Alignment - what is "lawful"?

[Samayu]

OK, I'm sure these alignment discussions have been done to death but...

I picture my character lawful, due to the very strong personal code. But on the other hand, that personal code is sometimes at odds with the rule of law. I'd just call it LN and be done with it, but I'm going to be traveling with a bunch of actual LN paladins and clerics, who are probably going to want to convert me to their religion. Or maybe they'll want to get rid of me because I'm not apt to follow their idea of lawfulness.

In other words, it may become a plot point. So how do I frame my alignment in reference to theirs? Do my internal rules have a bearing on the impression of lawfulness? Am I actually chaotic?

[Lunali]

Lawful people do what they feel they should do according to some code or system of beliefs, chaotic people do what they want to do even when they know they shouldn't.

[Naanomi]

Lawful can mean a lot of things, but at the end of the day it means a sort of *predictability*. If you know what drives a Lawful creature... the details of their religious doctorine, the laws of the country they are loyal citizens of, the code of honor they champion, the system of logic they proudly espouse... you should know how they will respond in certain situations. Of course, you won’t be perfect; no one completely understands the motivations of others, and no one is perfectly adherent to even dogmatic ideals... but that semblance of predictability (and in many cases, a desire for such predictability in the world around them) is at the core of Law

[Unoriginal]

OK, I'm sure these alignment discussions have been done to death but...

I picture my character lawful, due to the very strong personal code. But on the other hand, that personal code is sometimes at odds with the rule of law. I'd just call it LN and be done with it, but I'm going to be traveling with a bunch of actual LN paladins and clerics, who are probably going to want to convert me to their religion. Or maybe they'll want to get rid of me because I'm not apt to follow their idea of lawfulness.

In other words, it may become a plot point. So how do I frame my alignment in reference to theirs? Do my internal rules have a bearing on the impression of lawfulness? Am I actually chaotic?

The PHB gives you all the answers you need:



Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.


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

You can be lawful and follow a personal code. You can be lawful and a criminal at the same time, too.

But let's be honest, here:

This is not an alignment issue.

If your PC is in a situation where the rest of the group might refuse to travel with them, *talk with the players so it doesn't happen*.

[Fire Tarrasque]

A lawful charecter will do something, for a reason they understand, and when put into similar situation, will make the same decision.

A chaotic charecter will do something, often because they can or for some vague reason like "fun," and when put into the same situation, will make different choices.

[Falcon X]

Depends on where you are pulling from. I believe Gygax’s perspective was that it was truly a governmental ideal:
Lawful: “I believe that a governed society of laws is the right way, as people en mass are best managed by people over them.”
Chaotic: “Personal freedom is the highest ideal. I can manage myself. I want to be able to choose whether to be good or evil, not have things forced upon me.”

However, the most common thought process these days is that lawful can include personal codes and beliefs, while chaotic just does as they feel.
This thinking, however, gets inconsistent quickly.

I prefer the original Gygaxian way, because it doesn’t get “chaotic” confused with “evil” and it allows people who don’t believe in rules to still have their own system of beliefs and codes.

[edit] Ah, here is a wright-up on 1st edition alignments. It apparently received praise from Gygax:
http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step004.html

[Malifice]

When you're butchering children (either for the cause of Good, or for the cause of Evil) and you have a reason for it or are following orders, you're Lawful.

If you're just randomly butchering children (either for the cause of Good, or for the cause of Evil) then you're Chaotic.

[JackPhoenix]

"Lawful" in itself isn't anything. There are 9 separate alignments, 3 of which uses the word lawful (LG, LN, LE), but they are each their own thing.

[Greywander]

A Lawful character isn't necessarily law-abiding. Think of it this way: if you go to a kingdom where slavery is legal, you don't suddenly support slavery if you didn't before.

Instead, I would say that a Lawful character believes in the idea of Structure. In other words, they think having laws, hierarchies, codes, authority structures, etc. is generally a good idea, but two different Lawful characters may disagree on which sorts of systems and structures are best. Most Lawful Good types will oppose slavery, while Lawful Evil types will generally find it useful, and Lawful Neutral types can go either way.

Law tends to be logical as well, in contrast to Chaos which tends to be emotional. But this isn't a hard rule, just a general trend.

As far as clerics and paladins trying to convert you, that shouldn't be something you need to worry about. Religion in D&D is not monotheistic, and as long as you're not serving an evil (or, I suppose in your case, Chaotic) god, they shouldn't feel a need to convert you as you're already "on their side", even if you don't serve the same deity. A cleric is not a missionary, although they may be willing to share their faith with anyone interested in hearing about it, but they shouldn't be coercing anyone into joining their religion.

So I have to ask, do you think this may happen because of what you know about the players? Or is it due to a misconception about the classes? If it's the latter, you should have nothing to worry about. If its the former, then you'll need to talk to the players about it.

[Darth Ultron]

As others have said, Lawful has nothing to do with following the Laws of Man. A Lawful person does believe in the idea of law and order and rules of society....but that does not mean they will like and follow every law or rule.

To follow a law is more along the lines of good and evil. A lawful person will decide if a law is right for them to follow. For example, the vast majority of good folks follow the laws, even if they don't like or agree with them. The evil person only follows laws that benefit them or that they can turn to their advantage.



If your with a group that thinks ''one way'', it is really just best to go along. It's not really worth dragging the game down with all the details. Like say the group ''wants to capture the goblin bandits and take them back to town for trial", ok, fine then just do that. To start your own personal murderhobo bloodbath just as your personal code says ''all bandits must die" does not really help the game along.

Really, unless your DM is a jerk and is trying to ruin the game, it should not even really come up.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I prefer the original Gygaxian way

Me too. The new trend for 'chaotic = never has a reason for any of the things they do' is pretty much useless. No sane humanoid behaves like that, so it leads to everyone framing themselves as 'lawful', even when they're in the process of tearing down orderly systems and plunging society into chaos...

[Unoriginal]

"Lawful" in itself isn't anything. There are 9 separate alignments, 3 of which uses the word lawful (LG, LN, LE), but they are each their own thing.

This is true.


Me too. The new trend for 'chaotic = never has a reason for any of the things they do' is pretty much useless. No sane humanoid behaves like that, so it leads to everyone framing themselves as 'lawful', even when they're in the process of tearing down orderly systems and plunging society into chaos...

