Difference between chaotic good and chaotic neutral.

[Zhentarim]

I've made a chaotic good character, and I roled them up with the intent of being chaotic good, but I'm feeling like my character maybe enjoys punishing people he hates a little too much to be good. Should I call him chaotic neutral, instead? He means well, but he'll straight up kill/torture anybody he thinks is "bad", and is really radical about his belief everybody should be equal, so he will pretty much attempt to torture/kill anybody who is rich/powerful (or thinks that people are unequal) on sight.

I think I've maybe slipped from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in this game, but I'm not sure.

[Millstone85]

I am sorry but, from that description, you character is neither good nor neutral.

[mythmonster2]

Yeah, Good doesn't make a habit of torture and murder. If it is actually on sight, without giving the accused any chance to defend themselves, then this might just drop straight into evil.

[Zhentarim]

Yeah, Good doesn't make a habit of torture and murder. If it is actually on sight, without giving the accused any chance to defend themselves, then this might just drop straight into evil.

Yeah, until I get some sort of redemptive arc, my character has let his passion for a better (and more equal) world and his rage against the "exploiter class" in society get the better of him and its taken him down a dark path. For what its worth, I'd like to maybe backpeddle back out of evil if I can, but I want to do it in a way that's organic for the character.

That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.

[loki_ragnarock]

Your character is definitely chaotic evil.

Good character actively stops torture. Neutral character doesn't torture. Evil character tortures.

[Zhentarim]

Your character is definitely chaotic evil.

Good character actively stops torture. Neutral character doesn't torture. Evil character tortures.

So to be CN, I only need to be a robin-hood-like character, and avoid killing/torturing?

[Pex]

Thievery isn't necessarily evil, but just because you're Chaotic doesn't mean you steal. Chaotic strives for freedom, and it's not your place to deprive others. Thievery is a separate thing from chaotic.

If you steal for stealing sake or from anyone to get what you want just because you want it, that's evil. If you steal out of necessity and only what you need that won't grossly affect from whom you steal, that's neutral. If you "borrow", meaning you put it back or exchange what you steal of equal relative worth, or you actively disrupt the corrupt or evil to help those they oppress, that's good. Note that someone being wealthy is not in and of itself someone who is corrupt and evil. Being wealthy is not justification for being robbed, to a chaotic good person.

[MaxWilson]

Ignore alignment. It's mostly pointless. If your PC tortures and kills for what he thinks is a good cause, and you're worried about it but that's where he is right now emotionally--how would slapping an alignment label on that combination of traits improve roleplay? Even if the DM decides that you show up to a sprite's alignment detector as "tinged with darkness and chaos" a.k.a. chaotic evil, that doesn't mean you can't try to be better, nor does it mean you must be dark to everyone.

Alignment is mostly pointless.

[Zhentarim]

Thievery isn't necessarily evil, but just because you're Chaotic doesn't mean you steal. Chaotic strives for freedom, and it's not your place to deprive others. Thievery is a separate thing from chaotic.

If you steal for stealing sake or from anyone to get what you want just because you want it, that's evil. If you steal out of necessity and only what you need that won't grossly affect from whom you steal, that's neutral. If you "borrow", meaning you put it back or exchange what you steal of equal relative worth, or you actively disrupt the corrupt or evil to help those they oppress, that's good. Note that someone being wealthy is not in and of itself someone who is corrupt and evil. Being wealthy is not justification for being robbed, to a chaotic good person.

What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.

[Zhentarim]

Ignore alignment. It's mostly pointless. If your PC tortures and kills for what he thinks is a good cause, and you're worried about it but that's where he is right now emotionally--how would slapping an alignment label on that combination of traits improve roleplay? Even if the DM decides that you show up to a sprite's alignment detector as "tinged with darkness and chaos" a.k.a. chaotic evil, that doesn't mean you can't try to be better, nor does it mean you must be dark to everyone.

Alignment is mostly pointless.

Ok, I'll just keep Chaotic Good on there.

[MaxWilson]

Ok, I'll just keep Chaotic Good on there.

Sounds good.

[NecessaryWeevil]

What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.

I would suggest that proportionality comes into it. If there were solutions that didn't involve killing them, and your character didn't stop to consider them, that might make them Evil.

[TheMango55]

Yeah your character is definitely evil. If you murder someone for being bossy then you are evil, even if you lie and say it was for a good cause, you really did it because you enjoy killing and torture.


What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.

What’s he going to do when he comes back next year and finds out that the workers couldn’t compete with organized businesses so they started a small guild which needed a leader who now makes more money than the rest of the workers and he couldn’t manage the whole business by himself so he promoted some of the workers to middle management?

[JackPhoenix]

Ok, I'll just keep Chaotic Good on there.

Ignore people telling you to ignore your alignment if they aren't your GM. Read the description of alignments in PHB (p. 120 or 121, not checking the book now) and pick the one that fits the character best. Per this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24812370&postcount=4), sounds like CE. Your character is a murderous psychopath.

[Zhentarim]

Ignore people telling you to ignore your alignment if they aren't your GM. Read the description of alignments in PHB (p. 120 or 121, not checking the book now) and pick the one that fits the character best. Per this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24812370&postcount=4), sounds like CE. Your character is a murderous psychopath.

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

[JackPhoenix]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

He, by your words, torture and kills anyone rich or powerful on sight. He killed managers just doing their job. That's not "only hurts bad people".

[Zhentarim]

He, by your words, torture and kills anyone rich or powerful on sight. He killed managers just doing their job. That's not "only hurts bad people".

The workers there were really poorly treated, while the manager types seemed pretty well-off.

[MaxWilson]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

Again, alignment doesn't matter. If striving to be Chaotic Good leads to a better character arc than thinking of him as Chaotic Evil, who cares what the PHB says? Maybe you'll be traumatized someday when e.g. your DM reveals to you that you're immune to a spell that only affects Good and Neutral creatures, and you can react to that event when it happens, but until then just remember that everybody is (usually) the hero of their own story, in their own minds.

Alignment hardly even exists in 5E. It's usually safe to ignore it.

[Taevyr]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

Define "bad" for me within this context? 'Cause it sounds like your character's definition of "bad person" is "anyone in a position of authority/anyone making more coin than the common man", which definitely makes you chaotic evil.

[Zhentarim]

http://i.picasion.com/resize90/999a0b5f0c3c7bc2df1d8a1677de2ab9.png

Based on this quiz I took as my character, my character gets Chaotic Good. He's basically my opposite, since when I take the quiz as myself, I get Lawful Evil.

(Edit: This is my last post in this thread, I'm just having a last word with Taevyr)

My character sees kings and queens and the wealthy as unjust hierarchies, and my character things that by removing all unjust hierarchies, he can create a radically equal world.

Also, this character is a goblin bard.

[Laserlight]

Nah, still Evil.

[Dragonsonthemap]

I'd go with chaotic neutral, probably. Your character's an extremist, but at least in the WotC era, evil has generally implied particularly nasty selfishness, and he's definitely looking to help the downtrodden, though his approach is questionable to say the least (honestly, it's the torture that's the central issue; in a sufficiently oppressive state, you could probably make a case for chaotic good even when just killing every authority figure).

That said, yeah, 5e has largely tossed out the alignment system, and it was never a system that held up all that well under scrutiny, anyway, so unless your DM treats it as important, it's unlikely to be worth worrying about.

[Unoriginal]

http://i.picasion.com/resize90/999a0b5f0c3c7bc2df1d8a1677de2ab9.png

Based on this quiz I took as my character, my character gets Chaotic Good. He's basically my opposite, since when I take the quiz as myself, I get Lawful Evil.

(Edit: This is my last post in this thread, I'm just having a last word with Taevyr)

My character sees kings and queens and the wealthy as unjust hierarchies, and my character things that by removing all unjust hierarchies, he can create a radically equal world.

Also, this character is a goblin bard.

1) this is a 3.5 alignment test. Alignments are not the same between the editions, even when the name stay the same. So it is not relevant to a discussion about a 5e character.

2) your character is neither benevolent not kind. As you say, he torture people.

If anything, your character fits more the definition of lawful evil. He wants to impose his favored status quo to the world, and will commit the atrocities he wants within those rules.

[Mastikator]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.
Using force to stop evil from happening isn't evil, but over use of force, brutality and torture absolutely is evil. Killing should be a last resort, torture should be a never option. By the sound of it your bard is bad people and not far from a pure murderhobo.

I think the big issue is torture, it's not really excusable.

[Alcore]

Chaotic evil fits. CN might not even care about "bad" unless bad = lawful.

[Laserlight]

he's definitely looking to help the downtrodden, though his approach is questionable to say the least.

Writing workshops will often suggest that you create a villain who wants to achieve a good, or at least reasonable, end, but pursues that good without moral limits. "I want world peace" > drug the entire population into stupor. "I want to restore the ecological balance" > kill 50% of the population; "I want my people to have enough land to live on" > conquers neighbors, and then their neighbors, and so forth.

So your murderer is Evil.

[Sepaulchre]

I can’t help but read this thread and think you’re looking for people to validate your perspective. But, like others have pointed out, your character is evil under 5e’s alignment system.

Does it matter that your character is evil? No, if it’s not causing you and your tablemates to enjoy your game less or have less fun.

Murdering, and especially torturing, are psychopathic. Murder is by definition unjustified killing. Justifications vary by society, but in 5e, killing someone for the reasons you have purposed is not justified within the morality system and therefore murder.

There are extremely limited circumstances in which torture is even arguably morally permissible. I’m not sure anyone maintains that torture is morally praiseworthy. Torture even of people who are themselves profoundly morally blameworthy is still in almost all circumstances definitively wrong.

[Pex]

Your character is evil. Doesn't matter how you justify it to yourself. Evil people justify to themselves often.

[supercereal]

For the sake of semplicity probably CN is more appropriate in the end. It is true that your character most evil acts (e.g. torture) are done generally for a good pourpose, but they are instrinsically evil acts.

I think that a more serious discussion on morality is beyond the scope of a D&D session, unless if something you are actively pursueing in your gameplay.

For a suggestion the 3.5 edition book of exalted deeds and the book of vile darkness offers a good frames for good and evil acts in game and how to frame morality in D&D.

(P.S if you think that just killing = bad in D&D than every adventurer ever is definetively evil :smallsmile:)

[MoiMagnus]

Ask for your DM for the pantheon of gods (or other powerful extraplanar entities)
Look for a Good aligned entity which has for motto "kill everything evil at sight".

