Favorite alignment

[Sto]

A friend and I were debating good and evil as they exist in D&D. He brought up that his favorite alignment is Neutral Evil, and that caused me to think about how I have more fun as lawful characters. So what about the rest of you? I want to know what your favorite alignments are from both a Roleplaying perspective and an optimization perspective.

[Inevitability]

I've played about everything, and interestingly enough don't really have a strong preference for alignment. That said, I do tend to stay away from the NG-CG-CN corner.

Irl I'm probably somewhere on the Lawful side of things (big surprise, right?). Law is incidentally also the alignment I find most interesting from a theoretical perspective.

Optimization-wise, I don't think one can claim some alignments are strictly better than others. That said, for any given build there is probably a 'best alignment'. If I had to pick one over all others, I'd go with Neutral Evil, because that lets you enter Ur-Priest (a strong contender for 'most bonkers class in the game') without removing your ability to cast Chaotic and Lawful spells.

[Boggartbae]

RP wise, I like playing NE and CE toons that play well with others, but still do evil stuff when no one is looking. For optimization, it's the same. I think that evil options are probably on average stronger than good options, but I agree that no alignment is head and shoulders above the rest.

[GrayDeath]

Most Characters I really enjoy are,s trangely, Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil.
I cant really get into CE Characters and have fun at the same time, and NE if played "fully" tends to only work in VERY special Groups.
I dont think I ever played a neutral Good Character outside of a PCRPG, as its just TOO good for most fun things, imo.
THe unnamed Alignments come in at a loong distance behind.

IRL I probably fall somewhere in the Neutral Category if I am honest (on one hand I have some core values I follow, on the other I really abhor "Rules for Rules Sake" societies, sooo, yeah, probably around tN with some Good/Evil tendencies), though various D&D Alignment tests ping me almost exclusively Chaotig Good or TN.....

[noce]

My first char was basically myself as a dwarf (not that I'm much taller).

Then I discovered to be lawful neutral, and that playing as one felt very natural to me.

[VincentTakeda]

Chaotic good for about a decade, then neutral good for about another decade. Now I play palladium instead and pretty much feel at home in 'unprincipled'

[Malphegor]

Lawful Neutral. I roleplay it as the glorification of rules, civilisation and the organisation of things.

Being in a city, you're happy. The gears of commerce are greased, and you feel most at home in the hustle and bustle of people doing things towards a common purpose. For the sum is greater than any individual part.

Good? Evil? Bah. A child's folly, barely grasping the power that we all possess, not as individuals, but as groups. What matters the workings of good, when the undead can be chained to an endless treadmill to beget life far greater in quantity than their accursed existence, through the food they produce via the mill they power?

What good is evil, when a properly organised justice system will place all in their proper place. What crookery you plan can be useful, and thus no longer be crookery as you knew it.

The world is a gear. And you are but a single tooth, one of many. You will interlock with everyone else.

Or we will break you.

And that makes interactions with external influences fascinating. How much are the fey an anathema to such a person, who worships civilisations? Do demons insult them by their very nature? Do they admire the complexity of a devilish pact, even if they think the evil nature is juvenile pranking at best?

I love exploring lawful neutral characters. (also, weirdly, a lot of WOTC stuff seems to completely ignore the concept of a lawful neutral character for some reason in official books. It's... actually kind of weird. Lawful Good? Sure. Chaotic Good? Basically the default. Chaotic Neutral? Have some spells! Lawful Evil? Sure. Chaotic Evil? At least 3 books focus on that to be honest...
But Lawful Neutral? We're the Hufflepuffs of alignments. We get stuff done, but nobody really thinks we have much going on. Damn neutrals, to quote Zap Brannigan.)

[Mike Miller]

Lawful Neutral. But alignment is basically ignored in my games...

[PunBlake]

I have the most fun with the diagonal line of CG-TN-LE.

CG: Makes being in a city more fun than a Lawful alignment.
TN: Ambassador and agent of balance.
LE: Scheming. Always. Best poker face.

[Elkad]

Either I play very close to my own actual outlook, which makes the character CG, or I flop it completely and go LE.

Pretty much everything else I skip, unless there is a class requirement.

[tadkins]

Chaotic Good here. I tend to practice chaos on a daily basis (without even realizing it most of the time) but I genuinely try to be a moral person and help others, or at least not hinder them.

[Sordahon]

I am Chaotic Neutral with a bit of good, perfect alignment for me, no shackles and limits, morality is still there, passing judgement by one opinion and not by bystander laws.

[Luccan]

I never look at alignment as a thing to optimize. I know you can, but I've never been interested in doing so. NG is my favorite, probably. I like playing good guys and I don't feel strongly enough on the Law-Chaos side of things to see either as superior.

[Buufreak]

By and far my favorite alignments are the non x-stupid alignments. I don't even like them when played accidentally, satirically, intentionally, or really for any reason.

[Nifft]

Really depends on the game's genre.

In a heroic fantasy game, Lawful Good can be awesome -- and best of all, you're not made to feel dumb for being good. That's probably my favorite, but it's not the only one I enjoy.

Other genres reward a different attitude towards morality or authority. In WoD Werewolf, for example, a more Chaotic / anti-authoritarian perspective is how I'd frame the truth of that world -- so I'd gravitate away from Law if I wanted to be Good in that setting.

[Elkad]

Really depends on the game's genre.

In a heroic fantasy game, Lawful Good can be awesome -- and best of all, you're not made to feel dumb for being good. That's probably my favorite, but it's not the only one I enjoy.

Other genres reward a different attitude towards morality or authority. In WoD Werewolf, for example, a more Chaotic / anti-authoritarian perspective is how I'd frame the truth of that world -- so I'd gravitate away from Law if I wanted to be Good in that setting.

It's hard for me to envision compelling people to do something, even if it's the right thing, so I have a problem with LG. It's an irrational alignment. In my mind, if you are compelling them to do Good, you are actually doing Evil.
Lawful Neutral I can make work, by making a jump to an alien mindset.

Every other alignment is fine.

[ExLibrisMortis]

LN for me. And, if not that, then at least not CN. For some reason, CN is worse than CG and CE. Maybe it's because I don't see slaadi as an interesting faction, as opposed to eladrin and demons.

[Nifft]

It's hard for me to envision compelling people to do something, even if it's the right thing, so I have a problem with LG. It's an irrational alignment. In my mind, if you are compelling them to do Good, you are actually doing Evil.

This seems like an unjustified complaint.

Lawful Good doesn't say you must compel everyone to obey your own law.

Here's what Lawful says:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.


Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.

[Elkad]

This seems like an unjustified complaint.

Lawful Good doesn't say you must compel everyone to obey your own law.

Here's what Lawful says:


Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.


Sure, if you don't have any missionary urge at all. Which works for the masses. It doesn't work for Clerics or especially Paladins.

[Nifft]

Sure, if you don't have any missionary urge at all. Which works for the masses. It doesn't work for Clerics or especially Paladins.

Involuntary compulsion is not identical to missionary work.

Also, not being a jerk can work great for Paladins and Clerics both -- in fact that's my default, and it's been excellent so far.

[Blue Jay]

I like moral ambiguity, so I chafe a lot at the D&D alignment system.

But, in general, I like playing Chaotic Good and Neutral Good the most. NG is probably the most comfortable for me, but CG is fun for playing alluring and charismatic characters.

I also like playing True Neutral sometimes, because there's more freedom to use different options, but the alignment usually only runs mechanics-deep: I usually end up leaning Good anyway.

But I can't really stomach Evil PCs. I don't like people acting like jerks or bullies in real life, so it's not enjoyable in a game either.

[ericgrau]

Undefined.

[Sleven]

Most people are TN whether they're aware of it or not. Playing with that perspective produces some of the most interesting results if you have the right means to tie the party together.

On the other hand, I've enjoyed roleplaying NG and LE from a party perspective because it's easy to form a group around it. For NG characters it's easier to share a similar sense of morality and develop personal bonds with fellow party members. LE, on the other hand, can be great at staying organized, loyal, and/or committed to one another, while eschewing the morale scruples that hold back good parties. LE parties tend to get stuff done, which can be great from all ends of the table.

