What alignment is this?

[Misterwhisper]

Simple question, what alignment fits this backstory?

Character is a former slave who was born into it.
He was put into the slave fighting pits and had to fight to eat but sometimes intentionally lost to make sure others ate.
By the time he was a young adult he was his slave owner’s prize fighter but never killed anyone he always fought unarmed and left his opponents beaten but alive. This made him rather popular with the betting between other slaveowners because even if he won, their prizefighter would live to fight more.
He trained others to fight but disguised it as games and dancing.

Once every 5 years all the slave owners get together and have their best fight each other with the winner taking all the betting money, often totaling more than their yearly earnings otherwise. The character made it to the finals and in the last fight the other owners changed the rules and made it a fight to the death. Even then he refused to kill his opponent, he won, barely, and knocked his opponent out instead of killing him.

This made the slave owners and the crowd furious as everyone began arguing over the gambling, the people who lost argued there was no winner because they both lived, the winners argued the other way. He used this time to stage an escape, not for himself, but for the other slaves. He managed to help 100s of others escape but he was captured.

As punishment for all the problems he was tortured for months, blinded, and left in the desert with nothing.

Through blind luck, he fell into an undiscovered cave with a small underground river in it and enough moss and small animals to eat that he lived to recover.

Since then he lives for his freedom and giving freedom to others. He adventures for the gold to buy more slaves, but he does it to give them their freedom, he has freed enough at this point that he has a small village where all the people he has bought and freeed live and work to free more.

He first tries to reason with slave owners and offers them gold.
If they turn him down and are especially cruel, he will infiltrate and free the the slaves no matter what, even if he has to kill the slave owner and some henchmen to do it.

So, what alignment?

He has good goals but will kill to do it.
He lives for freedom but would never sow chaos.

[Sigreid]

Reads like chaotic good to me.

[scrubbwizard]

He seems to have a personal code of conduct and he thinks of the welfare of others. I would say Lawful Good.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is willing to sacrifice his own wellbeing for others who have less? Check.
Values freedom in all things? Check.

Definitely Chaotic Good.

Good doesn't mean Pacifist. Chaotic doesn't mean Anarchist.

He's willing to work for the sake of Goodness, and he's willing to work to dismantle control.

If asking yourself whether or not someone is Lawful/Chaotic:

Do they feel that they should enforce the law/control? (Lawful)
Do they feel guilty when breaking the law? (Neutral)
Do they feel pride when breaking the law? (Chaotic)

[Teaguethebean]

So all people here clearly say this character is a good person but on lawful or chaotic it is different I would argue Neutral good he believes in order over chaos but he will go against the law if it is necessary he simply wants to do the right thing so that sounds Neutral Good to me.

[Misterwhisper]

Would his race make a difference?

He already has one but I wonder if people would change their mind based on his race?

What if he was a male drow born into slavery to other drow?

What if he was a surfacer enslaved by dark dwarves?

What if he was just a human enslaved by normal humans?

[HappyDaze]

Would his race make a difference?

He already has one but I wonder if people would change their mind based on his race?

What if he was a male drow born into slavery to other drow?

What if he was a surfacer enslaved by dark dwarves?

What if he was just a human enslaved by normal humans?

Race makes no difference here. Why would it?

Put me down for saying chaotic good too.

[NecessaryWeevil]

He works within the rules if he can but he's not restricted by them. Nothing here about a personal code or especially organized or disorganized lifestyle. You could make an argument for any Good alignment but I'd say Neutral Good.


Would his race make a difference?
He already has one but I wonder if people would change their mind based on his race?


I guess you'll have to try us and see.

[Neknoh]

Race does not make a difference here, there is no inherent evil to playable races in DnD, only to their cultures when viewed from the perspectives of others.

I would argue lawful good, as he fights to uphold not only a very strict personal code, but he also actively divides the world into "right and wrong" based on said code, he also has set up a village. A lawful good person does not need to uphold the laws of a society that goes against his own core beliefs. He is also predictable in his actions when we look at his backstory and behaviour.

[AvvyR]

Fighting oppressors and sacrificing in the name of freedom is basically the definition of Chaotic Good. Being willing to work with the slavers to get them to hand over their slaves legally before resorting to illegal means puts him on the border with Neutral Good, but I'd say the character is still clearly in the CG range, just not the most extremist.

[NRSASD]

I'd say Lawful Good. He tries to follow the rules by purchasing slaves, and only when the slave holders refuse does he resort to violence. He prefers to work within the established societal framework, hence the lawful aspect. To be fair, I can totally see him being Neutral Good or even Chaotic Good.

Give us more data and we'll see how that shapes it

[Misterwhisper]

Little more info:

He is a viashino, level 4 drunken master monk.

Drunken master reflavored to be about dexterous serpentine movements, dancing and living in a desert with a lifetime of being on sandy footing.

