Alignment A with Alignment B Tendencies

[Messenger]

Surfing on the 'Net regarding D&D topics, something I've frequently enough seen:
D&D alignments listings that note a secondary alignment that the character in question tends to.

For example: Lawful Neutral with Lawful Evil tendencies. Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies. Etc.

I tend to like this extension/expansion of a character's alignment description because it's more characterful, it boxes in a character less, and it acknowledges the occasional but serious problem of one part of a character's alignment conflicting with another (for example, a Lawful Good character has to make a choice between being Lawful OR being Good, the two possible courses of action being mutually exclusive and opposing (and also assuming there's no easy 3rd option that is both Lawful and Good due to the circumstances of the story)). This longer alignment description reveals which way a character is more likely to go in such a dilemma, which part of his alignment they value more.

I am, however, kind of surprised that I've NEVER seen this used in these forums, or to discuss the comic. People here trying to classify and discuss and debate character alignments tend to just put characters into a single rigid category. The alignment system, in practice, has a lot of gray areas, and not recognizing this almost always leads to an argument, heated every so often. A good example would be the discussion of the last update: What alignment is Thor? With the current one, we're asking what alignment is Loki?

Now, I admit, I don't hang out the forums that often so maybe it has been used. But I am surprised at the lack of recognition for this method of dealing with moral alignment ambiguity.

Furthermore, I also gotta ask what place has this kind of alignment system had in the history of D&D? I'm aware that in earlier versions of the game, there were serious penalties for not playing according to your alignment. I know that 4th Ed. threw out the 3x3 alignment chart grid in favor of a single axis spectrum. I know that 5E brought back all 9 but also doesn't rest your character's personality on it so much anymore (then again, I maybe I should read the DM'sG more). But, all that said, there's a lot I don't know and am interested in. Whatever the case, I'm also surprised Alignment A with Alignment B tendencies aren't around more.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I am, however, kind of surprised that I've NEVER seen this used in these forums, or to discuss the comic. People here trying to classify and discuss and debate character alignments tend to just put characters into a single rigid category. The alignment system, in practice, has a lot of gray areas, and not recognizing this almost always leads to an argument, heated every so often. A good example would be the discussion of the last update: What alignment is Thor? With the current one, we're asking what alignment is Loki?

Because as per the author's word, no matter what grey areas exist, in OotS, you belong to one alignment and one alignment only. Belkar, Hilgya and Xykon are really different ethically from each other, and yet they are all CE. That Hilgya is more C than E, that Belkar is trending towards G and that Xykon is solidly C and E is not as important as the fact that they all are in the bottom right corner of the alignment chart.

That said, as per the above, plenty of people in the forums acknowledge and argument the shades of grey you claim are "NEVER" used.

Grey Wolf

[Messenger]

That said, as per the above, plenty of people in the forums acknowledge and argument the shades of grey you claim are "NEVER" used.Just to be clear, that was for emphasis and not for any snark. :smalleek:

It's still very strange to have to say that people belong in one category but acknowledge that they don't completely fit it. More to the point, in the discussions it's never expressed in the manner I described. For example, Thor is just Chaotic Good, but people quibble about how Thor is Chaotic. The idea that he follows rules even as he hates it has people moving him towards Neutrality or even Lawfulness. Why can't he be said to be "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies" because he hates rules but is willing to abide by them for Good reasons? I think that more accurately describes him better than sticking him into just a single alignment without additional description but with other people missing the nuance.

Similarly, in your own example, by differing how Belkar, Hilgya, and Xykon are despite all being of the same bottom right alignment, you sort of show that in sticking to the single classification, we're missing out on a lot of them. Indeed, Belkar and Hilgya are quite different from Xykon in their moral alignments, and even Belkar and Hilgya are different enough from each other.