That is NOT what the chaotic alignments are. That's just the butchered, flanderized way people describe them.


Only 2nd edition had "chaotic neutral people are insane".

Chaotic good, neutral or evil people have reasons for what they do. For example, Orcs are chaotic evil not because they want total anarchy, but because they don't believe any rule or authority is binding unless it's been forced onto them personally by someone strong enough to do so, and ultimately want to be strong enough to be this someone. They raid villages to get ressources, and try to invade dwarven stronghold because being well-protected would be a boon for any orc tribe.

[Maelynn]

How do I frame my alignment in reference to theirs? Do my internal rules have a bearing on the impression of lawfulness? Am I actually chaotic?

It comes across as though they have a very set view on what lawfulness is, and that it isn't exactly the same as yours - or that of many others, from what you can read here. This is their problem more than yours. (in all honesty, they sound like those religious fanatics who refuse to accept there are other possibilities than their own...)

Like others have said, Lawful means that you abide by a certain set of rules - official laws are just an example of such rules. Think of monks, who are taught a very strict discipline that is unrelated to the laws of a country. Think of the mafia, who are definitely criminals but who are the epitome of Lawful Evil because they adhere to their own code and even have a certain sense of honour within that code. Think of certain religions, where it's not allowed to drink alcohol or eat certain meats no matter what the law says.

Should you worry that these players will make an issue out of it, then I'd suggest you voice these concerns with your DM. I'm sure they'll be able to nip it in the bud if one of the others were to decide to hassle you over your version of Lawful.

[Monarch Dodora]

I'd say that Lawfuls follow their code even when they don't want to, while Chaotics do what their feelings tell them. An admittedly minor example would be, say, going to the gym every morning. Lawful wakes up, it's 5am, it's cold, he's tired, his bed is warm, he doesn't want to get up... but he goes anyway, because it bothers him if he doesn't. A Chaotic would be more inclined to say 'screw it, lie-in' and go back to sleep guilt-free.

[Sception]

As a DM I generally allow individual players to define their own alignment as they wish it, there are a lot of different ways lawfulness could be framed.

For my own characters though, the good-evil axis conveys what a character considers to be 'best outcomes', particularly balancing themselves against innocent strangers. For a "good" character, the best outcome is what's best for others, even if it involves personal sacrifice or suffering. For an "evil" character, the best outcome is what's best for themselves, even (or in some cases especially), if it involves the sacrifice and suffering of others. Neutral characters land between with a live & let live disposition, seeking what's best for themselves, but not to the extent of being willing to harm others, or what's best for others but not to the point of (uncompensated) risk to themselves. Others here in particular means innocent / unrelated bystanders & strangers. "The Other" rather than just "an other". Even an evil character might draw their personal circle wide enough to include their personal family, friends, tribe, or national identity, while even a good character might have rivals they'd like to take down a peg or outright enemies they seek to destroy.

The Lawful axis then presents how the characters sees the rules and restrictions of organized society as relates to their best outcome. The lawful character sees civil order as essential to securing their best outcome, the chaotic character sees civil order as standing in the way, and the neutral character sees civil order as neither inherently helpful nor unhelpful, just another part of the environment to navigate as necessary.

The lawful good character sees social structure as essential to securing the most good for the most people - by instituting a wide and robust social safety net, and by limiting the ability of bad individuals to harm others through clear rules, and having a system to secure justice and restitution so that when the rules are broken the harm doesn't spiral out in a cycle of personal revenge. The Chaotic Evil character opposes the concept of law in general because they see civil order in largely the same light - protecting the weak and shackling those, like the chaotic evil character themselves, who would seek to harm them for personal gain.

The Lawful Evil character sees social structure as a web to ensnare those less clever than themselves, a weapon to strike down their enemies, and a fortress to protect their riches from those who might want to take it - either for themselves or to distribute to the suffering poor. Such a character might break the law where they think they can get away with it, but they'll never undermine the concept of the law itself, because they rely on that law to secure their power and influence. The Chaotic Good character opposes the concept of law in general because they see civil order in the same light - oppressing the poor and weak and shackling those, like the chaotic good character themselves, who would seek to topple the cruel and greedy in order to redistribute their wealth to the poor who suffer around them.

As with good & evil vs. the other, the "civil society" or "law" here is the abstract concept, rather than a particular regime. A specific regime can be so wantonly cruel and resistant to reform that even a lawful good character would join with chaotic good character to topple it altogether, though they might then be unable to agree on what sort of society to establish in it's place. And if a civil society proves too resistant to corruption, even a lawful evil character might join with chaotic evil forces to topple it, though again after doing so they'd likely come into conflict with each other over what kind of society to build from the wreckage.


A Lawful Neutral character would then have a "live and let live" disposition, seeking what's best for themselves and theirs but not to the extent of willfully harming others, and/or what's best for others, but not to the point of (uncompensated) risk of harm to themselves, and who sees the existence of a strong and well organized social structure as essential for securing that. In particular, they favor the existence of laws backed by strength of arms to enforce contracts & prevent, punish, & compensate for externalities and crimes of theft & violence, and some sort of military structure to defend against outside aggression, along with a fair and equitable tax system to provide for the same. Basically, a "good fences make for good neighbors" philosophy.

[MrStabby]

Pleasantly surprised that no one has been pretentious/condescending enough to say "play your character not your alignment" and evade the question. Actually quite a step up for these forums.

Still, the way the world sees you may be pretty nuanced.

My own experience of this was playing a druid - strongly held to a pretty rigid code and very "lawful" to members of the party that knew her well. To strangers the fact that she did not believe in personal property via acquisition* or rights of ownership and that her code upheld abstract "rights of the wild", often in opposition to civilisation meant that they were perceived as being more chaotic by the rest of the world.

To me the character was lawful (in reality alignment (as appearing on a character sheet) rather than behaviour only matters infrequently), and to me it is the character/motivations that shape alignment rather than perception of NPCs. It can be tiring for the whole table to be "misunderstood" all the time so where there is a conflict I would advise keeping it a bit situational so DM and players can dip into that as needed.


