End of 2018 Alignment Thread!

[the_brazenburn]

As the year draws to a close, it seems like a good idea to clear out any bad blood with an enormous argument!

Here is your chance to rant about that most controversial of topics: the D&D alignment system. (Credit to Tanarii for the idea).

I'll start it off with my opinions.

Lawful: Being lawful means that you are a person that follows society's expectations and rules out of a desire of doing so. A person that follows a personal code of conduct, like Robin Hood, is not necessarily lawful if they don't follow societal rules.

Chaotic: Being chaotic means that you are a person who either doesn't follow society's rules or only does so out of fear of punishment. A person that breaks rules but not on a regular basis, and only if they have to, is not chaotic.

Good: Being good means that you are a person who does most things out of a motivation to help other people. Somebody who helps others, but does so because of ulterior motives, is not good.

Evil: Being evil means that you are a person who does most things out of a desire to help yourself without regard for others. Somebody who harms other people, but doesn't derive pleasure out of it and regrets their decisions, is not evil.

Discuss.

[Unoriginal]

The_brazenburn, knowingly creating a thread on a controversial, flame-inducing topic for the sole purpose of generating an argument is against the forum's rules.

I'd advise against it.

[the_brazenburn]

The_brazenburn, knowingly creating a thread on a controversial, flame-inducing topic for the sole purpose of generating an argument is against the forum's rules.

I'd advise against it.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545215-5e-Alignment-quot-Guide-quot-amp-end-of-2017-argument-thread

Forgotten about this?

It generated nearly ten pages of replies last year, and I happened to check and find out that you posted a number of them.

The purpose of the thread isn't solely to create an argument, it's to give people a chance to discuss that issue in a (hopefully) respectful way that will prevent argumentation on that topic from coming up in other places in a more harmful way.

[Laserlight]

Evil: Being evil means that you are a person who does most things out of a desire to help yourself. Somebody who harms other people, but doesn't derive pleasure out of it and regrets their decisions, is not evil.

"Doing most things out of a desire to help yourself " is neutral. It's when you tack on "regardless of the cost to others" that you get Evil.

That "doesn't derive pleasure from it" and "regrets their decision" doesn't stop the act from being Evil. Whether the person committing it is Evil, or a Good/Neutral person who's committing an Evil act, takes additional discussion.

[Malifice]

Evil: Being evil means that you are a person who does most things out of a desire to help yourself. Somebody who harms other people, but doesn't derive pleasure out of it and regrets their decisions, is not evil.

Discuss.

So a person who repeatedly murders children, but gains no pleasure from it, and indeed hates themselves for what they do, is not evil?

Good lord.

[the_brazenburn]

So a person who repeatedly murders children, but gains no pleasure from it, and indeed hates themselves for what they do, is not evil?

Good lord.

But why are they repeatedly killing the children if they don't enjoy it and in fact abhor the fact that they do so?

That example only makes sense in a vacuum, or if there is a very good reason to do so.

[Maxilian]

So a person who repeatedly murders children, but gains no pleasure from it, and indeed hates themselves for what they do, is not evil?

Good lord.

To be fair, it doesn't sound like an evil person, it sound like someone with really big psychological problems.

I mean... if he is not enjoying it and actually is sickenned by it, he's most likely have a really big problem that push it to that.

[solidork]

I have a source in Wizards who is telling me that 6th edition will use this chart for alignment:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/328/607/4e6.png

Post where your character falls.

[Malifice]

But why are they repeatedly killing the children if they don't enjoy it and in fact abhor the fact that they do so?

I lift weights and eat 4000 calories a day in order to get in shape.

I dont enjoy either, and abhor doing it (both lifting and eating so much food in specific protien/ carb/ fat ratios).

There would be plently of real world people alive today that kill people all the time (and worse) but dont enjoy it, and hate themselves for it. But they do it for [god, religion, nationalism, political differences, territory, resources, xenophobia, fear you name it] 'reasons'.

For mine the distinction between a good person and an evil person when it comes to the use of force and killing other people, is a Good person only resorts to violence and harming others when such violence is reasonably necessary for the protection of themselves or others (i.e. in self defense, collective or otherwise), and such force used is a last resort, and is proportionate to the threat posed.

A police officer shooting an armed bank robber. A soldier ambushing an enemy soldier from an opposing army invading his homelands. A heroic adventurer placing himself in harms way to protect a town from a marauding dragon. A home owner forced to shoot a home invader, armed with a knife and coming at him. And so forth.

In human society, virtually none of those actions are unlawful (because as a society we have already universally deemed them to be morally acceptable uses of force, including lethal force, and that near universal acceptance is both culturally indifferent and spans the entirety of human civilization).

Can you see the difference?

