wizards decides FR is the "real setting" and therefore "All Gnolls are super demons" so we will NEVER get a PC race for Gnolls officially...to quote Angry Joe "you done ****ed it up WotC."

[Tanarii]

I agree that RAW is playable. I am trying to unmask the human/elf/dwarf-centric view of alignment and show that G is really a function of racial (political) perspective.
Okay. But G doesn't really exist in a meaningful and separate way in 5e.

All that exists in a meaningful and separate way in 5e are the following general, but not required, behaviors:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

Anything else is, like, just your opinion, man. /hippieaccent

But seriously though, that's the extent of Alignment in 5e. If players or DMs are making assumptions about this action or that action being Good or Evil, or this behavior or that behavior being Good or Evil ... for 5e purposes, they're wrong. Instead, point them at these sentences, explain how they are supposed to interact with Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw, and explain how the whole system isn't a straightjacket restriction or an excuse to behave like an *******, but instead a tool to use a guideline for effectively roleplaying motivations that aren't you, the player.

Edit: change Good and Evil to be capitalized. To distinguish them as the partial alignment Good & Evil, as opposed to real world personal moral opinions good and evil

Edit2: Now I'm wondering if I missed it, and you're not trying to define 5e Alignments in a way that's helpful to players to understand 5e Alignment. Are you instead trying to re-define Alignment in a way that you want it to work in your world, as opposed to the 5e way?

[Regitnui]

I agree that RAW is playable. I am trying to unmask the human/elf/dwarf-centric view of alignment and show that G is really a function of racial (political) perspective.

Good and Evil don't work as racial (racist?) markers. At least, not anymore. Same with Lawful and Chaotic. Unless you're a modron, slaad, fiend or celestial, your alignment is your own choice and entirely separate from your physical attributes.

If you want an overarching organization of "Humans" vs an overarching organization of "monsters", rather create separate countries or lands. Something akin to Eberron's democratic experiment Breland, and their western neighbour Droaam ruled by a covey of hags.

[Irennan]

Why do you think I'm mad? I would prefer a setting that is like "Alright fine, 99.9% of X population is super evil but it's not...divinely wickedly infused. They're that way for one reason or another but some...raised by humans or some other caveat can choose to be good and don't struggle every day like Edward Cullen trying not to eat his girlfriend...." Something like Warcraft. Some Orcs like Gul'dan knew full well the demonic powers at be and said "worth it" and made a pact with the devil. Others like Thrall believed in the best of their race and fought against the demonic corruption for freedom of choice, to be good and honorable like Varok Saurfang and many others.

Some were just sort of Nuetral...like Grom Hellscream. They just sort of killed whatever and were raging Barbarians without any real moral guidelines. Warriors for Warriors sake.

There's a specturm of Orcish alignment in Warcraft from really good and honorable and 100% good guy to super grim dark mega evil man. Forgotten Realms doesn't seem to give you that choice. "Gruumsh says your bad so you're bad forever. Even as a Half-orc Gruumsh tickles your butthole every night to remind you that you're actually bad deep down inside." Same with Gnolls.

Some of us like redeemed savage character tropes and the ideas of a noble savage that chooses to better himself and try to make it in a world thats against them because monsters are fun and look cool.

When I open the "Giant List Of Optinal PC Races" my eyes are drawn to muscular Orcs with huge tusks, mighty Minotaurs powerful and huge with giant horns, lithe and cunning trolls, shadowy and mysterious. Also Hyenas are my favorite animal. Gnolls = Hyena people. Gnolls are to Hyenas as Minotaurs are to Bulls as Werewolf Hybrid Form is to Wolves. Savage Beast People are my thing. Forgotten Realms says "Suck to be you. Gonna have a real bad time being an Orog in this campaign."

My eyes are not drawn to "Really Pretty Human with Pointy Ears" "Really Grumpy Short Human with Huge Beard" "Tiny Human With Beady Eyes That Tinkers" and so forth. Just doesn't resonate with me.

That's one of the reasons I love Warcraft, it let monsters be PCs and not necessarily evil. D&D provides that too in...most campaign or homebrewed settings. But when Wizards decides FR is the "real setting" and therefore "All Gnolls are super demons" so we will NEVER get a PC race for Gnolls officially...to quote Angry Joe "you done ****ed it up WotC."

FR has example of orcs coexisting with humans, peacefully. The orcs that settled in Thesk are an example. The Ondonti too are, to an extent. Many Arrows managed to not go to war with the Silver Marches for about 2 orc lifespans, respectiong a peace treatise. That says quite a bit tbh. FR is way more nuanced than people give credit for, but that's because WotC are bent on pushing their "always X" boring philosophy on whatever setting happens to be in the flagship position for the edition.