In general, I think people get too hung up on the guidelines set for the alignment system and forget that they're just that: guidelines. For example: LN character can have a personal code, way of life, be disciplined, or commited to their nation. They don't have to follow laws that don't agree with those things. NE characters, on the other hand, don't have to be entirely selfish. They can have people or things they care about and would think twice about betraying in pursuit of their goals. Those things might be limited, but they can still be there. Etc.

[Ignimortis]

I used to be staunchly in the Chaotic Good camp, but over time it stopped being a thing I would stand for. These days most of my characters fall into Lawful Neutral category with leanings either to Good or Evil, but not complete commitment. They are either very principled in their own stances and neither cruel nor particularly merciful (minimum collateral, maximum efficiency), or serve the law (not the concept, but the actual enforcement) in whatever shape it exists in the game. I figure I could pull off any of the neighbouring alignments, but Chaotic is kinda incomprehensible to me now.

[White Blade]

Lawful Good, because in D&D you need to stab people and I like playing a good guy. Stabbing people on any basis other than a consistent, clear moral code feels bad.

If I ever played an Apostle of Peace though, I'd probably be pretty happy to play a chaotic good character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Some of the mechanical options I like are gated behind a lawful alignment but past that I'm not really tied tightly to any one alignment in particular though I do like the system as a whole.

[Bohandas]

theoretically Chaotic Evil ought to be the best at destroying evil empires. Carving an erratic path of wholesale destruction would seriously impair any nation's ability to retain totalitarian control.

[Luccan]

theoretically Chaotic Evil ought to be the best at destroying evil empires. Carving an erratic path of wholesale destruction would seriously impair any nation's ability to retain totalitarian control.

Unless said empire has a means of subduing you or minimizing your impact. Then they reframe you as a threat to society only they can defend from and your damage fuels the propaganda machine.

[ezekielraiden]

White Blade said it well.

I like Lawful Good because it's my natural mode of thinking (or at least the closest analogue), and because I feel dirty if I play even a Neutral alignment. I need to be moral in *all* my behavior, even if it's pretend. (Strangely, being a DM has loosened this restriction. Maybe because I don't *identify* with the characters?)

I'm very detail-oriented, exacting in speech, and inclined to trust someone's word as well as established authority. I'm thus pretty Lawful. I also feel compassion and empathy for basically everyone, strongly believe in total honesty and above-board behavior, and genuinely doing everything I can to help anyone I know. It's easy to call yourself "good," but I really work very hard to be. And most people I know agree (I am almost *notoriously* "as close as you get to a real-life Paladin," as a friend said literally this past weekend.) This is then reflected in the people I play. Honesty, integrity, justice, mercy, humility, kindness, service. To live each day hoping to hear, "you have done well, My good and faithful servant." To regret taking any life, even a muderer's or slaver's, because all life is sacred...but knowing that the alternative is unacceptable. To play by the rules in a game where the rules favor cheaters, and yet still win in the end, by persistence and wisdom.

[tadkins]

Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.

Not saying all LGs play like that of course (and I would wager the majority don't) but there is definitely a fair share of "my way or the highway" and "repent or die" mindsets among the LG flock. Just have to look at spells like Sanctify the Wicked, which I imagine is a favorite of LG.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not saying all LGs play like that of course (and I would wager the majority don't) but there is definitely a fair share of "my way or the highway" and "repent or die" mindsets among the LG flock. Just have to look at spells like Sanctify the Wicked, which I imagine is a favorite of LG.

Sanctify the wicked has the good descriptor but not the lawful one. CG clerics can cast it just fine.

[Luccan]

Sanctify the wicked has the good descriptor but not the lawful one. CG clerics can cast it just fine.

The CG cleric is too busy committing arson on the LG gods' temples

[Sleven]

Not saying all LGs play like that of course (and I would wager the majority don't) but there is definitely a fair share of "my way or the highway" and "repent or die" mindsets among the LG flock. Just have to look at spells like Sanctify the Wicked, which I imagine is a favorite of LG.

People tend to radicalize the alignments far too much. They lose the "human" element of characterization as a result. Which is why no one enjoys having them at their table. Personally, I don't mind LG or even Paladins as long as the DM and players understand the meaning of the word "nuanced".

[SangoProduction]

Error: NotANumber

Line 666: DivideByZero

[Seharvepernfan]

Chaotic good, always and forever. For roleplaying, it's almost a necessity or I'm just not having fun. For optimization? Who cares. If you can't make a strong character of your favorite alignment, this is probably the wrong game for you.

[tadkins]

Sanctify the wicked has the good descriptor but not the lawful one. CG clerics can cast it just fine.

It's hard to imagine a CG cleric using it though. You're essentially robbing a person of their freedom which is what CG is all about.


People tend to radicalize the alignments far too much. They lose the "human" element of characterization as a result. Which is why no one enjoys having them at their table. Personally, I don't mind LG or even Paladins as long as the DM and players understand the meaning of the word "nuanced".

I can agree there. And most people playing Paladins or LG characters tend to be pretty cool. The biggest thing I try to keep in mind about alignments is that we are not outsiders; we are mortal, flawed, and not perfect representations of our alignment. It's totally okay for us to not adhere to them to the letter and it's totally okay to stray from them every so often.

[Nifft]

It's hard to imagine a CG cleric using it though. You're essentially robbing a person of their freedom which is what CG is all about. "... and that's why I'm going to free this pit fiend from eternal bondage to Hell, using this handy mental deprogramming spell. Viva la revolution!"


I can agree there. And most people playing Paladins or LG characters tend to be pretty cool. The biggest thing I try to keep in mind about alignments is that we are not outsiders; we are mortal, flawed, and not perfect representations of our alignment. It's totally okay for us to not adhere to them to the letter and it's totally okay to stray from them every so often. But if you look at the letters, they're not about the jerkish extremist behavior that people seem to dislike. It's both the letter and the spirit which disagree with being a jerk who compels others to obey or suffer.

LG Outsiders in my games are also not extremist jerks, because I use the rules as written.

There might be a villain who is an extremist jerk, and who claims to serve the cause of LG, but that guy would probably be a liar (in addition to other villainy) -- or be deluded, and if that guy is currently LG, it's not going to last very long, because jerkish actions are incompatible with being any kind of Good.

[Sian]

Have a preference towards LN, but with a somewhat alien mindset that oftens goes directly against many of the default moral opinions of Good

[Celestia]

I tend to enjoy (in no particular order) chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, lawful evil, lawful neutral, and true neutral. I find the others are either too boring or too overdone.

[Ghen]

IRL, I'm on the knife's edge between LG and LN, depending on what mood I'm in. As a result I tend to almost exclusively play these alignments, though I'll occasionally play NG (though I tend to regret it later). I just... don't have a good time playing evil characters for a very long time. I really can't stand playing chaotic stuff at all, as in, I hate it even more than playing evil. It completely goes against my personality, and I just avoid it.

As far as optimization goes, I have always assumed that true neutral is the strongest option. It lets you be a druid, which is a fantastically powerful class. Also, many spells that protect against extremes don't work on you, since there's no such thing as "protection from neutral" or "detect neutral" spells. I don't think that the edge true neutral has is really significant or anything, but I've always just felt like the power leaned in that direction just a smidgeon.


<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.

[Eldonauran]

My favorite alignment to play is True Neutral, as it affords me the flexibility to act in any given situation as the situation requires without having to obey a strict rigid code, while at the same time acknowledging that laws and order are somewhat necessary to prevent anarchy. I can indulge in the urges to be charitable and kind, while also being able to entertain horrible ends to those that harm the innocent (though, as a last resort, of course). I like True Neutral because of the Balance and in spite of the Balance.

My ideal alignment is Neutral Good, though it can lean towards Lawful Good when the possibility of individual power corrupting the laws to their benefit is removed (and thus the 'rules' are under the sole control of an all powerful, benevolent entity). Order is necessary when people's individual viewpoints of what is right and wrong differ too much, and gives them a baseline to follow for the benefit of everyone. This alignment is the closest reflection to my own personal moral code that the D&D universe offers and the most comfortable to lose myself in while roleplaying.

[ezekielraiden]

<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.

When I'm convinced I'm right and aggrieved, I can absolutely be Lawful Evil. Pitiless and exacting, using my control of language and my reputation for precision and correctness to manipulate others. Thinking I know better than someone else what they need and how much they should know.