*so another character's sword is their sword because they use it, not because they bought it. A home is owned by the person that lives there not by the holder of a paper deed to the land and so on.

[Wilb]

I like Saintheart's guide to Lawful Neutral here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448817-My-Country-Right-Or-Wrong-A-Lawful-Neutral-Alignment-Handbook) in GitP to get an insight on what "pure" lawful means and Red Fel's guide to LE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil), here as well, and from those two LG comes naturally, but there is a guide for this here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook) too.

Maybe they are for a different edition, but the variety they show can help you find your own understanding of the alignment, and maybe convey that to your group.

[Millstone85]

*snip*I really like the method you gave there. Would the following TLDR be accurate?
1) Determine your character's willingness to sacrifice themself for others (good), or to sacrifice others for themself (evil), focusing on true strangers. Anyone can have friends and foes.
2) Determine whether they see society as a help (lawful) or a hindrance (chaotic) to the previous attitude, focusing on the concept of leaders and institutions rather than any specific society.

[xroads]

Well here's an example that I think might help frame things:

Batman is lawful.

At first glance, it would be easy to label Batman as chaotic. After all, he's a vigilante. He has no problem with breaking the law regularly in pursuit of his quarry. Breaking & entering, destruction of property, and illegal interrogation techniques are all tools that he has no problem using.

But, he does have a personal code he follows. For example, he won't kill anyone. No matter how easy it make his job at times. No matter how much it might arguably be better for society (ex. kill a certain well known clown themed sociopath), he won't do it.

A chaotic person would only use that code as a guideline. A chaotic Batman would of long pushed Joker over the side of a tall building and called it a day.

[Nifft]

What is Law?
Baby don't smite me.
Don't smite me, no more.


Depends on where you are pulling from. I believe Gygax’s perspective was that it was truly a governmental ideal:
Lawful: “I believe that a governed society of laws is the right way, as people en mass are best managed by people over them.”
Chaotic: “Personal freedom is the highest ideal. I can manage myself. I want to be able to choose whether to be good or evil, not have things forced upon me.”

However, the most common thought process these days is that lawful can include personal codes and beliefs, while chaotic just does as they feel.
This thinking, however, gets inconsistent quickly.

I prefer the original Gygaxian way, because it doesn’t get “chaotic” confused with “evil” and it allows people who don’t believe in rules to still have their own system of beliefs and codes. This is congruent to my own definitions.

Law => Organization, method, hierarchy, station. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." A lawful person may hate the mayor as a person, but respect the office of enough to obey his legal commands. Lawful people honor treaties made by their forebearers -- when Gondor calls for aid, Rohan will answer, even if Rohan is kind of annoyed with Gondor personally.

Chaos => Individual, innovation, egalitarianism, mobility. "Specialization is for insects." A Chaotic person would never pay homage to the office of someone she personally didn't respect. Agreements are between individual people, not between organizations. When the old king died, our truce died with it -- that's why the frost dragon berserkers are here to negotiate with the new king, because we have no treaty with him yet.

Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis is the recognition that organized groups can do some things better, but it's not always best to subordinate your individuality to the group. Sometimes you need to move fast and break stuff; other times you need to stop, collaborate and listen. Feudalism is a neutral governmental form in this sense, since it's a series of bonds between individuals which are renewed regularly, yet it's also a systematic and hierarchic structure. Vassals of lawful and chaotic nature can co-exist within the bounds of feudalism.


Good => Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. It's a high standard. Good is rare.

Evil => Harming others for benefit to yourself, including amusement. Greed isn't evil, but harming others to assuage your greed would be.

Neutral on the Good-Evil axis is just looking out for yourself and your close friends, not trying to hurt others, not making sacrifices for strangers. Most people are Neutral in this regard. Being good or evil is unusual.



[edit] Ah, here is a wright-up on 1st edition alignments. It apparently received praise from Gygax:
http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/step004.html Ouch, that background hurts my eyes.

[ad_hoc]

I picture my character lawful, due to the very strong personal code. But on the other hand, that personal code is sometimes at odds with the rule of law.

Which laws?

A character who is Lawful Good may not recognize the laws of a land if they believe they are unjust.

[Malifice]

Like every alignment thread ever, this one provides the lolz

[Sception]

I really like the method you gave there. Would the following TLDR be accurate?
1) Determine your character's willingness to sacrifice themself for others (good), or to sacrifice others for themself (evil), focusing on true strangers. Anyone can have friends and foes.
2) Determine whether they see society as a help (lawful) or a hindrance (chaotic) to the previous attitude, focusing on the concept of leaders and institutions rather than any specific society.

Pretty much, yeah, that's a good summation of my model.

Which, to be clear, I know is not perfectly in synch with alignment as presented in the core rules. For example, an individualist loner who lives by a rigid personal code but rejects rules structures on a society-wide scale, instead feeling that each individual should be free to live by whatever their own personal code might be, could be considered lawful by the core rule description, but would more likely be considered neutral or even chaotic by my system.

In my model alignment is much less about *inner* goodness or lawfullness, and much more about how the characters thinks of and interacts with the people around them. How they relate to others, rather than how they relate to themselves.

[GlenSmash!]

The PHB gives you all the answers you need:





You can be lawful and follow a personal code. You can be lawful and a criminal at the same time, too.

But let's be honest, here:

This is not an alignment issue.

If your PC is in a situation where the rest of the group might refuse to travel with them, *talk with the players so it doesn't happen*.

This is wisdom. In 5e all you need for alignments id right in the PHB/SRD/Basic Rules.

I can try and some Lawful up, but that may still muddy the waters. It's better to just go off the descriptions.

Any way, here is my mud: Lawful people believe that Things* would be better if people lived a certain way**

*Possible LG Things: Better lives for good people. Possible LE Things:Better life for me. Possible LN Things: Better lives for most people

**There can be massive differences in The Certain Way here.

[KorvinStarmast]

Good => Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. It's a high standard. Good is rare. That is an incredibly cynical world view that you have presented, right there. if it was so rare, there would not be civilization.

[Unoriginal]

Good isn't rarer than any other alignment. The Upper Planes would be an atrophied little thing if it was the case.

[Red Fel]

Good isn't rarer than any other alignment. The Upper Planes would be an atrophied little thing if it was the case.