He is a calm person but the one thing that makes him angry and angry to the point of attacking someone is slavery. He will die before he ever is put in chains again. He lives for freedom, freedom to go where he wants and do whatever makes him happy.

He will try to reason and buy slaves, but if he can’t he will infiltrate and kill the captors.

When he frees people he gives them a map to the village and enough gold to get them there.

He has personally only ever been to the village he founded once. He is setting up a network of contact to gather more and expand his work. This network, which is very small right now also funnels his money he makes on adventures back to his village to make sure they always have plenty to get by and provide for any more who come there seeking shelter.

More than once he has been accused of being a “thieving lizard” thinking him a savage lizardfolk and they try to “take him in for questioning” but as soon as they lay a hand on him to try to arrest him, he will beat them unconscious and left them laying in the street.

He is wanted for various crimes in a few places where slavery is legal, because of his aggressive manner of freeing people.

[rahimka]

Sounds pretty Neutral Good to me.

He's got strong elements of both Lawful (honorable, consistent personal code, establishing/providing for a community, trying first to work within the law even if it's one he opposes) and Chaotic (valuing FREEDOM specifically, leading a violent revolt, resorting to violence when the legal approach fails).

He's definitely complex on the Law-Chaos spectrum, so some people (in game and out) are going to have different opinions on his exact position. There's a case to be made for either/both LG or CG, which to me screams that he's actually right in the middle.

[KorvinStarmast]

He was put into the slave fighting pits and had to fight to eat but sometimes intentionally lost to make sure others ate. that would make him dead, would it not?
So he's either a revenant or an undead of some sort.

Or

He's a half orc who drops to 0 HP and then (because he is actually at 1) he plays possum to make it look like he died in the fight. Is that his schtick?

[scrubbwizard]

For me, individuals with a lawful alignment have a strong sence of society, law, tradition, loyalty, order and personal code. As such they tend to be reliable and methodical.

Chaotic individual act arbitrarily, based upon their conscience and personal whims. They are not behave as expected and cannot be counted upon.

This guys seems Lawful. He has strong feelings about not just himself, but how other people should be living their lives. He perceives injustice and feels bound to fight it.

However, your clarification does indicate that he goes into angry (and perhaps premeditated?) murderous rages. So not sure if this is good ....

[Malifice]

Chaotic good for sure.

He actively works against the established order (slavery) to bring about its downfall and liberate those under its yoke.

He doesnt place high priority on family, honor or traditions.

Hes a merciful and good man, who avoids harming others and actively seeks to help those in need via personal sacrifice.

About as CG as one can get.

[furby076]

This guy is CG. Good is pretty obvious (won't kill, helps his opponents, etc). Chaotic because he doesn't follow the rules :)

[Malifice]

.

Chaotic individual act arbitrarily, based upon their conscience and personal whims. They are not behave as expected and cannot be counted upon.

Which is what he does. He literally was acting according to his conscience and in oppositon to the established order when he refused to kill in the slave pits.

He now actively seeks to subvert the established order by liberating slaves and ending slavery.

He views personal liberty and freedom from tyranny as his central motivations and goals.

Not once is family, honor or tradition mentioned other than 'this PC rails against the established order, and does what he thinks is right, regardless of the rules or the personal cost to him.

Hes very clearly CG.

[scrubbwizard]

From birth until young adulthood, this individual followed the rules and rose in the establishment to become his owners prize fighter. He also trained others to do the same. A lawful existance...

Agreed, after the arena event, he now subverts the existing tyrannic order. He is now doing good in the name of freedom and liberty.

If he was chaotic, he would do good at whim, because he felt like it. Not because he ordered his life around concepts like justice, liberty and freedom.

Still a lawful guy....

[Malifice]

From birth until young adulthood, this individual followed the rules and rose in the establishment to become his owners prize fighter. He also trained others to do the same. A lawful existance...

Agreed, after the arena event, he now subverts the existing tyrannic order. He is now doing good in the name of freedom and liberty.

If he was chaotic, he would do good at whim, because he felt like it. Not because he ordered his life around concepts like justice, liberty and freedom.

Still a lawful guy....

That's not a lawful existence mate. He was forced to fight (and kill) to which he constantly rebelled against on pain of death.

And I wholly disagree with 'do good on a whim' definition of CG. CG people dont 'do good on a whim' any more than CE people walk around randomly doing evil ****.

This PC cares about individual liberty free from external rules and coercion. To the extent he is prepared to be beaten and even killed for those views. He has no respect for family (they're not even mentioned) honor or tradition (he actively subverts both when they offend his moral code and conscience). He acts as his conscience directs, in a morally good manner, regardless of laws or attempts to forcefully coerce him otherwise. He seeks to upset and unbalance the established order.