If there is one, then sure, your DM's vision of alignment allows you to be CG.

If not, then take a look at the Evil aligned entities, and check whether they are all "I am evil and I like to destroy and kill" or if some of them are just doing extreme favouritism with "peoples on my side are to be protected, peoples on the other side should die horribly".

In the former, you're CN because evil is quite extreme in this setting. In the latter, you're CE.

[Zhorn]

Definitely in the evil territories here.
Sounds mostly like the character is a psychopath that's in denial of being the villain, justifying it by reasoning all their victims were evil doers, while the qualifier for them being the targets of such violence sounds like it is independent of them actually being good or bad.

[da newt]

Evil and Good are SUBJECTIVE.

Depending on the definitions folks choose to use, all PC's are EVIL - their chosen profession is hunting and killing things / people that they disagree with (and then take all their valuables). Every leader / soldier that ever goes on the offensive is EVIL. If nation A starts a war with nation B for any reason all of nation A's participants are EVIL.

99% of all people believe they are GOOD. It's only other people who are EVIL. Hitler believed he was GOOD. The Europeans who slaughtered the 'savage' natives in the America's believed they were GOOD. Water boarders believed they were doing GOOD. The folks burning witches in Salem believed they were GOOD. Etc.

I'm firmly in Max's camp here (unless you are a Paladin or have a God/Patron who may disown you for actions they don't approve of) alignment in D&D serves little purpose other than to simplify things for folks who prefer that morality is fixed and simple like in the story books where there is a team of good guys who wear white and a team of evil guys who wears black, and to justify their PC's actions (combat, theft, B&E, interrogation, etc) as justifiable.

[Unoriginal]

Evil and Good are SUBJECTIVE.

Alignments are not. At least in this edition. They're descriptive and with a rather small definition.


Also I'm pretty sure OP was trying to mock us because they describe their character as chaotic evil in another thread they posted.

Or maybe they've changed their mind. Who knows.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ok, I'll just keep Chaotic Good on there. What you write on your sheet is up to you. How the world reacts to your character is up to the DM. Alignment in D&D 5e is descriptive, not perscriptive.

Sounds good. Sounds chaotic. :smallwink:


Yeah your character is definitely evil. If you murder someone for being bossy then you are evil, even if you lie and say it was for a good cause, you really did it because you enjoy killing and torture. If they did it because they enjoy killing and torture, yeah, it's hard *not* to call that evil.
He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people. Lawful something might be a better fit for you. Question: how is "bad people" determined? Against what moral dipstick is your character measuring all of this? Who died and made them the monarch of morality, anyway? :smalltongue:


2) your character is neither benevolent not kind. As you say, he torture people.

If anything, your character fits more the definition of lawful evil. He wants to impose his favored status quo to the world, and will commit the atrocities he wants within those rules. Yeah, LN or LE seems to me to be the better fit based on the code and the punishment of {something}.

Using force to stop evil from happening isn't evil, but overuse of force, brutality and torture absolutely is evil. As soon as you say "absolutely" you are wrong in the 5e take on alignment. (Though for the general case, I tend to agree with you; as a DM I track player alignment trends regardless of what they write on their sheet). IN the very rare case that a spell or item or situation requires an alignment check, it's based on what I have been tracking ... :smallwink:)

Evil people justify to themselves often. This, and for the OP: I think you are falling into this trap for your character.

Evil and Good are SUBJECTIVE.

Depending on the definitions folks choose to use, all PC's are EVIL - their chosen profession is hunting and killing things / people that they disagree with (and then take all their valuables). {snip} 99% of all people believe they are GOOD. It's only other people who are EVIL. Well, since the OP is "other people" (from my frame of reference) then the OP's character must be Evil!

Lawful Evil it is! :smallbiggrin:

OK, Zhentarim, let's put your PC into the game that I DM currently.

I've made a chaotic good character, and I roled them up with the intent of being chaotic good, but I'm feeling like my character maybe enjoys punishing people he hates a little too much to be good. Why does he hate people? What's the reason for hate?
Should I call him chaotic neutral, instead? He means well, but he'll straight up kill/torture anybody he thinks is "bad", and is really radical about his belief everybody should be equal, so he will pretty much attempt to torture/kill anybody who is rich/powerful (or thinks that people are unequal) on sight. Your PC is an anarchist. After the second or third rich person is tortured and killed, NPC assassins will be hired to hunt down your PC and kill them. No mercy. Those rich and powerful people have friends, family, and a social network. You've pissed off the wrong social group. Your party will most probably be tarred with "guilt by association" by hanging around with you.

Expect bounty hunters and assassins to seek you out and try to kill your PC.

The torture part puzzles me: why is torture necessary at all?
Do you get a thrill from role playing a psychopath?
Do the other players enjoy this?

In my game world, if word got out that your PC had tortured, and then killed, a lot of people / NPCs they would have a hard time getting anyone to talk to them or even allow them into their tavern. "Your reputation will precede you" will apply in many cases.

"Your money is no good here, {Zhentarim's character}: don't let the door hit your backside on the way out."

On the "bright" side, a few criminal syndicates might hire your character for one-off hits on their commercial and/or criminal rivals. Again, your reputation would precede you.

The people who would not treat your character as a pariah would most likely be hardened criminals (like the Zhentarim {your user name is an ironic choice for addressing this question} or various fiends, and their agents - those NPCs will probably respect that kind of cruelty.

I think I've maybe slipped from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in this game, but I'm not sure. You've slipped into "psychopath" based on your own description.

Is that the character you intended to play?

[Keravath]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

So middle managers, trying to get food on the table for their families, having to bow down to the boss, who might need extra because they have more children or a sick mother ... are bad people?

Your character killed them all without thinking about their families, about how, although they aren't at the bottom, still have to work their way up. Or did everyone of these "middle managers" beat their employees into submission? Enjoyed what they had to do? Or did some of them try to help the workers as much as they could?

What were the alternatives for the workers? Were they slaves? If they weren't working here are they out on the streets, destitute and starving? Did your character look at the books of the business, assess whether the big boss was actually making a profit? How much profit were they making? Was the big boss using their profits to support a home for orphans because that is where he grew up? Do you know anything at all about the boss except that he seemed to be wealthy?

From the sounds of it, the only thing you knew about the boss is that he appeared wealthy, that he ran a business which employed people and didn't pay very well, and that the "middle managers" were responsible for day to day operations. You said the "boss" sat around doing nothing? Who was selling the products, arranging distribution, finding markets? Items don't sell themselves.

Don't get me wrong, the boss could have been the worst of robber barons, oppressing the workers, squeezing every coin out of the business. However, even at the piddling wages he might have been paying, the workers appeared to have no where better to go.

A chaotic good character would have organized a union, some non-deadly violence, used reasoning to convince the boss that it would be more profitable to pay the workers more and have happy productive workers than down-trodden ones. MUCH harder to do than "kill them all" but in the long run more effective since you create a new system with checks and balances that more evenly distributes the wealth without as much concentration with the ultra-wealthy. It would likely be easier in D&D than it was in the real world.

A chaotic evil character, runs through the place (likely the same as dozens of others), kills all the middle managers (who actually know how to run the business - and whose families and children will likely miss them), kills the boss (who may know where to sell the goods and has the contacts to make it work), puts the workers (who may or may not know how to operate the business but who are also unlikely to have contacts to make it easier) in charge and then runs away to laugh at the chaos they have created. Totally chaotic evil ... and very short sighted since they have no clue how the system works or the best way to fix it except killing the folks in charge. That approach doesn't work in the long run.

----

As for alignment, this is totally up to your DM. If someone on the internet says ignore it - ignore them. They usually have very good points about the applicability and limited breadth of the alignment system for representing real people but that is completely irrelevant for the game and character you are playing with your DM. If the alignment written on your character sheet means something in your game and your DM disagrees with what you have written as a result of your character's actions then the DM will change it or ask you to do so.

Finally, no matter what a person thinks of the alignment system, I think that an individual walking into a business, slaughtering the owner and all the middle management due to some "vendetta against the privileged", committing mass murder or torture, no matter what the justification, falls into the category of "Evil" or "Insanity" ... so if your character's alignment is relevant for the game you are playing in then the character is certainly beyond "dark".

[supercereal]

Evil and Good are SUBJECTIVE.

In the real world? Debatable but not far from the truth.

In a fantasy setting like D&D? Not so sure. They can be subjective, but in most campaings there are litteral embodiment of pure good (e.g. Celestials) and pure evil (e.g. Devils and Demons), as well as true and evil Deities. So in D&D good and evil can be OBJECTIVE, even if they are not most of the time.

[Gtdead]

I don't understand why people think this character is Chaotic.

You are a radical with a set of very defined principles that you act on and are not concerned with your personal freedom.
If I had to set an alignment for this character I'd put it somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil, depending on if he is inclined to save an innocent nobody instead of pursuing his target.

Chaos is irrationality and instinct. A teenager "rebel" is chaotic. A communist "rebel" is lawful.

[Kireban]

He has a code for who he hurts, though. He only hurts bad people.

A lot of criminals go by codes. It doesn't make them good, just let them feel better with themselves.

[Sigreid]

The way I see them:

CG = Freedom and kindness. Fight tyranny! Everyone deserves to live a good life on mostly their own terms as longs as they aren't hurting anyone else. It's a pretty libertarian attitude.

CN = My freedom is paramount. It'd be nice if everyone is free, but frankly the choices of and what happens to people outside my immediate family/friends is not really my concern. You're not cruel, but can be seen as callous when you really just want to be left alone.

CE = Life, liberty, property, freedom? These are things that are only for those with the strength to take and hold them. If you're enslaved, tortured, murdered, robbed, raped, whatever; it's YOUR FAULT for not being strong enough to prevent these things from happening. I think Vampire The Masquerade had a great quote for CE: "No one holds dominion over me. No man. No God. No Prince. What is a claim of age for one who is immortal? What is a claim of power for those who defy death? So call your damnable hunt; and we shall see who I drag screaming to Hell with me!" Your fate is in your own hands. If you rule, you deserve it because you won it. If you suffer, you deserve that too for being weak.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You know, I made the same mistake with a character I played a long time ago thinking what I wrote on the sheet was enough to justify how others would see him.

