What is up with chaotic and/or good characters?

[Zhentarim]

The thing is, in my experience, most people are some form of evil, a significant minority are neutral, and there are few, if any, good people. Lawful Good reacts to the world as they think it should be, Lawful Evil reacts to the real world as it really is.

Cooperation is lawful more than anything. An affably evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) lawful evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil) can have many friends and be dependable, but they are also realists.

Chaotic Good is even worse, since they are not only niave, but they spread chaos and disorder in the name of their “ideals”.

Everybody wants to rule the world.

https://youtu.be/ST86JM1RPl0

[OgresAreCute]

What's the deal with airline food?

[Lvl45DM!]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?

I feel like im missing the joke here,but...
Im not a lawful person in real life, but its fun to play lawful, to develop a code and work with or for a community.
I struggle to play evil because its not fun to kill people who dont deserve it, even in fantasy.

Its fine to play evil, but to define Good and Lawful as unrealistic is a pretty horrifying statement.

[Mordaedil]

:smalleek:

Maybe a psychologist can help you with that.

[tiercel]

If you don’t understand Law, it’s because you don’t understand that to be on top of the world, there has to be a world to be on top of. If that world understands that its proper place is to serve those strong enough to take it, organize it, and rule it, very much the better.

Lawful Good is a deliciously useful alignment in that those people understand the value of knowing their place, and won’t simply try to smash the system, but their compulsion to help others makes them ever so easy to steer toward desired ends.

Simple “freedom” to smash and destroy isn’t true effectiveness. Real power comes not just from a strong self, but from those that know their place is to serve — who WANT to serve, knowing that what strengthens you strengthens them. Power doesn’t mean just crushing anyone who disagrees with you; it’s when your system is so effective that few if any even want, much less dare, to disagree — and those who do are dealt with by those who willingly pledge themselves to you, freeing you for the more important work of remaking the world in your image.

A better world.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

Lawful is the feel that the world requires order to function efficiently. Structure brings peace to a lawful character's mind. The world is better with rules and government in a lawful persons eyes.

Good is living and working for the benefit of others and doing it with no interest in being rewarded for your efforts. Maybe a little gratitude every once in a while, but not much else. A good person respects life in whatever form it takes and should search for a non lethal way to solve issues.

Chaotic feels that life is better with less rules and that things will work out by themselves. Everyone is equal and the same rules apply to everyone. Just because you believe that the world doesn't need rules doesn't mean you don't have morals, do on to others as you would have done onto you.

Evil is living for yourself, other people are usually obstacles or tools. You don't do anything unless it interested you or furthers your goals. Your view on life is you are the only one that matters and everyone else is beneith you, so the value of a life is pretty insignificant to you.

(Edited part) Neutral is everything in between these, most if the world fits under the neutral category. They're willing to look the other way when people do wrong things, or willing to do wrong things if they know they can get away with it. Most people generally look out for themselves, but will help others in need. Killing someone is generally something they frown on, but not something they would be completely against doing with the right reason.

These are the pretty general descriptions of the alignments my brother and I have come up with. Now each one does have varying degrees.. like an evil person can easily have friends, lovers, comrads.. as long as they're generally like minded or have someone notable worth. And a good person might not think twice about striking down someone he believes is evil. Alignments are more guidelines rather than rules.

[TheYell]

Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit.


Unless you lack the guile to fool all the people all the time, in which case, you're a dead duck.

[King of Nowhere]

A good person respects life in whatever form it takes and should search for a non lethal way to solve issues.

Chaotic feels that life is better with less rules and that things will work out by themselves. Everyone is equal and the same rules apply to everyone. Just because you believe that the world doesn't need rules doesn't mean you don't have morals, do on to others as you would have done onto you.

Killing someone is generally something neutrals frown on, but not something they would be completely against doing with the right reason.

.

A good person will kill as readily as an evil one in the right circumstances. Only their reasons will be different.

I think it comes from a Discworld book, but it may be a quote from somewhere else.

Most Good people will readily kill if they think it's a last resort to protect something, generally other lives.
Although good people often try to get the offending side to back down peacefully, because they'd no longer have reasons to kill if the offending side refrained. Compare how robbers will try to get your wallet without shooting you if possible, because shooting will get them in more trouble.

[Andezzar]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?The true murder-hobo sentiment.

[Telonius]

A good person will kill as readily as an evil one in the right circumstances. Only their reasons will be different.

I think it comes from a Discworld book, but it may be a quote from somewhere else.

Most Good people will readily kill if they think it's a last resort to protect something, generally other lives.
Although good people often try to get the offending side to back down peacefully, because they'd no longer have reasons to kill if the offending side refrained. Compare how robbers will try to get your wallet without shooting you if possible, because shooting will get them in more trouble.

You might be thinking from this from Men at Arms:


Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.

They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.

So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.

[J-H]

I guess that's your personal perspective. I'm lawful good in my personal life, neutral good in my views on society, and chaotic good the first Tuesday of every November that a certain real life event takes place on.

I can understand LE (from watching real life stuff that we can't talk about here), neutral evil seems to be the default state of man absent education, and chaotic evil seems to be the result of mental illness.

The Neutral alignments, where characters are agnostic about the existence of good and evil and the foundational underpinnings of how morality works, and don't care enough to find out? I don't get those. Chaotic neutral's even worse, and looks like BPD/bipolar type territory to me.

[Jay R]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?

Yes, of course Neutral Evil is far more effective for people to do anything to their own benefit. Who could deny it? And yes, of course being generous, heroic, and virtuous is self-limiting.

But a lot of us come to D&D to pretend to be heroes. I would much rather play a game of rescuing the village from orcish raiders than one of pillaging inoffensive villagers of their goods.

I want to play a warrior who is stronger than I am, a rogue who is more dexterous than I am, a cleric who is wiser than I am.

And for the exact same reasons, I want to play a hero who is nobler than I am.

[RedMage125]

I guess that's your personal perspective. I'm lawful good in my personal life, neutral good in my views on society, and chaotic good the first Tuesday of every November that a certain real life event takes place on.

I can understand LE (from watching real life stuff that we can't talk about here), neutral evil seems to be the default state of man absent education, and chaotic evil seems to be the result of mental illness.

The Neutral alignments, where characters are agnostic about the existence of good and evil and the foundational underpinnings of how morality works, and don't care enough to find out? I don't get those. Chaotic neutral's even worse, and looks like BPD/bipolar type territory to me.

I may be able to help you understand that, as I would almost certainly be Lawful Neutral by D&D alignment mores.