We dont label a Police officer forced to shoot an armed suspect as 'evil' nor do we label his actions as morally reprehensible, nor does he get any form of sanction. We do label a Police officer who breaks into a suspects home and shoots the suspect dead as he sleeps as 'evil' and deem such an act as morally reprehensible, and he goes to prison for a very long time for his actions.

Note, I am not saying the use of lethal force is a 'morally good' act in such circumstances. It's just not an evil act in such circumstances. Its morally neutral (you're using force and harming another person, as a last resort to stop that person using force and harming another person). Paladins carry swords for a reason and all that.

[SunderedWorldDM]

I have a source in Wizards who is telling me that 6th edition will use this chart for alignment:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/328/607/4e6.png

Post where your character falls.

This is beautiful. I think this will replace my game's alignment system. Thank you for your great service, solidork.

[solidork]

This is beautiful. I think this will replace my game's alignment system. Thank you for your great service, solidork.

It's an old but especially favorite meme.

My Fighter/Warlock: McDonalds! on a good day, One Black Coffee on a bad day.
My Barbarian/Rogue: McDonalds! all the way.
My War Cleric: We have food at home. He's a barbarian, and is sort of suspicious of any food he didn't kill himself.
My Conquest Paladin: One Black Coffee

[Malifice]

I have two people in front of me.

One is a Police officer, who in the course of his duty has been required to shoot dead several armed trying to kill him or other people. He's proud of his service and saving other people, takes pleasure from his job, and would do it again if the situation called for it.

The other is a poor man living in the slums of a third world country, who has lured to his home and killed dozens of innocent orphan children to harvest their organs for money for his family. He hates himself for what he has done, and gets no pleasure out of it, and does it only to survive and provide for his family.

According to the OP, the Police officer is Evil and the serial killer is Good.

[Marywn]

Personally, I only fill out the alignment as a blank space that needs to be filled.
I don't like when alignment is used to argue against a player for playing their character how they would play it.
Say if you put lawful evil as your alignment, but the character does a good deed. This doesn't change the alignment drastic ally, It's more of the character IS lawful evil, but his actions are neutral good if that makes sense.

[Maxilian]

In general, i have come to the conclusion, that alignment is not true alignment (as RL) but a way of the DND universe to bring order (Like literally), as the universe require Evil and Good (mostly evil), for the sake of evading to decend into chaos (Basically the war between devils and demons).

Note: Is like if you go to the planes of hell and start erradicating devils, that would most likely, eventually turn you evil, just because you're destroying souls and braking the order of the universe (The universe does not desire to ever see the end of the war between devils and demons)

[Malifice]

Personally, I only fill out the alignment as a blank space that needs to be filled.
I don't like when alignment is used to argue against a player for playing their character how they would play it.
Say if you put lawful evil as your alignment, but the character does a good deed. This doesn't change the alignment drastic ally, It's more of the character IS lawful evil, but his actions are neutral good if that makes sense.

It used to be explicitly mentioned that LE villains in particular often have some kind of redeeming feature (a desire for the greater good, a qualm over hurting children, genuine love for family or country etc) that (to them) sets them apart from CE and NE villains.

There arent 9 personality types in existence; one for each alignment. Its just a general statement of your overall moral code and principles, and nothing more.

[the_brazenburn]

I have two people in front of me.

One is a Police officer, who in the course of his duty has been required to shoot dead several armed trying to kill him or other people. He's proud of his service and saving other people, takes pleasure from his job, and would do it again if the situation called for it.

The other is a poor man living in the slums of a third world country, who has lured to his home and killed dozens of innocent orphan children to harvest their organs for money for his family. He hates himself for what he has done, and gets no pleasure out of it, and does it only to survive and provide for his family.

According to the OP, the Police officer is Evil and the serial killer is Good.

No, according to the OP, the first man is good and the second is evil.

The police officer (presumably) enjoys his job as a defender of the peace, but doesn't actually derive pleasure from the killing itself. His actions serve the greater good for other people, hence he is good.

The serial killer is evil. His actions serve himself, without regard for the lives of other people. That is evil.

I don't think you read the OP clearly enough.

[Malifice]

The serial killer is evil. His actions serve himself, without regard for the lives of other people. That is evil.

He only does it (lure orphan children to his home, and murder them and harvest their organs) for his family. He keeps none of the money for himself. He lives in poverty and has no other skills other than child murder (he picks children because of his weakness and frailty; adults could easily overpower him). He hates the monster he is, and takes no pleasure from what he does.

That literally fulfills all your critereon for 'Good.'

[Laserlight]

I have a source in Wizards who is telling me that 6th edition will use this chart for alignment:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/328/607/4e6.png

Post where your character falls.

In the lower left, please clarify: is that "leaves the children there"?

Uh....asking for a friend.

[Malifice]

The police officer genuinely enjoys combat (and guns and killing). He get into SWAT at the first possible opportunity, and is a Police Sniper now. He gets a total rush out of it, and wouldn't change a thing.