And, yeah, I remember the Deva trying to sort Roy out, whether or not he belongs on Mount Celestia. However, between LG and NG, you've got a place like Bytopia which is a place for people too Neutral for Celestia but too Lawful for Elysium. As much as the Giant has put out a "single category" rule, there's also an official acknowledgement of the gray areas at least as far as the Outer Planes are concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html). And where moral alignment comes into play into sorting people into their afterlives, I'd say that're pretty important.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's still very strange to have to say that people belong in one category but acknowledge that they don't completely fit it.

But they do fit it. Because it's a category that encompasses a large variation. Not every LG is identical to every other LG. Some are more L, some more G, some more LG, some less LG overall, but they are all ultimately LG.


Why can't he be said to be "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies" because he hates rules but is willing to abide by them for Good reasons? I think that more accurately describes him better than sticking him into just a single alignment without additional description but with other people missing the nuance.

Because being "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies", for the purposes of what his alignment is, is identical to just saying CG. When it comes to the kind of discussion where this is brought up - say, when it comes to what spells he might grant, or what alignments you'd expect his clerics to be - then "pure CG" (whatever that means, since there is no such thing) is exactly equivalent to CGwNGt.


Similarly, in your own example, by differing how Belkar, Hilgya, and Xykon are despite all being of the same bottom right alignment, you sort of show that in sticking to the single classification, we're missing out on a lot of them.
No, we are not. The issue here, as far as I can see, is that you want the alignment system to be able to precisely pinpoint the exact moral stance of the character. But it cannot do that, because the alignment system can only classify you in one of 8 buckets. You want to talk about moral stances? Go right ahead. We certainly do that a lot (as long as we don't try to morally justify said stances). But don't expect that talk to be assisted by the alignment categories, because there is only 8 of them, and there are plenty of nuances within each which means that to talk about them you are best served by NOT attempting to use the alignment system in the first place.

Grey Wolf

[Schroeswald]

Just to be clear, that was for emphasis and not for any snark. :smalleek:

It's still very strange to have to say that people belong in one category but acknowledge that they don't completely fit it. More to the point, in the discussions it's never expressed in the manner I described. For example, Thor is just Chaotic Good, but people quibble about how Thor is Chaotic. The idea that he follows rules even as he hates it has people moving him towards Neutrality or even Lawfulness. Why can't he be said to be "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies" because he hates rules but is willing to abide by them for Good reasons? I think that more accurately describes him better than sticking him into just a single alignment without additional description but with other people missing the nuance.

Similarly, in your own example, by differing how Belkar, Hilgya, and Xykon are despite all being of the same bottom right alignment, you sort of show that in sticking to the single classification, we're missing out on a lot of them. Indeed, Belkar and Hilgya are quite different from Xykon in their moral alignments, and even Belkar and Hilgya are different enough from each other.

And, yeah, I remember the Deva trying to sort Roy out, whether or not he belongs on Mount Celestia. However, between LG and NG, you've got a place like Bytopia which is a place for people too Neutral for Celestia but too Lawful for Elysium. As much as the Giant has put out a "single category" rule, there's also an official acknowledgement of the gray areas at least as far as the Outer Planes are concerned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html). And where moral alignment comes into play into sorting people into their afterlives, I'd say that're pretty important.

Even using your description I'd still describe Belkar and Hilgya the same way, Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Neutral tendencies (though this wouldn't apply to either of them at the start, and I'm sure there would be arguments about Belkar), but they are very different characters in the alignment axis, eventually you just need to explain the character, saying one of the nine basic alignments is simple, easy and can give their basic morality and respect for rules.

This would probably cause even more arguments about alignments in all likelihood, I would still call Thor textbook Chaotic Good, more possibilities just means we can argue about whether they fit in 33 categories as opposed to 9.

[Morty]

Doing so would water them down past the point of uselessness. Saying that someone is X alignment already tells us precious little about who they actually are. Saying "They're this alignment but also kinda that one" doesn't exactly help here. You might as well just describe the character properly.

[brian 333]

I think the OP would be interested in Neverwinter Nights, (and some other computer RPGs,) which use an alignment graph in which a 0-100 scale is applied to each axis.

