How to play Chaotic Good?

[JobsforFun]

I have always been more of a fan of evil and neutral alignments but I wanted to try a good alignment. Chaotic Good seems somewhat complicated to me I am not sure why though. Any help would be appreciated.

[DarthPenance]

You're trying to do what's good and right but you aren't bounded by laws or personal codes, even if the means aren't the most "right" you'll still do it if it will do good for someone in need. Think of a lovable rogue like Robin Hood or from the Comic, Haley.
Never played CG myself but my friends have and it helps that there is someone that will do what needs to be done when the law wouldn't allow it.

[JobsforFun]

You're trying to do what's good and right but you aren't bounded by laws or personal codes, even if the means aren't the most "right" you'll still do it if it will do good for someone in need. Think of a lovable rogue like Robin Hood or from the Comic, Haley.
Never played CG myself but my friends have and it helps that there is someone that will do what needs to be done when the law wouldn't allow it.

What would be the main differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good? Would it have to do with breaking laws?

[kladams707]

I have always been more of a fan of evil and neutral alignments but I wanted to try a good alignment. Chaotic Good seems somewhat complicated to me I am not sure why though. Any help would be appreciated.

To me your morals fall along the good/evil axis while your beliefs in how best to.keep your morals falls along the lawful/chaotic axis.

A good character believes in doing right by others. A chaotic good character might feel laws are abused too easily and would want to free others from such subjugation. That doesn't mean laws and rules are meant to be broken but you'll far nire really bresk them if you find them unjust.

As a tsngent, Robin Hood is trickier than most people realize because he only breaks the law because he thinks the law has already been broken. He is loysl to King Richard and Prince John usurped the throne. Combine that with John's abuses, Robin Hood acts against the wrong law to bring the right one back. So with Robin's loyalty to king & country as well as his own code (rob from.the rich & give to the poor) informing his actions, one could argue he is actually lawful good.

[MrStabby]

Well stock answer would be to play a character, not an alignment.

Given the context I am pretty sure this would be of no use at all.

My advice would be a focus on the short term, and a focus on the direct effects. You help people you see by giving them money, by healing them by doing things in the moment. Lawful good still wants to help but will be more concerned with providing a stable society in which people can flourish, protection through a system of due process and so on.

[Biggstick]

What would be the main differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good? Would it have to do with breaking laws?

Captain America = NG
Robin Hood = CG

Captain America usually operates within the law, but has a tendency to break away from that. He genuinely cares about people and wants to do what's best for them.

Robin Hood steals from those who can afford to lose something to feed and provide for those who can't.

Not a super good description but it's a start.

[DarthPenance]

What would be the main differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good? Would it have to do with breaking laws?

Well, saying from the definition of alignments, Neutral Good sees the point in laws and personal codes but he will break them if it brings a greater good. Chaotic Good will value them less and break them more often, but as others said, don't play an alignment, play the character.

[Millstone85]

What do you think of the PHB definition?
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.To this, I would add one or several of the following points:
* The whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, but not when it comes to a community and the individuals in it.
* No set of rules, however well thought-out, can tell someome how to take to right decisions.
* Leadership attracts corrupted people and corrupts honest ones.
* We should be more in tune with the wilderness.

Also, I just realised that, according to the MM, most unicorns are LG. Error?

[Yagyujubei]

I was always under the impression that a chaotic good character generally tried to do whats right, but was mostly concerned with what was "in it for them" in any given situation and didn't really care how they had to go about it to get those results.

[Millstone85]

I was always under the impression that a chaotic good character generally tried to do whats right, but was mostly concerned with what was "in it for them" in any given situation and didn't really care how they had to go about it to get those results.One of the many problems with the alignment system is that, depending on who you ask, the "perfect egoist" is either CN or NE, even though those are two steps apart on the grid.

[Yagyujubei]

One of the many problems with the alignment system is that, depending on who you ask, the "perfect egoist" is either CN or NE, even though those are two steps apart on the grid.

yeah, well as mrstabby said its better to play a character rather than an alignment. I generally don't even write one down.

[Millstone85]

yeah, well as mrstabby said its better to play a character rather than an alignment. I generally don't even write one down.I write down whether I am trying to play a hero, a villain or something in between. The Law-Chaos axis is the one I only care about when looking at the Outer Planes.

[Specter]

Please note that a Chaotic Good character is not just unbound by law to do good; that's a Neutral Good character. A CG actually antagonizes the social order, and views it as part of evil, or its root. A few examples include Robin Hood, V (from V for Vendetta) and William Wallace (from Braveheart).

[JobsforFun]

Please note that a Chaotic Good character is not just unbound by law to do good; that's a Neutral Good character. A CG actually antagonizes the social order, and views it as part of evil, or its root. A few examples include Robin Hood, V (from V for Vendetta) and William Wallace (from Braveheart).

Well I am not gonna just break all kinds of laws, i'll just give to beggars more often ;)

If it helps this alignement is going towards a Chaotic Good Lizard Folk Cleric of the Forge domain.

[Millstone85]

If it helps this alignement is going towards a Chaotic Good Lizard Folk Cleric of the Forge domain.Is it a version of the Forge domain adapted to a culture without metal, or could it be the first way in which your CG character rebels against tradition?

[ProphetSword]

I don't want to start an alignment tangent, but this is why I eliminated alignments from my games several years ago. It's very confusing sometimes to players, given that the books can't even accurately describe how a player should act most of the time with the alignments that they choose.

Sometimes, you even end up in situations where the DM and players don't see eye-to-eye on which alignment is which and how characters should act when they select a certain alignment.

What players might consider in these cases is to simply write out how their character will act. Then, when the DM asks them what the player's alignment is, they can read this description back to them.

So you might say: "My character defends the weak and stands up to those who would bully them. He is not above breaking the law when he needs to, but tries to avoid killing whenever possible unless it is absolutely necessary. He is generous with his money, but protective of the things he has earned, and tends to take a negative view of anyone who would try to steal or swindle him out of his wealth. He has no love for authority, but knows when to hold his tongue."

If the DM responds with "You're Chaotic Good" or "You're Neutral" or whatever, then as long as you stick to the things you've written down, there won't be any discussion later about you acting out of alignment if they require you to have one.

This all ties in to what other players have said about playing a character. They're right. Define what the character does and try to fit that into an alignment instead of the other way around, which is far more restricting. Just some friendly advice that no one really asked for.

[JellyPooga]

A CG actually antagonizes the social order, and views it as part of evil, or its root. A few examples include Robin Hood, V (from V for Vendetta) and William Wallace (from Braveheart).

This...isn't accurate.

A Chaotic Good character is two things; 1) Chaotic and 2) Good.

Being Good, the character is selfless; his actions are largely guided by a desire to help other people, even (especially?) at the cost of his own benefit. A Good character rarely antagonises anything, let alone an entire social order unless it's actively Evil; Law and Chaos have little to no bearing on this.

Being Chaotic, the character is unpredictable; his actions are not bound by laws or a code. He does whatever he thinks is necessary to pursue his morality, not what someone else thinks he should do. A Chaotic character may view a Lawful society as being undesirable and have no wish to live subject to its rules. Whether he views that society as Evil has more to do with his moral outlook than anything else.

Robin Hood, the "classic" example of a Chaotic Good character...isn't CG. That he's Good? Yes; he helps the poor at the risk of his own imprisonment/life. That he's Chaotic? Well, no, not really. Yes, he breaks the Law of the Land and is dubbed an Outlaw for it...but a Lawful character can do that also. Let's look at Robins other famous traits;

- He only steals from the rich. Is it because all rich people are Evil? No, he makes no judgement on their morality, only their purse strings. He steals from the rich because they can afford it. He has a code by which he stands; share the wealth.
- He leads a band of "merry men". He's a leader. He managed to organise a bunch of outcasts, misfits and outlaws, from a rag-tag rabble into a guerrilla force capable of threatening a powerful state.
- He seeks to restore the "rightful" King to the throne (by his perception), after it was usurped by a "pretender" who now threatens the land.

None of these traits sound particularly Chaotic to me. In fact, I'd call them downright Lawful. No, Robin Hood, the archetypal CG Hero isn't CG at all. He's Lawful Good in my book.

V isn't even remotely Good. I'll stop there.

William Wallace is one I'm not sure about, but being an Outlaw that is considered a Hero does not necessarily a CG character make. Again, I'll point to traits like organising a largely fractious nation into a fighting force capable of threatening the "tyrannical" oppressors...that's not particularly Chaotic. I'm not saying Chaotic characters can't be organised or good leaders, they certainly can, but when your super-epic life goal involves organisation, planning and forethought...these aren't really Chaotic traits, per se.

[2D8HP]

Step one:
Watch Henry Fonda as Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath

Step two:
Play a character like that.

[SethoMarkus]

Good vs Evil:
Good seeks to aid others, even at a cost to the self. This isn't the same thing as being selfless, rather it is an active attempt at helping people, friends and strangers alike, even if that means taking the hard road.
Evil seeks to aid only the self and immediate loved ones, or an order to which the self is aligned, even if this would actively harm others. In fact, some Evil is explicitly about exploiting others for personal gain.

Law vs Chaos:
Law seeks to establish order and bases their behavior on a set code. This can be internal or external, mortal or divine. When in doubt, they will follow the code and reflect on whether the code needs to be changed later. "The Code knows better than I, I will trust in it to guide me."
Chaos seeks to promote freedom, whether personal or communal/universal. They believe in personal, individual reason and intuition, following what they believe is right/best for their goals, regardless of past behavior or code or law. When in doubt, they follow their gut and ignore any code; they do not change the code later because it is just a loose guideline anyway. "I trust in myself, because no code can account for every situation."

[Falcon X]

Read http://mimir.net/essays/morals.html under The Beastlands, Arborea, and Ysgard (the three CG afterlves) and you might get an idea of it.

Beyond that, Chaotic means you care more about freedoms of individuals over the strength of a well crafted community with laws. Good means you care about the livelihood of other people as much as yourself.
Therefore, I would say Chaotic Good would be someone who puts others first, but cares little for established social or political structures. He might be zealous of this or it may merely be the way he views life.

[Specter]

This...isn't accurate.

A Chaotic Good character is two things; 1) Chaotic and 2) Good.

Being Good, the character is selfless; his actions are largely guided by a desire to help other people, even (especially?) at the cost of his own benefit. A Good character rarely antagonises anything, let alone an entire social order unless it's actively Evil; Law and Chaos have little to no bearing on this.

Being Chaotic, the character is unpredictable; his actions are not bound by laws or a code. He does whatever he thinks is necessary to pursue his morality, not what someone else thinks he should do. A Chaotic character may view a Lawful society as being undesirable and have no wish to live subject to its rules. Whether he views that society as Evil has more to do with his moral outlook than anything else.

Robin Hood, the "classic" example of a Chaotic Good character...isn't CG. That he's Good? Yes; he helps the poor at the risk of his own imprisonment/life. That he's Chaotic? Well, no, not really. Yes, he breaks the Law of the Land and is dubbed an Outlaw for it...but a Lawful character can do that also. Let's look at Robins other famous traits;

- He only steals from the rich. Is it because all rich people are Evil? No, he makes no judgement on their morality, only their purse strings. He steals from the rich because they can afford it. He has a code by which he stands; share the wealth.
- He leads a band of "merry men". He's a leader. He managed to organise a bunch of outcasts, misfits and outlaws, from a rag-tag rabble into a guerrilla force capable of threatening a powerful state.
- He seeks to restore the "rightful" King to the throne (by his perception), after it was usurped by a "pretender" who now threatens the land.

None of these traits sound particularly Chaotic to me. In fact, I'd call them downright Lawful. No, Robin Hood, the archetypal CG Hero isn't CG at all. He's Lawful Good in my book.

V isn't even remotely Good. I'll stop there.

William Wallace is one I'm not sure about, but being an Outlaw that is considered a Hero does not necessarily a CG character make. Again, I'll point to traits like organising a largely fractious nation into a fighting force capable of threatening the "tyrannical" oppressors...that's not particularly Chaotic. I'm not saying Chaotic characters can't be organised or good leaders, they certainly can, but when your super-epic life goal involves organisation, planning and forethought...these aren't really Chaotic traits, per se.

Well, we're all definitely entitled to our opinions after all. But saying chaotic characters can just ignore law and order to me is like saying good characters can just ignore evil. There has to be a clear opposition, otherwise we delve in neutral ground.

And in V for Vendetta, the entire British government is painted as ruthless rapists, murderers and torturers, and V never harms a single innocent person (other than his own apprentice). To me, he's clearly good in that story (in the real world things would be different).

[SethoMarkus]

Well, we're all definitely entitled to our opinions after all. But saying chaotic characters can just ignore law and order to me is like saying good characters can just ignore evil. There has to be a clear opposition, otherwise we delve in neutral ground.



A person with a Chaotic alignment cannot just ignore the existence of laws, sure, but they do not need to be actively working against laws either... They simply believe in freedom before order.

Heck, a Lawful person could actively work against local laws and a Chaotic person work in conjunction with them! The difference being the Lawful person acts against them because they do not agree these laws are correct, while the Chaotic person works with them by happenstance.

"Lawful" =/= "lawful"

One is an alignment, the other is obeying local laws.

Edit: I make this distinction only to illustrate that a Lawful person may break the laws of the land and a Chaotic person may follow them. A Lawful person will be much more likely to obey local laws, even if they disagree with some. However, a Lawful Good person would not be required to follow the laws of an Evil region; they would be required to continue to profess the virtues of order, but thwy could certainly attempt to replace the Evil order with a Good order.

[Draco4472]

Chaotic Good has always seemed more like "what I think is right goes first" over anything else. These types of characters follow their own morals before any other obligation, or so I think having played almost entirely Chaotic/Neutral-Good characters.

Drizzt is supposedly an idea of one of this alignment according to a stat-block of him I found from either 3rd or 3.5th edition.

[Tygros]

I agree that Robin Hood is actually closer to LG than CG, when I think of chaotic good characters from popular fiction I tend to think more of Mal Reynolds from firefly.

[Naanomi]

Different portrayals of Robin Hood put him in different places on the alignment wheel I think... the Disney cartoon 'lovable scamp' is more Chaotic Good than others for example

My classic 'Chaotic Good' idea in my head are Merry and Pippin

[Sigreid]

Easy. For the most part do what ever you want. But where your options allow, chose the option that benefits others.

[Tanarii]

In 5e? Take into account the typical, but not required, behavior of CG, along with the rest of your personality, when making in-character decisions. If you use them, that's personality traits, ideal, bond and flaw.

Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard to what others expect.

[Malifice]

In 5e? Take into account the typical, but not required, behavior of CG, along with the rest of your personality, when making in-character decisions. If you use them, that's personality traits, ideal, bond and flaw.

Chaotic good creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard to what others expect.

What if my conscience directs me to be a serial killer or mass rapist?

In all seriousness, you're reading that sentence out of context. Its called Chaotic + Good for a reason.

'Chaotic Good creatures act as their conscience directs [in a benevolent and kind manner, avoiding harming others] with little regard to what others [the rules of society] expect'

You do things your way, regardless of what others (or society) expects of you (Chaotic). You're also a good guy, who is kind, compassionate and avoids harming others (Good).

[Gort]

This...isn't accurate.

A Chaotic Good character is two things; 1) Chaotic and 2) Good.

Being Good, the character is selfless; his actions are largely guided by a desire to help other people, even (especially?) at the cost of his own benefit. A Good character rarely antagonises anything, let alone an entire social order unless it's actively Evil; Law and Chaos have little to no bearing on this.

Being Chaotic, the character is unpredictable; his actions are not bound by laws or a code. He does whatever he thinks is necessary to pursue his morality, not what someone else thinks he should do. A Chaotic character may view a Lawful society as being undesirable and have no wish to live subject to its rules. Whether he views that society as Evil has more to do with his moral outlook than anything else.



For a more grown up way to think about Chaotic consider Libertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) Which is basically a code which says too many laws are bad - what are the smallest number of laws we really need? Chaotic does not have to mean a character has no internal compass or self discipline.

There are many ways to look at alignments. When I GM I always take a loose approach and allow the players to play the character they desire using whatever philosophy is reasonable. Its rare that the game world demands strict adherence to one interpretation.

[Gignere]

The quintessential CG character is Batman. Torture someone by throwing him 20 stories attached to a rope repeatedly. Total vigilante and have no compunction about breaking and entering, breaking some bones to save people and protect Gotham. Batman is CG incarnate.

[Grey Watcher]

My two copper pieces:

Lawful Good means your character thinks governments, religious orders, organizations, and other things where people are beholden to something can be great tools for good, though you do have to stay vigilant against corruption and abuse of power. But the basic principle is sound.

A Chaotic Good character is actively suspicious of goverments, etc. and believes they, by their very nature, encourage corruption and abuse of power: it's not like rust or barnacles, it's a fundamental flaw built into the system. They don't trust individuals, not institutions. Just because the late Queen was a good person doesn't mean her son who now reigns is worth giving the time of day to.

Neutral Good basically means you take governments, and even individual laws on a case by case basis.

That you could just go with this comic (http://imgur.com/gallery/RAap5).

[Millstone85]

Lawful Good means your character thinks governments, religious orders, organizations, and other things where people are beholden to something can be great tools for good, though you do have to stay vigilant against corruption and abuse of power. But the basic principle is sound.

A Chaotic Good character is actively suspicious of goverments, etc. and believes they, by their very nature, encourage corruption and abuse of power: it's not like rust or barnacles, it's a fundamental flaw built into the system. They don't trust individuals, not institutions. Just because the late Queen was a good person doesn't mean her son who now reigns is worth giving the time of day to.Well said. Which means a discussion between a LG character and a CG character can get really political, with a NG character as the annoying moderate.

There can also be variations depending on which letter you capitalize.
Lg Arcadian: A perfectly ordered society is the ideal we aim for. Things like selfishness or cruelty would undermine our efforts, so we cultivate their opposite.
lG Bytopian: Altruism and compassion will not prevail without rules, institutions and leaders, but let us never mistake the mean for the end.

[Malifice]

The quintessential CG character is Batman. Torture someone by throwing him 20 stories attached to a rope repeatedly. Total vigilante and have no compunction about breaking and entering, breaking some bones to save people and protect Gotham. Batman is CG incarnate.

In no way is Batman Chaotic.

[Spellbreaker26]

Think of it like this:

A Lawful Good character will try to do as much Good as possible within the bounds of their law/code. They will, because of this, try not to end up in evil organisations and will probably either leave a formerly good organisation it if it becomes evil or try and change it.

A Neutral Good character will try to do as much Good as possible. They will not be super eager to break the law but won't be troubled unduly if they have to.

A Chaotic Good character will try to do as much Good as possible, and if it breaks the law then even better. They won't murder someone just to break the law, but if they think a certain law is unjust they will delight in flouting it.

[Millstone85]

In no way is Batman Chaotic.http://gallery.burrowowl.net/images/59/599b2541b6e1fc324a403da63f682206
More seriously, the character tends to start as an "I am vengeance!" vigilante, then end as a keystone of the Justice League of America. There is an alignment shift in there.

[Tanarii]

What if my conscience directs me to be a serial killer or mass rapist?

In all seriousness, you're reading that sentence out of context. Its called Chaotic + Good for a reason.Im boggling that you can, probably in all seriousness, trot out that second sentence after making that first statement.

Edit: BTW, because you probably were completely serious: That's not conscience.

Since you don't appear to know what it is just grab two definitions offline for ya:
An inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.
The part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong.

You just described someone with a lack of a conscience, not following their conscience.

[Randomthom]

I find, in simplest terms;
Good/Evil defines what I do in any given situation.
Law/Chaos defines how I do it.

Law doesn't automatically mean following the law of the land either, it means holding steadfast to a set of ideals. Batman, as previously mentioned, is pretty-much LG and follows religiously his code to not kill. If I were making him in 5E he'd be a LG Rogue/Monk

That isn't to say that it isn't possible to create a character who will turn this on it's side but for most characters this works.

Thinking about that idea of turning it on it's side, it takes something of a zealot for Law or Chaos to really pursue these over good/evil.

Characters from fiction who would define these would be Judge Dredd or perhaps Dolores Umbridge (slipped a bit LE towards the end though) for Law.
The Joker is definitely a force for chaos first & evil second. Chaos is definitely the hardest to portray as an ideal because the concept of pursuing an ideal is inherently lawful. It takes a very strange (probably mad) mindset to actively promote chaos.

