Uh oh, should I have picked Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good

[MarkVIIIMarc]

My character is level 5 now and my group isn't too bound by alignments but I wanna get it right.

Basically the Bard elf was Chaotic Good growing up but then bad things happend to her when she got on the road. She developed a bit of a vengeful streak and althouh our Rogue thinks she is good, she just picks her time to be a bit....like Jack Bauer.

My thinking is sometimes she'd torture a foe for the greater good and she sould definately savor killing some folks who did her wrong. Generally though she pays for things, is nice to folks and doesn't let the Rogue go around stealing from honest shop keepers.

Is that vengeful streak enough to be Chaotic Neutral? Or should I go to Chaotic Good?

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's a novel approach. Pick one, and then play as you think the character would if the character didn't know that alignment existed. After about 5 sessions, ask the DM about how the play compares to alignment, and what alignment the DM would think the player is based on how you've played. Pigeon holing yourself up front is a mistake.
Take the two line descriptive phrases on alignment in the PHB as a point of departure, as guidelines, not as a straight jacket.

[suplee215]

Nope. I am fairly new but the difference between good and neutral is more motive. To put it a simple way (perhaps too simple) neutral is the alignment of selfishness. You are trying to benefit one person. Good is trying to benefit all. Even if the vengeance is selfish to some extent, it seems like your character also knows that eliminating them will help everyone.

[Naanomi]

Nope. I am fairly new but the difference between good and neutral is more motive. To put it a simple way (perhaps too simple) neutral is the alignment of selfishness. You are trying to benefit one person. Good is trying to benefit all. Even if the vengeance is selfish to some extent, it seems like your character also knows that eliminating them will help everyone.
Selflesness/Selfishness is the classic DnD divide between good and evil (for the most part); and motive doesn't always matter as much as you think (though it is a factor).

I'd say the character is Chaotic Neutral... as soon as you savor killing and are willing to torture, you'd have to be a real saint to start claiming the Good alignment in classic DnD terms (and maybe not even then)

[Naez]

Alignment must be determined by actions not motivations, otherwise things get too muddied and grey and alignments don't mean jack. Also your alignment is determined by your actions, not the other way around. This is why you can shift alignments. Generally speaking committing an Evil act (like torture) in order to later perform a Good act (to save a life) usually balances out leaving you as neutral. However if you use torture to gain information to then commit an evil act (such as vengeance, not justice, justice is a lawful concept neither good nor evil) then it would be evil. however this must still be weighed against all your other actions. Committing 100 good acts and one brutal murder in the name of vengeance will likely still leave you as a good character. The best way I can think to describe it is alignment is how your character would act towards a complete stranger.

[Malifice]

My thinking is sometimes she'd torture a foe for the greater good and she sould definately savor killing some folks who did her wrong. Generally though she pays for things, is nice to folks and doesn't let the Rogue go around stealing from honest shop keepers.

You're clearly evil. Neutral Evil in fact.

[Malifice]

I'd say the character is Chaotic Neutral... as soon as you savor killing and are willing to torture, you'd have to be a real saint to start claiming the Good alignment in classic DnD terms (and maybe not even then)

What the actual heck?

This character (often) kills and 'savors it' and tortures people.

Are you saying that if I regularly tortured and murdered people, and enjoyed it, I'm morally neutral?

I have news for you, but that's clearly morally evil. If a character was depicted as enjoying murder and torture (no matter what the reason 'greater good' or otherwise) how on earth could you view them as a morally neutral person?

Madness.

He's (objectively) clearly morally evil. He's a murderer (who likes it) and a torturerer. I dont give a toss why he gets his kicks from murder and torture, he's evil.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Thanks to you all. The majority seems to think I made a reasonable decision.

The allies of those evil folk my character is out to get no doubt will think she's evil so I don't even discount that. They're pretty bad folks though, maybe I should have stressed that.

[coolAlias]

@Malifice - in regard to Naanomi's post, they were pointing out that the character can't be CG due to the points you mentioned, and saying to stick with CN which was the only other option the OP mentioned.

Now, if their character frequently engages in torture and frequently kills for pleasure, then yeah, even CN is being generous, but if it's only once in a while against specific people they hate, and the rest of the time they do pretty good things, then you could make a case for CN perhaps with slight evil tendencies.

