Chaotic Good & Bad?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Alignments are kinda restrictive but I have to have SOMETHING on my sheet.

As our adventures continue my elf keeps taking quests to help people, but maybe much as me in real life, is also amazed at the evil in the world and has a "let's avenge the victims!" side that nears the tv character Dexter from a decade or so back or a less grouchy Batman.

9 alignments is probably plenty so is chaotic neutral still the best?

[Unoriginal]

Alignments are kinda restrictive but I have to have SOMETHING on my sheet.

Alignments aren't restrictive, they're descriptive.



As our adventures continue my elf keeps taking quests to help people, but maybe much as me in real life, is also amazed at the evil in the world and has a "let's avenge the victims!" side that nears the tv character Dexter from a decade or so back or a less grouchy Batman.

This doesn't tell us anything. What do you mean by "amazed at the evil in the world"? Dexter is a bloodlusting serial killer, Batman spend his nights and days fighting for justice.



9 alignments is probably plenty so is chaotic neutral still the best?

Does your character typically "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else"?

If you help people out of personal whims, then probably.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Alignments aren't restrictive, they're descriptive.



This doesn't tell us anything. What do you mean by "amazed at the evil in the world"? Dexter is a bloodlusting serial killer, Batman spend his nights and days fighting for justice.



Does your character typically "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else"?

If you help people out of personal whims, then probably.

Good points. It does seem its all in a point of view. Perhaps my last DM over there was more restrictive. In some ways it really doesn't matter, my character is my character and thinking of alignments as descriptive not restrictive takes off the pressure.

I guess my Bard Elf is out in the "real world" for the first time and is dealing with the "ppl really do that" aspect of life. Probably someplace between Batman and Dexter. Both go after badguys. One usually controls himself where the other doesn't.

Yes on the on personal whims. "This quest sounds fun" "Lets get the jerk who did that!" "I don't wanna work for these ppl" or "yup, we need some coin" are all propably things I've said in character.

[Man_Over_Game]

Good points. It does seem its all in a point of view. Perhaps my last DM over there was more restrictive. In some ways it really doesn't matter, my character is my character and thinking of alignments as descriptive not restrictive takes off the pressure.

I guess my Bard Elf is out in the "real world" for the first time and is dealing with the "ppl really do that" aspect of life. Probably someplace between Batman and Dexter. Both go after badguys. One usually controls himself where the other doesn't.

Yes on the on personal whims. "This quest sounds fun" "Lets get the jerk who did that!" "I don't wanna work for these ppl" or "yup, we need some coin" are all propably things I've said in character.

An easy way of determining alignments is ignoring everything within your background, and just simply describe how your character feels about both the average person and the common law.

Is the average person someone worth investing in and sacrificing for? Good.
Is the average person a resource to use or an obstacle in your way? Evil.
Is the average person someone you generally don't care about or see? Neutral.

Is expanding the law beneficial to how you see the world and your goals? Law.
Is the law hindering your goals and your vision, and it's best for you to see it fall? Chaotic.
Is the law obeyed because that's what's easiest and it keeps things from falling apart, but you won't enforce the law on your own time? Neutral.

If you're "Neutral" in the sense of both sectors, then there's effectively two different options that a lot of people recognize, which is "Neutral" (I think for myself), and "True Neutral" (The balance must be upheld).

For example, a cleric who hides illegal immigrants and refugees from the military may normally try to follow the laws, but may choose to ignore them when it pleases the cleric, so they'd probably fall into the Neutral Good category. If the cleric thinks the law is corrupt and that there should be no circumstance where something like this should happen, they might fall into Chaotic Good.

You can still be Lawful Good and seek out vengeance for the victims. Vengeance is a form of justice, which is a part of Law. What matters is whether or not the criminals have the right to a trial, or whether the "quest" is effectively a warrant for their execution. It all depends on whether executing them by your hand is considered illegal. Some Good people may try to spare murderers, but that's not a requirement to be a Good person.

[Unoriginal]

Good points. It does seem its all in a point of view. Perhaps my last DM over there was more restrictive. In some ways it really doesn't matter, my character is my character and thinking of alignments as descriptive not restrictive takes off the pressure.

I guess my Bard Elf is out in the "real world" for the first time and is dealing with the "ppl really do that" aspect of life. Probably someplace between Batman and Dexter. Both go after badguys. One usually controls himself where the other doesn't.