I think the more accurate statement is that Good is harder than Evil. Evil is easy, almost by definition. True Evil is pretty hard, admittedly, but general, petty Evil is pretty easy to do. That's what Evil is, generally - what is easy, rather than what is right. That's part of the appeal.

But yeah. I'm going to agree with those who cited me, because they're right for doing so. Lawful is about holding a rule or principle over your own more immediate desires. It means that what you want is less important than adhering to principle, whatever that principle may be. It doesn't have to be the same as another person's Lawful. Two Lawfuls can easily come into conflict, even if their G-E components are identical. For instance, an LN knight serving Oceania will always be at war with an LN knight serving Eurasia, even though their alignments are identical, and even though their principles (total service to the sovereign) are identical.

Now, OP, the real question is what you mean by "at odds with the rule of law." Is your character at odds with the laws of this particular region, or at odds with the concept of the rule of law. Because a character can have strong personal convictions that are at odds with a particular set of laws (see Greywander's example of slavery, above) and still be Lawful. But to be opposed to the concept of the rule of law - that is, to be an anarchist - is problematic for a Lawful character.

The mindset of Lawful, generally, is that rules and structure are good. At the very least, Lawful Larry believes that rules and structure are good for him. He might also believe they're best for everyone, but he may or may not be pushy on that point. Lawful Larry will almost never believe that rules and structure are objectively bad. He may disagree with these rules or this structure, but he can respect the uniformity and stability that rules and structure generally provide to life and society.

So, yeah. There's a question what needs answerin' here.

[Millstone85]

Good isn't rarer than any other alignment. The Upper Planes would be an atrophied little thing if it was the case.Unless the faith, souls and other ressources that go to the Lower Planes get consumed in the Blood War and other ongoing violence, while the Upper Planes cherish everything they get.

[Naanomi]

Unless the faith, souls and other ressources that go to the Lower Planes get consumed in the Blood War and other ongoing violence, while the Upper Planes cherish everything they get.
Traditionally, a soul being ‘consumed’ doesn’t take away its power from the Cosmic alignment... stays there, does there, absorbed into a God there, reincarnated (the ‘natural’ way not the spell), whatever... it is all feeding the coffers of the Plane. Otherwise planes like Acheron, which perminantly feed petitioners to the meat grinder at a prestigious rate for not external gain, or Gehennah with its devestatingly deadly landscape, would be pretty pathetic soul/power wise

And yes, the conceit is that almost all the alignments, On the biggest scale, are more or less equal... if Good is less than Evil it is because of how easy it is to fall to Evil, while redemption to Good is harder; not because more beings are Evil to begin with. (cosmically balances by Good’s Improved cooperation despite conflict and disagreement)

[Unoriginal]

I think the more accurate statement is that Good is harder than Evil.

No, it is not. It isn't harder to do good than to do evil. It's just that evil let you play with a deck stacked in your favor because you don't care about the limits of ethics or morals.

Doing good isn't harder than doing evil, it's just you don't get the same results.

If you want to get rich at all cost, and have to kill an innocent to get a big load of money, of course you'll consider doing the right thing to be hard. Doesn't mean that "not killing an innocent" is hard by itself.



True Evil is pretty hard, admittedly, but general, petty Evil is pretty easy to do.

And general, small good is pretty easy too.


Unless the faith, souls and other ressources that go to the Lower Planes get consumed in the Blood War and other ongoing violence, while the Upper Planes cherish everything they get.

Even if it was the case, it wouldn't change that the Upper Planes would be an atrophied, tiny thing if there was less good than evil in the Material Plane.



Honestly, I find that many people on RPG forums think the idea of good being not only equal to evil, but also genuinely good to be borderline alien. You should see all those "and the Paladin falls" bs stories of back in the days, or all that "actually, the angels are evil" stuff.

[Nifft]

Honestly, I find that many people on RPG forums think the idea of good being not only equal to evil, but also genuinely good to be borderline alien. You should see all those "and the Paladin falls" bs stories of back in the days, or all that "actually, the angels are evil" stuff. When I started the game, it was about Law vs. Chaos, and both of those cosmic forces were indeed alien and antithetical to human life. And that was cool, and we had the idea that balance between those two forces was desirable since the unilateral victory of either one alone would mean the extermination of human life.

Then the axis changed into Good vs. Evil, but the conceit that balance was a good thing stuck around for some reason. That idea didn't make much sense anymore -- having more Good ought to be a good thing -- but settings like Dragonlance tried to justify the conceit, and that series was popular enough to make me curious if they succeeded.

That conceit can be seen in FR through Ao's involvement, and how the Harpers & Druids were presented in BG2. It's a bit ham-fisted, but it's not ambiguous at all -- good and evil are "supposed" to be balanced, and serving the balance by sometimes harming Good and helping Evil is some kind of transcendent greater good -- which to me does seem rather alien.


In terms of "angels are evil", that's a more generational zeitgeist than an RPG thing. Here are some prime examples from one seminal film: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114194/quotes/

It's probably related to the impulse behind "big government is evil" and other conspiracy theories, in that it's a rebellion against parental authority, but the "angels are evil" thing has an additional kicker -- to justify it, you just need to take an anachronistic look at ancient stories about angels and judge them against modern morality. Since moral standards of behavior have changed, it's not hard to find places where stories that were intended to appear good at the time now appear horrific, or alien, or wicked.


It's also one symptom of being an edgy teen (see "rebellion against parental authority" above), which is age-appropriate for some segment of the RPG playing population. And gods bless 'em, we need new blood in this hobby.

[Unoriginal]

When I started the game, it was about Law vs. Chaos, and both of those cosmic forces were indeed alien and antithetical to human life. And that was cool, and we had the idea that balance between those two forces was desirable since the unilateral victory of either one alone would mean the extermination of human life.

Then the axis changed into Good vs. Evil, but the conceit that balance was a good thing stuck around for some reason. That idea didn't make much sense anymore -- having more Good ought to be a good thing -- but settings like Dragonlance tried to justify the conceit, and that series was popular enough to make me curious if they succeeded.

That conceit can be seen in FR through Ao's involvement, and how the Harpers & Druids were presented in BG2. It's a bit ham-fisted, but it's not ambiguous at all -- good and evil are "supposed" to be balanced, and serving the balance by sometimes harming Good and helping Evil is some kind of transcendent greater good -- which to me does seem rather alien.