Of course, in the moment of doing so, I don't see it as evil. But few--if any--people ever see themselves as evil. They see themselves, at very worst, as doing something unsavory in the moment, for a greater or nobler goal. More likely, though, they see themselves as perfectly good and righteous--avoiding vices like being permissive or coddling. Because, as Aristotle said: "Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean." The Nichomachean Ethics, book II, section 6.

[Goaty14]

Lawful Good, because of what Nifft said.

[tadkins]

"... and that's why I'm going to free this pit fiend from eternal bondage to Hell, using this handy mental deprogramming spell. Viva la revolution!"

Got me there...that's a tough one from a philosophical standpoint.

Breaking the shackles of Baator's tyranny is definitely freedom, but is forcing mindless goodness on someone not slavery? Very tough. xD


<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.

I know some very Lawful Evil people in real life.

[Eldonauran]

<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.I don't particularly see myself as Evil in any sort of manner. It would take quite a bit of letting go of many of my principles and an immersion into a lifestyle that would endanger too much of what I have built to take the risk of satisfying my own personal desires at the expense of others, for me to even consider it.

However, and this is a big one, I do harbor aspects of Evil wants, desires, and impulses. The desire to do things that are harmful of others are present, just as I imagine they are present in every human. Knowing this comes with knowing yourself and what you are capable of (and I mean REALLY knowing). I know that I am capable of committing absolute atrocities should I ever truly choose to simply let go and stop caring. But, as I said before, it is not likely that something like that will ever happen. What I believe is too much a part of me to ever simply disregard what I know to be truth, something much greater than even myself.

Though, I do know people in real like that I would classify as Evil. Not in the way most people imagine it, slaughtering and torturing people on a grand scale. More of the small things, where they take advantage of people, fail to see the harm that will result of their actions, their unwillingness to think before they act, etc, etc. People that are oblivious that each and every action they take will have a small, but measurable impact of the lives of those around them, mostly negative and harmful. Everything is connected, one way or another, to every little thing someone does. And then there are those that intentionally harm others and for them I feel a small measure of pity eclipsed by seething loathing.

[Quertus]

Undefined.


Error: NotANumber

Line 666: DivideByZero

This. The best alignment is not to have one. I roleplay a personality; if it makes you feel better to put a label on that, fine, whatever, but I'm going to ignore it and just keep playing my personality.


As far as optimization goes, I have always assumed that true neutral is the strongest option.

It is, but not for the reasons you've stated.


Also, many spells that protect against extremes don't work on you, since there's no such thing as "protection from neutral" or "detect neutral" spells.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is one of several characters I've encountered whose research has remedied that particular oversight in first party content.


<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.

I mean, I'm on team Lawful Evil on the Playground...

[Celestia]

Well, if we're also doing real life alignments, then I'm probably too apathetic to be anything other than true neutral.

[Nifft]

Got me there...that's a tough one from a philosophical standpoint.

Breaking the shackles of Baator's tyranny is definitely freedom, but is forcing mindless goodness on someone not slavery? Very tough. xD

Forced goodness, but not forced mindlessness. Being on Team Good means having empathy and compassion and conscience, none of which are even compatible with mindlessness. I'd argue that good requires more brainpower than evil, simply because good requires putting yourself in the shoes of others -- Team Evil can just Fundamental Attribution Error their way through every social situation.


But I think there can even be a case which morally justifies Sanctify the Wicked. I mean, look at where the Pit Fiend is coming from: an eternity of being tortured, and torturing others, and "educating" others (through torture) such that they become torturers themselves. If your soul harmonizes with that eternity, you have psychological problems. Solving those psychological problems isn't the same as slavery, but it is certainly a form of changing your mind -- but if your mind truly believes itself deserving of eternal torment, then your mind isn't worth preserving as-is, in its own opinion.


Sanctify the Wicked is an intervention.

Put the needle down, Asmodeus.

Your friends need you back.

[Bohandas]

Unless said empire has a means of subduing you or minimizing your impact. Then they reframe you as a threat to society only they can defend from and your damage fuels the propaganda machine.

Yeah, but they're probably going to tell the people something like that whether a threat exists or not.

In any case while they may minimize impact, a strongly chaotic evil force is going to have the most baseline impact, as they'll be unconcerned with harm to bystanders or and will be more likely to be willing to permanently destroy resources or destroy infrastructure due to being less likely to be planning on taking over, and less likely to go about it rationally even if they are

[ManicOppressive]

Any good I play eventually winds up feeling somewhere on the line between NG and CG. My problem with LG in 3.5 is the same as my problem with Superman--we're powerful enough that binding our activities to strict, predefined rulesets can cost a lot of lives, very quickly, and so ethics need to be more flexible. Good means we try everything before killing the baddy, but we don't need the Lawful of telling ourselves we can't kill them at all. The Joker in 3.5 doesn't blow up a barge, he irreversibly destroys the barrier between our world and hell.

I know there's nothing that says a Lawful character must have an aversion to killing--even Paladins are obviously allowed to kill evildoers--but my point is that when you're throwing around the power levels of D&D it is inherently arbitrary to restrict methods outright. Any positive attribute of a person can be magnified and distorted into a crushing flaw by a determined enough villain. Promised yourself you'll never sacrifice your friends? Now I've kidnapped them in exchange for the MacGuffin that could literally end the universe. Completely opposed to necromancy and mind control? Thanks for telling me I can skip two huge vulnerabilities when sending minions after you. Never going to conscience assassinating a ruler? Hitler looks even uglier when he has 9th level spells, and he's not interested in 1v1ing you.

In none of these circumstances would the Lawful Good character stop being Good for holding to their beliefs, but in all of them they'd die a good martyr, and I'm not into that.

Chaotic Good is so much deeper than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Chaotic Good means being willing to do what the other Good people won't or can't after they've left the room. Think really hard... When you, the Paladin, let that serial murderer go because the authorities forgave him on a technicality, did you ever hear from him again? Or did someone walk in the cell after you and have a nice chat with the man about 'situational ethics'?

The system wouldn't work if everyone acted like this, but not everyone will ever act like this. Not everyone will ever act Good, either, and while the Lawfuls may have the society everyone wants, it's Good to have a few Chaotics around the edges to uproot the Evil buried too deeply in the Law.

[Ghen]

Good deal guys. Bonus points all around.


When I'm convinced I'm right and aggrieved, I can absolutely be Lawful Evil.


However, and this is a big one, I do harbor aspects of Evil wants, desires, and impulses. The desire to do things that are harmful of others are present, just as I imagine they are present in every human.

Yes, we all get our evil on from time to time in small ways, but in D&D terms that doesn't make our whole alignment evil.


But few--if any--people ever see themselves as evil. They see themselves, at very worst, as doing something unsavory in the moment, for a greater or nobler goal. More likely, though, they see themselves as perfectly good and righteous--avoiding vices like being permissive or coddling.


I know some very Lawful Evil people in real life.


Though, I do know people in real like that I would classify as Evil. Not in the way most people imagine it, slaughtering and torturing people on a grand scale. More of the small things, where they take advantage of people, fail to see the harm that will result of their actions, their unwillingness to think before they act, etc, etc.

So yeah, this is the funny thing about evil. Rarely does anyone think that they, themselves, are evil. We all know others who we believe are evil, but ask those people what their alignments are and (assuming for a moment that they understand this alignment system) I'm betting that almost none of them feel that they are on the evil spectrum.

Also to what Eldonauran said... For some reason we usually picture someone who is described as evil being a heartless genocidal maniac. Just as every good person doesn't have to be as good as Mother Teresa, however, not every evil person has to be a Stalin wannabe. Evil can come in many different nuanced flavors, some of which are quite understandable and may not be considered generally distasteful at all.


This. The best alignment is not to have one. I roleplay a personality; if it makes you feel better to put a label on that, fine, whatever, but I'm going to ignore it and just keep playing my personality.

I get that this would allow you to be the most true to yourself, but from a crunch perspective, I'm having trouble figuring out how this would pan out. How do you manage it in your games?


It is, but not for the reasons you've stated.

I figured I was overlooking important stuff, because I've never really given the matter much thought. Show me the light, Quertus. What is your reasoning?


Chaotic Good is so much deeper than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Chaotic Good means being willing to do what the other Good people won't or can't after they've left the room. Think really hard... When you, the Paladin, let that serial murderer go because the authorities forgave him on a technicality, did you ever hear from him again? Or did someone walk in the cell after you and have a nice chat with the man about 'situational ethics'?