It's a spectrum, after all, not an all-or-nothing, and doing a few evil acts in the game does not generally have the same weight as if one were to do those same things in real life. I can play a LG character and still be LG after viciously torturing and murdering the person that killed my parents. It'd be a pretty dark moment for the character, and they'd probably need to do some atonement, but I wouldn't immediately say "aha! now you're CE!"

[Malifice]

@Malifice - in regard to Naanomi's post, they were pointing out that the character can't be CG due to the points you mentioned, and saying to stick with CN which was the only other option the OP mentioned.

Mate, I am 'CN' in real life. I do what I want, follow laws only by coincidence, I cheat on girlfriends, and am very selfish. I dont care about honor, family or tradition.

I dont murder, rape or torture people (evil), but I equally dont selflessly go out of my way to help anyone (good).

Even should I 'only' murder someone every few years or so (just the occasional murder) I am clearly, and unreservedly evil. In fact Im god damn Son of Sam/ Charles Manson evil.

The day I start regularly killing people and enjoying it, or pulling out a blowtorch and applying to someone eyeballs and sticking bamboo splinters under their fingernails, ignoring theirs screams for me to stop I am evil.

Its as simple as that.

Maybe your moral compass tells you that engaging in only the 'occasional' bit of pleasurable murder and torture doesnt make one evil.

If thats the case, we have very different moral compasses indeed.

[coolAlias]

Mate, I am 'CN' in real life. I do what I want, follow laws only by coincidence, I cheat on girlfriends, and am very selfish. I dont care about honor, family or tradition.

I dont murder, rape or torture people (evil), but I equally dont selflessly go out of my way to help anyone (good).

Even should I 'only' murder someone every few years or so (just the occasional murder) I am clearly, and unreservedly evil. In fact Im god damn Son of Sam/ Charles Manson evil.

The day I start regularly killing people and enjoying it, or pulling out a blowtorch and applying to someone eyeballs and sticking bamboo splinters under their fingernails, ignoring theirs screams for me to stop I am evil.

Its as simple as that.

Maybe your moral compass tells you that engaging in only the 'occasional' bit of pleasurable murder and torture doesnt make one evil.

If thats the case, we have very different moral compasses indeed.
I'm saying that in game morality =/= real-life morality. A single evil act in the game is unlikely to make the character permanently evil (or even temporarily, depending on the game).

If you want to argue about real life philosophies of morality, this isn't the place.

[Naanomi]

I would agree that the character is likely Evil from the description, however I think that there is such a thing as a 'slip' to neutrality from good before you nose-dive into evil... the good character, good their entire life but snaps when their child's killer is in their sights and does something horrific to them goes from Good to Neutral in my book, they don't skip the middle ground. There is also such a thing as redemption in DnD morality, so a character could have some torture and murder in their 'backstory' but still currently maintain a Good alignment.

In any case the main point towards the OP was 'chaotic good shouldn't even be an option being considered'

[imanidiot]

Here's a novel approach. Pick one, and then play as you think the character would if the character didn't know that alignment existed. After about 5 sessions, ask the DM about how the play compares to alignment, and what alignment the DM would think the player is based on how you've played. Pigeon holing yourself up front is a mistake.
Take the two line descriptive phrases on alignment in the PHB as a point of departure, as guidelines, not as a straight jacket.

This exactly how people should treat alignment and almost no one does. Your actions determine your alignment, your alignment does not determine your actions.

[Naanomi]

This exactly how people should treat alignment and almost no one does. Your actions determine your alignment, your alignment does not determine your actions.
Barring the situations where your alignment is magically changed of course

[coolAlias]

This exactly how people should treat alignment and almost no one does. Your actions determine your alignment, your alignment does not determine your actions.
Yep, and alignment in 5e is effectively meaningless other than as a sound-byte summary of your character's general outlook on life. As far as I can tell, it no longer has any mechanical implications at all.

If you feel your character is generally alignment X but end up playing them more like alignment Y, nobody even needs to bring it up because it doesn't really matter. Just play your character and the DM and other players will react to your decisions throughout the game accordingly without ever needing to look at your character sheet or ask your alignment.

[Sigreid]

Yep, and alignment in 5e is effectively meaningless other than as a sound-byte summary of your character's general outlook on life. As far as I can tell, it no longer has any mechanical implications at all.

If you feel your character is generally alignment X but end up playing them more like alignment Y, nobody even needs to bring it up because it doesn't really matter. Just play your character and the DM and other players will react to your decisions throughout the game accordingly without ever needing to look at your character sheet or ask your alignment.

