Deadpool, the Bible Planet of the Apes and Alignment

[Aaedimus]

:edit: religous points removed to ensure form rules adherence-

Starting a campaign with a character who I would say is motivated by selflessness and a will to do good, but will do terrible things to do good. Having issues with his alignment.

I was watching Deadpool 2 recently and thought to myself... how would I align Cable? Deadpool? Abraham and God from the Old Testiment?

The goal is to finish with a definitive allignment for this list of characters and actions. I've added my opinions below for you to critique. I argue that none of the characters or actions below are necessarily "evil", though some may be misguided. Feel free to focus on just one or two. It's quite a list.

- A.I. (from A.I) - Lawful Neutral

- Thanos- Chaotic Neutral

- Deadpool - Chaotic Good

- Killmonger - Chaotic Neutral

- Cable - Neutral Good

- Colonel (War for Planet of the Apes) - Chaotic Neutral

- Dr. Manhattan - True Neutral

- Magneto - Chaotic Neutral

- Judge Dredd - Lawful Neutral

- Wolverine - Chaotic Good

- Looper - Chaotic Good

- Kills wife to save thousands - Chaotic Neutral

- Robs bank to pay for daughter's cancer treatment- Chaotic Good

-Tortures a man to find location of atomic bomb and save millions - Neutral Good

- Sells soul to save mother's life - Chaotic Good

- kills and absorbs power from heroes to save the planet from destruction because they see no other way - Chaotic Neutral

- kills 1/2 of the universe to save everyone else - Chaotic Neutral

- runs criminal organization to feed/protect community - Chaotic Good

- sells drugs to feed family - Chaotic Good

Ready: debate!

[fbelanger]

Tanos and the guys ready to kill every one to have a fresh start:
Lawful evil.

[Aaedimus]

Their motivation though is not an evil motivation. I would argue that doing things that seem "evil" when motivated altruistically would qualify them as non-evil characters.

Also, in the case of his own planet, he was right. They weren't willing to follow his plan, and everyone died. So he has legitimate backing for his opinions

[CantigThimble]

Really, this depends on your ethical presuppositions. There are two main camps:

Utilitarian: Results are what matters. Any action that optimally improves the well being of people is ethically good. Any action that decreases the well being of people is ethically evil.

E.g. Torturing an innocent child to save a city of 10,000 from death is morally good. (assuming some arbitrary scenario where somehow those are your only options and you know the possible outcomes for certain)

Deontological: Action and intention are what matters. Some actions are, on principle, ethically evil, regardless of circumstance. (killing and lying are the classic examples, torture ends up here too) To put it in utilitarian terms: you cannot fight fire with fire. The optimal way to reduce evil in the world is to have as few people commit evil actions as possible. Never allowing an individual to corrupt themselves by committing evil actions is the optimal way to increase well being in the long-term, regardless of the seeming importance of the particular short term goals.

E.g. A good individual corrupting themselves by torturing a child is worse than any number of people dying at the hands of others. The price is on the souls of the evildoers. The good individual is blameless for the tragedy.

These are two extremes, most people rest somewhere inbetween these. There are some things they just won't do because those actions are wrong, but there are a lot of things they will compromise on if the benefits are good enough or the penalties are harsh enough.


A second axis of analysis is justice and forgiveness. Is justice always good or do we need to give up our grudges and forgive people sometimes? Is forgiveness always good, or are some things unforgivable? This may sound like law vs chaos, but I think it falls squarely on the good/evil problem.


In addition to this, in a world with gods you also need to consider Euthyphro. (a Socratic dialogue) The argument boils down to: Are the gods good because what they will follows an external standard of good, or are things good because the gods will them and by doing so make the things good?

If the goddess of mercy tells you to torture someone should you turn against her, on the basis that she is failing to live up to a standard of good that is greater than her, or is torture a good action in this case because she has commanded it? Even in real-world religions (which shall not be gone into on this forum) this is a point with a great deal of depth.


Where you fall on these three axes will determine which people you see as good and evil. Personally, I lean heavily towards deontology, walk the line on justice/forgiveness and lean towards good as an absolute standard which gods embody. (Which is to say, if a good god did an evil action, then that action would be evil. But they never would, because they embody good, so the point is moot.)

Edit: And to put my beliefs in the terms of the OP: (Using the generic examples because I don't watch many superhero movies)

Kills wife to save thousands - Chaotic Evil - Intentionally killing an innocent is evil and you are breaking oaths in the process. If you find a solution to a problem, but that solution is evil, then you look for another solution.

- Robs bank to pay for daughter's cancer treatment- Chaotic Neutral - You are placing the well being of your daughter above the well being of everyone else. Who now can't afford to save their daughter's life as a result of your actions?

-Tortures a man to find location of atomic bomb and save millions - Neutral at best.

- Sells soul to save mother's life - Chaotic Neutral. I consider self-sacrifice to be justifiable in very, very few cases. In addition, this should be the mother's decision, not the child's. A parent dying to save their child is one of those few cases I mentioned where self-sacrifice is justifiable. The reverse is not true.

- kills and absorbs power from heroes to save the planet from destruction because they see no other way - Chaotic Evil - If you see no other way, the keep looking. You are not omniscient and acting like you are is an act of overwhelming arrogance, which in this case leads to evil.

- Kills everyone on the planet but a few to cleanse evil from the earth and grant new start - Evil - See above. Wanting a utopia and believing that you will be able to usher it in doesn't make you good, it makes you a fool.

- kills 1/2 of the universe to save everyone else - Evil

- runs criminal organization to feed/protect community - Depends what your organization is doing and what the government is like. Robin Hood and the mafia are different on many levels.

- sells drugs to feed family - Neutral/evil. Depends on the drugs. Pushing highly addictive, life destroying drugs on people is evil. Even if the drugs aren't that bad, doing it to feed your family doesn't make the action good. Protecting your own at the expense of other innocents is neutral.

[Malifice]

- Thanos- Chaotic Neutral

Bahahahahaha!

Hes a monster who routinely employs torture, murder and genocide. On his own family, and on a muti-galactic scale.

He is very clearly LE.


- Deadpool - Chaotic Good

What? He is clearly CN (at best). In the comics he is often depicted as CE.


Cable - Neutral Good

Wrong again. In the movies he's LN (at best). He travels back in time to murder a child, killing and severely maiming a ton of Cops and prison guards in the process.


- Colonel (War for Planet of the Apes) - Chaotic Neutral

He murders his own son, and is engaged in a war of genocide. He routinely employs torture, slave labor, forced imprisonment and so forth.

He's NE. He's big on authority and rules when it suits him, but equally happy to ignore them when it doesnt.