Hes CG. It's not even debatable that hes anything else.

[Mad_Saulot]

Why even select an alignment at all in 5e it isnt required to pick an alignment, I dont demand it from my players, although they still do choose algnments cos they think its traditional, I dont really bother to hold them to it, alignments are an extremely narrow and simplistic way of tracking an individual philosophy and lacks scope for human behaviour in general and more often than not is subjective and leads to arguments. In my games only the Gods possess alignments as part of their divine portfolios but they arent bound by them otherwise a creature with alignment isnt sentient or possessing of free-will.

[Malifice]

alignments are an extremely narrow and simplistic way of tracking an individual philosophy and lack scope for human behaviour in general

No they arent, and no they dont.

[Mad_Saulot]

It is plain to see, from this post alone, you cant agree what this guys alignment should be, it is the definition of subjective, and look at us, we clearly dont agree and your simplistic reply is just begging for an argument.

[Malifice]

It is plain to see, from this post alone, you cant agree what this guys alignment should be, it is the definition of subjective, and look at us, we clearly dont agree and your simplistic reply is just begging for an argument.

That's because some people are misguided enough to try and argue Rick Sanchez or the Punisher as being 'good' aligned, or (because they themselves hold 'the ends justify the means' views) argue that no act (genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, torture etc) can be automatically deemed as evil, particularly when done for 'a greater good.'

There is no argument. They're just wrong.

[N810]

Clearly a good character,
the rest is a bit mixed,
he refused to follow the law when he was ordered to kill his opponent,
but he also follows a strong moral code, so I'm leaning toward,
Chaotic good, but close to the neutral side. since chaotic neutral
doesn't mean chaotic random, but rather you value freedom
and follow your own path.

[NRSASD]

Based on the further information, I'm changing my vote to Neutral Good. He doesn't seem to be interested in building a society personally, nor does he respect the overarching societal laws. However, he does attempt to work within the legal framework provided first when given the opportunity, and is supportive of others founding a new society.

Neutral Good tends to come about from either a complete disregard for either Law or Chaos, or because they have both Lawful and Chaotic tendencies. Your character is the latter.

Definitely Good, very ambiguous on the Law/Chaos spectrum. Neutral Good.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm 100% behind neutral good. He has tried to work within the system at every turn, only going against that when absolutely necessary.

Buying slaves to grant them freedom is a dead giveaway; that's a classic NG move that you wouldn't expect to see from either lawful or chaotic types.

Edit because I didn't see the OP's second post. Seems like when plan A doesn't work and push comes to shove, he leans chaotic. That might reflect some deep underlying desire, but for me it's not enough to justify a CG rating overall.

[Mad_Saulot]

I'd say he's Neutral Evil, he beats the heck out of people for sport, deprives slave owners of their lawful property and if they dont sell he will kill them, he is creating a village (army?) (do they pay taxes, or observe local laws?) of escaped slaves who likely dont have legal status as civilians and is probably planning an insurgency against the capital government.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I wll say n/Good

[Keravath]

I'd go with Neutral Good also if only because some of the characters views are Lawful and some Chaotic and he seems to vary a bit between them. He doesn't seem to have a general disregard of order and structure that might tend to go with a purely Chaotic outlook that might value individual freedom over anything else. On the other hand, he believes that some laws can be unjust and that actions can and should be taken to oppose those laws (e.g. slavery).

So I would tend to rate him Neutral in terms of law and chaos since he has views covering the entire range. This is also why there is so much variance in responses ... some say Lawful, some Neutral and slightly more lean toward Chaotic depending on which aspects of the character's attitude to the world seem more significant to each individual.

[daemonaetea]

Put me down for Neutral Good as well. His strong preference for freedom is definitely a bit of Chaotic flavor, but ultimately his willingness to work within the system to achieve his goals would put him more as Neutral for me. Though if he ever got fed up with the system entirely I can see him sliding into Chaotic as he stops trying to use the system and tries to break it. Or even Lawful if he is especially formulaic with how he deals with slavers, though I'm more of a fan as "Lawful as believing in Systems" over "Lawful as having a personal code". But if my player wanted to call this guy Lawful Good I wouldn't complain.

[RedMage125]

I would say Good, certainly, but that you have not provided enough information about how he behaves and goes about his goals to really say where he falls on the Law/Chaos axis.

Good/Evil is more about what you do, and why. Law/Chaos is more about how you do it, and why.

Does he hold a strict code about how slavery is evil and keep himself adherent to his own code of nonlethal action throughout his life, and feel terrible if he feels compelled to break it? He MAY be Lawful.

Does he more or less hold to such a code, but feels no qualms about occasionally violating it is the circumstances call for it, he MAY be Neutral.

Is the goal of freedom and ending slavery/oppression the only thing that really matters, and the means are not important? He MAY be Chaotic.

