Alignments and what they mean [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Alignments and what they mean

Whit

2018-02-11, 12:18 PM

igor140

2018-02-11, 01:01 PM

Maybe I'm doing it wrong (I'm still fairly new to PnP DnD), but I've never liked the strict, myopic definitions of alignment. To quote a pirate, "they're more like guidelines".

I'm running two characters in two different campaigns right now. The warlock (chaotic neutral) was trained as a mercenary from a young age to prioritize, in order: clan, companions, job. So if he's hired to drive out an entire village, he'll burn it to the ground as instructed, but he's not going to slaughter the people trying to escape. Conversely, if he's hired to protect a caravan of priests, he may try to negotiate more money, but he will uphold his end of the bargain once the deal has been struck. So he may respond capriciously, but not if it's going to endanger his clan (including reputation), his companions, or his capacity to complete his job.

The mystic (true neutral) was raised and trained by monks. He's ascetic, tends towards pacifism, and actively seeks balance in all things. If the guards are overrunning the thieves guild, he will run interference or support the guild's supply lines. If there is an necromancer flooding the city with undead, he will put a stop to it.

Both characters are neutral, but in very different ways and for entirely different reasons that don't necessarily fall in line with the "textbook" definitions.

Whit

2018-02-11, 01:31 PM

This too can be a guideline. But gives a better definition of what alignment is. Personally I don’t see anyone playing alignments correctly or even close to it. Although LG might be the easiest to play, however some actually think it goes beyond LG
Just like not seeing most people play 8 stat intelligence wisdom charisma correctly.

RazorChain

2018-02-11, 01:44 PM

I find this article hilarious and just showcases the weakness of the alignment system when some guy tries to write about how each alignment should behave. Because we all know there are only 9 types of personalities in the world.

From the CG articel

"These characters are basically good, but tend to be selfish and maybe a bit greedy. They tend to hold personal freedom and welfare above anything else. The chaotic good dislikes confining laws, self-discipline, and they distrust authority. (3)"

Why are all chaotic good people greedy, selfish and undisciplined? Can't lawful good people be undisciplined? What if you have a undisciplined guy who follows the law to the letter?

From the commandments and sins for the CG

"1. You shall lie in the pursuit of goodness.
6. You shall break the law in pursuit of goodness."

"1.Failing to perform a random act of kindness when appropriate."

So you have this compulsive liar that steals a sports car for his neighbour because said neighbour likes sports car, just as a random act of kindness? This is guy is some kind of a benign sociopath

Tanarii

2018-02-11, 01:44 PM

Looks like old edition Alignment information to me.

hamishspence

2018-02-11, 01:47 PM

It's 3.5-era - but draws heavily on other eras too - and other gaming systems as well as D&D - Palladium, for example.

Draconi Redfir

2018-02-11, 01:47 PM

i like to think there are different flavors of each alignment.

For example in one of my games, the country has slowly been developing into a police state after a suspicious queen took power and various riots erupted.

My character (Lawful Good) is completely Pro-queen, beveling that despite what happens, the queen must be in the right because she is the queen. The guards paroling the streets are neccicary due to the riots, they drew swords at a gathering because they were provoked by a riot, the woman they were attempting to execute MUST be guilty because she ran away from the party trying to help her etc.

while other characters in the party who are also lawful good can be completely anti-queen, believing more in what is right in morals and for the freedom of the people. Despite having opposing views of the queen, both characters are still lawful evil.

Likewise, Chaotic evil can range from "Bwahahahaha i will destroy all life and all things, and end the world as we know it" all the way to "I just don't believe in general society's rules and Morales, it's okay to eat people or babies if you need too."

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 02:05 PM

I came upon this D&D website which is very informative on all 9 alignments regarding government alignments, the do’s and don’ts of the alignments, how they view other alignments, the adventurer and how to play the alignment and so forth.
Hope it helps. This is just the link to CG but yuh can get all alignments here
http://www.easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

Thanks, but those articles are for 3.X Alignments.

They are not relevant to the 5e Alignment system.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong (I'm still fairly new to PnP DnD), but I've never liked the strict, myopic definitions of alignment. To quote a pirate, "they're more like guidelines".

And this is what the 5e books say about it, too. To quote the book:

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

But gives a better definition of what alignment is.

It doesn't.

At least not for 5e's alignment.

I find this article hilarious and just showcases the weakness of the alignment system when some guy tries to write about how each alignment should behave. Because we all know there are only 9 types of personalities in the world.

It's not a weakness of the alignment system, it's an issue with the people writing those articles.

3.X alignments were a mess, especially when the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds were added to the pile.

i like to think there are different flavors of each alignment.

For example in one of my games, the country has slowly been developing into a police state after a suspicious queen took power and various riots erupted.

My character (Lawful Good) is completely Pro-queen, beveling that despite what happens, the queen must be in the right because she is the queen. The guards paroling the streets are neccicary due to the riots, they drew swords at a gathering because they were provoked by a riot, the woman they were attempting to execute MUST be guilty because she ran away from the party trying to help her etc.

while other characters in the party who are also lawful good can be completely anti-queen, believing more in what is right in morals and for the freedom of the people. Despite having opposing views of the queen, both characters are still lawful evil.

Likewise, Chaotic evil can range from "Bwahahahaha i will destroy all life and all things, and end the world as we know it" all the way to "I just don't believe in general society's rules and Morales, it's okay to eat people or babies if you need too."

Alignment is only a small part of someone's personality. Your character being Pro-Queen and the others being Anti-Queen despite being of the same alignment doesn't mean they're of different flavor of said alignment per se, they just have different personalities that make them interpret what happens around them differently. Even Devas can disagree, even if they both acknowledge the other is acting in accordance to law and goodness.

The Demon Lord Gra'azt and your average orc are likely to have different personalities, despite both being chaotic evil.

All in all, people just tend to give way too much importance to alignments. This is not 3.X, folks.

Whit

2018-02-11, 03:41 PM

It may be old but It gives a lot of suggestions ideas on the alignments behaviors to take or not. Even 5ed phb is defined. If it wasn’t, there would be no alignment options For characters. Like 4th that had good neutral evil as a standard moral standpoint it gave yuh more breadth to behave towards lawful and chaotic depending on yiur situation.
This can help dm’s players alike for a town or city or leader in an adventure to suggestions on the alignment yiu pick. That’s all.
Here’s 5ed
typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.
These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.
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.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.
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.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 03:55 PM

It may be old but It gives a lot of suggestions ideas on the alignments behaviors to take or not.

Age is not a problem, the fact that it's for a different game is what make it irrelevant for 5e.

Even 5ed phb is defined. If it wasn’t, there would be no alignment options.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Like 4th that had good neutral evil as a standard moral standpoint it gave yuh more breadth to behave towards lawful and chaotic depending on yiur situation.

4e's alignment system is completely different. You're either Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil or Chaotic Evil.

You don't have more breath to behave toward lawful and chaotic, because you're only Lawful if you're LG, and only Chaotic if you're CE.

If you're talking about 5e, if you're chaotic good, neutral or evil (the lack of capitalization is deliberate, as it is how the 5e PHB writes it.), you will still probably follow rules and laws at least some of the time, and you'll still be just as chaotic.

This can help dm’s players alike for a town or city or leader in an adventure to suggestions on the alignment yiu pick. That’s all.

No, it cannot, because it is not an article that talk about 5e alignments. It'd be the same if it was an article about AD&D's or 4e's alignment systems.

3.X's alignments are not the same as 5e's alignments, even if they share names. Same way that 3.X's Plate Armor isn't the same as 5e's Plate Armor, or 3.X's Asmodeus isn't the same as 5e's Asmodeus.

Whit

2018-02-11, 04:24 PM

Give me examples of characters alignments and we could change it to others based on behaviors
CG enters a town. Sign here that you agree to abide by the law before entry the guard says.
1. He signs it knowing he won’t follow some or any?
2. He signs it agreeing to follow the law

3. He refuses to sign it. Your laws are just but They do not apply to me. But do t worry I won’t cause harm here

4. He decides to sneak into town. It’s not hurting anyone and I’m not signing anything

Or you get a LG who decides to persuade guards to let him buy without signing
Or he decides to bribe them.
Maybe that’s how the LG player acts because to him he’s not braking his law or killing anyone

Tanarii

2018-02-11, 04:32 PM

Not really. Old edition information on Alignments is the most common reason for misunderstandings on how 5e uses it, what the Alignments mean, and even definitions of them.

That said, at least this one starts off with the right definition right at the start:
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him.

hamishspence

2018-02-11, 04:35 PM

4e's alignment system is completely different. You're either Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil or Chaotic Evil.

You don't have more breath to behave toward lawful and chaotic, because you're only Lawful if you're LG, and only Chaotic if you're CE.

I see it as more "old characters have had their alignments renamed- because some categories have been merged, but they still behave exactly the same way."

Elminster, or Storm Silverhand, are now Good instead of Chaotic Good - but they still behave exactly the way 3e defines for Chaotic Good.

And so forth.
Age is not a problem, the fact that it's for a different game is what make it irrelevant for 5e.
My perspective is that, no matter the edition - it's the same Forgotten Realms universe. Every edition is a different attempt to capture that universe - but it's always the same one.

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 04:39 PM

Just because it’s outdated doesn’t mean it can’t help people out.

Again, it's not a question of being "outdated". It's from a different game, and it is not the same alignment system than 5e uses. Same way that the term "CR" doesn't mean the same thing depending on which edition you're using.