- Magneto - Chaotic Neutral

What?

He's very clearly LE. Hes genocidal, tyrannical and murderous.

You know what, I am sick of these stupid alignment threads. Always people prepared to justify acts of aborrent evil as 'good' or morally 'neutral' (in your case up to and including actual genocide) because the actor may have had some kind of (often tenuous) self righteous justification for the act.

Im done.

[Sigreid]

There is a a very old saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Most of the evil that mankind does is "for the greater good".

[the_brazenburn]

First, don't bring religion into this. Seriously, that's a critical forum offense.

Secondly, killing your wife to save you money is obviously evil. You cannot dispute that point.

Deadpool is the epitome of CN, I'd lean toward N/NE for Thanos.

Honestly, there are evil things in the world. Refusing to put "evil" on an alignment list is going to be critically incorrect.

Maybe you're trolling. I don't really know about that, but I do know that your list has some serious deficiencies.

[Sigreid]

With deadpool I will point out that he is perfectly aware, and has been since before he got his powers, that he's a terrible person. At least in the movies, my only reference point.

[CantigThimble]

Secondly, killing your wife to save you money is obviously evil. You cannot dispute that point.

I think it was supposed to be thousands of people, not thousands of dollars.

[Sigreid]

There's a reason The Prince advises that a prince must appear moral, but cannot actually afford to be moral. The theory is that leadership sometimes requires you to be horrible to protect your people.

[Aaedimus]

@CantigThimble: I very much like your post. I myself tend to lean towards a Rule Utilitarian mindset, with the belief that The concept (like many others) has merits, however one of the problems with it is the difficulty in predicting the consequences of an action, and another is the scale (both in terms of the communal and temporal scales) to which an action might be judged. Because of these difficulties it can be more practical to adopt a "Deontological" or " Contractualism" bases mindset or social structure, however that does not detract from the fact that the Utilitarian concept when pulled to different scales could offer a better outcome and/or be more likely to avoid catastrophe. So, possibly, we should live with your morality structure and build up but not enforce a utilitarian one until we are competent enough to ensure its success.

A point I believe that is relevant to the conversation than is that the "good or evil" of the person may not specifically mirror the morality of their actions.

:Removed to adhere to forum rules:

@Malifice: haha that's what I'm looking for! Although you gave actual evidence for only a few, your points had merit, and that's a place where we can start from! These three will be easy jump off points.

Thanos: you stated he was LE,
Evil: however (spoiler) in the movie, he cried when he killed his "daughter" and felt that everything he was doing was for the greater good. Here we have to look at his heart in the context of his actions. He did not kill uselessly, and in fact left many alive. Even his family thought he was a sadist, however it seems through the movie that rather than enjoying the pain he brought to people he was neutral to it, and in some cases showed regret. He believed he was doing good.

Lawful: Did he promote order and law in any way? At best I believe he might have been neutral towards it. In the case of his planet, he followed but hated the laws, and that of his daughter he did not install law once he left, but left them to fend for themselves.

Colonel: he saw murdering his own son as a sacrifice, and was surprised at the intelligence once confronted by Cesar. In the end, he was right as well! Everything he warned against, happened. (Humans losing their humanity and becoming cattle for the Apes). He saw no other way. He is a tribalism, putting the good of humanity above the good of the Apes, but from his perspective that is an arguable point.

Deadpool: We all agree he's chaotic. That's his thing. But is he good, neutral, or evil? I would say neutral has a strong argument due to his disregard for life, however proclivity for self sacrifice, protecting innocents, and care for their well being clearly brings him out of the evil camp. I would say that in the movies he wants to be neutral (possibly evil) but can't quite get there, because in the end he does care. Which could very easily bring him back towards Good.

[CantigThimble]

Removed to adhere to forum rules.

First off: Warning: Discussing real world religion is against forum rules. Thin ice.

Second, a large part of my morality is based on the fact that I'm not omniscient. I don't know for sure what the outcomes of my actions will be and I must act according to that. My firm belief in my own ignorance of what the future holds is a significant part of the reason why I favor deontology over utilitarianism. Effectively, I'm a utilitarian who thinks that deontology is the most effective way to accomplish the most good since I can't be certain of the outcomes of my actions.

That consideration comes into play in the example you gave.

In addition, I lean more towards forgiveness and second chances then that story does. For better or worse.

[Aaedimus]

@brazenburn I don't understand. D&D specifically references most all religions, from Christanity to dead ones like the worship of Greek gods. How can we talk about morality without including the subject that many people's morality is based upon?

Oh. I did not realize that was a Rule I will remove the references.

:edit: I have removed religous references in all of my own posts.

So, my reason for exploring this concept is my DM wants me to be specific about a character alignment. I have a character who sold his soul to a Demon to save his mother's life, (although she came back undead and feral so he failed) and hates to see innocents treated unfairly, or to see them hurt, living not just people, but creatures of all kinds (even the misunderstood beasts of the underdark etc.)

To defeat evil though, he sometimes overreacts based on his emotions, and the memories that haunt him.
I want to say he's chaotic good, but can I? He is willing to do bad things in the name of good, but he doesn't feel neutral to those acts (like thanos?) Hating himself for every one.

[CantigThimble]

@brazenburn I don't understand. D&D specifically references most all religions, from Christanity to dead ones like the worship of Greek gods. How can we talk about morality without including the subject that many people's morality is based upon?

Oh. I did not realize that was a Rule I will remove the references

I do think the rule is kind of silly in some ways and really stifles some good discussion on here but I can understand why it exists. Anyway, if you want to discuss stuff like that in PMs feel free to message me.

[hamishspence]

To defeat evil though, he sometimes overreacts based on his emotions, and the memories that haunt him.
I want to say he's chaotic good, but can I? He is willing to do bad things in the name of good, but he doesn't feel neutral to those acts (like thanos?) Hating himself for every one.

That's fairly compatible with CN, and with some versions of Evil (where its the sum of the character's deeds that matter most, not how they feel about them.)

Some evil characters feel remorseful and uncomfortable each time they do an evil act. But their own pain, doesn't stop them from doing it.

[Unoriginal]

I honestly hope this is trolling, because the idea of someone genuinely defending those points is just sad.

But since I don't want to pull out my hair in frustration, let's focus on one of said points.


Thanos. Even if for some reason you consider the annihilation of half the life in the universe to be a good thing, even if you want to forgive him torturing and brainwashing children he claims to love, and even if you think that "good intentions" excuse everything, here's something to demonstrate how Thanos is evil as Hell, both by D&D standards and by real life ones (which you seem to consider equivalent for some reasons):

When Thanos wanted his Infinity Gauntlet, he took the Dwarves hostages and ordered them to craft it.