Yes on the on personal whims. "This quest sounds fun" "Lets get the jerk who did that!" "I don't wanna work for these ppl" or "yup, we need some coin" are all propably things I've said in character.

Then there you go. Generally nice with victims, but often overly cruel with bad guys, typically do things out of personal whimsy. Chaotic neutral. Bam.

You can now go party with Slaads.

[RedMage125]

Is expanding the law beneficial to how you see the world and your goals? Law.
Is the law hindering your goals and your vision, and it's best for you to see it fall? Chaotic.
Is the law obeyed because that's what's easiest and it keeps things from falling apart, but you won't enforce the law on your own time? Neutral.
"Lawful" in terms of alignment may have nothing to do with "laws" in terms of civil laws. Characters can be Lawful simply because they are self-disciplined, or adhere to some kind of code. Let's look at he Mafia for an example. As an organization, the Mafia is Lawful Evil, as would most of the higher-ups and Dons. But "the law" is absolutely a hindrance to them, and they oppose the servants of it at every turn. But they have rules and codes that they follow absolutely. A monk who is journeying and testing herself, keeping to a disciplined code of exercise and meditation in order to test herself to try and achieve a higher state of harmony with the universe may be Lawful. But that same monk might not give a damn about civil laws and society as a whole.

It's important to not hear "Lawful" and make a hard association with "laws of society".

Now, as a caveat, such a thing IS possible and WOULD still be Lawful. The magistrate or sheriff who enforces the law to the letter, without sympathy or compassion, would be Lawful. But then again, one could also say that civil laws ARE that more general "code" that those individuals follow.



If you're "Neutral" in the sense of both sectors, then there's effectively two different options that a lot of people recognize, which is "Neutral" (I think for myself), and "True Neutral" (The balance must be upheld).

I've never heard anyone distinguish between "Neutral" (just being Neutral on both axis), and "True Neutral" (devoted to balance). Most people just call the "Neutral Neutral" alignment "True Neutral" or just "Neutral" interchangeably. I think it's interesting to make that distinction, as since 3e, "Neutral" has always been divided into 2 camps: A) Those who mostly think for themselves and view things on a case-by-case basis. Such people generally prefer Good over Evil, after all, they'd rather have Good rulers and neighbors than Evil ones, but they are not interested in "Good" themselves. And B) Those who are devoted to Neutrality as an ideal in and of itself, viewing Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as dangerous extremes. These are much less common (although in 2e this was the only definition of "True Neutral").

I'm not criticizing you making the distinction, btw, I've never heard anyone try to give a different appellation to the two.

[Man_Over_Game]

"Lawful" in terms of alignment may have nothing to do with "laws" in terms of civil laws. [...]

I've never heard anyone distinguish between "Neutral" (just being Neutral on both axis), and "True Neutral" (devoted to balance). Most people just call the "Neutral Neutral" alignment "True Neutral" or just "Neutral" interchangeably. [...]

I'm not criticizing you making the distinction, btw, I've never heard anyone try to give a different appellation to the two.

I tried to oversimplify a lot of it, because a lot of people have this concern of being overly confused with their alignment.

"If I'm taught to be bad, and I think I'm being good, am I good or am I bad? I think I'm doing good, but most people would think I'm doing bad, so does their opinion matter or does mine?"

Rather than dealing with oddball cases, one thing that really helps narrow it down is just determining how you think of people.

As for the Law vs. Chaotic case you make, you have some valid points. I guess another way you could get an appropriate answer is "Do you seek to implement more structure and control to make the world in your vision?", which is pretty close.

You're kinda right on the whole "Neutrality" subject. Not everyone calls it that, but those two examples come up a lot in the definition of "neutrality", so it's just a lot easier to give them a name. I guess you could add another part of the whole "alignment wheel", which is how much you actually care about your alignment. Some people are Good, but aren't willing to sacrifice. Some people are bullies and thieves, but are definitely not willing to murder. For some, Alignment isn't a choice or a goal, but just a way to live.

[sophontteks]

An easy way of determining alignments is ignoring everything within your background, and just simply describe how your character feels about both the average person and the common law.

Is the average person someone worth investing in and sacrificing for? Good.
Is the average person a resource to use or an obstacle in your way? Evil.
Is the average person someone you generally don't care about or see? Neutral.

Is expanding the law beneficial to how you see the world and your goals? Law.
Is the law hindering your goals and your vision, and it's best for you to see it fall? Chaotic.
Is the law obeyed because that's what's easiest and it keeps things from falling apart, but you won't enforce the law on your own time? Neutral.