Evil begins at 0 and tends more toward Neutral as it approaches a tipping point at 35.

Neutral begins at 36 and becomes less Evil as it approaches 50, then tends toward Good as it approaches 65.

Good begins at 66 and becomes less Neutral as it approaches 100.

The same is applied to the Chaos-Law scale.

Thus a character with a 15-85 alignment would be CG, as will a character with a 35-100 or a 1-66, but each character would have different outlooks.

[Reboot]

Because being "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies", for the purposes of what his alignment is, is identical to just saying LG. When it comes to the kind of discussion where this is brought up - say, when it comes to what spells he might grant, or what alignments you'd expect his clerics to be - then "pure LG"...

Huh? CGwNG == LG? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/smilies/smallstick/smallconfused.gif

[Schroeswald]

Huh? CGwNG == LG? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/smilies/smallstick/smallconfused.gif

I think they just wrote Chaotic instead of lawful.

[ijuinkun]

Nah. Note that despite Thor himself being CG, the bulk of his Dwarven followers in the current world are pretty Lawful. This would appear to imply that the Clerics (and followers) of a god do not necessarily have to match the god's own alignment.

[hroþila]

I think most discussions in this forum tacitly accept an alignment spectrum where some characters are closer to the edge of their given alignment than others. "Tendencies" are brought up pretty often, just like arguments about, say, a LG character being more Lawful than Good or vice versa.

But as Grey Wolf noted, that doesn't invalidate the categorization itself for things that need to ascribe one of the nine alignments to someone for mechanical purposes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think they just wrote Chaotic instead of lawful.

Indeed. Fixed.


I think most discussions in this forum tacitly accept an alignment spectrum where some characters are closer to the edge of their given alignment than others.

I'd say it's well past tacitly and well into explicitly. We've had entire discussions about just how close to the G-N edge Miko was for most of her life, for example.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

Twelve posts in before Miko gets mentioned. Sounds about right.

But yeah I agree that there's little value in adding some "with an inclination towards x" descriptor to someone's alignment.

Belkar's Chaotic Evil but he's more Chaotic than Evil (although until recently he definitely was also pretty Evil). Should we describe him as Chaotic Evil with an inclination towards Chaotic Neutral? No, we just say that he's a Chaotic Evil little bugger who is more about that sweet sweet anarchy than diabolical schemes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Belkar's Chaotic Evil but he's more Chaotic than Evil (although until recently he definitely was also pretty Evil)

By some measures, his hippy-vision-induced change from "smash the game" to "cheat at the game" is also a downgrade of his Chaotic tendencies.

Grey Wolf

[Worldsong]

By some measures, his hippy-vision-induced change from "smash the game" to "cheat at the game" is also a downgrade of his Chaotic tendencies.

Grey Wolf

True enough. He went from Chaotic Stupid to Chaotic Pragmatic.

[LadyEowyn]

I’d use “Alignment XY [with emphasis on X]” to convey nuance, when it’s needed. Not all characters emphasize one aspect of their alignment over the other, but some do.

The X-Neutral or Neutral-X alignments are this way by definition - a LN or CN character cares more about Law or Chaos than about the north-south axis.

Roy is LG, with emphasis on Good; he’s clearly more dedicated to being Good than being Lawful, as his Deva noted. Durkon, in contrast, is heavily committed to both Law and Good (in BRITF, he refuses to rescue Roy from an Evil regime’s prison). Miko, in NCFTPB, was LG with an emphasis on Law. Elan and, at least for the last several books, Haley, are CG with an emphasis on Good.

If Hilgya is CE, she’s CE with an emphasis on Chaos. Xykon and Belkar (at least, Belkar up until very recently) are CE with an emphasis on Evil - they actively delight in harming people who they have no personal grievance against, just for fun.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Xykon and Belkar (at least, Belkar up until very recently) are CE with an emphasis on Evil - they actively delight in harming people who they have no personal grievance against, just for fun.