[Dr.Samurai]

This...isn't accurate.

A Chaotic Good character is two things; 1) Chaotic and 2) Good.

Being Good, the character is selfless; his actions are largely guided by a desire to help other people, even (especially?) at the cost of his own benefit. A Good character rarely antagonises anything, let alone an entire social order unless it's actively Evil; Law and Chaos have little to no bearing on this.

Being Chaotic, the character is unpredictable; his actions are not bound by laws or a code. He does whatever he thinks is necessary to pursue his morality, not what someone else thinks he should do. A Chaotic character may view a Lawful society as being undesirable and have no wish to live subject to its rules. Whether he views that society as Evil has more to do with his moral outlook than anything else.
I don't think unpredictability is a requirement of a chaotic alignment.

Robin Hood, the "classic" example of a Chaotic Good character...isn't CG. That he's Good? Yes; he helps the poor at the risk of his own imprisonment/life. That he's Chaotic? Well, no, not really. Yes, he breaks the Law of the Land and is dubbed an Outlaw for it...but a Lawful character can do that also. Let's look at Robins other famous traits;
I think this is interesting so I'd like to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

- He only steals from the rich. Is it because all rich people are Evil? No, he makes no judgement on their morality, only their purse strings. He steals from the rich because they can afford it. He has a code by which he stands; share the wealth.
I mentioned in the Dexter thread that I don't think a "code" should carry this much weight, and I think it applies here as well. This just seems more like an ideal that Robin Hood believes in and lives by. I'm not too familiar with the character, but is there an actual set of codes or rules that he and the Merry Men perform these robberies and charities by? Because I'm not sure that believing in something and acting that belief out is necessarily "lawful". If you approach the most bohemian free-love hippy and ask him what he believes and he says "I don't think anyone should have to work to live, we're not here to be wage slaves man, and that's how I live my life" I don't think we get to slap "lawful" on him just because he believes that and lives it.

- He leads a band of "merry men". He's a leader. He managed to organise a bunch of outcasts, misfits and outlaws, from a rag-tag rabble into a guerrilla force capable of threatening a powerful state.
Being lawful was never a requirement of Leadership. Anyone could take the feat in 3rd edition, and there were chaotic cohorts that you could attract. There were chaotic commander auras in Heroes of Battle and chaotic creatures like orcs organize into tribes and clans with chieftains and warlords.

- He seeks to restore the "rightful" King to the throne (by his perception), after it was usurped by a "pretender" who now threatens the land.
If anything, this seems to me more "chaotic" than "lawful", because his perception of the current system outweighs anything else, to the point that he is willing to overthrow the current ruler and put into place the person he believes should be ruling.

This reminds me of real-world people demanding another referendum after the results of the Brexit referendum, because they weren't happy with the outcome. Well but... you voted, and you lost. You don't get to keep voting until you get your way, that's actually bucking the system. That's invalidating the people that voted counter to your position, simply because you want it a different way.

Likewise here in the states, the people demanding to overturn the Electoral College are willing to overthrow the system because they aren't happy with the election results. Whether you agree with the results or not, they are legal results that were arrived at through the lawful system, and trying to subvert that because you don't like the results doesn't seem "lawful" to me.

Robin Hood deciding "Well, this ruler is a usurper, so I choose not to acknowledge him, this other guy should be ruling in my opinion, so I'm going to force that to happen" seems to be putting himself before everything else, and that rings as "chaotic" to me.

V isn't even remotely Good. I'll stop there.
Agreed lol.

[jas61292]

For a more grown up way to think about Chaotic consider Libertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) Which is basically a code which says too many laws are bad - what are the smallest number of laws we really need? Chaotic does not have to mean a character has no internal compass or self discipline.

There are many ways to look at alignments. When I GM I always take a loose approach and allow the players to play the character they desire using whatever philosophy is reasonable. Its rare that the game world demands strict adherence to one interpretation.

I agree with this. I have recently come to the opinion that "lawful" and "chaotic" are poorly defined, and that a better way to represent this kind of thing is Authoritarian vs Libertarian, specifically with regard to how one believes moral views should be implemented.

The far end of authoritarianism would be a belief that everyone should be forced, legally or otherwise, into behaving according to your specific moral compass. If you believe that saying something bad about your god is morally reprehensible, than you would believe that someone who does so should be punished, regardless of whether or not their words actually harm anyone.

The far ends of libertarianism, on the other hand would be the belief that everyone should be allowed to act according to their own moral compass, even if it conflicts with yours. Using the same example as above, if someone blasphemes against your god, well that sucks, and might hurt your feelings, but it is their right to do so. Importantly though, this extreme does not mean anarchy or lawlessness. If a society is founded in these kind of principles, than things such as murder would still likely be illegal, as such acts deny others the ability to exercise their own freedoms.

In fact, certain laws might be more common in the Libertarian society than the Authoritarian one. Laws protecting life and liberty and freedoms often will form a central part of Libertarian society, while they may be lacking from an Authoritarian one if such things clash with the societies prevailing moral compass.

Ultimately, I think the problem with "lawful vs chaotic" is that it implies an opinion on laws themselves as a whole, when I believe a more appropriate dichotomy would be far more about what laws are actually for.

[Tanarii]

Anyone who wants to get a good idea of what lines up with Chaotic Good could also check the PHB ideals that align with them. (Note that in many cases the following sentence is expands the single words in important ways, especially the Good Ideals, but I still think it's an interesting and useful list.)

Chaotic Ideals:
Change, Independence, Creativity, Freedom, Free Thinking, No Limits


Good Ideals:
Charity, Friendship, Redemption, Beauty, Respect, Generosity, Greater Good, Noble Obligation

[ElChad]

Just follow your character's instincts and let nobody tell you differently/stop you.

Edit : Nobody as in people in your game... Should have made that clearer.

[georgie_leech]

One of my favourite discussions about just this is this irreverent thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook&p=19918973#post19918973)

[SethoMarkus]

Rather than Law vs Chaos it really should be something like Order/Stagnation vs Change/Entropy.

[Spellbreaker26]

Rather than Law vs Chaos it really should be something like Order/Stagnation vs Change/Entropy.

I think Order/Chaos would be an improvement. Law tricks people into thinking that the alignment is just about following laws, when even Chaotic societies can have laws. This seems to be the major cause of arguments. I guess it's because Ordered Good doesn't sound as snappy as Lawful Good.

[JellyPooga]

Anyone who wants to get a good idea of what lines up with Chaotic Good could also check the PHB ideals that align with them. (Note that in many cases the following sentence is expands the single words in important ways, especially the Good Ideals, but I still think it's an interesting and useful list.)

Chaotic Ideals:
Change, Independence, Creativity, Freedom, Free Thinking, No Limits


Good Ideals:
Charity, Friendship, Redemption, Beauty, Respect, Generosity, Greater Good, Noble Obligation

Good shout Tanarii. That's a handy approach/list.

[Spellbreaker26]

What would be the other sets of ideals then?

Lawful:
Order, Community, Stability, Obedience, Loyalty, Self-Control,

Evil:
Power, Self-Preservation, Revenge/Schadenfreude, Appearance, Greed, Solipsism,

[MrWesson22]

I feel the need to clarify a common statement in this thread. Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole exorbitant taxes back from tax collectors and gave the money back to the taxpayers.

[JobsforFun]

I enjoy how everyone can interpret alignments differently. Although that may lead towards some disruption in games it is interesting getting everyone's take on the matter. From what I mainly gather Chaotic Good means you're a good person and you don't really have a law you go by, you don't care if you have to break the law to do good or to lie in the pursuit of goodness. Am I close?

[JobsforFun]

I feel the need to clarify a common statement in this thread. Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole exorbitant taxes back from tax collectors and gave the money back to the taxpayers.

There have been so many different versions of Robin Hood it isn't even funny, I remember being a kid and my mom had the 1973 Robin Hood animated Walt Disney movie on VHS. I think of Robin Hood as more CG. I can see how he can be more LG/NG but I think of him more so CG.

[Spellbreaker26]

I enjoy how everyone can input alignments differently. Although that may lead towards some disruption in games it is interesting getting everyone's take on the matter. From what I mainly gather Chaotic Good means you're a good person and you don't really have a law you go by, you don't care if you have to break the law to do good or to lie in the pursuit of goodness. Am I close?

See, people disagree. I'd argue that a Chaotic Good character would actually enjoy breaking laws, and it would be a Neutral Good character that would avoid breaking them but would do it if it was the way to maximize being good.

(and of course, if the society is Lawful Evil I don't think even Lawful Good characters are required to respect the law)

[JobsforFun]

See, people disagree. I'd argue that a Chaotic Good character would actually enjoy breaking laws, and it would be a Neutral Good character that would avoid breaking them but would do it if it was the way to maximize being good.

(and of course, if the society is Lawful Evil I don't think even Lawful Good characters are required to respect the law)

I like to look at Elan from OOTS and Haley. They follow laws occasionally but overall don't. I can't remember but didn't Haley sort of manipulate or lie to get her Dad released from Tarquin's prison? I can't seem to remember since it has been a while since I read that exact part in OOTS.

[MadBear]

To me the whole premise breaks down, because of the fact that lawful and chaotic have such an overlapping meeting space.

Lawful means that you live by a code whether that be the actual law, or some personal code

Chaotic good often get's labeled as they follows their own moral compass

These two things are the same.

Really the terms lawful vs chaotic need to have a really tied down definition. Either have it be tied to values, or tied to real laws. Otherwise you have this paradox where robin hood is both the paragon of chaotic good, and not chaotic good at all.

[Dr.Samurai]

To me the whole premise breaks down, because of the fact that lawful and chaotic have such an overlapping meeting space.

Lawful means that you live by a code whether that be the actual law, or some personal code

Chaotic good often get's labeled as they follows their own moral compass

These two things are the same.

Really the terms lawful vs chaotic need to have a really tied down definition. Either have it be tied to values, or tied to real laws. Otherwise you have this paradox where robin hood is both the paragon of chaotic good, and not chaotic good at all.
Agreed. I find the Libertarian vs Authoritarian spectrum to be useful here. To my mind, lawful has more to do with your views on society and the group vs the individual than simply following your own code. Your own code could be anything. It doesn't seem helpful to simply tie "lawful" to "follows a code".

The Jedi all follow a code, but I wouldn't say they are all lawful. Qui-gon has more faith in his own personal interpretation of the Force than the rules and regulations of the Council, or the Council's own take on the Force for that matter. Anakin has more faith in his own personal power to make things right over the stifling and ineffective ways of the Jedi. In other words, "Sure, you guys follow the rules and do things the way you say they should be done. I'll do things my own way, I'll play by my own rules. We're still on the same team, but I do things my way."

It may not be perfect, but I think it's helpful to consider the law vs chaos aspect of alignment to speak to how you feel about the priority of the group vs the individual.

[MadBear]

Agreed. I find the Libertarian vs Authoritarian spectrum to be useful here. To my mind, lawful has more to do with your views on society and the group vs the individual than simply following your own code. Your own code could be anything. It doesn't seem helpful to simply tie "lawful" to "follows a code".

The Jedi all follow a code, but I wouldn't say they are all lawful. Qui-gon has more faith in his own personal interpretation of the Force than the rules and regulations of the Council, or the Council's own take on the Force for that matter. Anakin has more faith in his own personal power to make things right over the stifling and ineffective ways of the Jedi. In other words, "Sure, you guys follow the rules and do things the way you say they should be done. I'll do things my own way, I'll play by my own rules. We're still on the same team, but I do things my way."

It may not be perfect, but I think it's helpful to consider the law vs chaos aspect of alignment to speak to how you feel about the priority of the group vs the individual.


agreed. then again, there are a bunch of ways to fix the problem. My favorite way is to have lawful vs chaotic be about long vs short term goals.

Chaotic being what helps right now in the moment (freeing a prisoner who can help you achieve a goal that is either good/evil) vs lawful being focused on the long term (you don't free prisoners because you're then responsible for the crimes they commit after you free them).

[Dr.Samurai]

I like that distinction as well! It's interesting.

[Millstone85]

Possible combo ideals.

LG: Devotion, Education, Meritocracy, Justice

CG: Independence, Discovery, Equality, Liberty

LE: Servitude, Secrecy, Elitism or Caste, Tyranny

CE: Free-for-all, Looting, Bullying, Anarchy

[Tanarii]

Good shout Tanarii. That's a handy approach/list.Thanks. I like going to the book for things. For some reason when it comes to Alignment people just love to ignore what the book is telling them alignment is and what it's purpose is.


What would be the other sets of ideals then?

Lawful:
Order, Community, Stability, Obedience, Loyalty, Self-Control,

Evil:
Power, Self-Preservation, Revenge/Schadenfreude, Appearance, Greed, Solipsism,I'm AFB now but the ones in the basic document:

Lawful:
Faith, Power, Honor, Fairness, Responsibility, Logic

Evil:
Greed, Might, Power

Notice Power is on both Evil and Lawful lists, which makes the follow-up text important to read if you're trying to get an idea of what KIND of power ... 'authority within a temple hierarchy' for Lawful, and 'other people not being able to tell you what to do' / 'domination' for Evil.


I enjoy how everyone can interpret alignments differently. Although that may lead towards some disruption in games it is interesting getting everyone's take on the matter. From what I mainly gather Chaotic Good means you're a good person and you don't really have a law you go by, you don't care if you have to break the law to do good or to lie in the pursuit of goodness. Am I close?
I don't. I wish people would actually pay attention to what the hell Alignment MEANS in D&D 5e, instead of bringing their own ideas to the table. Interpretation within what's given to us in the PHB = good. Old edition thinking or personal assumptions totally unrelated to what alignment is in 5e is bad, IMO.

Would you try to bring your 2e Ranger to the table, and tell people that they're running the Ranger's Beast companion all wrong? Would you try to tell people that 'rituals' should involve drippy candles and skulls and other special non-specified components because the word is ritual? 5e Alignment has a specific purpose, and because of that has a very simple yet broad 'definition' for each Alignment ... which people then completely ignore for their own 'rules'.

[Dr.Samurai]

In all fairness Tanarii, I think the OP was looking for more of a conversation on alignment and how other people interpret Chaotic Good. If JobsForFun thought the meaningless nonsense sentence (:smallwink:) in the book was sufficient, the thread probably wouldn't exist.

[Tanarii]

In all fairness Tanarii, I think the OP was looking for more of a conversation on alignment and how other people interpret Chaotic Good. If JobsForFun thought the meaningless nonsense sentence (:smallwink:) in the book was sufficient, the thread probably wouldn't exist.Dammit. Fair point. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Not about the meaningless sentence. That's not a fair point at all. That's exactly the attitude that frustrates me. It has a lot of meaning, and the book tells you how to use it. People just want to dismiss Alignment because reasons.

[Millstone85]

It is way simpler in the Outer Planes.

Pure Law? Clockwork everywhere.
Nicer Law? Various forms of utopia.
Nastier Law? Various forms of dystopia.

Pure Chaos? Mist of random creation.
Nicer Chaos? Beautiful wilderness.
Nastier Chaos? Horrific wilderness.

Edit: Which I actually find more interesting than figuring out my character's alignment.

[Dr.Samurai]

Dammit. Fair point. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Not about the meaningless sentence. That's not a fair point at all. That's exactly the attitude that frustrates me. It has a lot of meaning, and the book tells you how to use it. People just want to dismiss Alignment because reasons.
I know, I'm just messing :smalltongue:.

I was going to comment on the usefulness of your post with the ideals. But then I got distracted and replied to something else!

[Drackolus]

Im boggling that you can, probably in all seriousness, trot out that second sentence after making that first statement.

Edit: BTW, because you probably were completely serious: That's not conscience.

Since you don't appear to know what it is just grab two definitions offline for ya:
An inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.
The part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong.

You just described someone with a lack of a conscience, not following their conscience.

I'd have to hazard a guess that you've not met certain kinds of people. I can tell you definitively that there are people who's conscience tells them that mass murder is ideal. An individual's conscience can be nowhere near the average.


The Jedi all follow a code, but I wouldn't say they are all lawful. Qui-gon has more faith in his own personal interpretation of the Force than the rules and regulations of the Council, or the Council's own take on the Force for that matter. Anakin has more faith in his own personal power to make things right over the stifling and ineffective ways of the Jedi. In other words, "Sure, you guys follow the rules and do things the way you say they should be done. I'll do things my own way, I'll play by my own rules. We're still on the same team, but I do things my way."
They aren't all lawful, true, but seeing as non-lawful behaviors put them at odds with the organization as a whole, it's still safe to say that the organization is lawful. Especially if you get into the expanded universe (of which I have only a cursory understanding).


Starting from the alignment is hard. It can cause you to pick one of nine characters rather than write your own. My group also abandoned alignments a long time ago because they're not only unhelpful, but frequently disruptive. That said, I'll occasionally write one on a character sheet on an impulse if the character fits one well enough, but I rarely look at it after the fact.

[2D8HP]

*sigh*

This again.

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)




illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

In the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:


In no way is Batman Chaotic.

Quite true.
SpiderMan is the superhero of the PEOPLE!

Batman is the superhero of the MAN!

[Tanarii]

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:Only if you're stuck in old edition thinking ...

*looks at who posted*

Oh, never mind. Carry on. :smallbiggrin:


I know, I'm just messing :smalltongue:.

I was going to comment on the usefulness of your post with the ideals. But then I got distracted and replied to something else!
Yeah, there's this whole thing about being oversensitive on certain topics I might want to look into. :smallwink:


I'd have to hazard a guess that you've not met certain kinds of people. I can tell you definitively that there are people who's conscience tells them that mass murder is ideal. An individual's conscience can be nowhere near the average.I admit that the behavior given can be vague. Especially the ones for Lawful Good and Chaotic Good. As far as I can tell, this is very intentional, because of the way 5e intends Alignment to be used: 1 sentence among 5-6 sentences of (mostly) single sentence motivations, covering a spectrum of motivational types, to be considered when choosing in-character actions.

ie not a straight jacket, nor one-dimensional-motivation fits all. So it needs to be broad and flexible and adaptable to many personalities and specific characterizations.

However, trying to twist "conscience" to mean something that prompts someone towards amoral or unmoral behavior seems like a willful misinterpretation of the word to me.

[JobsforFun]

Dammit. Fair point. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Not about the meaningless sentence. That's not a fair point at all. That's exactly the attitude that frustrates me. It has a lot of meaning, and the book tells you how to use it. People just want to dismiss Alignment because reasons.

I enjoy reading different peoples takes on CG and other good alignments but I am mainly looking for some more insight on how to best use the alignment. I know a lot of people dislike alignments and if I Dm'ed i'd say to just not worry about it but all of my DMs use alignments. Granted they're not very strict about it.

[Drackolus]

However, trying to twist "conscience" to mean something that prompts someone towards amoral or unmoral behavior seems like a willful misinterpretation of the word to me.

A conscience is just an inner guide. It's subject to the individual's interpretations of what is moral or not.
That's not to say that there is or isn't a moral constant, just that the word "conscience" does not interact with that concept. It only directs a person to what they think is moral.
I'm not an English professional by any means. This is just my understanding.

[Tanarii]

I enjoy reading different peoples takes on CG and other good alignments but I am mainly looking for some more insight on how to best use the alignment. I know a lot of people dislike alignments and if I Dm'ed i'd say to just not worry about it but all of my DMs use alignments. Granted they're not very strict about it.I can tell you how to use Alignment the 5e way:

Player chooses Alignment. Player chooses or invents rest of personality (Personality Traits, Ideal, Bond, Flaw). Player notes the alignment behavior description, and personality description.

While playing, player uses alignment to inform in-character choices for specific actions. Don't have to be a slave to them. Just use take them into considering.

Full on opinion time: More realistically, the player can review them periodically / right before a game to 'get in character'. Basically, they work exactly like an actor in that regard. Don't take that comment too far, it doesn't mean some kind of pompous 'RP is Acting' ... just that making in-character decisions as not you, the real person, is easier if you have a few one-sentence motivations to consider for this 'not you' character you're making in-character decisions with.

2 Examples using the Basic Guide traits, and picking that might fit a particularly 'chaotic good' character, to create an obvious & strong personality, if a tad overly focused. But also distinctly different despite both being Chaotic Good.

A) Chaotic Good Acolyte Cleric
I act as my conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
I see omens in every event and action. The gods try to speak to us, we just need to listen.
Charity. I always try to help those in need, no matter what the personal cost.
I will someday get revenge on the corrupt temple hierarchy who branded me a heretic.
My piety sometimes leads me to blindly trust those that profess faith in my god.