If a person picks CG what does it really mean to the player. What if that persons role plays a more lawful neutral or lawful evil character because he doesn’t understand how the character should basically behave

Then an article talking about a different game is not going to help them understand what it means for 5e.

Free from following laws but will follow if it doesn’t tread on his freedom and it promotes general goodwill.? Sounds more neutral good to me

...what's your point here?

Just saying there are sites that can help give insight to alignments if people have questions

Maybe there are sites that can help, but not sites about 3.X's alignments.

Again, thank you for wanting to help, but those articles don't help for 5e.

Heck, just to show this: your OP mentions 9 alignments. There are 10 in 5e.

I see it as more "old characters have had their alignments renamed- because some categories have been merged, but they still behave exactly the same way."

Elminster, or Storm Silverhand, are now Good instead of Chaotic Good - but they still behave exactly the way 3e defines for Chaotic Good.

And so forth.

4e Elminster is Good. He might act the way a different game would define as Chaotic Good, but he is not Chaotic Good, since it does not exist in 4e.

I don't know enough to say that 4e Elminster behaved the same in 4e than in 3.X, but I doubt they didn't change him in some ways.

Give me examples of characters alignments and we could change it to others based on behaviors

...sorry, what?

Alignment just describe the big generalities of your typical behavior.

CG enters a town. Sign here that you agree to abide by the law before entry the guard says.
1. He signs it knowing he won’t follow some or any?
2. He signs it agreeing to follow the law

3. He refuses to sign it. Your laws are just but They do not apply to me. But do t worry I won’t cause harm here

4. He decides to sneak into town. It’s not hurting anyone and I’m not signing anything

Or you get a LG who decides to persuade guards to let him buy without signing
Or he decides to bribe them.
Maybe that’s how the LG player acts because to him he’s not braking his law or killing anyone

A chaotic good character could decide to do any of those things, and many more. Same for a lawful good one.

My perspective is that, no matter the edition - it's the same Forgotten Realms universe. Every edition is a different attempt to capture that universe - but it's always the same one.

You could say that they're different interpretations of the same universe, but it'd be hard to argue that each version is the same as the others.

Just take a look at a monster like the Succubus, for exemple. If Elminster met one in 3.X FR, she would be a Demon. In 4e, she would be a Devil. And in 5e, she would be an independent neutral evil Fiend.

Whit

2018-02-11, 05:14 PM

Sounds like to me that alignment doesn’t matter anymore. My character can be LG or CE or neutral but during game play I can just decide what I’m gonna do. I’m CE but I buy drinks for everyone and give a beggar a gold coin. Because I feel like it. Don’t tell me I have to be CE. At this moment I feel like doing this. Later on I might kill the beggar and take back my coin and others. Because no matter what alignment I picked.
It’s just a general view but my chEacter can vary widely on it

War_lord

2018-02-11, 05:22 PM

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 05:29 PM

Alignment in 5th edition is descriptive, not prescriptive. Your example of a character who randomly murders beggars is a chaotic evil character. But they're chaotic evil because they're a serial killer, not a serial killer because they're Chaotic evil. It's an important distinction. A character can be a chaotic evil mass murderer who also loves cats.

This.

A chaotic evil character can also give coins to a beggar because making this beggar a bit richer is a thing they genuinely enjoy doing, for whatever reason. It doesn't mean that said chaotic evil character won't break some schmuck's skull in a bar fight later, or that this character won't be a demon worshiper.

Again:

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

JackPhoenix

2018-02-11, 06:11 PM

Thanks, but those articles are for 3.X Alignments.

Technically, it's a mix of how alignment worked in multiple editions (though the 3.x is strong with this one), that pretty much ensures it will be a mess. General problem is that in 3.x, alignment was all that determined personality rule-wise. People seem to forget that in 5e, alignments can't be used in vacuum without considering rest of the character's personality: personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws. Ideals especially interact closely with alignment, but everything matters.

Edit: When I first found out about 4e alignments, I found them funny. See, there's Czech RPG heavily inspired by old D&D called Dračí Doupě (Dragon's Lair, or, maybe, Dragon's Dungeon) that used exactly the same alignments names. Lawful Good was "super good" and Chaotic Evil (though the term used would be better translated as "confused evil") was "super evil". The RPG is, what, 25 years old now? Maybe 30.

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 06:17 PM

Technically, it's a mix of how alignment worked in multiple editions (though the 3.x is strong with this one), that pretty much ensures it will be a mess.

Fair.

General problem is that in 3.x, alignment was all that determined personality rule-wise. People seem to forget that in 5e, alignments can't be used in vacuum without considering rest of the character's personality: personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws. Ideals especially interact closely with alignment, but everything matters.

Well, technically it can be used to inform you of a tiny part of their personalities, for bit characters and the like. For ex., you can assume your typical goblin raider is going to do something nasty to you if they can get away with it and it benefits them. But that doesn't tell much about the personality traits of this particular goblin.

Otherwise, you're right.

Whit

2018-02-11, 08:04 PM

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

Which leads to my character is LG or pick any others alignment. “Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior.”
Thus whatever alignment my character is it can be played different from what I write down.
Otherwise most players should just be Neutral Good as it covers your option of fallowing laws (lawful) or ignoring laws (chaotic)
I’m playing devils advocate. I actually play the alignment I choose to the best of my characters ability

Unoriginal

2018-02-11, 08:55 PM

So you see why those articles don't work for 5e?

Whit

2018-02-11, 09:40 PM

Yes. If you agree that no matter what alignment you write down, yiur character can behavior as any alignment depending on his mood. “Vary significantly”

Regitnui

2018-02-12, 12:23 AM

Yes. If you agree that no matter what alignment you write down, yiur character can behavior as any alignment depending on his mood. “Vary significantly”

Character A is Chaotic Good. He is a rebel bandit living in the forest. He stops caravans and travellers to survive, but he never hurts any of them and even leaves them with enough to get to the next town. He believes that the ruling authority is corrupt and does all he can to undermine them.

Character B is Chaotic Good. She loves the city and donates to projects to make it better and cleaner. She gives the ruling authority precisely their fair share and nothing more, considering their business to be theirs and hers to be hers. Her family is the important thing, and refuses to let the ruling authority bully them.

Character C is Chaotic Evil. He is a rebel bandit living in the forest. He hurts and kidnaps travellers even after they've given him what he wants. The ruling authority is both useless and ineffective, in his opinion, and so he's fully justified in doing what he wants to whoever he wants. He specifically targets the agents of the ruling authority because they're a symbol of what he hates the most. They never live through his attentions.

Malifice

2018-02-12, 01:52 AM

Chaotic evil people are child murderers, torturers, cannibals and genocidal maniacs out of greed, hatred and bloodlust.

Lawful good people are child murderers, torturers, cannibals and genocidal maniacs because they justify to themselves that this is what is good for society.

Chaotic good people people are child murderers, torturers, cannibals and genocidal maniacs, because this is just them following their own conscience.

I could go on.

War_lord

2018-02-12, 02:00 AM

So does someone pay you to troll in alignment threads Malifice, or is it just a hobby?

Malifice

2018-02-12, 02:24 AM

So does someone pay you to troll in alignment threads Malifice, or is it just a hobby?

Not trolling bro. Just repeating the opinions often expressed in here.

I've genuinely seen the above argued on this very forum. I've seen Rick Sanchez and the Punisher both sincerely be argued to be 'Chaotic Good'. People have agreed that a LG Paladin can enter an orphanage, slaughter dozens of babies and torture the nuns guarding them by bashing their heads in with a hatchet, on account of a Demon telling him that one of those babies is the new antichrist, and if not killed by midnight the world ends.

Ive literally seen genocide, murder for minor blasphemy, torture, pitiless murder, slavery, infanticide, necromancy, child abuse, and lately cannibalism all genuinely attempted to be squeezed (or justified) as being perfectly acceptable actions for a Chaotic or even Lawful Good person to engage in, and people who engage in those practices (even regularly) be described as being said alignments.

Happens in every thread on the topic. Which crop up weekly.

Really dont know why I bother anymore. Now-adays I just go along with it.

Afrodactyl

2018-02-12, 02:39 AM

I've always viewed the alignments as guidelines too.

Good, Evil and Neutral are fairly self explanatory.

For me;
Lawful is that the character obeys a set of rules, whether it be the law of the land, or a self imposed moral code of sorts.

Chaotic is following no such rulebook, and generally a "the end justifies the means" type. As long as you meet your goal, it doesn't matter how you get there.

Neutral is an awkward one that's difficult to translate for this, I typically play it as a hybrid of chaotic and lawful. I can't find a black and white way of running it, so I very rarely run a neutral anything character.

Regitnui

2018-02-12, 08:00 AM

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 08:02 AM

Maybe if people stopped trying to bring other editions into what 5e alignments are, there would be less problems.

Then again, if people stuck to 5e's alignment, those threads wouldn't exist.

All that "ultra important alignment" stuff is a relic of a different game, and one that should be left buried.

Neutral is an awkward one that's difficult to translate for this, I typically play it as a hybrid of chaotic and lawful. I can't find a black and white way of running it, so I very rarely run a neutral anything character.

Neutral is specifically not "black or white", it's the grey. Or bits of black and bits of white next to each others.

Afrodactyl

2018-02-12, 08:12 AM

Neutral is specifically not "black or white", it's the grey. Or bits of black and bits of white next to each others.