They did so, with no trickery nor rebellion, and succeeded magnificantly.

His response was to take the Gauntlet, and murder every single of them except one, who was brutally mutilated and left to despair in the place of the slaughter.

And he did this for no reason.

If he wanted to protect his power, he could have simply destroyed the forge entirely and left the Dwarves elsewhere. He did not.

And that's not a point you can excuse. Though I'm sure you will try.

[Sigreid]

@brazenburn I don't understand. D&D specifically references most all religions, from Christanity to dead ones like the worship of Greek gods. How can we talk about morality without including the subject that many people's morality is based upon?

Oh. I did not realize that was a Rule I will remove the references.

:edit: I have removed religous references in all of my own posts.

So, my reason for exploring this concept is my DM wants me to be specific about a character alignment. I have a character who sold his soul to a Demon to save his mother's life, (although she came back undead and feral so he failed) and hates to see innocents treated unfairly, or to see them hurt, living not just people, but creatures of all kinds (even the misunderstood beasts of the underdark etc.)

To defeat evil though, he sometimes overreacts based on his emotions, and the memories that haunt him.
I want to say he's chaotic good, but can I? He is willing to do bad things in the name of good, but he doesn't feel neutral to those acts (like thanos?) Hating himself for every one.

I could buy this as flawed CG so long as he's not looking to do the bad things and does them when he doesn't see an immediate choice.

[Aaedimus]

@Unoriginal

Re: (I honestly hope this is trolling....
But since I don't want to pull out my hair in frustration, let's focus on one of said points.

"Thanos. Even if for some reason you consider the annihilation of half the life in the universe to be a good thing, even if you want to forgive him torturing and brainwashing children he claims to love, and even if you think that "good intentions" excuse everything"...
"His response was to take the Gauntlet, and murder every single of them except one, who was brutally mutilated and left to despair in the place of the slaughter." )

I'm not trolling at all, and hope we can have a pleasant discussion. I am however simply trying to explore wether separating personal morality from external morality might be reasonable when defining a character's alignment. The campaign I'm starting currently is Curse of Strahd, and I think that that might be a fun setting to explore those gray areas of morality.

You made a few good points.

Using Thanos though, I think was a great example. I'm not even excusing many of his acts, rather I'm saying that A man doesn't have to "be evil" to "do evil".

Thanos is a textbook ideologue.

You said he "claims" to love his children, but the movie proves that he does love at least one of them but is willing to suffer her loss for the soul stone.

This means (I feel that I don't have to outline the logic for brevity): as he was raising her he did not believe he was brainwashing her.
Its shown time and time again that he truly believes in what he's doing.

The example you used of the Dwarves is the one that I believe has the most merit of any other time we saw him. Not because he killed them, but because he left one alive.

Was he being sadistic here? It's possible. If he was, that would be a strong argument towards the evil alignment. I won't try to argue against it, past saying it isn't inconceivable to imagine non-sadistic reasons for his actions.

[PeteNutButter]

I think a lot of these problems on alignment come from a disagreement is what is actually evil.

Evil in some people's opinions is pure malice for no reason. That is the extreme. In real humanity, this level of evil is exceedingly rare. It does exist as the writings of some serial killers and whatnot can give us insight into this: "I am sorry that I am unable to murder the whole damed human race." -Carl Panzram

I'd say you could call that CE.

Now the rest of real evil in humanity is almost always without fail people who think they are doing the greater good. Even Hitler (yes the Hitler example) thought he was doing the greater good.

It is my personal opinion that the original alignment system and by extension the 5e alignment system was based on this idea. The LG paladin in OD&D would not say the "end justifies the means," nor do I think any good character should then or now.

Kill a child to save 10,000? IMO the good character says, "there has to be another way." That is even if there isn't, he'll look for it. It is my opinion that utilitarian outlooks are generally LN. While a CG will break laws and customs they would do everything they can to avoid harming the innocent.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not trolling at all, and hope we can have a pleasant discussion.

Sorry to say, but there can be no pleasant discussions when one side is defending a genocider and the other is not.



Its shown time and time again that he truly believes in what he's doing.

An home abuser can believe they love their family even if they beat their spouse daily. It doesn't change they're beating their spouse daily.

Believing in yourself is no excuse



The example you used of the Dwarves is the one that I believe has the most merit of any other time we saw him. Not because he killed them, but because he left one alive.

So you think genociding them entirely after they complied to his demands would not have been a sign of how much of a monster he is? You consider it's a "maybe" that he's a bad person because he left one alive?


Anyway. If you want an answer to what your character's alignment is, just check the alignment section in the PHB and see which of the alignment description fits them best.

Those descriptions are what describe alignments. Not real-world concerns or other works of fiction.

Thanos is of no alignment because he's not a D&D character.

He's evil because he's an horrible, horrible person who believes killing people at random will fix problems and who never shies from killing people with intent (and doing way worse).

That he is a complex person doesn't change he's an horrible, horrible one.

[strangebloke]

Your alignment system is bad and you should feel bad.




Starting a campaign with a character who I would say is motivated by selflessness and a will to do good, but will do terrible things to do good. Having issues with his alignment.

Alignment is training wheels for character motivation. If you know what motivates your character, you've already decided on something more important than alignment.

Furthermore, alignment is really only useful so long as it is predictive of your character's actions. If a DM says, "Build only good-aligned characters for this game" and your 'good-aligned' rogue murders everyone he meets, your DM would be justifiably pissed.

In this case, I'd put your character squarely at Lawful Neutral. He might do good acts, he might do evil acts, depending purely on what he calculates as the longterm 'good' action. He acts selflessly in pursuit of his ideal of 'good.' That ideal is an abstract concept. Acting selflessly towards abstract concepts is lawful, not good.

A LG character should feel strong conflict when his ideals tell him that he must do something evil. A LG character might pull the lever in the trolley problem, but if it's something he does without emotion, he's probably no longer LG.



- Thanos- Chaotic Neutral

You're wrong.

He is literally an insane omnicidal maniac who relishes torture, dominating others physically, and is so emotionally cold that his own daughter believes him completely incapable of love. He claims to be saving life, but it's totally transparent that he doesn't care about the people he's killing or the people he's saving. It is also clear that he loves doing what he does.


- Deadpool - Chaotic Good
CN to CE, depending on how he feels in a given day.

He murders, enjoys murdering, has killed innocents for cash, and is pathologically insensitive to the pain of others. Yes, he generally tries to help others despite his own lack of sanity, but that doesn't just wipe everything else away.