There are still a very few magic items that have different effects on a character based on that character's alignment. Literally, just a handful.

And Malifice, I think there's a huge difference between someone who enjoys murder and someone who takes a certain amount of satisfaction in personally administering "justice" to the one who did terrible things to them and their family.

As for the torture, through much of human history that was simply the way things were done. Good hearted people have condoned torture as a legitimate means of getting answers until very recently. And in much of the world it's still simply how it is done.

[Naanomi]

Yep, and alignment in 5e is effectively meaningless other than as a sound-byte summary of your character's general outlook on life. As far as I can tell, it no longer has any mechanical implications at all.

Firm Mechanical Effects:
-sprites can detect it with their 'Heart Sight' ability
-some magic items work differently for people of different alignments: a night hag's soul bag, candle of invocation, obsidian steed, robe of the archmagi, sword of answering, talisman of pure good/ultimate evil, book of exahlted deeds/vile darkness, many intelligent items
-your alignment can be forcefully changed by artifact effects, undeath, lycanthropy, nilbogism, deck of many things, etc
-only evil characters can be Oathbreaker paladins
-modrons lose their axiomatic mind if they are non-lawful
-water weirds can have their alignment forcefully changed with certain spells
-the regional effects around a ki-rin, unicorn, and some dragons lair effect evil and non-evil creatures differently or detect alignments
-attuning some artifacts requires killing someone 'of the same alignment'
-someone who is being resurrected knows the alignment of the person trying to resurrect them
-Raksasha damage resistance overcome by good characters (with piercing weapons)
-the damage type (and type of creature summoned) for 'spirit guardians'

Soft Mechanical Effects:
-animate dead has language that indicates it may carry specific alignment consequences for its use
-the fluff of some monsters seems to indicate they can 'sense' alignment (angels, devils, flumphs, etc) though their stat block does not include an ability to do so
-it is heavily implied that the Outer Planes 'know' your alignment and may treat you differently (optional rules about alignment in terms of psychic dissonance exist, but it is implied the effect exists even if you don't use the mechanic... and most of the outerplanes have optional rules that address alignment)
-scarecrows and will-o-the-wisps can only be animated by the spirit of an evil individuals

Default Cosmology 'mostly fluff' but technically have mechanical implications;
-where you end up when you die in the default cosmology

Setting Specific:
-Curse of Strahd has a bunch of things that reference alignment specifically

[coolAlias]

<list of various remaining mechanical effects of alignment>
Well, I stand corrected.

I don't think a single thing on that list has ever come up in our games, and quite a few of those listed I would probably describe as fluff rather than mechanical. I can see how you would argue differently, though, if alignment played an important and/or more mechanical role in your game.

I wouldn't ever use an alignment-changing artifact or other effect on a PC, though, unless that player was okay with their character becoming an NPC or I didn't care that the player would probably continue playing their character the same way as they have been, basically ignoring their new alignment. None of the people I play with are interested in that kind of thing.

[Naanomi]

The only that has come up in my games is being turned into a wererat (which was quickly reversed) and the Sprite's ability to detect alignment (a Warlock had one as a familiar and used it often). EDIT: oh and I guess the damage type in Spirit Guardians has come up meaningfully

I guess that it would matter more for an Evil party, since 'Good' monsters seem to have more alignment related effects than evil ones in their statblock

[coolAlias]

EDIT: oh and I guess the damage type in Spirit Guardians has come up meaningfully
I'm sure that one will be coming up soon in my game as well, and that most definitely has a mechanical effect. :D

[imanidiot]

And Malifice, I think there's a huge difference between someone who enjoys murder and someone who takes a certain amount of satisfaction in personally administering "justice" to the one who did terrible things to them and their family.



I disagree. Extrajudicial revenge is never justified. It is itself an impediment to a civilized society.

[Naanomi]

I disagree. Extrajudicial revenge is never justified. It is itself an impediment to a civilized society.
Though that may be more of a law/chaos thing than a good/evil thing... certainly there are Chaotic Good Powers and Outsiders dedicated to vigilantism. Concerns about 'civilized society' in fact generally trend towards Law

[Malifice]

I'm saying that in game morality =/= real-life morality. A single evil act in the game is unlikely to make the character permanently evil (or even temporarily, depending on the game).