Well, in 5e the Harpers don't seem that concerned with balance (as far as I can tell, at least, didn't read much on them) and people like Mordenkainen who want to preserve a balance between good and evil are portrayed somewhere between "kind of have a point, but their opinion isn't 100% correct" and "man those guys are wackos", but in any case it makes clear they're not good guys.

Reading between the line, it's pretty clear good and evil are balanced, in 5e. Just like chaotic evil and lawful evil and neutral evil are balanced. It's not due to some kind of person actively trying to maintain the balance, it's just a fact of the universe than things fluctuate one way, then another. Because people all over the spectrum of good and bad are constantly trying to make it fluctuate their way, and in the end it's a nine-pronged tug-of-war no one can really win nor should, but if they stopped everything would go crazy.

[Naanomi]

AO couldn’t care less about Good and Evil, as an Overdeity such things are not in his purview or job description. He just cares that the Gods do their job on the one Prime he supervises; and a little bit of ‘the grand design of the Eldest Ones’ prodding here and there. He isn’t an agent of balance unless his bosses tell him to be in a particular instance. Though powerful, the role of Overpowers is super limited in scope

There are people who advocate grand Balance... Mordenkainen; but also the Rilmani, and a few others. Even many Celestial types acknowledge the need for Evil on the cosmic level; because of free will or something along those lines... even if they think Evil is too powerful or pervasive right now.

When the Alignments get out of wack, the structure of the Great Wheel begins to break down; and things really get wild while the cosmos (seemingly) corrects itself... most notably when Law began to gain ascendancy over Chaos and the entirety of reality (this reality anyways) went to battle until a new balance was found. There are arguments that similar conflict over an imbalance between Creation/Destruction also rocked the Planes to the ground even before that

[Unoriginal]

Even many Celestial types acknowledge the need for Evil on the cosmic level; because of free will or something along those lines... even if they think Evil is too powerful or pervasive right now.


Well, you can't force people to be good. It kinda defeat the idea of good.

[Naanomi]

Well, you can't force people to be good. It kinda defeat the idea of good.
Not all celestials agree with that, many Arcadians for example. Others would say that evil people should exist, but when they die and become ‘Evil’ souls they have no right to exist and should be exterminated (not that they have the power to do so); or dream of perfect Utopian existence where Evil technically is possible but no one ever does it and all of the cosmos is functionally the Upper Planes in practice

[Nifft]

Well, you can't force people to be good. It kinda defeat the idea of good.

Therefore, any attempt to educate or discipline your children is prohibited.

Also you can't make laws against sins like murder, that would be too coercive.

[Unoriginal]

Not all celestials agree with that, many Arcadians for example.


5e PHB mentions that the good gods do agree with that, though.


Others would say that evil people should exist, but when they die and become ‘Evil’ souls they have no right to exist and should be exterminated (not that they have the power to do so)

Like, stopping the influx of souls to the lower planes?



or dream of perfect Utopian existence where Evil technically is possible but no one ever does it and all of the cosmos is functionally the Upper Planes in practice

Well, no harm in dreaming that. I'm pretty sure all good people would rather have everyone choose to do the right thing in the end, no? Like, you don't often hear good people go "sure, you had the choice to not kill this innocent person, but honestly you killing them or not doesn't matter much to me, what's important is you made the choice."

Giving the choice is important to avoid cosmic slavery of all the material plane people. Doesn't mean that the good entities will approve all your choices.


Therefore, any attempt to educate or discipline your children is prohibited.

Also you can't make laws against sins like murder, that would be too coercive.

Not sure what you're sarcastic about, sorry. Are you trying to imply that those ridiculously hyperbolic statements are anything resembling what I've said?

Because disciplining, educating kids or forbidding something have nothing to do with removing free will. Forbidding your kid to smoke weed isn't mind-raping your kid to make them unable to smoke weed.

[Hooligan]

I am relieved at the comfort provided by a familiar alignment thread rather than the disturbing flood of Hexblade (and non-Hexblade) postings we've seen recently.

[Naanomi]

the PHB mentions that the good gods do agree with that, though.
Meh, the Good Gods don’t control what is Good; that sort of thing is way above their influence. It may be a good data point on what some Good beings with ‘big picture’ views think. There are a lot of Gods though (perhaps infinite) so I’m sure not all agree fully even on this


Like, stopping the influx of souls to the lower planes?
No more like... kill all the fiends, set up Celestial control over the Lower Planes that attempt to redeem and, if failing, exterminate the Evil souls that arrive their as soon as they transform into the lowest fiends. Again, almost certainly not achievable... but a dream/goal of many more martial Celestials who acknowledge evil cant truly be eliminated but shouldn’t be given a chance to thrive or influence other parts of existence


Giving the choice is important to avoid cosmic slavery of all the material plane people. Doesn't mean that the good entities will approve all your choices.
True, although to be fair ‘giving people a choice’ is often framed as a Chaos vs Law position more than a Good/Evil one. As I brought up before, I’d wager ‘mind control you to make Good choices if you prove you can’t do it yourself’ would be totally acceptable in Arcadia

[Unoriginal]

Meh, the Good Gods don’t control what is Good; that sort of thing is way above their influence. It may be a good data point on what some Good beings with ‘big picture’ views think.


True, but given that the gods do control the creation of most sapient species, it's at least conforting.



There are a lot of Gods though (perhaps infinite) so I’m sure not all agree fully even on this

Well if there is any who doesn't agree, they probably don't create mortals and stick with angels.



No more like... kill all the fiends, set up Celestial control over the Lower Planes that attempt to redeem and, if failing, exterminate the Evil souls that arrive their as soon as they transform into the lowest fiends. Again, almost certainly not achievable... but a dream/goal of many more martial Celestials who acknowledge evil cant truly be eliminated but shouldn’t be given a chance to thrive or influence other parts of existence

Eh. Impossible dreams often make dreamers do the possible.