[M Placeholder]

Why do you think I'm mad? I would prefer a setting that is like "Alright fine, 99.9% of X population is super evil but it's not...divinely wickedly infused. They're that way for one reason or another but some...raised by humans or some other caveat can choose to be good and don't struggle every day like Edward Cullen trying not to eat his girlfriend...." Something like Warcraft. Some Orcs like Gul'dan knew full well the demonic powers at be and said "worth it" and made a pact with the devil. Others like Thrall believed in the best of their race and fought against the demonic corruption for freedom of choice, to be good and honorable like Varok Saurfang and many others.

Some were just sort of Nuetral...like Grom Hellscream. They just sort of killed whatever and were raging Barbarians without any real moral guidelines. Warriors for Warriors sake.

There's a specturm of Orcish alignment in Warcraft from really good and honorable and 100% good guy to super grim dark mega evil man. Forgotten Realms doesn't seem to give you that choice. "Gruumsh says your bad so you're bad forever. Even as a Half-orc Gruumsh tickles your butthole every night to remind you that you're actually bad deep down inside." Same with Gnolls.

Some of us like redeemed savage character tropes and the ideas of a noble savage that chooses to better himself and try to make it in a world thats against them because monsters are fun and look cool.

When I open the "Giant List Of Optinal PC Races" my eyes are drawn to muscular Orcs with huge tusks, mighty Minotaurs powerful and huge with giant horns, lithe and cunning trolls, shadowy and mysterious. Also Hyenas are my favorite animal. Gnolls = Hyena people. Gnolls are to Hyenas as Minotaurs are to Bulls as Werewolf Hybrid Form is to Wolves. Savage Beast People are my thing. Forgotten Realms says "Suck to be you. Gonna have a real bad time being an Orog in this campaign."

My eyes are not drawn to "Really Pretty Human with Pointy Ears" "Really Grumpy Short Human with Huge Beard" "Tiny Human With Beady Eyes That Tinkers" and so forth. Just doesn't resonate with me.

That's one of the reasons I love Warcraft, it let monsters be PCs and not necessarily evil. D&D provides that too in...most campaign or homebrewed settings. But when Wizards decides FR is the "real setting" and therefore "All Gnolls are super demons" so we will NEVER get a PC race for Gnolls officially...to quote Angry Joe "you done ****ed it up WotC."

As Irannan pointed out, FR is a lot more nuanced than people give it credit for, and it did give you a choice.

Gnolls were actually statted out as a playable race in the 3.5 sourcebook Unapproachable East, along with Grey Orcs, Hagspawn (male offspring of hags), Taer (yeti like giants) and Volodni (Treefolk that were descended from a demon summoning Nar tribe). Other books had Loxo (two trunked elephant folk), Thri-Kreen, Fey'ri (offspring of demons and elves), Saurials (Dinosaur folk - Dragonbait was a major character in one FR novel), Yuan-ti and a number of different types of Lizard Folk. Many of these races had a +1 or more level adjustment though.

The problem I have with WoTC making FR the "real setting", is that they sort of haven't. The 160 page Sword Coast guide glossed over a lot which made the setting tick - most of the secret societies, the shadow weave, the trading companies, the magic system (the shadow weave in particular) and took a lot of what made the setting away.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Okay. But G doesn't really exist in a meaningful and separate way in 5e.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Anything else is, like, just your opinion, man. /hippieaccent

Edit2: Now I'm wondering if I missed it, and you're not trying to define 5e Alignments in a way that's helpful to players to understand 5e Alignment. Are you instead trying to re-define Alignment in a way that you want it to work in your world, as opposed to the 5e way?

I'm sorry I have not responded to this excellent post sooner!

What I'm taking issue with here is that G and E is, like, a political opinion, man. /hippeaccent

1. In LG "as expected by society." Whose society? A hobgoblin doing it's hobgoblin thing in the in hobgoblin way in a hobgoblin society is still labeled LE.

2. In NG "folk" (members of a community) "doing...to help others according to their needs." This is overtly political. What is the need of the poor? Free compulsory public education? Charity? Mandatory sterilization for the feebleminded or malformed? All political decisions.

3. IN CG, there's no good being done necessarily at all. With regard to the needs of others, one may say that the poor are poor because they are also lazy "as their conscience directs." And a government that reflects this view will allocate resources accordingly. That's politics, not morals.

I'm not trying to make it work for my world or my way. I'm just trying to uncover the fact that G and E are racially arbitrary labels when it comes to the mortal races. Compare the language for E from PHB p122.

1. Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. If a society has universal property rights instead of communal property, then trade is an expected consequence (LG). How can a LE "take" anything if it's against the law? As mentioned in another thread, doesn't this make all who tax E, as they did not earn the things they have?

2. Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. This is the use of naked force or power. This would make every battlefield commander seeking victory even in a just war and any ruler trying to gather more resources (like water rights) for their population E.

3. Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Now we have the anarchist-terrorist-freedom fighter. The violence is justified by their own conscience (or lack of). How are they different from CG, who "act as their conscience directs"?

I'm saying that D&D G and E labels (when it comes to mortal beings) aren't moral like they say they are. They are elf/dwarf/human-centric political judgments.

[Tanarii]

Yeah I don't really like the LG one either, it's too open to cultural relativism. :smallwink:

But they're intentionally written somewhat vaguely on purpose. Because they have to integrate, and not override, the Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. IMO there's no point in heavily parsing the language, because it's not designed to be parsed. It's designed to be flexible and left to the player to determine how it should apply. It's a rough guideline, not a hard rule. So trying to parse it like a hard rule is pointless.

(Not that parsing hard rules is always beneficial either.)

[Ravinsild]

As Irannan pointed out, FR is a lot more nuanced than people give it credit for, and it did give you a choice.

Gnolls were actually statted out as a playable race in the 3.5 sourcebook Unapproachable East, along with Grey Orcs, Hagspawn (male offspring of hags), Taer (yeti like giants) and Volodni (Treefolk that were descended from a demon summoning Nar tribe). Other books had Loxo (two trunked elephant folk), Thri-Kreen, Fey'ri (offspring of demons and elves), Saurials (Dinosaur folk - Dragonbait was a major character in one FR novel), Yuan-ti and a number of different types of Lizard Folk. Many of these races had a +1 or more level adjustment though.

The problem I have with WoTC making FR the "real setting", is that they sort of haven't. The 160 page Sword Coast guide glossed over a lot which made the setting tick - most of the secret societies, the shadow weave, the trading companies, the magic system (the shadow weave in particular) and took a lot of what made the setting away.

Gnolls were also statted out in 4e from an entire article dedicated to them. That's my entire point though. WotC has stripped away the option of Gnoll PCs. If I want to play a Gnoll I have to go back to 3.x or 4e. I can't play one in 5e unless I homebrew it. Some DMs won't take Homebrew stuff. They've deleted an entire PC option that has at least two editions backing it because of their ham fisted half-FR setting.

In removing the Nuance and taking it at total face value they have also removed PC options that were previously supported. It is a big deal for me because I love Gnolls.

Can you imagine if it were some other popular normally evil but sometimes good race like say....the Drow? What if 5e never had PC Drow, ever. It was just off the table because in FR all Drow are evil demonic worshippers of the demon god lloth who have no thoughts and mindlessly slaughter without any compromise or nuance?

Or what if it were just...Dwarves. 5e just doesn't have Dwarves. No Dwarves ever. They were in all the previous editions but sorry folks this time around no Dwarves. You don't get an official WotC Dwarf race.

This really ticks me off.

[Theodoxus]

I like your Rule #1. I use it, I emphasize it, and I totally downplay all aspects of alignment. If a player asks what their alignment should be, before we even play, I tell them to not write it down, and I'll let them know how they're playing their character.

Some use alignment as a straightjacket - adhering to their interpretation (and it's all interpretation, no matter how much you try to hardcode meaning). Others just play to their background traits and leave the moral/ethical divide behind - which is what I prefer.

The thing that bugs me most about alignment in 5E is WotC's insistence to keep spell name conventions. Detect Evil and Good, Protection from Evil and Good, etc. - are ridiculous, meaningless names now. And they reinforce the idea that alignment matters. Why the didn't just rename them "Detect/Protection from/Magic Circle of Outsiders" is beyond me. It would have required an additional step, wherein Outsider is defined as "aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead" (despite their potential terrestrial origination). Then we wouldn't be worrying about if Bill the Paladin can be found hiding behind the haystack with Detect Evil and Good - because Bill isn't an Outsider...
"But, he's good, so I should be able to see him!" /sigh

[Tanarii]

If a player asks what their alignment should be, before we even play, I tell them to not write it down, and I'll let them know how they're playing their character.That's back to front. 5e alignment is designed to be used as a tool to help play a character a certain way. It is not determined by how you are playing your character.

Edit: To be clear, the way you are trying to use it makes it completely pointless. If you don't use it as a guideline to help guide you in making in-character decisions, it's completely pointless.

[Theodoxus]

Exactly, it is completely pointless.

It has no mechanical effect on the game.

It has no social effect on the game.

It's a throwback to older systems where there were mechanical and/or social effects on the game.


As a DM, you are certainly in your right to impose some effects - but there is nothing RAW that is affected by alignment.