If you want to argue about real life philosophies of morality, this isn't the place.

What's the difference?

[Malifice]

And Malifice, I think there's a huge difference between someone who enjoys murder and someone who takes a certain amount of satisfaction in personally administering "justice" to the one who did terrible things to them and their family.

As for the torture, through much of human history that was simply the way things were done. Good hearted people have condoned torture

Good hearted people who condone torture are not good hearted people.

And murdering someone is evil. I don't care about your reasons.

If you think differently that's scary as hell. And not in a good way.

This person regularly engages in murder (which he enjoys) and torture. He holds a hot brand to the screaming face of another person. He cuts them slowly with knives. He's a monster. An evil monster.

[coolAlias]

What's the difference?
One is a game in which players enact characters whose main job is usually killing things and taking their stuff, and the other is real life where that is typically considered to be wrong no matter how bad the people are you are killing and stealing from.

I mean, you can play characters with and play through stories exploring real world morality in D&D, but I would hardly consider that the default assumption.

[Malifice]

One is a game in which players enact characters whose main job is usually killing things and taking their stuff, and the other is real life where that is typically considered to be wrong no matter how bad the people are you are killing and stealing from.

No their main job isnt 'killing things and taking stuff'.

Your looking at morality with the knowledge that this is a game. For example If you lost xp for killing things, you'd be making a very different argumetn again.


I mean, you can play characters with and play through stories exploring real world morality in D&D, but I would hardly consider that the default assumption.

Well, youre wrong. Good and Evil have the same meanings that you and I associate with those words.

There isnt 'game' good and 'real life' good.

[90,000]

This is why I get rid of the alignment system altogether in my game. People feel like they have to be too rigid.

[imanidiot]

.



Well, youre wrong. Good and Evil have the same meanings that you and I associate with those words.

There isnt 'game' good and 'real life' good.

Well, you're wrong. In real life "good" and "evil" are subjective terms heavily influence by cultural point of view. In game there are verified greater powers who enforce rigid absolute definitions of "good" and "evil" arbitrarily.

[imanidiot]

Though that may be more of a law/chaos thing than a good/evil thing... certainly there are Chaotic Good Powers and Outsiders dedicated to vigilantism. Concerns about 'civilized society' in fact generally trend towards Law

Well then, RAW someone who enjoys killing, ever for any reason, is automatically evil. Period.

[Malifice]

Well, you're wrong. In real life "good" and "evil" are subjective terms heavily influence by cultural point of view.

Thats what I said. Read again:

Good and Evil have the same meanings that you and I associate with those words.


In game there are verified greater powers who enforce rigid absolute definitions of "good" and "evil" arbitrarily.

They dont enforce anything.

In 3E at least, Good implies altruism, charity and compassion. Evil implies harming, hurting and killing others. The depictions of the churches and people of (for example) Faerun (and their alignments) hasnt changed since that edition (barring the Spell-plague).

Murder, slavery, rape and torture are not good.

If you think they are, thats becuase your'e probably not 'good' either.

[imanidiot]

Thats what I said. Read again:

Good and Evil have the same meanings that you and I associate with those words.



They dont enforce anything.

In 3E at least, Good implies altruism, charity and compassion. Evil implies harming, hurting and killing others. The depictions of the churches and people of (for example) Faerun (and their alignments) hasnt changed since that edition (barring the Spell-plague).

Murder, slavery, rape and torture are not good.

If you think they are, thats becuase your'e probably not 'good' either.

"Good" characters and dieties regularly harm, hurt, and kill others. They see their actions as justified because they follow arbitrary rules (that they made) about who may be harmed and under what conditions.

Murder, slavery, rape, and torture are harmful. Harmful to the social order (which everyone is part of nont just Lawful characters) and to the individual's self-determination.

Typical D&D settings absolutely enforce rigid "good" and "evil". How many adventures send adventures to kill demons, or devils, or goblins, or orcs who have done nothing except exist? Or simply used resources that the powers that be determined were their right? I'm not advocating that you leave these miscreants to run amok. By all means go kill them all, they're dangerous. But dont think that doing so makes you righteous. "Civilized" races are just a different form of vermin that is better at surviving.

[Malifice]

"Good" characters and dieties regularly harm, hurt, and kill others. They see their actions as justified because they follow arbitrary rules (that they made) about who may be harmed and under what conditions.