He only ever fires his weapon though when it's needed (to protect innocent lives).

He doesnt need the money, he just does it for the thrill.

To you; that person is evil.

[Man_Over_Game]

@the_brazenburn you and I have similar opinions on alignment, and I think it's the simplest way of defining a character's alignment.

I've posted it before, but Alignment best refers to how you interact with the WORLD, ignoring your personal circle and your personal feelings.


An evil person sees the average Joe-Schmoe as a resource, or an obstacle, something best used or removed. An evil person may become happier at seeing someone's misfortune, and often even cause it.
A good person sees the average guy as something worth sacrificing for, something worth investing in. A good person is willing to sacrifice time from their day to help someone else.
A neutral person sees the average person as just existing in the same life. You don't notice each other, and that's fine. A neutral person feels like most other people are just people on a bus, to ignore, and hoping they get ignored in turn.



A lawful person feels that laws need to be expanded on, and will even enforce the law on their own time. They do not fear the law, because they naturally do what should be done. A Lawful person chastises other people for breaking the rules, no matter how light.
A chaotic person feels that aren't worth following, and that they trap those who are stupid enough to follow them. They may obey the law, if only because fear compels them to, and they'll break it as soon as there's no perceivable consequence. A Chaotic person chastises someone for following the rules when nobody's looking.
A neutral person feels that laws hold things together, but won't enforce them on their own time. They are in fear that they break the law on occasion, but also recognize the necessity of it. Law, in a way, is a necessary evil that makes our lives better. A Neutral person intentionally acts more "lawful" when they're being observed, especially by law enforcement.



You'll note that most real people in life doesn't really care about the average person, and that most real people stiffen up and intentionally drive more safely when around police officers.
Most real people are True Neutral, but I think that's a hard thing to accept.

[Hail Tempus]

As a DM and player, I don't really care what alignment someone puts on their character sheet. Be Chaotic Evil for all I care. What I care about, as a player, and especially as a DM, is the player's ability to cooperate with the rest of the party. I don't buy the excuse "But my character would do that!" if someone disrupts the game.

DnD is a team sport. You can play a Chaotic Evil Warlock if you want, but if you disrupt my table as a DM, I'll show you the door. And if you do that when I'm a player, I'll knife your character in his sleep, or refuse to heal you or raise you when you die, or "accidentally" center an upcast Fireball on you when you're already down to single-digit hit points.

[Malifice]

As a DM and player, I don't really care what alignment someone puts on their character sheet. Be Chaotic Evil for all I care. What I care about, as a player, and especially as a DM, is the player's ability to cooperate with the rest of the party. I don't buy the excuse "But my character would do that!" if someone disrupts the game.

Well then maybe you should care when a dude rocks up to your game with CE on his character sheet, when the rest of the players have got LG written on theirs.

[Prince Vine]

I think we can break this down a bit better looking at what the book says.

Good - do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Lawful - act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.

Evil - do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Chaotic - follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.


I do feel the D&D definition of Lawful does tend limit the idea of chaotic paladins (since they do follow a code) and I tend to see many PCs struggling to really be GOOD, at best a solid neutral since they are so often just in it for the money.

[Hail Tempus]

Well then maybe you should care when a dude rocks up to your game with CE on his character sheet, when the rest of the players have got LG written on theirs. I play with two groups- one is made up of family members and long-time friends. The other I met through Meetup. The players in my groups range from age 14-50. I'm fortunate that all of them are there to have a good time and don't have any desire to disrupt the game, or play some sort of creepy, perverted character.

But, yeah, I agree with you that someone joining a new game and wanting to play a CE character has a high chance of being disruptive. Especially if they show up and find that the rest of the party wants to play a Lord of the Rings style campaign where the good guys defeat the evil overlord.

It's a rare player that has the maturity to play Titus Pullo Chaotic Evil. Mostly, you get a Chaotic Evil Joker.

[Arcangel4774]

Ive recently developed an odd view. The good/evil scale is decided upon by the dm cut and dry. The dm decides how much the ends can justify the means in terms of morality. He decides which values contribute most to morallity and which contribute least.

For the chaotic/lawful scale is dependent on the self or societal imposed rules and adherence to them. This one is player/creator decided in that a personal code tend to be internal.

[Tanarii]

For reference last years is linked in my sig.

[Malifice]

I think we can break this down a bit better looking at what the book says.

Good - do the best they can to help others according to their needs.

Lawful - act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.

Evil - do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Chaotic - follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.


I do feel the D&D definition of Lawful does tend limit the idea of chaotic paladins (since they do follow a code) and I tend to see many PCs struggling to really be GOOD, at best a solid neutral since they are so often just in it for the money.

The Sith follow a code. 'Do whatever your hatred, greed and fear dictate... and there can only ever be two of us; train an apprentice until he grows strong enough to betray and murder you.'