If you're "Neutral" in the sense of both sectors, then there's effectively two different options that a lot of people recognize, which is "Neutral" (I think for myself), and "True Neutral" (The balance must be upheld).

For example, a cleric who hides illegal immigrants and refugees from the military may normally try to follow the laws, but may choose to ignore them when it pleases the cleric, so they'd probably fall into the Neutral Good category. If the cleric thinks the law is corrupt and that there should be no circumstance where something like this should happen, they might fall into Chaotic Good.

You can still be Lawful Good and seek out vengeance for the victims. Vengeance is a form of justice, which is a part of Law. What matters is whether or not the criminals have the right to a trial, or whether the "quest" is effectively a warrant for their execution. It all depends on whether executing them by your hand is considered illegal. Some Good people may try to spare murderers, but that's not a requirement to be a Good person.
Wow, this is a really way to determine alignments.

[2D8HP]

Alignments are kinda restrictive but I have to have SOMETHING on my sheet...


So just put "Neutral"...

....or if you're feeling mirthful put "Lawful Cranky" or "Chaotic Inebriated". :cool:


...As our adventures continue my elf keeps taking quests to help people, but maybe much as me in real life, is also amazed at the evil in the world and has a "let's avenge the victims!" side that nears the tv character Dexter...


I've never watched "Dexter" but judging by the ads that character is pure evil.


....or a less grouchy Batman


Dexter or Batman?

Oh I get you then,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt5nH3tbTMY
Mad Max would be Neutral to Lawful Neutral, like most humans,


"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"
- E. Gary Gygax, February 1976
(see here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history) for source)

...until Max was redeemed after "facing the wheel" in Beyond Thunderdome, and became Chaotic Good.


...9 alignments is probably plenty so is chaotic neutral still the best?


For an Elf?

Chaotic Neutral is perfect for an Elf.


But this other roving intelligence... it’d go in and out of another mind like a chainsaw, taking, taking, taking. She could sense the shape of it, the predatory shape, all cruelty and cool unkindness; a mind full of intelligence, that’d use other living things and hurt them because it was fun.
She could put a name to a mind like that.
Elf...

Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvelous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meanings.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad".
-Lord's and Ladies

Less "wonder" and more terror slides Elves into "Evil" rather than Neutral, like the Druids when they do less "helping with the harvest", and more "human sacrifice".

[Mr.Spastic]

Web DM has a video on this topic with a lot of great tips. Their main point though is that is doesn't really matter. Alignments are inherently incapable of representing the many nuances of peoples beliefs and motivations. A classic example is the Trolley Problem. Would you sacrifice one person to save five others. It perfectly embodies the gray areas of morality.

[mAc Chaos]

An easy way of determining alignments is ignoring everything within your background, and just simply describe how your character feels about both the average person and the common law.

Is the average person someone worth investing in and sacrificing for? Good.
Is the average person a resource to use or an obstacle in your way? Evil.
Is the average person someone you generally don't care about or see? Neutral.

Is expanding the law beneficial to how you see the world and your goals? Law.
Is the law hindering your goals and your vision, and it's best for you to see it fall? Chaotic.
Is the law obeyed because that's what's easiest and it keeps things from falling apart, but you won't enforce the law on your own time? Neutral.

If you're "Neutral" in the sense of both sectors, then there's effectively two different options that a lot of people recognize, which is "Neutral" (I think for myself), and "True Neutral" (The balance must be upheld).

For example, a cleric who hides illegal immigrants and refugees from the military may normally try to follow the laws, but may choose to ignore them when it pleases the cleric, so they'd probably fall into the Neutral Good category. If the cleric thinks the law is corrupt and that there should be no circumstance where something like this should happen, they might fall into Chaotic Good.

You can still be Lawful Good and seek out vengeance for the victims. Vengeance is a form of justice, which is a part of Law. What matters is whether or not the criminals have the right to a trial, or whether the "quest" is effectively a warrant for their execution. It all depends on whether executing them by your hand is considered illegal. Some Good people may try to spare murderers, but that's not a requirement to be a Good person.

That is an awesome alignment test.

When you say "law" do you mean the actual law of a city, like Neverwinter, or more abstract? Because I can see someone being in favor of an ordered, lawful society, but having problems with the particular implementation of it.