- Killmonger - Chaotic Neutral
I would not consider a racist terrorist who relishes murder and genocide to be a 'neutral' person.


- Cable - Neutral Good
Depends heavily on adaptation, but he's pretty squarely Lawful Neutral. His mission is much more important to him than individual people.



- Wolverine - Chaotic Good
First


- Dr. Manhattan - True Neutral



- Magneto - Chaotic Neutral



- Looper - Chaotic Good
-Old Joe is Lawful Neutral. He prioritizes his wife over everyone else. Young Joe is Lawful Neutral, being honorable but mostly self-interested.



- Kills wife to save thousands - Chaotic Neutral
- Robs bank to pay for daughter's cancer treatment- Chaotic Good

-Tortures a man to find location of atomic bomb and save millions - Neutral Good

- Sells soul to save mother's life - Chaotic Good

- kills and absorbs power from heroes to save the planet from destruction because they see no other way - Chaotic Neutral

- kills 1/2 of the universe to save everyone else - Chaotic Neutral

- runs criminal organization to feed/protect community - Chaotic Good

- sells drugs to feed family - Chaotic Good

Ready: debate!

*the ends justify the means* is a neutral to an evil position, depending on if the means are actually justified. That's my opinion.

But you're a troll, so why am I even bothering?

[Theodoxus]

What would you rate this alignment:

Party gets taken in by a kind-ish cloud giant who offers to transport said party across Faerun - saving the party about a week in travel time and expense.

Cloud giant states emphatically that party is not to enter the upper floors of his floating castle.

Cloud giant doesn't raise a finger to help party defeat air cultists or dwarves of the Lord's Alliance come to bring retribution against the giants en masse.

Cloud giant succumbs to the effect of Contact Other Plane, becoming catatonic.

Party decides to explore the rest of the abode, eventually discovering the giant's magically locked chest (which was opened by shoving it into a bag of holding and NOT rolling a catastrophic event). Sorcerer also finds the giant's Staff of the Magi.

Now, at this point, I should mention my character is neutral good, but does have a flaw of "Doesn't fight fair, will just as soon kill you in your sleep as fight you mano y mano."

We decide to kill the giant in its catatonic state - first and foremost, because we didn't know the chest was magical (didn't have detect magic); just that it wouldn't open. Which is why I put it in my BoH - to try to open later.

Once we realized there was no hiding our tracks - since the giant would know the chest had been tampered with - and the sorcerer was literally drooling over the staff - killing it was the only option available that wouldn't be an instant TPK by said giant when it eventually woke up.

Now, I certainly didn't go into the scenario expecting to slaughter a giant. But, all we had was his word that he hadn't participated in some very obvious cloud giant shenanigans in a town we were traveling from. And it was in our best chances at survival to kill him.

Would you say our alignment would fall to full evil, or just drift towards the evil spectrum. Self preservation is a very neutral thing - though killing an unarmed and unconscious being is evil... I'm a little conflicted.

Consensus around the table was I should drop to CN. I pushed back saying it wasn't a chaotic act at all, it was very calculated to preserve my hide... (and thus shift to TN).

What do y'all think?

[hamishspence]

Yeah, that's theft, followed by murder. Evil.

Up to the DM how much to shift alignment if at all.

[CantigThimble]

Regardless of whether you tampered with the chest, as long as you didn't steal anything and you were either gone once he woke up or explained that you opened the chest but didn't take anything then he very likely would not have killed you. Your options were hardly 'kill friendly NPC in his sleep or else TPK'. You can't reasonably spin that as self defense.

Stealing from someone and then murdering them to cover your tracks is at BEST neutral. Doing that after they've done you a favor and are helpless is straight up evil.

If this is the way your character approaches his problems then he is at most neutral. If he would act this way in the future then he is evil.

[Theodoxus]

It was definitely a singular event, as far as he is concerned. It was all for that damn sorcerer... I didn't get anything out of it... though later, when we were attacked by a marauding band of orcs and fire giants, that staff saved our hide...

I'll work on redeeming my goodness. Definitely tempered with healthy self-preservation, but I don't want to be infamous for being a scorpion.

[Unoriginal]

A giant went against his species deep-seated prejudices against humanoids to give you a lift (although he expected you to do the work of protecting during the journey, apparently), told you to not do one thing, and your group robbed him while he was catatonic and then killed him to avoid retribution.

Well, consider yourself lucky D&D has no deity who punishes you for breaking hospitality.

Don't expect your group to be invited to any feasts or to anyone's home if the story spreads, though.

[Malifice]

He believed he was doing good.

Irrelevant what he believed. Hitler thought he was doing good. The freaking Son of Sam probably had a justification for his actions and though he was good.

Who cares why he was murdering, torturing, and committing full blown galactic genocide? Who cares that 'he was crying as he murdered his own daughter'?

He's evil. If you watched that movie and came away thinking he was anything else, you're wrong.

If alignment is simply down to subjective self belief (as opposed to objective standards) then this argument is moot, because everyone is whatever alignment they say they are.

I wont be responding to this thread again. Bye.

[Xihirli]

Morality is objective in D&D, which is why we have alignments. What someone feels inside is largely irrelevant outside of how those feelings inform their actions.

[Malifice]

Morality is objective in D&D, which is why we have alignments. What someone feels inside is largely irrelevant outside of how those feelings inform their actions.''

'But when you torture and murder your own daughters, and make them fight each other, replacing bits of them with cyberware each time they fail turning them into dehumanised evil murder-machines, and repeatedly commit genocide of civilian populations on first a global and then on a galactic scale... it's morally good as long as you cry about it, or are doing it 'for the greater good'.

Subjective reasoning doesn't matter. Your motives don't matter. If you murder and torture your own daughter, or engage in genocide, you're an evil bastard.

Only on a DnD forum is this ever a contentious issue. It saddens me each time, but I guess we wouldn't have genocide or murder or terrorism or whatever if people didn't think this way. Justify your own actions to yourself (it's the world that is evil and I am the righteous man, or its for the greater good, or they deserved it etc) and then bam presto, murder, torture, genocide and worse are green lit.

Torture and murder your own daughter, or engage in genocide, and then argue to a war crimes tribunal, or a court of law that 'you're not evil'.

If that sounds as absurd to other people as it does to me, then the argument ends there. He's (clearly and unambiguously) evil.

[strangebloke]

Morality is objective in D&D, which is why we have alignments. What someone feels inside is largely irrelevant outside of how those feelings inform their actions.

This is not a useful definition of morality. Anyone can be a saint in their own head.