B) Chaotic Good Criminal Rogue
I act as my conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
I don’t pay attention to the risks in a situation. Never tell me the odds.
Freedom. Chains are meant to be broken, as are those who would forge them.
I’m trying to pay off an old debt I owe to a generous benefactor.
If there’s a plan, I’ll forget it. If I don’t forget it, I’ll ignore it.

[Pazerniusz]

I will tell you what i always tell my own players and that help them(This work in my native, i am not that sure about english).

As Chaotic you doesn't have or you don't care to much about things like moral code or rules, you always do what you feel you should do. In most cases there shouldn't not be bigger reasoning behind your actions. For example on questions like: "Honestly, why you want help him?"

You don't answer like "I swore to help anyone who call for help and spend more than 50 gold on charity"

You answer "I like him, he seem like a nice guy and the other one like bad guy."

As Good you are altruistic by nature, you think more about the others people and you don't care that much about yourself. You are just good man.

In simplified summary As Chaotic Good you have generic "hero" mindset
In most cases following question: "is that that all about this"
and my answer "No, but that will give vague idea about that alignment"

[SethoMarkus]

See, people disagree. I'd argue that a Chaotic Good character would actually enjoy breaking laws, and it would be a Neutral Good character that would avoid breaking them but would do it if it was the way to maximize being good.

(and of course, if the society is Lawful Evil I don't think even Lawful Good characters are required to respect the law)

When a Lawful person obeys the law, they do so because it is "the law". They may happen to agree with it, but they follow it because it is there. (Assuming they acknowledge the authority as legitimate and ar morally in agreement on the Good/Evil axis.)

When a Chaotic person follows the law, it is mere happenstance or pragmatism. They don't respect "the law" because it is there, they just happen to agree with it internally. Or, breaking the law would be more harmful to their goals at the moment than breaking the law would help.

That is how I see it.

[Drackolus]

To give a chaotic good answer; play it however you want, as long as everyone has fun.

[Millstone85]

It might be worth looking at 5e's definitions of CN and NG too.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
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.The CN + NG = CG math works pretty well, I think.

[MadBear]

It might be worth looking at 5e's definitions of CN and NG too.The CN + NG = CG math works pretty well, I think.

I don't have the book, but what does Lawful good say?

[Drackolus]

I don't have the book, but what does Lawful good say?


Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Copy+pasting on a phone is surprisingly difficult.

[Tanarii]

I know a lot of people dislike alignments and if I Dm'ed i'd say to just not worry about it but all of my DMs use alignments. Granted they're not very strict about it.I missed this part. But the real answer here is:
1) if the DM is using 5e Alignment, and not restricting alignment, it's none of their business. Alignment, and how you integrate the 'typical behavior' motivation into your overall character personality & motivations, is your business as a player.
2) if they're using 5e alignment and restricting Alignment, ask your DM what that means.
3) if they're not using 5e alignments, ask your DM what that means.

For example, imc I have a 'no Evil Alignments' rule, and use 5e Alignments.
What that means is:
A) don't be a ****
B) don't exhibit a regular pattern of behavior that is pretty clearly covered by an Evil alignment behavior description

It's not a restriction on specific actions, because 5e Alignments aren't determined by actions. They help the player inform choices about in-character actions.

(Edit: Okay I use modified 5e Alignments. Because 'don't be a ****' is a restriction on specific ****-like actions. :smallbiggrin:)

[Millstone85]

I don't have the book, but what does Lawful good say?Okay, let's try that.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.Hmm, society might not encompass the personal code bit. Otherwise, it works.

[Drackolus]

It does appear that they shifted "law" to mean "law" rather than "order." Essentially, law cares what others think of their actions and chaos does not... Which is an odd direction, since one could argue that makes law sound more good and chaos sound more evil. The evil warlord is lawful evil and he most certainly would not care about what others think. Or, at least, what ALL others think. A chaotic good rogue can't really be good if he doesn't at least have empathy for people, even if he doesn't much value their logical thought. A lawful evil does not play nice with a lawful good society any more than a lawful good plays nice with a lawful evil society. I think that distinction is important: an archetypal classic paladin has no qualms or moral conflict with violently uprooting an evil government. Evil vs good should always be the deciding factor, I think.
I tend to imagine that a lawful good and a chaotic good would butt heads occasionally but virtually never come to blows willingly.
A paladin may arrest a well-meaning thief, but both are far more likely to hunt down the serial killer.

[MadBear]

Okay, let's try that.Hmm, society might not encompass the personal code bit. Otherwise, it works.

and this is where I think they messed up. If they had left out personal code's then you'd have a clear difference between them.

[2D8HP]

..... A lawful evil does not play nice with a lawful good society any more than a lawful good plays nice with a lawful evil society....

Well I think it's time to call on the Forum expert:

Red Fel!

Red Fel!

RED FEL!!!

[Millstone85]

The difference might be between following your conscience, as in a gut feeling of right and wrong, as opposed to following reasoned moral principles.

Yeah, does your heart or your head know best? Disappointing, perhaps, but that could be the idea here.

[kyoryu]

Good means that, basically, you're interested in the welfare of everyone.

A LG character thinks the way to achieve that is rules and structure.

A CG character thinks the way to achieve that is individual freedom and initiative.

[Tanarii]

The difference might be between following your conscience, as in a gut feeling of right and wrong, as opposed to following reasoned moral principles.The difference between Lawful good and Chaotic good, as defined by 5e, is the first follows what society views as right and the latter what their conscience tells them is right. It's purely 'group' vs 'individual' in the case of Lawful good vs Chaotic good.

Obviously they left that a little too vague, because people always want to try and twist that into "well what if society/conscience = evil?"

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Some see CG adventurers as revolutionaries who want to subver the established order to create a free and equal system for everyone (usually confronted to LE governments, as overthrowing the corrupt baron and letting people govern themselves) . But that's a more political oriented view. If you want correlations, you can take a look at my sig and respectfully agree or disagree. :smallbiggrin:

[Millstone85]

Obviously they left that a little too vague, because people always want to try and twist that into "well what if society/conscience = evil?"Well, the LG and CG characters have to disagree on something.
- "Your personal sense of right and wrong is fallible!"
- "Your institutions have proven themselves worse!"

[Sigreid]

IMO it breaks down like this:

LG: The greatest good and the happiest society is one where there are rules for everyone's benefit and everyone knows what they are and willingly follows them.

CG: The greatest good and happiness is achieved when people are allowed to make their own decisions and pursue their own happiness. Most people are basically good and can be trusted to do right by each other.

[Tanarii]

Well, the LG and CG characters have to disagree on something.
- "Your personal sense of right and wrong is fallible!"
- "Your institutions have proven themselves worse!"
I meant on a personal level, as in listing the alignment on the character sheet, then twisting (or claiming it can be twisted) to mean the complete opposite of what it means.

OTOH, I like that back-and-forth. It certainly shows the difference in view points well.

[Millstone85]

I meant on a personal level, as in listing the alignment on the character sheet, then twisting (or claiming it can be twisted) to mean the complete opposite of what it means.

OTOH, I like that back-and-forth. It certainly shows the difference in view points well.Ah, I see.

And thanks.

[JumboWheat01]

Law and Chaos are always the two hardest parts of the alignment grid to get a grasp of, and D&D doesn't really help.

An example, back in 3e, Barbarians couldn't be Lawful. Yet the honorable barbarian is a pretty common trope. Having a code of honor, sticking to your word, never breaking the rules of the tribe, all very Lawful sounding things. But in this context, apparently not so for the Lawful alignment notch.

Really, unless you're a Cleric in a setting with a god that requires you to act within a certain bounds, I say you can just identify with an alignment. Do you think you're more Chaotic than Lawful? Claim such. Not every Chaotic person is out to tear down order, and not every Lawful one is out to stop chaos. Let others think what they will.

[Drackolus]

I meant on a personal level, as in listing the alignment on the character sheet, then twisting (or claiming it can be twisted) to mean the complete opposite of what it means.

OTOH, I like that back-and-forth. It certainly shows the difference in view points well.
I think those arguments are meant to say that those definitions presented are flawed more than argue the objectiveness of good and evil. At least, in this context.

[georgie_leech]

Well I think it's time to call on the Forum expert:

Red Fel!

Red Fel!

RED FEL!!!



He's apparently not reading this thread at the moment, but I happen to have this handy guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil) ... uh, handy.

[Spellbreaker26]

He's apparently not reading this thread at the moment, but I happen to have this handy guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil) ... uh, handy.

That's a pretty decent guide.

[Red Fel]

Well I think it's time to call on the Forum expert:

Red Fel!

Red Fel!

RED FEL!!!


You have my attention.


It does appear that they shifted "law" to mean "law" rather than "order." Essentially, law cares what others think of their actions and chaos does not... Which is an odd direction, since one could argue that makes law sound more good and chaos sound more evil. The evil warlord is lawful evil and he most certainly would not care about what others think. Or, at least, what ALL others think. A chaotic good rogue can't really be good if he doesn't at least have empathy for people, even if he doesn't much value their logical thought. A lawful evil does not play nice with a lawful good society any more than a lawful good plays nice with a lawful evil society. I think that distinction is important: an archetypal classic paladin has no qualms or moral conflict with violently uprooting an evil government. Evil vs good should always be the deciding factor, I think.
I tend to imagine that a lawful good and a chaotic good would butt heads occasionally but virtually never come to blows willingly.
A paladin may arrest a well-meaning thief, but both are far more likely to hunt down the serial killer.

I'm going to disagree with... Huh. Almost all of this. Let's parse it bit by bit, shall we?


It does appear that they shifted "law" to mean "law" rather than "order." Essentially, law cares what others think of their actions and chaos does not...

Mewling quim! Do you honestly think that I care how my actions make you feel? My grand designs are beyond your pathetic comprehension - what does it matter to me that your feeble mind cannot hope to grasp my glory?

So, no. Law doesn't necessarily care what others think.


Which is an odd direction, since one could argue that makes law sound more good and chaos sound more evil.

Frankly, on the L-C spectrum, L is to C as G is to E. The devs really did design Lawful to be the "Good" on the L-C spectrum.


The evil warlord is lawful evil and he most certainly would not care about what others think. Or, at least, what ALL others think.

Agreed.


A chaotic good rogue can't really be good if he doesn't at least have empathy for people, even if he doesn't much value their logical thought.

Frankly, I don't see why CG can't value logical thought. That said, in my experience, those Chaotic types could do with a bit more thinking.


A lawful evil does not play nice with a lawful good society any more than a lawful good plays nice with a lawful evil society.

This is a rather loaded sentence, and one that I explore in my handbook, but the gist is this - LE can get along surprisingly well with LG. True, they have profound and intolerable moral disagreements, but they can respect one another's integrity and structure. There is very little air between "tyrant" and "benevolent dictator," after all.

On the other hand, LE and LE is either true love or true hate. When LE is hierarchical, it's like working in an office full of people who think like you; when it's backstabbing, it's like working in an office full of people who want your job. So that's an awkward comparison.


I think that distinction is important: an archetypal classic paladin has no qualms or moral conflict with violently uprooting an evil government.

I'm going to disagree with that, too. Granted, Paladins have always caused me more problems than they're worth, but a Paladin who would violently uproot an Evil government and then leave the place in chaos isn't worthy of his mantle. He creates more problems than he solves. I bring things back to the classic example of the Church of Hextor, an openly LE militaristic faith that is welcomed in many cities, because it promotes law, order, security, physical fitness, and unity. These are positive values. An LE society governed by the Hextorite model is oppressive, but stable and productive; taking away their leadership means driving the people, now without aim or structure, into chaos and crime.


Evil vs good should always be the deciding factor, I think.

Agree to disagree.


I tend to imagine that a lawful good and a chaotic good would butt heads occasionally but virtually never come to blows willingly.
A paladin may arrest a well-meaning thief, but both are far more likely to hunt down the serial killer.

That's fair.


He's apparently not reading this thread at the moment, but I happen to have this handy guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil) ... uh, handy.

Feel free to stand corrected. It's been a busy evening.


That's a pretty decent guide.

That's what it's there for.

[Drackolus]

He's apparently not reading this thread at the moment, but I happen to have this handy guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil) ... uh, handy.

I may have just been sucked into reading this whole thing.
I want to make a LE character now. Especially since my NE character is sort of on the path to kinda-not-being-as-much-of-a-jerk-ism.

[Red Fel]

I may have just been sucked into reading this whole thing.
I want to make a LE character now. Especially since my NE character is sort of on the path to kinda-not-being-as-much-of-a-jerk-ism.

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have scented hand towels.

[Drackolus]

My comment on law being about caring about what others think was meant as an observation. I don't think it's a particularly good definition, mostly because it has trouble with chaotic good characters and lawful evil ones. And the chaotic good bit was meant to illustrate more the idea that they don't adhere to what other people think is good, but also generally are good natured and don't want them to be hurt... So, I suppose, just like the lawful good in that they do what they think is best for others, even if the "others" disagree. Really, 5e doesn't seem to paint a very self-consistent picture with lawful and chaotic.
You've definitely swayed me. I like the way you explain it better, though in defense of the phb they define every alignment with 1-2 sentences. Which is somewhat of a shame, but I suppose it leaves as much to tear apart as it does to work with.

[georgie_leech]

Feel free to stand corrected. It's been a busy evening.

I did say at the moment :smalltongue:

[Christian]

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)



... Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice ...



Whoah. I've been playing my druids wrong.

[Temperjoke]

My interpretation, make of it what you will, is that the difference between Law and Chaos is Society Rules/Desires vs. Personal Rules/Desires. That is, a Lawful individual puts Society Rules/Desires over their Personal Rules/Desires (ie: I don't like it, but rules are the rules, so I'll do it), while a Chaotic individual puts their Personal Rules/Desires over society (ie: society thinks I should do this, but I don't agree, so I won't). Then the difference between Good and Evil revolve around what those Rules/Desires are for you vs. Society.

But that's just my interpretation of it. Your mileage will likely vary.

[georgie_leech]

Whoah. I've been playing my druids wrong.

Druids in early editions were specifically advised that if they were ever involved in a conflict they should be on the losing side to preserve balance, and it specifically calls out that they should switch sides if the side they're on starts winning. Take all early advice on Druids and Neutrality with a grain of salt.

[King539]

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have scented hand towels.

Red Fel fhtagn!

[Sigreid]

Frankly, I don't see why CG can't value logical thought. That said, in my experience, those Chaotic types could do with a bit more thinking.


Interestingly I tend to think of wizards as the ultimate chaotic alignment class. I know the stereo type is a disciplined and serious mind, but if you think about it the wizard is the only class that is expressly about breaking the very rules of reality, and always has been. What is a better representation of the chaotic spectrum than giving reality the finger and making it do what YOU want?

[JumboWheat01]

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have scented hand towels.

I thought you were supposed to have cookies. I was promised cookies.

[2D8HP]

Whoah. I've been playing my druids wrong.

Ah Druids.

Such scamps.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/The_Wicker_Man_of_the_Druids.jpg/220px-The_Wicker_Man_of_the_Druids.jpg

They're um.. handy with a sickle, and they have a um.. unique way of looking at things:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s280/alignmentchart.jpg


Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvgpztTNLI/AAAAAAAAC5A/9eyxWEs1B8g/s280/lordsummerisle.jpg


I wonder whether the villagers share this perspective?

"Okay guys, nice job on the harvest. Thanks for helping us out, druids fellows!"
"No problem. Now, if one of your healthy young folks could come with us to be covered in deer's blood and set on fire for the glory of our gods, that would be great."

[Malifice]

I admit that the behavior given can be vague. Especially the ones for Lawful Good and Chaotic Good. As far as I can tell, this is very intentional, because of the way 5e intends Alignment to be used: 1 sentence among 5-6 sentences of (mostly) single sentence motivations, covering a spectrum of motivational types, to be considered when choosing in-character actions.

That single sentence though has context. Context that you tend to ignore.

That context can be found in the name of the alignment (Good or Evil), the backgrounds 'Ideal' sections (Good ideals tend to be: mercy, compassion, kindness, and Evil ideals tend to be selfish or destructive) and in the alignment of monsters.

Monsters depicted as 'violent and destructive' like Orcs and Red dragons and Demons are CE. Domineering killers like Hobgoblins or Mindflayers or Devils are LE. Halfings tend to be LG.

When the book says 'a LG creature can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.' the surrounding context of that sentence defines 'the right thing' as being good (mercifull, compassionate, kind; doesnt harm and kill people).

Your average (LG) Hobbit can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. He's kind, non-violent, compassionate and empathises with others. He believes in Hobbit society (and its rules and norms), has strong family values, a strong sense of justice, honors his promises, and believes in the rule of law.

Bilbo was probably CG. He was unusual for a Halfling and acted according to his own consience, regardless of Hobbit societies expectations. He was (accordingly) a bit of an outsider in Hobbit society, and widely mistrusted. Still a good guy, but considered a bit of an eccentric loner to say the least.

[2D8HP]

That single sentence though has context.....Mindflayers or Devils are LE....

Ooh! Fun fact (IIRC), Mind Flayer's were the first monster to be identified in D&D as both Lawful and Evil.

I'll try to dig up my oD&D books tomorrow and see (I think it was in Eldrich Wizardry).

:smile:

[Tanarii]

That single sentence though has context. Context that you tend to ignore.Interestingly, I don't think we disagree that much on what the sentences ultimately mean. I think the context is inherent in the words "the right thing" and "conscience directs" ... because I think those things already imply what most people would consider good. You think it comes from the name of the alignment being good, and applied to those words. Great ... regardless of wher we think the context comes from, we still both think it boils down to actually good, as opposed to masquerading as good.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we can still find plenty of other things to when it comes to Alignment.

[2D8HP]

Law vs. Chaos

Causing arguments since 1953!
(PM me for why that year)

[Temperjoke]

Law vs. Chaos

Causing arguments since 1953!
(PM me for why that year)

Well, it is time for that monthly alignment argument, after all. Everyone argues until they get tired of posting, with no real resolution, then it slowly dies down until the middle of the next month. Then someone will post a question about an alignment, and it starts all over again.

[Tanarii]

Well, it is time for that monthly alignment argument, after all. Everyone argues until they get tired of posting, with no real resolution, then it slowly dies down until the middle of the next month. Then someone will post a question about an alignment, and it starts all over again.
I'll chime out of these threads when someone else picks up the torch of "Here's how 5e Alignment works" instead of it just being post after post of personal opinions and old edition thinking totally unrelated to 5e. :smallyuk:

[georgie_leech]

I'll chime out of these threads when someone else picks up the torch of "Here's how 5e Alignment works" instead of it just being post after post of personal opinions and old edition thinking totally unrelated to 5e. :smallyuk:

I would, but you're better at it than me :smallwink:

[krunchyfrogg]

Anyway you'd like.

Alignment is not a straitjacket

[Red Fel]

Red Fel fhtagn!

S'up?


I thought you were supposed to have cookies. I was promised cookies.

Of course we have cookies. That's not even worth bragging about. Anyone can have cookies. Some ovens, some dough, some lost souls, some chocolate, you've got cookies. You want cookies? We've got cookies.

We've also got scented towels. Does your CG rogues' gallery have those?

For what it's worth, my perspectives on alignment are, as Tanarii says, "post after post of personal opinions and old edition thinking totally unrelated to 5e." I've never played 5e. I play 3.Xe. For all I know, the alignment grid was upgraded to a cube in 5e. I dunno.

But when I get called to share my expertise, I do what I can. And for what it's worth, I find that generally, most alignment descriptions in the books are crude reductionism - taking something complex and nuanced and, as Drackolus notes, summing it up in "1-2 sentences." And we, as a community, can do better. This forum deserves a better class of Evil.

Also, Malifice, I think your observation is a bit circular. For example, when you say:


When the book says 'a LG creature can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.' the surrounding context of that sentence defines 'the right thing' as being good (mercifull, compassionate, kind; doesnt harm and kill people).

So, an LG creature is Good because he can be counted on to do the right thing, which means to be good. He's Good because he is good. That tells us nothing about what "Good" is. We need more than that.

Now, I don't expect the authors - of this or any edition - to put as much work into such a relatively minor thing as alignment as, say, I have. Frankly, to a degree, I'm glad that they didn't - it gave me an excuse to be awesome. But I will acknowledge that their descriptions are a bit simplistic, and miss out on the nuances of personality and perspective that flesh out a character.