Its a CE code. Its just paraphrasing the CE alignment.

Heck; CE itself is a code.

A code like: Embrace beauty and freedom, live free, follow your conscience, avoid causing harm to others, etc' is a code, but a very CG one.

Lawful creatures just live very structured lives. They have a code of honor, or a respect for laws, government, tradition and the establishment.

Chaotic creatures tend to follow their whims (for either good or evil, or neither depending on their moral code).

Good creatures are generally kind, merciful, compassionate and empathetic. They avoid harming and killing others unless faced with no choice. They make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil creatures have no compunctions about harming or killing others. They're generally selfish, ruthless, mean and lack empathy. They gain advantage off the suffering of others.

[Naanomi]

The usual trick of Law is looking to outside sources for moral guidance... but not necessarily the Law in the legal sense... a strict religious code that goes against the law of the land can be just as lawful even when they oppose

[Inscrutable]

Heh, this thread is half Malifice replying to everyone. I am curious @the_brazenburn: what do you expect this thread to accomplish besides an argument? As Malifice aptly pointed out with his two examples, your initial definitions are completely subjective. And if good and evil are subjective, then there is no "good" or "evil".

The reason this topic will always be debated is because we have no standard of defining good and evil aside from the PHB. In my view, Prince Vine summarizes it well, though it isn't an exact quote from what I can tell. The PHB defines all nine alignments well.

I think it really boils down to what the DM thinks is good or evil. If he feels an act or course of actions is a certain way, his ruling is the objective framework that your world's morality is based on. In my games, when I see characters acting in a way that belies their initial alignment choice, I make them change it. But really it is just a label to help guide the players in how to make choices in accord with their characters.

In fact, alignment is far more helpful when making NPCs, than PCs. You can use their alignment to predict their general behavior and inspire stories.

[Hail Tempus]

The usual trick of Law is looking to outside sources for moral guidance... but not necessarily the Law in the legal sense... a strict religious code that goes against the law of the land can be just as lawful even when they oppose Absolutely, a Lawful Good Paladin could lead a revolution to overthrow the evil despot, regardless of the fact that the despot is the lawful ruler of the kingdom.

The interesting dynamic would be when the Paladin's code might conflict with a generally just law. For example, if a murderer was given a fair trial and was found not guilty and released due to insufficient evidence, what would be the options for a Lawful Good Paladin, if any?

[Malifice]

The usual trick of Law is looking to outside sources for moral guidance... but not necessarily the Law in the legal sense... a strict religious code that goes against the law of the land can be just as lawful even when they oppose

And organisations can themselves be chaotic (as oxymoronic as that sounds).

A chaotic church likely has dozens of different denominations and regional variances, no real central authority, personalised forms of worship, and no central scripture or agreed on holy text.

A chaotic country is... well kind of like India in my head canon.

[Whit]

1. Most players about 99% do NOT play alignment correctly, which if course is more of a guideline anyway, but non the less don’t do a good job at it as it would become more of being skilled in Role playing which also goes into anti meta gaming as such related to personal knowledge of the game ctreatures , modules etc.
that’s why in 4th unless I’m forgetting they had it as good neutral and evil so the character can more easily sway towards lawful chaotic.
Lawful is Simone that respects the laws of whatever landscape but being good means the person will decide if the law is not good for people. Such as slavery. It’s a law in a country. But would a LG any class see it as good for everyone. No. They would see it as a bad law and help slaves if they had a chance. Just because your lawful does jur mean you think all laws are just and good.
In hell they have strict lawful adherence but if you think those laws are all good then your not really good even though you might respect the order ness of the realm you won’t respect how they treat others.
Chaotic doesn’t just mean your an anarchist. You enjoy freedom to do things your way but if your good you also understand that some laws are fir the betterment of people over no laws and anarchy. Although if a village said taxes are to high and they have a hard life. You would see it as a Robin Hood type thing to do. Where a LG might confront the lawfulness of the tax bedure going further.
My experience that I see and something do as well is mixing the alignment. If I’m LG and we defeat an ogre who surrenders and we have to continue. What an issue. Can we actually tie it up and leave. Leave the dungeon with it to take bazillion as prisoner. Or kill it and continue.

[Malifice]

Absolutely, a Lawful Good Paladin could lead a revolution to overthrow the evil despot, regardless of the fact that the despot is the lawful ruler of the kingdom.

The interesting dynamic would be when the Paladin's code might conflict with a generally just law. For example, if a murderer was given a fair trial and was found not guilty and released due to insufficient evidence, what would be the options for a Lawful Good Paladin, if any?

As a general rule, let him go for mine.

[dragoeniex]

I say alignments are best used retroactively, if at all. I leave that space blank unless and until a DM or player needs it for a spell, effect, etc- then I just ask them what they think my character would count as. This usually only matters for effects that care about evil/good.