[RedMage125]

Web DM has a video on this topic with a lot of great tips. Their main point though is that is doesn't really matter. Alignments are inherently incapable of representing the many nuances of peoples beliefs and motivations. A classic example is the Trolley Problem. Would you sacrifice one person to save five others. It perfectly embodies the gray areas of morality.
Alignments are not meant to "represent the many nuances of peoples beliefs and motivations". It is literally just supposed to be a gross oversimplification OF those things, through a lens of objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. People in a D&D world with alignment can ABSOLUTELY have the full gamut of "gray" in how they think, act, and believe. It's just that their actions are judged by a dispassionate, cosmic set of forces to which even the gods are beholden. To wit: a man knows of a prophecy that an orphan in his second decade of life will usher Demogorgon into the world during a convergence of moons. That convergence is 17 years away, so he goes through the land, butchering EVERY orphan of or under the age of 12 (or who looks close enough, just to be sure). He believes he is doing Good. After all, he commits no other acts of evil against anyone else. But the consistent, repeated, and above all, unrepentant murder of hundreds of innocent children weigh on the soul. His alignment is undeniably Evil. Just because alignments exist doesn't mean everyone is some kind of gross caricature that only takes actions that fit their alignment. It's DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE (and therefore not RESTRICTIVE).

And Please don't bring up the Trolley Problem. Any college-freshman-level or above study of Ethics will show you that the Trolley Problem isn't about Ethics at all. So it's certainly not relevant to Alignment discussions, not even in D&D. All that the Trolley Problem shows is the importance of Utilitarianism vs Personal Accountability in the person being asked. That is, to say, "Is the net decrease of lives lost more important to you than being PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE for the death of one; or is your own personal accountability (whether to a higher power or just to yourself) and conscience more important that the consequence of 4 extra deaths occurring?". Not about Good or Evil in any way.

It's irrelevant by D&D alignment mores, because the Evil Act was committed by the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. Furthermore, actions affect alignment, framed by context and intent. So even a pre-4e paladin would not fall for NOT pulling the lever, as he committed no act, evil or otherwise.

Conversely, the Fat Man and Fat Villain variants of the Trolley Problem CAN be used with D&D mores.

In the Fat Man variant, you are on a bridge OVER the track to which 5 people are tied. Also on this bridge is an enormously obese individual. Otherwise an innocent bystander. But he's fat enough that if you push him ONTO the track in front of the trolley, he will die, but his girth will stop the trolley. That variant actually involves killing someone who wasn't already put into the deathtrap before the agency of the person acting is called into question. So that would be killing one innocent to save 5 innocents. Absolutely an Evil Act done to accomplish a Good Act.

In the Fat Villain variant, we have the same situation, but that big, fat guy? HE is the person who tied the other 5 to the tracks, and loosed the trolley, AND you, the person being asked, know all this. This one is simple, because while it's still a dilemma by Real World ethical mores, by D&D ones it is perfectly acceptable to kill this man in order to save the 5 people he was trying to murder. 100% okay. Even pre-4e paladins don't fall for that one.

[Mr.Spastic]

You literally supported my point, then went on a pretentious rant. I was just saying that alignment doesn't represent your character so you shouldn't be so concerned with whether or not you perfectly fit your alignment. I used the Trolley Problem as an example because you could make several cases as to why pulling the lever is evil of good or lawful or chaotic. The point was more to emphasize the fact that alignment comes from perspective, which you also went on to agree with.

[Arcangel4774]

The problem with good v evil alignment discussions mirrors realworld cultural issues in regards to whether a person should be judged by his culture/values or as the prevailing culture or society views him.

An extreme example for a (self described) good aligned character i plan to play in an evil campaign. He believes that at a persons death their sealed into their fate for the afterlife. With this in mind he kills whoever he deems good so that they dont have a chnace to become evil. If someone is evil he will try to convince them to do good. When hrefeels they are redeemed he would then kill them.

In terms of lawful vs chaotic a the disagreements are harder to describe. For this i can mostly just explain how i go about it. I personally think about it in terms of how you go about things. If you have a plan in doing things i say lawful while more impulsive actions are chaotic. Other views tend towards having a codified ethics vs intuitive morallity. And yet others explain things in terms of following the rules and views of others.

A good test for determining what you think is to examine batman. Do you see him as lawful in that he is methodical in his actions and his personal code of ethics or do you think of him as choatic in his use of fear and falling outside of societal standards.