[JobsforFun]

Anyway you'd like.

Alignment is not a straitjacket

I am glad everyone has helped me with posting so many times on this thread. I know a lot of people hate these alignment threads but it honestly helps me since I have a hard time understanding alignments in the beginning since I am overall new to DnD

[georgie_leech]

To sum up, 5e is explicit about Alignment not covering all the nuances, and has other personality traits to offer guides in other areas. So when I read threads like this one, I read it as a general statement of intent. Like, 'How to play CG' is 'I want to play a character that acts in generally good ways that doesn't much care for authority and likes freedom, what else can I do to flesh this out more?'

[Millstone85]

That tells us nothing about what "Good" is. We need more than that.Do we really need a fantasy game definition of good and evil?

"No, no, I didn't mean evil as in real life evil, I meant 5th edition evil."

With law and chaos, yes, we are discussing the D&D concept.

[Laurefindel]

Like, 'How to play CG' is 'I want to play a character that acts in generally good ways that doesn't much care for authority and likes freedom, what else can I do to flesh this out more?'

The problem is that it can be fleshed out in a myriad of ways, some of which might appear contradictory. 5e encourages you to play traits more than alignment, and I for one am happy there isn't one true way to play CG. For me that means more nuances, not less.

[krunchyfrogg]

I am glad everyone has helped me with posting so many times on this thread. I know a lot of people hate these alignment threads but it honestly helps me since I have a hard time understanding alignments in the beginning since I am overall new to DnD

You're welcome.

[Johnny Krillers]

The way I see alignment for what it's worth is as more of a guideline, the graph that 2D8HP posted back near the top of page three is a good example. The way I have always used it and the way I think 5e intends it to be used is more of a guideline when you're unsure of how to act with your character based on their personality, in the simplest way of defining it alignment is where you character's ideals lay, that said, when it comes to acting upon those ideals it most definitely is a spectrum, one or two lawful acts does not make a lawful character. The Good vs Evil spectrum I think everyone who isn't in a crisis with a tragic villain currently can agree upon, but it's still important to the alignment in general. The Good to Evil spectrum is where your personal code lies (yes chaotic people have a moral "code" because we as humans can't really conceptualize the moral debate in anything but a line with a long middle) the Law and Chaos side is how you go about fulfilling said code, Lawful beings have a strict set of tenants that they follow in order to keep to their code, they flesh it out and make a system of "if ____ then ____" guidelines for their lives, Chaotic beings go solely based on gut feeling with a basic litmus test of if it's good/evil then great I've done right by me.

Where the rub is and where I think a lot of these arguments have come from is that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos in their pure forms aren't something that we as humans (and thus any character we RP) can achieve, they're the realms of platonic forms, angels, demons and devils, but because some of the older game mechanics relied on alignment and a few DMs probably didn't put as much thought into it as we on the internet have nor did they have the advantage of time over us and they changed the alignments of PCs based on singular actions and not on the actual outlook of the characters, not that even now do we agree on how to see the alignment and instead just use it a swap out for Freud's 3 parts of the personality. That's just my way of looking at it though, feel free to disagree, I don't care I'm the NG middleman :smalltongue:




Bilbo was probably CG. He was unusual for a Halfling and acted according to his own consience, regardless of Hobbit societies expectations. He was (accordingly) a bit of an outsider in Hobbit society, and widely mistrusted. Still a good guy, but considered a bit of an eccentric loner to say the least.
This is actually a great example of what I'm talking about with outlook shifts as opposed to just acting a certain way. Bilbo, at the beginning of The Hobbit, is pretty clearly set up for us as a lawful "respectable" hobbit, over the course of the book however he shifts from complaining and protesting about adventures and a mess in his home to being instrumental in saving the dwarves' quest to retake their home by taunting and accidentally tricking a dragon. In the end though, he was seen as eccentric by the other hobbits of Hobbiton not because he followed his own conscious, it was because his conscious was different from that of a pretty rigidly peaceful and do nothing of a society, many of the other hobbits follow their consciences, but an integral part of that conscious is to be "respectable" be quiet, peaceful and stay close to home. Honestly the whole thing is rather well illustrated in the book by the way Bilbo thinks about his Baggins and Took-ish sides, the Baggins being the more lawful and "respectable" side of thinking and the Took being the more chaotic and adventure loving way of thinking.


To sum up, 5e is explicit about Alignment not covering all the nuances, and has other personality traits to offer guides in other areas. So when I read threads like this one, I read it as a general statement of intent. Like, 'How to play CG' is 'I want to play a character that acts in generally good ways that doesn't much care for authority and likes freedom, what else can I do to flesh this out more?'
All in all I 100% agree, Georgie, but it's fun to debate and bring actual real world, complex philosophy into an ultimately silly discussion about how to RP a certain way.

[Mongobear]

*snip*

William Wallace is one I'm not sure about, but being an Outlaw that is considered a Hero does not necessarily a CG character make. Again, I'll point to traits like organising a largely fractious nation into a fighting force capable of threatening the "tyrannical" oppressors...that's not particularly Chaotic. I'm not saying Chaotic characters can't be organised or good leaders, they certainly can, but when your super-epic life goal involves organisation, planning and forethought...these aren't really Chaotic traits, per se.

Only responding to this bit, out of mere discussions' sake.

I am going purely off of Braveheart, whether that movie is historically accurate or not has no merit to what I am about to say.

Wallace didn't exactly "organise and lead" his army of men at first. The English were basically being evil raping d***bags and finally he and his clansmen had enough and murdered the lot of them. Afterwards, when the entire other town showed up, he told them all to go home, he didnt want to become the leader he was being proclaimed as.

Later on in the movie, when the first huge battle is about to start, Wallace shows up to the battlefield with his men and goes to meet up with the other Earls/Scott leaders, when his own friend asks him where he was going when he rode into the "discussing terms" meeting all he says is "im going to pick a fight" then rides into the meeting and tells the english leader to basically kiss his ass and provokes him into a fight.

Seduces an english princess, assassinates his own (disloyal) countrymen after a betrayal, convinces a high ranking noble of Scottland to join his cause, and eventually leads the rebellion, amongst other stuff I can remember from the movie.

[JellyPooga]

Only responding to this bit, out of mere discussions' sake.

I am going purely off of Braveheart, whether that movie is historically accurate or not has no merit to what I am about to say.

It's a fair point; movie Wallace is pretty Chaotic for all the reasons you outline. Possibly Good, but your enemy being blatantly Evil doesn't make you Good. I'd probably call movie Wallace CN, myself.

[MadBear]

It's a fair point; movie Wallace is pretty Chaotic for all the reasons you outline. Possibly Good, but your enemy being blatantly Evil doesn't make you Good. I'd probably call movie Wallace CN, myself.

I don't know, seems to me a CN character in the movie would basically leave the country to escape the whole mess (Wallace's uncle comes to mind in this regard). Staying behind and risking your life to stop evil d-bags, seems like a pretty good example of someone doing something good. (if there was no risk involved, it'd be harder to tell, but he was the poster boy of underdog in the movie).

[Sigreid]

I don't know, seems to me a CN character in the movie would basically leave the country to escape the whole mess (Wallace's uncle comes to mind in this regard). Staying behind and risking your life to stop evil d-bags, seems like a pretty good example of someone doing something good. (if there was no risk involved, it'd be harder to tell, but he was the poster boy of underdog in the movie).

In the movie the English nobleman raped and murdered the love of his life. In the context of the film he wasn't fighting so much to free Scotland as for pure bloody minded revenge.

This is also why I seen Batman as more CN than anything else. He does what in his mind makes him a hero, but when you get right down to it he's just an emotionally damaged rich man trying to get revenge for the murder of his parents. He keeps going because no matter how much revenge he gets, hit doesn't heal the wound.

[MadBear]

In the movie the English nobleman raped and murdered the love of his life. In the context of the film he wasn't fighting so much to free Scotland as for pure bloody minded revenge.

This is also why I seen Batman as more CN than anything else. He does what in his mind makes him a hero, but when you get right down to it he's just an emotionally damaged rich man trying to get revenge for the murder of his parents. He keeps going because no matter how much revenge he gets, hit doesn't heal the wound.

I guess this is where we differ on our perspective of the movie. To me he was CN prior to his wife being killed. He didn't try to harm people, but also didn't really try and stop evil from perpetuating itself forward.

Now, his killing of the duke/lord/whaterver you call it that killed his wife was straight up revenge and not necessarily good. But so much after that was stopping the evil that was England in that movie.

Look at the speech before the battle of stirling bridge (which awkwardly didn't happen on a bridge in the movie). That was all about fighting for your freedom against tyranny, and it wasn't only about revenge at that point.

[Temperjoke]

I think one thing that's commonly forgotten, when trying to use examples from different points in a movie, is that character development happens. Events in the movie change people, affects their response to future events. In Braveheart, Wallace went from Neutral, to Chaotic Neutral, to Chaotic Good over the course of the movie, as things changed. He didn't want to be leader in the movie, but developed and stepped into the role more fully as time went by. Hell, if Robert the Bruce had been able to step up like William Wallace had wanted him to in the movie, Wallace might have even turned Lawful, since Bruce would have been a leader he could respect and would be willing to follow.

EDIT: This is also something important to remember for characters too, it's perfectly normal for events in a long campaign to alter a characters general outlook and response. Curse of Strahd is a module designed to corrupt the characters, to push them into darker places mentally, as an example.

[GlenSmash!]

This is also why I seen Batman as more CN than anything else. He does what in his mind makes him a hero, but when you get right down to it he's just an emotionally damaged rich man trying to get revenge for the murder of his parents. He keeps going because no matter how much revenge he gets, hit doesn't heal the wound.

I fundamentally disagree that Batman is trying to get revenge for the death of his parents. I also do not think he is Chaotic. Batman absolutely believes in Law and Order. His whole aim is to assist Law and Order. He believes Law and Order needs his help. He is too Authoritarian to be Chaotic. He is not a proponent of individual freedom above all else.

That isn't to say he isn't acting out an adolescent fantasy. He absolutely is. He thinks he can deter crime in a major metropolitan city beating criminals up and cultivating his own supernatural myth. The former of which is especially ridiculous.

[Mongobear]

Look at the speech before the battle of stirling bridge (which awkwardly didn't happen on a bridge in the movie). That was all about fighting for your freedom against tyranny, and it wasn't only about revenge at that point.

3.5 UA had a Paladin variant called Paladin of Freedom, it was CG required and explicitly sets up a code of conduct that makes it so that you have to fight against tyranny and oppression of the weak. That speech alone makes him CG at least at that point in the movie. He is literally using a CG code of conduct to spur an entire army to fight against a tyrant's army.

[Sigreid]

I guess this is where we differ on our perspective of the movie. To me he was CN prior to his wife being killed. He didn't try to harm people, but also didn't really try and stop evil from perpetuating itself forward.

Now, his killing of the duke/lord/whaterver you call it that killed his wife was straight up revenge and not necessarily good. But so much after that was stopping the evil that was England in that movie.

Look at the speech before the battle of stirling bridge (which awkwardly didn't happen on a bridge in the movie). That was all about fighting for your freedom against tyranny, and it wasn't only about revenge at that point.

I agree with him being CN. I just believe in the movie for him it was all about revenge. That's not to say he didn't care about his comrades, but really he just changed the scale of his revenge fantasy, and after a certain point there is no going back so you may as well be all in. I don't think we are as off from each other as you perceive, but I could be wrong.


I fundamentally disagree that Batman is trying to get revenge for the death of his parents. I also do not think he is Chaotic. Batman absolutely believes in Law and Order. His whole aim is to assist Law and Order. He believes Law and Order needs his help. He is too Authoritarian to be Chaotic. He is not a proponent of individual freedom above all else.

That isn't to say he isn't acting out an adolescent fantasy. He absolutely is. He thinks he can deter crime in a major metropolitan city beating criminals up and cultivating his own supernatural myth. The former of which is especially ridiculous.

From where I sit, Batman doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rules. He doesn't give a damn about the law either, breaking it on a regular basis. He only really cares about punishing those who harm others, and to keep being a good guy in his own head protecting the ones that would be hurt. Shoot, from what I've seen he doesn't even really care what the Justice League thinks and treats them as nothing more than an occasionally useful tool in his own personal campaign.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

In the movie the English nobleman raped and murdered the love of his life. In the context of the film he wasn't fighting so much to free Scotland as for pure bloody minded revenge.

This is also why I seen Batman as more CN than anything else. He does what in his mind makes him a hero, but when you get right down to it he's just an emotionally damaged rich man trying to get revenge for the murder of his parents. He keeps going because no matter how much revenge he gets, hit doesn't heal the wound.

Batman has a drop of fascist-like aspects (at least Frank Miller's Batman), I wouldn't tag him CN. Maybe a very dark LN. All he wants is to keep order, no matter the cost.

[JumboWheat01]

All these varying opinions on Batman further prove that alignment grid where he's all nine alignments.

[Tanarii]

I think one thing that's commonly forgotten, when trying to use examples from different points in a movie, is that character development happens. Events in the movie change people, affects their response to future events.

(Snip)

EDIT: This is also something important to remember for characters too, it's perfectly normal for events in a long campaign to alter a characters general outlook and response. Curse of Strahd is a module designed to corrupt the characters, to push them into darker places mentally, as an example.
Absolutely. As far as I know, nothing says a player can't change her character's Alignment, or add to or replace her personality traits as time passes. The one I feel this is especially appropriate for is a Bond, especially some you can originally lift it straight from the Backgrounds.

[Vogonjeltz]

What would be the main differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good? Would it have to do with breaking laws?

Not exactly no, a Chaotic Good character might have little use for custom and societal norms (as opposed to a Lawful Good character who does the right thing as expected by society) while a Neutral Good character will do the best they can to help without particular regard or disregard for the same.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Not exactly no, a Chaotic Good character might have little use for custom and societal norms (as opposed to a Lawful Good character who does the right thing as expected by society) while a Neutral Good character will do the best they can to help without particular regard or disregard for the same.

NG follow is heart to do good. If he thinks something is ok with the system, he keeps it, if not, he helps others outside the system.

CG thinks the system is corrupt, that hierarchy favors corruption and evil and wants to establish a different order, free, equal and fair for all, where there is no need for oppression.

There is a funny parody strip of good andn neutral alignments with an orphan cat. Here: http://imgur.com/gallery/RAap5

[Randomthom]

Alignment is an incredibly complex thing to describe because it is heavily dependent on a number of factors.

The primary points of contention are around scope & intent.

Taking the character of William Wallace (the Braveheart version) you have numerous interpretations of his intent. Revenge, freedom or even just a burning hatred of the English could qualify as the intent behind his actions. Perspective means a great deal in how you view him. If your Dad was killed during Wallace's sacking of York, you'd see him as a CE Barbarian invader. If your town's oppressive English nobility was driven out by his army he'd be a CG liberator. If you were a soldier in his army he'd probably be closer to LN (though the apparent lack of a rigid rank system within the army suggests it wouldn't ever qualify as full-blown Lawful). If you had asked how Hitler saw himself, what would he say? LN? LG???

There is also scope. Do you take a view of his alignment at a point-in-time or across his whole life? Do you balance it evenly or are more recent events more relevant? Did Darth Vader die a Good man or just a little bit less evil? Is a single murder enough to taint a lifetime of saving lives?

How do you boil all of this down onto a character sheet?

Wallace CN
Hitler LE
Trump CE

[Tanarii]

How do you boil all of this down onto a character sheet?

Wallace CN
Hitler LE
Trump CE
Yeeeeeeeah ... not in 5e. That's not how it's done. You're missing Personality Trait(s), Ideal, Bond and Flaw for these characters.


Not exactly no, a Chaotic Good character might have little use for custom and societal norms (as opposed to a Lawful Good character who does the right thing as expected by society) while a Neutral Good character will do the best they can to help without particular regard or disregard for the same.Lol shoutout to someone actually extrapolating from what the book defines alignment behavior as. :smallwink:

[Millstone85]

If your Dad was killed during Wallace's sacking of York, you'd see him as a CE Barbarian invader. If your town's oppressive English nobility was driven out by his army he'd be a CG liberator. If you were a soldier in his army he'd probably be closer to LNYou are none of these characters, though, nor are you truly Wallace. You are Wallace's actor. How do you want to portray him? What do you want to convey to the audience? This is how I would approach alignment.

[Tanarii]

Since people are stuck on William Wallace (Braveheart version), let's do it 5e style, shall we? We'll assume play begins when his wife has just been murderered and he's just slit the throat of the guy who did it.

William Wallace (Braveheart)
Human Barbarian Folk Hero
Alignment - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good (players choice)
Personality - I take great pleasure in the simple things in life - a warm home, a hot meal, good friends around me, a ride in the rain with a pretty girl.
Ideal - Freedom. Tyrants must be fought, no matter what the personal cost.
Bond - I'll never forget what the English did to my wife.
Flaw - I'm a sucker for a pretty face, and one day that will probably destroy me.

[JellyPooga]

Since people are stuck on William Wallace (Braveheart version), let's do it 5e style, shall we? We'll assume play begins when his wife has just been murderered and he's just slit the throat of the guy who did it.

William Wallace (Braveheart)
Human Barbarian Folk Hero
Alignment - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good (players choice)
Personality - I take great pleasure in the simple things in life - a warm home, a hot meal, good friends around me, a ride in the rain with a pretty girl.
Ideal - Freedom. Tyrants must be fought, no matter what the personal cost.
Bond - I'll never forget what the English did to my wife.
Flaw - I'm a sucker for a pretty face, and one day that will probably destroy me.

Trinket: My dead wifes hand-fasting cloth

[Randomthom]

Yeeeeeeeah ... not in 5e. That's not how it's done. You're missing Personality Trait(s), Ideal, Bond and Flaw for these characters.

Lol shoutout to someone actually extrapolating from what the book defines alignment behavior as. :smallwink:

Not enough space on a character sheet for Trump's flaws... ;P

[StoicLeaf]

I want a go!

I think we can all probably agree upon what good and evil are. "Good" people will, at cost to themselves, help other people and attempt to not cause collateral damage when improving their lot in life. "Evil" people will do the opposite, or a variation thereof, i.e. an evil person will gladly throw other peoples' safety/concerns to the wind or even outright sacrifice others to get what they want/need.

At the core of this (particularly when it comes to law/chaos) are simple truths that most beings find to be self-evident. Call them commandments if you want, but sentinent life is likely to favor not being killed, for example. Not having your stuff stolen is also useful, because building things that make life easier takes time. And so on and so forth. This will vary from race to race; goblins for example are dirty little buggers that don't mind a good old round of murder, but their society is primitive because of it. Luckily, most of the "good" races in DnD all value life in the same way. Dwarves might be a bit more anal about laws, and elves might prefer interpretive dance over governing, but they all understand each others' viewpoints and can adapt to them.

Now depending on where you want to draw the line, I'd say that you can't have a society without any laws, even if it's just the enforcement of these simple ones. As society progresses, you need new laws to cover new things. I'd argue that the vast majority of people are lawful, or at the very least neutral, because being chaotic means you oppose order/law as a whole.
As such, chaotic individuals are people that are extreme loners. They're unlikely to work in small groups either for any long amount of time because their needs/desires/boundaries can change from one day to the next.
The old crazy hillbilly that doesn't want to pay taxes and makes his own moonshine to sell as he sees fit is chaotic.
Robin Hood is an often cited example, and while is crusade against the sheriff could be described as chaotic, the man himself is not.

Regardless of whether you're living in a worry free utopian society or a grimdark tyranny, it's all the same to the chaotic individual. It's all to be ignored or even more extreme, to be ground to dust.

So, how to describe the three different chaotic types. CE and CN are straightforward. Problems arise with CG. To be perfectly frank, I don't think chaotic good makes any sense, at least not from a human perspective. Humans are social animals and society requires rules, even if it's just the commandments. I suppose you could make it work if you argued that even a CE type wouldn't kill themselves, therefore the commandments are exempt from examination; it's the rules that are applied on top of these that are the deciding factor. In which case a CG type is the ultimate believer in a free-market of everything. "life will govern itself", etc. But, again, I can't think of one society on earth, modern or historic, that made such a system work.

As such, CG is an alignment for elves (so they can appear aloof) and other fantasy creatures.
It's an alignment that's about as bad as CN goes when it comes to murder-hobos and as such should be "banned" if you're playing with fixed alignments.