A good person only harms or kills in self defence or the defence of others, when there is no other reasonable alternative and as a last resort.

This is why self defence is the only defence to murder in pretty much every civilisation ever.


Murder, slavery, rape, and torture are harmful. Harmful to the social order (which everyone is part of nont just Lawful characters) and to the individual's self-determination.

They're harmful to life. To people. To liberty. They are unecessary.


Typical D&D settings absolutely enforce rigid "good" and "evil". How many adventures send adventures to kill demons, or devils, or goblins, or orcs who have done nothing except exist?

Demons and Devils are murderous evil killing machines. Barring exceptional circusmstances they cant be redeeemed or stopped with anything short of violence. And that violence just sends them home in any event.

And killing Goblins and Orcs for no other reason that they're there, is evil.

[imanidiot]

A good person only harms or kills in self defence or the defence of others, when there is no other reasonable alternative and as a last resort.

This is why self defence is the only defence to murder in pretty much every civilisation ever.



They're harmful to life. To people. To liberty. They are unecessary.



Demons and Devils are murderous evil killing machines. Barring exceptional circusmstances they cant be redeeemed or stopped with anything short of violence. And that violence just sends them home in any event.

And killing Goblins and Orcs for no other reason that they're there, is evil.

How many wars are fought (in game) over disputes over territory? No one says that Cormyr is evil for protecting their (again, arbitrarily defined) borders. Are a particular group of elves evil because they do not allow non-sylvan races into their sacred groves? What if they will kill the humans rather than let them in? Because that's downright common amomg evles.

If you have a group of goblins setting up shop in the countryside and they just haven't started raiding settlements yet, you need to go kill them all. They won't leave and if they do they're just trying to trick you. Kill them.

[Malifice]

How many wars are fought (in game) over disputes over territory? No one says that Cormyr is evil for protecting their (again, arbitrarily defined) borders. Are a particular group of elves evil because they do not allow non-sylvan races into their sacred groves? What if they will kill the humans rather than let them in? Because that's downright common amomg evles.

If you have a group of goblins setting up shop in the countryside and they just haven't started raiding settlements yet, you need to go kill them all. They won't leave and if they do they're just trying to trick you. Kill them.

And every thing you mention is evil. Particularly the last paragraph.

Very genocidal of you.

You're aware goblins can be good aligned right?

[imanidiot]

And every thing you mention is evil. Particularly the last paragraph.

Very genocidal of you.

You're aware goblins can be good aligned right?

And the vast majority of every "good" aligned fantasy country would agree with every word. And they are all common situations.

[imanidiot]

This is why I get rid of the alignment system altogether in my game. People feel like they have to be too rigid.

I use a simplified system of 5 alignments. Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. If you're Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic then you have deeply held beliefs that compel you to advanve the cause of your alignment. Everyone that doesn't have this personal dedication to a cause is Neutral. Almost everything is Neutral. Almost nothing is Evil.

[Malifice]

I use a simplified system of 5 alignments. Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. If you're Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic then you have deeply held beliefs that compel you to advanve the cause of your alignment. Everyone that doesn't have this personal dedication to a cause is Neutral. Almost everything is Neutral. Almost nothing is Evil.

The good guys only rape and murder the evil guys right?

[JackPhoenix]

To OP: Ignore Malifice. Read the descriptions of alignment on page 122 in PHB and choose the one that best describes the character's general attitude and behavior. No matter what other editions of D&D says about alignment, from the description you've given, I'd say the character fits CG more than CN according to 5e's take on the subject.

[Unoriginal]

"Good" characters and dieties regularly harm, hurt, and kill others. They see their actions as justified because they follow arbitrary rules (that they made) about who may be harmed and under what conditions.


Not in 5e. Maybe in 3.X, but not in 5e.


And the vast majority of every "good" aligned fantasy country would agree with every word. And they are all common situations.

Again, not in 5e.

In 5e, if you destroy a goblin tribe just because they were here rather than because they were raiders who killed others, then you're doing something evil, and it's acknowledged as such by the alignment system.


My character is level 5 now and my group isn't too bound by alignments but I wanna get it right.

Basically the Bard elf was Chaotic Good growing up but then bad things happend to her when she got on the road. She developed a bit of a vengeful streak and althouh our Rogue thinks she is good, she just picks her time to be a bit....like Jack Bauer.