This is the best argument for CG that I have ever seen, so thanks for the post! I may have an NPC paraphrase this in one of my games.

[Nifft]

Any good I play eventually winds up feeling somewhere on the line between NG and CG. My problem with LG in 3.5 is the same as my problem with Superman--we're powerful enough that binding our activities to strict, predefined rulesets can cost a lot of lives, very quickly, and so ethics need to be more flexible. Good means we try everything before killing the baddy, but we don't need the Lawful of telling ourselves we can't kill them at all. The Joker in 3.5 doesn't blow up a barge, he irreversibly destroys the barrier between our world and hell. Paladins have powers like Smite Evil which deliver extra lethality hard and fast unto evil targets. There are Lawful death gods (e.g. Wee Jas). Literally nothing about Lawful restricts killing evil. Good means having respect for the sanctity of life. Someone who is Chaotic Good would have the exact same respect for the sanctity of life.


I know there's nothing that says a Lawful character must have an aversion to killing--even Paladins are obviously allowed to kill evildoers--but my point is that when you're throwing around the power levels of D&D it is inherently arbitrary to restrict methods outright. Good is what restricts expedient killing. Lawful or Chaotic has nothing to do with that.


Any positive attribute of a person can be magnified and distorted into a crushing flaw by a determined enough villain. Promised yourself you'll never sacrifice your friends? Now I've kidnapped them in exchange for the MacGuffin that could literally end the universe. Completely opposed to necromancy and mind control? Thanks for telling me I can skip two huge vulnerabilities when sending minions after you. Never going to conscience assassinating a ruler? Hitler looks even uglier when he has 9th level spells, and he's not interested in 1v1ing you.

In none of these circumstances would the Lawful Good character stop being Good for holding to their beliefs, but in all of them they'd die a good martyr, and I'm not into that. That's going to affect any Good character in your set-up. Lawful or Chaotic isn't different with respect to expedient execution.

But really, the problem is that you're taking a modern standard of police procedure (presumably drawn from police procedural fiction) and talking about how they're incompatible with archaic high fantasy tropes. Yes, they are incompatible. But mostly they're incompatible because of fundamental genre conceits, not because Paladins are somehow ineffective within their own genre.

The fundamental genre conceit of a modern police procedural drama is that uncertainty exists. The audience doesn't know the guilt or innocence of the various characters until the end. It's a reasonable metaphor for reality, where procedures (and technicalities) exist specifically because we've decided that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent to be destroyed by the law.

Yeah, letting those 10 guilty men go free is not expedient. It's 10x inefficient. But it is the most Good thing we can do in the face of uncertainty.

Heroic fantasy doesn't have that real-world uncertainty baked into its genre conceits. Honestly that's a significant part of what makes it entertainment rather than a gritty simulation of reality. Uncertainty means decisions are stressful, especially decisions about life & death for people who might very well be liars and murderers -- or who might be innocent, and you just don't know. Expedience removes the stress (and removing stress feels great), but killing potentially innocent people for your own expedience is very clearly not a Good action.


Also, just as an aside, can you imagine a world where Hitler could be uncovered by detect evil before the election? That would make voting so much easier. You'd need a trustworthy magical press -- presumably appointed by the God of Truth and Classified Ads -- but it might really help you work out whose words to trust.

Maybe if they're modern enough they could even make it a camera filter, so everyone watching at home could see which candidates glowed red. (Being a "Red State" suddenly sounds very unappealing.)

You could also run a Commune Column in the paper where the God of Truth and Classified Ads answers questions for readers.


Chaotic Good is so much deeper than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Chaotic Good means being willing to do what the other Good people won't or can't after they've left the room. Think really hard... When you, the Paladin, let that serial murderer go because the authorities forgave him on a technicality, did you ever hear from him again? Or did someone walk in the cell after you and have a nice chat with the man about 'situational ethics'? You might be Chaotic, but you ain't Good.

Good means self-sacrifice for others, respect for life, etc.

Someone who executes a potentially innocent suspect is being expedient, not altruistic. Expedience isn't hurting others for personal gain, and it's not self-sacrifice for others either. Expedience as a motivation is solidly Neutral.

(You're also playing something very modern like CSI:Waterdeep which doesn't resemble any D&D game I've seen. That's cool, but it's not really an indictment against Paladins -- you're just showcasing that modern police procedure isn't compatible with high fantasy.)


The system wouldn't work if everyone acted like this, but not everyone will ever act like this. Not everyone will ever act Good, either, and while the Lawfuls may have the society everyone wants, it's Good to have a few Chaotics around the edges to uproot the Evil buried too deeply in the Law. Yeah, a system made of Chaotic Neutrals probably wouldn't work. But you're not talking about Good anymore -- you're talking about free-range executions by neutrals who "protect" the good sheep by killing suspects without due process. That's great if you never make any mistakes, but you're human so of course you do make mistakes. When you make a mistake, you're just murdering innocents -- and that's not even a Neutral action.


This is the best argument for CG that I have ever seen, so thanks for the post! I may have an NPC paraphrase this in one of my games. Just make the NPC be CN and it works perfectly.

[Eldonauran]

Yes, we all get our evil on from time to time in small ways, but in D&D terms that doesn't make our whole alignment evil.Indeed. Having evil impulses does not even effect your alignment, not really, until you ACT on them. Some things are made of Evil manifest, like devil and demons, but generally people don't become Evil without action. Aside fro the Aligned Outsiders, no one being is comprised totally of one alignment impulse or another. The Material realm is a proving ground, after all.


So yeah, this is the funny thing about evil. Rarely does anyone think that they, themselves, are evil. We all know others who we believe are evil, but ask those people what their alignments are and (assuming for a moment that they understand this alignment system) I'm betting that almost none of them feel that they are on the evil spectrum.In D&D, people don't get to pick and choose what alignment they are. The Universe itself labels them with the one that objectively best fits their outlook and actions. People are just blind to the Evil they do through sheer ignorance or failure to think. It is those that are willfully Evil, and know it, that earn my ire.


Also to what Eldonauran said... For some reason we usually picture someone who is described as evil being a heartless genocidal maniac. Just as every good person doesn't have to be as good as Mother Teresa, however, not every evil person has to be a Stalin wannabe. Evil can come in many different nuanced flavors, some of which are quite understandable and may not be considered generally distasteful at all.People like to project aspects they don't like about themselves onto other people, and thus making them out to be a monster, because it shifts the attention away from their own flaws and gives them something to hate and revile. Exaggerating the Evilness of another is merely a tactic employed by people to justify their own small evil and make them appear to be less than they are, when the truth is so much different. Every small evil effects everything, and the sum total of those evils can effect one or a few people more directly, leading to tragic results down the line.

[Malphegor]

. Stabbing people on any basis other than a consistent, clear moral code feels bad

Heh also it gets really exhausting to befriend EVERY kobold and EVERY goblin you meet. Sometimes, you just want to kill evildoers...

... It's just dawned on me in the game I'm in that we've only killed those who didn't surrender to us immediately. If they surrender, or show any wavering, we immediately invite them into the party and have tea with them and generally trust them completely.

We need to stop doing that. This is going to be our downfall. We can't be friends with everyone. Friendship doesn't boost my caster level, for one.

[Nifft]

We need to stop doing that. This is going to be our downfall. We can't be friends with everyone. Friendship doesn't boost my caster level, for one.

"Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" -- Abraham Lincoln, arguing that he should totally get XP for all the Confederate officers he didn't execute

[Telonius]

Chaotic characters generally, usually the ones who dance around the CN/CG line. I love playing the tricksters.

Right now, I'm playing a cleric of Olidammara. We've gone back and forth between murderhobo-ing and offering jobs at our tavern (well, string of franchised taverns by this point) to all of our defeated enemies.

[bean illus]

Straight up True Neutral.

When I began, in the 70s, I used to always play NG. First rangers, then rogues.

Then the Cleric phase started. TN Clerics are fun. Domain choice, heal and harm, etc.

Cleric/rogue was a thing, in my super-spy studies. I've always loved super-spy. Cloistered Dweomerkeeper Initiate of Vecna?

My most recent character was the LG halfling rogue who thought a contract was a full contact sport. Fun npc interaction.