[Millstone85]

I am also starting to share this "alignment is pointless" feeling.

First, good and evil don't work as game jargon. They will always be the same good and evil we debate about in real life. So, the only question is: do you want to play a good guy, a bad guy (if allowed) or something in-between?

Then, law and chaos are of very little concern to your character. You meet modrons, you fight them. You meet slaadi, you fight them. Your goddess is chaotic good, those angels here do not care, they might be Her servants too. Having a particular affinity for one of the four elements would be of greater consequence, both mechanically and in how certain NPCs react to you.

[King539]

*Sees alignment thread on Gitp*

*Runs and hides*

[Tanarii]

Exactly, it is completely pointless.

It has no mechanical effect on the game.

It has no social effect on the game.

It's a throwback to older systems where there were mechanical and/or social effects on the game.


As a DM, you are certainly in your right to impose some effects - but there is nothing RAW that is affected by alignment.
No. It's not pointless. It's the most useful version of Alignment D&D has ever had.

It's simple & rough guidelines for overall behavior based on a overal moral & social attitudes, designed to be used with 4-5 other guidelines (personality traits) across a broad spectrum of categories. All together, it's designed to give a player some easy to remember motivations that create a full fleshed out character that isn't the player. That's incredibly useful.

You can discard it and write your own moral & social attitude guidelines. Same for the other categories. But to be frank about it, even experienced TRPG players absolutely suck at coming up with 5-6 clear motivational descriptions across a broad enough spectrum to make a multi-dimensional personality that isn't just playing a character as an avatar of themselves. That's why the 5e personality system, which includes Alignment, is ground breaking. At least, for D&D.

[Asmotherion]

Last time we had an alignment thread, it was a massacre, and there may or may not have been casualties. XD You have been warned. Just sayin'... :P


Well, I do respect your opinion, and it's not a bad aproach, but I have slightly different views on the subject. I'll leave it at that though, to avoid the comming war :D

[Theodoxus]

Having played multiple tables and with ~2 dozen different people, I can quantitatively state that none, not a single one, has played to their character traits, including their alignment, without compromising something.

You can be as idealistic as you want, but the moment your idealism runs head long into 'not getting loot', it falls to the wayside. Maybe it's a statement about our current state of games - where D&D has become Diablo IV; I don't know - or maybe Albuquerque just has crap gamers who can't stick to a predetermined character trait list... but from my experience, alignment isn't any more or less important than being an outcast, a hermit or a sage. It has less effect in game - whether you're lawful and get a chaotic bug up your butt or neutral good and decide to murder an orphan for his shoes.

Alignment is meaningless purely because it has no bite. There's no penalty for coloring outside the lines. You might be called chaotic, if you're playing like you're bipolar - but that's the worst that happens. Heck, Paladins can't "fall" anymore. Monks don't lose their abilities by going chaotic. A barbarian can still rage while adhering to a strict code of ethics.

You can describe your character as lawful good, go murder a hobo, eat his sandwich in front of his grieving wife and simply state "I'm lawful good" and great, you're lawful good. What consequences are there? None. What mechanical effects are there? None. Hence, by definition: meaningless.

[Tanarii]

Anything becomes meaningless if you ignore its purpose.

[Theodoxus]

Or remove it's purpose from the game, as 5E has done.

[Ravinsild]

Having played multiple tables and with ~2 dozen different people, I can quantitatively state that none, not a single one, has played to their character traits, including their alignment, without compromising something.

You can be as idealistic as you want, but the moment your idealism runs head long into 'not getting loot', it falls to the wayside. Maybe it's a statement about our current state of games - where D&D has become Diablo IV; I don't know - or maybe Albuquerque just has crap gamers who can't stick to a predetermined character trait list... but from my experience, alignment isn't any more or less important than being an outcast, a hermit or a sage. It has less effect in game - whether you're lawful and get a chaotic bug up your butt or neutral good and decide to murder an orphan for his shoes.

Alignment is meaningless purely because it has no bite. There's no penalty for coloring outside the lines. You might be called chaotic, if you're playing like you're bipolar - but that's the worst that happens. Heck, Paladins can't "fall" anymore. Monks don't lose their abilities by going chaotic. A barbarian can still rage while adhering to a strict code of ethics.

You can describe your character as lawful good, go murder a hobo, eat his sandwich in front of his grieving wife and simply state "I'm lawful good" and great, you're lawful good. What consequences are there? None. What mechanical effects are there? None. Hence, by definition: meaningless.

Well if your DM never punishes you for murdering the hobo and eating his shoes in front of his grieving wife, sure. Normally though something happens.

[Tanarii]

Well if your DM never punishes you for murdering the hobo and eating his shoes in front of his grieving wife, sure. Normally though something happens.