Neutral with respect to Good and Evil does not mean that they "don't care" about morality. Neutral people still prefer Good over Evil, after all, they'd rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. But they're not personally invested in doing good things for people not personally connected to them. Neutral individuals may make sacrifices for, and even be selfless...for those that are close to them. But by and large, they don't do such for strangers.

Most humans are Neutral. They care for their family and friends, they usually do what is expected of them, but they might do something shady if it doesn't hurt anyone and can benefit them.

Lawful Neutral is actually very similar to Neutral Good. The main distinction is that, when choosing between what is "just" and what is "right", they will choose what is just. I personally identify as LN, and I value fairness. In the shop I lead, for example, if all my junior sailors are equally happy or equally unhappy, I feel like I'm doing a good job.

Chaotic Neutral is not BPD. Chaotic Neutral individuals act on whim a lot. They usually won't go out of their way to hurt others, but they're impulsive. A Chaotic Neutral bard, for example, may love adventuring with heroes, so he can write an epic heroic ballad. He loves the idea of saving others and defeating evil. But he does it because he wants fame and glory. He doesn't ACTUALLY care about helping others. He will, but he wants recognition for it.

"What's in it for me?" Is a common thing to hear from those who are Neutral on the good/evil scale. Yes, evil is also selfish, but the big difference is that evil people are willing to do things that hurt or are a detriment to others to benefit themselves. Neutral would rather not hurt others, but don't really view helping strangers with no benefit to themselves as worth their time.

[Seto]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?

When well-played, they are neither flat nor unrealistic. The same could be said of any alignment, really. Depth and realism are a function of good roleplaying, not character type. Alignment is purely a behavior descriptor, and that's rarely enough to make a character compelling : generally speaking, the trick is to go beyond alignment and get into the character's mindset. Not "how do they act", but "why do they act that way".

I could stop there, really, but let's dig in anyway. Good relies on being an inspiration to others: it wouldn't work if Good people weren't admirable. Do you have heroes, real or fictional? People whose morals you admire and would like to emulate? That would be an example of a compelling Good character (although it's possible to admire non-Good and non-Lawful characters of course). As for Law, it's not any blander or more boring that Chaotic or Neutral. Most people experience a conflict between their duty, the general rules of society, on the one hand, and their individual desires and drives on the other hand. It's natural to conciliate them somewhere near the middle ground, which makes us Neutral. But Lawful characters have something. Something special that makes them find more value in their place as part of the collective, than in their own individual worth. Why? What is it? A faith, a burning ideal, a sense of a greater mission? or maybe a fear, a fear of themselves, of what would happen if they let themselves be? Answer that question and you'll have a compelling Lawful character.

That's how you make realistic and relatable characters. But that was just narrative realism. Speaking in terms of verisimilitude, or statistical realism ("would you be likely to encounter and/or understand such an individual"?), I would say Chaotic Evil is more unrealistic than Lawful Good. I wouldn't say that people are inherently good - I would say people aren't inherently anything, and most end up True Neutral -, but for most of us, Evil feels wrong. Being actually Evil without great internal conflict is hard. Same with Chaos. If you're not naturally a psychopath/sociopath, you have many internal barriers to overcome before truly being Evil or Chaotic. That's the one thing I actually find compelling in Kylo Ren's character arc.

As for CE being "the most effective alignment"... Well, yeah, from a tactical perspective. When you have no ethical limitations on your options, you have more options to pick from. What's that got to do with depth and psychological realism anyway?

[Nifft]

Chaotic Evil is the most efficient way to get Smite Evil'd out of the campaign, but otherwise it's deeply sub-optimal.

[Manyasone]

Since I consider the CE alignment with raving lunatics I find it the most limiting alignment. If the Tanar'ri were efficient there wouldn't be a Blood War

[TheYell]

Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit.


I'm sure Red Fel has some thoughts....

[ShurikVch]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?Actually, your issue is as old as D&D itself.

You know the sole reason why the Paladin class exist?
Because, before it was added, nobody wanted to play as LG character. Ever.
Apparently, they're considered it too incompatible with that whole murderhoboing... [ahem!] I mean - adventuring business :smallwink:

The only major problem with your reasoning is: CE may be self-destructing; just look at Devils - they're almost always LE, but universally regarded as master manipulators!



Neutral with respect to Good and Evil does not mean that they "don't care" about morality... but it still completely possible: "I don't care how bad or good he is - he's still my lord, and I swore my allegiance to him" (some LN liegeman)

[Cavir]

The recruiting post for one of the games I am in had an interesting link (http://keith-baker.com/tag/alignment/) to alignments. I typically play NG but his articles opened me up to LG without being Paladin level. Playing Evil (without breaking the game) can be fun too.

[MoiMagnus]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?

I disagree. I find that every alignment is unrealistic if understood too strictly.

Loyal Good? You have no choice other than obeying the law for the greater good.
Loyal Evil? You are a jerk, you can't have friends nor anybody you care about without being bound by the law to care about them (by the way, you will systematically try to abuse the law when you can, even if it may have some long term consequences on you).
Chaotic Evil? Not only you are a jerk, but you can't be around someone else without trying to kill him.
Chaotic Good? You will end up in jail because you are pathologically unable to obey orders and laws, but refuse to kill anybody to defend yourself (because that would be evil).

If you see alignment as restrictions, you will be restricted by them. For some reasons, people tend to assume LG is more restrictive as the others, and refuse to call LG anybody that does not behave as LG every-time in every situation. (While they have no problem with CE characters not trying to systematically back-stab the other PCs when they sleep)

Someone that value law, try to be honest as much as possible, while not being an extremist (so he understand that sometimes law can be bypassed, even if he hate doing so), try to help people (when its reasonably feasible, accepting that he can't oppose every evil). That's Loyal Good.

That's not the MOST loyal good you could do. But evil PCs are rarely the MOST EVIL POSSIBLE, since that would be unplayable.

[John05]

One of my favorite stories is the Oresteia. One of the central arcs involves Orestes's handling of vengeance. The Furies (avatars of vengeance) are pushing him to avenge his father King Agamemnon by killing his mother. His mother is guilty of murdering his father as retribution for executing her (and his) daughter, Iphigenia. The father executed the daughter because his people were angry about the Trojan war. They lost family members but the King lost nothing. They wanted blood. No it wasn't rational. Basically, it's a ****storm cycle of impassioned vengeance.