[Millstone85]

I think we can all probably agree upon what good and evil are.Not quite, but that's not for D&D to fix. The PHB is neither a holy book nor a treatise on morality. And like I said before, I don't see players ignoring their real life take on good and evil for a simpler in-game definition of those.

Law and chaos, now, I think 5e could have explained those a bit better.

[Dr.Samurai]

Trinket: My dead wifes hand-fasting cloth
Nice touch! We can keep going.

Archetype: Path of the Storm Herald (Sea)
Feat: Magic Initiate (Firebolt)

[MadBear]

3.5 UA had a Paladin variant called Paladin of Freedom, it was CG required and explicitly sets up a code of conduct that makes it so that you have to fight against tyranny and oppression of the weak. That speech alone makes him CG at least at that point in the movie. He is literally using a CG code of conduct to spur an entire army to fight against a tyrant's army.

And this is itself why alignment is frustrating, because the authors of it are inconsistent in their use of what lawful and chaotic mean.

Lawful can be about following the law, but it can also mean following your own personal code (which would make the UA Paladin lawful by definition.

But since they also use Chaotic to mean following your own code as opposed to the law, then you have this really frustrating scenario.

It's precisely this reason that batman is so hard to pin down.

Batman has his own rigid personal code that he follows in the face of the everyday law. Under some circumstances that makes him lawful and others chaotic.

This isn't even going over the problems with good/evil which have their own flaws.

[JellyPooga]

Nice touch! We can keep going.

Archetype: Path of the Storm Herald (Sea)
Feat: Magic Initiate (Firebolt)

Lol! That tickled me! If we're going for the "legend";

Race: Goliath(?)

[Mongobear]

Lol! That tickled me! If we're going for the "legend";

Race: Goliath(?)

I ws gonna suggest Race: V. Human with the Linguist? Feat, I think that's the one that added extra Languages.

Wallace was very well educated by his uncle as a child, so having something like Linguist is perfect.

[King539]

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have scented hand towels.

I thought you were supposed to have cookies. I was promised cookies.

Can I please sig these?

[JumboWheat01]

I have no problems with my random silliness being quoted.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeeeeeeeah ... not in 5e. That's not how it's done. You're missing Personality Trait(s), Ideal, Bond and Flaw for these characters.

Lol shoutout to someone actually extrapolating from what the book defines alignment behavior as. :smallwink:

Hah, well I don't have as much use for examples from popular literature as there's rarely a character or persons who doesn't cross over and act according to multiple alignments; it's too easy to get the wrong takeaway from a given example (see: batman portrayed as every alignment).

[GlenSmash!]

From where I sit, Batman doesn't give a damn about anyone else's rules. He doesn't give a damn about the law either, breaking it on a regular basis. He only really cares about punishing those who harm others, and to keep being a good guy in his own head protecting the ones that would be hurt. Shoot, from what I've seen he doesn't even really care what the Justice League thinks and treats them as nothing more than an occasionally useful tool in his own personal campaign.

That conveniently ignores all the years of working together with Jim Gordon and the GCPD. Also, he does not car about punishment that is the Punisher's thing. He cares about getting criminals INTO the justices system.

Not caring what the Justice League thinks has little to do with being lawful. The Justice League is neither a Society or a government.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not caring what the Justice League thinks has little to do with being lawful. The Justice League is neither a Society or a government.
Well that just begs the question... does Batman care what the Justice Society of America thinks?

[GlenSmash!]

Well that just begs the question... does Batman care what the Justice Society of America thinks?

:smallbiggrin: Good one.

[JumboWheat01]

Well that just begs the question... does Batman care what the Justice Society of America thinks?


:smallbiggrin: Good one.

I'm pretty sure the only person's opinion or thoughts that Batman truly cares about are Alfred's.

[Sception]

I look at it this way:

Good vs. Evil is an axis of how a person values their wants and needs in relation to those of others. A good person puts others above themselves (possibly to the point of taking self gratification in opportunities for self sacrifice), an evil person puts themselves above others (possibly to the extent of taking self gratification in harming others). A neutral person attempts to advance their self interest while infringing at little as possible on others advancing their own, and expects the same courtesy in return.

Note that 'others' here generally refers to strangers, people at large. Even a good person can have people they don't like, rivals they'd love to take down a peg, or even enemies they'd go out of their way to harm. And even an evil person may have loved ones they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves for. This is about default attitudes towards the world around them, not particular individuals who might slip past those defaults without actually calling them into question.


Law vs. Chaos is how people see social order, community standards, and civilization in general impacting their good vs. evil values.

A lawful good character sees a well working social order as essential to protecting the defenseless, uplifting the needy, and suppressing harmful instincts. People as a whole may not be innately good, but through civilization they are given the structure and discipline to be good, the tools to make life better for all people, if necessary a shield to defend the weak and a sword to strike down those who would harm them.

Their nemesis is the chaotic evil warlord, who sees civilization as a wall standing in the way of their conquest, a shackle that prevents them from imposing their will upon the world, a system that they must smash so that the strong may take their rightful place over the weak.


The Chaotic Good character sees entrenched social order as a cage, a prison that suppresses goodness, that separates and divides people into rigid boxes and then weighs them down with needless toil so that they cannot stand together to demand the freedom and dignity that is their due. Civilization inevitably tends towards becoming an engine of oppression that criminalizes poverty, enslaves the body and mind, and deposits power over many in the hands of a few.

Chaotic Good characters see people in general as naturally good, but the burden and drudgery of conformity inevitably dulls their empathy, while those unwilling or unable to conform are pushed to the margins of society, forced to break the law to survive, and then punished by the system for the 'crimes' the system itself forced them to commit. Any social system, however nobly intended when it was fashioned, if given enough power and time will inevitably become a shield for the corrupt, and a lash on the backs of the powerless, and a guillotine over the necks of the destitute.

They may still see civilization as necessary, but even if they do, the inevitable tendency towards corruption and oppression means that systems of power must be kept small, and there must always be heroes outside that system, Champions of Freedom willing to hold it to task, and cut it back when its excesses begin to endanger the liberty of the people the law is meant to serve.


Their nemesis is the lawful evil Tyrant, who sees civilization as the lever by which they can move the world in their favor and impose their will on others. Through mastery and manipulation (and even breaking) of the law, they prove their superiority and right to rule, protect their interest, and crush their rivals, and entrench their power. Under their guidance society becomes an ever more efficient and implacable machine, grinding the will of the masses into treasure for the tyrant to enjoy.

* Yes, even breaking. Strategic breaking of the rules when they cannot be caught or when the punishment is worth the gain is just another aspect of the tyrant's system mastery. For instance, the mafioso kingpin, whose entire business is hinged on providing illegal goods and services, using the very laws they're breaking to help hedge out competition.


But more than any singular Tyrant, the Chaotic Good PC's true nemesis is Systematic Oppression. Any horror of violence and degradation, any engine of mass suffering and exploitation, that has been normalized through the sheer crushing mundanity of entrenchment, such that even people who might otherwise think of themselves as 'good' either do not see it, or cannot imagine how things could be different, or excuse it because changing things would just be too difficult, or rationalize it because they themselves profit directly or indirectly. Chattle Slavery. Caste Systems that prop up some groups of people by oppressing an 'untouchable' subcaste. Feudal States where the serfs are exploited as subhuman. Apartheid states. Industries, agriculture, or settlements that demolish the surrounding environment and displace the people and creatures who rely on it. Evil Technocracies or Magocracies, with entire infrastructures built around a power source amounts to the captured and destroyed soul essence of the planet itself. Those are the sorts of enemies that the Chaotic Good hero exists to battle.

Chaotic Good PCs are Social Advocates, Eco Activists, Anarcho-Communists, Freedom Fighters, Rebels, and Insurgents, never quite so motivated to battle a corrupt individual as they are to take down an entire corrupt institution. And when faced with an evil empire, the CG hero knows that the system itself has to go, not just the villains at the top. They don't want to kick out the system's corrupt current regime only for someone else just as bad or worse to move in a few years down the line.

Chaotic Good PCs aren't terrorists - though the Tyrant will always attempt to portray them as such. They don't want to harm the people caught in the system, and will take pains to avoid doing so, or at least to minimize any collateral damage. Indeed, they act specifically for the sake of those caught in the system, they want to tear the system down in order to free them, even if the people they're freeing are afraid of the uncertainty that would bring.


The neutrals, again, see the structures of society as either enabling or impeding their desire to live for themselves and their circle of loved ones while not intruding upon others. The Lawful Neutral character sees society as a machine of great convenience, making goods easier to acquire, establishing penalties for intruding on the lives or property of others. The Chaotic Neutral character sees society as a largely pointless inconvenience, imposing bothersome rules and regulations that intrude unnecessarily on their lives and livelihoods.

As with the attitudes of good and evil characters towards other people, the law chaos axis is about attitudes towards the abstract concept of civilization, social structures, laws, and regulations. It does not necessarily relate to attitudes towards any specific civilization, regime, or law. Even a lawful good character can see when a society is ridden with corruption and inflicts cruelty upon its people, though they might seek to root out corruption while leaving the systems of power that allowed it to fester in the first place intact. And even a chaotic good character can see when a benevolent regime is working in the interests of its citizens, though they might still worry that those same systems of power might be turned to oppressive ends when the current rulers are inevitably replaced by future ones, and work to weaken systems that in the moment were serving legitimate needs.

Even a lawful neutral character can recognize when bureaucratic red tape has gone so far that everyday life has become unworkable, and even a chaotic neutral character can appreciate when a demonic incursion demands a response organized on a level significantly above that of disconnected persons acting singularly in their own personal interest.


So in my mind law vs chaos isn't not about discipline or codes of conduct or whatever. The most ardent anarchist can maintain a grueling discipline and fallow an unrelenting and unforgiving personal code - see V, for instance (or don't, it's not the best film). Rather, it's whether they see social structures in the abstract, as a tool or an impediment when it comes to advancing the interests of those they care about (whether the other at the expense of the self, or the self at the expense of the other, or the ability for individuals to advance their own interests with minimal outside interference).

[Sigreid]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress had a good CG attitude. "I'm perfectly happy to let you pass any laws you feel necessary. I will follow the ones I agree with, and break the ones that I think are not needed."

[Sception]

That's not an attitude exclusive to Chaotic good. Really, any alignment apart from Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and maybe Chaotic Evil might say the same. Well, Lawful Evil wouldn't say it, but might think it and act on it.

[Sigreid]

That's not an attitude exclusive to Chaotic good. Really, any alignment apart from Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral might say the same. Well, Lawful Evil wouldn't say it, but might think it and act on it.

Well, that's going to be true of any example that can be given. People don't really fit neatly into 9 boxes.

[Sception]

True, but "Will go along with things they agree with, but won't go along with things they don't agree with," is a bit too vague to work as a solid description, imo. :p

[ChubbyRain]

I have always been more of a fan of evil and neutral alignments but I wanted to try a good alignment. Chaotic Good seems somewhat complicated to me I am not sure why though. Any help would be appreciated.

Be kind, rewind, sometimes.

Steal from the rich and give 60% to the needy.

Rules are meant to be broken, if that's what helps everyone.

[CaptainSarathai]

I think that D&D PC's hatred of "railroading" speaks volumes to the fact that most players are helming Chaotic characters over Lawful ones.
I also think that the general morality of people is causing problems, because we can't really put ourselves into a genuinely evil head-space. When people do, they usually go for comically evil, kicking-puppies evil, rather than deeply, genuinely evil, because it "feels icky." The notion that Good:Evil = Selfless:Selfish is a cripplingly simplified way to look at it.

For RP purposes, imagine someone tells you that an orphan needs rescuing:

Lawful Good:
My king has ordered me to help those in need. I will help this orphan.

Neutral Good:
I could rescue this orphan and save one life, or I could remove whatever threatens him and save hundreds. I will fight these goblins, but I don't care if the orphan child lives or dies - if she dies, at least her death served the greater good.

Chaotic Good:
I will save this kid because it's the right thing to do. That's all that needs to be said.

Lawful Neutral:
The laws of our kingdom expressly forbid wandering into the Wilder-Wood. If this child does not heed our laws, I am not obligated to save her from herself.

True Neutral:
This is the child's fate. Who am I to interfere?

Chaotic Neutral:
Heads, I save the kid. Tails, I don't save the kid. Ready?

Chaotic Evil:
How much are you going to pay me to save your brat?
How much are the goblins going to pay me to just walk away?

Neutral Evil:
Not my kid, not my problem.

Lawful Evil:
Goblin scum, they break our laws, trespass in our forests, and abduct my subjects. Their tribe must be eradicated - every man, woman, and child. If I find this orphan among the wreckage, she is saved. Otherwise, we spin her as yet another unfortunate casualty of these marauding savages.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't really get why people equate Neutral with apathetic or lolrandom.

Edit: Except as edition legacy silliness that no one should need to import into 5E of their own volition, I guess.

[Sception]

The neutral good character absolutely cares whether the orphan lives or dies.

The chaotic good character's line actually belongs to the neutral good character as well. For that matter, the chaotic good character is especially eager to go on this mission specifically because it involves defying the king's arbitrary boarders. The Chaotic Good character can see how the King's selfish need to declare what he does or does not own, and society's compulsive need to set arbitrary boundaries, have created a safe harbor for these villainous goblins to flourish, and prevented these poor people from protecting their own children. She needs to stand as an example to the people that the important thing is to do what is right, even and especially when it defies arbitrary societal convention.

Additionally, seeing as how the king's law has robbed these people of the ability to fend for themselves, once the goblins have been dealt with she may move into the forest herself, and encourage the people to do so as well, abandoning the society that has abandoned them. She may even make it a base of operations for her own group of freedom fighters and outlaws, with whom she can work to challenge this indifferent king and the corrupt system that props him up.

The lawful good character doesn't need to be specifically ordered to help people, either, though he does recognize that in doing so he's invading lands that belong to someone else. Where the Chaotic Good character might come in as a self-righteous but careless avenger and risk provoking an outright war that might destroy the people she's trying to protect, the lawful good character arrive as a peaceful diplomat and emissary, attempting to convince the goblins that positive relations across the boarder are possible and valuable, offer to carry grievances to his king, carry and embody the threat of greater reprisal if peaceful solutions can't be met.

Indeed, if the character is lawful neutral, and WAS specifically ordered to help people in need, than she's fully capable of recognizing that those two legal requirements - to help people and not to enter the wood - are in conflict, and of deciding which one takes precedence (likely deciding that her specific mission from the king trumps the more general regulation in this case). If she wasn't specifically so ordered, she may still recognize that the tensions at this boarder are threatening to spill over into outright conflict, and might choose to enter the wood as the lawful good character might, in order to act as a diplomat and re-establish the status quo.

The neutral character is not void of personal motivations. They may not have an inclination to save the child by default, but they are certainly open to direct appeals - emotional, reward, or otherwise - to act, and if their companions choose to act for their own reasons are certainly capable of going with the flow.

The chaotic character isn't 'randumb'. They're chaotic. anti-establishment. anti-authority. Like the Chaotic Good character, they can see how the arbitrary and imaginary boundaries set by the king's borders have allowed the goblins to fester while caging their victims. As with the true neutral character, they may not have a natural inclination to help these strangers, but are open to direct appeals, and do have a natural inclination to flout the arbitrary and ridiculous law, to show others that they can and should live for themselves. Alternatively, they may see a space to exercise their own personal freedom in the lawless forest, and if establishing themselves there means first dealing with the goblins currently occupying the wood, then so be it.

The chaotic evil character is not a pure mercenary. That's more the neutral evil character. As with the chaotic good and chaotic neutral characters, they do have a natural inclination to flout this law, though they may also see the lawless forest beyond the boarder as a good place to start building a power base of their own, and these goblins may be just the soldiers he needs to start building his power. Further, if he can establish "peace" by dominating these goblins, they may also be able to get the humans on their side, and weaken their faith in the king's legitimate authority.

The lawful evil character you gave is pretty accurate. If the goblins can't be wiped out by the party alone, they may even deliberately provoke war with the rest, since open conflict would inevitably increase the power of the state, and likely make room in higher positions for someone with their combat skills.

[Laurefindel]

Law =/= law. One can definitely play a "f**k the king's laws!" lawful character.

I also have a problem with a good character sacrificing an innocent person, even for the benefit of others. The only person a good character can sacrifice is himself/herself

[ChubbyRain]

Law =/= law. One can definitely play a "f**k the king's laws!" lawful character.

I also have a problem with a good character sacrificing an innocent person, even for the benefit of others. The only person a good character can sacrifice is himself/herself

Depends on how pragmatic a person is. If there is no choice for self sacrifice, a good person will try to save as much as they can.

Now this isn't just a quantity game but a quality game too.

[CaptainSarathai]

I don't really get why people equate Neutral with apathetic or lolrandom.

Edit: Except as edition legacy silliness that no one should need to import into 5E of their own volition, I guess.

Probably because in the 5e PHB you've got:

Neutral - the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions, and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.
--that's incredibly vague. "Best at the time"? For whom? If it's best for themselves, that's Evil. If it's best for the greater good or someone in need, that's Good.


Chaotic Neutral - creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
So I agree, "lolrandom" may have been wrong here. These are the characters who say, "nope, you can't tell me what to do!"
Han Solo fleeing Hoth is probably Chaotic Neutral. Yeah, the Empire is bad, but he doesn't want to fight it. Yeah, the Rebellion is good and needs his help, but he doesn't want to help. He just wants to get far away from the fighting and hopes to avoid being controlled by either side.
The problem is that players cant really do that. Chaotic Neutral players make very bad adventurers, because they have no reason to adventure. Put them on their ship or their little hermit-hole, or let them get their freedom, and they'll stay there. As soon as they leave their hobbit-hole for a reason, they become either good or evil.

[Laurefindel]

Depends on how pragmatic a person is. If there is no choice for self sacrifice, a good person will try to save as much as they can.

Now this isn't just a quantity game but a quality game too.

there's not information about the situation to tell what would have been possible or not, but no matter how pragmatic, a good character would care whether the orphan lives of dies. A cold and calculated type of pragmatism detracts from good IMO (and one that I would expect more from a lawful character than a neutral on on the law-chaos axis)

[ChubbyRain]

there's not information about the situation to tell what would have been possible or not, but no matter how pragmatic, a good character would care whether the orphan lives of dies. A cold and calculated type of pragmatism detracts from good IMO (and one that I would expect more from a lawful character than a neutral on on the law-chaos axis)

Sure.

But your statement of "no sacrifices" for good characters doesnt ring true.

The good character will care, but that doesnt mean they dont do things they don't like.

Being good isn't about being good 100% of the time.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If it's best for themselves, that's Evil.

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave!


Han Solo fleeing Hoth is probably Chaotic Neutral.

It's been a while since I saw that, but wasn't everyone fleeing Hoth at the time?


Chaotic Neutral players make very bad adventurers, because they have no reason to adventure.

As someone who plays a CN character I disagree very much. A CN character can have all sorts of preferences and motivations, and circumstances can propel them into many different courses of action. I see Chaotic Neutral as being Chaotic like, say, Chaotic Good, and Neutral like, say, Lawful Neutral, and I don't think it inherits a 0% reason to adventure half from each of those alignments.

[Laurefindel]

Sure.

But your statement of "no sacrifices" for good characters doesnt ring true.

The good character will care, but that doesnt mean they dont do things they don't like.

Being good isn't about being good 100% of the time.

I agree with the last part.

I guess I disagree with that being the example of a NG character's behaviour (meaning sacrificing the orphan and not caring about his fate for the greater good). Actually, I'd argue that many actions "for the greater good" are anything but Good actions.

[ChubbyRain]

I agree with the last part.

I guess I disagree with that being the example of a NG character's behaviour (meaning sacrificing the orphan and not caring about his fate for the greater good). Actually, I'd argue that many actions "for the greater good" are anything but Good actions.

That's the difference between romanticizing and actuality.

Making a choice to save as many people as possible, instead of letting everyone or more people die, isn't an evil or neutral action.

As long as you are doing it for the right reasons and taking the necessary precautions of doing it correctly (not making a decision on a whim), then sacrificing some to save others is still inherently good.

Unless you think letting everyone die (assuming a two or more choice scenario) or more good than saving one or the other.

Even of it's "if I go in there, I will die" type of situation. Making a choice to continuing living and helping others doesnt make you a bad person. Cowardly? Maybe. Of course if you think you might live and successfully pull off the rescue then it would be bad to leave someone to die.