My thinking is sometimes she'd torture a foe for the greater good and she sould definately savor killing some folks who did her wrong. Generally though she pays for things, is nice to folks and doesn't let the Rogue go around stealing from honest shop keepers.

Is that vengeful streak enough to be Chaotic Neutral? Or should I go to Chaotic Good?


I'd say your character is evil. Having a vengeful streak isn't evil, provided you just want to defeat the person and won't go overboard, and enjoying ending the life of someone who did you wrong is excusable (even a good person can feel relief at having their tormentor or someone they know to be horrible be destroyed, like the relief you feel when a tyrant is finally dead). Even brutalizing someone when it's the only way available to save people can be understandable, if not pretty.

But picking her time so she can torture people is definitively evil.

[Malifice]

To OP: Ignore Malifice. Read the descriptions of alignment on page 122 in PHB and choose the one that best describes the character's general attitude and behavior. No matter what other editions of D&D says about alignment, from the description you've given, I'd say the character fits CG more than CN according to 5e's take on the subject.

CG?

Hahhababababababa

[Unoriginal]

Let's see what the PHB actually says about the alignments:


Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

Not what OP's PC has been doing, obviously.


Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Mmmmh, doesn't really fit the PC as described.


Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

Torturing someone out of hatred fits this, doesn't it?

[Naanomi]

"Good" characters and dieties regularly harm, hurt, and kill others. They see their actions as justified because they follow arbitrary rules (that they made) about who may be harmed and under what conditions.
Just to clarify, the Cosmos determines what is Good and Evil in DnD cosmology, the Gods and Good Outsiders are subject to it as much as anyone; that doesn't mean that in some level the rules are not 'arbitrary'; but no-one (outside of perhaps the Old Ones two or three levels above the Gods) 'decide' what is Good or not.

When Corellon Lorethian advocates Genocide of the orcish people on a cosmic scale and maintains his Chaotic Good alignment, it isn't because he decided he stays Good... it is because that is in line with the cosmic principles of Chaotic Goodness. Hoar is Lawful Neutral yet advocates murder and inflicting suffering on those who 'deserve' it... and his cleregy does the same without being universally Evil (he maintains an order of Good assassins historically).

[JackPhoenix]

CG?

Hahhababababababa

"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." vs. "Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."

Of course, you've been stuck with 3e understanding of alignment for a long time, that's what I said to ignore what you say on the matter, you either don't understand, or just ignore, what alignment means in 5e, as your posts in any alignment thread show.


Not what OP's PC has been doing, obviously.

Not really... I mean, we don't have enough informations, but given the description given, it seems the character still follows her conscience, as she prevent the rogue from stealing and "is nice to folks". Now, the later may be guided by other reasons, but we don't know that. In any case, if the character HAS conscience (unclear from the OP), it allows for torture of bad guys, which is (obviously from this thread) not what others expect.


Mmmmh, doesn't really fit the PC as described.

Agreed here, that much is clear.


Torturing someone out of hatred fits this, doesn't it?

Maybe, depends if the hatred and torture is really arbitrary (which seems to not be the case, as there apparently is a good reason for the hatred) or driven by something else.

[hamishspence]

Hoar is Lawful Neutral yet advocates murder and inflicting suffering on those who 'deserve' it... and his cleregy does the same without being universally Evil (he maintains an order of Good assassins historically).

Which source stated that those Assassins were Good? Most D&D rulesets that have Assassins, required them to be Evil.

Some editions recognized how dubious Hoar's behaviour was. 4e, for example, had him as Evil.



When Corellon Lorethian advocates Genocide of the orcish people on a cosmic scale and maintains his Chaotic Good alignment, it isn't because he decided he stays Good... it is because that is in line with the cosmic principles of Chaotic Goodness.


I could see Corellon's doctrines saying very little about orcs - with it being only the most xenophobic "followers" of him that advocate murder.

[Naanomi]

Hoar's assassins in 2e being able to be non-Evil alignments was spelled out in Faiths and Avatars... his order of assassins hunted down people who escaped justice, often working to make their deaths 'poetic' to their original crimes in some way. He became a much darker God (although he maintained his lawful neutral alignment) in 4e when they decided that 80% of the pantheon had to be exarchs of other Gods and they stuck him with Bane

Also, I *could* see CL's dictates having nothing to do with Orcs... but they do, most of the Elven Pantheon related classes had granted anti-orc abilities (Gruumsh and Corellon and Gruumsh being sworn enemies and all that)

[Unoriginal]

When Corellon Lorethian advocates Genocide of the orcish people on a cosmic scale and maintains his Chaotic Good alignment, it isn't because he decided he stays Good... it is because that is in line with the cosmic principles of Chaotic Goodness.