"In my mind, I believe myself to be a perfect, divine being, and the best thing for these ants who populate the universe is to bow before me or perish."

[Malifice]

This is not a useful definition of morality. Anyone can be a saint in their own head.

"In my mind, I believe myself to be a perfect, divine being, and the best thing for these ants who populate the universe is to bow before me or perish."

Exactly.

Alignment in DnD is either subjective (and mass murdering genocidal rapist monsters go to heaven, simply because they genuinely think they are good people) or it's objective (and they instead go to Hell, regardless of how they view themselves).

I have zero problem with DMing or playing a genocidal or murderous monster who genuinely and sincerely is doing his evil for 'the greater good' or towards 'a noble end' or for a 'good cause'.

His character sheet reads 'Evil'.

[JackPhoenix]

ITT: people don't know how alignments work in 5e. As usual in alignment threads.

Also:
3:43 AM

I wont be responding to this thread again. Bye.
4:56 AM

Snip
6:03 AM

Snip

Heh

[Phoenix042]

...I'm saying that A man doesn't have to "be evil" to "do evil".

Thanos believes he is doing what's necessary, that ultimately, his actions will make the universe a better place.

Hitler thought he was purifying evil from the human race and building a brighter future for humanity. That by doing what was hard for others to face, he was ultimately freeing others from the burden of those hard choices.

Osama Bin Laden believed that all righteous and good people would benefit from his actions, that he was waging a holy war that would ultimately better humanity and free good people from the influence of evil outsiders.

Contrary to their depiction in movies, white slave owners were not often senselessly cruel to their slaves, but instead believed that they were doing what was best for those slaves; they only used pain to break their slaves when "necessary" and often provided rudimentary education, shelter, food, and stability to people that they believed would otherwise live like wild beasts. They thought they were saving those people. They believed they were doing what was right and just, that slavery was the natural state of "lesser people" who weren't white. Many even dreamed of spreading the practice across the globe, installing white men in Central and South America to "save" the people living there and eventually to other continents as well.

Jenny McCarthy genuinely believes in her message that vaccines are dangerous and must be avoided, yet she is doubtlessly responsible for dozens or maybe even hundreds of deaths, whatever she believes.

Thanos believes he is good, or maybe neutral, that what he is doing is necessary. I'd argue that almost no evil person has ever truly believed that they are evil; he carefully considers the weight of his actions, but the conclusion he comes to is wrong. Doing evil that you believe is justified, but isn't justified, is basically the only way that anyone ever does evil. Most people aren't cartoon bad guys, doing bad stuff just to be bad.

In my D&D multiverse, Asmodeus was once an angel, and believes that he was forced out of heaven because the other angels feared to do what he knows is necessary. He believes that because humanoids have free will, they represent the greatest possible danger to the cosmic balance; while most fiends believe that humanity should be eradicated, he is merciful and just; he would have humanity subjugated beneath the lords of heaven and hell, forced to cease their wars and their many evil acts, and to stop their spread across the world.

Asmodeus, the ultimate evil, believes that what he is trying to do is the ultimate good.

True evil often looks like justice to the evildoer.

[RSP]

I've always thought of DnD evil as essentially "selfish." Basically, Good-aligned creatures put other's lives before their own needs, while Evil-aligned creatures cared more about their own needs than other's lives.

This pretty much allows the alignment spectrum to have relevancy outside of what would essentially be 3 categories of insane (LE, NE, CE), where murder is the answer to everything.

[hamishspence]

I've always thought of DnD evil as essentially "selfish." Basically, Good-aligned creatures put other's lives before their own needs, while Evil-aligned creatures cared more about their own needs than other's lives.

This pretty much allows the alignment spectrum to have relevancy outside of what would essentially be 3 categories of insane (LE, NE, CE), where murder is the answer to everything.

Keith Baker's blog post here:

http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/

shows how evil does not have to mean "insane" or "murderous". "Lack of empathy" tends to be the defining trait here.

[RSP]

Keith Baker's blog post here:

http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/

shows how evil does not have to mean "insane" or "murderous". "Lack of empathy" tends to be the defining trait here.

Interesting. I like the idea of Detect Evil actually being Detect Lack-of-Empathy. Thanks for pointing this out, though I still prefer thinking of alignments in terms of selfishness than empathy, but I respect Mr. Baker's view.

[Xihirli]

''

'But when you torture and murder your own daughters, and make them fight each other, replacing bits of them with cyberware each time they fail turning them into dehumanised evil murder-machines, and repeatedly commit genocide of civilian populations on first a global and then on a galactic scale... it's morally good as long as you cry about it, or are doing it 'for the greater good'.

Subjective reasoning doesn't matter. Your motives don't matter. If you murder and torture your own daughter, or engage in genocide, you're an evil bastard.

Only on a DnD forum is this ever a contentious issue. It saddens me each time, but I guess we wouldn't have genocide or murder or terrorism or whatever if people didn't think this way. Justify your own actions to yourself (it's the world that is evil and I am the righteous man, or its for the greater good, or they deserved it etc) and then bam presto, murder, torture, genocide and worse are green lit.

Torture and murder your own daughter, or engage in genocide, and then argue to a war crimes tribunal, or a court of law that 'you're not evil'.

If that sounds as absurd to other people as it does to me, then the argument ends there. He's (clearly and unambiguously) evil.


This is not a useful definition of morality. Anyone can be a saint in their own head.

"In my mind, I believe myself to be a perfect, divine being, and the best thing for these ants who populate the universe is to bow before me or perish."

I feel like you both read the opposite of what I said.

[Sigreid]

Exactly.

Alignment in DnD is either subjective (and mass murdering genocidal rapist monsters go to heaven, simply because they genuinely think they are good people) or it's objective (and they instead go to Hell, regardless of how they view themselves).

I have zero problem with DMing or playing a genocidal or murderous monster who genuinely and sincerely is doing his evil for 'the greater good' or towards 'a noble end' or for a 'good cause'.

His character sheet reads 'Evil'.

I think technically it's a 3rd option. Good and evil in the D&D cosmos is defined by the subjective perceptions of the gods that run the afterlife.

[Malifice]

Keith Baker's blog post here:

http://keith-baker.com/eberron-flashback-good-and-evil/

shows how evil does not have to mean "insane" or "murderous". "Lack of empathy" tends to be the defining trait here.

Thats how I generally define evil as well. Lack of empathy.

Most of the people I would call evil in real life, have this trait. I'm a lawyer, and sadly deal with some right scumbags.

This is a huge problem in RPGs because it's super hard to have genuine empathy for a fictional creature. This is why a Player wont blink as he declares he is cutting the NPCs throat, wandering around animating dead people as his undead minions, murdering people that get in his way without a second thought for the victims family, being blase about genocide, engaging in torture, or dealing with Demons etc etc.