The Good part seems fairly certain, though.

[Misterwhisper]

I would say Good, certainly, but that you have not provided enough information about how he behaves and goes about his goals to really say where he falls on the Law/Chaos axis.

Good/Evil is more about what you do, and why. Law/Chaos is more about how you do it, and why.

Does he hold a strict code about how slavery is evil and keep himself adherent to his own code of nonlethal action throughout his life, and feel terrible if he feels compelled to break it? He MAY be Lawful.

Does he more or less hold to such a code, but feels no qualms about occasionally violating it is the circumstances call for it, he MAY be Neutral.

Is the goal of freedom and ending slavery/oppression the only thing that really matters, and the means are not important? He MAY be Chaotic.

The Good part seems fairly certain, though.

On the code not to kill, that was more because those people were forced to fight, they did not choose to fight him so they did not deserve to die for it.

If he encountered bandits on the road in his travels and they seemed to be robbing people just to get by because they have no other choice in their situation, he would reason with them if possible, but if he couldn't he would defend himself and not kill them.

If he encountered bandits on the road in his travels that were essentially marauders who killed the weak to take what they have and prey on others he would knock them out if possible to take them to whatever local authorities there were but it would not bother him much if it came down to killing them.

It would also not bother him to kill inherently evil creatures that are not humanoids like devils, demons, vampires, ect. They are evil, they prey on the weak and are a harm to the world to be left alive so they need to die. He would never do harm to someone who is innocent, and has no real sense of greed or powerhungryness. He wants the best for the people, especially the common people or those in need.

He has his own code and he sticks to it firmly, but one of the main tenants of his person code is that freedom should not be taken from others by force. Rightful and reasonable imprisonment is not a problem, if you take from others you have to pay your crimes, just laws should be obeyed, but unjust laws should be fought against.

[PhoenixPhyre]

He has his own code and he sticks to it firmly, but one of the main tenants of his person code is that freedom should not be taken from others by force. Rightful and reasonable imprisonment is not a problem, if you take from others you have to pay your crimes, just laws should be obeyed, but unjust laws should be fought against.

Seems lawful, possibly near the neutral border to me. Definitely good.

Edit: paraphrased: "I have a code. Other people should also live by a code that overlaps with part of mine (don't hurt innocents, don't take their stuff, etc). But I won't force them to follow such a code unless they hurt others or encourage others to do so. Bad codes should be remade into better ones. "

It's very code focused, which says lawful to me.

But remember that alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. They're general tendencies, not fixed rules. They're what gets involved when a more specific bond, flaw, or ideal isn't involved (but also help shape those bonds, flaws, and ideals). Beware of investing too much energy into nailing down the precise right alignment.

[NRSASD]

On the code not to kill, that was more because those people were forced to fight, they did not choose to fight him so they did not deserve to die for it.

If he encountered bandits on the road in his travels and they seemed to be robbing people just to get by because they have no other choice in their situation, he would reason with them if possible, but if he couldn't he would defend himself and not kill them.

If he encountered bandits on the road in his travels that were essentially marauders who killed the weak to take what they have and prey on others he would knock them out if possible to take them to whatever local authorities there were but it would not bother him much if it came down to killing them.

It would also not bother him to kill inherently evil creatures that are not humanoids like devils, demons, vampires, ect. They are evil, they prey on the weak and are a harm to the world to be left alive so they need to die. He would never do harm to someone who is innocent, and has no real sense of greed or powerhungryness. He wants the best for the people, especially the common people or those in need.

He has his own code and he sticks to it firmly, but one of the main tenants of his person code is that freedom should not be taken from others by force. Rightful and reasonable imprisonment is not a problem, if you take from others you have to pay your crimes, just laws should be obeyed, but unjust laws should be fought against.

Supports lawful imprisonment but opposes unjust laws? Neutral Good.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I would suggest that, once you have a clearly defined who your character is, if it takes you longer than thirty seconds to decide their place on a spectrum then they're probably neutral.

[DKing9114]

At the moment I'm thinking Neutral Good, but how exactly you define/express the Lawful vs Chaotic alignment will affect your decision. For me, the difference lies in the importance of order to the character, and this guy seems to be in the middle on that regard. He tries to go about freeing slaves using legal means, and when he does so he sends them to the village he is building up. He attempts to work with the authorities when dealing with criminals, and he supports the law even if he does oppose certain laws. On the flip side, he's perfectly willing to break the law in order to maintain his principles, and he will aggressively resist arrest rather than try to work through whatever legal system he finds himself in.

While his race doesn't really play into his alignment, the nature of the societies in this campaign setting and the way slavery functions within them might. Is this chattel slavery with fantastic additions? Is the setting more like a lot of historical slavery where debtors, criminals, people who lost battles, and whoever couldn't prove they shouldn't be were sold into slavery? Some combination? Something else entirely? The fact that he's willing to work within the system does raise the question.