5e Corellon isn't advocating for the genocide of the orcish people. The eleven deities were willing to save a mass-murdering cannibalistic traitor when he sincerely begged them for help.



"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." vs. "Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."

[...]

Not really... I mean, we don't have enough informations, but given the description given, it seems the character still follows her conscience, as she prevent the rogue from stealing and "is nice to folks". Now, the later may be guided by other reasons, but we don't know that. In any case, if the character HAS conscience (unclear from the OP), it allows for torture of bad guys, which is (obviously from this thread) not what others expect.

I'm sorry, what?

This is utter nonsense. Conscience isn't a code that allows you to do some things and not others.

Conscience never accepts torture.



Maybe, depends if the hatred and torture is really arbitrary (which seems to not be the case, as there apparently is a good reason for the hatred) or driven by something else.

The torture is absolutely arbitrary. It's not because someone has a "good reason" to do something that it's not arbitrary, and if you read the definition it is the *violence* part that is arbitrary, not the hatred part.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.

It was entirely upon the PC's discretion to torture those people. She could have easily decided to *not* torture those people.



Hoar's assassins in 2e being able to be non-Evil alignments was spelled out in Faiths and Avatars... his order of assassins hunted down people who escaped justice, often working to make their deaths 'poetic' to their original crimes in some way. He became a much darker God (although he maintained his lawful neutral alignment) in 4e when they decided that 80% of the pantheon had to be exarchs of other Gods and they stuck him with Bane

2e's and 4e's alignment systems aren't the same as 5e's

[MarkVIIIMarc]

"Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." vs. "Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."

Of course, you've been stuck with 3e understanding of alignment for a long time, that's what I said to ignore what you say on the matter, you either don't understand, or just ignore, what alignment means in 5e, as your posts in any alignment thread show.



Not really... I mean, we don't have enough informations, but given the description given, it seems the character still follows her conscience, as she prevent the rogue from stealing and "is nice to folks". Now, the later may be guided by other reasons, but we don't know that. In any case, if the character HAS conscience (unclear from the OP), it allows for torture of bad guys, which is (obviously from this thread) not what others expect.



Agreed here, that much is clear.



Maybe, depends if the hatred and torture is really arbitrary (which seems to not be the case, as there apparently is a good reason for the hatred) or driven by something else.

Wow, what a debate.

First, folks can take whatever view of killing suits them. If joining the army to go kill the enemy is wrong under any circumstances in your opinion valid if I agree or not. Just understand we are dealing with a majority opinion on allignments which (unfortunately?) will maybe never allign with yours.

More background, btw, I came up with this while watching Sons of Anarchy after seeing a Veronica Mars rerun.

Val, the character, is an elf who while out and about with a friend got kidnapped by a group of human supremacists. Her friend was probably murdered by them. All kinds of bad things happened to Val while kidnapped but eventually using level 1 Bard powers she escaped (maybe inspired by the Force Awakes also lol).

What has she done in revenge?

The party came upon a town where an elf was hanging dead in the town square with tbe supremesists symbol painted nearby. Using a human wizard they infiltrated the group, found out about a planned ambush and ambushed the supremesist would be ambushers.

Before Val could extract whatever information from the last survivor the LG dragonborn monk ended his misery figuring these type of folk usually keep good records or something so there was no need to torture.

Darn it, the town where we probably killed 75% of the working age men was then attacked by this crazy drow queen and her minions and burnt largely killing the rest of the population in a race war before we could really rummage through the supremacist's keep.

Maybe more info than needed. Val would have mutilated that last survivor though for more information if given the chance.

I figured the bit of revenge aspect probably knocked her out of the "good" category. Rangers and in some ways Paladins have their favored enemies though and are allowed to be good so I wasn't thinking her as evil. Heck, our resident Rogue typically is annoyed with her for discouraging his minor thievery especially the time we (possibly saved his life!) by making him sneak the stuff back.