Even in situations where the player themselves thinks the act is justified (or justifiable) in real life, they could never do such an act themselves due to empathy. When a NPC screams as you torture and kill the guy, you (tyhe player) dont really care about him or his family. You dont feel his suffering like you would in real life. If you're a big roleplayer you can imagine how it would feel, but you cant actually feel it.

And of course our hobby often attracts people with problems empathizing with others or understanding social ques all too often as well. Overwhelmingly in my experience teenage boys and young men (but thankfully that demographic is changing).

Add on top of that, the game actively rewards killing (with xp) and makes killing usually the best option (no prisoners, no-one to sneak up on us, we need information, lets torture the guy, cant be bothered handing him over to mercy, if we let him go the DM will send him after us later etc etc).

Its why discussions on roleplaying forums involving alignment always feature some clown trying to justify stuff like murder, necromancy, terrorism, infanticide, devil worship, torture, pitiless slaughter and even flat out genocide (in this thread on a galactic scale). Acts near universally condemned as evil in the extreme. Acts that in any other forum or discussion would be uncontroversially deemed monstrous.

'But [insert justification for monstrous evil act here]' is always the cry. Usually something along the lines of he's only doing [repeated monstrous act of evil] for a good cause, so that makes him good right?

No it doesnt make him good. It makes him evil.

[hamishspence]

I think technically it's a 3rd option. Good and evil in the D&D cosmos is defined by the subjective perceptions of the gods that run the afterlife.

If a paladin god starts doing evil deeds, even if their own "subjective perception" says they are good - they might gravitate toward being an Evil God. Or, in older editions, "fall".

The gods don't "define alignment for themselves". As "forces that define the cosmos" - even deities are subject to their constraints.

[Malifice]

If a paladin god starts doing evil deeds, even if their own "subjective perception" says they are good - they might gravitate toward being an Evil God. Or, in older editions, "fall".

The gods don't "define alignment for themselves". As "forces that define the cosmos" - even deities are subject to their constraints.

Pretty sure that's what the Overgods are for. Ao and the like.

[Sigreid]

AFB but I seem to recall the lore having several examples of good gods doing or ordering pretty bad things. The MM even states that angels will do things on orders that are brutal and without mercy in service to their lawful good gods.

[Malifice]

AFB but I seem to recall the lore having several examples of good gods doing or ordering pretty bad things. The MM even states that angels will do things on orders that are brutal and without mercy in service to their lawful good gods.

No, it says they slay evil creatures without remorse.

It then goes into some detail about how this trait can cause them to fall, becoming permanently marked and then often completely rebelling against the gods of good and becoming very evil indeed.

Thats the risk you run as an Angel [good] who is designed to be a remorseless killer [evil]. Some angels take it a bit too far and take 'killing without remorse' to mean 'kill even when there is no need to'.

While killing is often necessary to stop evil, it's not the first and only option. Some evil creatures deserve mercy or even compassion. Some angels miss this and go too far.

More than a few fallen angels in the nine Hells, incuding Azaziel, all the Erinyes, and the big guy himself.

[hamishspence]

A good example of angels not killing evil beings unnecessarily - Sigil - where you might find an angel and a fiend chatting and drinking together in a tavern.

[strangebloke]

I feel like you both read the opposite of what I said.

I did, sorry. I don't know how but I guess I'll blame sleep deprivation.

But yeah, any defintion of good/evil that allows Thanos to skate is pretty much useless, particularly in the realm of an RPG.

I'll also add, that 'empathy' is a piss-poor definition of evil. It's easy to be empathetic to a few you care about but an evil bastard to people you barely know, something I'd conventionally associate with a neutral-to-evil person.

[hamishspence]

"Empathic even toward their enemies" defines Good.

Lack of empathy toward enemies and strangers" defines Evil (occasionally shading toward Neutral).

"Will not harm, but will not help those they don't empathise with" is at the Neutral end of the shading.

As mentioned in the above blog post:


The “evil” soldier hates the Thranes, and given the chance he will torture and loot. He wears a belt of Thranish ears. Yet he loves his country and will sacrifice his own life to defend it. He’s “evil” because he is willing to carry out those atrocities; but he’d never do such a thing to a Brelish citizen.

On the other hand, the “good” soldier will kill Thranes on the battlefield, but will not condone the mistreatment of prisoners or civilians. He hates the war but feels sympathy for the civilians on both sides; he further recognizes that the enemies he fights are just protecting their people, and treats them with respect.

Both soldiers have the exact same goal and will fight side by side on the battlefield; alignment simply provides insight into how they may act.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know what, I am sick of these stupid alignment threads. Always people prepared to justify acts of aborrent evil as 'good' or morally 'neutral' (in your case up to and including actual genocide) because the actor may have had some kind of (often tenuous) self righteous justification for the act.

Im done. A silver lining to the cloud that is the OP. (Frustration avoidance is a good thing, isn't it? :smallbiggrin: )

But it's so hard to hold back ...

Irrelevant what he believed. Hitler thought he was doing good. The freaking Son of Sam probably had a justification for his actions and though he was good. -snip- I wont be responding to this thread again. Bye. Be strong, be strong ... oh crap, failed save.

Only on a DnD forum is this ever a contentious issue. Arguments like this long precede internet forums. (I seem to recall a variety of such things being brought up in various letters and opinion pieces in Dragon magazine ...)

Oh, dear, another failed save.

Alignment in DnD is OK, time to step back ...

I think technically it's a 3rd option. Good and evil in the D&D cosmos is defined by the subjective perceptions of the gods that run the afterlife. What, no dichotomy? Heretic! :smallbiggrin:

Most of the people I would call evil in real life, have this trait. I'm a lawyer, and sadly deal with some right scumbags. It might be best to leave the office at the office ...

And we then see two more failed saves.

Pretty sure that's what the Overgods are for. AKA the DM.

No, it says they slay evil creatures without remorse. Simply must post ...

A good example of angels not killing evil beings unnecessarily - Sigil - where you might find an angel and a fiend chatting and drinking together in a tavern. Yeah, that's an interesting setting, or can be.

[RSP]

"Empathic even toward their enemies" defines Good.

Lack of empathy toward enemies and strangers" defines Evil (occasionally shading toward Neutral).

"Will not harm, but will not help those they don't empathise with" is at the Neutral end of the shading.

As mentioned in the above blog post:

So as long as Thanos empathizes with all those he kills, he's good (he kind of does as his whole reason for action is to prevent what happened to him/his planet). I'm against using it as a barometer for Good/Evil.