[Malifice]

Seems lawful, possibly near the neutral border to me. Definitely good.

Edit: paraphrased: "I have a code. Other people should also live by a code that overlaps with part of mine (don't hurt innocents, don't take their stuff, etc). But I won't force them to follow such a code unless they hurt others or encourage others to do so. Bad codes should be remade into better ones. "

It's very code focused, which says lawful to me.

But remember that alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. They're general tendencies, not fixed rules. They're what gets involved when a more specific bond, flaw, or ideal isn't involved (but also help shape those bonds, flaws, and ideals). Beware of investing too much energy into nailing down the precise right alignment.

What if his code was to murder, kill and enslave people, based on his hatred, and rage?

A code of 'rob from the rich, give to the poor, liberty for all and down with the evil king' is a CG code.

[Rukelnikov]

Textbook CG

[Wildarm]

Neutral Good. Aims to help others and has some respect for the law even when he disagrees with it. Will break the law if needed if it is demanded of his moral code.

[MadBear]

The longer I've played, the more I find alignment isn't really a helpful or good tool. It's history started as measuring just chaos/law, with good/evil being added later.

Honestly, just play your character.

(for what it's worth based on how I use alignment charts, their CG)

[Sigreid]

Whenever these discussions pop up a certain percentage of the population seems to believe that chaotic means irrational or crazy instead of simply valuing freedom as the highest good.

[Mercurias]

I would say the character is Neutral Good.

The character's overarching goals seem to be based upon granting slaves their freedom and ultimately protecting their lives and wellbeing from being systematically exploited and abused by their owners. In other words, he wants to do good, to help the less fortunate and give them a place to thrive.

How he goes about freeing them, however, is where I think he ends up Neutral. He seems to make every effort to follow the rules right up until the rules fail to protect those he wishes to see liberated. Only AFTER offering to jump through the hoops and do things the legal way does he resort to breaking people out in the dead of night. This shows that he has respect for the law without revering it. If he were on the Chaotic side of the scale, he wouldn't bother trying to do things the right way because he wouldn't believe the system allows for a right way to exist.

A Chaotic character would have been much more likely to make a break-out their Plan A, and a Lawful character would respond to the rejection by appealing to a higher authority. The Neutral approach would be what this character chose.

[Malifice]

Neutral Good. Aims to help others and has some respect for the law even when he disagrees with it. Will break the law if needed if it is demanded of his moral code.

No, he doesnt.

He is actively working to subvert it, and tear down the established order!

[rahimka]

He is actively working to subvert it, and tear down the established order!

If you consider buying slaves and thus lining the pockets of slavers as tearing down their established order of buying/selling slaves...

[SleepIncarnate]

I'm going to argue neutral good. The character does seem complex on the law-chaos spectrum, but I think the one thing that settles it for me is that he will buy slaves to free them rather than freeing them by force. He is opposed to slavery, but will still benefit slavers in his attempts to oppose it.

This fact suggests to me that while he values freedom, his personal code is not so strong as to push him to eradicate slavery, just to free slaves. As such, he doesn't seem to have a particularly strong leaning toward law. Likewise, his code isn't a case of "do what's right and screw the consequences" that a chaotic good character might do. He tempers both extremes, avoiding retaliation from slavers.

[Malifice]

If you consider buying slaves and thus lining the pockets of slavers as tearing down their established order of buying/selling slaves...

No-one said he was particularly bright about how he goes about it.

[Mercurias]

No, he doesnt.

He is actively working to subvert it, and tear down the established order!

Tearing down the established order would be leading a revolution in direct opposition to said order. That is not what this character is doing. He’s acting on his ideals regardless of legality, true, but he’s willing to work through legal channels first and only resorts to working outside the law as a last resort. To me, that says his primary motivation is Good, but that he has no special reverence or disdain for law and order outside of it usually being way easier to follow the law when laws are just.

If the character were Chaotic, we would be seeing a slave uprising and the slaying of all former slave owners.

If the character were Lawful, we would be seeing him appeal to higher authorities or petitioning to change the law before he liberated people.

[Laserlight]

I'll go with"somewhere between NG and CG". IMHO, "having a personal code" is too vague to be useful; it's "conforming to your society's laws and expectations" that makes you Lawful.

As a side note: OP said "as punishment for all the problems he was tortured for months, blinded, and left in the desert." A blind character will be ineffective unless the DM does enough handwaving that you end up with "he's blind, except not really, he can see everything around him", in which case what's the point of being "blind"? I would suggest that, if you want him permanently marked, a brand, tattoo, scars from flogging, slit nose, or something that doesn't mean "can't use spells that require you to see your target, makes all attacks at Disadvantage".