He came from a secretive order of bounty/monster hunters from a shady town run by shady people. I though of him as the rebellious type who did the right thing in the end through the wrong methods. Chaotic Good it was.

But, in retrospect, that wasn't the case. He was intentionally abusive towards monsters, not all of which were threatening out party, and when it came down to finding a currently helpless (though obvious threat in the long term) NPC he chose to kill them immediately. He began with the small bits of "being good" that I thought he was but much of his behavior was LN or LE, in large part due to a strict adherence to the code he followed from his time in the order.

Once I got over being offended how other people didn't see my rationalizing his goodness, it hit me like a sack of bricks that he simply wasn't. A small part of it was intentional from the beginning, one of the party members was a Yuan-Ti Pureblood raised by noble hearted farming folk with a learned sense of morality and goodness. She saved his life after the shady town running people murdered most of his order and chased them out of the city. He was forced to accept that not all of the things his order said about monsters was true or he would be dead.

So after a while he started to change. He wasn't openly offensive to peaceful monstrous type races, he tried diplomacy at the behest of the party. He slowly came around to doing things for the sake of them being done right rather than for the potential rewards he could extort in the future. Most notably, torture was off the table... my do-gooder party members never liked it.

So that's pretty much the time I accidentally played an evil character for a bit. I think your character fits a very similar bill.

[Strigon]

I don't understand why people think this character is Chaotic.

You are a radical with a set of very defined principles that you act on and are not concerned with your personal freedom.
If I had to set an alignment for this character I'd put it somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil, depending on if he is inclined to save an innocent nobody instead of pursuing his target.

Chaos is irrationality and instinct. A teenager "rebel" is chaotic. A communist "rebel" is lawful.

I haven't seen anything suggesting he has a "very defined set of principles".

As far as I can tell, the alignment seems to boil down to "I see something I don't like, I get angry, and I attack it." Just because the things that the PC doesn't like are predictable doesn't change the fact that this is Chaotic behaviour.

[MaxWilson]

OK, Zhentarim, let's put your PC into the game that I DM currently.
Why does he hate people? What's the reason for hate? Your PC is an anarchist. After the second or third rich person is tortured and killed, NPC assassins will be hired to hunt down your PC and kill them. No mercy. Those rich and powerful people have friends, family, and a social network. You've pissed off the wrong social group. Your party will most probably be tarred with "guilt by association" by hanging around with you.

Expect bounty hunters and assassins to seek you out and try to kill your PC.

The torture part puzzles me: why is torture necessary at all?
Do you get a thrill from role playing a psychopath?
Do the other players enjoy this?

I imagine torture could potentially be useful for getting information in a world where Zone of Truth exists. "Where were the other drugs going?!!"

As for "NPC assassins will be hired to hunt down your PC and kill them," if I were DMing it's probably going to instead be "NPC private investigators/bounty hunters will be hired to hunt down whoever is responsible and apprehend or kill them, with help from the local authorities." Friends and family of the victim won't automatically know who did it. (There's a reason Zorro wears a mask.) And BTW if you kill the bounty hunters, it's quite possible the aggrieved parties won't continue to throw good money after bad by hiring more bounty hunters unless they are VERY rich and EXTREMELY angry, or unless you have something they want (a powerful artifact that they want back). On the other hand, if you kill off local law enforcement while escaping the bounty hunters you may have an entirely new problem on a bigger scale and may have to go live in the wilderness. (Fortunately there are lots of monsters, dungeons, and interesting adventures there.)


I don't understand why people think this character is Chaotic.

You are a radical with a set of very defined principles that you act on and are not concerned with your personal freedom.
If I had to set an alignment for this character I'd put it somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil, depending on if he is inclined to save an innocent nobody instead of pursuing his target.

Chaos is irrationality and instinct. A teenager "rebel" is chaotic. A communist "rebel" is lawful.

For me it seems chaotic because he's responding to immediate situations without thinking about the larger societal context. As someone else said, what happens if he comes back a year from now and those workers whose bosses he killed have new bosses chosen from among the people? Lawful people are inclined to value and take into account institutions, not just individuals. Chaotic people are typically blind to the value or nature of institutions, which is why they take individual vigilante actions like taking down individual bosses instead of setting up a rival company with plenty of capital and friends in high places to take workers and business away from the first company by giving excellent service at a price so low the company's operations have to be subsidized by PC gold.

In Captain America: Civil War, I'd say that Steve Rogers' thinking is lawful ("if we cede power to the Accords, what precedent are we setting and where will it lead?") while Tony Stark's thinking is chaotic ("sign now--we can always violate the accords later if we change our minds"), EVEN THOUGH Rogers is the one who actually winds up an outlaw. Tony Stark may have some kind of a code but it's not a lawful code. The way this PC has been described seems similar. If I were DMing I'd probably let Chaotic items work for him. I'm not sure about the Good vs. Evil items, without seeing him in place and how he interacts with others, how frequently he is kind vs. vicious.

[Unoriginal]

It really has been a while since we had one of those "Is my character chaotic good like Rick Sanchez or neutral good like Thanos?" threads, hasn't it?

[MaxWilson]

It really has been a while since we had one of those "Is my character chaotic good like Rick Sanchez or neutral good like Thanos?" threads, hasn't it?

Is my character Neutral Evil like Vlad Taltos and Morrolan e'Drien or Lawful Evil like Fred Saberhagen's Dracula?

[KorvinStarmast]

I imagine torture could potentially be useful for getting information in a world where Zone of Truth exists. "Where were the other drugs going?!!" I think Zone of Truth might render about half of the motive for torture moot.

As for "NPC assassins will be hired to hunt down your PC and kill them," if I were DMing it's probably going to instead be "NPC private investigators/bounty hunters will be hired to hunt down whoever is responsible and apprehend or kill them, with help from the local authorities."
Friends and family of the victim won't automatically know who did it. (There's a reason Zorro wears a mask.) As I see it, in the case of rich people, in a game where diviniaiton magic exists, they have the funds to probably find out.

As to killing the bounty hunters: yeah, more XP. :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

I think Zone of Truth might render about half of the motive for torture moot.

How? You still have to make them talk.


As I see it, in the case of rich people, in a game where diviniaiton magic exists, they have the funds to probably find out.

But magic in 5E is so limited. If the killer takes precautions, there's a good chance divination magic won't do any good. They could Speak With Dead, but the killer might have been disguised. They could attempt Divination to ask which city to look at first, but the answer is cryptic and the number of answers you can get is bottlenecked. They could try Commune but it's explicitly limited (and may be blocked by Nondetection--DM's call whether that works). They could try Contact Other Plane but it has similar limitations plus a chance of driving you insane. 5E doesn't have many other divination methods--no object reading, no time travel or even time-viewing, no long-range Locate Creature or long-range Locate Object.

It wouldn't be shocking if those rich people failed to locate the perpetrator 9 times out of 10, and the 1 time out of 10 when it works is probably at least as much due to good old-fashioned gumshoeing as magical divination.

[KorvinStarmast]

How? You still have to make them talk.
That's perhaps a persuasion check, getting them drunk, pillow talk ... lot's of different ways to do that. Torture isn't the only way to try and get someone to talk.


But magic in 5E is so limited. If the killer takes precautions, there's a good chance divination magic won't do any good. As written in the OP, precautions is hardly his MO. That said, your larger point is both plausible and valid based on a given campaign world and a few die rolls.

FWIW: Cops find killers without magic with some frequency IRL. But a "police procedural" may not be the game/show that a given D&D table wants to play.

[Thunderous Mojo]

As I see it, in the case of rich people, in a game where diviniaiton magic exists, they have the funds to probably find out.


I found this out the hard way in 2e, when we clandestinely killed the heir to a noble family that was based off the Medicis. Our group took steps that prevented resurrection, and we disintegrated the body and spread the ashes.

One Commune spell is all it takes, to out you as the killer.

Playing an Icelandic Saga style Outlaw game is incredibly fun!
I highly recommend it.

Role playing the consequences of one's deeds, is why I am devoted to roleplaying.

[TigerT20]

So first of all, alignment is closer to a political compass style thing than nine hard-set boxes. So jot that down.

A seemingly common interpretation among those who care about alignment, and my personal interpretation, is that lawful vs chaotic is about security vs freedom. A chaos extremist would rather be able to murder than be protected from murderers. A law extremist would rather remove freedom of speech than be insulted.

BTW I'm also assuming good = selfless and evil = selfish
Because of this there are some poster children of the alignments;

CG = 'I value other's freedom over my own saftey'

CN = 'I value freedom over saftey'

CE = 'I value my freedom over other's saftey'

(Remember that because spectrum, its perfectly possible to fit an alignment without being it's poster child. These are just bland templates)

Now, your character is committing some pretty selfish deeds - you're torturing people because they don't value the same things as you. You have justifications... but so did the Aztecs. Now, your chief value seems to be equality. This could give you some good-leaning tendencies, but it's not enough to bump you up I'd say. The Aztecs thought human sacrifice was the only thing keeping the sun going and if they didn't a skeleton army would come down and kill everyone. We still consider them savages. I would say equality has no place on the law/chaos axis as it can be achieved by either one - building up a system or tearing it down (communism vs anarchy basically). So we need to look at your other traits. Your character does seem to value their freedom quite highly - they seem very independant and indivualistic. So based off the info given, I would say chaotic is correct.

So yeah CE with illusions of benevolence. Possible arc where you realise your mistakes and try to adapt your methods to be a little more... good?

[Gtdead]

For me it seems chaotic because he's responding to immediate situations without thinking about the larger societal context. As someone else said, what happens if he comes back a year from now and those workers whose bosses he killed have new bosses chosen from among the people? Lawful people are inclined to value and take into account institutions, not just individuals. Chaotic people are typically blind to the value or nature of institutions, which is why they take individual vigilante actions like taking down individual bosses instead of setting up a rival company with plenty of capital and friends in high places to take workers and business away from the first company by giving excellent service at a price so low the company's operations have to be subsidized by PC gold.

I don't think that this reactiveness is a good argument for something being chaotic. Because if societal context is to be taken into account, where does that leave most of the common Lawful tropes like overzealous Paladins, strict judges and Devils. An overzealous Paladin killing/arresting the village witch that despite her methods, was the only reason the villagers survived for so long, is Lawful because he adheres to his tenets, but the villagers will perish come winter.