Exactly. To say alignment is pointless without mechanical consequences misunderstands the basic flow of motivations --> determine actions --> resolution --> consequences that is Roleplaying.

[Malifice]

Ive always gone with this:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

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

Killing, harming and opressing others is evil. A good person may kill but only as a last resort in self defence or in the defence of others, and when no other option reasonably presents itself (which is a neutral act).

Being kind, merciful, generous and caring is good. Helping others with no thought of personal gain, showing emapthy, kindness and mercy (even to those whe dont deserve it).

Its perfectly possible to be a person devoted to 'the greater good' but prepared to use murder, killings and torture to get there. Such a person in my games is very much evilly aligned.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Rewritten. Can we start the criticism anew?

1. Alignment just isn’t that important. Decide who you are, then choose an alignment that best describes your relation to your society.

Good, Neutral, and Evil
2. What is Good? Good is an aesthetic that values and promotes what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities (if any) of the good-aligned races. Good generally promotes a race or individual only at the expense of Evil or Neutral beings. Good may also be regarded as “the anti-Evil” if it is primarily opposed to the goals of Evil beings.

3. What is Neutral (between Good and Evil)? Neutral is what is in the best interest and health of the natural world. Neutral may promote an individual or species at the expense of other beings, but especially non-nomadic humanoid races. Neutral may be regarded as simply “anti” if it stands against the goals of one group of beings at the expense of another.

4. What is Evil? Evil is an aesthetic that values and promotes what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities (if any) of that specific evil-aligned race. Evil almost always promotes a race or individual at the expense of other beings, and can be opposed to the goals of any other beings.

Lawful and Chaotic
5. What is Lawful? Lawful is a preferred approach to making decisions that places the goals of the collective first as the best way to meet the goals of the individual. Lawful believes tradition, wisdom, and guidelines are the best way to bring success to the collective.

6. What is Chaotic? Chaotic is a preferred approach to making decisions that places the goals of the individual first as the best way to meet the goals of the collective. Chaotic believes individual self-interest is the best way to bring success to the collective.

7. What is Neutral (between Lawful and Chaotic)? Neutral has no preference between the individual and the collective when making decisions. Neutral believes upholding the aesthetic of Good, Evil, or Neutral is the best way to bring success of the collective and the individual.

[Shaofoo]

The problem with alignment is that it flies in the face of any objectivism.

There exists races that are considered evil, orcs, goblins, dragons, demons, all evil without them doing anything. The book even goes out of their way that even exceptions to the rule are barely better and that they are considered to be acceptable targets for the killing. If you kill these races then you are okay because they must've done something wrong.

D&D is no place for a good and evil (or law and chaotic) philosophical scenario when you can run your sword into a goblin and the universe says you have done a good thing.

In the interest of not being called a baby murdering Nazi for the millionth time every single time alignment rolls around (and I start to see the usual guys that seem to live for calling said people Nazi baby murderers) I will just say that this is just a game and you shouldn't seriously be thinking about it too hard. There is a reason why alignment is just a single page in the book.

[Fishyninja]

Rewritten. Can we start the criticism anew?

1. Alignment just isn’t that important. Decide who you are, then choose an alignment that best describes your relation to your society.

Good, Neutral, and Evil
2. What is Good? Good is an aesthetic that values and promotes what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities (if any) of the good-aligned races. Good generally promotes a race or individual only at the expense of Evil or Neutral beings. Good may also be regarded as “the anti-Evil” if it is primarily opposed to the goals of Evil beings.

3. What is Neutral (between Good and Evil)? Neutral is what is in the best interest and health of the natural world. Neutral may promote an individual or species at the expense of other beings, but especially non-nomadic humanoid races. Neutral may be regarded as simply “anti” if it stands against the goals of one group of beings at the expense of another.

4. What is Evil? Evil is an aesthetic that values and promotes what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities (if any) of that specific evil-aligned race. Evil almost always promotes a race or individual at the expense of other beings, and can be opposed to the goals of any other beings.

Lawful and Chaotic
5. What is Lawful? Lawful is a preferred approach to making decisions that places the goals of the collective first as the best way to meet the goals of the individual. Lawful believes tradition, wisdom, and guidelines are the best way to bring success to the collective.

6. What is Chaotic? Chaotic is a preferred approach to making decisions that places the goals of the individual first as the best way to meet the goals of the collective. Chaotic believes individual self-interest is the best way to bring success to the collective.

7. What is Neutral (between Lawful and Chaotic)? Neutral has no preference between the individual and the collective when making decisions. Neutral believes upholding the aesthetic of Good, Evil, or Neutral is the best way to bring success of the collective and the individual.