[Misterwhisper]

I'll go with"somewhere between NG and CG". IMHO, "having a personal code" is too vague to be useful; it's "conforming to your society's laws and expectations" that makes you Lawful.

As a side note: OP said "as punishment for all the problems he was tortured for months, blinded, and left in the desert." A blind character will be ineffective unless the DM does enough handwaving that you end up with "he's blind, except not really, he can see everything around him", in which case what's the point of being "blind"? I would suggest that, if you want him permanently marked, a brand, tattoo, scars from flogging, slit nose, or something that doesn't mean "can't use spells that require you to see your target, makes all attacks at Disadvantage".

He is blind, but has blindsight to a range of 20 feet.

It will cause some major issues with people outside that range but has its own advantages that i think balance out.

I will be taking Alert later.

[SleepIncarnate]

What if his code was to murder, kill and enslave people, based on his hatred, and rage?

Then he'd be lawful evil.

The character is clearly good. And while he is seeking to help people, he is not actively opposing an existing order that subjugates them, meaning his convictions aren't that strong to make him stop oppression and slavery, just try to free slaves non-violently.

[Misterwhisper]

Then he'd be lawful evil.

The character is clearly good. And while he is seeking to help people, he is not actively opposing an existing order that subjugates them, meaning his convictions aren't that strong to make him stop oppression and slavery, just try to free slaves non-violently.

It is more of the fact that he is a blind, Viashino monk with an intelligence of 10 and a charisma of 8, but a wisdom of 18, so he is wise enough to know that he is not a leader, nor is he good enough with people to lead a political change. He does the best he can when he finds a situation where he can be of benefit and leaves leading to those who are better at it, he will just give them the resources to do so.

[SleepIncarnate]

Whenever these discussions pop up a certain percentage of the population seems to believe that chaotic means irrational or crazy instead of simply valuing personal freedom as the highest good.

Fixed it. Chaotic isn't about freedom for others, necessarily. A chaotic evil character may enslave others (as is seen with the drow). They only care about the freedom to do what they want, regardless of societal expectations. They don't have a strict personal code they live up to, beyond that they should be free to do what they want.

Chaotic good may want freedom for others, but so could lawful good. The good-evil spectrum is best described as how you treat others or consider others, while law-chaos is more how you view yourself.

Batman has a strict code with two rules, no killing and no guns. That makes him lawful good, even though he's violating tons of laws, including vigilantism, assault, breaking and entering, and even terrorism (because he's all about striking fear in others). He values freedom for others, but that doesn't make him chaotic.

Chaotic is more like Han Solo. As long as it doesn't personally hurt me, others are free to do what they want, so long as I'm also free to do what I want.

They're different kinds of freedom. Freedom from slavery falls on the good-evil spectrum, not the law-chaos spectrum.

[GlenSmash!]

Whenever these discussions pop up a certain percentage of the population seems to believe that chaotic means irrational or crazy instead of simply valuing freedom as the highest good.

Yup. It pops up at my table too. "I'm Chaotic Neutral": the blanket cover for being completely random and irrational.

[Sigreid]

Yup. It pops up at my table too. "I'm Chaotic Neutral": the blanket cover for being completely random and irrational.

I'm mostly CN in my characters. They aren't malevolent and don't wish any harm to anyone and certainly don't want to control or enslave anyone. They are very protective and supportive of their friends. If you don't start with them, they'll be polite and not start with you. Start with them though and they will not be restrained. Try to tell them what to do, they'll laugh and leave.

[SleepIncarnate]

It is more of the fact that he is a blind, Viashino monk with an intelligence of 10 and a charisma of 8, but a wisdom of 18, so he is wise enough to know that he is not a leader, nor is he good enough with people to lead a political change. He does the best he can when he finds a situation where he can be of benefit and leaves leading to those who are better at it, he will just give them the resources to do so.

That has nothing to do with his alignment. Him not leading the people isn't the same as "these slavers must be stopped." He's just "hey, let these people go, but don't try to stop the system that enslaves them." With intelligence 10, he's smart enough to know that short of actively opposing slavers, there's just going to be more slaves in the future, and the cycle will continue.

That lack of moral outrage, of attempts to stop the injustice at it's roots rather than just care for those affected by it is why he falls as neutral good. His personal code of "anti-slavery" isn't so rigid that it prevents him from benefiting the slavers via buying the slaves, so he's not lawful. Even his pacifism is watered down of "non-lethal when I can, otherwise lethal is okay." His convictions aren't strong enough for lawful. Again, look at Batman. His code is rigid. No killing, ever. No guns, ever. This character? "Sometimes, if I have to."