I find it hard to translate that grey to an actual character. Most of the time (in my experience with my group) it just ends up with the character being either lawful or chaotic, typically chaotic, rather than neutral.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 08:22 AM

I find it hard to translate that grey to an actual character. Most of the time (in my experience with my group) it just ends up with the character being either lawful or chaotic, typically chaotic, rather than neutral.

I tend to run XN or NX characters as not being concerned very much with the axis set to neutral. It's not so much balancing between the poles as it is "that's not important. What's important is X."

LN: Order's the thing. If you'd follow the law, you wouldn't get punished. I don't care if it hurts me or helps me. I don't care if it hurts others or helps others. It's the law.

NG: Doing good is what matters. What society thinks about it (or what I think about it) doesn't matter. I'll work within society or against society. Whatever it takes to do good.

CN: Freedom from restraint is all that matters. Break down all barriers of law and custom that restrain the individual. Even if their there to help people (or even if I'd be better off with those laws), it doesn't matter. The existence of rules is an affront.

NE: I'm going to help myself by whatever means I find necessary. Order, custom, freedom--those are all secondary. I come first.

Another thing that helps me is realizing that alignments aren't points--they're regions (and squishy ones at that). Most mortal people are closer to the N side of all of their alignments. Only outsiders are in the corners.

Alignment informs motivations, it doesn't dictate actions (and is not dictated by actions). Good people do good things because they're (the person) good, not because doing good things makes someone good.

hamishspence

2018-02-12, 08:25 AM

CN: Freedom from restraint is all that matters. Break down all barriers of law and custom that restrain the individual. Even if their there to help people (or even if I'd be better off with those laws), it doesn't matter. The existence of rules is an affront.

In 3.5 at least, a point was made of how CN characters just aren't that motivated when it comes to "breaking stuff down":

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 08:39 AM

I find it hard to translate that grey to an actual character. Most of the time (in my experience with my group) it just ends up with the character being either lawful or chaotic, typically chaotic, rather than neutral.

It may be because you're trying to separate it from the second component of the alignment when they're an unified mix, I think.

You can't really separate the "neutral" component of neutral good, true neutral and neutral evil.

Or maybe the people in your group are just more comfortable with "extreme" characters, so to speak.

smcmike

2018-02-12, 08:45 AM

CN: Freedom from restraint is all that matters. Break down all barriers of law and custom that restrain the individual. Even if their there to help people (or even if I'd be better off with those laws), it doesn't matter. The existence of rules is an affront.

Nah. I don’t like the way Law and Chaos are sometimes depicted as ideologies. My CN character doesn’t believe in Anarchy, and he isn’t on some quest to break down all barriers of law and custom. He’s just a dumb kid who has problems with authority figures, and doesn’t care all that much about the rules.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 08:48 AM

Nah. I don’t like the way Law and Chaos are sometimes depicted as ideologies. My CN character doesn’t believe in Anarchy, and he isn’t on some quest to break down all barriers of law and custom. He’s just a dumb kid who has problems with authority figures, and doesn’t care all that much about the rules.

I was speaking of the extremes there.

Most people are much closer to the TN border. CN ones muddle along, but when push comes to shove, they'll generally (not always) break toward the "nah, rules are no fun/too restrictive" side of things. Same goes for all the other alignments--very few people are really strongly LG. They're neutral (muddling along) but when push comes to shove they'll break toward supporting law and order and toward helping others.

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 09:12 AM

In 3.5 at least, a point was made of how CN characters just aren't that motivated when it comes to "breaking stuff down":

And it's 3.5 alignment system, which is not the same as 5e's.

In the edition before 3e, Chaotic Neutral was described as borderline insane "you have to do lolrandumb things for no reason".

A 5e chaotic neutral character may hold their personal freedom above all else, but it doesn't mean they won't help others get free too if they feel like it. It's not typical of them to do so when it'll cost their own freedom, though.

I was speaking of the extremes there.

Most people are much closer to the TN border. CN ones muddle along, but when push comes to shove, they'll generally (not always) break toward the "nah, rules are no fun/too restrictive" side of things. Same goes for all the other alignments--very few people are really strongly LG. They're neutral (muddling along) but when push comes to shove they'll break toward supporting law and order and toward helping others.

Not really, no. It's mostly the reverse.

People *generally* act according to their alignments, the same way they (in principle) act according to their Bond, Flaw and Ideal. A lawful good knight will generally be benevolent and respect the laws, it doesn't necessarily mean he won't let some minor infractions to the rules slide from time to time or that if he won't snap and beat up some captured cultists who tortured children and are bragging about it, out of sheer anger in an rare loss of control.

Same way that a drow priestess might one day heal a child who's been whipped bloody by their teacher as a scapegoat for the teacher's screwup, without any scheme or second thoughts, just because she feels sympathy for this one child. Doesn't mean the priestess won't then go on her way to slaughter a few dozen slaves who were left to starve in a lightless pit for ten days as part of a ritual to summon a powerful fiend.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 09:39 AM

Not really, no. It's mostly the reverse.

People *generally* act according to their alignments, the same way they (in principle) act according to their Bond, Flaw and Ideal. A lawful good knight will generally be benevolent and respect the laws, it doesn't necessarily mean he won't let some minor infractions to the rules slide from time to time or that if he won't snap and beat up some captured cultists who tortured children and are bragging about it, out of sheer anger in an rare loss of control.

Same way that a drow priestess might one day heal a child who's been whipped bloody by their teacher as a scapegoat for the teacher's screwup, without any scheme or second thoughts, just because she feels sympathy for this one child. Doesn't mean the priestess won't then go on her way to slaughter a few dozen slaves who were left to starve in a lightless pit for ten days as part of a ritual to summon a powerful fiend.

Both of those are relatively strongly aligned examples. The vast majority aren't so tightly bound. The main point was that there's a spectrum within one alignment and that most people are closer to the middle than to the extremes. They're neutral-ish--other factors are higher priority (personality, bonds, ideals, flaws, etc) not infrequently override their "default" behavior.

I'm pushing back against the robotic outlook on alignment I tend to see a lot--that someone who's LG is Lawful and Good just the same way that an angel is Lawful and Good (and so should act, in the main, just like an angel; if they don't they're "breaking alignment").

Beyond that I think we agree.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 09:42 AM

Both of those are relatively strongly aligned examples. The vast majority aren't so tightly bound. The main point was that there's a spectrum within one alignment and that most people are closer to the middle than to the extremes. They're neutral-ish--other factors are higher priority (personality, bonds, ideals, flaws, etc) not infrequently override their "default" behavior.
Alignment graphs with two axis and spectrum grading from one side to the other on each axis are old edition rules.

5e has one explicit sentence for each alignment, which is typical but may vary and not be completely consistent. That's it. Your view on alignment sorta kinda fits within that, but it is not the way alignment explicitly is set up.

I agree with the way you handle personality traits. Alignment is just another personality trait, one that the player uses as a motivation to drive general behavior when other traits are not in play.

But you're discussing with Unoriginal, who believes IIRC that Alignment is derived from, determined by, general behavior. Not used by the player as a motivation

hamishspence

2018-02-12, 09:45 AM

The notion that there is a continuum though - is consistent with any edition.

Kobolds being LE but "less so" than blue dragons, which are themselves "less so" than devils.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 09:47 AM

The notion that there is a continuum though - is consistent with any edition.Not with 5e. All we have is a single sentence for general behavior, that is vague enough it allows variability within it. And the general statement that individuals may vary significantly, and aren't necessarily consistent.

Plus a distinction between celestials/fiends and others in terms of "free will", so to speak.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 09:49 AM

Alignment graphs with two axis and spectrum grading from one side to the other on each axis are old edition rules.

5e has one explicit sentence for each alignment, which is typical but may vary and not be completely consistent. That's it. Your view on alignment sorta kinda fits within that, but it is not the way alignment explicitly is set up.

I agree with the way you handle personality traits. Alignment is just another personality trait, one that the player uses as a motivation to drive general behavior when other traits are not in play.

But you're discussing with Unoriginal, who believes IIRC that Alignment is derived from, determined by, general behavior. Not used by the player as a motivation

The whole idea that alignment is fuzzy (that those sentences are symptomatic of general behaviors) is consistent with a continuum model. And saying that those are points in alignment space is to say that any classic paladin is identical (on that spectrum) to an angel and that any classical tyrant (assuming LE) is indistinguishable from a devil. That doesn't sit well with me.

Of course, I don't use alignment more than notionally in my games, having removed all mechanical references to it entirely. So there's that.

The notion that there is a continuum though - is consistent with any edition.

Kobolds being LE but "less so" than blue dragons, which are themselves "less so" than devils.

Agreed. It's not explicitly referenced as such, but it's certainly not inconsistent with what's referenced and, to me, enhances the model.

Whit

2018-02-12, 10:01 AM

Exactly. The crux of the issue for 5ed alignment is you pick X alignment. Now how far and often do you deviant from it that actually puts you into another alignment.
If your LG but play more of a back and forth lawful person, you should play NG. If you live by your own code to get around things you don’t like. Flesh out your code on paper and see if it fits into a different X alignment.