First of all I slightly disagree with number 1, I think it is important for the RP of a character. if you have builkt your character to be LG then you should play towards that alignment, I am not syaing that it is fixed in stone and you always have to be LG but if that character then does something CN and no-one, be it party or DM, speaks up then yes alignment becomes meaningless. To reiterate I think alignemnt is good for RP.

For 3, for me anyway, Neutral for me has been a character upholding to a doctrine or a group or laws, whether they are good or evil, I feel someone who has an interest in the natural world and wants to maintain that is leaning towards Good.
Again Neutral is someone following rules, orders, doctrines regardless of what the outcome is.

[Hakon]

Good: Altruism - Do you put the needs of others before your own?

Evil: Selfishness - Do you prefer to look out for yourself first

Lawful: External Authority: Do you think that the world needs someone/something to lead it?

Chaotic: Freedom - Do you believe it's best if everyone is left to do as they will?

Those are my interpretations, since they make the world more dynamic and greyer. A Chaotic Evil person could work with a Neutral Good person against a tyrant, though their methods may differ, since the CE person objects to the tyrant and they have their life or belongings at stake.

These don't apply to outsiders; a demon is pure Chaos and pure Evil, and exists to destroy anything that isn't it. Devils cannot think outside their hierarchy, even as they try any means to succeed over their peers. Angels cannot think as freely as humans, and their Good is the greatest good as a whole for everyone. None are compatible with human society, though they may understand it.


I really like this explanation, but....
what if my lawful good character keeps breaking the law because he believes it unjust.

he is a lawful good character acting in a chaotic good manor

what we really need is to add 4 more alignments (in italics)

Lawful Good: you believe the law is the law and must be abided by, your a good person at heart but will not break the law.
Good Lawful: your a good person who tries to follow the rules except when it conflicts with your moral code
Neutral good: you don't have an opinion about law and order vs freedom, as long as your doing good does it even matter?
Chaotic Good: you believe an individuals freedom trumps all else, you would break a rule in spite of the rule, and hate being told what to do, but you are still good at heart.
Good Chaotic:your a good person who loves independence and freedom, but won't stand in the way of rule such as do not kill as ultimately good is more important.
Lawful Neutral: think robot or judge without compassion, the rules are the rules, good or evil does not matter.
Neutral: everything must be in balance there can not be good with out evil or law without chaos, balancing choice for the journey is what matters.
Chaotic Neutral: Freedom and independence is all that matters.
Chaotic Evil: freedom to do what ever you want is most important, if people get in your way, get them out of your way.
Evil Chaotic: Killing and hurting others who displease me is all that matters, and any law that stops me shouldn't exist.
Neutral Evil: killing, maiming, raping, destroying, hurting is all that matters, laws and freedom is unimportant, you travel through life and put your self above all else.
Evil Lawful: Power is what matters, you want to rule, but you will break the law if it gets you the throne.
Lawful Evil: Order is whats needed in life, and you must use it to your own advantage, doing what ever you can to climb the ranks and be put in charge.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The problem with alignment is that it flies in the face of any objectivism.

There exists races that are considered evil, orcs, goblins, dragons, demons, all evil without them doing anything. The book even goes out of their way that even exceptions to the rule are barely better and that they are considered to be acceptable targets for the killing. If you kill these races then you are okay because they must've done something wrong.

You have nailed it.

I am trying to make/keep alignments relevant in my campaign after 5e has pretty much dumped them. Alignment as I'm viewing it is very much a subjective thing for exactly the reason you give. The races that are labeled "evil" because who they generally fight and who generally fights them are labeled "good," inter-evil and inter-good warfare notwithstanding. Because of this arbitrary distinction between evil and good, I have not used "selfish" as many have proposed as the definition of evil. Kobolds sound more pragmatic or unwillingly heroic than selfish as described in VGtM (p70-71) despite being called "fundamentally selfish" in the traits (VGtM p119) of the same work. Personally, I don't want to die today, but I hope I'd be brave enough to make that same stand if it meant the safety of my comrades or family. I don't think that makes me evil.

Fiends and Celestials are a different matter. They generally exist only to oppose each other or create sources of conflict in a campaign.

[King539]

Huh. A GITP thread on alignment turned into an argument. What a surprise.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Huh. A GITP thread on alignment turned into an argument. What a surprise.

I'm not doing this for argument, more looking for PEACH.

It is a hot topic, I agree.

[Regitnui]

I really like this explanation, but....
what if my lawful good character keeps breaking the law because he believes it unjust.

Then he believes in a different authority. Lawful people don't all necessarily follow the same laws, and a Lawful Good person can adhere to different laws to the LG society they inhabit. Consider a place where murder faces a steep fine, but the character believes murder deserves the death penalty. The character kills the murderer; as their Law requires, but has broken the Law of the town.