Likewise, this character doesn't flaunt the system enough to be chaotic. He doesn't fight the unjust system, nor does he actively attempt to buck any laws for his own benefits (aside from escaping slavery). In fact, the only thing keeping him from being pure neutral is that he is setting up this place for escaped slaves and sending them there. That's the only thing keeping him even good, as everything else is half measures. He doesn't scream any real extremes to me. Hence neutral good, though maybe even just neutral.

[Sigreid]

That has nothing to do with his alignment. Him not leading the people isn't the same as "these slavers must be stopped." He's just "hey, let these people go, but don't try to stop the system that enslaves them." With intelligence 10, he's smart enough to know that short of actively opposing slavers, there's just going to be more slaves in the future, and the cycle will continue.

That lack of moral outrage, of attempts to stop the injustice at it's roots rather than just care for those affected by it is why he falls as neutral good. His personal code of "anti-slavery" isn't so rigid that it prevents him from benefiting the slavers via buying the slaves, so he's not lawful. Even his pacifism is watered down of "non-lethal when I can, otherwise lethal is okay." His convictions aren't strong enough for lawful. Again, look at Batman. His code is rigid. No killing, ever. No guns, ever. This character? "Sometimes, if I have to."

Likewise, this character doesn't flaunt the system enough to be chaotic. He doesn't fight the unjust system, nor does he actively attempt to buck any laws for his own benefits (aside from escaping slavery). In fact, the only thing keeping him from being pure neutral is that he is setting up this place for escaped slaves and sending them there. That's the only thing keeping him even good, as everything else is half measures. He doesn't scream any real extremes to me. Hence neutral good, though maybe even just neutral.

It's worse than that. By buying the slaves he is actually providing the financial incentive to go get more slaves.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm mostly CN in my characters. They aren't malevolent and don't wish any harm to anyone and certainly don't want to control or enslave anyone. They are very protective and supportive of their friends. If you don't start with them, they'll be polite and not start with you. Start with them though and they will not be restrained. Try to tell them what to do, they'll laugh and leave.

Very similar here. I love playing CN but it's a deliberate CN not a random idiot CN.

[SleepIncarnate]

Very similar here. I love playing CN but it's a deliberate CN not a random idiot CN.

I play CN a lot, and while they're not exactly malicious towards others, they also have no qualms benefiting from the misfotune of others. Thieves, bards, con men, John Edwards speaking to the dead, etc. Those kinds of concepts that take money from others (covertly or overtly) to put in my own pocket. Sometimes even given by the people who think their dead loved ones had just one last message for them about giving the dog a bath.

[Bovine Colonel]

Whenever these discussions pop up a certain percentage of the population seems to believe that chaotic means irrational or crazy instead of simply valuing freedom as the highest good.

Another part of the population seems to believe that lawful means supporting local laws, no matter how unjust.

(Personally I agree that the character is Chaotic Good, but strongly disagree with the people saying opposing slavery is what makes him Chaotic)

[Sigreid]

Another part of the population seems to believe that lawful means supporting local laws, no matter how unjust.

(Personally I agree that the character is Chaotic Good, but strongly disagree with the people saying opposing slavery is what makes him Chaotic)

Agreed, but I tend to see slightly more of the chaotic miss-characterization. Also, being chaotic doesn't mean you never follow the law or rules. I'd argue that a chaotic good person would make the case that if people would just strive to be decent, polite people there'd be no need for laws at all.

[SleepIncarnate]

Agreed, but I tend to see slightly more of the chaotic miss-characterization. Also, being chaotic doesn't mean you never follow the law or rules. I'd argue that a chaotic good person would make the case that if people would just strive to be decent, polite people there'd be no need for laws at all.

What I see most often is the idea of the Robin Hood type as the epitome of chaotic good. The thing is, Robin Hood was lawful good. He opposed Prince John because he was good, not because he was chaotic. He saw the system as unjust, as having been corrupt. When King Richard returned, Robin pledged himself. He was an outlaw because the system violated his morality, not because the system as a whole was bad.

[Malifice]

Then he'd be lawful evil.

I literally copied and pasted the definition of Chaotic evil there.

Mate, having a code of 'be chaotic' doesnt make you lawful.

The Sith 'code' is: Might makes right, act however your fear, hatred and rage direct you to. There can only ever be two of us, grow strong enough to betray and murder your master then take an apprentice yourself..


It's a CE 'code'.

[Mad_Saulot]

I literally copied and pasted the definition of Chaotic evil there.

Mate, having a code of 'be chaotic' doesnt make you lawful.

The Sith 'code' is: Might makes right, act however your fear, hatred and rage direct you to. There can only ever be two of us, grow strong enough to betray and murder your master then take an apprentice yourself..


It's a CE 'code'.

So alignments arent subjective eh? Well this thread and literaly every other alignment argument proves you wrong. Alignments are clearly subjective and should be abolished.