The informative site gave examples not all may be good but it could help DMs and players understand the core alignment and the left and right of the core alignment. Which is the main stance most state here. CG is the center alignment your core. But you can sway here and there based on situations. If anyone says different then your either
1 Fixated on the old style of non deviation from the core
2. Or that it can deviate to the extreme which falls into another alignment
I also have not seen any other site that gives great examples covering wide catagories fir game play. Instead people bash it because it’s a past edition. How about actually thinking that there is good examples that can be taken from it into 5th instead of saying ALL of it does not apply

So if you pick an alignment it’s a general reference to your traits etc. in that case I would see that majority of players will fall into NG play style as it really is the left and right of LG and CG.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 10:24 AM

smcmike

2018-02-12, 10:32 AM

I was speaking of the extremes there.

Most people are much closer to the TN border. CN ones muddle along, but when push comes to shove, they'll generally (not always) break toward the "nah, rules are no fun/too restrictive" side of things. Same goes for all the other alignments--very few people are really strongly LG. They're neutral (muddling along) but when push comes to shove they'll break toward supporting law and order and toward helping others.

It’s true that my character isn’t strongly chaotic, but I don’t like framing as necessarily ideological even in the extremes. A character could be extremely chaotic without believing in chaos as a principle.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 10:33 AM

My point was that 5e doesn't indicate that Lawful Good is made up of Lawful and Good. We have one sentence for the label "Lawful Good", not "Lawful" + "Good".

Assuming it's a continuum along different axis of Lawful-Chaotic and Good-Evil requires assuming Alignments are divisible into individual components, as opposed to individually described things, whole on their own. Thats why it is old edition thinking.

You can make it work for you, but it's not inherent in the model.

Except that they distinguish (especially in the race entries) lawful, good, and lawful good.

For example:

Alignment. Most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

To me, this strongly suggests that Law and Good are separate spectrums: "tend toward good" (meaning that they exist on a scale from good to evil, with the median in the good territory) but "are lawful." This same pattern is repeated across all the race entries.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 10:34 AM

Except that they distinguish (especially in the race entries) lawful, good, and lawful good.

For example:

To me, this strongly suggests that Law and Good are separate spectrums: "tend toward good" (meaning that they exist on a scale from good to evil, with the median in the good territory) but "are lawful." This same pattern is repeated across all the race entries.Thats telling you which alignment labels are appropriate. Ideals do the same thing. But the actual levels labels themselves do not indicate they are divisible.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 10:38 AM

Thats telling you which alignment labels are appropriate. Ideals do the same thing. But the actual levels labels themselves do not indicate they are divisible.

You're reading way too much into the shorthand in the alignment section. You're also assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The racial entries clearly separate law from good (and chaos from good, and ...). Thus, they're separable concepts. The fact that this is not called out explicitly in the alignment section is not evidence otherwise--it's null.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 10:44 AM

You're reading way too much into the shorthand in the alignment section. You're also assuming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The racial entries clearly separate law from good (and chaos from good, and ...). Thus, they're separable concepts. The fact that this is not called out explicitly in the alignment section is not evidence otherwise--it's null.In other words, there is no evidence to support the old edition concept of seperable axis and continuum along each. Which was exactly my point.

Whit

2018-02-12, 10:47 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-12, 10:50 AM

In other words, there is no evidence to support the old edition concept of seperable axis and continuum along each. Which was exactly my point.

That's exactly backwards. Here's a direct quote from PHB 122:

Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

They're directly, explicitly separated here. In the next paragraph it mentions that people vary (indicating that there's more than just a point here--it's a spread or spectrum within each alignment category).

2D8HP

2018-02-12, 10:53 AM

@Tanarii has struggled valiantly to explain how "Alignment" is used in 5e D&D, but I still just don't get it.

To me "Good" and "Evil" are terms used by mortals for what they esteem and what they chastise.

Law are Chaos forces in a cosmic struggle over the shape and nature or reality.

Poul Anderson in his 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), had this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

But it was Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series that adopted Law vs. Chaos and changed it so that "The Balance" (between Law and Chaos), is what is needed for mortals to thrive:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"

With a "Realm of Chaos" being:
"...swirling, constantly changing, multicolored matter with the power to melt and twist anything with which it comes in contact, including living flesh...."

and a "Realm of Law" being:

"...no ordinary desert. It was all that remained of a world destroyed by Law. Barren. No hawks soared in the pale blue sky. Not an insect. Not a reptile. No water. No lichen. No plants of any kind. Just tall spikes of crystallized ash and limestone, crumbling and turned into crazy shapes by the wind, like so many grotesque gravestones...."

The "Auditors of Reality" can be regarded as the agents of Law in Sir Terry Pratchett's Disc World novels, with the "Denizens of the Dungeon Dimensions" being the agents of Chaos (to cite examples that are more familiar to younger readers).

To mangle Kipling:
"What should they who only know of Dungeons & Dragons, of D&D know?"
(I believe the original poem (http://www.telelib.com/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/volumeXI/englishflag.html) was about some tiny place where it rains a lot, which is clearly not as important as D&D!).

If one isn't going to use "Alignment" to model in-game the conflict in the literature that Dungeons & Dragons ripped off were the inspiration of Alignment, what is the utility?

hamishspence

2018-02-12, 10:54 AM

As an example in real life the majority of people are lawful good. The majority follow laws with minor violations. Like speeding or littering or some other minor law violation. And fir the most part people are good to each other not going out of their way to hurt people.
But not so good as giving every homeless person money or stopping to help a stranded stranger motorist.

That's more TN. To qualify as good requires more than "not going out of their way to hurt people" - it requires "going out of their way to help people". It might not be viable to help all the time - but it needs to be enough of the time that it can be called reasonably consistent.

Same with Lawful - it isn't just "following the law most of the time" - it's going beyond "the average person's respect for law and order".

I'd say that in D&D, the most common alignment for humans in most editions (not necessarily common enough to be more than 50%, but still more common than any other) is TN.

Gygax might have felt otherwise - as 2d8HP's Gygax quotes will show - but I feel D&D has moved beyond Gygax - and prefer The Giant's take:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis.

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 11:04 AM

As an example in real life the majority of people are lawful good.

No.

People in real life don't have alignments. Alignments are edition-specific concepts, not real-life things.

Whit

2018-02-12, 11:10 AM

I respect that view and your right. In real life do we as people pay taxes and follow laws because we are really lawful or we follow out of fear of the punishment of not following. If given the choice would we rather save the money and not pay taxes.
As with good also. We are more indifferent neutral not going out of our way to do good or hurt people.
What a sorry state for humankind

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 11:13 AM

That's more TN. To qualify as good requires more than "not going out of their way to hurt people" - it requires "going out of their way to help people". It might not be viable to help all the time - but it needs to be enough of the time that it can be called reasonably consistent.

True in principle, but in this case you two are talking about real life people, who don't have alignment.

I'd say that in D&D, the most common alignment for humans in most editions (not necessarily common enough to be more than 50%, but still more common than any other) is TN.

Not quite correct.

Humanity is "true neutral on average", so to speak, but it's because there is more or less just as many human individuals of each alignment. On the other hand, it's true it's reasonable to assume true neutral is still the biggest group, but it's not a given.

Gygax might have felt otherwise - as 2d8HP's Gygax quotes will show - but I feel D&D has moved beyond Gygax - and prefer The Giant's take:

It's correct D&D's alignments have moved away from the Gygax model, and arguably from the Giant's too.

2D8HP

2018-02-12, 11:15 AM

...I'd say that in D&D, the most common alignment for humans in most editions (not necessarily common enough to be more than 50%, but still more common than any other) is TN.

Gygax might have felt otherwise - as 2d8HP's Gygax quotes will show - but I feel D&D has moved beyond Gygax - and prefer The Giant's take:

Hey! I didn't get around to quoting Gygax in this thread yet (Did I? But I've certainly done so many times in other threads!).

But yeah, here's the quote:

"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"

- Gary Gygax
February 1976

(from the original article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1); in The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf) that added "good" and "evil" to what was previously just a Law-Neutrality-Chaos Alignment system).

You may think of it as like

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari
From: Feet of Clay
by Terry Pratchett

But I defer to hamishspence on what the most common Alignment is for people in most editions of D&D, as I've only played 0e, 1e, B/X and 5e, and I've just glanced at the editions in-between and don't have a deep knowledge of 2e to 4e.

Whit

2018-02-12, 11:19 AM

Anyway. Getting back on target
The site was posted to help or maybe not help players and dms understand core alignments and views which could help in game play. Either by following the core or sway left or right of it. It’s not perfect but it’s informative.
People can take what they like or not from it. But to say it’s not relevant to 5ed alignments is closed minded

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 11:24 AM

@Tanarii has struggled valiantly to explain how "Alignment" is used in 5e D&D, but I still just don't get it.

In 5e, "Alignment" is "this is how this character usually act".

To me "Good" and "Evil" are terms used by mortals for what they esteem and what they chastise.

In the 5e D&D context, you'd be wrong.

Devils know they're evil. They like that. Your typical goblin knows they're evil. They think that sadistically making people pay for their sorry lot in existence is an enjoyable thing. A bandit captain probably know they're evil. They just better for them to attack travelers and do everything they want to them than the alternative at their disposal.

Of course, some will disagree. A depraved knight who feel entitled with enslaving halfling farmers to fatten his coffers might think they're the "good guy", because doing that is "the proper place of those inferior beings". It'd be pretty clear said knight is deluded, though.

If one isn't going to use "Alignment" to model in-game the conflict in the literature that Dungeons & Dragons ripped off were the inspiration of Alignment, what is the utility?

The utility is to describe a character's typical behavior.

When you see a Deva with "lawful good" written on their statblock, you can infer they're not eating babies they kidnapped, for exemple.