My party has had fun discussing how we think each others' characters are aligned and why. No on has a hard, set alignment; it's just character interpretation, and I actually like that aspect about alignment best.

It doesn't really matter what's on the paper. What matters is how the character plays out.

To me, discussing "alignment" is less about a D&D mechanic and more an excuse to see people get excited about talking character studies with different philosophies thrown in. Great stuff! I love creeping on alignment boards to see where that kind of thing goes and what examples get tossed.

But I'm still going to say "leave it blank" is my preferred answer for what any given person 'should' put down.

[Naanomi]

Because it inevitably gets linked in these threads...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[Max_Killjoy]

https://i1.wp.com/gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif?ssl=1

Nope.

[Waterdeep Merch]

There is no Good.

There is no Evil.

There is no Law.

There is no Chaos.

There simple is.

Your viewpoints cannot change the fundamental nature of the universe. Your judgements have no bearing on things other than your own actions. Morality does not have an objective arbiter, and it cannot.

Join the Church of Asmodeus today. Perks in life, perks in the afterlife.

[Maxilian]

There is no Good.

There is no Evil.

There is no Law.

There is no Chaos.

There simple is.

Your viewpoints cannot change the fundamental nature of the universe. Your judgements have no bearing on things other than your own actions. Morality does not have an objective arbiter, and it cannot.

Join the Church of Asmodeus today. Perks in life, perks in the afterlife.

Or just join the True saviors of the universe!, JOIN THE ARMY OF THE NINE HELLS!, AND BECOME THE NEXT SAVIOUR AND LORD OF CREATION!!

Show the Demons who got the power!

Show the heavens who makes the law!

Show the mortals who their true master is!

SHOW THEM ALL THE FACE OF THE LORD!

[BeefGood]

What I want to know is, if you were crossbreeding dragons, a lawful dragon with a chaotic dragon, would the offspring be lawful or chaotic or in-between?
If lawful is all-or-nothing---if you can't be partially lawful---then there's no in-between option. So either all the alignment genes come from the lawful parent, yielding lawful offspring, or the offspring is chaotic.

[Unoriginal]

What I'd like to know is, where's the "End of 2018 Flaw Thread". Or "End of 2018 Bond Thread". Or "End of 2018 Trait Thread".

If alignment has its own thread, why would those spaces on your charsheet not have them, given alignment is only as important as they are (or in other word, not that important and certainly not deserving that much virtual ink being spent on it)?



What I want to know is, if you were crossbreeding dragons, a lawful dragon with a chaotic dragon, would the offspring be lawful or chaotic or in-between?
If lawful is all-or-nothing---if you can't be partially lawful---then there's no in-between option. So either all the alignment genes come from the lawful parent, yielding lawful offspring, or the offspring is chaotic.


Why do people not read the alignment section in the PHB?


Alignment is not genetic. Orcs can be lawful good, Gold Dragon can be chaotic evil. At best they have some innate tendencies that push them toward certain courses of action.

Lawful is NOT all-or-nothing. The alignment section CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY says that people don't always act in accordance with a given alignment 100% of the time. Their alignment is just how they act typically.

[Naanomi]

Alignment is not genetic. Orcs can be lawful good, Gold Dragon can be chaotic evil. At best they have some innate tendencies that push them toward certain courses of action.

Lawful is NOT all-or-nothing. The alignment section CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY says that people don't always act in accordance with a given alignment 100% of the time. Their alignment is just how they act typically.
With the important exception of Outer Planes Natives... a devil who isn’t lawful evil isn’t a devil anymore, or at least not in the long term

[Unoriginal]

With the important exception of Outer Planes Natives... a devil who isn’t lawful evil isn’t a devil anymore, or at least not in the long term

I wouldn't call anything related to devils, angels, slaads, and the like "genetic".

They're immortal incarnations of the relevant alignment, generally created on purpose or through random happenings by the plane itself (though slaads do need incubators when they do it on purpose).

But sure, you're right, their alignment is innate (if they count as being born) and related to their nature. That is however already covered in the books.

[Maxilian]

With the important exception of Outer Planes Natives... a devil who isn’t lawful evil isn’t a devil anymore, or at least not in the long term

Does a devil actually lose its power or end up transforming into something else? i know that some creatures (like Modrons), change a little bit when their alignment change (They lose an ability, but nothing more) and some Celestial beings (but in many cases the changes are just change of "leadership")

Note: Is this talked about in any of the books of 5E? or is this old edition information (not saying it would be irrelevant or anything, just asking cause i would like to read it)

[BeefGood]

Alignment is not genetic. Orcs can be lawful good, Gold Dragon can be chaotic evil. At best they have some innate tendencies that push them toward certain courses of action.
The "innate tendency" is the genetic part. Alignment is probably partly genetic and partly environmental; most traits are.