[Malifice]

A silver lining to the cloud that is the OP. (Frustration avoidance is a good thing, isn't it? :smallbiggrin: )

I actually stuck around for this one, because unlike the other 50 or so threads on alignment, there seems to be some consensus in this one that 'torturing and murdering your own daughter(s) and weekly acts of genocide' is evil.

Hilariously Deadpool 2 featured a cut scene of him travelling in time to kill baby Hitler. It was cut from the post credits.

Baby murder was a little too far, even for the Merc with the mouth (who is broadly CN - bounces between a heart of gold and rather ruthless execution style killings and a complete lack of empathy for most other people).

Spoiler = The whole movie kind of sought to steer him away from evil (and selfishness) and towards good (selflessness, including self sacrifice).

Its basically been Colossus' (depicted as LG) central arc in each film; trying to steer him away from selfishness (and the occasional act of outright evil) and towards heroic selflessness and good.

Spoiler = Colossus' reaction when he murdered the orphanage second in command was hillarious.

[CantigThimble]

So if someone commits genocide while being extremely empathetic towards the victims and crying themselves to sleep every night then they're 'good'?

A cold hearted man who feels nothing for others, but acts to improve the well being of all those around him constantly can't be good?

I just cannot buy the idea that how someone feels determines whether they're good or evil.

[hamishspence]

If they're doing horrible things to people, and then crying, the crying may not be for their victims but for themselves - the pain Doing A Horrible Thing puts them through. Thus, not genuine empathy but pseudo-empathy.

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually stuck around for this one, because unlike the other 50 or so threads on alignment, there seems to be some consensus in this one that 'torturing and murdering your own daughter(s) and weekly acts of genocide' is evil. IMO, shoehorning D&D alignment (which is at best clunky as a tool) into comic book super heroes that weren't built as D&D characters is bound to become a mess.

And it did. FFS, the OP was asking for an alignment on Abraham (patriarch of three separate modern religions) in the first post. My only response to that is "alignment = faithful" but I guess that doesn't answer the exam question. A messy mess is messy. :smallconfused:

The longer I ponder on this, the more I like the original Law _ neutral_chaos scheme. Less fiddly, and more existential than concrete.
I understand why EGG felt he had to get more granular. He was still, and had been for a few years when the Grid first saw light, publishing game rules for pay. It was in his nature to try and codify a thing into a rule, regardless of how he ran his games.

[Knaight]

Subjective reasoning doesn't matter. Your motives don't matter. If you murder and torture your own daughter, or engage in genocide, you're an evil bastard.

Only on a DnD forum is this ever a contentious issue. It saddens me each time, but I guess we wouldn't have genocide or murder or terrorism or whatever if people didn't think this way. Justify your own actions to yourself (it's the world that is evil and I am the righteous man, or its for the greater good, or they deserved it etc) and then bam presto, murder, torture, genocide and worse are green lit.

Torture and murder your own daughter, or engage in genocide, and then argue to a war crimes tribunal, or a court of law that 'you're not evil'.

D&D forums and any discussion about international politics - it's not exactly hard to find genocide apologism for actual genocides that have actually happened or are actually happening. As for torture in particular, while forum rules prevent me pointing to certain obvious examples of how it can be outright rewarded I can at least point to fiction - where an entire popular tv show (24) is pretty much built around the fantasy of just having to torture somebody for some reason, followed by torture porn.

[CantigThimble]

If they're doing horrible things to people, and then crying, the crying may not be for their victims but for themselves - the pain Doing A Horrible Thing puts them through. Thus, not genuine empathy but pseudo-empathy.

I think you're splitting hairs here. If you didn't care about the other people then you wouldn't be all that bothered by what you were doing to them and therefore you wouldn't feel bad about yourself.

It's entirely possible to hurt someone while being empathetic to them, or even to hurt them because you are empathetic to them. Classic examples being a parent treating their children harshly to force them to develop independence or someone putting down their beloved dog to end its pain. I don't think examples of harsh empathy like that are at all fake. I can also imagine that kind of harsh empathy being taken to brutal extremes by some people under some circumstances.

Edit: As a general point, when it comes to discussing ethics (which is basically what discussing alignment is) it is common and useful to play devils advocate, even to degrees that would be absurdly extreme in any other context. Two perfectly normal, moral people can have a discussion about questions like "Under what circumstances could genocide, theoretically, be ethical under different moral systems?" and improve their understanding of ethics from that. I think the fact that someone is willing to have that discussion to be an indication that they're apologizing for genocide or looking for an excuse to commit it. They are discussing ethics for the purpose of understanding morality better, and that's often what happens in threads like these.

If you prefer not to discuss things to that degree of abstraction/separation from reality then that's fine, but I don't think it's warranted to judge people's character based on the fact that they're willing to discuss extreme hypotheticals without explicitly stating every other sentence: "But obviously I wouldn't consider this in real life"

[strangebloke]

D&D forums and any discussion about international politics - it's not exactly hard to find genocide apologism for actual genocides that have actually happened or are actually happening. As for torture in particular, while forum rules prevent me pointing to certain obvious examples of how it can be outright rewarded I can at least point to fiction - where an entire popular tv show (24) is pretty much built around the fantasy of just having to torture somebody for some reason, followed by torture porn.

Not sure if this is what Mal intended, but he was speaking to the brand of genocide and torture practiced by Thanos in Avengers:Infinity War which is pretty specifically super evil. The torture was truly pointless, forcing his daughters to fight, amputating healthy limbs as punishment, killing entire planets of people for no actual reason...

Also, just because you can find an apologist for something on the internet, doesn't mean it isn't evil.

Furthermore I'd separate alignment both from intentions, and from results. In fact, I'd separate it from actions entirely. I think the idea of 'good acts' and 'evil acts' is a distinction that sort of worked in former editions but really doesn't anymore. I would argue that a good-aligned character will posses empathy towards all and the ability to be selfless to some extent, but the way that that expresses itself varies highly.

[Knaight]

Not sure if this is what Mal intended, but he was speaking to the brand of genocide and torture practiced by Thanos in Avengers:Infinity War which is pretty specifically super evil. The torture was truly pointless, forcing his daughters to fight, amputating healthy limbs as punishment, killing entire planets of people for no actual reason...

Also, just because you can find an apologist for something on the internet, doesn't mean it isn't evil.

I'm not saying it isn't evil - I'm saying it's a weirdly banal sort of evil, widely supported. This isn't a matter of some D&D forum abberation, or a matter of some out there apologist on the internet. Genocide is something that has been deliberately pursued as national policy multiple times and continues to be in places to this day, often with the overt support of a majority of the populations where this happens.