My current project (which i would love to someday play) is a cheesy VoP on a tattooed grap-to-melion. So LG.

[Aniikinis]

I should be asleep right now, but whatever. I've played every alignment multitudes of times and I've definitely realized I prefer to play neutral and evil characters. However from an optimization level I'd have to go with NE or TN.

IRL however, I'd peg myself as straddling the line of TN and NE leaning both towards CN and LN/E, but for strange reasons. I'm generally apathetic to most topics and situations, but unless number two is someone I care about or a coworker/partner/party-member I'll gladly crush them beneath my heel if it means I'll get a far better outcome. I'm also extremely good at writing up contracts and aced my law class in high school as well as have taken online courses on contract and civil laws, I've also used these skills to screw over enemies of mine and bring myself to better standings. However my thought patterns have been described as erratic, wonderfulv1, eldritch2, and almost illogical(although my behaviour and point of view beg to differ, Praise Be Unto Yawgmoth), I tend to make (seemingly to others) strange leaps of logic and reasoning and arrive at points and information that make no sense based on the information provided or the topic at hand, and chafe against a good number of rules, laws, traditions, and societal conventions.


<edit>Just a little aside thought for bonus points, I've noticed that a lot of us are stating what we feel our alignments are in real life. Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever says evil! Do we have any evil peeps out there? I know there must be someone. Don't worry, we can't come through the screen after you or anything lol.

As above, I could easily be seen as evil based upon my willingness to wrong those below me for greater gains, however I will not do it unless the outcome is substantially better than the alternative.

1: "feel admiration and amazement; marvel.
"people stood by and wondered at such insanity""

2: "weird and sinister"

[Eldonauran]

As above, I could easily be seen as evil based upon my willingness to wrong those below me for greater gains, however I will not do it unless the outcome is substantially better than the alternative.Willingness to harm (wrong) others, even if it is only when it is substantially better than the alternative, is assuredly in the realm of the Evil alignment. The real defining quality is how you FEEL about those actions. Good people won't consider it (it is abhorrent to them), Neutral people will consider it but probably don't feel right doing it (even though they could), and Evil people will only feel guilt or something akin to a negative tied to the issue if it comes back to impact them in some way.

Now, I am NOT calling you Evil. But if the shoe fits, feel free to lace it up.

[Quertus]

I get that this would allow you to be the most true to yourself, but from a crunch perspective, I'm having trouble figuring out how this would pan out. How do you manage it in your games?

I figured I was overlooking important stuff, because I've never really given the matter much thought. Show me the light, Quertus. What is your reasoning?

Important? Eh. True Neutral is tactically superior because a) it allows you to cast all spells with alignment descriptors; b) it allows you to undergo rituals to gain all 4 alignment descriptors, making you immune to most alignment-based spells.

How does me ignoring alignment work in practice? Um... I don't write anything on the sheet. I actively encourage the GM to ignore the alignment minigame. If they - or the module - insist on including the alignment minigame, then the GM - or sometimes the group - can pick something for me to ignore.

Mechanically, it requires either a GM who ignores alignment restrictions, or classes that lack alignment restrictions. Since my favorite class is "Wizard", it's not too much of a hassle, give or take spells with alignment descriptors.

I'm not quite as much of a zealot as I should be. Sometimes, I'll actually scribble something in the alignment section of the character sheet in my indecipherable scrawl. If anyone challenges me on it, see my usual behavior. Unless I'm feeling vindictive, in which case I'll have my character act as an extreme of that alignment. "Oh, you think I was Xy-y? I'll show you the true meaning of Xy-y!"


Friendship doesn't boost my caster level, for one.

Of course it does. You defeated the challenge, therefore you earn XP. Further, this small army should allow you to defeat bigger challenges, thereby earning more XP faster.

[Elkad]

You might be Chaotic, but you ain't Good.

Good means self-sacrifice for others, respect for life, etc.

Someone who executes a potentially innocent suspect is being expedient, not altruistic. Expedience isn't hurting others for personal gain, and it's not self-sacrifice for others either. Expedience as a motivation is solidly Neutral.

(You're also playing something very modern like CSI:Waterdeep which doesn't resemble any D&D game I've seen. That's cool, but it's not really an indictment against Paladins -- you're just showcasing that modern police procedure isn't compatible with high fantasy.)

Yeah, a system made of Chaotic Neutrals probably wouldn't work. But you're not talking about Good anymore -- you're talking about free-range executions by neutrals who "protect" the good sheep by killing suspects without due process. That's great if you never make any mistakes, but you're human so of course you do make mistakes. When you make a mistake, you're just murdering innocents -- and that's not even a Neutral action.

Just make the NPC be CN and it works perfectly.


This is D&D. I can absolutely determine the guilt or innocence of someone through various divinations.
Blocking a divination isn't particularly hard, but making one give the wrong answer is.

Is this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1qroY4SQLw)evil? Or even Neutral? In context I think not.

[Nifft]

This is D&D. I can absolutely determine the guilt or innocence of someone through various divinations.
Blocking a divination isn't particularly hard, but making one give the wrong answer is.

Why would you create a universe where Divinations will give knowably true answers about guilt, yet where the criminal justice system is identical to the modern world (where no such Divinations exist)? The modern criminal justice system was set up in its particular way specifically because nobody has easy access to the truth -- we can't even reliably detect lying.

That's the disconnect here, and it's nothing to do with the alignment system.

D&D characters can (and do) dispense justice themselves. D&D states do not have a monopoly on the use of force. D&D justice systems shouldn't necessarily resemble modern Earth, not unless you want to tell a magical detective drama story or a magical police procedural (which could be great but a different system might work better).

If you import real-world modern law enforcement into D&D, you've created a setting which clashes with itself. Yes, there will be problems. No, the Paladin isn't the cause of those problems.

[Luccan]

Why would you create a universe where Divinations will give knowably true answers about guilt, yet where the criminal justice system is identical to the modern world (where no such Divinations exist)? The modern criminal justice system was set up in its particular way specifically because nobody has easy access to the truth -- we can't even reliably detect lying.

That's the disconnect here, and it's nothing to do with the alignment system.

D&D characters can (and do) dispense justice themselves. D&D states do not have a monopoly on the use of force. D&D justice systems shouldn't necessarily resemble modern Earth, not unless you want to tell a magical detective drama story or a magical police procedural (which could be great but a different system might work better).

If you import real-world modern law enforcement into D&D, you've created a setting which clashes with itself. Yes, there will be problems. No, the Paladin isn't the cause of those problems.

I'd argue most D&D courts don't have casters, but in that case I'd model them off older justice systems, not our more modern attempts at impartiality and fairness. Like that one episode of Avatar:

"We don't use evidence. You say what happened, then I say what happened, and then I decide who's right. That's why we call it justice, because it's just-us"

[Eldonauran]

People tend to bring their own 'real world' thoughts and beliefs into the game, often without realizing it. It creates confusion and conflicts that they are not aware of, or aware of the source of those conflicts, not until they approach the issue from an outside perspective. The issue with Paladins being judge, jury, and executioner (and being wrong for it) is one of those instances.

Magic is often quite common in most settings, as is having a hefty sense motive skill. Elders and leaders often have access to such methods to, if not determine truth, determine who is lying.

[tadkins]

People tend to bring their own 'real world' thoughts and beliefs into the game, often without realizing it.

Very true. I definitely realize it though.

It's personally why I find it very tough to play characters on the Lawful side, and on the Divine side.

[Nifft]

I'd argue most D&D courts don't have casters, but in that case I'd model them off older justice systems, not our more modern attempts at impartiality and fairness. I dunno, having casters in the circuit judge's retinue seems like good sense, what with how dangerous it is to travel. In fact that might be why the PCs were hired.

If you don't have circuit courts, then you might have only the local ruler's court, and court mage seems like a common thing to find. Also this type of court would probably have at least one priest of some kind. But that type of court might not be available to every common criminal (or commoner suspect, as the case may be) -- not everyone was given equal treatment before the law.


People tend to bring their own 'real world' thoughts and beliefs into the game, often without realizing it. It creates confusion and conflicts that they are not aware of, or aware of the source of those conflicts, not until they approach the issue from an outside perspective. The issue with Paladins being judge, jury, and executioner (and being wrong for it) is one of those instances.