Lawful is NOT all-or-nothing. The alignment section CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY says that people don't always act in accordance with a given alignment 100% of the time. Their alignment is just how they act typically.
We'll just have to do the experiment--crossbreed lots of lawful/chaotic pairs of dragons and determine the alignments of the offspring. And as you say, because they do not always act in accord with their alignment, determining the alignment of an offspring dragon will require observation over time.

[strangebloke]

@the_brazenburn you and I have similar opinions on alignment, and I think it's the simplest way of defining a character's alignment.

I've posted it before, but Alignment best refers to how you interact with the WORLD, ignoring your personal circle and your personal feelings.


An evil person sees the average Joe-Schmoe as a resource, or an obstacle, something best used or removed. An evil person may become happier at seeing someone's misfortune, and often even cause it.
A good person sees the average guy as something worth sacrificing for, something worth investing in. A good person is willing to sacrifice time from their day to help someone else.
A neutral person sees the average person as just existing in the same life. You don't notice each other, and that's fine. A neutral person feels like most other people are just people on a bus, to ignore, and hoping they get ignored in turn.



A lawful person feels that laws need to be expanded on, and will even enforce the law on their own time. They do not fear the law, because they naturally do what should be done. A Lawful person chastises other people for breaking the rules, no matter how light.
A chaotic person feels that aren't worth following, and that they trap those who are stupid enough to follow them. They may obey the law, if only because fear compels them to, and they'll break it as soon as there's no perceivable consequence. A Chaotic person chastises someone for following the rules when nobody's looking.
A neutral person feels that laws hold things together, but won't enforce them on their own time. They are in fear that they break the law on occasion, but also recognize the necessity of it. Law, in a way, is a necessary evil that makes our lives better. A Neutral person intentionally acts more "lawful" when they're being observed, especially by law enforcement.



You'll note that most real people in life doesn't really care about the average person, and that most real people stiffen up and intentionally drive more safely when around police officers.
Most real people are True Neutral, but I think that's a hard thing to accept.

First of all, I should preface my statement by adding that I honestly never ask my players to tell me their character's alignment because in my experience it creates more problems than it solves. On very rare occasions it does come up, but at that point, I'll usually just make a decision on whether it takes or not.

But I define things differently. I assume that 1/3 of humans in most of the world are evil, good, neutral, etc., and then work my defintions from there. I think that your definitions are a bit too extreme and lead to "Everyone is really true neutral."

So anyway, my definitions:

Good: "Treat even your enemies with kindness."
Neutral: "Give help to those who deserve it."
Evil: "What's in it for me?."



Lawful: "Do as you're told."
Neutral: "Stay out of trouble."
Chaotic: "I do what I want."


So...


Lawful Good: "Making moral judgement without guidance is the height of arrogance."
Neutral Good: "Treat even your enemies with kindness."
Chaotic Good: "Virtue is impossible without liberty."
Lawful Neutral: "Do as you're told."
Neutral Neutral: "Stay out of trouble."
Chaotic Neutral: "I do what I want."
Lawful Evil: "Do as I say or face the consequences."
Neutral Evil: "What's in it for me?"
Chaotic Evil: "It isn't about money, its about sending a message."

[KorvinStarmast]

Post where your character falls. We have food at home. Yes, I raised to kids. :smallcool: They are adults now. And they both know how to cook.
In the lower left, please clarify: is that "leaves the children there"? Uh....asking for a friend. That got a RL out loud laugh from me. :)
Ive recently developed an odd view. The good/evil scale is decided upon by the dm cut and dry. The dm decides how much the ends can justify the means in terms of morality. He decides which values contribute most to morallity and which contribute least. For the chaotic/lawful scale is dependent on the self or societal imposed rules and adherence to them. This one is player/creator decided in that a personal code tend to be internal. That is a simpler way to handle it. Now and again give players a hint of where they fall on the scale ...

a strict religious code that goes against the law of the land can be just as lawful even when they oppose Monks. :smallsmile:

In fact, alignment is far more helpful when making NPCs, than PCs. You can use their alignment to predict their general behavior and inspire stories. We have a winner, give this poster a cigar.
What I want to know is, if you were crossbreeding dragons, a lawful dragon with a chaotic dragon, would the offspring be lawful or chaotic or in-between? It could be either or any. Nature/Nurture interact. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/76790/22566)


What I'd like to know is, where's the "End of 2018 Flaw Thread". Or "End of 2018 Bond Thread". Or "End of 2018 Trait Thread". As would I. I'd love to seem some of the custom traits, ideals, flaws, bonds threads.
Why do people not read the alignment section in the PHB?
Because they are too lazy, and have a short attention span.