This is how a lot of family feuds/spats went on before rule of law. Just a cycle of vengeance until one "side" wins. This kind of environment isn't conducive to civilization though. You can just have blood feuds resolving all conflict. Civilization would never progress from tribes, large families ruled by overbearing patriarchs.

Orestes eventually puts an end to the cycle of vengeance. Interestingly, he DOES kill his mother, but he does so with Apollo as his patron. It was an active disavowal of the Furies (passionate vengeance) and an embrace of rule of law / justice as his motivator. When people put their faith in rule of law, and put aside their personal feelings, that is how civilization is allowed to develop and grow beyond populistic, tribal instincts.

The story is a great example of Law vs Chaos, as opposed to Good vs Evil. It's an impersonal adherence to principles. Some people have that. It's not necessarily what's beneficial for the individual and it's not always the easiest thing to do. It's not even always self-satisfying, but if it was, it would be a trivial matter.

That's something the forces of chaos will never understand or appreciate. Law will stand as an impartial target for grievances that people would have directed at each other. It's a pillar of civilization.

[Nifft]

This is how a lot of family feuds/spats went on before rule of law. Just a cycle of vengeance until one "side" wins. This kind of environment isn't conducive to civilization though. You can just have blood feuds resolving all conflict. Civilization would never progress from tribes, large families ruled by overbearing patriarchs.

Orestes eventually puts an end to the cycle of vengeance. Interestingly, he DOES kill his mother, but he does so with Apollo as his patron. It was an active disavowal of the Furies (passionate vengeance) and an embrace of rule of law / justice as his motivator. When people put their faith in rule of law, and put aside their personal feelings, that is how civilization is allowed to develop and grow beyond populistic, tribal instincts.

*looks at Earth politics, circa 2018*

We need more Apollo.

[Felyndiira]

Lawful doesn't mean "follow the rules always, no matter what." A Lawful person might be lawful because he is deeply devoted to tradition, takes great pains to keep order in a city, live a mostly organized lifestyle, is extremely loyal to his liege, or a host of other things.

Lawful Good is simply a person who is both lawful and good. If the above lawful person also tries to help others whenever possible, and is willing to make those personal sacrifices to make life better for everyone else, he is LG. LG doesn't confer any additional requirements other than "be lawful" and "be good".

Same with Chaotic Evil. Chaotic people can still prefer to live in an orderly society, hold jobs, be a charming socialite, and integrate well with society. Same with evil people. An assassin who loves his job because of low work hours and high pay, who loves spending his hard-earned money partying and getting wild, who will often mess with people for a laugh, who loves to travel and discover, and who has a network of good friends is CE, but perfectly good as a PC.

[Kish]

If this is your attitude, I'm kind of puzzled that you'd play any game with expected morality. You can make amoral, greedy mercenaries in most campaigns (at least to some extent), but Wrath of the Righteous? I'd think you'd avoid it the same way I'd avoid Hell's Vengeance.

[Zhentarim]

If this is your attitude, I'm kind of puzzled that you'd play any game with expected morality. You can make amoral, greedy mercenaries in most campaigns (at least to some extent), but Wrath of the Righteous? I'd think you'd avoid it the same way I'd avoid Hell's Vengeance.

I was exaggerating in the OP. I do see good as naive and lawful as inflexible, though.

All in all, I’m either true neutral or chaotic neutral. I’m not particularly good or evil, but I’m contrary more often than not.

[John05]

I'll make a case for "Good" too.

For a lot of people, having a sense of moral righteousness gives them a kind of strength that they would never have otherwise.

As self-satisfying as hedonism and selfishness may be, for obvious reasons it doesn't lead to selfless bravery. As much as people may argue the specifics, we can at least agree it will *look* cowardly to do the safe, pragmatic thing, and run from obvious dangers and inconvenience.

A person who runs from danger and puts his OWN safety and OWN benefit above all others will appear cowardly.

People who believe they are righteous have always seemed more fearless to me, more compelling. That's why I can always appreciate villains who believe they are fighting for something for a grander purpose. I can appreciate extremely selfish villains too, but I'll always wonder about odd behaviours, "Why is this completely *selfish*, pragmatic, intelligent villain not retreating and doing things the cowardly but safe way? He has all the time in the world. What is he even fighting for?"

SELFLESS villains, ones who have greater concerns outside their own personal well-being are going to act in less cowardly ways (or at least ways that *appear* less cowardly).

The problem with Evil to me is this: What ARE they fighting for that is "Evil"? The only ones that would APPEAR to act in less cowardly ways are ones who are basically masochists. Ones who enjoy risk and are NOT pragmatic/safe/intelligent types.

Good characters don't have their problems. They're selfless, and thus more often appear Fearless, and fearlessness is something most people on some degree can respect.

This is before we even begin to touch on "afterlife rewards" (i.e. who is more likely to concede first in a game of life-or-death "chicken" -like two people driving towards each other at max speed- the one who thinks there is nothing in the afterlife, or maybe Hell if he does believe in afterlife, or the one who 100% believes that he has righteousness on his side and that he will be rewarded in the afterlife?).

Good people don't have to be boring. Some good people have CONVICTION. That's something a lot of modern youth I see are lacking. They live aimless lives before falling into deeper and deeper depression because they can't imagine living for something greater than themselves. Some people just don't like themselves enough and NEED that higher, selfless purpose to shine.

[Quertus]

Law believes that Speed Limits are valuable, because they create one uniform, testable, "this is safe" standard.

Chaos believes that everyone should be allowed to drive as fast as they want to, and suffer the consequences if they drive faster than they can.

Good chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help the most people.

Neutral chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help themselves.

Evil chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will hurt those they want to suffer.

[Zhentarim]

Law believes that Speed Limits are valuable, because they create one uniform, testable, "this is safe" standard.

Chaos believes that everyone should be allowed to drive as fast as they want to, and suffer the consequences if they drive faster than they can.

Good chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help the most people.

Neutral chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help themselves.

Evil chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will hurt those they want to suffer.

What about Lawful Evil in your example as opposed to Chaotic Evil?

[Felyndiira]

What about Lawful Evil in your example as opposed to Chaotic Evil?

Lawful Good - "We should have speed limits. It keeps the roads safe, so less people would get hurt."

Chaotic Good - "Screw speed limits. They don't help and just add hassle to peoples' lives. People are going to be safe anyway, and there aren't enough people who would be reckless without them and wouldn't be reckless anyway."

Lawful Neutral - "We should have speed limits. It's just the way things are."

Chaotic Neutral - "Screw speed limits. I don't like them."