[Naanomi]

2e's and 4e's alignment systems aren't the same as 5e's
I can't speak to 4e; but the system lines up to 2e pretty well in the cosmological sense... which Gods are assigned to which alignments, the layout and description of the Outerplanes, the behavior of the Outsiders associated with each alignment... all very 2e-planescape oriented (not surprising perhaps with 5a status as the 'nostalgia edition')

[Unoriginal]

Before Val could extract whatever information from the last survivor the LG dragonborn monk ended his misery figuring these type of folk usually keep good records or something so there was no need to torture.

[...]

Maybe more info than needed. Val would have mutilated that last survivor though for more information if given the chance..

Yep, evil.



I figured the bit of revenge aspect probably knocked her out of the "good" category. Rangers and in some ways Paladins have their favored enemies though and are allowed to be good so I wasn't thinking her as evil.

Reasonable revenge and having a favored type of adversaries isn't evil.

Torturing someone and wanting to torture/mutilate someone, especially when it's clear it's unnecessary and that there is no pragmatic reasons to do it, is evil.



Heck, our resident Rogue typically is annoyed with her for discouraging his minor thievery especially the time we (possibly saved his life!) by making him sneak the stuff back.

It's not because someone is against minor thievery than they're not evil. The Sheriff of Nottingham isn't typically a good guy, and there are plenty of horrible people who don't want their allies to cause troubles by committing small illegal acts.


I can't speak to 4e; but the system lines up to 2e pretty well in the cosmological sense... which Gods are assigned to which alignments, the layout and description of the Outerplanes, the behavior of the Outsiders associated with each alignment... all very 2e-planescape oriented (not surprising perhaps with 5a status as the 'nostalgia edition')

It's still different. See AD&D's definition of chaotic neutral, for exemple:


Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing
about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.

While in 5e it's way toned down.

5e's Corellon won't advocate for the genocide of the orcs, because doing so would go against his benevolent personality. He would have little problem with an orc army that's about to stomp on a defenseless elf city getting destroyed, but that's a different situation.

[coolAlias]

@Malifice Look, if you play D&D in a way where players always consider the moral repercussions of killing goblins, more power to you, but please understand that not all people play the game that way. For a lot of people, D&D is just a game and yes, I do only think about it as a game and yes, I do consider 'game Good' to be separate from 'real life Good' because 'real life Good' is a very difficult subject that has been the topic of much debate since the beginning of human civilization.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that a character who commits a single evil act is now Evil, but that doesn't change the fact that for many people who play this as a game and who are not always interested in considering real life implications, we can go along quite happily having this dark moment in the character's story all the while keeping "Good" on our character sheet since that is the majority of how the character acts.

Anyway, I don't want to get dragged any further into what is proving to be an irreconcilable difference of perspective / opinion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Barring the situations where your alignment is magically changed of course That requires a collaborative effort by player and DM to get together and figure out how that will influence the character. It's not a digital switch.

@Malifice Look, if you play D&D in a way where players always consider the moral repercussions of killing goblins, more power to you, but please understand that not all people play the game that way. For a lot of people, D&D is just a game and yes, I do only think about it as a game and yes, I do consider 'game Good' to be separate from 'real life Good' because 'real life Good' is a very difficult subject that has been the topic of much debate since the beginning of human civilization. Yeah.

@Malfice: Son of Sam? Manson? Don't flatter yourself. The run of the mill murderer In Real Life isn't the next Manson. Nor the next Son of Sam. Your lapse into hyperbole there weakened your point.

And at this point, reference to Real Life is beginning to get too close to a forum rules violation, so y'all enjoy the rest of your moralizing efforts.

[Sigreid]

Good hearted people who condone torture are not good hearted people.

And murdering someone is evil. I don't care about your reasons.

If you think differently that's scary as hell. And not in a good way.

This person regularly engages in murder (which he enjoys) and torture. He holds a hot brand to the screaming face of another person. He cuts them slowly with knives. He's a monster. An evil monster.

No, what I am is capable of realizing that my morality is based on a 20th/21st century society where I can reliably subcontract my revenge to the government and even most of the poor live comfort and plenty that would make a Roman senator blush.

As opposed to a society where most people struggle to manage subsistence living. The governments reliability and legitimacy is questionable at best. Where local officials regularly either higher, or condone outside ruffians dealing with situations they can't or don't care to deal with, usually for a pay of "whatever you can take off the dead problem". Where society isn't secure enough to support a large criminal justice system. And where large areas aren't subject to any kind of authority what so ever.