I wouldn't call anything related to devils, angels, slaads, and the like "genetic". They're immortal incarnations of the relevant alignment, generally created on purpose or through random happenings by the plane itself (though slaads do need incubators when they do it on purpose). But sure, you're right, their alignment is innate (if they count as being born) and related to their nature. That is however already covered in the books. That few bother to read.

[RedMage125]

I'll start it off with my opinions.

Lawful: Being lawful means that you are a person that follows society's expectations and rules out of a desire of doing so. A person that follows a personal code of conduct, like Robin Hood, is not necessarily lawful if they don't follow societal rules.
Here's one place I vehemently disagree with you. A Monk who's a hermit and lives entirely outside "society", but is strongly disciplined and adheres rigidly to his path of physical and spiritual enlightenment violates your definition, but would still certainly be Lawful. The Mafia breaks society's laws all the time, but they have strict codes and rules that they follow, even when doing so is not in their best interest (Lawful Evil).

Lawful is more than just "following a code", because Chaotic Good is usually defined as some kind of "follows their own moral compass/acts as their conscience directs". But a Chaotic Good person will act on whim and improvisation to accomplish his goals, where a Lawful Neutral person will more likely adhere to the procedures and "proper way to do things".

Honestly, I think Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral are the ones with the hardest distinction to make. Someone who prioritizes what is "right", or someone who prioritizes what is "just" (or "fair").


Chaotic: Being chaotic means that you are a person who either doesn't follow society's rules or only does so out of fear of punishment. A person that breaks rules but not on a regular basis, and only if they have to, is not chaotic.
...
Yes, that's almost the definition of being Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis. Law and Chaos are distinct and opposing forces, with a gulf in between them that is Neutral, much like their counterparts on the Good/Evil scale. Chaos is not simply "the absence of law", something can be absent of both.


Good: Being good means that you are a person who does most things out of a motivation to help other people. Somebody who helps others, but does so because of ulterior motives, is not good.
Again, this is textbook classic definition of "Good"


Evil: Being evil means that you are a person who does most things out of a desire to help yourself without regard for others. Somebody who harms other people, but doesn't derive pleasure out of it and regrets their decisions, is not evil.

And here's another place you go off base with it. In a fantasy world, some acts are just objectively evil, and someone who becomes used to doing those acts and is callous, indifferent, or who finds such things as acceptable means to the point where they do them frequently is definitely not good, and is almost certainly evil.

A man who learns of a prophecy that an orphan in their second decade of life will open a gateway during the convergence of moons, allowing Demogorgon into this world. Said convergence is 9 years away, so the man travels around, killing all orphans under the age of 12 or 13. He believes he is serving the greater good, and does not see himself as evil. In fact, the only other evil acts he commits are related to this determination (killing people who try and defend said orphans with their lives). He regrets that what he is doing "is necessary", and he derives no pleasure from the killing, but he continues to do it. Such a character may not see himself as Evil, but by the RAW he is. Continuous, unrepentant murder of innocent children, is a series of heinously evil acts, and his outlook and beliefs are that such acts are acceptable means to his ends. Evil.

[jas61292]

There are certainly many ways top think about these kinds of things, but to me, the difference between law and chaos is often about ideals with regard to how you pursue the good/evil aspect of your alignment. A lawful good and a chaotic good individual may have the same idea of what is good, but different ideas of how they should go about achieving a good result. But the difference is more complex than simply a relationship with laws or codes.

People often say a lawful individual is ok to not follow the law. This is true. But they also often say it's ok to just follow a personal code instead. This is less true. It might work in some cases, but the fact is, it is not enough to simply have a code. The code itself must follow lawful ideals.

Say a character has the following code: 1) Always steal, never pay. 2) Reject all authority but your own. 3) Set fire to random structures at least three times a day.

It doesn't matter how religiously they follow this code. They are not going to be lawful. Because the code itself is not lawful.

Honestly, the word "lawful" itself is an issue, because it makes people think that laws are inherently a part of the lawful alignment. They are not. Laws (or codes) can represent lawful ideals, but laws can also be chaotic. It depends on the nature of the law. The lawful side of things is more about restriction; telling you things you cannot do or things you must do. These can be good (laws against polluting), or evil (unreasonable taxes and brutal, unjust punishments) but they all exist to give structure to society, a lawful ideal.

But there are also laws that do the opposite. Laws that say what you cannot be made to do or must be allowed to do. Think human and civil rights laws. These kinds of things are codified versions of chaotic ideals.

And, of course, there are tons of laws in the middle that fit both. A law against murder is both about telling you what you're not allowed to do (lawful side) and ensuring your right to not have it done to you against your will (chaotic).

When it comes to individuals, alignment is about your point of view. It is not about laws or codes. It is about how you view yourself and society and how they should interact. And do while it is possible to have a character be lawful while ignoring all the laws of the land and following a code instead, it is just as possible for a chaotic character to do the same. But just not with the same code.