[Naanomi]

Well if there is any who doesn't agree, they probably don't create mortals and stick with angels.
Maybe. Only a few dozen (known) Gods bothered to make mortal races of their own, most are fine fostering the races that already exist (by the action of other Gods, non-divine Genesis, and/or came into existence before the Gods existed)

[ciarannihill]

It always feels like alignment gets muddy because you have so many angles to argue from. Like first of all you have to take into account all the shades of grey regarding societal morality, then layer personal morality or codes on top of that, then motives and intentions, then the whole cosmic aspect. I always feel like eventually conversations regarding it results in talking in circles, sadly.

And it's not a strictly bad thing that alignment is more nuanced than it once was in the days of yore. It just makes it harder to parse and explain to a newcomer to DnD. Thankfully it's also lessened in importance over time.

[DMThac0]

I had to find a way to summarize alignments when working on one of my spreadsheet projects, this is my interpretation:

Unaligned:
Most creatures do not have an alignment. This is due to a low Int/Wis score, as well as acting from instinct.

Lawful/Chaotic:
This is how a creature treats following the law, religious, or social structures. Lawful will try to follow them to the best of their ability. Chaotic will do what they want without regard to those rules.

Good/Evil:
This is how a creature handles moral, religious and social ideals. A Good creature will try to do what is seen as beneficial to those ideals. An evil person will do things that appear to go against those ideals.

Neutral:
Creatures of this trait will do what they feel is best in the given situation. They are not caught up in the structures or ideals, rather the situation is their guide.

[Asmotherion]

Ultimatelly, I think it has to do with how good you are at functioning in a well defined hierarchy, and/or in a group.

Unability to abide by the rules is Chaotic, wile a need of a clearly defined authority is Lawful. Indiferance to that is Neutral in that Axis.

[Particle_Man]

I picture my character lawful, due to the very strong personal code. But on the other hand, that personal code is sometimes at odds with the rule of law. I'd just call it LN and be done with it, but I'm going to be traveling with a bunch of actual LN paladins and clerics, who are probably going to want to convert me to their religion. Or maybe they'll want to get rid of me because I'm not apt to follow their idea of lawfulness.

In other words, it may become a plot point. So how do I frame my alignment in reference to theirs? Do my internal rules have a bearing on the impression of lawfulness? Am I actually chaotic?

I think it is possible to be lawful and disagree with other lawful beings. It is likely, however, that such disagreement itself will be handled in a lawful manner. Presumably lawful beings with different codes will try to find enough areas of agreement to work out lawful, principled ways of disagreeing (and hopefully agreeing to disagree).

[Naanomi]

I think it is possible to be lawful and disagree with other lawful beings. It is likely, however, that such disagreement itself will be handled in a lawful manner. Presumably lawful beings with different codes will try to find enough areas of agreement to work out lawful, principled ways of disagreeing (and hopefully agreeing to disagree).
Or legally and formally declare war over dogmatic and inflexibly held differences. Law is also good at that

[BurgerBeast]

People get pretty bonkers when it comes to alignments. Beware of absolute statements.

Everyone has a bit of lawfulness and a bit of gaps chaos in them. And everyone has a bit of good and a bit of evil in them. Good people do evil things sometimes, and evil people do good things sometimes.

Some good people will do reliably evil things as well. For example, an otherwise good person may be quick to cross the line in defense of, or to avenge, his family.

The best approach, in my opinion, is to consider your alignment or to be a general and overall assessment of how your character behaves.

Some people are chaotic because they value chaos, in the sense that they value freedom over security. Some people are chaotic because, despite striving to be lawful, they find themselves choosing to break the rules, whether for the sake of something else or just because they can’t control themselves.

[Unoriginal]

The best approach, in my opinion, is to consider your alignment or to be a general and overall assessment of how your character behaves.

Considering it's literally what the PHB says alignment is...

[Samayu]

Thanks to everyone for your comments here. I hardly disagree with anything you've said. You have obviously practiced these discussions many times. :smallbiggrin:

[Greywander]

One way of interpreting Law vs. Chaos, although I don't know how well this fits with D&D lore, is as Absolutism vs. Relativism.

An Absolutist generally believes that Truths are Universal and Unchanging. In other words if something is wrong, then it's always wrong regardless of the circumstances.

A Relativist generally believes that Truths are Personal and Situational. In other words, something can be wrong for one person but not another, or wrong in one situation but not another.

Most people are a mix of both, but people generally err on one side or the other. A Lawful character would generally understand that there are exceptions to the rules, while a Chaotic character would recognize the similarities between two situations and that they are not wholly disconnected.

It's easy to see how an Absolutist view can lead to dogmatism, a hallmark of Law, and likewise how Relativism can lead to seemingly inconsistent behavior, a hallmark of Chaos.

[Millstone85]

No more like... kill all the fiends, set up Celestial control over the Lower Planes that attempt to redeem and, if failing, exterminate the Evil souls that arrive their as soon as they transform into the lowest fiends. Again, almost certainly not achievable... but a dream/goal of many more martial Celestials who acknowledge evil cant truly be eliminated but shouldn’t be given a chance to thrive or influence other parts of existence
Eh. Impossible dreams often make dreamers do the possible.Consider the case of the Spawning Stone. It was created by Primus to be thrown into Limbo, where it has since been the reason why ordered minds can shape the chaos-stuff* of the plane as they will. Sure, it had the side effect of creating the slaadi, hence it becoming known as the Spawning Stone, but Primus still managed to impose a lawful trait upon an entire plane dedicated to chaos. He himself seems to have an "eh, good enough" attitude toward this outcome.
* MToF actually calls it that.

What if victorious celestials managed to establish some sort of "demotion field" over the Lower Planes? Lemures, larvae and manes everywhere, too weak and dumb to bother anyone.

[Naanomi]

I know this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but sometimes when I am trying to assign an alignment to a character; I look to the representative Planes for what would best fit the character.

For example... I have an inquisitive Rogue acolyte who is a Church Inquisitor, ferreting out heresy and the like. Big on the letter of sacred law, nominally works for the church hierarchy but... would go against it if he thought they were not following the sacred texts. Definetly in it for ‘the greater Good’ but probably willing to engage in some shady amoral actions to defend that structure.