[Malifice]

So alignments arent subjective eh? Well this thread and literaly every other alignment argument proves you wrong. Alignments are clearly subjective and should be abolished.

Lel.

Alignments arent subjective. It's just that people get things wrong.

[Sigreid]

What I see most often is the idea of the Robin Hood type as the epitome of chaotic good. The thing is, Robin Hood was lawful good. He opposed Prince John because he was good, not because he was chaotic. He saw the system as unjust, as having been corrupt. When King Richard returned, Robin pledged himself. He was an outlaw because the system violated his morality, not because the system as a whole was bad.

Eh, they also get that rob from the rich and give to the poor thing wrong. If you look at it he was stealing from a government that was taxing unjustly and returning the money to the people. It's just that in a in his society the rich were rich because they were the taxing government.

[Mad_Saulot]

Lel.

Alignments arent subjective. It's just that people get things wrong.

How do you deal with algnment issues in your games, as I said before in my games they are pure fluff and i dont enforce alignments or recognise their having any bearing on roleplaying. But you keep saying people are wrong as opposed to the system of alignments themselves being wrong so I presume you still adhere to alignments but you use the my way or the highway approach? That is to say I presume your word is final on the matter and you brook no arguments from your players? Just curious, not trying to flame you or owt

[RedMage125]

How do you deal with algnment issues in your games, as I said before in my games they are pure fluff and i dont enforce alignments or recognise their having any bearing on roleplaying. But you keep saying people are wrong as opposed to the system of alignments themselves being wrong so I presume you still adhere to alignments but you use the my way or the highway approach? That is to say I presume your word is final on the matter and you brook no arguments from your players? Just curious, not trying to flame you or owt


He's saying that people quite often think things about alignment (such as what "chaotic" in alignment actually means) that is in direct opposition to what is explicitly stated as true in the RAW. Ergo, they are not just "of a different opinion on a subjective matter", they are objectively WRONG.

When discussing things on the forums, since all house rules and DM rulings are impossible to account for, only what is in the RAW can be considered "true". Take what Malifice said to SleepINcarnate. He copy/pasted the definition of Chaotic Evil from the book, and Sleep said "yeah, that's Lawful Evil". Objectively untrue.

Ironic from your implication about Malifice, YOU are the more intolerant person here, because your statement implies that you, under no exception, believe that "the system of alignments is a wrong/bad system", as if that was somehow a "fact", and than anyone who supports it is some kind of "my way or the highway" fascist DM.

[MadBear]

I find the bigger problem with this discussion here being that you can view alignment in a few different ways. If you have it as a strict ven-diagram, then people fit rigidly into one of 9 boxes. You can also view it as spectrum/graph. In that case where you draw the cut-off lines get quite blurry, and are very arbitrary/ GM dependent.

Again, I'll just point out that alignment usually doesn't make a game better, and can often make it worse.

[Mad_Saulot]

Alignment system is also restrictive by implication, for instance the Zhentarim are commonly accepted to be an "evil" organisation therefor all of its members must be evil, it restricts the scope of possibility, and assumes that there cannot be "good" aligned members within te organisation, the reverse is also true where you have a "Good" organisation, say the harper guild then by implication cannot have "evil" members that are not some form of infiltrator.

I avoid these issues by ignoring the alignment system, my players can choose an alignment if they want, because they think its traditional but I will never enforce their alignment nor will I fall into the trap of character or organisational alignment requirements never will there be an ingame statement by an npc where a player is denied access to a group based on their alignment.

This is why 5e is great, it removes the in system alignment restrictions like alignment based magic etc.

[hamishspence]

Alignment system is also restrictive by implication, for instance the Zhentarim are commonly accepted to be an "evil" organisation therefor all of its members must be evil, it restricts the scope of possibility, and assumes that there cannot be "good" aligned members within te organisation, the reverse is also true where you have a "Good" organisation, say the harper guild then by implication cannot have "evil" members that are not some form of infiltrator.


"Evil organizations" in D&D often have Neutral members. And the same is true of Good organizations. Only the vilest evil organizations, like the Ravagers from Complete Warrior, are so Evil that it is impossible for a Neutral person to "get in".

Plus, given how rarely used Detect Alignment Magic is (and how easy it is to foil) it's quite plausible for a character within an organization to change alignment to an inappropriate one - and not get caught for a long period. Thus, Evil Harpers, or Good Zhentarium quietly working against the worst excesses of the rest of the organization in secret.

[Millstone85]

I literally copied and pasted the definition of Chaotic evil there.
Take what Malifice said to SleepINcarnate. He copy/pasted the definition of Chaotic Evil from the book, and Sleep said "yeah, that's Lawful Evil".I would call it a paraphrase.

[greenstone]

…what alignment fits this backstory?

If you have to ask then the answer is "Chaotic Evil".

:-)