Anyway. Getting back on target
The site was posted to help or maybe not help players and dms understand core alignments and views which could help in game play. Either by following the core or sway left or right of it. It’s not perfect but it’s informative.

It's not informative, and it doesn't help accomplish this, because it does not treat of 5e's alignment system or of core alignements for this edition.

It'd be the same if I posted an article on 5e's alignment system on the 3.PF board.

Once again, you even demonstrated that in you OP. You talk about how it has articles on "all 9 alignments", but 5e alignment system has 10 of them.

If I'm not mistaken, D&D started with 3 alignments, second edition through 3.5 had 9, and 4e had 5. Nothing wrong with playing those games using those alignment system, but it's not the 10 alignment system of 5e.

People can take what they like or not from it. But to say it’s not relevant to 5ed alignments is closed minded

It's not close minded. Seriously, come on.

It's only relevant to 5e alignments in the sense that it informs of the history of different alignment systems, but that's it.

If someone posted something here about Pathfinder's Asmodeus, saying "this will help DMs and players understand who Asmodeus is", despite the fact that PF's and 5e's Asmodeus are fundamentally and glaringly different characters, despite sharing the name, would you say it's relevant to 5e?

Whit

2018-02-12, 11:47 AM

Willie the Duck

2018-02-12, 12:08 PM

If one isn't going to use "Alignment" to model in-game the conflict in the literature that Dungeons & Dragons ripped off were the inspiration of Alignment, what is the utility?

Speaking as one grey-hair to another, this makes me cringe. It's entirely too close to 'you yungins are playing this wrong if you don't consider important what I consider to be important,' or that annoying (mostly fictional) person who yells "I read the books!" at people discussing Peter Jackson's LotR or HBO's ASoIaF. D&D is stronger if it can be enjoyed by someone who wouldn't know a Moorcock from an Andersen (from a Gygax, whom an increasing number of gamers couldn't identify as the game's co-creator). As Hamishspence put it, D&D has moved beyond Gygax, and that's good. It means that the enterprise as a whole is resilient.

As to the overall utility (or point), that's been debatable since the beginning. In the beginning (Chainmail), it was side--team Lawful, team Chaos, and the Neutral monsters who could be on either team. Since then it has varied significantly, be it a way to track who the 'good guys' were... to trying to differentiate amongst the 'humanoid' opponents ('well, this hairy, ugly, not-quite-human is CE, while this one is LE')... to conscribing certain powered-up classes (such as paladin and ranger)'s usefulness by requiring them to toe a specific line... to who knows what. The only thing I'd call consistent about the whole affair is that is has been consistently inconsistent, even the writers and designers seem to treat them with lip service when they get in the way (characters in the novels having clearly gone to the Captain Kathryn Janeway school of plot-convenient personality portrayal)... and causing otherwise reasonable individuals to get into wall-shaking debates over entirely artificial conventions. So, IMO, there never really was a single consistent game purpose for the things.

Willie the Duck

2018-02-12, 12:13 PM

Ok. So it doesn’t help you. That’s fine. I’m sure yiu believe no one has tweaked anything from basic to 4ed to whatever to fit in 5ed at anytime. So if you run a feywild adventure no one should use anything at all from 4ed that talks about geography creatures or famous people etc etc because it’s not 5ed

Please don't put words in other people's mouths. Yes, because of pervious behavior in alignment threads, Unoriginal feels decidedly compelled to put up a bunch of disclaimers around this discussion, noting that this material you are referencing is using the alignment system in a way that it was used in previous editions. Given this board, that's hardly unreasonable. If, instead of complaining about him doing so, you did something along the lines of saying, "granted. But I would like to use this material for the purpose of..." or, "Okay, well in my campaign we are house-ruling these in as the preferred interpretation..." or the like, I suspect he'd be more than happy to help with whatever goal you initially had for this thread.

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 12:18 PM

Ok. So it doesn’t help you. That’s fine. I’m sure yiu believe no one has tweaked anything from basic to 4ed to whatever to fit in 5ed at anytime. So if you run a feywild adventure no one should use anything at all from 4ed that talks about geography creatures or famous people etc etc because it’s not 5ed

If someone wanted to run a 4e adventure in 5e, they would need to adapt it to 5e. Which means replacing the rules by the 5e equivalent, and changing what needs to be changed in order to make it fit 5e.

It includes things like ability checks replacing skill challenges, some options like the easy crafting of magic items, and alignments.

If someone wanted to adapt the articles you linked to 5e, they would need to remove everything and start writing a new one, because it's not treating of the 5e system at all.

It's like if someone wrote an article on the 3.X grappling rules, then someone posted this article on the 5e forum and said "this will help you understand 5e's grappling".

Shulk

2018-02-12, 12:18 PM

In my opinion, which is from what i've seen, alignment is up to interpretation, along with the case of "In between" morality alongside "Grey" morality in terms of being A part neutral alignment. It's complicated, and possibly, if not likely, wrong. But It's an opinion. So let's see how well I know how alignments work!

Lawful good: These guys range from extremely great people, who abide to the law, act in a way which benefits everyone, and all the while keep the party intact and stop the chaotic or neutral party members from starting anything stupid, or complete and utter jackasses at the other end, where they get pissed over MINOR law breaking. This can also be seen as "Honorable good" or " Legal good" .

One interpretation, expanded, the honorable good, Is the type who always has a code of honor, in some way, like never fighting an enemy with poisoned weapons, or never killing an enemy in their sleep.

Another is Justice, One who strives for justice for all, no matter status, although this, ironically, can overlap with an aspect of chaotic good. This also branches as well, where someone might give to the poor and help them out of poverty, or , on the other extreme, go nuts over someone stealing a loaf of bread.

It's... Hard to explain really...

NG: They Have some honor, possibly. They generally care that they do good. They might break some laws, or might disregard some regulations, if need be, if it's significantly less effort than abiding to some laws, but usually you won't see neutral good people with too big a criminal record. They might drift sometimes, and disregard laws such as jaywalking, or ignore minor things, or, for the honor example when it comes to lawful and chaotic, might have a different type of honor, with a much less strict code, but they generally don't act too extreme, and are generally swell people, from what i've seen, however, they are susceptible to peer pressure.

Chaotic good: Doing good even if the law says otherwise, Fully willing to break the law to do good, Or even rebel against the norm or the system. They're the type of person who breaks the law SPECIFICALLY to do good, such as stealing to feed someone who can't afford food, or killing a corrupt official because of how corrupt they are. However, they can also end up being edgy or brutal, sometimes ending up at the "Doomguy extreme" for chaotic when it comes to combat. and for the honor example, They don't have much honor when it comes to fighting USUALLY, but they do have standards when it comes to things like killing innocents. Usually. This is my understanding, and a generalization.

So that's the good alignments. Did I get anything wrong?

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 12:26 PM

That's exactly backwards. Here's a direct quote from PHB 122:

They're directly, explicitly separated here. In the next paragraph it mentions that people vary (indicating that there's more than just a point here--it's a spread or spectrum within each alignment category).Okay, I'll concede the point to you on this on it being a combination of two factors. You're clearly right on that part and I'm clearly wrong.

The "people vary" doesn't mean it must be a spread or spectrum within each category though, at least not in terms of traditional "axis" interpretation. Variation from the typical behavior can be in multiple directions, not just towards two ends of each component. For example, you can vary because they are doing things totally unrelated to alignment.

@Tanarii has struggled valiantly to explain how "Alignment" is used in 5e D&D, but I still just don't get it.There's multiple ways to "use" alignments in 5e. See my sig.

I have my preferred way though: as a player RP aid, another motivation just like Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Used by the player when they consider what decisions to make for their character, any time there are moral considerations. As such, it can even come into conflict with other motivations, especially Bond or Flaw. I consider that a bonus!

If one isn't going to use "Alignment" to model in-game the conflict in the literature that Dungeons & Dragons ripped off were the inspiration of Alignment, what is the utility?Certainly that's a fantastic use of it. I wouldn't want to play Planescape or an Outer Planes centered game without it.

(I wouldn't want to play a Planescape game at all unless the table stripped out all the Cant crap, but that's a different thing.)

Edit:

Speaking as one grey-hair to another, this makes me cringe. It's entirely too close to 'you yungins are playing this wrong if you don't consider important what I consider to be important,' or that annoying (mostly fictional) person who yells "I read the books!" at people discussing Peter Jackson's LotR or HBO's ASoIaF. D&D is stronger if it can be enjoyed by someone who wouldn't know a Moorcock from an Andersen (from a Gygax, whom an increasing number of gamers couldn't identify as the game's co-creator). As Hamishspence put it, D&D has moved beyond Gygax, and that's good. It means that the enterprise as a whole is resilient.
Pretty sure 2D8HP has to fight the urge constantly to yell "GET OFF MY LAWN DAMN YUNGINS!". He still fails sometimes. :smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

Whit

2018-02-12, 12:45 PM

So your saying nothing in that article about alignment relates to alignment in 5e

So if you take 5ed alignment in PHB any one, you could not find one thing that can relate to the site
PHB 5ed 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.