Arcadia is the home of such dogmatism, of ‘moral sacrifices for the Greater Good’ thinking. Acheron is the home of ‘any action that supports my team is justified’... my Rogue leans towards the former but could hit the latter on a bad day or in a bad situation. To me, that fits best with Law overall, and Lawful Neutral specifically (with a general tendency towards Good, but too much potential for Evil actions to say they are just flukes).

To me, looking at what they Universe considers examples of Alignment behavior helps ground me in the ‘reality’ behind it and guides my choices. Again, not for everyone, but helps draw the disparate threads in for me

Consider the case of the Spawning Stone. It was created by Primus to be thrown into Limbo, where it has since been the reason why ordered minds can shape the chaos-stuff* of the plane as they will. Sure, it had the side effect of creating the slaadi, hence it becoming known as the Spawning Stone.
In older Lore, the original Exemplars of Chaos were ‘true Slaadi’; shapeshifting beings with no structure or reason to their manifestation; mostly weak and short lived but some few ‘Slaadi lords’ immensely powerful. A Slaadi Lord actually conspired with the forces of Law to make the Spawning Stone to prevent rivals to his power from being randomly made... it mostly worked, but Chaos being what it is, it wasn’t perfect and a few have manifested anyways since then

[Nifft]

Well, you can't force people to be good. It kinda defeat the idea of good.


Not sure what you're sarcastic about, sorry. Are you trying to imply that those ridiculously hyperbolic statements are anything resembling what I've said?

Because disciplining, educating kids or forbidding something have nothing to do with removing free will. Forbidding your kid to smoke weed isn't mind-raping your kid to make them unable to smoke weed.

Yes, what you said previously was exactly as ridiculous as what you're now saying.

The use of force runs along a spectrum. At one end is your hyperbolic hilarity -- mind-rape, in your words -- and at the other end are all reasonably just and moral law-enforcement schemes.

Both are the use of force to make people not behave in evil ways. One of them is ridiculous (that'd be yours), but the other is trammeled up in your overstatement. Which is what I'm correcting. Honest enforcement of laws which are moral and fair is "forcing people" (because it is a use of force), but it's not going to invalidate anyone's goodness.

Education is another potentially coercive use of force, especially if the students are compelled to attend, which on my planet they generally are. It's not going to invalidate anyone's goodness.


tl;dr - Freedom from socialization & law are not what good means.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, what you said previously was exactly as ridiculous as what you're now saying.

The use of force runs along a spectrum. At one end is your hyperbolic hilarity -- mind-rape, in your words -- and at the other end are all reasonably just and moral law-enforcement schemes.

Both are the use of force to make people not behave in evil ways. One of them is ridiculous (that'd be yours), but the other is trammeled up in your overstatement. Which is what I'm correcting. Honest enforcement of laws which are moral and fair is "forcing people" (because it is a use of force), but it's not going to invalidate anyone's goodness.

Education is another potentially coercive use of force, especially if the students are compelled to attend, which on my planet they generally are. It's not going to invalidate anyone's goodness.


tl;dr - Freedom from socialization & law are not what good means.

...what the **** are you talking about?

Dude, I'm not talking about anyone stopping people from doing evil or behaving badly. Yes, you can use force to stop people from doing evil.

But there is a difference between "forcing people to not do something evil" and "forcing people to do something good".

Trying to save a man's life at the risk of your own is generally considered good. Forcing someone else at gunpoint to risk their life to save someone else, or using mind-control magic on them so they do it, generally isn't.

Here, in the D&D context, I was talking about how the good gods chose to let mortals have free will:


According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.


So get out of your high horse and calm down with your unsubstantiated mockeries.

[Nifft]

...what the **** are you talking about? Here, I spelled it out previously:


tl;dr - Freedom from socialization & law are not what good means.

Down at ground level, this isn't difficult to understand: use of force is NOT identical to mind-rape.

When you make that equivalence, you are saying something ridiculous.


If you had intended to say something less than what you wrote ... not sure what I can do about that. I only see what you post.

Hopefully we're done here.

[Unoriginal]

Here, I spelled it out previously:

Just to know, do you think that answering a rhetorical question literally makes you look like you're the one who get the point?



Down at ground level, this isn't difficult to understand: use of force is NOT identical to mind-rape.

When you make that equivalence, you are saying something ridiculous.

The use of force is not identical to mind-rape, but mind-raping people to force them to do something is one of the many ways to use force.

In the context of what I said, it changes nothing. Forcing people to do good is not good, which is different from using force to prevent or stop people from doing evil.

Not giving people's free will so that they always do good is just slavery, as the good gods knew.

[Nifft]

Just to know, do you think that answering a rhetorical question literally makes you look like you're the one who get the point? ...what the **** are you talking about?



The use of force is not identical to mind-rape

There we go. Now you're saying something non-ridiculous.

[Particle_Man]

I wonder if 3.5’s Sapphire Hierarch will ever be ported to 5e. I like their take on lawful: “look this good vs. evil stuff is all very well but we are working to help reunify a broken universe!”

I like that “grownups are talking!” version of Lawful. The idea that if chaos won there would be no universe so all talk of good vs. evil would become moot.

Of course, that is just their POV.

[Millstone85]

I know this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but sometimes when I am trying to assign an alignment to a character; I look to the representative Planes for what would best fit the character.Here is my quick assessment of the Outer Planes in that regard.

Very easy to picture what souls would be drawn there:
* The Life-Size Plans-Reliefs of Arcadia (LN/LG)
A paradise so clean and tidy that it doesn't even try to hide its artificiality.
* The Combining Battle Tiles of Acheron (LN/LE)
Like Arcadia if war-torn, each soul becoming another piece on the board.
* The Wide Open Sandbox of Ysgard (CN/CG)
Freedom on the frontier. Adventure and heroic strife awaiting everywhere.

As open to interpretation as the alignments they represent:
* Basically Heaven, Complete with Unreachable Peak (LG)
Souls here aim for the loftiest virtues of chivalry and justice.
* Basically Hell, Complete with Nine Circles and Satan (LE)
♫ They came upon Devil's game, and gosh they paid the price. ♫
* The Whimsical Land of Frolicking Nymphs (CG)
These days, even eladrins prefer the more dangerous Feywild.
* Basically Hell, but a Bit More Lovecraftian (CE)
It is a big ugly free-for-all, except when there are teams.