[Tanarii]

--that's incredibly vague. "Best at the time"? For whom? If it's best for themselves, that's Evil. If it's best for the greater good or someone in need, that's Good.Your attitude is why Palladium ditched "Neutral" alignments and introduced "Selfish", between "Good" and "Evil". Because the writer didn't believe selfish is evil. Personally I like that interpretation of alignments better than yours, that that selfish is evil.

Also Palladium did that because unlike D&D, their settings generally didn't include the concept of a balance between Law and Chaos. (And later, Good and Evil.)

Edit: basically, the idea that is that alignments are a spectrum of good-selfish-evil. Not just good-evil, with neutral meaning 50/50 balanced, or being a moral switch hitter.

[Nifft]

In my interpretation of the alignments, a Chaotic person thinks in terms of Individuals.

To contrast this, a Lawful person thinks in terms of Institutions.

Neither of them are wrong, in particular, but they're incompatible on a fundamental level.


Example conversation:
CG: "I'm going to punch that jerk."
LG: "You can't punch him. He's the mayor."
CG: "What does his job have to do with anything?"
LG: "Even if he's a jerk, you must respect the office he holds."
CG: "No I don't."
LG: "Yes we do. If you just do whatever you want, you'll make trouble for the rest of us."
CG: "We can't be too good to do good. We need to be allowed to take action against jerks who are being jerks, even if it causes us personal inconvenience in the short term."
LG: "This isn't about inconvenience. It's about precedent."
CG: "He's the mayor, not the precedent."
LG: "No, see, the word is spelled--"
CG: (uses distraction to punch mayor)
LG: "--gods damn it."

Another example:
CG: "Our previous chief made a treaty with you, but he is dead."
LG: "The treaty is still valid."
CG: "No it's not. I just told you the chief who agreed to it is dead."
LG: "You must honor the agreements of your ancestors."
CG: "Why should the deeds of the dead decide the laws of the living?"
LG: "That's what our nations agreed."
CG: "I will treat fairly with you, but you must make new agreements with me and mine. I exceed the strength of my ancestors, and I will have your recognition of this truth."

[Sigreid]

Your attitude is why Palladium ditched "Neutral" alignments and introduced "Selfish", between "Good" and "Evil". Because the writer didn't believe selfish is evil. Personally I like that interpretation of alignments better than yours, that that selfish is evil.

Also Palladium did that because unlike D&D, their settings generally didn't include the concept of a balance between Law and Chaos. (And later, Good and Evil.)

Palladium actually had a pretty good breakout of alignments in my opinion.

[Tanarii]

Palladium actually had a pretty good breakout of alignments in my opinion.

It's not bad. It more or less lines up with D&D alignments, at least pre-5e and by my own personal interpretations of them. The only one that's really missing is LN. (Scrupulous being a blend of NG/CG).

Edit: provided, as I noted, you equate the two 'selfish' alignments with neutral (unprincipled) & chaotic neutral (anarchist) in older D&D editions. Which, as I noted, isn't the way Neutral has always been interpreted, especially in the older books and with Druids in particular.

[Sigreid]

It's not bad. It more or less lines up with D&D alignments, at least pre-5e and by my own personal interpretations of them? The only one that's really missing is LN. (Scrupulous being a blend of NG/CG).

Edit: provided, as I noted, you equate the two 'selfish' alignments with neutral in older D&D editions. Which, as I noted, isn't the way Neutral has always been interpreted, especially in the older books and with Druids in particular.

I usually went Aberrant. You could still be the good and noble champion, but be completely viscous with no remorse or hesitation when the chips were down.

[Tanarii]

I usually went Aberrant. You could still be the good and noble champion, but be completely viscous with no remorse or hesitation when the chips were down.
Abberant is about as good and noble as a LE "hero". Which I might add many players absolutely love to play. I thought long and hard about if I was going to allow it in my campaign when I kicked it off, but eventually settled on a blanked "no evil" rule. I might run a few special side sessions some day for LE characters only though. Especially if I want to introduce more party-vs-party conflicts. (It's a multi-session sandbox so different groups of PCs can theoretically be working on opposing goals. Hasn't happened much yet though.)

[Sigreid]

Abberant is about as good and noble as a LE "hero". Which I might add many players absolutely love to play. I thought long and hard about if I was going to allow it in my campaign when I kicked it off, but eventually settled on a blanked "no evil" rule. I might run a few special side sessions some day for LE characters only though. Especially if I want to introduce more party-vs-party conflicts. (It's a multi-session sandbox so different groups of PCs can theoretically be working on opposing goals. Hasn't happened much yet though.)

I can understand your view. My own rule is "Don't be the kind of ass-hat that the party can't get along with". So, it's OK to be evil as long as you're a evil that will go along with the party's over all goals and won't turn on the party and cause conflict.

The same rule applies to good characters too. Don't be such a goodie-two-shoes that insists on others perfectly following your own beliefs that the party feels the need to murder you in your sleep.

[Sception]

Selfishness - putting the self above others even when it means allowing others to come to harm or harming them yourself - is evil. That's what real evil generally looks like. Those who specifically go out of their way specifically to pursue the harm of others, those who put it above their own interest, those who are self sabotaging or even self sacrificing in their cruelty, that's hardly even a thing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief.

And while I don't want to get into politics, neutral evil is exactly the alignment I would ascribe to Ayn Rand, whether you zoom out to the philosophy she promoted and its effects on the world when implemented, or zoom into the direct impact of her actions on the people within her personal life.

[Sigreid]

Selfishness - putting the self above others even when it means allowing others to come to harm or harming them yourself - is evil. That's what real evil generally looks like. Those who specifically go out of their way specifically to pursue the harm of others, those who put it above their own interest, those who are self sabotaging or even self sacrificing in their cruelty, that's hardly even a thing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief.

And while I don't want to get into politics, neutral evil is exactly the alignment I would ascribe to Ayn Rand, whether you zoom out to the philosophy she promoted and its effects on the world when implemented, or zoom into the direct impact of her actions on the people within her personal life.

We'll have to disagree on this. Looking after your own interests and survival first without seeking to cause harm yourself is not evil. It may not be good, but you are not a force for darkness in the world.

I also disagree with your spoiler quote, but absolutely refuse to get into a discussion about it on this board.

[CaptainSarathai]

Selfishness - putting the self above others even when it means allowing others to come to harm or harming them yourself - is evil. That's what real evil generally looks like. Those who specifically go out of their way specifically to pursue the harm of others, those who put it above their own interest, those who are self sabotaging or even self sacrificing in their cruelty, that's hardly even a thing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief.

And while I don't want to get into politics, neutral evil is exactly the alignment I would ascribe to Ayn Rand, whether you zoom out to the philosophy she promoted and its effects on the world when implemented, or zoom into the direct impact of her actions on the people within her personal life.

That's exactly how it seems D&D has set it up. They've made it very difficult to play a True Neutral character.

Lawful Neutral are basically robots. Law enforcement, and soldiers, are supposed to be Lawful Neutral.
"The law says you can't drive with expired plates, kid"
"I'm broke, I'm just trying to get to a job interview on time, so I can get the money to buy new plates!"
"Shoulda called a cab. Here's your fine."
(true story which happened to me)

Chaotic Neutral will flee from choices. CG and CE both value free will (CE usually only extends it to themselves, but y'know). The difference is that CN values freedom from choice -
"Sure, the rebellion needs me, but I'm not taking orders from you, or anyone Princess, and I never will. I'm getting out of here, and I'm going where nobody - not you, not the Empire - will ever find me. You can come with, because I only brought so much lube on board, but I am not about to live by someone else's rules."

NG and NE are both defined by doing Good/Evil for the sake of it. It's nothing personal, no need to profit personally or act for/against a particular interest. You're just a good/bad person.
5e says that NE
"does whatever they can get away with," whereas CE is
"arbitrary violence spurred by greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

So, religiously speaking, the deist theory of a clockwork universe, one which a supreme power "wound-up, and then walked away" is a concept of a true neutral deity. You couldn't even pray to a NN deity, because they simply wouldn't care to interfere. They are just there to observe.

[Laurefindel]

That's the difference between romanticizing and actuality.

Making a choice to save as many people as possible, instead of letting everyone or more people die, isn't an evil or neutral action.

True binary situations are rare; typically, such choices are false dichotomy. Saving the orphan does not prevent you from stopping the goblins (or significantly contributing in doing so). A good character will not ignore the plight of one, or many. (s)he will try to answer to both. (s)he may not be able to,or might just be able to contribute in lesser way (sending warnings, getting help etc) but (s)he will care.

Even where there are no alternatives, sacrificing the few for the greater good is not a good action, but sometimes it can be a necessary one. As you said, a good person cannot be good 100% all the time.

but I don't know, sometimes it's hard to tell what the better "good" is. This is Captain American vs Iron Man all over again.

[Sception]

We'll have to disagree on this. Looking after your own interests and survival first without seeking to cause harm yourself is not evil. It may not be good, but you are not a force for darkness in the world.

It's one thing to put yourself and those you care about first, while still going out of your way to avoid infringing on the ability of others to do the same (and expecting the same courtesy in return). That's neutral. Do no harm.

Self first, despite the consequences to other people, though, is evil. Demanding freedom for oneself even at the cost of that of others, that is chaotic evil. Reaping the benefits of a system while turning a blind eye to those whose suffering that system is founded on, that is lawful evil. The founding principle of goodness is Empathy, the capacity to recognize the affects of one's actions on others and prioritize those generalized effects over the effects on oneself. Selfishness is the exact opposite of that. It is the beating heart of cruelty. It is the very definition of evil, in the real world or otherwise.

[Nifft]

It's one thing to put yourself and those you care about first, while still going out of your way to avoid infringing on the ability of others to do the same (and expecting the same courtesy in return). That's neutral. Do no harm.

Self first, despite the consequences to other people, though, is evil. Demanding freedom for oneself even at the cost of that of others, that is chaotic evil. Reaping the benefits of a system while turning a blind eye to those whose suffering that system is founded on, that is lawful evil. The founding principle of goodness is Empathy, the capacity to recognize the affects of one's actions on others and prioritize those generalized effects over the affects on oneself. Selfishness is the exact opposite of that. It is the beating heart of cruelty. It is the very definition of evil, in the real world or otherwise.

Absolutely yes, and D&D makes this pretty clear IMHO.

Good => risks & self-sacrifice for the good of others.

Neutral => live & let live.

Evil => seek benefit for yourself even if it hurts others.

Cheating anyone, even a sucker, is evil. Greed is not good. Profit is not a virtue. You are not worth more than your neighbors, and screwing them over is not one of your rights. The sweat of your brow is worthless without the support structure of a functional society, and the price for inclusion in a functional society is not being an ass to everyone else.

[Tanarii]

I can understand your view. My own rule is "Don't be the kind of ass-hat that the party can't get along with". So, it's OK to be evil as long as you're a evil that will go along with the party's over all goals and won't turn on the party and cause conflict.
Oh I totally agree. Problem is with big pick-up groups that I don't know all the players in advance, I didn't trust them to play 'not an asshat' LE. :)


We'll have to disagree on this. Looking after your own interests and survival first without seeking to cause harm yourself is not evil. It may not be good, but you are not a force for darkness in the world.
Exactly. Sellfish isn't necessarily evil. (Although a better word might be self-oriented.) Even most older versions of D&D didn't really promote that idea. Otoh, from what I've read, in gygax's campaign, selfish WAS what evil meant, and many of his players were exactly that kind of evil (including some of his core players).

I can see Selfish = evil working and even allowing players to be that kind, especially in a multi-party sandbox. They work with other PCs in a party, and as long as they are part of the party they (generally) don't screw each other, and they even fight the things that are an active force for darkness. But when push comes to shove they are out for number one, or at least team number 1 ... those other parties are going to end up fighting them.

Supposedly Robilar controlled the access to Greyhawk dungeon for a period of time throug his henchmen, only allowing those in that he wished or paid up. Given the size of that campaign, that's a a great example of a selfish evil PC.

[Sigreid]

Exactly. Sellfish isn't necessarily evil. (Although a better word might be self-oriented.) Even most older versions of D&D didn't really promote that idea. Otoh, from what I've read, in gygax's campaign, selfish WAS what evil meant, and many of his players were exactly that kind of evil (including some of his core players).

I can see Selfish = evil working and even allowing players to be that kind, especially in a multi-party sandbox. They work with other PCs in a party, and as long as they are part of the party they (generally) don't screw each other, and they even fight the things that are an active force for darkness. But when push comes to shove they are out for number one, or at least team number 1 ... those other parties are going to end up fighting them.

Supposedly Robilar controlled the access to Greyhawk dungeon for a period of time throug his henchmen, only allowing those in that he wished or paid up. Given the size of that campaign, that's a a great example of a selfish evil PC.

I guess I would define neutral as selfish as in putting my interests first and evil as selfish+ambition+disregard for others in addition to evil as purely insane malevolent.

[Nifft]

I guess I would define neutral as selfish as in putting my interests first and evil as selfish+ambition+disregard for others in addition to evil as purely insane malevolent.

Ambition has nothing to do with good or evil. There are lots of Ambitious + Good people out there.

There are people who do evil things and try to disguise their evil as "ambition", and try to dismiss their critics as "jealous of my success" or something, but that's just rhetoric.

Making the world a better place is a valid ambition. Working so that a future generation will be able to conquer the stars is a valid ambition. Eradicating a terrible disease forever is a valid ambition. All of those seem pretty good to me.

Ambition is not a sin, but it's sometimes used a sugar-coating for sinful behavior by cleverly dishonest sinners.

[Sigreid]

Ambition has nothing to do with good or evil. There are lots of Ambitious + Good people out there.

There are people who do evil things and try to disguise their evil as "ambition", and try to dismiss their critics as "jealous of my success" or something, but that's just rhetoric.

Making the world a better place is a valid ambition. Working so that a future generation will be able to conquer the stars is a valid ambition. Eradicating a terrible disease forever is a valid ambition. All of those seem pretty good to me.

Ambition is not a sin, but it's sometimes used a sugar-coating for sinful behavior by cleverly dishonest sinners.

That's why the +disregard for others was in there.

Edit: I would also argue that people who pursue "good goals" without restraint can often be quite evil.

[Millstone85]

Selfishness - putting the self above others even when it means allowing others to come to harm or harming them yourself - is evil. That's what real evil generally looks like. Those who specifically go out of their way specifically to pursue the harm of others, those who put it above their own interest, those who are self sabotaging or even self sacrificing in their cruelty, that's hardly even a thing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief.My belief is that, while cruelty usually plays second fiddle to selfishness, it is very much a thing. There is a desire for violence, for "delicious tears", and so on, that's always here just waiting for an excuse. And it can absolutely reach self-destructive levels.

Now, I often wonder if something went wrong when D&D started regarding that last scenario as a typically CE behavior. If chaos means a greater regard for individuality, then perhaps demons should be the mercenaries and daemons or devils should be the sadists.

Or perhaps the Lower Planes should get those in equal share. The Nine Hells have their calculating politicians and enthusiastic torturers, who all believe in the system. The Abyss has its lone hunters who may or may not play with their preys a lot.

[Nifft]

That's why the +disregard for others was in there.

Edit: I would also argue that people who pursue "good goals" without restraint can often be quite evil. For the former, it's not "+disregard for others", since disregard for others is the whole entire reason you'd be evil.

For the second, that's not people pursuing "good goals". That's people pursuing the adulation and fame that are associated with good goals, but not actually giving a hoot about good.

There is nothing evil about pursuing good without restraint.

There can be something very evil about pretending to pursue good for marketing purposes while not actually caring about being good.

The idea that being "too good" is actually evil would be something that any devil in my campaign would be delighted to convince you about. The devil would be lying, of course, but that is their nature.


Now, I often wonder if something went wrong when D&D started regarding that last scenario as a typically CE behavior. If chaos means a greater regard for individuality, then perhaps demons should be the mercenaries and daemons or devils should be the sadists.

IMHO that sadistic urge is a subtype of hierarchical Pride. You see yourself as better than someone else, and you prove it by hurting that person.

In my games, all the Evil outsiders have a penchant for sadism.

Just as a good person could re-affirm her self-esteem and values by helping someone else, an evil fiend would re-affirm its self-esteem and values by hurting someone else.

Daily Infernal Affirmations: "I'm strong enough, I'm tough enough, and gosh darn it, people hurt because of me."

[georgie_leech]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

[ChubbyRain]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

I rather it be paved with good intentions than paper cuts and splinters.

[georgie_leech]

I rather it be paved with good intentions than paper cuts and splinters.

Oh sure. I'm just saying that Good motivations don't necessarily lead to Good outcomes. There are plenty of examples in fiction and real life of people who couldn't give a damn about adulation or fame and genuinely believed they were doing what needed to be done to make the world a better place. It frequently doesn't work out that way. In other words, pursuing Good without restraint actually can be Evil, depending on circumstances.

[Sception]

Alignment is about motivation, not results. One who murders a passing stranger to steal their fancy hat is still acting according to an evil alignment, even if, unbeknownst to them, that fancy hat was the crown of a cruel and despotic tyrant, and the kingdom is much improved by their absence. One who dives into the icy waters to save a drowning child from a frozen lake is still acting according to a good alignment, even if the child grows up to be a murderer and a brigand.

However, a person who does not bother to consider the consequences of their actions when, with just a little thought, those consequences could clearly be foreseen may be acting in an evil manner. To be good requires one to consider the likely or foreseeable outcomes of ones actions on others in order to ensure that one is acting in the best interest of all, while to be neutral requires at least a good faith effort to avoid taking actions that will have negative or harmful effects on others.

Intellectual laziness, true disinterest in the consequences ones actions will have on other people, is functionally indistinguishable from selfishness, and persistence in that lazy selfishness / selfish laziness after being confronted with the harm one is causing ceases being a passive act and becomes a deliberate choice to engage in active cruelty. All are within the bounds of evil.



Not that one can't play evil (or chaotic, or lawful for that matter) constructively in a player party. Honestly, it doesn't matter what alignment you play, you have to be able to frame it in a way that you'll be able to go along with the choices of your party, that you'll be able to find your character's motivation to accept the plot hooks extended by the DM and actually go on your adventures.

[Sigreid]

Nifft, I hope you're still young and will eventually figure out that people with honestly good intentions and goals can bring about a tremendous amount of misery when they decide they are willing to bring them about through force.

[ChubbyRain]

Oh sure. I'm just saying that Good motivations don't necessarily lead to Good outcomes. There are plenty of examples in fiction and real life of people who couldn't give a damn about adulation or fame and genuinely believed they were doing what needed to be done to make the world a better place. It frequently doesn't work out that way. In other words, pursuing Good without restraint actually can be Evil, depending on circumstances.

An evil outcome doesn't mean you were evil or performed an evil act.

If you are walking down the street and you save a baby and someday that baby becomes Hitler 2.0, you did a good deed by saving someone.

The ends don't justify the means but at the same time the ends don't damn the means.

Humans can't see the future and most D&D characters can't either.

[Nifft]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. There's probably a back road paved with good intentions that leads to Hell, twisted and winding as the sins accumulate as your originally good intentions turn to evil, but let's be honest: The eight-lane highway to hell is paved with bad intentions.

Having bad intentions will get you into hell faster & much more assuredly than having good intentions.

It's not sufficient to have merely good intentions -- you have to also think about the consequences of your actions, and you need to have enough humility to correct your course when you make a mistake.

Let's not get confused here: having good intentions is better than the alternative.


However, a person who does not bother to consider the consequences of their actions when, with just a little thought, those consequences could clearly be foreseen may be acting in an evil manner. To be good requires one to consider the likely or foreseeable outcomes of ones actions on others in order to ensure that one is acting in the best interest of all, while to be neutral requires at least a good faith effort to avoid taking actions that will have negative or harmful effects on others.

Intellectual laziness, true disinterest in the consequences ones actions will have on other people, is functionally indistinguishable from selfishness, and persistence in that lazy selfishness / selfish laziness after being confronted with the harm one is causing ceases being a passive act and becomes a deliberate choice to engage in active cruelty. All are within the bounds of evil.

Yes, absolutely.

Also, being good requires the ability to notice when you screw up and unintentionally hurt someone else, and have the ability to make amends for your mistakes.

I think it's possible to be good and still hurt people through the unforeseen consequences of your actions. To remain good, you need to be able to recognize your failings, and take action to remedy those failings. This is the humility required of any scientist -- the ability to look at the results of an action and see even the things you don't expect or want to see.


Nifft, I hope you're still young and will eventually figure out that people with honestly good intentions and goals can bring about a tremendous amount of misery when they decide they are willing to bring them about through force.