Lawful Evil - "We should have speed limits. It lets me make lots of money off people and gives me an excuse to fine the ever-living crap out of those annoying guys I hate."

Chaotic Evil - "Screw speed limits. I have a titanium-plated monster truck and don't care if I hit people, so let me do my 200 mph."

[John05]

What about Lawful Evil in your example as opposed to Chaotic Evil?

On the matter of something as mundane as speed limits, I would say Lawful Good and Lawful Evil actually don't differ TOO much. They both want stability. The REASONS they want stability might differ. Lawful Good believe stability and rule of law will result in happiness and well-being of citizens in the long run. Lawful Evil likely have more selfish reasons. More stability == they have more stable rule and higher profits/productivity for themselves. We want efficient exploitation of the naive citizens, after all.

Chaotic Evil on the other hand don't care for stability. Chaotic people generally want more excitement. They're the types that can't stand the idea of office jobs. That stuff's boring. They can't stand speed limits because it limits their own freedom to have fun (speed racing, or watching people crash and burn). Who the **** cares about "profits", "productivity", "efficient systems" and all that **** that Lawful Evil types do? The difference they have with Chaotic Good types is that they expect and like it when the chaos causes innocent people to suffer.

[Darth Ultron]

Law believes that Speed Limits are valuable, because they create one uniform, testable, "this is safe" standard.

Chaos believes that everyone should be allowed to drive as fast as they want to, and suffer the consequences if they drive faster than they can.

Good chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help the most people.

Neutral chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will help themselves.

Evil chooses where or not to have Speed Limits based on what they think will hurt those they want to suffer.

I say more like:

Lawful: We must have speed limits for the benefit and safety of all. People must have limits and need order and laws.

Chaotic: We [I]must not[/I have any limits on speed. Freedom is most important.

Good: We must have speed limits for the protection and equality of all. People need direction on a set path.

Evil: We use speed limits and other such things to control the weak sheep, but they don't mean anything to us.

Lawful Good: We must coddle and protect everyone from cradle to grave with the best possible way of life that is best for all!

Chaotic Good: We don't need speed limits in most places, people should be able to drive any speed they want to. Slow people can drive slow, if they want to, but fast people can zip around them, if they want too. Though some places, like around schools, will have them.

Lawful Neutral: We need rules and customs and laws..lots of them for everything.

Chaotic Neutral: We don't care what anyone does, and anyone should be able to do anything.

Chaotic Evil: Anyone who gets in my way will be lucky If I don't just ram them off the road!

[Nifft]

Good - Speed limits are useful when they benefit everyone.

Evil - Speed limits are like any other law, and can be exploited.

Neutral - I can't speed because my car can't change gears.

[Jay R]

You know the sole reason why the Paladin class exist?
Because, before it was added, nobody wanted to play as LG character. Ever.

I'm not sure where you got this, and it's not consistent with D&D's actual history. The Paladin was introduced in the Greyhawk supplement of original D&D in 1975. The nine-way alignment system wasn't introduced until the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review, and didn't become part of the rules until the AD&D Player's Handbook came out in 1977.

It's possible that it was introduced because players in Gygax's game didn't want to be Lawful (which mostly meant "good"). If so, that differs from the people I played with, most of whom wanted to be Lawful, since there were more magic items for Lawful characters than Neutral or Chaotic. [Also, we wanted to be the good guys.]

[ezekielraiden]

A good person will kill as readily as an evil one in the right circumstances. Only their reasons will be different.

I think it comes from a Discworld book, but it may be a quote from somewhere else.

Most Good people will readily kill if they think it's a last resort to protect something, generally other lives.
Although good people often try to get the offending side to back down peacefully, because they'd no longer have reasons to kill if the offending side refrained. Compare how robbers will try to get your wallet without shooting you if possible, because shooting will get them in more trouble.

"People will readily do a thing when they've already tried and exhausted every other option and no longer see any alternative that doesn't break at least one of their goals" is rather a strange, qualified phrase, no? That is, "readily" seems to mean exactly the opposite of "examine and exhaust all other options first."

Those Eskimos are such ready exhibitionists, once they've exhausted all their other options for not dying of heatstroke. Why, they'll strip off every scrap of clothing just as easily as a stripper in the right circumstances! </sarcasm>

As for Lawful and Good: OP, you're trying to evaluate all other alignments by the standard of ruthless efficiency at achieving your personal goals, as directly as possible. That's like trying to evaluate milkshakes and sodas by the standards of cupcakes and cookies; of course they'll seem like insane troll logic. You have to think more broadly: Law and Good will look far less alien that way.

Full disclosure, people often joke that I'm the group Paladin IRL, so I'm naturally predisposed as your opposite.

The fundamental values of Law, as I understand them, are:
1. We understand existence by learning the rules under which it operates. Corollary: we gain the ability to influence the world to our desires by knowing how these rules can be leveraged. (This is how we develop things like technology and technique.)
2. Control and focus are more effective, especially on the long scale, than haphazard or considered effort. Corollary: An amateur relies on luck; a trained mind leverages luck.
3. Preparation gives you the energy and effort of your past self, or of prior workers, concentrated into the now. Corollary: Many hands make light work in a single action, whereas preparation turns your past selves into many helpers.
4. The collective effort of multiple actors is greater than the sum of the individual contributors, if they all work in concert. Corollary, the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, 8th circle: When all *know* a single purpose, when all hands are guided by one will, and all act with the same intent, the Planes themselves may be moved.
5. Will is the action of decisive effort, of mind, on an exterior world. Will, guided by correct understanding at consistent, rational goals, can achieve anything that is possible, and can make possible much that was thought impossible.

Note that in no part did I evaluate the moral weight of a goal or effort, nor the control or subjugation of one will to another. Those are Good/Evil values, not Law ones. Note also that, just as human mathematicians imperfectly implement the rules of math, so too do mortals imperfectly or only partially implement the rules of Law.

The values of Good, as I understand them, are:
1. All sapient lives (sometimes all lives period) have inherent value. Corollary: Seeking benefit for a larger number of people without increased cost is the correct thing to do.
2. Sapient lives are always to be valued as ends in themselves, and never as means to another end. Corollary: The world is full of other beings, who must not be seen as things, but rather as people and, in some senses, seen as equals.
3. There are some actions which are never acceptable under any circumstances, and some actions which are only permissible (but still regrettable) under dire need. Corollary: You are not totally free to act as you will toward others, because others have inherent value and some actions abrogate or deny that inherent value.
4. Acting for the good of another at cost to yourself is inherently laudable, up to a reasonable limit. Corollary: Charity is a core virtue, but even charity has its excesses.
5. Sometimes, to achieve the best results, you may find that your own life is the necessary cost; this is to be avoided when not necessary, but not feared when it is truly required. Corollary: No greater love hath a man, than he lay down his life for his friend.