I think that in order for something to be considered as chaotic, it needs to have a whimsical/irrational nature. The orc that thinks that only the strong deserve to be leaders is irrational because strength isn't a quality that makes someone a better leader, but it is a quality that allows someone to become a leader in a hostile environment and keep that position. They view leadership as a perk and not as a responsibility, which creates a vicious circle.

All we know about this character is that he kills "evil" bosses, not that he objects to leadership in general. We also know that he acts on a principle, without any personal gain. Why he does that we don't know exactly. It can be anything from a political view to a disdain for people that inherit/achieve a position of power and only care about the perks, responsibilities be damned. He doesn't have to object to responsible/elected leadership at all. Leaders can exist even under anarchism but the role is different and there are no assumed perks. People need guidance, and there are individuals that can offer this through knowledge, unique ideas or a better grasp of group dynamics.

I would agree that the character would be chaotic if his idea was to just create power vacuums and emulate some kind of natural selection where the fair leaders survive and the bad ones die, but this doesn't seem to be what's happening here. Nor the character in question is shortsighted, since his actions are effective according to his DM. I would also agree it's chaotic if he was a serial killer that focused on killing a particular brand of people in order to curb his bloodlust while keeping up pretenses of being a "benevolent" person.

[Zhentarim]

I won't go into detail for the sake of the forum rules, but I'll say that the bard I'm playing in this game is a reflection of me, but with less restraint. There are dozens of people I'd love to give a terrible painful death to, but I won't since I respect the legal proceedures of my region and I am trying to take them down the proper way, even though they probably won't be punished as thoroughly as I'd like.

If I fail, then as much as I will curse my enemies under my breath, I will have to let them go. The rule of law is too important to break, even if there is a failure of justice. While these several dozen people are the primary targets of my ire, I'm not fond of bigots or wealthy or powerful people generally, so I get to have a little bit of wish fulfillment when I play my bard, who doesn't live in the real world.

[RifleAvenger]

On the one hand, I think the character as presented is kind of, for the lack of a better term, edgy. I think all the kneejerk torture is pretty solidly Evil too.

On the other, I question what some people in this thread think Chaotic Good looks like. Chaos, by its definition, does not always align its conscience with that of society. A game I'm currently in dropped in the G-E axis, but if we still had it I'd keep the G on my PC. Even after he defenestrated a landlord, and may chose to conspire with the communist bandits of the land to abolish private property (but not personal property). When what's "hurting people" is the system itself, and a CG character doesn't believe working within that system to be worth consideration, it's probably going to get violent and look "evil" to Lawful types.

Any advisement to "ignore alignment" should be taken in the context of how much your GM cares about alignment. If they don't care, then in 5e there's not too much reason you should. If being Evil means you get your soul juiced by fiends 5 seconds after death, and can't be raised? Yeah, take that into consideration.

Also, Law-Chaos axis is about as squishy in terms of actually defining what it means past the vagueness presented in the PhB as G-E. I'm personally not a fan of anything that insists chaotic characters have to be irrational. That's the line of thinking that got us 2e's definition of "Chaotic" as textbook Chaotic Stupid.

[tokek]

What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.

Sounds to me like there are no brakes on this evil train. Definitely evil. I mean easily and readily resorting to torture puts you there already but your killing spree shows that its not an isolated problem with torture, its a whole-personality problem.

If they were actual slave-owners and slave drivers then I have had a CG character who would attack slave plantations to free the slaves - but if slavers surrendered she would accept their surrender and when she had the upper hand she would actually pause to demand their surrender.

Even then her alignment was on the verge of slipping on at least one occasion when she left the baddies all tied up when it was pretty clear that the freed slaves were not going to treat them leniently. One harsh act when there were no good alternatives did not change her alignment but if she had made a habit of it I would have considered her alignment to be slipping away from good. This is where moral grey area RP is interesting, put characters in positions where they have no options which lack at least one bad consequence and make the players think which of the bad consequences they are more willing to accept.

But in your case they do not appear to have been slave-owners and the workers were merely badly paid. Robbing the owner to give the money to the workers would have been an appropriate CG response (probably useless in the long term but definitely CG) killing anyone your character took a dislike to is not CG.

If I was your DM then in addition to well-off relatives of the victims being after you there would eventually also be ghosts and revenants of the unjustly tortured and killed people hunting you down. Basically all the usual DM answers to evil murderhobo behaviour.

[Randomthom]

Even then her alignment was on the verge of slipping on at least one occasion when she left the baddies all tied up when it was pretty clear that the freed slaves were not going to treat them leniently.

Freeing the slaves and then letting the slaves decide what to do with their former owners is quintessentially chaotic-good. You've done the good thing (free the slaves, spare the lives of their masters) but also the chaotic thing (let individuals decide what they want to do) rather than the lawful approach (dictate that the slaves must now act in a particular way). In fact, a chaotic character may just see the imposition of law here as another form of slavery.

Law/Chaos is rather a misnomer of alignments IMHO, at least when dealing with mortal sapient species, it becomes more relevant when devils, demons, slaad, modrons, fae & celestials get involved.
Collectivist/Individualist would probably be more accurate for these sort of scenarios though I'll acept it is far less punchy a title.

The Collectivist (Lawful) believes there is a right way to act & live and that everyone should be encouraged to follow that path.
The Individualist (Chaotic) believes that it is for each person to decide how they should act and only they can choose their own path.

That isn't to say that the individualist won't listen to advice, nor that the collectivist is 100% certain that their "right way" can't be tweaked or improved upon.

[Wraith]

If you find that you can't really decide between two similar alignments, might I recommend the Guides to Alignment posted by various GitP members (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread)?

None of them promise to be all-encompassing about their subject, but most of them offer some really good examples of both attitudes, characters and situations as to what a given alignment might do, so maybe you can recognise your character in amongst them?

[fbelanger]

I've made a chaotic good character, and I roled them up with the intent of being chaotic good, but I'm feeling like my character maybe enjoys punishing people he hates a little too much to be good. Should I call him chaotic neutral, instead? He means well, but he'll straight up kill/torture anybody he thinks is "bad", and is really radical about his belief everybody should be equal, so he will pretty much attempt to torture/kill anybody who is rich/powerful (or thinks that people are unequal) on sight.

I think I've maybe slipped from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in this game, but I'm not sure.
Kill on sight is pretty much chaotic evil for me.

[kazaryu]

Your character is definitely chaotic evil.

Good character actively stops torture. Neutral character doesn't torture. Evil character tortures.

Hard disagree. An evil person may kill for any reason. But, a neutral person, particularly chaotic neutral can easily be willing to torture/murder if they feel its justified. Remember, this character doesnt go around torturing/killing just anyone. He specifically targets people that (he believes) are wrongdoers. Now, if he starts murdering people just becuase they look at him funny, then yeah...hes evil.

[Darzil]

So, the thing about torture in our world is that it is primarily effective in getting people to say what you want them to say, not to tell the truth.

In a world where spells can compel the truth, it has little other use.

[tokek]

Freeing the slaves and then letting the slaves decide what to do with their former owners is quintessentially chaotic-good. You've done the good thing (free the slaves, spare the lives of their masters) but also the chaotic thing (let individuals decide what they want to do) rather than the lawful approach (dictate that the slaves must now act in a particular way). In fact, a chaotic character may just see the imposition of law here as another form of slavery.

Law/Chaos is rather a misnomer of alignments IMHO, at least when dealing with mortal sapient species, it becomes more relevant when devils, demons, slaad, modrons, fae & celestials get involved.
Collectivist/Individualist would probably be more accurate for these sort of scenarios though I'll acept it is far less punchy a title.

The Collectivist (Lawful) believes there is a right way to act & live and that everyone should be encouraged to follow that path.
The Individualist (Chaotic) believes that it is for each person to decide how they should act and only they can choose their own path.

That isn't to say that the individualist won't listen to advice, nor that the collectivist is 100% certain that their "right way" can't be tweaked or improved upon.

Yes that was not a very helpful description, on one occasion my CG character went off half-cocked and it ended up with a lynch mob of freed slaves. Lynch mobs are obviously morally grey at best so if she had made a habit of that I would have questioned the Good part of CG, but she learned her lesson and prepared better after that. As you say freeing the slaves and then leaving them in charge of justice for the former slavers is the essence of CG.

As for a more general thing about alignments, what I try to do is view it from the position of the archetypal Neutral person who has a pragmatic focus on the people around them and a general "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" approach to morality. Otherwise you get bogged down in arguments of "my ideology says that torture is good so I am good" which is just moral relativism taken to the point of amorality. As for the OP, both torture and killing people for for having a job you do not approve of is likely to be seen as evil by most people - unless that job is one widely considered evil such as slave trader or necromancer (even then killing them all without even looking into personal guilt is very dodgy).

[tokek]

Hard disagree. An evil person may kill for any reason. But, a neutral person, particularly chaotic neutral can easily be willing to torture/murder if they feel its justified. Remember, this character doesnt go around torturing/killing just anyone. He specifically targets people that (he believes) are wrongdoers. Now, if he starts murdering people just becuase they look at him funny, then yeah...hes evil.

Moral grey areas are always interesting in RP, how awful does a situation need to be before torture becomes morally justified to avert something much worse? Is it a slippery slope etc. That really does not sound like what the OP was talking about, there was nothing about "if I did not do this the whole village would die" in what they said.

A good person doing an evil act due to extreme circumstances is definitely an interesting narrative. A person just doing evil things because they want to and can somehow justify it to themselves is just the banality of evil, not usually very interesting as a narrative.

[Nhorianscum]

I am sorry but, from that description, you character is neither good nor neutral.

This. Quoted for truths.

@ OP, Hi, torture is by default evil, like super lots of evil, like EEEEEEVIIIIIIL.

This sounds like a case of the infamous CS alignment.

[Amdy_vill]

So chaotic is just a lack of stringent rules. this ranges from robin hood and animals to true unadulterated chaos like limbo. if you have rules but are willing to break them for the betterment of yourself or others you chaotic. if you have no rule your chaotic. each of the alinement components are massive spectrum of ideas. Neutral is anything from self-serving to the embodiment of an idea. if you are chaotic neutral you would be self-serving or a true form of chaos incarnate. good is generaly the betterment of others. note to some extent Alinement is also based on perspective and more importantly Alignment is a snapshot.

to me, you sound any like you are either NN(truly self-serving) or Any Evil(your description of your character seems to be more in line with "at my cost for my goal) but to be honest you don't give enough for a real evaluation of you character alignment.