Nah, it's just that I realized that being cynical isn't protection from evil.

Cynicism is surrender to evil.

When the liars and snakes can make you distrust honest idealism, they have won a terrible victory over hope.

[Sigreid]

Nah, it's just that I realized that being cynical isn't protection from evil.

Cynicism is surrender to evil.

When the liars and snakes can make you distrust honest idealism, they have won a terrible victory over hope.

IMO as soon as people start talking about forcing others "for their own good" any good in the cause is gone.

[2D8HP]

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave!
Or spinning while being spit roasted in Carceri! (Not that there's anything wrong with that! No judgement!)


....neutral evil is exactly the alignment I would ascribe to Ayn Rand.... And the Zhentarim!
I now have a whole new idea on how to portray that faction!
:biggrin:


....Selfishness is the exact opposite of that. It is the beating heart of cruelty. It is the very definition of evil, in the real world or otherwise.Yep.


Absolutely yes, and D&D makes this pretty clear IMHO.....
....The price for inclusion in a functional society is not being an ass to everyone else.Too true!


....Daily Infernal Affirmations: "I'm strong enough, I'm tough enough, and gosh darn it, people hurt because of me."Classic!


Nifft, I hope you're still young and will eventually figure out that people with honestly good intentions and goals can bring about a tremendous amount of misery when they decide they are willing to bring them about through force.
Well I'm 48, and I remember that Evil triumphs when the good do nothing!

While the "does it take a Stalin to defeat a Hitler" question is interesting I don't want to play out "lesser evils for the greater good" stories in my games! Normally I don't like them because "at any cost" includes others and not just oneself.

While they are fun/lighthearted stories set in D&D like worlds (Princess Bride and maybe Stardust), for me the struggle for good while worthwhile ultimately is tragic, because there never are permanent wins (sorry to be a buzzkill). But that makes it more heroic and a story worth telling and playing out (unless it's Game of Thrones, where increasingly it looks like heroism doesn't even have temporary results! ).

[Sigreid]

Or spinning while being spit roasted in Carceri! (Not that there's anything wrong with that! No judgement!)

And the Zhentarim!
I now have a whole new idea on how to portray that faction!
:biggrin:

Yep.

Too true!

Classic!


Well I'm 48, and I remember that Evil triumphs when the good do nothing!

While the "does it take a Stalin to defeat a Hitler" question is interesting I don't want to play out "lesser evils for the greater good" stories in my games! Normally I don't like them because "at any cost" includes others and not just oneself.

While they are fun/lighthearted stories set in D&D like worlds (Princess Bride and maybe Stardust), for me the struggle for good while worthwhile ultimately is tragic, because there never are permanent wins (sorry to be a buzzkill). But that makes it more heroic and a story worth telling and playing out (unless it's Game of Thrones, where increasingly it looks like heroism doesn't even have temporary results! ).

Again, I simply have the position that good stops being good when it is willing to use force to compel people to it's vision. Persuasion, sure. Lead by example, sure. Thugs beat you for your deviance, no. Others take everything from you by force as a penalty for non-compliance, no. And with that I'm out of the conversation. Good night all.

[Tanarii]

There is nothing evil about pursuing good without restraint.Because clearly the ends justify the means ... :smallamused:

I find it hard to believe you made that claim with a straight face.

[djreynolds]

Chaotic good-- simply comes from the heart.

Does watching that innocent villager get hurt anger you?

You would do something about it... regardless of the cost to you.

[Nifft]

Because clearly the ends justify the means ... :smallamused:

I find it hard to believe you made that claim with a straight face.

Then you didn't understand what I am saying.

If your means were evil enough that they need that sort of justification, you were not pursuing good in the first place.

It's not the pursuit of good that needs restraint -- it's whatever evil impulse caused you to do evil things, and try to masquerade the evil you did as good things.

[georgie_leech]

Then you didn't understand what I am saying.

If your means were evil enough that they need that sort of justification, you were not pursuing good in the first place.

It's not the pursuit of good that needs restraint -- it's whatever evil impulse caused you to do evil things, and try to masquerade the evil you did as good things.

...Have you genuinely never seen any fictional or real examples of someone genuinely believing they were doing the right thing and taking it to an awful extent? :smallconfused:

[djreynolds]

I hate doing this, using movie references but Saving Private Ryan thematically shows a lot of alignments under duress. And that's important because alignments "bend" when faced with real choices that have often awful results

Someone like Vin Diesel's character is chaotic good... and dies because of it. Doing the what he felt was right.

Someone like Tom Hanks, is lawful good and is torn and twisted by it because he must do good by people, his men, but the greater good.. his mission and victory and it is at the expense of the lives of his men and even innocent civilians

Chaotic characters evil or good, are individual first and often need to be reeled in

Lawful good are often twisted because the greater good often means the little guy gets lost in the mix

Neutral good chooses which at that moment is most benefical, Tom Sizemore is neutral good maybe even just neutral now after years in war

[CaptainSarathai]

...Have you genuinely never seen any fictional or real examples of someone genuinely believing they were doing the right thing and taking it to an awful extent? :smallconfused:
Conquistadors baptising babies before killing them.
"But we did them a kindness - we sent them to Heaven!"

There's a difference between saving a baby only to discover that baby was Hitler - and actually being Hitler.
I think we can all agree that Hitler was a bad dude, he did awful stuff. So what I'm about to say is not in any way meant to lessen the burden of guilt he's got on him - I'm just making a point to about "thoughtless good."
Hitler didn't wake up one day and brainstorm the most diabolically, borderline-cartoonishly evil thing he could imagine. No, he looked around and saw a Germany that had been suffering crippling economic depression for more than a decade, and all thanks to the allies taking out the brunt of WW1 on Germany. Hitler saw 'good, true German people' suffering, and wanted to put a stop to it.
So he started giving speeches and organizing rallies and playing politics to try and reshape Germany into a 1,000yr empire. All for Germany's own good. Except, only for Germans. All those other people were part of the problem, not the solution. All those other people needed to leave or "be dealt with." That way, there would be more room and more resources for the 'truly deserving' Germans to thrive.
Great intentions - guy just wanted to put Germany back on the map, whatever it took.
Definitely landed straight in hell though, because he became so blinded by his vision that he didn't realize what he was doing to get there.
See? Good intention, Lawfuo Evil.

[Millstone85]

When people talk about going too far with good intentions, I sure hope nobody thinks of it as going too far in the right direction.

Then again, that's pretty much the deal with druidic true neutrality in old school D&D. They must maintain the balance between the four elements, Law, Chaos... and also Good and Evil? Their rituals must involve some interesting herbs.

[Cybren]

When people talk about going too far with good intentions, I sure hope nobody thinks of it as going too far in the right direction.

Then again, that's pretty much the deal with druidic true neutrality in old school D&D. They must maintain the balance between the four elements, Law, Chaos... and also Good and Evil? Their rituals must involve some interesting herbs.

If, as it often is in D&D and other fantasy stories, good and evil are metaphysical concepts that definitely exist, then "Druidic Nuetral" makes perfect sense, in any number of ways- they could be a physical rejection of the metaphysical, a statement that good and evil hold no value absent of each other, or an acknowledgement of the greater problems with the conflict.

It's worth remembering that if good and evil are things that exist in our real world that isn't an established fact.

[Coffee_Dragon]

A gentle but stupid giant sees an orphan kitten freezing in the wind and decides to build a shelter for it. But he took the stones from the dam and now the village got soaked and the mill has no power. The giant scratches his head in genuine concern as he realizes these unfortunate circumstances may have something to do with his actions. Is the giant good or evil?

[Tanarii]

Then you didn't understand what I am saying.

If your means were evil enough that they need that sort of justification, you were not pursuing good in the first place.Thats exactly the kind of justification that people who are using any means to justify the ends make.


It's not the pursuit of good that needs restraint -- it's whatever evil impulse caused you to do evil things, and try to masquerade the evil you did as good things.
Seriously, you're giving us the perfect example of of how tyrannical dictators who arise from bloody popular revolutions think.

[Millstone85]

It's worth remembering that if good and evil are things that exist in our real world that isn't an established fact.Yeah, I call BS. There are plenty of things that "don't exist" in our real world. The stress upon a country's economy doesn't exist, because the last two words are just abstractions regarding human activity. This very post doesn't exist, because it is just a picture being recreated on a computer screen to make a point that can only be conceptualized in a human brain. Clearly, only material things are real, and even then a forest is less real than a tree, which is less real than a cell, which is less real than a molecule, which is less real than an atom, because each is just an assemblage of the next. Or maybe it all obviously exists, without the need to search for things like a weird particle called a soul that would be all by itself the essence of morality.

But back to D&D, where the Outer Planes would indeed indicate the existence of Good as a magnetic force of sort. What would a druid dislike about the Upper Planes, especially those that have names like The Beast Lands or Arborea? Best I can think of is that they would only regard them as a vision of what could be. Still wouldn't explain why they wouldn't want that vision to be realised in the Material.


A gentle but stupid giant sees an orphan kitten freezing in the wind and decides to build a shelter for it. But he took the stones from the dam and now the village got soaked and the mill has no power. The giant scratches his head in genuine concern as he realizes these unfortunate circumstances may have something to do with his actions. Is the giant good or evil?"Guess me dumb" is a line of defense that would work in his case. Most people would be accused of the sin of sloth on an intellectual level.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I call BS. There are plenty of things that "don't exist" in our real world. The stress upon a country's economy doesn't exist, because the last two words are just abstractions regarding human activity. This very post doesn't exist, because it is just a picture being recreated on a computer screen to make a point that can only be conceptualized in a human brain. Clearly, only material things are real, and even then a forest is less real than a tree, which is less real than a cell, which is less real than a molecule, which is less real than an atom, because each is just an assemblage of the next. Or maybe it all obviously exists, without the need to search for things like a weird particle called a soul that would be all by itself the essence of morality.
The difference is that economic activity is a scientific-like model for something. Your post is based on various scientific models that allowed electricity and computers to be made.

Outside of moral philosophers (who absolutely exist) most people's conception of Evil and Good IRL are completely made up nonsense that absolutely do not exist.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

The concept that being good is only having good intentions is deeply christian. It could work in western world, but not in D&D. Even in past times, before christianity, being good was something entirely different. In ancient Greece and, at some degree, feudal Japan (and a portion of modern Japan), being good was being good at doing something. Excelsing others in a field that contributed to the society. Within this point of view, good intentions had nothing to do. A good intention was a beggining, but it had to end in a good result.

As for me, I believe that ignorance and ineptia, is in some degree also "bad" (related to evil) in modern western world (being ignorant in the Society of Communication and Information is very close to a choice). But back to D&D, where christian morals don't exist, being good is not only an intention, but a process itself. That's why paladins had to attone even unaware process resulting in evil consecuences in previous editions.

[Millstone85]

The difference is that economic activity is a scientific-like model for something. Your post is based on various scientific models that allowed electricity and computers to be made.

Outside of moral philosophers (who absolutely exist) most people's conception of Evil and Good IRL are completely made up nonsense that absolutely do not exist.Most people's understanding of how the market or a computer works is also made up nonsense. That doesn't invalidate efforts made to improve technologies and societies.

[Red Fel]

This part is getting needlessly philosophical, so I'll just put this here.


DEATH: THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—

Death waved a hand.

DEATH: AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

SUSAN: Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—

DEATH: MY POINT EXACTLY.

[Millstone85]

How I hate that quote from Death.

If you ground the universe down to the finest powder, there would be nobody left to have mercy, which would prove there never really was any mercy in the universe.

Depending on the "powder", there wouldn't be one molecule of water either, just atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, which by the same token would prove water a lie.


YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?

They are already become, you imbecile. You are just thinking like the Auditors when they destroyed paintings to find the art inside.

[Tanarii]

This part is getting needlessly philosophical, so I'll just put this here.

Yep. That's pretty much exactly it. People persist in believing as if something that is inside the human brain, that is only relevant as to our actions as a result of our beliefs, exists.

It does matter and is relevant insofar as it affects our beliefs, and as a result, our behavior. But thats not the same thing as saying it exists.

[Sception]

The concept that being good is only having good intentions is deeply christian. It could work in western world, but not in D&D. Even in past times, before christianity, being good was something entirely different. In ancient Greece and, at some degree, feudal Japan (and a portion of modern Japan), being good was being good at doing something. Excelsing others in a field that contributed to the society. Within this point of view, good intentions had nothing to do. A good intention was a beggining, but it had to end in a good result.

As for me, I believe that ignorance and ineptia, is in some degree also "bad" (related to evil) in modern western world (being ignorant in the Society of Communication and Information is very close to a choice). But back to D&D, where christian morals don't exist, being good is not only an intention, but a process itself. That's why paladins had to attone even unaware process resulting in evil consecuences in previous editions.

D&D is not a pre-christian or extra-christian work, though? It was created in a largely Christian society, and comes entirely out of a Christian perspective, whether Gygax was himself Christian or not. Whether a Christian style deity exists in the setting or not, everything about it is framed in (imitations of) historically and philosophically Christian perspectives. The dichotomy of good vs. evil, the existence and portrayal of angels and devils, paladins in the first place, medieval European everything from technology level to social organization to architecture, the roll of religion in society, what 'prayer' and 'piety' look like, the concept of the soul, etc.

In Christianity it's not so much 'good intentions' but 'faith in Christ' that is seen as necessary to salvation, but even if we take those to be equivalent, demanding good works alongside good intentions to be 'justified' or 'saved' (ie, considered good) is not a view external or antithetical to Christianity. It is the default position of both Catholicism and the Eastern Orthidox, and the idea that faith or intentions are the only thing that matters is a much more recent, protestant view (although not one irrelivent to the framing of D&D, because, again, D&D is not itself a historical work). Frankly, though, the two do not even have to be seen as incompatible (they generally are, but they do not have to be), because if you do not act on your faith or intentions, then you cannot really claim sincerity in them.

Even in the case of unintended outcomes, if one does not examine and acknowledge and atone for their culpability in even unintended harms, if one claims ignorance of harm as excuse without doing the work necessary to eliminate that ignorance, then one is then deliberately choosing the self comfort of their ignorance despite the harm it causes to others, and we are back to the view of selfishness as evil.


So yeah, demanding a paladin 'atone' for unintended harms is fully copacetic with the selflessness/selfishness framework for good and evil, so long as that atonement includes acts to rectify, to whatever extent possible, the harm done, and a commitment to ensure the harm is not repeated.

For the sake of fairness of play if nothing else (this is, after all, a game), a distinction must be drawn between the unforeseen and the unforeseeable, as well as between redemption acts you wish to dedicate table time to and those that you do not.

For instance:
Imagine a paladin who rescues a girl from a goblin raid but was too late to save her parents, and after dropping the child off at an orphanage feels his divine connection fade. He (and his player) may be justifiably miffed when he presents himself before the temple in the next town and asks the high cleric there to beseech the gods for what exactly he did wrong. And he (and the player) and may be rightfully confused as to what exactly he's supposed to do when he learns that the girl's hatred of the goblins and adoration for the paladin who saved her and avenged her parents by slaying the goblins will in time cause her to lead a violent crusade of extermination against the goblinoids that leaves tens of thousands of innocents dead on both sides.

Of course, if the paladin turns around and goes back to slay the child, that won't get his powers back. Even if it isn't enough to consider dropping alignment from good to neutral, it would still be an act in violation of the paladins code, which is far to stringent to accept acts of direct cruelty in the name of the ends justifying the means. So how does the paladin atone?

By first examining their actions. Was this outcome truely unforseeable? Surely they did not act wrongly in saving the child, but what did they do immediately after? Abandon them. Leave them at the defining moment of their lives with the understanding that evil = goblins and what heroes do is kill them. So what then does the paladin do? Perhaps they spend of their own treasure, even taking out loans, in order to pay to have the childs parents revived, and their return is soothing enough to the child's soul that she is no longer driven to revenge. Or, if the paladin is not wealthy/high level enough for that to be a legitimate option, perhaps the paladin goes on a small quest to find the child's nearest relative, or at least a good home for them, that can help them heal. Or if the party is really high level, perhaps they use some sort of time magic to prevent the raid in the first place. Or perhaps the paladin goes back to adopt the child themselves, taking them on as a squire, in time healing their hurt and teaching them through example that heroism is about showing compassion, not just striking down one's enemies, and the child goes on to be an npc addition to the party and perhaps a PC in a future campaign.

OR, if you as the DM don't want to make the next 2+ sessions revolve around the orphan girl, you don't decide in the first place to take the paladins powers away for something so indirect, and you move on to the next fun adventure instead of spending table time splitting moral hairs and trying to argue that 'saving people' is a 'bad thing' because 'the people might be bad'.

[Nifft]

When people talk about going too far with good intentions, I sure hope nobody thinks of it as going too far in the right direction. Yeah that's a significant portion of what I'm saying.

I feel like that exact thing is being said, and you're right -- that confusion is pernicious.


Then again, that's pretty much the deal with druidic true neutrality in old school D&D. They must maintain the balance between the four elements, Law, Chaos... and also Good and Evil? Their rituals must involve some interesting herbs. When I run old-school Druidic Neutrality, the spin I put on it is that they're staying out of that fight deliberately, because their area of concern is a huge and separate thing:

"The natural world is big, and the natural world is our concern. We can't afford to concern ourselves with the world of human morality. Is your city a shining beacon of hope? Is your city a horrible cesspit of despair? We don't care. Our concern is ensuring that rains will fall, that food will grow, that beasts survive so they can be hunted, that trees will produce the air we all need to live, and that the fey and elementals will not turn utterly against our species. When a necromancer's undead legions blight a region, we clean it up. When an angel's storm of vengeance poisons a forest, we clean it up. When a child wanders too far into the faerie land, we bring it back. We clean up the messes caused by your flavor of ignorance, so please understand when we choose to not learn about whatever you consider moral or otherwise this decade. Our concerns are the fundamental necessities of all life on this world, and those are things that do not change so rapidly as your doctrinal disputes."


Thats exactly the kind of justification that people who are using any means to justify the ends make. No, it's really not.

It's literally the opposite.


Seriously, you're giving us the perfect example of of how tyrannical dictators who arise from bloody popular revolutions think. Seriously, you're wrong about this.

Try describing in more detail how you think that is happening, and maybe I can help you figure out where you're wrong.

[Millstone85]

Yep. That's pretty much exactly it. People persist in believing as if something that is inside the human brain, that is only relevant as to our actions as a result of our beliefs, exists.

It does matter and is relevant insofar as it affects our beliefs, and as a result, our behavior. But thats not the same thing as saying it exists.Strictly speaking, something can not both "only be in your head" and "not be". That's a contradiction. But we understand when to equate the two.

A pink flying elephant playing harmonica:
* only exists in your head? True.
* does not exist? True.

Intense pain and distress:
* only exists in your head? True, also rude.
* does not exist? Wrong.

[Tanarii]

Intense pain and distress:
* only exists in your head? True, also rude.
* does not exist? Wrong.
No. That doesn't exist. It's something only in your head.

[Millstone85]

No. That doesn't exist. It's something only in your head.The same would apply to the rest of your mind.

[Tanarii]

The same would apply to the rest of your mind.
Yes. Now we're on the same page.

Not necessarily agreeing, but at least you understand what I'm saying. :smallwink:

[Nifft]

Yes. Now we're on the same page.

Not necessarily agreeing, but at least you understand what I'm saying. :smallwink:

Inside Tanarii's head, there is nothing. :wink:

[Millstone85]

Yes. Now we're on the same page.

Not necessarily agreeing, but at least you understand what I'm saying. :smallwink:Just to be sure.

You are your mind. If none of your mind exists, neither do you.

[Sception]

If we're going to go that far, to say that mental constructs are not 'real', then chairs and tables and stars don't exist either, as they are themselves merely mental frameworks internal to the mind constructed to interpret sensory signals. Oh, sure, other persons might form similar constructs based on similar sensory signals, so we might argue a thing 'exists' outside of the mind by virtue of being 'shared', but that just puts existence on a sliding scale of realness based on how many minds are sharing the framework (or how many minds we perceive to be sharing the framework, if we really want to tie ourselves in knots). But even then, if one is able to elicit empathy or sympathy in other minds for one's pain-construct, then it also reaches the thresshhold of shared reality and can be said to be 'real'.

If, instead, you want to accept the idea of a physical reality, rather than just mental frameworks, then the electric signals in a person's nervous system, and the electric and chemical responses in the brain they trigger which we call "pain", are in fact aspects of physical reality, so again, pain is 'real' and not 'imaginary'.