Magic is often quite common in most settings, as is having a hefty sense motive skill. Elders and leaders often have access to such methods to, if not determine truth, determine who is lying. Yeah magic can be common in some settings. I don't remember how Eberron handles this, but since it's supposed to cater to pulpy noir fiction as well as other D&D genres, there's probably something about crime & justice systems.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is D&D. I can absolutely determine the guilt or innocence of someone through various divinations.
Blocking a divination isn't particularly hard, but making one give the wrong answer is.

This is just plain inaccurate.

Most of that class of divinations have inaccuracies baked right into their normal function before you even consider the fact you have to source multiple casters to even get a broad cross-section of them. Then there's the consideration that while the divination itself might be accurate, you can't guarantee the guy casting it will accurately report his findings. Then you realize that, while it can be difficult, they -can- be misdirected even if they would otherwise be reliable enough.

Divination is a tool for reaching the answer. Relying on it to just give you the answer is a fool's errand.

[Luccan]

I'd imagine the most useful spell in a court room is Detect Magic, to ensure magic not requested by the court doesn't happen.

[tiercel]

Divination is a tool for reaching the answer. Relying on it to just give you the answer is a fool's errand.

I always kind of figured that divinations in the D&D worlds were a bit like lie detector tests in ours — the willingness or unwillingness to submit to one, and the results thereof, might be part of an argument or even evidence, but they are not an entire case in themselves. (For similar reasons: inherently imperfect and beatable, even if some classes of divination might be arguably harder to defeat than real-world tech.)

Having said that, for the *investigative* phase, divinations being able to more quickly and/or reliably even establish a primary suspect still seems hugely useful, even if they don’t rule all in the actual courtroom.

Of course, this line of thinking (to get back a little closer to the thread, ostensibly) shows a potential pitfall (or feature, depending your point of view) of Chaos: one of the ways to best challenge the status quo (or to know what about it is arguably most important to challenge) IS an understanding of Law (whether we are talking about literal legal systems, or those of custom, tradition, and general expectation).

[Aniikinis]

Willingness to harm (wrong) others, even if it is only when it is substantially better than the alternative, is assuredly in the realm of the Evil alignment. The real defining quality is how you FEEL about those actions. Good people won't consider it (it is abhorrent to them), Neutral people will consider it but probably don't feel right doing it (even though they could), and Evil people will only feel guilt or something akin to a negative tied to the issue if it comes back to impact them in some way.

No remorse, no guilt, no pity, no cruelty (besides the required amount), just dispassionate action that furthers my goals and gives me the best outcome for the energy put in. ...Unless it comes back to bite me in the ass. Unless I'm wronged by the person beforehand, I'm not cruel or vindictive or needlessly malicious. In fact I never harbour grudges, or really get mad. Ever. And when I do get mad it lasts for such a short amount of time that any actions can't be followed through with the momentum needed.

However, I do have hang ups. Any harm done will not be physical (religious vow), those below me will not perish from something I directly caused/did/allowed to happen, no cheating(calling the police in a heated civil discussion, ratting on them to a higher up, etc.), and the harm will not be taken further than absolutely needed.

Weirdly enough, however, I don't front evil or even seem it, even to people who've known me most of my life unless they've been on the other side of my schemes or have been in on at least one with me. I'm a super nice person, always cracking jokes, willing to help get things done, even giving medical/legal/relationship/etc. advice with what I know and suggesting professionals help when I don't know and always as a better source, and extremely easy to get along with unless you're genuinely rude and not just joking with it.


Now, I am NOT calling you Evil. But if the shoe fits, feel free to lace it up.

Never said you were, and not only is it laced up, but it's feeling fine. Grey and Red go surprisingly well together, especially when you're wearing pure grey socks to go with it. :smalltongue:

[Eldonauran]

Weirdly enough, however, I don't front evil or even seem it, even to people who've known me most of my life unless they've been on the other side of my schemes or have been in on at least one with me. I'm a super nice person, always cracking jokes, willing to help get things done, even giving medical/legal/relationship/etc. advice with what I know and suggesting professionals help when I don't know and always as a better source, and extremely easy to get along with unless you're genuinely rude and not just joking with it.The best kind of Evil is the kind of evil that is almost indistinguishable from Neutrality and/or Good. Most people are under the false impression that Evil can not be kind, that Evil is not nice, the Evil can not love. Those people are merely ignorant and naive. Evil has the full range of human emotion. They are just willing to put themselves and their own agenda above the good of others, regardless of the costs (if they can justify it).



Never said you were, and not only is it laced up, but it's feeling fine. Grey and Red go surprisingly well together, especially when you're wearing pure grey socks to go with it. :smalltongue:
That was just a disclaimer. Too many people equate actions and choices with their identity as a person, rather than taking criticism of their actions as just that. I certainly would NOT like to get on your bad side.

[Hurnn]

Lawful Evil, it's like being the good guy, but not.

[Crake]

Important? Eh. True Neutral is tactically superior because a) it allows you to cast all spells with alignment descriptors; b) it allows you to undergo rituals to gain all 4 alignment descriptors, making you immune to most alignment-based spells.

How does me ignoring alignment work in practice? Um... I don't write anything on the sheet. I actively encourage the GM to ignore the alignment minigame. If they - or the module - insist on including the alignment minigame, then the GM - or sometimes the group - can pick something for me to ignore.

Mechanically, it requires either a GM who ignores alignment restrictions, or classes that lack alignment restrictions. Since my favorite class is "Wizard", it's not too much of a hassle, give or take spells with alignment descriptors.

I'm not quite as much of a zealot as I should be. Sometimes, I'll actually scribble something in the alignment section of the character sheet in my indecipherable scrawl. If anyone challenges me on it, see my usual behavior. Unless I'm feeling vindictive, in which case I'll have my character act as an extreme of that alignment. "Oh, you think I was Xy-y? I'll show you the true meaning of Xy-y!"



Of course it does. You defeated the challenge, therefore you earn XP. Further, this small army should allow you to defeat bigger challenges, thereby earning more XP faster.

Getting all the alignment subtypes is a double edged sword. Firstly, as a cleric, it would make you go from being able to cast all alignment spells, to being able to cast none (you can't cast spells opposed to your alignment, so by having the [Evil] subtype, you'd be unable to cast good spells, and having the [Good] subtype, you'd be unable to cast evil spells, same for the chaos-law axis). Second, while it makes you immune to non-X spells (blasphemy for example is "non-evil"), it makes you vulnerable to anything that target specific alignments, such as smite-X. Honestly though, if you read the ritual of alignment in savage species, it says it either grants you an alignment subtype, or changes an existing one, so I don't actually think you can use it to get more than 1 alignment subtype.

As for the practicality of ignoring alignments, as a GM I play it like this: I tell the players to ignore the alignment section on their sheets, and generally remove all alignment based restrictions on things. For paladins, I've homebrewed versions for each specific deity, rather than making them alignment based, so you just need to follow the deity's ethos. I still allow alignment-based paladins, but I highly discourage it. Most spells have their alignment descriptors removed, except for the ones that explicitly interact with alignments, such as holy smite, or blasphemy.

I also completely remove detect alignment spells from the game, and any creature that normally gets them as an SLA instead gets a scent ability that lets them gauge the actions of an individual based on their actions, with particularly heinous actions having a particularly strong "smell", though they decay over time. If you commited a mass homicide a decade ago for example, that kind of "stench" would last, but stealing an apple to survive a week ago would barely register. It's basically entirely DM-subjective what registers as what, and for 99% of the game it's irrelevant anyway, unless the campaign takes a turn toward angels and demons or the like.

[Aniikinis]

The best kind of Evil is the kind of evil that is almost indistinguishable from Neutrality and/or Good. Most people are under the false impression that Evil can not be kind, that Evil is not nice, the Evil can not love. Those people are merely ignorant and naive. Evil has the full range of human emotion. They are just willing to put themselves and their own agenda above the good of others, regardless of the costs (if they can justify it).

I've dealt with far too many people who fell into that trap of misunderstanding. And I've freaked out a number of close friends with (seemingly uncharacteristically) callous acts when making/breaking deals.


That was just a disclaimer. Too many people equate actions and choices with their identity as a person, rather than taking criticism of their actions as just that. I certainly would NOT like to get on your bad side.

I kinda figured, and I will still never understand why people don't have a thick skin on the internet.