[Amdy_vill]

This. Quoted for truths.

@ OP, Hi, torture is by default evil, like super lots of evil, like EEEEEEVIIIIIIL.

This sounds like a case of the infamous CS alignment.

I disagree. mostly from a lore perspective. several LG Characters in lore are definitely down to torture. what matters is the context. the context here does seem to support a neutral with heavy evil linings or just evils.

[Amdy_vill]

Evil and Good are SUBJECTIVE.

unoriginal is right man, in dnd the alignments aren't really subjective at all. they do have subjective qualities in game-like perspective and cultures but Good, Evil, Law, chaos, and neutral are cosmically defined things in dnd with variation mostly coming from the local gods and culture. we should also remember the dnd is an odd setting. slaver is something good-aligned gods participate in. that should be the first sign that our personal preconceptions of good and evil don't apply here.

[Amdy_vill]

So to be CN, I only need to be a robin-hood-like character, and avoid killing/torturing?

Robin hood has no problems with killing and torturing people, like at all. he is also generally considered a CG character. what matters is content and you have not really given enough. the fact that you're so nonchalant about kill defiantly makes you not good. but outside of that thier's really nothing to go on.

[Amdy_vill]

What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.

After having read this I change my mind you just dexter. CE with good intentions. that's all you could be with a story like that. this actually brings up something odd about the alignment system. in no way does it describe your goals only your mean.

[TigerT20]

So chaotic is just a lack of stringent rules. this ranges from robin hood and animals to true unadulterated chaos like limbo. if you have rules but are willing to break them for the betterment of yourself or others you chaotic. if you have no rule your chaotic. each of the alinement components are massive spectrum of ideas. Neutral is anything from self-serving to the embodiment of an idea. if you are chaotic neutral you would be self-serving or a true form of chaos incarnate. good is generaly the betterment of others. note to some extent Alinement is also based on perspective and more importantly Alignment is a snapshot.

to me, you sound any like you are either NN(truly self-serving) or Any Evil(your description of your character seems to be more in line with "at my cost for my goal) but to be honest you don't give enough for a real evaluation of you character alignment.

Minor nitpick: Animals are unaligned, not chaotic. And I've seen some good evidence to say RH is actually LG.

Also, is that a typo when you say both things are chaotic? I mean even if it is, I feel that definition of chaos and neutral is much much too broad; if you have a set of rules you always follow no matter what, you're not lawful, you're a robot.

(PS Doubleposting is generally frowned upon)

[MaxWilson]

Any advisement to "ignore alignment" should be taken in the context of how much your GM cares about alignment. If they don't care, then in 5e there's not too much reason you should. If being Evil means you get your soul juiced by fiends 5 seconds after death, and can't be raised? Yeah, take that into consideration.

Sure, granted. If it matters then it matters.

But even if the DM takes the perspective that this character is Chaotic Evil, don't let that turn you into a cartoon character. If you were already roleplaying him as kind to widows and orphans, brave, loyal to a fault to his friends, merciful to helpless mooks and minions, etc., don't let the Chaotic Evil judgment stop you from continuing to roleplay him that way. You just live in a universe where Chaotic Evil people can be merciful, kind, and loyal. You probably even still think of yourself as "good." (If you were introspective enough to see yourself as a horrible monster, you'd be on the road to changing your ways instead, unless there was truly no other option.)


So, the thing about torture in our world is that it is primarily effective in getting people to say what you want them to say, not to tell the truth.

In a world where spells can compel the truth, it has little other use.

When you have a way to verify information, such as Zone of Truth or police contacts who can _check_ whether a bomb is truly hidden in the place the subject says it is, then you can compel truth-telling to the same extent as other kinds of talking.

Unless you're more interested in a false confession than truth, e.g. for political blame-gaming.

[Nhorianscum]

I disagree. mostly from a lore perspective. several LG Characters in lore are definitely down to torture. what matters is the context. the context here does seem to support a neutral with heavy evil linings or just evils.

Nah, torture is pretty much by default evil as it's just pain, disfigurement, and long term psychological damage inflicted for absolutely nothing resembling accurate information.

It's just horror for the sake of horror.

A character may delude itself into believing this is for a good cause, but the character itself is not good if they do this, quite the opposite.

(This isn't to say that CG characters are above psychological warfare or some methods of enhanced interrogation, but actual factual straight up torture is a pretty clear litmus test for pure cut mainline evil.)

Closing note: Robin Hood is a folk hero character. That is absolutely not the same thing as good. As a semi-modern comparison... Jack Johnson, totally a hero of the prize fighting era, not even remotely a role model. Folk hero's are just heightened deviations from the norm that embody cultural wish fulfillment. This is not the same as "good" and is in fact almost anonymous with the concept as our values and norms for most of history have been... slightly messed up on a societal level.

[MaxWilson]

Nah, torture is pretty much by default evil as it's just pain, disfigurement, and long term psychological damage inflicted for absolutely nothing resembling accurate information.

And what if you're wrong about that? Would that change your views on alignment?



(This isn't to say that CG characters are above psychological warfare or some methods of enhanced interrogation, but actual factual straight up torture is a pretty clear litmus test for pure cut mainline evil.)

And if your "enhanced interrogation" looks like torture to the DM, what then? OP didn't specify what kinds of "enhanced interrogation" a.k.a. torture he was using. What assumptions are you making?

[Amdy_vill]

Minor nitpick: Animals are unaligned, not chaotic. And I've seen some good evidence to say RH is actually LG.

Also, is that a typo when you say both things are chaotic? I mean even if it is, I feel that definition of chaos and neutral is much much too broad; if you have a set of rules you always follow no matter what, you're not lawful, you're a robot.

(PS Doubleposting is generally frowned upon)

What I was pointing out with animals is they often end up in CG upper plains. I should have been more clear. but in general, while animals seem to be NN the upper plains place them in CG. which is odd but falls in line with the cannon of alignments.


Nah, torture is pretty much by default evil as it's just pain, disfigurement, and long term psychological damage inflicted for absolutely nothing resembling accurate information.

It's just horror for the sake of horror.

A character may delude itself into believing this is for a good cause, but the character itself is not good of they do this.

when I come down to it you can have your own opinions of alinement but if a character in lore gets ways with something you should take a long and hard look at your opinions. DND is not close to modern views on morality. once again Slaver and torture are not viewed as evil and many good lines good practice both. there is literally a Lawful good god of torture.

DND is weird and focuses on a more 1500-1700 view of morality with some odd exceptions, Like Homosexuality which in DND is viewed as ok and common.

Edit: Ilmater is the god. probably should have said that. he is also a god of necromacy so he also brings up the idea the necromancy can be good.

[Witty Username]

Does he help people?

I am not a fan of the Jack Bauer Interrogation so I would probably excise good.

But the big divide is other people, freedom for other people chaotic good, freedom from other people chaotic. Avoiding harming others is not enough as that is normally the divide between neutral and evil.
I would chat with your DM though, they are the only one that can give you an answer with a truth value.

Edit: Lawful good, torture, which one? I know there is a Lawful good god of pain(Ilmater) but that is more about endurance and self sacrifice. Loviatar is Torture but is Lawful Evil.

Edit2: Ok, same god. Ilmater. Suffice to say I disagree.

[Nhorianscum]

And what if you're wrong about that? Would that change your views on alignment?



And if your "enhanced interrogation" looks like torture to the DM, what then? OP didn't specify what kinds of "enhanced interrogation" a.k.a. torture he was using. What assumptions are you making?

My dude, nobody good in history ever said "yeah, torture, great idea" as far back as the practice has existed we have (often) majority groups going "yo, this is messed up, is there a better way?".

There are a lot of common misconceptions on that time period. It's weird.

That said... I mean, they called it torture, and are not a subtle person. It's exactly what you think it is.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Lawful good god of torture.
Edit: Ilmater is the god. probably should have said that. he is also a god of necromacy so he also brings up the idea the necromancy can be good.

To pen Ilmater as a god of torture is misleading. He is the god of martyrdom, he takes the pain for others and does not inflict it except in times of great need. It's also misleading to say "necromancy" as a general statement, as it's clearly the beneficial necromancy spells rather than the undead creating or damage inflicting. Revivify and False Life are examples of Necromancy spells he would govern, Create Undead and Inflict Wounds are examples of those he likely wouldn't.

Necromancy, as a spell school, can't really be defined as good or evil. Specific spells and their uses are where further debate lies.

[Amdy_vill]

My dude, nobody good in history ever said "yeah, torture, great idea" as far back as the practice has existed we have (often) majority groups going "yo, this is messed up, is there a better way?"

I mean, they called it torture, and are not a subtle person. It's exactly what you think it is.

I am just going to point out that before the inquisitions records of torture show ti in a "Favorable" Light. remember things like gladiators, certifications, and a large amount of public punishment are considered torture. you know things that made historical governments money and the public loved.

So no sadly throughout history torture has often be viewed as good, necessary, and the entertainer of the masses.

Edit: also even after the inquisition torture was heavily supported and still have those conotations.

[Amdy_vill]

To pen Ilmater as a god of torture is misleading. He is the god of martyrdom, he takes the pain for others and does not inflict it except in times of great need. It's also misleading to say "necromancy" as a general statement, as it's clearly the beneficial necromancy spells rather than the undead creating or damage inflicting. Revivify and False Life are examples of Necromancy spells he would govern, Create Undead and Inflict Wounds are examples of those he likely wouldn't.

Necromancy, as a spell school, can't really be defined as good or evil. Specific spells and their uses are where further debate lies.

I don't think necromancy is misleading but I can see your point on Torture kinda. the stories about him focus on his strength against Torture but also constantly highlight that torture is ok and in books and lore, he is often just mentioned as a god of torture. while he has great context about Martyrdom it doesn't cancel out the major notes of Torture is only bad when the wrong people do it.

[Nhorianscum]

I am just going to point out that before the inquisitions records of torture show ti in a "Favorable" Light. remember things like gladiators, certifications, and a large amount of public punishment are considered torture. you know things that made historical governments money and the public loved.

So no sadly throughout history torture has often be viewed as good, necessary, and the entertainer of the masses.

Edit: also even after the inquisition torture was heavily supported and still have those conotations.