To be Lawful Good is to think that the best benefits for the most people are achieved by organization, consistency, structure, and restraint. My personal brand of Lawful Good prioritizes the Good: I see laws as the most effective, practical, and useful tools for achieving the good of others, and do not lightly abandon them. But when a law has ceased to serve the good of its nation and the people thereof, or when a law never did so at all, it has ceased to be a law. Law derives its justice, its value, its worth from conforming to a higher, better Divine Law that precedes and supports it; to violate that higher law is to have no foundation at all, and that is unacceptable. Therefore, I follow the US Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Rebellion is a regrettable, but occasionally necessary, action. Killing as well. To kill anyone, even in self-defense, is a horror that scars the soul. But, sometimes, I do believe it might be necessary; never acceptable or pleasant, but perhaps necessary. If this is construed as being "ready" to kill, so be it.

[Selion]

I don’t understand good and lawful alignments. They seem flat and unrealistic. Lawful Good in particular makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil seem less bad, but they still seem self-limiting to me. Chaotic Evil seems to be the most effective alignment in that you are truly independant and have the guile to manipulate the masses to your benefit. Does anybody else feel the same?

If you have an ordered mind, if you like the idea that exist an authority (or a deity ) which cares about you and you are happy to give your contribution in the development of a complex social structure you lean to a lawful alignment. There is nothing bad about that in my opinion, you can consider freedom a value and still be lawful, modern democracies have laws about it.
I'm more leaned to neutrality, i think that chaos is a source of renewal which eventually can change the world in a better (or worse) way, and that a balance between order and chaos creates complexity.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm more leaned to neutrality, i think that chaos is a source of renewal which eventually can change the world in a better (or worse) way, and that a balance between order and chaos creates complexity.

I find most "chaos" is simply the intrusion of a new set of rules. E.g. war is often chaotic because the rules of war (both formal and practical, which are rarely the same thing) generally do not mesh well with the rules of peace.

Nature is similarly portrayed as "chaotic," but nothing follows the hard, uncaring rules of physical law better than nature! So this "creative" chaos I am skeptical of--I am suspicious that different senses of the same word are being confused.

[Elkad]

I'd distill the corner-case CG driver down to a single traffic law.

Reckless driving. Either you are wantonly endangering or impeding others, or you are not.


Nearly every speed trap is a fine example of Lawful Evil. Find a spot where people naturally drive faster than what some sign says because they feel safe at that speed, and punish them for it, while enriching yourself. It's legalized armed robbery.

[King of Nowhere]

I was exaggerating in the OP. I do see good as naive and lawful as inflexible, though.


this seems more of a problem with bad roleplaying. the stupid good and the honor-before-reason lawful are common stereotypes, but they are far from the only way to have those alignments.

[ezekielraiden]

I was exaggerating in the OP. I do see good as naive and lawful as inflexible, though.


this seems more of a problem with bad roleplaying. the stupid good and the honor-before-reason lawful are common stereotypes, but they are far from the only way to have those alignments.

I agree, King; it sounds like Zhentarim has seen a few too many fellow players taking a hackneyed view as though it were normal.

Zhentarim, I think you would have found Sir Abraxxis, Paladin (and later acting archbishop...) of Bahamut an interesting conundrum. He was Lawful Good--so much so that his blood *hurt vampires* and one of his critics named him a "pesky law-doer!" But he was also adaptable, patient with the actions of others, and always looking for chances to redeem or reward genuinely contrite hearts.

He fought to save a red dragon and her children from slavery--no being deserves the tortures she endured.
He accepted an honest change of heart from a cadre of vampires--and worked with them to leverage their nighttime power for the good of their city.
He turned a bitter and jaded heart to hope for a better world, not by lectures, but by the sermon of deeds and the psalm of unfailing loyalty.*
He stopped a rampaging demigod wizard, and restored her to good, because he knew she could be saved.
He did penance for slaying goblin slavers, because every life is valuable, even the lives of the wicked.

Abraxxis remains one of my favorite characters foe these reasons and more. He had, by journal's end, truly earned his "you have done well, my good and faithful servant."

*The real irony being that this once-jaded char's player explicitly made it a goal, when Abraxxis was introduced, to show him that "the world doesn't work that way" and that he needed to be "strong" and "make tough decisions." That *my* character converted *his* from CN to CG was a delight for both of us.

[Remuko]

I agree, King; it sounds like Zhentarim has seen a few too many fellow players taking a hackneyed view as though it were normal.

Zhentarim, I think you would have found Sir Abraxxis, Paladin (and later acting archbishop...) of Bahamut an interesting conundrum. He was Lawful Good--so much so that his blood *hurt vampires* and one of his critics named him a "pesky law-doer!" But he was also adaptable, patient with the actions of others, and always looking for chances to redeem or reward genuinely contrite hearts.

He fought to save a red dragon and her children from slavery--no being deserves the tortures she endured.
He accepted an honest change of heart from a cadre of vampires--and worked with them to leverage their nighttime power for the good of their city.
He turned a bitter and jaded heart to hope for a better world, not by lectures, but by the sermon of deeds and the psalm of unfailing loyalty.*
He stopped a rampaging demigod wizard, and restored her to good, because he knew she could be saved.
He did penance for slaying goblin slavers, because every life is valuable, even the lives of the wicked.

Abraxxis remains one of my favorite characters foe these reasons and more. He had, by journal's end, truly earned his "you have done well, my good and faithful servant."

*The real irony being that this once-jaded char's player explicitly made it a goal, when Abraxxis was introduced, to show him that "the world doesn't work that way" and that he needed to be "strong" and "make tough decisions." That *my* character converted *his* from CN to CG was a delight for both of us.

As a fellow devout of Bahamut, that story moved me <3

[Maat Mons]

The Neutral alignments, where characters are agnostic about the existence of good and evil and the foundational underpinnings of how morality works, and don't care enough to find out? I don't get those. Chaotic neutral's even worse, and looks like BPD/bipolar type territory to me.

It's all about balance. Even a virtue, if taken to extremes, becomes a fault.

It is important to care about others. But one must also care about oneself.

Laws are vital to society. But too much law makes for totalitarianism.

Both Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)) and The Byrds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_YsQu5tKEE) said very insightful things on the matter.