[RedMage125]

You literally supported my point, then went on a pretentious rant. I was just saying that alignment doesn't represent your character so you shouldn't be so concerned with whether or not you perfectly fit your alignment. I used the Trolley Problem as an example because you could make several cases as to why pulling the lever is evil of good or lawful or chaotic. The point was more to emphasize the fact that alignment comes from perspective, which you also went on to agree with.

First of all, "your point" that I quoted seemed to be utterly dismissive of alignments on the grounds that they don't account for nuances, and I was contesting that point because I maintain that they're not supposed to. No one "perfectly fits" their alignment at all times, it's a generalization. So I didn't "support your point", unless your point was something other than what it seemed to be from that post.

And you utterly missed what I was saying about the Trolley Problem, AND alignment in the second bit. I was actually dismissing ANY attempt to use the Trolley Problem to EVER say that pulling the level was "good/evil/lawful/chaotic", because it's not any of those, it's Utilitarianism vs Personal Accountability. Unless you use one of the Fat Guy variants. And alignment does not "come from perspective", alignment is objective. That is, an Evil character who murders lots of children is Evil, REGARDLESS of his "perspective", so I don't know how you think I agree with you.



The problem with good v evil alignment discussions mirrors realworld cultural issues in regards to whether a person should be judged by his culture/values or as the prevailing culture or society views him.
Alignment, however, is supposed to be judged by the dispassionate, objective cosmic forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. In 3.5e, there were a lot more specifics on exactly what that meant. It did, however, become problematic when DMs (and sometimes players) would substitute their real-world bias into the RAW for those things.


An extreme example for a (self described) good aligned character i plan to play in an evil campaign. He believes that at a persons death their sealed into their fate for the afterlife. With this in mind he kills whoever he deems good so that they dont have a chnace to become evil. If someone is evil he will try to convince them to do good. When hrefeels they are redeemed he would then kill them.
Not too dissimilar from my example. Such a character may believe himself to be Good. But his actions are judged objectively. Alignment rules don't preclude this kind of subtlety and nuance. Question, though...does he only target those he believes to be evil initially, and then try and redeem them? Or does he also kill people who are clearly good before they can have a chance to "fall"?


In terms of lawful vs chaotic a the disagreements are harder to describe. For this i can mostly just explain how i go about it. I personally think about it in terms of how you go about things. If you have a plan in doing things i say lawful while more impulsive actions are chaotic. Other views tend towards having a codified ethics vs intuitive morallity. And yet others explain things in terms of following the rules and views of others.

A good test for determining what you think is to examine batman. Do you see him as lawful in that he is methodical in his actions and his personal code of ethics or do you think of him as choatic in his use of fear and falling outside of societal standards.

I would follow the 3.5e definition for him. In the Complete Scoundrel, it was said that Batman is Lawful Good. His methods, to include stealth, surprise, and use of fear and intimidation, make him a "scoundrel" type character, while he livers by a strict code, is methodical and concise, and tries to generally do good and combat evil. Like I said in my first post, "lawful" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with societal law. And I don't think using fear and intimidation tactics are necessarily "chaotic", either, because at times, it can reduce the need for violence (by making them run away or surrender instead of shooting police or innocents).

[sophontteks]

That is an awesome alignment test.

When you say "law" do you mean the actual law of a city, like Neverwinter, or more abstract? Because I can see someone being in favor of an ordered, lawful society, but having problems with the particular implementation of it.
Its abstract. But also not abstract. People can either be inclined or disinclined to break the law. They may use laws as tools, or view them as barriers.

Like, if a sign says "Don't walk on the grass." A lawful person may feel inclined not to walk on the grass, even if the sign is stupid and they have to inconvience themselves to follow the sign.

A chaotic person may be someone who steals something they don't even want just for the sake of stealing it.

A lawful evil character may abuse laws to their advantage in order to hurt people or give themselves power over others.

I hope these examples help. It has nothing to do with a specific set of laws, but how they view laws in general. Devils are lawful creatures, but they are ubdoutably evil. How would they treat the laws of neverwinter? They would use the laws to their advantage to further their evil goals.

[Millstone85]

Something I notice in this thread is that each of the nine alignments having an individual description doesn't seem to be selling. And I think it is justified. Really, the PHB should read:
A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

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

Lawful individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Chaotic creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Evil beings do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

The rest is made of specific ways those can combine. LG is doing the right thing as expected by society? What about doing the right thing according to a personal code? Or building a society that best helps its members according to their needs? Or balancing the imperatives of law with the aspirations of compassion?