[Bohandas]

Never going to conscience assassinating a ruler? Hitler looks even uglier when he has 9th level spells, and he's not interested in 1v1ing you.

Not assassinating rulers (in a situation where you would kill someone else) is more of a LE/LN elitist classism thing than a LG thing anyway. The less blood spilled in toppling the evil empire the more the act shifts away from evil. In a fantasy evil empire where the ruler is actually a special person (such as a high level caster) and not interchangable with his toadies the most expedient way to minimize this bloodshed would be to eliminate the leader ASAP. Once you kill the king no more pawns have to die

[RoboEmperor]

Chaotic Neutral since it's the alignment where you can do whatever the **** you want. No commitment to anything.

Never Lawful. No one tells me what to do.

[Eldonauran]

I've dealt with far too many people who fell into that trap of misunderstanding. And I've freaked out a number of close friends with (seemingly uncharacteristically) callous acts when making/breaking deals.Indeed. I believe that it stems from a fundamentally flawed belief that everyone is "good" at heart. I don't believe that rubbish, having more of a belief that each person is selfish, callous, and just a bit 'evil' at heart and it takes training to learn to behave properly, and a lifetime of learning in order to actually change who you are at the core. That takes a paradigm shift in how they view and understand themselves, and then the world. It takes an understanding of the true nature of Evil and how it infects everything like a cancer.

Some people don't believe that humans can change who they are at their core, in their 'heart'. Some people can't because they have some serious mental and/or physical issues that impair them. But for reasonably intelligent people (average and above, really) that are willing to think and reason, I do believe that they can arrive at a changing point.


I kinda figured, and I will still never understand why people don't have a thick skin on the internet.I understand why people act they way they do (especially on the internet) but I will forgo going into detail why, as to NOT violate certain forum rules. Sufficient to say, we have (as a society) royally screwed ourselves.

[Aniikinis]

Indeed. I believe that it stems from a fundamentally flawed belief that everyone is "good" at heart. I don't believe that rubbish, having more of a belief that each person is selfish, callous, and just a bit 'evil' at heart and it takes training to learn to behave properly, and a lifetime of learning in order to actually change who you are at the core. That takes a paradigm shift in how they view and understand themselves, and then the world. It takes an understanding of the true nature of Evil and how it infects everything like a cancer.

I can see that, though I wouldn't personally call it a cancer. Cancer typically spreads by mitosis and crowding out the surrounding tissues. Big-E Evil spreads more like a memetic virus, taking over the person's typical world view and actions and twisting them in order to propagate and spread to new "hosts".


Some people don't believe that humans can change who they are at their core, in their 'heart'. Some people can't because they have some serious mental and/or physical issues that impair them. But for reasonably intelligent people (average and above, really) that are willing to think and reason, I do believe that they can arrive at a changing point.

I definitely agree, though, typically that changing point tends to come about due to lots of circumstances and gradual changes and shifts that culminate in a "do or die" moment where the core of the person either relents to the pressures or steadfastly refuses.


I understand why people act they way they do (especially on the internet) but I will forgo going into detail why, as to NOT violate certain forum rules. Sufficient to say, we have (as a society) royally screwed ourselves.

I know exactly what you're gonna say, and I'm with you in that boat.

[Eldonauran]

I can see that, though I wouldn't personally call it a cancer. Cancer typically spreads by mitosis and crowding out the surrounding tissues. Big-E Evil spreads more like a memetic virus, taking over the person's typical world view and actions and twisting them in order to propagate and spread to new "hosts".Yes, you are right. A virus does appear to be a better description for the way Evil propagates itself. Altering the 'code' of a person to change how they think, behave, treat others, etc. I like the way you think.


I definitely agree, though, typically that changing point tends to come about due to lots of circumstances and gradual changes and shifts that culminate in a "do or die" moment where the core of the person either relents to the pressures or steadfastly refuses.Absolutely. People have defining moments like that all the time, when it becomes a conscious decision. One of the tenants of my beliefs is that a person must 'die to their self' in order to 'be reborn', and this is a continual thing until that person reaches a point of perfection (which doesn't happen this side of life, honestly).


I know exactly what you're gonna say, and I'm with you in that boat.*nods*
It also helps if people would actually LISTEN to each other rather than waiting for their turn to talk. So many people just wait to hear something they can object to with a ready made answer, rather than taking the time to understand the other person. I guarantee you that every person you talk to has a piece of knowledge or truth that you are oblivious to, simply by nature of them experiencing life even slightly different than yourself.

[ManicOppressive]

I'm not going to respond to any of the point-by-points because I can't think of a much dumber way to argue than to take a cohesive argument and split it down into enough decontextualized pieces that it can be "defeated," but it is remarkable how many people respond to a remark about a Lawful tendency by saying "That's just Lawful Neutral" as though there's a comfortable line sitting on the bottom of the LG alignment waiting to let you know you're taking the rules too seriously.

My point was not that Chaotic characters can or should kill a bunch of people. My point is that the moment you set a rule saying you absolutely can't, or a rule saying you absolutely can't do anything (if this isn't part of LG then I guess we'd better erase basically everything ever written about the Paladin) you are limiting the possible good actions you can undertake.


Not assassinating rulers (in a situation where you would kill someone else) is more of a LE/LN elitist classism thing than a LG thing anyway. The less blood spilled in toppling the evil empire the more the act shifts away from evil. In a fantasy evil empire where the ruler is actually a special person (such as a high level caster) and not interchangable with his toadies the most expedient way to minimize this bloodshed would be to eliminate the leader ASAP. Once you kill the king no more pawns have to die

I don't think that's true at all. LG characters engage in this mentality constantly, across all media, all but ubiquitously until the era of post-modernism. "If you kill him you'll be just like him" is one of the most persistent literary cliches of the 20th century. Yeah, it's a tendency of LN and LE, because it's Lawful. So is Lawful Good.

If you read my first (admittedly kind of glib) post and get the impression that I'm advocating for CG characters being rampant murderers, I invite you to reread it.

[Andry]

Lawful Evil all the way. But unfortunately the group I play in right now always has to play the heroes and the dm frowns on evil alignments. So why rock the boat as the games are always fun? Still I miss playing my LE cleric of Bane.

[Chester]

I tend to find good-leaning parties significantly less annoying than evil parties, but Chaotic Good seems to let me have a lot of fun. This is nothing more than personal preference.

I'm about to start a Lawful Good character because I don't feel like being a Paladin of Freedom. This will be a challenge that I accept.

[Bohandas]

I don't think that's true at all. LG characters engage in this mentality constantly, across all media, all but ubiquitously until the era of post-modernism. "If you kill him you'll be just like him" is one of the most persistent literary cliches of the 20th century. Yeah, it's a tendency of LN and LE, because it's Lawful. So is Lawful Good.

It's good in rhe sense of not killing, and that's the only way it's good. If they've just mowed through a bunch of minions, or if the only clear alternative is mowing down a bunch of minions, and they single out someone for mercy because he's the one who's been telling the minions to do evil things then it is stupid at best, with a heaping side of hypocritical and classist.

[Nifft]

It's good in rhe sense of not killing, and that's the only way it's good. If they've just mowed through a bunch of minions, or if the only clear alternative is mowing down a bunch of minions, and they single out someone for mercy because he's the one who's been telling the minions to do evil things then it is stupid at best, with a heaping side of hypocritical and classist.

There really ought to be a name for that kind of audience-empathy "morality".

It's not strictly protagonist-oriented, since as you say a named antagonist can also be favored with mercy and a redemption arc.

It seems classist except the named character isn't necessarily higher-class, so I think the distinguishing characteristic would be higher audience empathy (and higher audience recognition).

[Bohandas]

It seems classist except the named character isn't necessarily higher-class, so I think the distinguishing characteristic would be higher audience empathy (and higher audience recognition).

The original statement was specifically in regard to assassinating rulers. When fighting an evil empire the single person that it makes the most sense to kill is the emperor. And this has precedent in fantasy literature. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is about assassinating Sauron. And once he's out of the way finishing the battle of the black gate, which was only a distraction to this end to begin with, becomes kind of pointless.

[White Blade]

In general, when it comes to killing, I tend to run "I follow my gut" as Chaotic - "There are strong guidelines" as Neutral - "I have rules" as Lawful.