[tiercel]

My earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23506630&postcount=5) (and its purple text of unvarnished accuracy*) notwithstanding, it's worth noting that we actually do have Alignment Handbooks around at GiantITP, and, yep, Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook) is one of them.

That's not to say that Lawful Good is everyone's cup of tea, but it is for many characters (even beyond obligatory standard paladins) an iconic choice of way of life, and eminently playable. And ever so predictably useful to have around.

*Because colored text having certain connotations seems to be a thing... and purple text... well, if something you've read fell into place because of its cunning eloquence, you might understand why purple text is appropriate.

[Pleh]

To understand LG, you have to first dispel the Lawful Stupid alignments that often are submitted as counterfeits.

Unfortunately, the Paladin tends to only exacerbate the misconceptions of LG by making it mechanical that they lose power if they break their code. It's a neat idea, but it's not well defined enough and forces paladin to err on the side of caution and supports the Lawful Stupid interpretation.

In essence, true Lawful Good wants good things to happen all other creatures. The problem with evil creatures is that they spread bad things (don't think too abstract, I'm talking about hurting other people, not sliming them with a metaphysical taint, although that happens in D&D too) to other creatures in their proximity. This compels the good creature to become a do-gooder, which is to attempt to arrest and defuse sources of evil. When only goodness remains, everyone may simply live peacefully in the goodness that pervades.

It's about being part of the Greater Good, so it commonly compels good creatures to sacrifice and give of themselves to pacify great amounts of evil. Their desire for good things for all creatures often makes them see how personally experiencing a great amount of suffering for a short time is better than a whole or portion of society suffering for generations. This is the spirit of a hero.

To be Lawful in your goodness is to recognize that the purpose of law is to serve the Greater Good by generating harmony between creatures. Freedom is good, but requires no special effort in most cases. Apathy is all that is needed for Chaos to be served and laws that are not enforced aren't really laws at all. Law subservient to Good also means that good creatures must be careful never to let Law become tyrannical or oppressive, as this is Law exceeding its purpose. This is where the LE figure like to try to obscure right and wrong with differing values of good to persuade that we need more power in the law to do more good, which isn't often the case.

I'm out of time this morning, but the train of thought isn't finished. I'll try to come back and add the second half later, when I get free.

[John05]

My earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23506630&postcount=5) (and its purple text of unvarnished accuracy*) notwithstanding, it's worth noting that we actually do have Alignment Handbooks around at GiantITP, and, yep, Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook) is one of them.

That's not to say that Lawful Good is everyone's cup of tea, but it is for many characters (even beyond obligatory standard paladins) an iconic choice of way of life, and eminently playable. And ever so predictably useful to have around.

*Because colored text having certain connotations seems to be a thing... and purple text... well, if something you've read fell into place because of its cunning eloquence, you might understand why purple text is appropriate.

Nice, tiercel. Agreed with your earlier post, and Good to know this forum's minor culture of using colored text.

To add to what you say: I see a lot of people getting the wrong idea of Lawful Good. They think it means weak and meek. Followers. Etc. That's because they lack perspective. Those of us who have experienced real power and control know that to KEEP what we have, we need stability. A world of unfettered chaos is one in which even universal constants, like our place on top of the world, are not guaranteed. Chaos may be "fun" to chaotic types, but they're not going to be the ones who rule. There's a reason the most powerful rulers tend to be more lawful. The paragon of Lawful Evil, Asmodeus, became a greater deity of tyranny and rules ALL of the Nine Hells. The paragon of Chaotic Evil, in contrast, rules over a pitiful, dirty little swamp that barely makes up a tiny percent of the Abyss's total.

I also notice a tendency to conflate "Good" with "nice". Good characters don't have to be played as milquetoasts, and Evil people aren't bold edgelords. In my experience, evil tends to be weak and cowardly. They lack CONVICTION. Sure we have bold and suicidal Chaotic Evil orcs and their primitive culture, but even their strongest leaders never rule for more than a couple of generations, because they're stupid. You also have exceptions like Asmodeus, who was born into power. For the most part, Evil lacks strength of conviction that We have push ourselves beyond what's "reasonable" and safe. What can we conclude then, except that Evil itself is a WEAKNESS?... and that these individuals who chose the wrong path would have become much greater than what they've become had they been righteous instead? Pathetic.

Exemplars of good are stronger and have more force of character than any edgelord evil that'll ever find the gall to crawl out from the shadows.

[Darth Ultron]

I do see good as naive and lawful as inflexible, though.


Well, it's not exactly ''naive" as it is Hopeful. A good person trusts others, and hopes others will be good. In a good society, it works just fine. It's fair to see good as inflexible, but that is a good thing.

[BWR]

The Byrds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_YsQu5tKEE) said very insightful things on the matter.

Technically the Book of Ecclesiastes, as adapted by Pete Seeger.
/nitpick

[Maat Mons]

Nature is similarly portrayed as "chaotic," but nothing follows the hard, uncaring rules of physical law better than nature! So this "creative" chaos I am skeptical of--I am suspicious that different senses of the same word are being confused.

How would evolution work without random mutation?

[AMFV]

I find most "chaos" is simply the intrusion of a new set of rules. E.g. war is often chaotic because the rules of war (both formal and practical, which are rarely the same thing) generally do not mesh well with the rules of peace.

Nature is similarly portrayed as "chaotic," but nothing follows the hard, uncaring rules of physical law better than nature! So this "creative" chaos I am skeptical of--I am suspicious that different senses of the same word are being confused.

In D&D actually nature is typically portrayed as lacking alignment altogether.


How would evolution work without random mutation?

Well without violating board rules I can say that one could certainly posit for evolution as a result of a designed influence or a specific path without any randomness involved.

[Yogibear41]

The Blood War has been raging for thousands of years.

The Demons outnumber the Devils 1000 to 1.

The Demons have numbers.

The Devils have the LAW.

[Remuko]

The Blood War has been raging for thousands of years.

The Demons outnumber the Devils ∞ to 1.

The Demons have numbers.

The Devils have the LAW.

Fixed that for you.

[Zhentarim]

LAWFUL evil seems most effective (with LN and NE being runnerups), then. Still not sold on good.

[Snowbluff]

LAWFUL evil seems most effective (with LN and NE being runnerups), then. Still not sold on good.

Your punk butt wouldn't be alive without good. LG is closer to how human society has survived so far. Cooperation is key to survival.

Lawful Evil can't really produce anything fruitful. At best they maintain a status quo for their own survival (See: Sorin Markov), but in the end they're just leeches.