Oh dude, there were huge scandals over the Coliseum, like, fall of emperors level huge. From every class, it's a deep dive but yeah. You're misinformed.

As for public execution... that's another deep dive that is way more complex than I have time for. Fun fact though, there is an entirely different set of terms for these that is not torture, though there is some overlap.

As for the homosexuality thing? Depends on the time and place. Treating the time period of 1500-1700 as a monolithic entity is by default super extra lots of dead wrong for any subject.

[MaxWilson]

My dude, nobody good in history ever said "yeah, torture, great idea" as far back as the practice has existed we have (often) majority groups going "yo, this is messed up, is there a better way?".

That's like claiming that nobody has ever been in favor of murder--because if they were favor of it, they'd call it a less-pejorative term, like "enhanced interrogation."

And you're changing the subject. Previously you claimed that torture was pointless brutality because it never produces true information. That is a convenient claim because it lets you escape the moral dilemma: if it's both horrible and ineffective, then of course you'd never do it except out of sadism. But what if you're wrong about it never yielding truth, especially in a fantasy world where verification is easier than in real life?

Would you tie up an orc to make him tell you which farm his raider buddies were going to burn next? Would you punch him in the stomach if it might speed up his confession by a couple of hours? Is this "enhanced interrogation" or "torture", and is there a difference? If you-the-PC save the family and the farm but people on the real-world Internet condemn you as chaotic evil for "torturing" the orc, are you-the-player even going to care about their opinions? I wouldn't. They weren't there.

Alignment labels don't matter (usually). Roleplaying matters. Take responsibility for your own character's moral character.

[Witty Username]

I don't think necromancy is misleading but I can see your point on Torture kinda. the stories about him focus on his strength against Torture but also constantly highlight that torture is ok and in books and lore, he is often just mentioned as a god of torture. while he has great context about Martyrdom it doesn't cancel out the major notes of Torture is only bad when the wrong people do it.

I'm just going to say, Source?

[Amdy_vill]

Oh dude, there were huge scandals over the Coliseum, like, fall of emperors level huge. From every class, it's a deep dive but yeah. You're misinformed.

As for public execution... that's another deep dive that is way more complex than I have time for. Fun fact though, there is an entirely different set of terms for these that is not torture, though there is some overlap.

As for the homosexuality thing? Depends on the time and place. Treating the time period of 1500-1700 as a monolithic entity is by default super extra lots of dead wrong for any subject.

when people are talking about world history in the context of classical fantasy they are generally talking about Europe. especially when you talk about philosophy and mortality. in with case no, the 1500-1700s are very similar when I come down to ideas about torture and mortally. there are some big changes towards the end of the time period by they were not Large scale during said time period but got big latter.

1500-1700 very monolithic on torture and homosexuality that is often sighted as why those ideas massively changed after the revolutions at the end of the period.

[Amdy_vill]

I'm just going to say, Source?

Faiths and pantheons, the grand history of the realms, and almost every novel involving Thay. he comes up a lot in those books.

[Witty Username]

This discussion of torture and evil in d&d was way easier in 3rd edition where torture had its own section in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[Nhorianscum]

That's like claiming that nobody has ever been in favor of murder--because if they were favor of it, they'd call it a less-pejorative term, like "enhanced interrogation."

And you're changing the subject. Previously you claimed that torture was pointless brutality because it never produces true information. That is a convenient claim because it lets you escape the moral dilemma: if it's both horrible and ineffective, then of course you'd never do it except out of sadism. But what if you're wrong about it never yielding truth, especially in a fantasy world where verification is easier than in real life?

Would you tie up an orc to make him tell you which farm his raider buddies were going to burn next? Would you punch him in the stomach if it might speed up his confession by a couple of hours? Is this "enhanced interrogation" or "torture", and is there a difference? If you-the-PC save the family and the farm but people on the real-world Internet condemn you as chaotic evil for "torturing" the orc, are you-the-player even going to care about their opinions? I wouldn't. They weren't there.

Alignment labels don't matter (usually). Roleplaying matters. Take responsibility for your own character's moral character.

Dude, do you have any idea how long the concept of torture as a terrible idea for getting accurate information has existed? It's been a known and documented thing since pre-biblical times. Past this things get complicated.

That depends on the setting and tribe of the Orc, but as the GM if this was just "genericlandia" I would um, not have this end well for the party. Orcs are orcs and this is like, the worst possible way of getting an answer out of one. This isn't a moral dilemma, it's just ignorance and cruelty. Bad example.

[Amdy_vill]

Dude, do you have any idea how long the concept of torture as a terrible idea for getting accurate information has existed? It's been a known and documented thing since pre-biblical times. Past this things get complicated.

That depends on the setting and tribe of the Orc, but as the GM if this was just "genericlandia" I would um, not have this end well for the party as orcs are orcs and this is like, the worst possible way of getting an answer out of one.

As would like a source for this. I am a history major and everything I have learns is the opposite of this. while there has been a movement against torture they were localized and specific often focusing on how x groups should have a trial before torture and so on.

[Witty Username]

Faiths and pantheons, the grand history of the realms, and almost every novel involving Thay. he comes up a lot in those books.

Alright I will try to dig up the Thay novels,

But Faiths and Pantheons doesn't seem to say anything on the subject of torture being acceptable and includes "Dogma:Help all who hurt, no matter who they are."
And I am looking though the Grand History of the Realms but I am not finding much, it mentions Ilmater by name hardly at all.

[Amdy_vill]

This discussion of torture and evil in d&d was way easier in 3rd edition where torture had its own section in the Book of Vile Darkness.

so I would note that 3e is really an exception. previous editions were more grey and edition after returned to the grey areas. at least with torture. as I have been saying DND is weird. its views on morality are massively different from ours. because I was simultaneously pushing for more modern morality like with homosexuality, but heavily pulled on medieval Christian ideas of morality while simultaneously trying to pull in ideas from other historical religions. making this mess of a morality system. the best example of which is how animals are Ture neutral but their moral representations are CG.


Alright I will try to dig up the Thay novels,

But Faiths and Pantheons doesn't seem to say anything on the subject of torture being acceptable and includes "Dogma:Help all who hurt, no matter who they are."
And I am looking though the Grand History of the Realms but I am not finding much, it mentions Ilmater by name hardly at all.

I might be wrong about the rules books. I could have sworn it was those too but there are dozens of books dedicated to the gods of dnd. Sorry if I have lead you astray on the rule books that bring it up.

[Witty Username]

so I would note that 3e is really an exception. previous editions were more grey and edition after returned to the grey areas. at least with torture. as I have been saying DND is weird. its views on morality are massively different from ours. because I was simultaneously pushing for more modern morality like with homosexuality, but heavily pulled on medieval Christian ideas of morality while simultaneously trying to pull in ideas from other historical religions. making this mess of a morality system. the best example of which is how animals are Ture neutral but their moral representations are CG.



I might be wrong about the rules books. I could have sworn it was those too but there are dozens of books dedicated to the gods of dnd. Sorry if I have lead you astray on the rule books that bring it up.

No harm, no foul.

I would agree on 1st and 2nd edition morality, its concept of neutrality being an especially good example, "fight evil then when the good guys are about to win fight the good until the bad guys are about to win, repeat until good and evil join forces too waste your smug ass."

[Amdy_vill]

No harm, no foul.

I would agree on 1st and 2nd edition morality, its concept of neutrality being an especially good example, "fight evil then when the good guys are about to win fight the good until the bad guys are about to win, repeat until good and evil join forces too waste your smug ass."

Yeah. a lot of this is exacerbated because of dnd cannon. a hardish reboot of the lore would help with things like this. this is kinda a problem when new novels and modules are referencing things from obscure books from the '70s. the great lore community helps but there are just so many obscured pieces of lore and the new novels and books keep making slight references and hint towards old materials. often materials that have been heavily reconned and changes so it is hard to nail down what they are referencing exactly.

[JackPhoenix]

No harm, no foul.

I would agree on 1st and 2nd edition morality, its concept of neutrality being an especially good example, "fight evil then when the good guys are about to win fight the good until the bad guys are about to win, repeat until good and evil join forces too waste your smug ass."

Even Gygax agreed that Mordenkainen's view is kinda stupid and doesn't make much sense.

[Amdy_vill]

Even Gygax agreed that Mordenkainen's view is kinda stupid and doesn't make much sense.

yah bu major writers after Gygax inforced that idea and to an extent, it is still correct. I also don't like apples to gygax. the man had very little to do with much of that we view as dnd. he also had strong views against things like alignment change. if you changed alinement you end goal was to become you original alinement not develop as a character with the new one and things like that. view points that would prevent conversations like this one.

[Zhentarim]

Does he help people?

I am not a fan of the Jack Bauer Interrogation so I would probably excise good.

But the big divide is other people, freedom for other people chaotic good, freedom from other people chaotic. Avoiding harming others is not enough as that is normally the divide between neutral and evil.
I would chat with your DM though, they are the only one that can give you an answer with a truth value.

Edit: Lawful good, torture, which one? I know there is a Lawful good god of pain(Ilmater) but that is more about endurance and self sacrifice. Loviatar is Torture but is Lawful Evil.

Edit2: Ok, same god. Ilmater. Suffice to say I disagree.

Yes, he helps people, and, DM willing, will stay in an area to make sure a town has become truly egalitarian, where there are no more rich or poor or oppressed people, and everything is direct democratic.
https://youtu.be/bhtnbhfNfO4

He actually reminds me a lot of the chaotic good character at the end of thos video.

[Amdy_vill]

Yes, he helps people, and, DM willing, will stay in an area to make sure a town has become truly egalitarian, where there are no more rich or poor or oppressed people, and everything is direct democratic.
https://youtu.be/bhtnbhfNfO4

He actually reminds me a lot of the chaotic good character at the end of thos video.

so a few things. 1 this is clearly comedy and honesty seems to be really hamming it up. 2 your character very much seems to be a corruption of the character presented at the end. remember alinement doesn't care about intentions but actions and you seem to have demonstrated the "Life" the thing s good character strives to protect and be kill almost indecently to achieve your goals. no matter how well the said goal is your character still rests somewhere on the evil side.

the fact that you character is pulling on anarchist{Scrubbed} ideas to some extent makes a clear parallel. {Scrubbed}

Edit: I think you are generally missing the point of the conversations people have been having. while we are arguing over what qualifies as evils all of us have come to the conclusion that your character is evil just for different reasons which we are arguing over.