Now I’m Going to post the lawful good from the site. I’m not saying everything is helpful I’m saying some of it can be helpful for players and dms. You are saying NOTHING is helpful
Once again I’m saying it can help with the idea of the alignment not to play a strict non bending alignment

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all. Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. The are convinced that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest. (1)

Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. These characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. (2)

These characters have a strong moral character. Truth, honor, and the welfare of others is all-important. They are convinced that order and laws are absolutely necessary to assure that goodness prevails. Lawful good beings will not want to lie or cheat anyone, good or evil. They will not stand for treachery and will not let obviously dishonorable people use their own honor against them, if they can help it. They will obey the laws and customs of the area that they are in, but will attempt to find legal loopholes to disobey a law which is clearly evil or unjust. (3)

Lawful good characters are group and order oriented, and will cooperate with authority in all cases to promote the common weal. Not all lawful good beings view the cosmos with an equal desire for lawfulness and goodness, so there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced "lawful good" attitude (nor a perfectly balanced attitude for any other alignment, for that matter). In general, however, a lawful good character promotes the ideals and rights of the majority over those of the individual (and this includes himself as well as others) and upholds the rights of the weak and oppressed members of society, who should be allowed to reap society's benefits with equanimity. The lawful good being feels this is the best way that all members of society can enjoy the rights of existence together. Life is important to the lawful good being, but life is not exclusive of order, and vice versa. (4)

Lawful good can appear to be a difficult alignment to uphold, but it must be remembered that lawful good characters are not necessarily naive or unrealistic. At the heart of a lawful good alignment is the belief in a system of laws that promotes the welfare of all members of a society, ensures their safety, and guarantees justice. So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the lawful good character whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator. Though all lawful good systems adhere to the same general principles, specific laws may be different. One society may allow a wife to have two husbands, another may enforce strict monogamy. Gambling may be tolerated in one system, forbidden in another. A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens. (5)

However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law. Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the lawful good character to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The lawful good character's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area. (5)

When will a lawful good character take a life? A lawful good being kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he's vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his nation. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime. Otherwise, a lawful good character avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does this character necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills an innocent being. (5)

A lawful good character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A lawful good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and he prefers to work with others. He responds well to higher authority, is trustful of organizations, and will always follow the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend (though he will attempt to bring an immoral or law-breaking friend to justice, in order to rehabilitate that person). Lawful good characters respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor. (6)

Here are some possible adjectives describing lawful good characters: friendly, courteous, sensitive to the feelings of others, scrupulous, honorable, trustworthy, reliable, helpful, loyal, and respectful of "life, love, and the pursuit of happiness."

Well known lawful good characters from film or literature include: Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Mister Spock (Star Trek), Hermione Granger (Harry Potter), and Superman (DC Comics).

Equivalent alignment in other game systems: Principled (Palladium), Road of Heaven (Vampire), Light Side (Star Wars), Law (Warhammer), Virtuous and Ethical (Alternity).

The Ten Lawful Good Commandments

A list of Ten Commandments for a lawful good religion may look like this:

1. You shall not lie.

2. You shall not harm the innocent.

3. You shall not murder.

4. You shall help the needy.

5. You shall honor legitimate authority that promotes goodness.

6. You shall follow the law.

7. You shall not betray others.

8. You shall bring criminals and evil-doers to justice.

9. You shall not steal.

10. You shall seek unlimited good for others and unlimited order in society.

Ten Lawful Good Sins

Likewise, a lawful good religion may list the following as sins. This list is given in the order of least severe infraction to most severe.

1. Failing to show respect to lawful good churches, governments, and/or beings.

2. Failing to speak out against corruption, sin, greed, pride, etc.

3. Being motivated by pride, avarice, gluttony, or some other sinful impulse.

4. Theft, robbery, or willful vandalism.

5. Causing harm to a pious or virtuous being.

6. Failing to assist or aid good beings when in need.

7. Blasphemous or heretical acts.

8. Allowing a crime or major act of evil to go unpunished.

9. The murder of an innocent.

10. Aiding the servants of Chaos and Evil.

The Lawful Good Adventurer

The following two lists detail common actions undertaken during "adventuring" that are considered honorable and dishonorable for the lawful good alignment. An honorable action is one that is in keeping with the spirit of this alignment, while dishonorable actions tend to be those which bring shame to the character in the eyes of his or her alignment peers. Note that an action which is considered honorable by one alignment may be considered dishonorable by another alignment and vice versa.

The following actions are honorable for this alignment:

Allowing a disarmed enemy to pick up his weapon

Allowing the enemy to attack first

Allowing the enemy to remove their dead/wounded from the field

Defeating a superior opponent

Picking up the funeral expenses of someone you slew in combat

Refusing medical treatment for the good of the party

Reporting illegal and immoral actions to the authorities

Saving the life of another at great risk to own self

Taking an arrow or hit for someone else

Taking prisoners

The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:

Accused of crime (innocent or not)

Attacking an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent

Being taken prisoner

Convicted of a crime

Defeated by an inferior opponent

Delivering death blow to a helpless opponent

Desecrating an enemy's corpse

Dirty fighting

Falsely claiming the 'bragging rights' that belong to another or outright lying

Fleeing a battle that's obviously going poorly

Fleeing a fight with a superior opponent

Fleeing a fight with an equal opponent

Gloating over a victory

Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter

Neglecting to properly bury a member of one's own race

Paying off an extortionist or shake-down

Perpetrate humiliating prank on enemy

Rash or improper social behavior

Refusing a fair contest/challenge

Surrendering

Taking a bribe

Taunting an enemy into fighting

Treason

Unjustly slaying a prisoner or unarmed opponent who has yielded

Walking away from a challenge

Lawful Good and Society

A lawful good being...

Respects the authority figures in his family and obeys their mandates.

Values lifelong commitment to a romantic partner.

Obeys all personal contracts.

Respects the laws and authority figures of the community and nation.

Considers public service in a leadership role an honor.

Supports the legal procedures of the nation, without regard to their own discomfort.

Seeks secure employment, believing hard work will pay off in the end.

Will not want to disappoint his family.

Will support their family even if it means personal discomfort.

Will never betray a friend and enjoys having close friends.

Considers the needs of the community in personal life.

Will give his life in defense of his community.

Will take actions to aid others during times of crisis, even if unprofitable to do so.

Believes everyone should be treated fairly and kindly.

Feels guilt when he commits a wrongdoing and will seek to right his wrong.

Uses wealth to help others who are less fortunate.

A community with a lawful good government usually has a codified set of laws, and most people willingly obey those laws. In a lawful good society, the people are generally honest, law-abiding, and helpful. They mean well (at least most of them do). They respect the law. As a rule, people don't walk around wearing armor and carrying weapons. Those who do are viewed with suspicion or as trouble-makers. Some societies tend to dislike adventurers, since they often bring trouble.

Lawful Good and Other Alignments

Lawful Good vs. Lawful Neutral

Conflict between lawful neutral and lawful good characters will center around the nature of laws. Lawful good characters want laws to protect the weak and punish the wicked, while lawful neutral characters are only interested in maintaining or expanding laws to cover every foreseeable problem within society without compassion or moral judgment. Lawful neutral characters will apply laws in a rigid manner, not worrying about whether the spirit of the law is upheld. It is the letter that is important to them. The language of the social compact and the wording of laws are all they are interested in, since that is all that is apparent from written documents. A lawful good character will be just as offended by a lawful neutral character's preference of letter over spirit as they are contemptuous of the neutral good character's insistence that the spirit is more important. The lawful good character will question the utility of laws that do not take into account all circumstances to provide a just and equitable settlement that coincides with their moral beliefs. The lawful neutral character does not consider morality when applying laws, only the effectiveness of the law to keep society stable.

Lawful Good vs. Neutral Good

Since neutral good characters see no inherent worth in laws, other than how well they provide for the common good, they may disagree with lawful good characters on a number of issues. Conflicts between characters of these types will center around the lawful good character always wanting to work within the law to accomplish good, even if breaking the law might result in more good for people. They will not accept the neutral good character's argument that working around the law is sometimes a better way to accomplish the spirit of the law. To lawful good characters, the letter and spirit of good laws should not be violated. They see a legal system as something that should be followed, as long as it is good, even if an illegal, or shady way might accomplish better results. Neutral good characters will be disgusted by their lawful good allies' adherence to laws, when the path is clear for them--break the law. Lawful good characters will contend that if they do not follow the law to accomplish what is right, how are they different from criminals? Their ethical sensibilities will be offended by the way that a neutral good character might do things.

Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil

When operating as leaders within society, this is how characters of these three alignments may behave. The lawful neutral character will advance the aims of society and apply the law impartially to all citizens. He will follow laws and fight to ensure that all citizens follow laws. He will use legitimate means to change to social order if the state would benefit more from the change. He will promote fairness, using the law to reward those who act in accordance with the social order and punish those who act to the detriment of the state. He will tolerate corruption as long as the strength of the state is not jeopardized. The lawful neutral character will enjoy his position and its perks, but will not abuse his authority. The lawful good character will view his position as an opportunity to selflessly serve his fellow citizens. He will work to increase weal throughout society through the apparatus of the state. He will tirelessly fight corruption and work to eliminate social ills such as poverty, uneven wealth distribution, abuse by the state, and other problems. The lawful evil character will use his position of power over others to ruthlessly pursue his own agenda using the apparatus of the state. He will follow laws and encourage all citizens to follow laws by severely punishing criminals. He will increase his own wealth and power at the expense of the population as long as he can use legal means. The lawful evil character views his position as proof of his superiority over the common rabble.

Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good

In situations where goodness must be advanced in society, this is how characters of these different alignments may respond. The lawful good character will promote weal throughout society through increased legislation or a more powerful government. They will work to provide laws and procedures to protect the population against every foreseeable ill in society. They will protect citizens against abuse from unscrupulous individuals. They will advocate and construct power structures and economic systems that provide the most benefit for the population as a whole. Lawful good characters will provide equality of result. The chaotic good character will promote happiness in society by increasing freedom and allowing its citizens to decide the best way to increase prosperity for all. They will promote systems which give maximum freedom and opportunity for citizens to increase their own happiness and the happiness of others. They will ensure that the population is protected against every possible abuse by the governing system. Chaotic good characters will provide equality of opportunity. Neutral good character will build a system that promotes both harmony and freedom. They will attempt to balance opportunity and results. They will use only enough laws and order to protect the freedom of its citizens to promote prosperity and happiness for all. They will guard the population against abuses from within the power structure, but also against abuses from individuals. Neutral good characters will build a flexible social order that allows both public and private action to increase goodness in society.

How Lawful Good Views the Other Alignments

The chart below shows how Lawful Good views itself and the other eight alignments.

Lawful Good

Honorable and Humane Neutral Good

Humane but Unreliable Chaotic Good

Humane but Dishonorable
Lawful Neutral

Honorable but Apathetic True
Neutral

Unreliable and Apathetic Chaotic Neutral

Dishonorable and Apathetic
Lawful Evil

Honorable but Ruthless Neutral Evil

Unreliable and Ruthless Chaotic Evil

Dishonorable and Ruthless
Lawfuls tend to view actions on a scale ranging from honorable to dishonorable. They hold themselves honorable while chaotics are seen as dishonorable in their eyes. Lawfuls view ethical neutrals as unreliable as they are concerned with doing the right thing some of the time whereas other times they seem to disregard society's expectations.

Characters of good alignment wish to advance altruism, compassion, and mercy. They view themselves as humane. At the opposite end of this spectrum is ruthlessness, while moral neutrals are seen as indifferent and apathetic.

The Philosophy of Lawful Good

Lawful good is the philosophy that goodness is best achieved through law and order. It is a philosophy of altruistic collectivism. This philosophy holds that people should behave altruistically and put the needs of the group ahead of individual desires. Lawful good can also be associated with rule utilitarianism and ethical altruism.

Lawful good philosophers generally maintain that there is metaphysical order in the multiverse and thus may support doctrines of hard determinism, predeterminism, fatalism, predestination, and/or necessitarianism. They may believe in fate or destiny. They tend to be moral objectivists, holding that values exist in the external world independently of and external to our comprehension of them; that they can be found and known; and that they must be used as principles for human judgments and conduct.

The ideal government for this alignment is an authoritarian state with codified laws supporting a social order in which altruism is rewarded and radical egoism is punished. Lawful good beings want the power of the state to be used for the benefit of all. Rehabilitative justice is used to reform criminals and evil-doers.

Whit

2018-02-12, 12:56 PM

Willie the Duck

2018-02-12, 01:05 PM

So if no one can find one thing in that article about lawful good that can help a player decide to pick LG and get a concept to help guide LG role play. (Not strict) LG but a general guideline
Or a dm who finds nothing useful for a town city or state alignment useful as a guide line.

That goes for each alignment. To one thing in it that could assist a player or dm to use use. I stand corrected. Last post

You are trying very very hard to take offense.
It has been explained to you why people are putting these disclaimers around this, and yet you are continuing, clearly, to take it as a personal affront.
If you want to do this, we can't and won't stop you.
But this is a self-made problem. People have shown a willingness to work with you on whatever you are trying to accomplish, unless it is passing off a 3e alignment guide as a 5e one.
It is unclear why this is making you so mad.

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 01:10 PM

It's trying way too much to add things to what 5e alignments are.

You want a quote, here's one:

Gnolls remain a threat across all seasons. Happily, our redoubts are too fortified for their tastes, but caravans, foraging expeditions, and patrols must deal with them.

Gnolls take care to move quietly when they are on the hunt for prey. The events that presage their presence are easy to misinterpret as the results of other threats. A scout might go missing, a caravan fail to arrive on time, or a village be left deserted. Several kinds of creatures, such as ores and goblins, can cause such events, but the evidence that gnolls leave of their involvement is unmistakable. Their enemies aren't merely killed, they are dismembered and devoured. The loot that other marauders would scoop up is left where it falls, of no use to a creature that requires only flesh to feed its urges.

If you suspect that gnolls are encroaching on dwarven territory, send reliable spies to human settlements in the region, while pulling back as many of our folk as you can manage. Instruct the spies to pass along updates each day, preferably by messenger bird. Do not tell the spies of your suspicions. Invent a story, such as the search for an outlaw or some other deception. If a spy fails to report, you must strike quickly. Send your fastest warriors and strongest spellcasters to the spy's location.

If the gnolls have struck a settlement, they will rest for up to a week, bloated on their kills. In this state, they are their most vulnerable. Surround the place in silence, and advance as one to catch them in a vise. Let none survive. A single gnoll can, over time, create a new war band.

Some may argue for an approach that doesn't rely on the loss of human life to see it succeed. I would gladly suggest one if such existed. Your best strategy is to defend our halls and let the humans serve as bait. Moradin knows they multiply quickly enough that their losses will soon be recouped.

This text encourages lying, sending loyal agents to their deaths under a false prestence, letting innocent die in order to have a better chance at winning, and fighting dirty to beat an opponent.

It goes directly against much of what the article you posted says.

This text is also a part of a famous manual of battle tactics regularly used by 5e Dwarves. Who are generally lawful good.

2D8HP

2018-02-12, 01:19 PM

...The utility is to describe a character's typical behavior.

When you see a Deva with "lawful good" written on their statblock, you can infer they're not eating babies they kidnapped, for exemple....

But what's it used for with PC's?

...I have my preferred way though: as a player RP aid, another motivation just like Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Used by the player when they consider what decisions to make for their character, any time there are moral considerations. As such, it can even come into conflict with other motivations, especially Bond or Flaw. I consider that a bonus!..

"Ideals", "Bonds", etc., seem to me to be a big (and welcome) change with 5e, and I admit that when I make a 5e PC, I look for the "Ideals", etc., in the Background first, and match the Alignment to what fits them.

Speaking as one grey-hair to another, this makes me cringe. It's entirely too close to...'.

...Pretty sure 2D8HP has to fight the urge constantly to yell "GET OFF MY LAWN DAMN YUNGINS!". He still fails sometimes. :smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

:redface:

'tis a fair cop.

The struggle is constant.

Tanarii

2018-02-12, 01:31 PM

"Ideals", "Bonds", etc., seem to me to be a big (and welcome) change with 5e, and I admit that when I make a 5e PC, I look for the "Ideals", etc., in the Background first, and match the Alignment to what fits them.Oh for sure. Despite the PHB order describing Alignment before Background (and associated Personality traits), when I was playing more than DMing I chose Alignment after the other personality traits.

Whit

2018-02-12, 01:32 PM

Actually I take no offense. I don’t know the creator of the site. I found it interesting to read and to give helpful suggestions for alignments. Not a rule to follow but a giide that you can take from or not

However when someone who reads the article and says 100% of it is not useful for 5ed because it’s antiquated which is fine in their opinion. But go on to say don’t bother checking it because it’s not related to 5ed seems to have a narrow vision and has more offense that it was posted in the first place.

That I have a problem with. Let people decide. They may find something useful in it or not. But to say that nothing in it is useful for anyone is problematic.

I don’t like everything in it but I do find some of it helpful as the 5ed PHB alignments of 1 sentence is non descriptive enough. Once again I’m not saying there is a strict guideline to follow but to read it and use what you like as a guide of sorts.

Posting one thing from all of it doesn’t make your point. I also see discrepancies. But what I’m saying is if ONE thing can be helpful out of all of it. It is worth checking out

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 01:41 PM

Then don't call this thread Alignments and what they mean", and precise that this was written for a different edition, so that people who are not informed don't believe it is a 5e work.

Whit

2018-02-12, 02:03 PM

You are trying very very hard to take offense.
It has been explained to you why people are putting these disclaimers around this, and yet you are continuing, clearly, to take it as a personal affront.
If you want to do this, we can't and won't stop you.
But this is a self-made problem. People have shown a willingness to work with you on whatever you are trying to accomplish, unless it is passing off a 3e alignment guide as a 5e one.
It is unclear why this is making you so mad.

Willie. I’m not taking offense. I understand it’s an older version and it’s fine that people post that it is. It’s fine that people don’t like it because it’s NOT 5ed alignment.
As for willingness to work with me? I’m just saying the site can add insight for people with that alignment. Maybe they find something useful or not.
It’s not passing 3e as 5ed. But there are suggestions that people can take from it to help role play.
What is upsetting is other peo0le view that no one should bother looking at it because it’s 3e. It’s not 3ed rules immtalk8ng about.
It’s a view that can assist your role play or not. Up to the reader
However some think it’s taboo because you have to decide what 5e alignment role play is and not to add any previous edition alignment role play to what 5ed alignment is.
On a personal note I thing previous editions were to binding on alignments and what you could or not do. Yet also 5ed has so little that it’s to broad of a brush that your written alignment actually Encompasses 3 on average. Which 8nguess can also be fine. But if someone wanted to learn more of a specific alignment, it’s agood read that a person could pick what he likes out of it and perhaps increase his role play.