In the Fat Man variant, you are on a bridge OVER the track to which 5 people are tied. Also on this bridge is an enormously obese individual. Otherwise an innocent bystander. But he's fat enough that if you push him ONTO the track in front of the trolley, he will die, but his girth will stop the trolley. That variant actually involves killing someone who wasn't already put into the deathtrap before the agency of the person acting is called into question. So that would be killing one innocent to save 5 innocents. Absolutely an Evil Act done to accomplish a Good Act.Is that the relevant difference? In the Lever variant, the 6th individual is tied on a separate track that the train isn't currently headed for. I suppose that already puts them into the deathtrap, yeah. But they are still innocent, and still not going to die unless you decide to sacrifice them to save five others. I thought the difference under study was how the Fat Man variant puts you closer to your victim.

[sophontteks]

Redmage I think you missed mr. Spastic's point there. The ethical concerns of the trolley is an example of the grey zone where killing an innocent is not nessesarily evil. You are very aggressively agreeing with this. Very, very aggressively.:smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

Something I notice in this thread is that each of the nine alignments having an individual description doesn't seem to be selling. And I think it is justified. Really, the PHB should read:

No, it should not.

The fact that 5e has individual descriptions for each alignment rather than law-chaos good-evil axes is an important difference between 5e's alignment system and the ones before. It's not justified to ignore that, and it "not selling" for some people is more indicative of them still being influenced/using the alignments concepts of past editions.




The rest is made of specific ways those can combine. LG is doing the right thing as expected by society? What about doing the right thing according to a personal code?

Is your personal code regularly doing things that are not the right thing as expected by society?



Or building a society that best helps its members according to their needs?

This has nothing to do with lawful or chaotic leanings. A chaotic good person who ends up in a society-building role will also try to build one that best helps its members according to their needs. Their opinion on how to "best help" people will likely be different from the one of a lawful good person.


Or balancing the imperatives of law with the aspirations of compassion?

That would be one of the manner to do the right thing as expected by society.

[RedMage125]

Is that the relevant difference? In the Lever variant, the 6th individual is tied on a separate track that the train isn't currently headed for. I suppose that already puts them into the deathtrap, yeah. But they are still innocent, and still not going to die unless you decide to sacrifice them to save five others. I thought the difference under study was how the Fat Man variant puts you closer to your victim.

But someone tied that other individual on the other track, too, didn't they? The point is that, by D&D mores, YOU (the person at the lever) have no agency to really decide anything, unless you can reject the proffered binary solution for a 3rd option. Like, if this was a pre-4e paladin, he would not fall for not touching the lever, because paladins fell for "intentionally committing an evil act". But the "evil" of an act is determined by both action and intent, WITH context, right? So, is pulling the level really "killing" someone? Because there is deathrap he is witnessing, and ONE person is going to die. Does the level just "save 4 lives"? That's Utilitarianism. But the pre-4e paladin is the ultimate example of Personal Accountability, isn't he? If he believes pulling that lever counts as "killing someone", and he refuses to do it because he doesn't want innocent blood on his hands, has he just put his own conscience and "moral high ground" over the lives of 4 people? Contrariwise, if he pulls the lever anyway, believing that losing his paladin powers is worth 4 more lives being saved, is he actually being selfless by doing so?* What if the villain who tied these people to the tracks tied up 5 rapists/child molesters/murderers on the one track, and a saintly old priest on the other, and doesn't tell the hero at the switch? Does that impact the action of pulling the lever?

This is why the default Trolley Problem is worthless to a D&D alignment discussion. It isn't about "Good" or "Evil", "Law" or "Chaos". All the Trolley Problem tells you is how the individual being asked weighs Utilitarianism vis Personal Accountability.

*Or the paladin could reject the scenario, and throw his own armored body in front of the trolley to sacrifice his own life to save all 6. Which is where I was going with "non-binary 3rd option".

The difference is that the Fat Man is a true innocent bystander, and not in actual danger from the Trolley. So instead of "I have to choose which of these people the villain put in this trap are going to die, but at least one of them will", which is not the same as "murdering" or even "killing" them yourself; to now you are clearly and distinctly choosing to end a life to save the others.