[Kish]

The trouble here is that you seem to be looking for an answer to, "How is Good more individually efficient than evil?" but "selfish efficiency uber alles" is an evil philosophy.

It's like the prisoner dilemma. It's easy to come up with reasons why you shouldn't give testimony. It's impossible to reasonably argue that, in any individual case, not giving testimony will benefit you more than giving it--and no one who would choose not to give testimony would even try to address such a selfish perspective.

[Zhentarim]

Your punk butt wouldn't be alive without good. LG is closer to how human society has survived so far. Cooperation is key to survival.

Lawful Evil can't really produce anything fruitful. At best they maintain a status quo for their own survival (See: Sorin Markov), but in the end they're just leeches.

The thing is, in my experience, most people are some form of evil, a significant minority are neutral, and there are few, if any, good people. Lawful Good reacts to the world as they think it should be, Lawful Evil reacts to the real world as it really is.

Cooperation is lawful more than anything. An affably evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) lawful evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil) can have many friends and be dependable, but they are also realists.

Chaotic Good is even worse, since they are not only niave, but they spread chaos and disorder in the name of their “ideals”.

[JNAProductions]

The thing is, in my experience, most people are some form of evil, a significant minority are neutral, and there are few, if any, good people. Lawful Good reacts to the world as they think it should be, Lawful Evil reacts to the real world as it really is.

Cooperation is lawful more than anything. An affably evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) lawful evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil) can have many friends and be dependable, but they are also realists.

That's lawful stupid.

Being good doesn't make you naive. It means that, to put it with your words, they work to make the world as it should be, but they're still grounded in reality.

[DeTess]

The thing is, in my experience, most people are some form of evil, a significant minority are neutral, and there are few, if any, good people. Lawful Good reacts to the world as they think it should be, Lawful Evil reacts to the real world as it really is.

Cooperation is lawful more than anything. An affably evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) lawful evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil) can have many friends and be dependable, but they are also realists.

Chaotic Good is even worse, since they are not only niave, but they spread chaos and disorder in the name of their “ideals”.

Imagine you're walking home at night. It's snowing and cold, so your face is mostly covered. An older person walking ahead of you slips and falls. They don't seem badly hurt, but are struggling a bit with getting up. No one else is within line of sight or earshot.

What do you do?

[Zhentarim]

Imagine you're walking home at night. It's snowing and cold, so your face is mostly covered. An older person walking ahead of you slips and falls. They don't seem badly hurt, but are struggling a bit with getting up. No one else is within line of sight or earshot.

What do you do?

I’ve seen this before. Its a broken wing gambit. There is somebody hiding in the shadows who will attack me if I try to help or else the person who is acting hurt has a small pistol they will shoot me with if I get too close. I keep my distance in situations like these.

[DeTess]

I’ve seen this before. Its a broken wing gambit. There is somebody hiding in the shadows who will attack me if I try to help or else the person who is acting hurt has a small pistol they will shoot me with if I get too close. I keep my distance in situations like these.

I... wow. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking?

Anyway, where I'm from most people would either help(good) or ignore(neutral) them. Those that helped would probably get thanked. No one would be getting mugged or robbed.

[Nifft]

That's lawful stupid.

Being good doesn't make you naive. It means that, to put it with your words, they work to make the world as it should be, but they're still grounded in reality.

The converse (being naive => being good) can often be true, though, so some people fail to distinguish between that directional arrow and just associate "good" with "naive".

They're not entirely wrong, but they are fundamentally wrong.

[Maat Mons]

Lawful Evil can't really produce anything fruitful. At best they maintain a status quo for their own survival (See: Sorin Markov), but in the end they're just leeches.

Enlightened self-interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) begs to differ.

[Andezzar]

Enlightened self-interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) begs to differ.I don't see how enlightened self-interest relates to Evil. Evil in D&D term is not just selfishness but selfishness plus the desire to use actions detrimental to others.

[Pleh]

The thing is, in my experience, most people are some form of evil, a significant minority are neutral, and there are few, if any, good people. Lawful Good reacts to the world as they think it should be, Lawful Evil reacts to the real world as it really is.

Cooperation is lawful more than anything. An affably evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) lawful evil (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil) can have many friends and be dependable, but they are also realists.

Chaotic Good is even worse, since they are not only niave, but they spread chaos and disorder in the name of their “ideals”.

Be careful. Just because Lawful Evil individuals often strive to be pragmatic does not make them immune to self inflicted delusions (especially of, but not limited to, grandeur), the most common of which being that their tyrannical agendas are in some manner justified rather than simply deplorable.

Lawful Evil can be JUST as Naive as anyone, because alignment isn't directly correlated or caused by a higher level of awareness (although most alignments would dearly like to claim for themselves that they alone hold the keys to wisdom and enlightenment). It more describes how you go about pursuing your goals and only loosely correlates to what your goals would actually be. Not that there aren't Goals that are rather firmly related to particular alignments, but just that many goals and activities can belong to a number of alignments based on motive and context.

A Chaotic Evil character could Naively believe that everyone else is just as chaotic and evil as they are and create a world of self inflicted pain and suffering by being aggressive towards others, generating a self fulfilling prophecy as people around them become defensive and attempt to execute justice against the Chaotic Evil character. All along, if they had only restrained their behavior, their life would have been peaceful and pleasant.

In short, Lawful Evil (or more generally, Evil) characters are only Realists if the DM says that the Setting is defined that way. More commonly, the Setting is Neutral and Evil characters try to convince everyone that the world is Evil so that their own personal Evil is normalized and justified, even though it's all based on a lie.

[Zhentarim]

I don't see how enlightened self-interest relates to Evil. Evil in D&D term is not just selfishness but selfishness plus the desire to use actions detrimental to others.

The best lawful evil characters would mostly pursue enlightened self interest, but if an opportunity came along that was really profitable but harmed others (yet the lawful evil character contemplated possible downsides and saw he could mitigate the potentially backlash he could incur upon himself from taking that profitable but harmful act) he would take it.

[Torpin]

A large problem ive seen in my years of playing/dming is that people don't play alignments, they play excuses to act a certain way, people play chaotic neutral as only out for them selves, in a manner thats closer to lawful evil, lawful evil is played like chaotic evil, and chaotic evil PCs are just insane and unpleasant to play with/dm for. I also had players on the other end who were so blow it out your bum "virtueous" and needed to punish any evil doers that they eventually were executed for crimes against the church. Alignments at the end of the day are just a way for the mechanics of the game to be able to interact with the essence of your character.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Zhentarim, I’m sorry that wherever you live is a hive of scum and villainy, but please realize that most places are not like that.