As you see from other posts there is a lot of views but the main two are me suggesting to read it and see if there is something someone may like to add to their alignment role playing
And others who say don’t read it at all because you can’t use older alignment role play. Remember alignment is for role play. Not 5ed rules for combat or similiR.
In fact I bet anyone who played before 5ed plays the same style of alignment that they use to with perhaps minor changes

Whit

2018-02-12, 02:18 PM

Default Re: Alignments and what they mean
Then don't call this thread Alignments and what they mean", and precise that this was written for a different edition, so that people who

My fault on that. I wish your above comment was posted 3 pages ago so I could have changed it then.

Not to be misleading it’s not 5ed alignment it’s 3 or 3.5 alignment but as alignment is role playing your character it can assist you or not on better alignment role play if you want to read it

Tried changing tile. I’ll just post a new one.

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 02:20 PM

It’s not passing 3e as 5ed.

You're posting a link to an article based on 3.X in the 5e forum and saying "this is what Alignments mean", not pointing out the difference in meaning between the different editions.

It seems you tried to change the thread name, which I thank you for, but to do so you need to edit the first post, or edit the title from the forum screen.

Whit

2018-02-12, 02:55 PM

Reposted. Hopefully it clarifies better.

The main point is read it if you want. Take what you like from it perhaps it can help you in Roleplaying an alignment or a dms government if you didn’t get enough from 5ed PHB one sentence per alignment.

The general concepts are similar there is just more in depth on the article. Some good, some bad. It’s up to the reader to decide. Not someone who thinks it’s taboo because it’s not 5ed. It’s not a rule. It’s a subjective roleplay for alignments which at its heart hasn’t changed much

2D8HP

2018-02-12, 03:35 PM

On a personal note I thing previous editions were to binding on alignments and what you could or not do. Yet also 5ed has so little that it’s to broad of a brush that your written alignment actually Encompasses 3 on average.

Holy ethical quagmire Batman! I believe I've just seen the EXTENDED DIGRESSION ON ALIGNMENT IN D&D WITH SPOILER INSIDE SPOILERS SIGNAL!

:smile:

or:

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror at not being able to read a big ol' post on how D&D's Alignment system came to be and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened".

Whichever, 'cause here's:

So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

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..."

A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, 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 in the Elric and Corum novels, 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.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea

CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

Invisible Library [/I] series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.].

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

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)

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.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"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"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg

So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"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....

....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."

So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons [b]which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png
So...

ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."

1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!

:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

Because my 2e to 4e books are on a higher shelf than my 0e/1e/5e books, I'll just give you this link (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0) for info on those editions Alignment systems.

For 5e I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

JackPhoenix

2018-02-12, 07:14 PM

Unoriginal

2018-02-12, 07:25 PM

I've read NE article on the site, just because I'm about to play NE character in a game. Not only does the article contradicts itself (In one paragraph, it says NE characters are concerned with themselves and their advancement, in the other, "evil is their goal" and they are on some "quest for pure evil in the universe), the "code" and weaknesses advocate playing stupid evil, as do "honorable and dishonorable actions", which also contradict 5e description of alignment. Somehow, being accused of crime is honorable? What?

NE society: A neutral evil being...

Values his family, but will not heed their requests necessarily.

Will provide for friends, and expects to be repaid in some manner.

Will betray family members for personal gain.

Will betray friends if profitable.

It's bad. Not bad as in "evil", but bad as in "stupid".

We've been saying it's 3.X alignments system since page 1, so...

You know, the system that considered there needed to be special good-aligned substances that acted like poisons because apparently, poisons themselves were too evil for good characters. Or that consider that re-writing someone's personality and soul thanks to magical imprisonment to be a good act.

Malifice

2018-02-13, 12:45 AM

If someone wanted to run a 4e adventure in 5e, they would need to adapt it to 5e. Which means replacing the rules by the 5e equivalent, and changing what needs to be changed in order to make it fit 5e.

It includes things like ability checks replacing skill challenges, some options like the easy crafting of magic items, and alignments.

If someone wanted to adapt the articles you linked to 5e, they would need to remove everything and start writing a new one, because it's not treating of the 5e system at all.

It's like if someone wrote an article on the 3.X grappling rules, then someone posted this article on the 5e forum and said "this will help you understand 5e's grappling".

Define good. Then define evil. From a game perspective.

Or do those words have no meaning when used in the game? The authors choose to explain to us that there are good people and evil people. Or to call people who 'act with arbitrary violence spurred by hatred/ greed' as Chaotic evil.

Why did they choose to define somehone who acts this way, as being evil? Why that word?

Willie the Duck

2018-02-13, 08:15 AM

hamishspence

2018-02-13, 08:19 AM

Heroic/Villainous would have probably netted them fewer headaches.

As previous editions pointed out - it's possible to be evil and do heroic things (which is what makes a Hero) at the same time.

Champions of Valor: "Most valorous heroes are Good, some are Neutral, and a rare few are Evil but recognise that some evils must be battled."

Willie the Duck

2018-02-13, 08:51 AM

As previous editions pointed out - it's possible to be evil and do heroic things (which is what makes a Hero) at the same time.

Good, then we're actually changing what information we are trying to capture, instead of simply using more palatable synonyms. Next, we should figure out which information better serves the game. Which is a more pertinent (to the game) question--whether individual entity in the game is good or evil, or whether they are the heroes or the villains?

It seems to me that the attempt to capture good and evil does nothing but net us these contentious threads with little actual value to actual gaming. Knowing if you are playing Westley or Prince Humperdinck, that is useful to the game.

No little two-digit counter on the character sheet will split out whether your character is Luke or Han or Lando, nor if you are playing a heroic Loki-teamed-up-with-Thor character whether "Loki's" heroics absolve him in any way of his evil intent. That's going to require a full write-up (and perhaps several pages of literary analysis). For that reason, I feel that, if you are going to bother with a little two-letter alphanumeric code for character 'simplistic ethics/team-indicator,' then heroism level is a better choice than law-chaos+good-evil.

Tanarii

2018-02-13, 10:31 AM

From a game perspective, it is mostly a descriptor. This edition does not have all that many mechanical effects which (for example) affect a good person one way and an evil person another. It does appear to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, although that's really in the player's hands (do they play their character 'good' because that's what they wrote in the alignment field, or is it the other way around?).Lacking mechanical effects does not automatically make something a descriptor, nor does it necessarily make it not a rule. Alignment is potentially a roleplaying rule. Although that depends on how the DM and player want to use it, of course.

Of course, there's also the fact that 5e Alignment does have mechanical effects.

As to why, probably familiarity? That, plus the designers didn't necessarily foresee how much of a pitfight this subsystem would turn into amongst the fan community, and now as a sacred cow they feel they can't revise the words chosen. Heroic/Villainous would have probably netted them fewer headaches.Comments from Mearls indicate he was fully aware what a snake pit Alignment is. And since as a sacred cow they couldn't leave it out, they intentionally tried to make it less harmful and more useful. But also that as far as he's concerned you can just leave it out.

Willie the Duck

2018-02-13, 11:43 AM

Comments from Mearls indicate he was fully aware what a snake pit Alignment is. And since as a sacred cow they couldn't leave it out, they intentionally tried to make it less harmful and more useful. But also that as far as he's concerned you can just leave it out.

Yes, you are right, of course. In this instance, I think the designers did the right thing, and we are simply an unpleasable fan base. By the time 5e came to be designed, there really was no page of text that would satisfy those who would demand that alignment stay in the game, that also would not lend itself to one criticism or another.

Tanarii

2018-02-13, 12:00 PM

Yes, you are right, of course. In this instance, I think the designers did the right thing, and we are simply an unpleasable fan base. By the time 5e came to be designed, there really was no page of text that would satisfy those who would demand that alignment stay in the game, that also would not lend itself to one criticism or another.
And of course in its current incarnation, which I view as the absolute most useful alignment version so far in conjunction with personality traits, there are those who will criticize it as "meaningless" because it has so few mechanical resolution rules tied to it. :smallamused:

white lancer

2018-02-13, 01:39 PM

And of course in its current incarnation, which I view as the absolute most useful alignment version so far in conjunction with personality traits, there are those who will criticize it as "meaningless" because it has so few mechanical resolution rules tied to it. :smallamused:

I think both that 5e has a better alignment system than 3.5 and that its alignment system is essentially "meaningless." In all the 5e sessions I've played/seen, I don't think there's anything that would have been different had the players just left their alignment section blank. You simply don't need to use alignment in 5e like you did in 3.5, so while I continue to put alignments down on my character sheets, it doesn't feel necessary. That's why seeing a big debate about whether an alignment system applies to 5e is strange to me, since in my experience 5e basically doesn't have one (certainly not in the same sense that 3/3.5 did).

I find this incredibly refreshing, no more so than when I've gone back to 3.5 and realized I couldn't play, say, a Lawful Bard or a non-Lawful Monk or other unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions. It gives a lot more freedom in character creation, particularly since it allows me to craft a personality and worldview for my character and use that to figure out where my character sits alignment-wise, rather than forcing my character to conform to a specific alignment just to make it fit the mechanical requirements.

JackPhoenix

2018-02-13, 05:31 PM

Alignment isn't just about character's actions, but also (and I think more importantly) about motivations behind those actions. Even if 9 characters of different alignments do the same thing, the reason may be different for each other.

And NE can easily outwardly look "better" than, say, CG character, while keeping to his alignment, if "What I can get away with" is "Not much". He doesn't do heroic deeds out of compassion, or because he's got a conscience, or because it is the law, or whatever, but because being seen as a hero is beneficial for him.