[RSP]

Not sure if this is what Mal intended, but he was speaking to the brand of genocide and torture practiced by Thanos in Avengers:Infinity War which is pretty specifically super evil. The torture was truly pointless, forcing his daughters to fight, amputating healthy limbs as punishment, killing entire planets of people for no actual reason...


Thanos believes he's saving half the universe. He's empathetic in that he doesn't want the rest of the inhabitants of the universe to to go through what he did in seeing what happened on his planet. (Side note: the torture/killing of the dwarves is a different story)

Is he crazy? Yup. But he believes what he's doing will ultimately allow beings to survive who otherwise would die.

Using the "Empathy test," I don't think he pops as "Evil" (which is part of why I don't like using said test), whereas the repo man who is unempathetic towards retrieving property that wasn't paid for, is considered "evil."

[2D8HP]

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 and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened"
at not being able to read a big ol' post on how D&D's Alignment system came to be

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


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.

(BTW, a nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library 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)..

Going back to the 1962 Moorcock story To Rescue Tanelorn we have:

"...At the place where the winds met they found the second gateway, a column of amber-coloured flame, shot through with streaks of green. They entered it and, instantly, were in a world of dark, seething colour. Above them was a sky of murky red in which other colours shifted, agitated, changing. Ahead of them lay a forest, dark, blue, black, heavy, mottled green, the tops of its trees moving like a wild tide. It was a howling land of unnatural phenomena.

Lamsar pursed his lips. "On this plane Chaos rules, we must get to the next gate swiftly for obviously the Lords of Chaos will seek to stop us."

"Is it always like this?" Rackhir gasped.

"It is always boiling midnight-but the rest, it changes with the moods of the Lords. There are no rules at all."

They pressed on through the bounding, blossoming scenery as it erupted and changed around them. Once they saw a huge winged figure in the sky, smoky yellow, and roughly man-shaped.

"Vezhan," Lamsar said, "let's hope he did not see us."

"Vezhan!" Rackhir whispered the name-for it was to Vezhan that he had once been loyal.

They crept on, uncertain of their direction or even of their speed in that disturbing land.

At length, they came to the shores of a peculiar ocean.

It was a grey, heaving, timeless sea, a mysterious sea which stretched into infinity. There could be no other shores beyond this rolling plain of water. No other lands or rivers or dark, cool woods, no other men or women or ships. It was a sea which led to nowhere. It was complete to itself-a sea.

Over this timeless ocean hovered a brooding ochre sun which cast moody shadows of black and green across the water, giving the whole scene something of the look of being enclosed in a vast cavern, for the sky above was gnarled and black with ancient clouds. And all the while the doom-carried crash of breakers, the lonely, fated monotony of the ever-rearing white-topped waves; the sound which portended neither death nor life nor war nor peace-simply existence and shifting inharmony. They could go no further.

"This has the air of our death about it," Rackhir said shivering.

The sea roared and tumbled, the sound of it increasing to a fury, daring them to go on towards it, welcoming them with wild temptation-offering them nothing but achievement-the achievement of death.

Lamsar said: "It is not my fate wholly to perish." But then they were running back towards the forest, feeling that the strange sea was pouring up the beach towards them. They looked back and saw that it had gone no further, that the breakers were less wild, the sea more calm. Lamsar was little way behind Rackhir.

The Red Archer gripped his hand and hauled him towards him as if he had rescued the old man from a whirlpool. They remained there, mesmerised, for a long time, while the sea called to them and the wind was a cold caress on their flesh.

In the bleak brightness of the alien shore, under a sun which gave no heat, their bodies shone like stars in the night and they turned towards the forest, quietly.

"Are we trapped, then, in this Realm of Chaos?" Rackhir said at length. "If we meet someone, they will offer us harm-how can we ask our question?"

Then there emerged from the huge forest a great figure, naked and gnarled like the trunk of a tree, green as lime, but the face was jovial.

"Greetings, unhappy renegades," it said.

"Where is the next gate?" said Lamsar quickly.

"You almost entered it, but turned away," laughed the giant. "That sea does not exist-it is there to stop travellers from passing through the gate."

"It exists here, in the Realm of Chaos," Rackhir said thickly.

"You could say so-but what exists in Chaos save the disorders of the minds of gods gone mad?"...."

And

"...The two travellers were given foods, both soft and brittle, sweet and sour, and drink which seemed to enter the pores of their skin as they quaffed it, and then the Guardian said: "We have caused a road to be made. Follow it and enter the next world. But we warn you, it is the most dangerous of all."

And they set off down the road that the Guardians had caused to be made and passed through the fourth gateway into a dreadful realm-the Ream of Law.

Nothing shone in the grey-lit sky, nothing moved, nothing marred the grey.

Nothing interrupted the bleak grey plain stretching on all sides of them, forever. There was no horizon. It was a bright, clean wasteland. But there was a sense about the air, a presence of something past, something which had gone but left a faint aura of its passing.

"What dangers could be here?" said Rackhir shuddering, "here where there is nothing?"

"The danger of the loneliest madness," Lamsar replied. Their voices were swallowed in the grey expanse.

"When the Earth was very young'" Lamsar continued, his words trailing away across the wilderness, "things were like this-but there were seas, there were seas. Here there is nothing."

"You are wrong," Rackhir said with a faint smile. "I have thought-here there is Law."

"That is true-but what is Law without something to decide between? Here is Law-bereft of justice."

They walked on, all about them an air of something intangible that had once been tangible. On they walked through this barren world of Absolute Law...."

So two vast impersonal cosmic forces struggling for dominance, ultimately neither with any place for or consideration of human happiness if even allowong for the existence of humanity if they triumph.

Now choose!


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 while Moorcock's 1965 novel*Stormbringer*had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, but later he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The*Balance" was to be*sought, and Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelon 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 which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

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.

*whew*

Now, I'll just tell you which Alignments are what most DM's (in my experience) are less likely to tell you that "You're not playing your Alignment", in order::

1) Neutral Evil

2) True Neutral

3) Chaotic Evil

4) Lawful Evil

5) Lawful Neutral

6) Chaotic Good (most are wrong in their interpretation of this Alignment IMNSHO, but whatever)

7) Chaotic Neutral

8) Neutral Good

and the one that your DM is least likely to consider you "Doing it right":

9) Lawful Good.

So all those characters that the OP listed?

Neutral Evil, every single one, unless you roll a Nat 20, in which case they may be Neutral.

Roll another Nat 20, and call 'em Chaotic Good.

Now make with the pizza slice already.

Please.