[Astofel]

Eh, I'll throw in my viewpoint on alignments, why not. If this happens again next year it might be neat to see if and how my thoughts have changed.

Good: A Good character is motivated by a desire to help others. They put the needs of others before their own, and will put themselves in harm's way to protect another.

Evil: An Evil character is out for themselves, and potentially those close to them. They do not care who they have to trample to get what they want, and may even derive pleasure from causing the misery of others. To them, others are just resources or tools to be used at best, entertainment at worst.

Neutral: A character who is neither Good nor Evil looks out for themselves and their loved ones first, but will still avoid causing harm to others. Their actions typically will not directly harm anyone, but they may allow someone to come to harm through inaction.

Lawful: A Lawful character believes that following rules or a code is what puts intelligent folk above the mindless beasts. To them, their ideal society would be attained through the perfect application of rules and laws. They usually have a thought-out reason for everything they do.

Chaotic: A Chaotic character believes that the freedom to choose is what elevates people above animals. They hate being constrained to a single choice, and believe that you should never let anyone else make a decision for you. They are prone to acting or making decisions based on nothing but a whim or a feeling.

Neutral: A character who is neither Lawful nor Chaotic places no particular importance on rules or choices. They will often simply take the path of least resistance, such as following a city's laws simply because it is easier than facing the consequences for breaking them.

If I'm honest, I have a hard time describing what it is that makes someone Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos. Alignment really isn't an important factor in my games though. I'm pretty happy to just let my players write whatever, as long as they're not disruptive, and if they consistently display behaviour that doesn't match what they wrote I might ask them to change. Alignment really is most useful to me as a tool when I'm making NPCs.

[Malifice]

Does a devil actually lose its power or end up transforming into something else?

Grazzt is proof that yes, if a devil changes alignment to CE, it ceases being a devil and becomes a Demon.

Same thing happens to celestials. Erinyes and others were once LG Angels, but are now LE Devils.

If an outsider changes alignment, they change the kind of outsider they are.

[Naanomi]

Grazzt is proof that yes, if a devil changes alignment to CE, it ceases being a devil and becomes a Demon.

Same thing happens to celestials. Erinyes and others were once LG Angels, but are now LE Devils.

If an outsider changes alignment, they change the kind of outsider they are.
With the notable exception of Modrons... which historically are too ‘rigid by design’ to change that way (they just lose some of their abilities). In older editions, Slaad also didn’t change when their alignment changed, the infinite flexibility of Chaos allowed expression of even Lawful Slaad

[Tanarii]

Note: Is this talked about in any of the books of 5E? or is this old edition information (not saying it would be irrelevant or anything, just asking cause i would like to read it)
PHB p122 under alignments in the multiverse. Also in the basic rules.

Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

If you mean details, I can't help you there. Mords might have some more.

[Naanomi]

Something that has always helped me with alignments is the Outer Planes. How they operate, what they stand for, is a clear(ish) cosmological picture of Alignments on an absolute level...

Genuinely wanting the greater good for everyone, but willing to sacrifice all freedom and much morality to do so? That is Arcadia, so that tends to be Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Good if you don’t push it too far.

Supporting your dogma, team, or group regardless of reason or circumstance? That is Acheron, and that is also (generally) Lawful Neutral leaning into Evil.

Racism, Clanishness, ‘us VS them’ for your own ultimate benefit; or because of fear and hatred of ‘them’ more than devotion of ‘us’... the central theme of Ghennah, and thus more Neutral Evil with Lawful potential

It isn’t a perfect system, but it has helped me organize the ‘cosmic intention’ of Alignment over the years

[Arcangel4774]

Say a character has the following code: 1) Always steal, never pay. 2) Reject all authority but your own. 3) Set fire to random structures at least three times a day.

You bring up a good point; very much a know them by their fruits type of view. Although motivation behund actions would i think determine whether this would be lawful or chaotic. In fact it was something ive been thinking about how i would rule when looking at it. If said person was following this code on a whim than yah, chatoic. But of said person is getting away with this without getting cought, and is, by diliberate decision, causing doubt and mistrust to spread like his fires in order to distablize a city while avoiding detection with randimness, than i could see it it being lawful.

[Malifice]

Genuinely wanting the greater good for everyone, but willing to sacrifice all freedom and much morality to do so? That is Arcadia, so that tends to be Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Good if you don’t push it too far.

Actually that Asmodeus. Plenty of Banites think like this too.

[Naanomi]

Actually that Asmodeus. Plenty of Banites think like this too.
See I don’t think Asmodeus really wants the greater good... that is the party line, that is what he wants people to think, but he is all about oppression, dominance, maintaining a hierarchy that puts him on top. An Arcadian who finds out his slaves are not happy doesn’t say ‘tough, learn to like it’... they actually want Good and Happyness (or at least contentedness) to prevail and work towards that goal, they are just willing to make large sacrifices to see it come to fruition