Redmage I think you missed mr. Spastic's point there. The ethical concerns of the trolley is an example of the grey zone where killing an innocent is not nessesarily evil. You are very aggressively agreeing with this. Very, very aggressively.:smallconfused:

No, I reject the notion that the Trolley problem actually presents anyone with the agency to "kill someone" at all. By D&D alignment mores, at least. Because, using the pre-4e paladin as a limitus test (because he loses powers for even ONE "intentionally committed evil act"), he DOES NOT FALL for not pulling the lever. Because he has not "committed an act". Failure to do Good or Evil is Neutral, and paladins back then didn't fall for "committing Neutral acts".

Which is why I mention the Fat Man variant, because that IS "killing an innocent". But it doesn't make it "not necessarily evil". Killing an innocent is Evil in D&D. Period. Performing an Evil Act as a means to accomplishing a Good Act is simply performing both and evil act AND a good one. The pre-4e Paladin still falls from grace for pushing the Fat Man. UNLESS it's the Fat Villain variant, where that fat man was the one who tied the other to the tracks (and therefore not an innocent). Then killing him is all gravy.

Foot's Trolley Problem (default version) isn't about morality. At all.

[Arcangel4774]

snip

I havent played anything besides 5e or read through my dads old 1e books. However the objective viewer solution seems to be a good work around. I believe you menetioned it but player biasese are kinda hard to get past though. Freedom, happiness, truthfulness, and safety all tend to step on eachothers feet, and expecting a table to sharr the hierarchical valuing is difficult.

As for the character: yah he hunts good people down before they have the chance to fall. Hes an extreme hypocrite that in the party tries to convince them to do the right thing but wont act against them. Yet if somebody is apparently good he wont let them live.

I agree with you on batman, but it makes lawful/chaotic judgements differ from goid/evil judgements as you cant as easily judge a situation based on outcome. Good/evil seems to only require 3rd person yet lawful/chaotic requires that 3rd person omniscent view.

[2D8HP]

I havent played anything besides 5e or read through my dads old 1e books....


Well I still have some of mine, it's not quite the same as "5e", but FWLIW:

"1e" Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Alignment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.
-1978 PHB

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

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


:amused:

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


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


:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used at any table that I played, mostly Alignment was just used to guess how likely a monster would be hostile)

[dragoeniex]

The alignment space on a character sheet is the one thing I typically leave blank unless and until the DM calls for an alignment for spell effects or something relevant. Then I either say whatever I feel like my character "centers" out of, or I ask the DM what they think the character has come across as.

If I'm just playing the character, and provided the DM is fine with it, then IF (In-Flux) is good enough to start with. :P

[Arcangel4774]

[QUOTE=dragoeniex;23550470Then I either say whatever I feel like my character "centers" out of, or I ask the DM what they think the character has come across as.[/QUOTE]

This got me thinking. As good/evil alignment should be judgable by an unbiased 3rd party viewer,maybe the dm should be able to decide on that component of alignment. While lawful/chaotic, which needs that 3rd party to be able to understand the mindset of the character, should be decided by the player. Any thoughts?

[Unoriginal]

People really put way too much weight/importance on alignment. Probably a relic of past editions, where Alignment was a Big Deal (TM).


I said it and I'll say it again:In 5e, your alignment is only as important as your Flaw, your Bond or your Trait.

If you spend more time choosing your alignment than your Bond or Flaw, you should probably stop, reconsider and start from scratch.

[2D8HP]

The alignment space on a character sheet is the one thing I typically leave blank unless and until the DM calls for an alignment for spell effects or something relevant. Then I either say whatever I feel like my character "centers" out of, or I ask the DM what they think the character has come across as.

If I'm just playing the character, and provided the DM is fine with it, then IF (In-Flux) is good enough to start with. :P


This got me thinking. As good/evil alignment should be judgable by an unbiased 3rd party viewer,maybe the dm should be able to decide on that component of alignment. While lawful/chaotic, which needs that 3rd party to be able to understand the mindset of the character, should be decided by the player. Any thoughts?


This sounds like a really good solution to me!

In 5e a lot of character definition is now from Background Ideals, Flaws, etc. but I found that those may trip me up as well, for an early one of my 5e PC's I took "There's no room for caution in a life lived to the fullest" because I thought of myself as a particularly reckless player, and I was....

....in 1979, but I found that for most 5e tables, I'm the most cautious as I learned a ten foot poles and bags of flour paranoid style of play.

Good thing pencils have eracers!