Either way, 'experiences' - including pain - are themselves real things, even when they are being experienced in reaction to something that isn't. Much as 'beliefs' are real things, even when the things being believed in aren't.

[Millstone85]

Malisteen gets it.

But maybe I should have worded my initial point as follows:

People want good and evil to exist outside of human relationships. They want the universe, the part of the universe that is not us, to be built on those even more than on gravity.

I don't. Well, I do but it ain't gonna happen. But then I am told that means I don't believe in good and evil at all, usually by the people who see them in the sky and such.

It is very annoying. And yes, I too have been tempted to say "Okay sure, good and evil are your concepts. I have nothing like that". But no, I refuse.

[Sception]

That said, within the fictional context of most D&D worlds, good and evil are in fact physical tangible things that exist outside of yet in relation to the individualized experience of them. There are physical tangible entities and energies composed of manifest goodness or evil that can do physical things like pick up books and displace volumes of water, and souls are tangible, if incorporeal, things that can be bartered and traded like coins, eaten like sandwiches, or consumed for fuel like chunks of coal. And when one chooses by action or inaction to embrace cruelty and spread suffering, these physical, tangible entities and energies of this non-mental-construct of 'evil' which has no real-world equivalent are in some way increased.

Like, the idea of whether 'evil' is real or not is very different in a setting where one can literally be cruel enough to cause a self aware manifestation of cruelty to exist which can then be ordered to steal candy from children for you.

In the real world, one can argue back and forth all day over what constitutes a 'good' or 'evil' act qualitatively, and the only measure of the strength of your argument is its ability to influence the mental frameworks of those who listen to it. In-universe, it should be entirely possible to construct a magical device or spell sensitive enough to can measure the relative shifts in 'goodness' or 'evil' given off by a person engaging in a thought or action, and thus come to an empirical, quantitative answer of whether and to what degree both the though and the action can be considered good. Like, you could perform in-universe experiments to see whether donating to an orphanage creates a net change in positive or negative energy given off by a sentint being, and whether or not it matters whether the orphanage donated to is in fact real or not.


In universe experts arguing over the finer points of morality are less like real world philosophers arguing about real-world morality, and are more like real-world theoretical physicists arguing over the esoteric nature of quantum physics - strange and alien to the the regular models of physical laws experienced in day to day life, but none the less describing what are in universe very real and measurable physical phenomena.

[Tanarii]

Just to be sure.

You are your mind. If none of your mind exists, neither do you.
/rolleyes

I see you didn't understand what I'm saying at all.

Edit: interestingly, there is a school of consciousness theory that says we don't exist, at least not as we think of our selves, our consciousness. That it's all just an illusion that aggregates out of our lower consciousness.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that artifacts of our mind and thoughts don't have concrete existence until we translate them out through actions. Unlike pre-5e D&D Good and Evil. Which have concrete objective existence outside of the mind of the creatures in the setting. And even in 5e, the Alignments appear to treated as an objective thing, even if the process of them has changed from action-derived to general-behavior-motivating. And that have some concrete existence (see the Outer Planes).

[Cybren]

1) It's incredibly intellectually dishonest to compare moral systems to economic ones.
2) most systemic models aren't 1:1 maps to reality either. Human created systems are lenses, not visions.



People want good and evil to exist outside of human relationships. They want the universe, the part of the universe that is not us, to be built on those even more than on gravity.

You realize the whole purpose of my statement was that, for most of D&D, the universe IS built on them, right?

[Millstone85]

You realize the whole purpose of my statement was that, for most of D&D, the universe IS built on them, right?I found that the end of your post went far beyond that and I decided to say my piece on that extra bit.

But perhaps I am just not understanding people tonight.

[Cybren]

I found that the end of your post went far beyond that and I decided to say my piece on that extra bit.

But perhaps I am just not understanding people tonight.

While I'm something of a moral nihilist myself I meant "if they exist..." as concrete metaphysical forces and not "ideas that people have about the world"

[djreynolds]

Most human beings, IMO, fall into 3 categories lawful, neutral, or chaotic and I hope, really, we are all good.

Lawful people react or act within the laws that are present, they may want the laws changed but aren't about to break them or if they break them its because the rules are wrong... even a rebel can be lawful if they feel society needs to change. Maybe George Washington was lawful good

Chaotic people react on their own personal beliefs and most of the time it corresponds with the law, their actions are usually in line. Gandhi could have been chaotic good, his action towards the law non-violent, but his stance was still an action versus what he saw as wrong in his heart

Neutral choose which is best, most people fall here

But these are just guesses, you know, they are abstract. It is tough to know why people react the way they do.

Alignment is really just a guideline.

Lawful people are not automatons, they feel just as much as a chaotic person does. And chaotic people are not running around promoting anarchy.

Right now we are playing a game where are memories are lost, so we have no idea of our alignment. And it is a good way to gauge where you would fall in.

So try this out. See how the table you are at determines your alignment based off of a few adventures you doing.

You might find you tend to be lawful, but with chaotic tendencies.

Don't get caught up to much in your alignment, it just really a gauge of how you tend to act.

[Malifice]

This is also why I seen Batman as more CN than anything else. He does what in his mind makes him a hero, but when you get right down to it he's just an emotionally damaged rich man trying to get revenge for the murder of his parents. He keeps going because no matter how much revenge he gets, hit doesn't heal the wound.

Batman is LG. Very clearly LG. He is disciplined, motivated, and has a clear (altruistic) code.

He's very similar to the Punisher (who is LE). Both are highly organised and disciplined vigilanties with similar motivations (making them lawful). One of them employs murder and torture as his main tools of the trade (making him evil). The other doesnt, and actively avoids killing (making him good).

'Lawful' is not 'follows the local laws'. A lawful person is disciplined, follows a code, and places a high regard on family, tradition and honor. They work well in a team. Both Batman (and Superman) fit this mold.

Contrast them with Wolverine, the Joker, or Captain Jack Sparrow whom are all Chaotic. A Chaotic person acts as they feel like, follows their own conscience (good or bad) is unpredictable, and doesnt work well as a team member.

On that topic, Darth Vader is clearly Chaotic as well. He was as Anakin (CG) and he remains as much as Vader (CE).

[djreynolds]

Those are excellent examples... especially Logan (March 3rd)

Logan is clearly not evil, he just feels from the heart and acts on that

Superman clearly abides by the law.

And though batman doesn't work with the law, he works for the greater good and no guns, he is clearly a lawful good character trying to do his best in a very unlawful society ruled by gangs

[mAc Chaos]

I have a hard time separating out Chaotic Good from "doing Evil for a good cause" alignments. Especially since people will often put torturing someone for a good cause into CG. But it's still torture.

[Sception]

One can be utterly self disciplined and still chaotic. See V for an example.

Committing evil acts and justifying them as being 'for a good cause' imo puts someone in the neutral zone of the G/E axis. It is an overt rejection of the very idea of goodness as nonviable or unrealistic or inefficient.

[mAc Chaos]

One can be utterly self disciplined and still chaotic. See V for an example.

Committing evil acts and justifying them as being 'for a good cause' imo puts someone in the neutral zone of the G/E axis. It is an overt rejection of the very idea of goodness as nonviable or unrealistic or inefficient.

Wouldn't it just make them Evil. Evil acts are still Evil. Alignment doesn't care why you're doing it.

[hamishspence]

If the evil acts are very minor (casting [Evil] spells) and the character maintains a pattern of strongly Good deeds and motives, it might be just enough to "counter" this pattern of minor Evil deeds.

A Neutral Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror, or for that matter, any "flexible Neutral anti-hero" - might work that way.

[Douche]

The way I see it, Chaotic Good believes in personal freedom, as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

If it makes someone happy to practice their religion & those practitioners are being persecuted, he'd help them to have their religious freedom.

On the other hand, if a religion is imposing it's beliefs on others through violence & discrimination, then he would help dismantle that religion.



My belief is that the whole "Chaotic = lulz so randum" is dumb. Chaotic & Lawful is your stance toward society, not your personal attitude - although the two might often overlap. You can be Lawful & still be whimsical, or you can be staunchly devoted to causing Chaos. That comes down to your characterization... But your stance toward society (law or chaos) wouldn't be different just because you're very methodical about the way you bomb hospitals or whatever.

[Tanarii]

While I'm something of a moral nihilist myself I meant "if they exist..." as concrete metaphysical forces and not "ideas that people have about the world"which is exactly what I mean when I say Good and Evil don't exist IRL. They aren't objective. They're opinions based on things that exist only in our minds.


Wouldn't it just make them Evil. Evil acts are still Evil. Alignment doesn't care why you're doing it.
5e alignment isn't based on actions. It influences general behavior. So this statement can't possibly be correct.

What would be correct, assuming 5e Alignment is objective, is:
Evil moral/social attitudes, that typically result in the described general behavior, are still Evil. Regardless of what the creature believes them to be.

Edit:
Note that I do believe 5e Alignment is assumed to be Objective. It's just not defined on an action by action level, nor does it result from specific actions.

[2D8HP]

....to be perfectly frank, i don't think chaotic good makes any sense, at least not from a human perspective. Humans are social animals and society requires rules, even if it's just the commandments.


Well the guy who invented the term "chaotic/good agrees with you!

From:

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

in the february 1976 issue of the strategic review (http://annarchive.com/files/strv201.pdf)

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"



I have a hard time separating out Chaotic Good from "doing Evil for a good cause" alignments. Especially since people will often put torturing someone for a good cause into CG. But it's still torture.


Something that is refreshing about this thread, is that unlike many non 5e Sub-Forum threads about D&D Alignment, the pernicious idea that "Chaotic" good is only nominally "good", or less good than "Lawful" good hasn't been seen much, I think that's to the credit of 5e's background and "Traits" (Ideas, Flaws etc) system.



Only if you're stuck in old edition thinking ...

*looks at who posted*

Oh, never mind. Carry on. :smallbiggrin:




Ooh! Fun fact (IIRC), Mind Flayer's were the first monster to be identified in D&D as both Lawful and Evil.I'll try to dig up my oD&D books tomorrow and see (I think it was in Eldrich Wizardry).

:smile:


Yes it was!

While Chainmail stole was inspired by the Anderson/Moorcock LAW vs. CHAOS conflict for sides in a wargame, (IIRC Chainmail has stats for Elric... and Conan, and Gandalf etc. but it's been decades since I've seen my copy which I hope is still at my parents house so, read with a lot of salt!), since the game also stole was inspired by Tolkien's GOOD vs. Evil conflict, which didn't quite mesh well with LAW vs. CHAOS.

Since so much of early D&D was stolen was inspired by Poul Anderson's Broken Sword & Three Heats and Three Lions novels (especially the latter, i.e. D&D Trolls and Paladins.
Fun fact I touched Anderson's typewriter when it was posthumously at Berkeley's Other Change of Hobbits bookstore), this caused some dissonance in that for Anderson LAW was on the side of humanity and CHAOS was on the side of Faerie (Elves, monsters, etc.), but Tolkien had North Western Men and Elves on the same side as good.

Gygax originally had Elves on the side of LAW and "Evil High Priests" and most monsters on the side of CHAOS, and for a while it seemed obvious that for D&D LAW = GOOD, and CHAOS = EVIL (which was mostly re-implemented with 1981's B/X version of D&D), but by the April of 1976 Eldrich Wizardry supplement there had been a change of heart and Mind Flayer's were described as:

Character Alignment:

LAW

Mind Flayers****

****highly evil but otherwise lawful

and then in 1977 came the "bluebook" Basic D&D rules which had a five point alignment system (similiar to 4e's) of Lawful good, Chaotic good, Neutral, Lawful evil, and Chaotic Evil, instead of 1974 D&D's LAW, NEUTRALITY, and CHAOS, and then the 1977 to 1979 AD&D MM, PHB, and DMG renamed Neutral "True Neutral", and added the Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral alignments, for a nine point alignment system.




I'll chime out of these threads when someone else picks up the torch of "Here's how 5e Alignment works" instead of it just being post after post of personal opinions and old edition thinking totally unrelated to 5e. :smallyuk:



Speaking of old edition thinking.....

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."





AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."



D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual

As I posted before:





*sigh*

This again.

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)




illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

In the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:


....alignment stll "means what the DM says it means"



Absolutely. As far as I know, nothing says a player can't change her character's Alignment, or add to or replace her personality traits as time passes. The one I feel this is especially appropriate for is a Bond, especially some you can originally lift it straight from the Backgrounds.


Indeed. In the Feb. '76 article Gygax actually recommended graphing changes in PC's alignment, and for a system in which alignment was really the only "hat" to hang "role-playing" on that kind of made sense



.
The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinWhile I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I'm glad that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?
.

For what it's worth, I think the biggest innovation 5e brings to D&D is not introducing "bounded accuracy", "archetype"subclasses, or whittling away some of 3e and 4e, to me the biggest innovation is "Backgrounds", "Personality Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds", and "Flaws", and "Inspirations", which I think actually start to turn D&D into an intentional rather than accidental role-playing game.

I further feel that in 5e alignment is now a tool towards creating a PC's Ideals, rather than the "straight jacket" of previous editions.

Does changing D&D into an actual role-playing game rather than the "adventure game" it was make it more fun?

Time will tell, but for now I'm sticking with 5e.

[Tanarii]

Speaking of old edition thinking.....
[B]
Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."Right. Still should hold true for 5e, IMO.

But when discussing a ruleset in a public forum, if you're going to express things that don't match up with what the book says at all, it somewhat behooves you to state if your expressing 'IMC', or a personal opinion based on your IRL views, or if you think it's a valid interpretation/extension of what the book says.

The thing is people seem to think Alignment is meaningless in 5e (it isn't), or that it isn't a 'rule' so their opinion is what matters. It's a rule, as in it's a tool the game provides to help play the game. Just because it's a broad and adaptable rule, it's an easily modified rule, and it's an easily ignored and discarded rule, doesn't make it any less a rule. So if you're going to say stuff that doesn't match the rule or is just your own campaign version of it, then say that. (In this, it's similar to the 'rules' for tracking ammunition and rations. Or maybe a better example is the 'rules' on marching order and noticing threats and other activities while traveling, which includes 'traveling' while moving around exploring dungeons or other dangerous sites.)



Indeed. In the Feb. '76 article Gygax actually recommended graphing changes in PC's alignment, and for a system in which alignment was really the only "hat" to hang "role-playing" on that kind of made senseThe difference is:
A) Alignment isn't the only thing 5e uses. It also has an entire personality system for assisting with making in-character decisions (aka roleplaying)
B) In 5e, Alignment is effectively only important for the player, so whether or not is changes should be up to the player as a general rule. I mean, that doesn't mean a player should ignore a DM who tells them "hey your general behavior with this PC doesn't seem to match your alignment." Or that they shouldn't see the rare 'enforced' alignment changes, such as the DMG optional rules for planar environments shifting alignments, as something other than a roleplaying opportunity.


For what it's worth, I think the biggest innovation 5e brings to D&D is not introducing "bounded accuracy", "archetype"subclasses, or whittling away some of 3e and 4e, to me the biggest innovation is "Backgrounds", "Personality Traits", "Ideals", "Bonds", and "Flaws", and "Inspirations", which I think actually start to turn D&D into an intentional rather than accidental role-playing game.

I further feel that in 5e alignment is now a tool towards creating a PC's Ideals, rather than the "straight jacket" of previous editions.
It took me a little while, and many alignment threads on this forum, to come to this realization too. I wholeheartedly agree, the personality system (which includes Alignment) is one of 5e's greatest innovations.

[Nifft]

http://i.imgur.com/Fk8uRoB.jpg


... depends on the current author of Batman.

[Dr.Samurai]

http://i.imgur.com/Fk8uRoB.jpg


... depends on the current author of Batman.

Those are the weakest justifications for Evil ever lol.

[Malifice]

Wouldn't it just make them Evil. Evil acts are still Evil. Alignment doesn't care why you're doing it.

Exactly. The justification for your evil acts is irrelevant. It doesnt matter why you're raping/ murdering/ torturing or whatever. If those are the weapons you use, you're evil.

Not that there is anything wrong with depicting an evil person (or a person who uses evil means) in pursuit of a 'greater good'. Tropes like the Punisher rely on this phenomenon.

The Punisher is a fantastic example of a LE antihero. He is a sociopathic murderer who hunts people (for being sociopathic murderers!). Like Batman his family were killed and he has sworn vengance on crime and criminals. He dresses in black and uses fear for a weapon. Unlike (LG) Batman (who avoids murder, killing and torture, and hands his victims over to the authorities, and who works with the police where possible) the Punisher (LE) employs brutal torture, murder and suffering as his tools.

If given a button to push that would kill every single criminal and establish a Lawful, law abiding and good society free of crime he would push it (committing genocide of millions on a global scale, and of course taking himself out in the process). This makes him evil (and in DnD would condemn his soul to the Nine Hells on death).

[2D8HP]

http://i.imgur.com/Fk8uRoB.jpg


... depends on the current author of Batman.
Thanks! This one was clear enough to read!

[Cybren]

Exactly. The justification for your evil acts is irrelevant. It doesnt matter why you're raping/ murdering/ torturing or whatever. If those are the weapons you use, you're evil.

I don't think a handful of D&D players on this or any forum have solved debates regarding ethics as old as philosophy itself. Besides that your argument is begging the question. "Murder is wrong" is tautological, since murder is defined as specifically a socially unacceptable killing. Murder is evil, sure. Good characters still kill all the time, and under varying ethical systems they are or aren't murderers.

[2D8HP]

I don't think a handful of D&D players on this or any forum have solved debates regarding ethics as old as philosophy itself.....

Well what other candidates are they?

:amused:

If not us than who?

[Malifice]

I don't think a handful of D&D players on this or any forum have solved debates regarding ethics as old as philosophy itself. Besides that your argument is begging the question. "Murder is wrong" is tautological, since murder is defined as specifically a socially unacceptable killing. Murder is evil, sure. Good characters still kill all the time, and under varying ethical systems they are or aren't murderers.

Ethically consistent in legal systems around the globe, killing in self defence (or the defence of others, as a last resort) has never been regarded as 'evil'.

Its certainly not a 'good' act (it's morally neutral). Police, Defence forces, repelling an attack on the home, or intervening to stop a person harming another has never been regarded as 'evil'.

Thats the same benchmark I use in my games. Force (including lethal force if warranted) is not evil when used in self defence or the defence of others, is proportionate to the threat, and used as a last resort.

Paladins carry those swords for a reason.

[Tanarii]

I don't think a handful of D&D players on this or any forum have solved debates regarding ethics as old as philosophy itself. Besides that your argument is begging the question. "Murder is wrong" is tautological, since murder is defined as specifically a socially unacceptable killing. Murder is evil, sure. Good characters still kill all the time, and under varying ethical systems they are or aren't murderers.
Ha. He's been using the same circular "evil killing = murder = evil action = evil alignment" argument for at least a year now. While totally ignoring that murder is actual defined as an unlawful premeditated killing, not any killing he finds evil. And that 5e Alignments are neither defined by specific actions, nor result in specific actions, but rather tend to result in some very general behavior.

[Malifice]

Ha. He's been using the same circular "evil killing = murder = evil action = evil alignment" argument for at least a year now. While totally ignoring that murder is actual defined as an unlawful premeditated killing, not any killing he finds evil.

No, I argue that 'murder' (unlawful intentional killing of another person) is evil.

Its an argument that only happens on DnD forums. Never in courts (Im a Lawyer IRL). I can assure you I've never heard a Judge categorise murder as 'good' or 'morally neutral'.


And that 5e Alignments are neither defined by specific actions

Yes they are logically defined by actions. Because:

[If you're Good, you dont go around murdering and raping people] = [If you go around murdering and raping people, you're not Good].

[georgie_leech]

No, I argue that 'murder' (unlawful intentional killing of another person) is evil.



In Drow society, it's only illegal if they get caught. That is, killing your rivals is an accepted and expected means to power. Even if they're punished when caught, a killer that doesn't get caught is aplauded. Does that make it not murder when they do it?

[Sigreid]

Its an argument that only happens on DnD forums. Never in courts (Im a Lawyer IRL). I can assure you I've never heard a Judge categorise murder as 'good' or 'morally neutral'.



You being a lawyer really doesn't give you any weight in a debate about individualized fantasy worlds. For that mater it doesn't give you any weight in many real world countries where you are not a lawyer. It's irrelevant.