[Zhentarim]

so a few things. 1 this is clearly comedy and honesty seems to be really hamming it up. 2 your character very much seems to be a corruption of the character presented at the end. remember alinement doesn't care about intentions but actions and you seem to have demonstrated the "Life" the thing s good character strives to protect and be kill almost indecently to achieve your goals. no matter how well the said goal is your character still rests somewhere on the evil side.

the fact that you character is pulling on anarchist {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} ideas to some extent makes a clear parallel. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Edit: I think you are generally missing the point of the conversations people have been having. while we are arguing over what qualifies as evils all of us have come to the conclusion that your character is evil just for different reasons which we are arguing over.

Oh, my character can definately be chaotic evil, but its funny that the first character I made that everybody called chaotic evil was supposed to be chaotic good, whereas other chaotic evil characters I've tried to make have ended up coming across as just neutral to people (probably because the character was more pragmatic and self interested, whereas this bard I've made is more focused on their ideal of equality than their personal interests.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. a lot of this is exacerbated because of dnd cannon. a hardish reboot of the lore would help with things like this. this is kinda a problem when new novels and modules are referencing things from obscure books from the '70s. the great lore community helps but there are just so many obscured pieces of lore and the new novels and books keep making slight references and hint towards old materials. often materials that have been heavily reconned and changes so it is hard to nail down what they are referencing exactly.

Side note: from the D&D House Style Guide (for writers of both fiction and adventures):



Don’t rely on Internet searches to give you the right answer to questions about a D&D setting. The Internet contains contradictions, misinterpretations, and outright fabrications. Both Wikipedia and the Forgotten Realms Wiki, for instance, contain some unreliable information.

Also, beware of relying solely on D&D products from previous editions. They often present conflicting or outdated information about a setting.

If you have a question that isn’t answered in one of our guides or products, please contact us.


To me, that second sentence is exactly putting earlier editions in the "Extended Universe" non-canon mode. It should be presumed that exactly nothing from previous editions is in any way official canon unless stated in a 5e book.

Yes, that idea causes mass panic among lore nerds. But it's well and thoroughly overdue. The biggest problem D&D has (especially in FR) is the mass of contradictory, old-edition-dependent lore that's accreted over the decades. Most of which makes very little sense and fits very poorly with 5e's overall philosophy.

So anyone claiming anything from prior editions including the words of Gygax himself as canon or binding or even anything more than "here's how previous editions thought about it" is on shaky ground. It might or might not be true. But it has no more weight than any other random word on the internet.

[Amdy_vill]

To me, that second sentence is exactly putting earlier editions in the "Extended Universe" non-canon mode. It should be presumed that exactly nothing from previous editions is in any way official canon unless stated in a 5e book.

Yes, that idea causes mass panic among lore nerds. But it's well and thoroughly overdue. The biggest problem D&D has (especially in FR) is the mass of contradictory, old-edition-dependent lore that's accreted over the decades. Most of which makes very little sense and fits very poorly with 5e's overall philosophy.

So anyone claiming anything from prior editions including the words of Gygax himself as canon or binding or even anything more than "here's how previous editions thought about it" is on shaky ground. It might or might not be true. But it has no more weight than any other random word on the internet.

I would agree if it wasn't contradicted by WotC. Sadly after the travesty that was 4e reboot attempt, WotC has returned to everything that is canon so long as newer sources do not contradict it. dnd does need a reboot to fix things but I don't think that's happing especially with newer books focusing on old ideas like Asmodeus the serpent and implication of the 9

[Nhorianscum]

As would like a source for this. I am a history major and everything I have learns is the opposite of this. while there has been a movement against torture they were localized and specific often focusing on how x groups should have a trial before torture and so on.

To be fair, we really need to establish a distinction between control and information gathering. The latter being actual factual torture and the former falling into a host of categories.

In terms of the former your statement is mostly true. Creating a spectacle of horror and death is how humans do.

In terms of the latter, nope, torture while widespread throughout history has always been considered suspect for the purposes of gaining actual intelligence and past that, complicated. Like, it's own area of study dear God why complicated.

I'd look into an in depth dive into torture chairs as a "best summation" of how torture for intelligence was handled in time period as most accounts are accompanied by the sometimes years long follow ups. Really, this was not a quick fix for fast Intel.

[Amdy_vill]

To be fair, we really need to establish a distinction between control and information gathering. The latter being actual factual torture and the former falling into a host of categories.

In terms of the former your statement is mostly true. Creating a spectacle of horror and death is how humans do.

In terms of the latter, nope, torture while widespread throughout history has always been considered suspect for the purposes of gaining actual intelligence and past that, complicated. Like, it's own area of study dear God why complicated.

I'd look into an in depth dive into torture chairs as a "best summation" of how torture for intelligence was handled in time period as most accounts are accompanied by the sometimes years long follow ups. Really, this was not a quick fix for fast Intel.

I understand your point here but this all comes back to dnd being weird. dnd lumps all of this into torture. the problem with this conversation really comes down to how invested in the rules of dnd compared to reality you are. if you like dnd lore and your player do to they play in a world where all of these are view as the same. and if you care more for reality then you separated them out. I prefer to engage with the literary works and the world more so I look at it like that.

[Unoriginal]

yah bu major writers after Gygax inforced that idea and to an extent, it is still correct. I also don't like apples to gygax. the man had very little to do with much of that we view as dnd. he also had strong views against things like alignment change. if you changed alinement you end goal was to become you original alinement not develop as a character with the new one and things like that. view points that would prevent conversations like this one.

5e certainly does *not* portray Mordenkainen as in the right.

[Amdy_vill]

5e certainly does *not* portray Mordenkainen as in the right.

I was not saying 5e specifically I was pointing out that over the editions both developers and writers have agreed. also, books still call him out as CN so while this description does not match CN anymore it defently does not stop him from being CN.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would agree if it wasn't contradicted by WotC. Sadly after the travesty that was 4e reboot attempt, WotC has returned to everything that is canon so long as newer sources do not contradict it. dnd does need a reboot to fix things but I don't think that's happing especially with newer books focusing on old ideas like Asmodeus the serpent and implication of the 9

I'd need an official quote on that. The thing I quoted is their official, updated style guide for 5e. And I've heard Mearls and Crawford say just as much, that you should basically ignore all previous edition stuff...unless you want to use it. Unlike prior editions, they're not making official lore. They're just providing myths. Possibilities for how things may have happened. Possibilities that you can ignore if you want. And rehashes of old material is more like mining those and putting a new dress on them--it's not saying that the old stuff is canon, but that this new stuff, which is loosely based on the old stuff (with significant differences) is one way of looking at these things. An idea for DMs and for worldbuilders.

Even novels are non-canonical these days. They exist in an alternate timeline from anything else, with no expectation of being followed. No metaplots.

[Amdy_vill]

I'd need an official quote on that. The thing I quoted is their official, updated style guide for 5e. And I've heard Mearls and Crawford say just as much, that you should basically ignore all previous edition stuff...unless you want to use it. Unlike prior editions, they're not making official lore. They're just providing myths. Possibilities for how things may have happened. Possibilities that you can ignore if you want. And rehashes of old material is more like mining those and putting a new dress on them--it's not saying that the old stuff is canon, but that this new stuff, which is loosely based on the old stuff (with significant differences) is one way of looking at these things. An idea for DMs and for worldbuilders.

Even novels are non-canonical these days. They exist in an alternate timeline from anything else, with no expectation of being followed. No metaplots.

the fact the WotC has contracts with people like Ed Greenwood and an entire division dedicated to lore. literally, if WotC contradicts some of their writes they lose the right to things like Forgotten realms. i think Mike Mearls has made claims to the contrary(you should ignore Crawford as its mikes job, not his. they disagree a lot and one's jobs are the development and the other is lore, franchising, and property right). I can't anything from him in support of 5e being completely disconnected from older editions. 1 because that would probably violate Ed Greenwood's contract and 2 because 5e has been heavily banking on old books and lore in both rules books, modules, and the new novels.

[Nhorianscum]

I understand your point here but this all comes back to dnd being weird. dnd lumps all of this into torture. the problem with this conversation really comes down to how invested in the rules of dnd compared to reality you are. if you like dnd lore and your player do to they play in a world where all of these are view as the same. and if you care more for reality then you separated them out. I prefer to engage with the literary works and the world more so I look at it like that.

I tend to enjoy the game most when the group goes...

"Why not both"

[PhoenixPhyre]

the fact the WotC has contracts with people like Ed Greenwood and an entire division dedicated to lore. literally, if WotC contradicts some of their writes they lose the right to things like Forgotten realms. i think Mike Mearls has made claims to the contrary(you should ignore Crawford as its mikes job, not his. they disagree a lot and one's jobs are the development and the other is lore, franchising, and property right). I can't anything from him in support of 5e being completely disconnected from older editions. 1 because that would probably violate Ed Greenwood's contract and 2 because 5e has been heavily banking on old books and lore in both rules books, modules, and the new novels.

Yes, but lore is not canon. Nothing they say is gospel--it's ideas. Things that DMs and players (the ones actually doing anything with the game) are free to use or disregard. No one binds me with any of those contracts. They might as well not exists as far as I'm concerned. And the new stuff contradicts, rewrites, and flat out ignores the old stuff. They're mining it for ideas, nothing more. There's no presumption that anything from old editions is valid until and unless a 5e property says it is. And then it's only valid to the degree that people choose to accept it.

That's the point of an Extended Universe--it's not explicitly invalid, it's just not presumed valid. Until someone says otherwise.

[MaxWilson]

i think Mike Mearls has made claims to the contrary(you should ignore Crawford as its mikes job, not his. they disagree a lot and one's jobs are the development and the other is lore, franchising, and property right).

I wish I could figure out what an TTRPG game developer's job even is, as distinct from a TTRPG game designer or a software game developer. AFAICT the designers made all the rules (see video linked in my .sig, Mearls was the gatekeeper on rules during 5E development), and there's no code to write, so the developer... created content? Made sure all the spells had action cost, range, and targets listed? Made sure there were enough monsters in the MM? I can't tell.