The people arguing that enlightened self interest is evil should maybe reexamine why they think a philosophy that does good things because it benefits the doer in the long run is anything but Neutral. The LE version would be what Jeff Bezos does.

[Zhentarim]

A large problem ive seen in my years of playing/dming is that people don't play alignments, they play excuses to act a certain way, people play chaotic neutral as only out for them selves, in a manner thats closer to lawful evil, lawful evil is played like chaotic evil, and chaotic evil PCs are just insane and unpleasant to play with/dm for. I also had players on the other end who were so blow it out your bum "virtueous" and needed to punish any evil doers that they eventually were executed for crimes against the church. Alignments at the end of the day are just a way for the mechanics of the game to be able to interact with the essence of your character.

I wish alignment was tracked in game instead of labled by the characters. All my characters, regardless of alignment, eventually drift towards evil, or at least neutral. True good is hard for me to maintain.

[Zhentarim]

Zhentarim, I’m sorry that wherever you live is a hive of scum and villainy, but please realize that most places are not like that.

The people arguing that enlightened self interest is evil should maybe reexamine why they think a philosophy that does good things because it benefits the doer in the long run is anything but Neutral. The LE version would be what Jeff Bezos does.

My mom could replace Jeff Bezos and nobody would tell the difference...except she also dislikes minorities. We get along though. She helps me and mentors me, even though I’ve moved out, and she’s good at destroying people in ways I don’t have the stomach to do. A couple of weeks ago a 14 year old brat stabbed her (she survived it). He managed to get away with it, so I used her black market connections to get a tiny amount of contraband, I watched the kid to see if he got reckless, and when he left his bag, I planted the contraband and left an anonymous tip. Unlike when he stabbed my mom, that kid got more than just a slap on the wrist with that contraband. Coppers care more about contraband than citizens hurting each other here, and functionally are just another gang. Since bribery was legalized a while back, police will openly ask for money now. Its a plutocracy here—so long as you are rich enough, you can do anything. One travel writer came through my town once and wrote a blog post saying walking down the street here is more like trying to “survive the final level of a difficult video game than a leisurely stroll”. I forget which blog it was, since a coworker showed me and its been a while. Its a cesspool here and corruption is the name of the game.

Luckily, I’ve landed a middle class job working at a school, so I don’t need to do nearly as much shady crap and was able to get a house with a security system and a car so I’m away from the worst of the crime. Even away from the city center, though, some punk still tries to break in my house or car every week.

[Maat Mons]

The people arguing that enlightened self interest is evil should maybe reexamine why they think a philosophy that does good things because it benefits the doer in the long run is anything but Neutral.

So, you agree that, in general, harming others is, ultimately, harmful to the self? And the only way you'll count someone as "evil," is if they harm others? So, in your mind, "evil" is a synonym for "stupid?"

Good characters believe in helping others at the expense of themselves. Evil characters believe in helping themselves at the expense of others. Neutral characters believe in striking a balance between helping others and helping themselves.

As it happens, harming others is not a very good way get ahead in most civilized societies. So, smart evil characters act indistinguishably from neutral characters. But it is an act. A sociopath who manages to keep all his impulses under control is still a sociopath.

A person's actions cannot change his nature.

[Nifft]

So, you agree that, in general, harming others is, ultimately, harmful to the self? And the only way you'll count someone as "evil," is if they harm others? So, in your mind, "evil" is a synonym for "stupid?" The long-term consequences of anti-social behavior include the destruction of the social fabric which allows the evil person to exist and thrive.


Good characters believe in helping others at the expense of themselves. Evil characters believe in helping themselves at the expense of others. Neutral characters believe in striking a balance between helping others and helping themselves. Nah, alignment happens even if they believe otherwise.


As it happens, harming others is not a very good way get ahead in most civilized societies. So, smart evil characters act indistinguishably from neutral characters. But it is an act. A sociopath who manages to keep all his impulses under control is still a sociopath. Yes, one of the devil's second-best tricks was to convince people that short-term gain = smart.


A person's actions cannot change his nature. This is absolutely wrong in D&D.

A Paladin's actions can change her nature, in a very specific and well-documented way. Similarly, casting spells (each of which is an action of some type) can also change one's nature, in a less specific but also well-documented way.

Your alignment is the result of your past actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

[King of Nowhere]

So, you agree that, in general, harming others is, ultimately, harmful to the self? And the only way you'll count someone as "evil," is if they harm others? So, in your mind, "evil" is a synonym for "stupid?"

Evil can thrive as long as it is limited. One single evil person in a good society will get all the perks, and will not be disruptive enough to make society collapse. If all society turned evil, then society would collapse, and every single evildoer would also be worse off.
So, those evil people who developed a philosophy about it count on there being enough good people to offset the negative consequences of their actions, so they can only get the perks.


Good characters believe in helping others at the expense of themselves. Evil characters believe in helping themselves at the expense of others. Neutral characters believe in striking a balance between helping others and helping themselves.

As it happens, harming others is not a very good way get ahead in most civilized societies. So, smart evil characters act indistinguishably from neutral characters. But it is an act. A sociopath who manages to keep all his impulses under control is still a sociopath.

A person's actions cannot change his nature.

This, plus zentharim description, make me wonder that the opposite may also be possible: a good person finding himself in a bad place, surrounded by bad person, will have to act more evil-like to survive. Refuse to help people, because they are just trying to profit from you. Be harsh, as everything else will be taken as a sing of weakness. Destroy preemptively those that would destroy yourself otherwise. But still keeping some hard lines (i.e. not taking advantage of the harmless), and hoping that eventually he'd be able to be better.

Of course, a person living that life may end up on the slippery slope and become evil over time, simply because he's thinking differently. Just like an evil person being forced to act neutral may also become different. But that's a change of heart, not a simple result of being forced to act against your alignment.




A Paladin's actions can change her nature, in a very specific and well-documented way. Similarly, casting spells (each of which is an action of some type) can also change one's nature, in a less specific but also well-documented way.

Your alignment is the result of your past actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's a way to interpret the manuals, but the manuals are a load of crap regarding alignments.

[J-H]

My kids are sick and I just sat with the 4 year old for 10 minutes so he'd do the nebulizer...and thence comes this post:

Mr. Rogers is an exemplar of nice Lawful Good. In D&D terms he's probably some form of pacifist LG paladin (stratospheric CHA & WIS), possibly with some of the BOED aura of peace type features.