No Assassinations is clearly a lawful tendency in that spectrum - Now, a lawful good character might believe that and they're probably wrong in D&D, for reasons others have outlined, but you don't get points off for being stupid. "I will never kill a man without a weapon in his hands or a spell on his lips" is a good rule like... 99% of the time. Yeah, sure, sometimes its a bad rule - Particularly in player oriented adventuring. But it is a Good rule and I think plenty of Lawful Good characters would follow it, without necessarily being classists. Of course, I don't think a Lawful Good character has to follow that rule - They might have some other criteria for killing, like "I won't harm an innocent" or "I won't shed blood unless blood is on the line" or "Nobody should escape justice" and those are also Lawful and Good rules. They play out radically differently in some situations, but I'd say they're all Lawful Good.

[Nifft]

The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is about assassinating Sauron.

Actually the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is about NOT assassinating Gollum, who is not a ruler, not a commander, not anyone high-class -- and yet who saves the world when the ostensible protagonist falls in love with power and becomes what he should never have become.

Why is Gandalf vocal about not killing Gollum, but pays no mind to tossing a fireball at nameless goblins & orcs?

I suspect it's about audience empathy.

[Bohandas]

and yet who saves the world

By assassinating Sauron

[Nifft]

By assassinating Sauron

Sauron's power was destroyed. Sauron was predicted to fall so low that he would never again threaten the world. But I don't recall reading that he was ever confirmed dead.

Can you cite that Sauron actually died?

[Bohandas]

As one of the ainur he couldn't truly die as such, but IIRC he was functionally a ghost at the end, and not a powerful one either.

[Luccan]

Regardless of the act that resolved LotR, I think it's fairly clear the story was intending to show the problem was solved not by simply killing Sauron (which might have been done simply by giving the ring to a Wizard or powerful elf, with all the problems that would entail), but by showing mercy to a person who some might argue didn't deserve it. In other words, Sauron was defeated by choosing to do Good, rather than by being Powerful.

[Nifft]

As one of the ainur he couldn't truly die as such, but IIRC he was functionally a ghost at the end, and not a powerful one either. In other words, not assassinated at all -- and that's consistent with the books not being about assassination, which they weren't.


Regardless of the act that resolved LotR, I think it's fairly clear the story was intending to show the problem was solved not by simply killing Sauron (which might have been done simply by giving the ring to a Wizard or powerful elf, with all the problems that would entail), but by showing mercy to a person who some might argue didn't deserve it. In other words, Sauron was defeated by choosing to do Good, rather than by being Powerful. Yeah, this is a lot closer to my reading of the books.

Notably, the Fellowship attempts to avoid trouble and evade notice far more often than they attempt to kill enemies.

[Bohandas]

Ghosts generally count as dead

[Bohandas]

Notably, the Fellowship attempts to avoid trouble and evade notice far more often than they attempt to kill enemies.

That's what I'm saying. Eliminating orcs isn't important, eliminating Sauron is the only thing that matters.

Eliminating the orcs' ruler Sauron is both more efficient and more benificent and merciful.

[Nifft]

Ghosts generally count as dead Then you were wrong to characterize him as such, and the books don't support your reasoning.

But it doesn't really matter. The books don't support your conclusion, either.


That's what I'm saying. Eliminating orcs isn't important, eliminating Sauron is the only thing that matters.

Eliminating the orcs' ruler Sauron is both more efficient and more benificent and merciful. That must be why Gandalf spends so many pages making detailed cost-benefit analysis infographics with his Ring of PowerPoint.

[Tajerio]

Yeah, this is a lot closer to my reading of the books.

Notably, the Fellowship attempts to avoid trouble and evade notice far more often than they attempt to kill enemies.

While it's correct, I'm not sure that your second point has any real relevance to the Fellowship's alignment or moral code. They try to avoid trouble because it's the most efficient way to advance their aims, not because it's ethical.

[Nifft]

While it's correct, I'm not sure that your second point has any real relevance to the Fellowship's alignment or moral code. They try to avoid trouble because it's the most efficient way to advance their aims, not because it's ethical.

It has relevance as a direct counter to the idea that they were assassins, which was a claim being made.

However I will stand by the example of Gollum as a counter-argument to your second statement -- the Fellowship leaves him alive in spite of his potential to draw trouble to them. Not murdering him when his loud foot-steps followed them through Moria was a purely moral consideration, not efficient at all. Then the hobbits sharing food with him when he tracked Frodo & Sam into Mordor, again not an efficient choice.

They prefer avoiding trouble over killing, but they prefer trouble over immoral expedience.

[Bohandas]

While it's correct, I'm not sure that your second point has any real relevance to the Fellowship's alignment or moral code. They try to avoid trouble because it's the most efficient way to advance their aims, not because it's ethical.


However I will stand by the example of Gollum as a counter-argument to your second statement -- the Fellowship leaves him alive in spite of his potential to draw trouble to them. Not murdering him when his loud foot-steps followed them through Moria was a purely moral consideration, not efficient at all. Then the hobbits sharing food with him when he tracked Frodo & Sam into Mordor, again not an efficient choice.

In any case the entire issue is a non sequitur because the issue at hand was not the Fellowship's alignment but rather the specific morality of targeting Sauron for elimination.

(And I still consider it assassination; he wasn't "dead" but as an impoent windblown shadow he was deader than a lot of characters that actually died. Like, Frodo could go and have an extended conversation with Feanor if he wanted to, whereas I get the impression that nobody's going to be talkig to Sauron again.)

[Quertus]

Ghosts generally count as dead

This definitely needs to be a quote somewhere.

[Ignimortis]

In other words, not assassinated at all -- and that's consistent with the books not being about assassination, which they weren't.

Yeah, this is a lot closer to my reading of the books.

Notably, the Fellowship attempts to avoid trouble and evade notice far more often than they attempt to kill enemies.

I'd say that they avoid enemies mostly because their enemies are an army, and they're but few. Battle for Minas-Tirith certainly wasn't won by stealth and/or compassion, but actually with strength of will and arm. Yes, it would be futile if the Ring didn't get destroyed, but if Minas-Tirith fell, then Frodo and Sam wouldn't succeed, either.


Ghosts generally count as dead

Loved this.

[Nifft]

Ghosts generally count as dead

Sauron lost his body when Númenor sunk. He was a ghost before the trilogy started.

You're literally an Age too late for that to be a valid burn, and your plan is apparently to assassinate a guy you think is already dead.



This definitely needs to be a quote somewhere.


Loved this.

Sorry guys.

[Tajerio]

Sauron lost his body when Númenor sunk. He was a ghost before the trilogy started.

That's not necessarily true--refer to the debate before the decision to march on the Black Gate in Return of the King, in which Gandalf declares that if the Ring is destroyed, Sauron will become "a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape," which would seem to me to suggest that Sauron, before the Ring's destruction, had physical form or the capability of assuming it. A couple of Tolkien's letters also allude to Sauron having physical form right down to the end. What that says about the assassination question I leave to others to decide.

But, to engage the thread's stated topic, it's Neutral Good for me all the way. I dislike the Chaotic and Lawful attitudes towards order, neutrality with respect to good and evil always seems to lack conviction in a world in which those two things objectively exist, and going Evil as a PC just wears on me.

My favorite NPC alignment is probably Lawful Evil, because I think it makes for the most interesting and credible antagonists.

[TheYell]

I believe Sauron lost the ability to take a pleasant physical form when Numenor sank, he was going to assume a physical shape but it would look evil. Hence he wasn't able to mislead the Elves anymore with a pleasant shape.


He used to be able to take whatever form he liked; in the Silmarillion he took on the form of the greatest wolf ever to try and fulfill a prophecy about a combat, but he was struck down for merely having the FORM of the greatest wolf, not BEING the greatest wolf. All rules lawyers owe a debt to Tolkien for being a stickler about prophecy before there were any rules about it.

I love to be Lawful Good, myself, it makes everybody else rethink where they sit when they disagree with the LG guy. The only thing more fun than being LG is LG with Vows. We normally agree on a course of action, too, but it gets discussed.

[Bartmanhomer]

Didn't someone post this thread before?

Anyway my favourite alignment is Lawful Good because I believe in law and goodness.

[Schattenbach]

I prefer True Neutral. It’s actually much more free when compared to Chaotic Neutral.