Xykon's glee at coming up with "technically not disallowed" workarounds to his promise to RC (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html) is a clear indication of his Chaotic tendencies, as is his boredom at battle tactics and to a certain degree his dislike of wizards (although that is also tainted by his early experiences, I'll grant you). While I would agree he is possibly more interested in Evil than in Chaos, I don't think he emphasises it that much.

Belkar is harder to pin down thanks to recent development, but I'd note his approach to Miko was more Chaotic than it was Evil. Belkar and Xykon both do much of the things they do for the lulz, which is more C than E.

Grey Wolf

[Aidan]

I agree with the "XY with XZ tendencies" being hardly helpful to the reader, but it may help people who are just learning of the alignment system, especially in realizing that Lawful Good doesn't mean always Lawful and always Good. Introducing the tendencies probably helps to break the idea that these alignments are concrete.

Edit: I said aren't when I meant are :smallbiggrin:

[Erai]

Alignment discussions are fun to read, even if people get hung up too much on them.

I like thinking of characters in "para-aligned" terms, it makes them more dynamic- besides, The Great Wheel cosmology is based on that as well. But. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are fundamental forces in typical D&D settings- even if a character could be descríbed as, say, "Lawful Neutral with Neutral Good tendencies", that character still is Lawful Neutral, will be damaged and possibly slowed by a Chaos Hammer spell, and only suffer half damage from Unholy Blight.

Which means that in the end, the discussion, however entertaining, is kind of useless: regardless of nuances, Xykon, Hilgya and Belkar still share the same alignment, as do Roy and Durkon, and Haley and Elan... also: IIRC, Vaarsuvius has not been within hearing distance of a Holy Word since their, erm, "episode", have they? I really wonder what would happen... and kind of doubt that "wallowing in self-pity", in the Grand Scale, would amount to more than "...with neutral or good tendencies" ;-)

[KorvinStarmast]

You might as well just describe the character properly. But that takes thinking and effort. :smallbiggrin:


Alignment discussions are fun to read, even if people get hung up too much on them. For certain, obscure values of the word "fun" I suppose that's true.

[Schroeswald]

For certain, obscure values of the word "fun" I suppose that's true.

Don’t you love it when people say “Well Thor doesn’t break every law, therefore he’s Neutral Good!” or “Belkar can be helpful, therefore he’s Neutral now”, or “Hilgya has a backstory, therefore she can’t be Evil” or “Garble garble garble Miko garble garble intellectually dishonest garble garble PLOTHOLE!”.

[Bohandas]

Because being "Chaotic Good with Neutral Good tendencies", for the purposes of what his alignment is, is identical to just saying CG. When it comes to the kind of discussion where this is brought up - say, when it comes to what spells he might grant, or what alignments you'd expect his clerics to be - then "pure CG" (whatever that means, since there is no such thing) is exactly equivalent to CGwNGt.
I'm a quite a bit behind on OotS, but I thought that it used the Great Wheel arrangement of the outer planes. If this is the case than it does matter; The difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Good With Neutral Good Temdencies could make the difference between going to Arboria or to the Beastlands after one dies.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm a quite a bit behind on OotS, but I thought that it used the Great Wheel arrangement of the outer planes. If this is the case than it does matter; The difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Good With Neutral Good Temdencies could make the difference between going to Arboria or to the Beastlands after one dies. You up to date with this strip? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html)

[Schroeswald]

You up to date with this strip? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html)

Does that explain anything? Cause I have no clue what that means (though OOTS is one of my core sources of knowledge on how D&D works).

[Peelee]

Does that explain anything? Cause I have no clue what that means (though OOTS is one of my core sources of knowledge on how D&D works).

It shows the great wheel in a novel way.

[Bohandas]

And more importantlymit shows the gray area planes the "Everyone should care" plane (Elysium) is NG and the "Good dog" plane is NG with CG tendencies