I once saw a page with an alignment wheel (http://easydamus.com/alignmenttendencies.html). Each of the alignments was bordered by a 'tendency'. For example, LG had two; NG (L) where they tended to Good, and LN (G) where they tended to Law. It covers the 'inbetween' alignments you mentioned.

[Kurt Kurageous]

And I'm not opposed to the in-between at all. I'm just trying to define the spectrum. And almost every comment has helped that in some way.

[ChildofLuthic]

I usually define Lawful and Chaotic for my tables in a way that focuses on their relationship to the law and authority. Lawful, at my tables, means "wanting a powerful government/system of power in place" and Chaotic means "wanting no powerful systems in place."

Of course, I play a lot with themes of personal freedom vs. the protection and peace brought by authority, so whether a PC likes authority or not really does inform a lot of their decisions.

I feel like in general, however, we need to stop thinking about the parts of an alignment as being disjointed. For a lawful good character, systems of authority are NECESSARY to preserving the welfare of all, and vice versa. Their goal should be something that is lawful AND good, like peace between all people, rather than having two separate aims.

So even though a lawful good character and a chaotic good character can team up to, say, protect a woman from losing her kid, that same lawful good character might team up with a lawful evil character if someone is threatening to destroy the government (or something.)

[Kurt Kurageous]

I usually define Lawful and Chaotic for my tables in a way that focuses on their relationship to the law and authority. Lawful, at my tables, means "wanting a powerful government/system of power in place" and Chaotic means "wanting no powerful systems in place."

So even though a lawful good character and a chaotic good character can team up to, say, protect a woman from losing her kid, that same lawful good character might team up with a lawful evil character if someone is threatening to destroy the government (or something.)

First of all, welcome to GitP.

Your definition makes perfect sense to me. Your use of "wanting" sounds like my "preferred approach."

Your second case is slightly more problematic, but only just. If the LG and LE are united in a purpose, you can bet your boots the LE would per personally hurt if the government fell, whereas the LG might just view it as a setback for civilization in general. But certainly their goals could align for the duration of the crisis, then split apart when the LG finds out the LE is actually benefitting from corruption within the government, such as randomly declaring mothers unfit, taking their kids, and holding them for ransom or otherwise legally exploiting them (debtor's prison/work camp).

See, you have come up with a pretty interesting NPC source of conflict here in one of your first posts. GJ!

[RumoCrytuf]

I could debate the philosophy of good and evil for hours, but alas; forums aren't the place to do it.

I, personally, try to keep Alignment relatively simple. If such a thing is even possible.

Lawful: Obeys the laws of the land, whatever they may be.

Neutral (Neither Lawful nor Chaotic): Follow laws when required, but not out of any true duty. Willing to break laws under circumstances

Chaotic: General disregard for laws. Follow your own path.

Good: Do what's generally accepted as "Good" at the table.

Neutral (Neither Good nor Evil): Doesn't follow any particular moral duty, their actions are done purely out of logical thinking.

Evil: Do what's generally accepted as "Evil" at the table.

Alignment combinations:

Lawful Good: Someone who believes in the law of the land, and does whatever is accepted as good. This can lead to conflict with laws, depending on how strong their alignment to good is.

Lawful Neutral: Follows laws regardless of what they may be.

Lawful Evil (How DM's should be :P ): Follows laws, honors agreements, but tries to exploit whatever loopholes there may be to screw others over.

Neutral Good: Generally follows good, but doesn't feel any strong obligation to uphold laws or follow any moral code.

True Neutral: Does not feel a moral code, does not care for laws. Also interpreted as needing a balance for good and evil, law and chaos.

Neutral Evil: Generally evil, but doesn't feel any strong obligation to uphold laws or follow any moral code.

Chaotic Good: Follows good, but doesn't follow laws if they're contradictory to their moral code.

Chaotic Neutral: Doesn't care for laws, can be either good or evil at times, depending on what's most advantageous to them.

Chaotic Evil: Follows evil, and blatantly does so whenever they can.

EDIT: After having read the thread, I can't help but be drawn into this... Gah!

Evil is not necessarily self serving. I hate the stigma that imposes that (mostly spread by religion >:( ). Someone can be both Good AND Self-serving. For example, A Fighter wants nothing more than to make a lot of money, marry a beautiful wife, and settle down with a lot of land and retire on his wealth. An Evil fighter would do this via larceny, corrupt actions, etc... until he was filthy rich. A good fighter, however, would work as a mercenary of sorts. Doing jobs he felt were good and paid well. One day he gets lucky while investigating a Dragons lair. The dragon is long dead, and a massive hoard of loot awaits. He becomes wealthy, and fulfills his dreams. Retiring on this wealth, he marries his childhood sweetheart, had 6 children, and provides for them. He's still self serving, his primary interest being himself. BUT he doesn't have to do "evil" things.