Clear concepts pushed to truly alien degrees:
* The Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus (LN)
Pretty hard to imagine humanoid souls among the constructs.
* The Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo (CN)
Pretty hard to imagine humanoid souls being there at all.

Barely alignment-related:
Everything else. Like, NG/CG is beasts? Okay.

[Naanomi]

This is a lot of personal interpretation; albeit interpretation I’d argue grows from a good understanding of the Great Wheel (and precursor) source material. Note that some of these planes have different layers that explore these concepts in different ways.

Celestia is the Plane for those who never stop trying to reach perfection; who may be a bit judgemental or even self-critical; but ultimately sees potential to be better in everything and wants to both achieve it personally but inspire it in others and in society as a whole.

Byopia is the Plane for those who want to work hard and be rewarded for that work; farmers who wake up at the crack of dawn to milk goats every day and go to bed exhausted but satisfied every night

Elysium is the Plane for people who seek contentment; who strive towards Good in is basic forms: kindness, peacefulness, etc. It is the resting point for those who see a good life as its own reward, and don’t feel a drive to force that on people; but rather just live a life (and afterlife) that shows it is its own reward

The Beastlands is a place for those who see the trappings of civilization as barriers to right living. Primitive ‘noble savages’, but also Walden and the like... people who feel that if all the pretenses of man (cities, governments, rules) would just fall away we would be left with something more pristine and pure; albeit not always safe and easy

Arboria is the place for those who seek wonder and excitement, who want new challenges and surprises around every corner; people who want to live life to the fullest, climb mountains bigger than Everest, skydive off of the peak, and photograph an awesome cloudscape on the way down.

Ysgard is the place for those who want individual glory: they want to do countless amazing (and personally edifying) things, party about having done them, and tell stories about it until the end of time. It is no wonder many adventurers end up here!

Limbo is the plane of self-expression; a plane where all of your whims and fancies can be made manifest, if only for an instant, and who want no barrier (not even reason and rationality)

Pandemonium is the place for those who live a life of fear and anxiety, who see reality as an unpredictable and dangerous place and the best you can hope for is a pocket of temporary safety (often within your own mind) to protect yourself alone from the harshness and cruelty of the world

The Abyss is the place for those who see no place for boundaries to their desires, where people with the power can seize whatever they want (even reshaping reality to fulfill their needs) and no restraint of any kind is necessary in any capacity except that which can be forced upon you by others directly (and even that is temporary or can be fought against)

Carceri is the place for people who see all of existence... including other people and even themselves... as horrible, unworthy; where nothing deserves or gives respect or praise or any kind; and all the pleasure there is in reality is disgusting and shameful self-indulgence at the expense of people who deserve no better

The Grey Wastes are for the hopeless, those who see life as meaningless and bad but know there is no way to improve their lot or that of any other; a place where boundless depression and apathy is the only reasonable response to the crapsack nature of existence, and people who think otherwise are fooling themselves

Gehenna is the place of struggle, where existence is at best a zero-sum game and you can only win if other people lose. It isn’t as individual as the chaotic planes in this... one could seek to see your crime family or political party or corporation, but ultimately because of the gain it provides you as part of that group.

Baator is the Plane for people who think there is a trick to success and satisfaction; that if they get the right job, say the right things, push the right buttons... that the world will open up to them to exploit and it will be ‘right and just’ because of they were clever/strong/lucky/ambitious enough to make it happen where others fail

Acheron is the place for people who think people don’t matter, only groups or causes. A person who is a marine first and a human second, for whom group and ideological dominance matters more than anything else. You are a faceless, nameless cog in something larger; and if there is any gain or glory to be had it isn’t for you, but for the cause you champion. They similarly dehumanize others; your political rivals are the evil of the other party, the members themselves don’t matter

Mechanus is the Plane where structure, routine, and predictability are paramount and for people who hold those ideas as supreme. People who don’t care is they are happy or satisfied so long as they have job security and the trains run on time, or for people who feel satisfied being a tiny part of something grander (but not with the fervor and zealotry of Acheron or Arcadia)

Arcadia is the Plane or those who make sacrifices to achieve the greater Good. Individuality, creativity, and more often than not morality give way to the bigger picture, the ideal at the end that was worth the sacrifices needed to get there or maintain the system; but always with the eye on the prize or society-wide achievement and security

The Outlands are for people who for whatever reason don’t feel the pull of these ideologies; often people who see the world as a complex place rather than seeing a single ‘right way’ that things should be done; or who don’t think an overarching ‘correct’ worldview exists beyond the ups and downs of life (or afterlife as the case may be)

[BurgerBeast]

One way of interpreting Law vs. Chaos, although I don't know how well this fits with D&D lore, is as Absolutism vs. Relativism.

I disagree with this idea, but I do think it’s a cool thought. For me, absolute versus relative addresses whether something is true. Law or chaos addresses how one acts in response.

In other words, a universe (or aspect of the universe) can be absolute or relative, but this doesn’t prevent the existence of lawful and chaotic individuals operating within it, in any case.

You point out that it is possible to be lawful about things that are not lawful.. which would be dogmatism, and I agree. But this is not an inherent characteristic of lawful beings. It’s a characteristic of anyone who perceives a law where there is none (regardless of alignment). Even chaotic characters can be dogmatic if they think law underpins something it does not.

For Unoriginal:

I’m not sure if I’ve got your claims right, but if I have, then I have a small discrepancy in how I view alignment. In a real-world context, I would agree that forced actions would not be indicative of alignment, because the actor cannot reasonably held responsible. But i would not consider “held at gun point” to be forced. There is still the opportunity to take the bullet. I would consider “forced” to mean something like a person grabbing your hand and moving your finger so that it pulls a trigger. Literally forced.

However I think that in the fantasy context, it’s much cooler to tie “true” alignment to actions only, and leave intentions out of it. This means that evil but god-fearing people can live good lives, and it means that Hercules was right to feel guilty about slaughtering his own family.

It also makes questions of alignment easier (for the DM) to answer, while providing plenty of contexts for moral dilemmas. Evil people can commit good acts, intentionally, by mistake, unknowingly, because they are forced, or because they think the act is actually evil. The same (inversed) can be applied to good people committing evil acts. That’s a lot of cool story opportunity.