[RedMage125]

If I'm just playing the character, and provided the DM is fine with it, then IF (In-Flux) is good enough to start with. :P
As someone who DMs more often then he plays, I'd be fine with that, especially at first. I actually consider ALL alignment "in flux" for the first few sessions, if only because sometimes what the player had in mind before creation ends up being radically different than how they choose to act in actual play. You might envision your character as a ruthless, embittered mercenary with a rigid code of conduct and write Lawful Neutral, but in the first few sessions, you find yourself choosing to help people for little to no reward, and occasionally breaking the rules of your ethos if doing the right thing demanded it. It's not much of an issue to say you're really Neutral Good*. Sometimes we end up playing slightly different than our mind's eye predicted.

*On that note, I often think that Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good are closer than some people give credit for. One values what is "fair" or "just", the other values what is "right". And sometimes, the distinction between the two is very fine indeed.

I havent played anything besides 5e or read through my dads old 1e books. However the objective viewer solution seems to be a good work around. I believe you menetioned it but player biasese are kinda hard to get past though. Freedom, happiness, truthfulness, and safety all tend to step on eachothers feet, and expecting a table to sharr the hierarchical valuing is difficult.

As for the character: yah he hunts good people down before they have the chance to fall. Hes an extreme hypocrite that in the party tries to convince them to do the right thing but wont act against them. Yet if somebody is apparently good he wont let them live.

I agree with you on batman, but it makes lawful/chaotic judgements differ from goid/evil judgements as you cant as easily judge a situation based on outcome. Good/evil seems to only require 3rd person yet lawful/chaotic requires that 3rd person omniscent view.
Well, in truth they kind of ALL require that "3rd person omniscient" view. Actions and Intent, framed by Context, determine alignment. Not results or outcomes. Outcomes cannot be the deciding factor, because of the semantics involved in the kind of thing your character is deeply invested in. That is, sending souls of Good individuals to a Good afterlife. If that was the case, then ramaging orc hordes slaughtering innocents would be "Good". No. Actions determine alignment. Intent and Context are important to the determination as well.

So your character...he seems to kill without conscience. Even those (indeed, especially those) who have done no evil, and committed no wrongs. I'd say he's clearly Evil by the sounds of it, despite his opinion that he's "saving" these people from "eventual fall into evil". In that regard he's very similar to the example I gave of the person who slaughters orphans out of a misguided belief that he is saving the world from a demon lord*. I don't have enough information to help you on the lawful/chaotic aspect of his alignment, as he COULD fall anywhere based on factors I don't know about. Is he methodically killing people according to his code which demands no less than absolute adherence? (Lawful Evil) Is he "doing what he can get away with, without compassion or qualm"? (Neutral Evil, literally the book's definition) However, you seem to think he's chaotic, and if that's your gut instinct, go with it. Especially if his decision and judgment is based on his own perception and whim. Also, Lawful seems unlikely, given what you said about how he doesn't really hold his teammates to these ideals very strictly. I mean, if he were actually trying to redeem them, would he not object when they perform evil acts? So from what you've told me, Chaotic seems likely.

*The best and most DM-abolical result of this is that the prophecy gets fulfilled by someone who's parents don't even die until his second decade of life. His parents were the caretakers of one of those orphanages who were killed defending the children while the son was away studying magic as an apprentice to a wizard. His overwhelming desire for revenge against the orphan-killer is what causes him to start summoning demons to hunt the guy down, and he eventually brings Demogorgon into the world. Muahahahahaha.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

People really put way too much weight/importance on alignment. Probably a relic of past editions, where Alignment was a Big Deal (TM).


I said it and I'll say it again:In 5e, your alignment is only as important as your Flaw, your Bond or your Trait.

If you spend more time choosing your alignment than your Bond or Flaw, you should probably stop, reconsider and start from scratch.

Agreed. The more I read the more I agree.

[GlenSmash!]

I completely agree with Unoriginal.

Still I will argue about alignments of fictional characters all day.

Dexter is Lawful Evil (in the first couple seasons at least) He kills for his own pleasure, but follows a strict code about who deserves death. Only other murderers who have slipped through the Legal System. In season 2 when a number of his murders come to light and all of them are shown to have been "bad guys" many people think what he did was a service to society.

Likewise Batman is Lawful good. He also goes after those who slip through the legal system, but with a stricter code. A much more ethical one. Many citizens of Gotham also see what he does as a service to society.

So while both these characters do break laws, I argue that both exhibit predominantly Lawful behavior.