Same works vice versa. A "Good" Wizard gives to charity and helps the meek whenever possible. Making him a selfless, altruistic individual. However, he feels that all people should follow his example, so he gets laws passed for the wealthy to lose their wealth to charity. The fighter mentioned before has grown old, and can no longer support himself through work. With these new laws passed, all of the Fighter's wealth is taken from him. Leaving him, his wife, and his many children with mere coppers in their coin purses. Being forced out of his home because he can no longer afford to pay the land tax, they are reduced to begging. Now, you say that these new laws should help him yes? What no one accounted for was just how many poor their were in the kingdom or just how limited their kingdom's capital actually was. However, everyone now follows a selfless, altruistic form. Nobody has enough money to buy anything, the farmers can't make enough food because they don't have enough money to pay their farmhands. Rival nations see the weakness and capitalize on it. The Fighter, desperate to help his starving children, joins the war effort. He dies in the field, with little to nothing left behind to bring back. Worse still, he wasn't able to make enough off of his short lived service to provide for his family. There is no life insurance, because companies can't afford to pay for it. The Wizard's actions have done nothing but hurt people, but his actions are altruistic by their very definition.

So I ask you, is Altruism always good, and Selfishness always evil?

[Kurt Kurageous]

I could debate the philosophy of good and evil for hours, but alas; forums aren't the place to do it.

Good: Do what's generally accepted as "Good" at the table.

Evil: Do what's generally accepted as "Evil" at the table.

This works for me as well. Let's say your party was made up of half orcs, tieflings, and/or the new shiny monster races in VGtM that all "tend towards" evil. What that group accepted as "good" would be judged as "evil" only because of their race. Because everyone in the party would be (pardon me) "good" with it. That's why it's a key part of my proposed definitions.

"Evil...values and promotes what is in the best interests and health of the culture, civilizations, and communities (if any) of that specific evil-aligned race. Evil almost always promotes a race or individual at the expense of other beings..."

[ChildofLuthic]

Your second case is slightly more problematic, but only just. If the LG and LE are united in a purpose, you can bet your boots the LE would per personally hurt if the government fell, whereas the LG might just view it as a setback for civilization in general. But certainly their goals could align for the duration of the crisis, then split apart when the LG finds out the LE is actually benefitting from corruption within the government, such as randomly declaring mothers unfit, taking their kids, and holding them for ransom or otherwise legally exploiting them (debtor's prison/work camp).


It would definitely be a weird case. But let's say it was a Lawful Neutral government. It more or less kept the peace, but officials could use their sway to help out people that bribed them. And let's say a powerful chaotic neutral NPC was trying to overthrow this government.

And you've got two other characters in this government. One is a lawful good fighter, working for the government as a sort of combination police/soldier who protects the people of his country. The other is a lawful evil bureaucrat, who isn't powerful enough to start death camps or anything, but uses his power to help the very wealthy, because they can help him get what he wants, but is unwilling to bend the rules for the poor.

Now, they probably won't see eye to eye on the issues, but they could definitely go on an adventure together, and do a lot of things that they both agree on. Punishing bandits, saving the government, etc.

I feel like in a lot of alignment discussions, there's this assumption that Good vs. Evil trumps Lawful vs. Chaotic, but honestly, I don't think most conflicts work like that. And in a more morally grey campaign, Lawful vs. Chaotic conflicts can be really good to get players to pick a side (especially if they're all on one side or another) without having to sacrifice the moral ambiguity that you're trying to go for.

EDIT: Thanks for the encouragement by the way. I was lurking for a while before I finally signed up for an account.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The L vs C thing was the basis of an entire fiction series back in the day (1965-1980).

Author was Michael Moorcock. Check out the Elric of Melniboné books.

[Tanarii]

The L vs C thing was the basis of an entire fiction series back in the day (1965-1980).

Author was Michael Moorcock. Check out the Elric of Melniboné books.
Wasn't Michael Moorcock a huge influence on D&D? And IIrC the Elric stories are the inspiration for intelligent magical swords later on.

That would explain why the original alignments are just Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. No good or evil.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Wasn't Michael Moorcock a huge influence on D&D? And IIrC the Elric stories are the inspiration for intelligent magical swords later on.

That would explain why the original alignments are just Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. No good or evil.

Not just huge, probably MASSIVE. AD&D DMG Appendix N Inspirational Reading p 224. In same list with Tolkien, and yes an inspiration for if not the inspiration for intelligent magical swords in D&D.