[Unoriginal]

I wish I could figure out what an TTRPG game developer's job even is, as distinct from a TTRPG game designer or a software game developer. AFAICT the designers made all the rules (see video linked in my .sig, Mearls was the gatekeeper on rules during 5E development), and there's no code to write, so the developer... created content? Made sure all the spells had action cost, range, and targets listed? Made sure there were enough monsters in the MM? I can't tell.

Mearls was on Baldur's Gate III to make sure it fitted in with 5e, so I suppose his job is more about making the different parts of the game fit together as the game develop rather than designing those parts.

[MaxWilson]

Mearls was on Baldur's Gate III to make sure it fitted in with 5e, so I suppose his job is more about making the different parts of the game fit together as the game develop rather than designing those parts.

That was long after 5E was published though, and it's not surprising that roles changed after publication. We know that Mike was the gatekeeper of rules during 5E's development--as in, if you wanted to add a new mechanic to the game, Mike was the designated guy-you-had-to-persuade. (BTW this explains a lot about the paucity of distinct mechanics for things like tracking, climbing, Keen Smell/Keen Hearing, setting traps, etc.)

Moreover, that doesn't explain what the developer's job is. It's clearly not rules design. Could be content design, could be collating playtesting feedback spreadsheets--it's not clear. I poked around on the WotC web site looking at job postings but didn't find anything useful, although it turns out that if you want to be VP of Dungeons and Dragons now is a good time to apply (https://company.wizards.com/content/jobs?gh_jid=4832525002).

What you'll do:
Lead the expansion and evolution of the D&D tabletop experience and product roadmap to grow revenue and engagement. Establish a robust, WotC D2C business for Dungeons & Dragons tabletop products. Develop strategies, goals and roadmap for providing tabletop players with tools to improve and evolve online group tabletop play digitally... Serve as the primary senior spokesperson for the brand internally and externally

[RifleAvenger]

To me, that second sentence is exactly putting earlier editions in the "Extended Universe" non-canon mode. It should be presumed that exactly nothing from previous editions is in any way official canon unless stated in a 5e book.

Yes, that idea causes mass panic among lore nerds. But it's well and thoroughly overdue. The biggest problem D&D has (especially in FR) is the mass of contradictory, old-edition-dependent lore that's accreted over the decades. Most of which makes very little sense and fits very poorly with 5e's overall philosophy.

So anyone claiming anything from prior editions including the words of Gygax himself as canon or binding or even anything more than "here's how previous editions thought about it" is on shaky ground. It might or might not be true. But it has no more weight than any other random word on the internet.

Problem is, Wizards can't keep their 5e lore straight either. Descent into Avernus, with continuity paradoxes intrinsic to itself, says hi. Dealing with Forgotten Realms in any edition basically requires the GM to straighten out the tangle themself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Problem is, Wizards can't keep their 5e lore straight either. Descent into Avernus, with continuity paradoxes intrinsic to itself, says hi. Dealing with Forgotten Realms in any edition basically requires the GM to straighten out the tangle themself.

One of the many reasons I find Forgotten Realms to be so annoying to play in. And especially to DM in. I'm not a fan of any of the established settings--they're all incoherent messes. But then again, I'm a snob.

[RifleAvenger]

One of the many reasons I find Forgotten Realms to be so annoying to play in. And especially to DM in. I'm not a fan of any of the established settings--they're all incoherent messes. But then again, I'm a snob.

Eberron's pretty good if the GM cuts out a bunch of the stuff only present to fulfill the "everything D&D is here!" mandate of the original competition. My usual go-to is to excise everything having to do with the daelkyr, the quori, and psionics, replacing the impacts those things had on the setting with other forces (usually fiends).

Focusing on a limited set of regions and themes of the setting, instead of having to juggle the kitchen sink, is good advice for Eberron and published settings in general. I don't like Forgotten Realms, but it's significantly less bad when the cosmic level aspects of the setting don't enter the picture.
----------------------
To bring this back around, alignment is tied to setting, and I don't just mean settings that cut it out entirely. The two-axis scale means something completely different in Forgotten Realms than it does in Eberron, and both are distinct from Planescape's deconstructionist take (even though Planescape and FR both use the Great Wheel, iirc).

In other words, this thread's entire question is probably better aimed at the GM than this forum, especially if the setting is homebrewed.

[Witty Username]

What is wrong with the daelkyr?

Then again I understand the awkward feeling when everything is shoe horned into a setting, even if I am more focused on monks, sorcerers, and gods for that.
Also, I think my current game is the last I try to use gnolls in a meaningful way, they are probably the most frustrating humanoid to RP.

[Droppeddead]

Yes, he helps people, and, DM willing, will stay in an area to make sure a town has become truly egalitarian, where there are no more rich or poor or oppressed people, and everything is direct democratic.
https://youtu.be/bhtnbhfNfO4

He actually reminds me a lot of the chaotic good character at the end of thos video.

Well, the way you describe your character is quite obviously Hcaotic evil. He doesn't seem to care for order or justice in the world and he tortures and murders people at will. Heck you even said that your DM has to start adapting the game to how many fights your character starts.

[tokek]

Oh, my character can definately be chaotic evil, but its funny that the first character I made that everybody called chaotic evil was supposed to be chaotic good, whereas other chaotic evil characters I've tried to make have ended up coming across as just neutral to people (probably because the character was more pragmatic and self interested, whereas this bard I've made is more focused on their ideal of equality than their personal interests.)

It is actually quite funny and presumably unintended.

I think what you intended to do was portray a zealot for a good cause - but you fell into the age old trap of not realising that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Zealots are very often evil and they are especially dangerous because in their own little zealot groups they persuade each other and themselves that they are the real good guys.

Whatever your political opinions I can almost guarantee that the group you most consider evil in the world conform to this behaviour - among themselves they have an ideology which tells them that they are the real good guys and their acts are justified.

The DnD alignment system very sensibly does not try to unravel all this mess. It simply says that if your acts are evil then you are evil - regardless of what ideology you use to try to justify those acts.

[Millstone85]

dnd does need a reboot to fix things but I don't think that's happing especially with newer books focusing on old ideas like Asmodeus the serpent and implication of the 9Wait, the serpent as in Ahriman and Jazirian, the Serpents of Law? Has DiA or some other recent book made reference to that?

[Unoriginal]

Wait, the serpent as in Ahriman and Jazirian, the Serpents of Law? Has DiA or some other recent book made reference to that?

Certainly not Descent into Avernus nor anything I've seen.

Asmodeus-the-super-uper-OP-serpent was mostly a 4e thing, as far as I can tell.

[Pex]

What I was pointing out with animals is they often end up in CG upper plains. I should have been more clear. but in general, while animals seem to be NN the upper plains place them in CG. which is odd but falls in line with the cannon of alignments.



when I come down to it you can have your own opinions of alinement but if a character in lore gets ways with something you should take a long and hard look at your opinions. DND is not close to modern views on morality. once again Slaver and torture are not viewed as evil and many good lines good practice both. there is literally a Lawful good god of torture.

DND is weird and focuses on a more 1500-1700 view of morality with some odd exceptions, Like Homosexuality which in DND is viewed as ok and common.

Edit: Ilmater is the god. probably should have said that. he is also a god of necromacy so he also brings up the idea the necromancy can be good.

Ilmater is not the god of torture. In 3E he was referenced as the god of Suffering but not to inflict it. In 5E they use the more accurate term of Endurance. Ilmater hates torture. His followers relieve pain, not cause it. If they can't stop it then they would rather take the pain themselves in place of another. They're martyrs.

[da newt]

It is actually quite funny and presumably unintended.

I think what you intended to do was portray a zealot for a good cause - but you fell into the age old trap of not realizing that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Zealots are very often evil and they are especially dangerous because in their own little zealot groups they persuade each other and themselves that they are the real good guys.

Whatever your political opinions I can almost guarantee that the group you most consider evil in the world conform to this behavior - among themselves they have an ideology which tells them that they are the real good guys and their acts are justified.

The DnD alignment system very sensibly does not try to unravel all this mess. It simply says that if your acts are evil then you are evil - regardless of what ideology you use to try to justify those acts.

This is VERY inline with what I was trying to put across with 'EVIL and GOOD are SUBJECTIVE.' What your PC thinks he is may be very different from what others thinks he is and other others may disagree. We all have different opinions of what is EVIL and GOOD based on beliefs, perspectives, norms we grew up with, etc. D&D has some definitions of it's own, but even they are open to interpretation (hence this whole thread).

[Unoriginal]

This is VERY inline with what I was trying to put across with 'EVIL and GOOD are SUBJECTIVE.' What your PC thinks he is may be very different from what others thinks he is and other others may disagree. We all have different opinions of what is EVIL and GOOD based on beliefs, perspectives, norms we grew up with, etc. D&D has some definitions of it's own, but even they are open to interpretation (hence this whole thread).

Alignment is subjective the same way that hair color is subjective.

Sure people can argue in good faith if someone they saw one photo of has light brown, blonde or light red hair, but only heavy contrarianism can result in Disney's Snow White being described as blonde (that or a deep misunderstanding of what was being talked about). Hence this whole thread, OP having freely described his character as evil in his "how to beat Rakdos" thread.

D&D 5e Alignments are each an 1-2 sentences description of one's typical, regular behavior. Since OP's PC regularly and typically follows the code of his ideology strictly while willingly committing attrocities within the limit said ideology in order to promote it, the description fitting the PC is the one for lawful evil.

No reason to go further.

[Millstone85]

Certainly not Descent into Avernus nor anything I've seen.

Asmodeus-the-super-uper-OP-serpent was mostly a 4e thing, as far as I can tell.4e Asmodeus was an angel who betrayed and murdered his god, He Who Was, using a sliver from the heart of the Abyss. The act corrupted the god's entire realm, Baathion, turning it into the Nine Hells of Baator. You could say that it made Asmodeus a pretty big serpent in the garden, metaphorically speaking.

But the whole thing about him being literally a giant snake, and one of the two (possibly three) creators of the Outlands and the Outer Planes, I do not remember any of it showing up in 4e. That's from a prior edition.

And well, actually, my headcanon combines these two origin stories. That is:

Ahriman, the evil aspect of the primordial World Serpent, sleeps at the bottom of Baator. Its good counterpart, the couatl god Jazirian, sleeps at the gate between the 4th and 5th heavens of Celestia. And there are persistent rumors of a neutral aspect sleeping in the depths of Sigil.
Asmodeus is not Ahriman, but a fallen angel. And some say that Celestia and Baator both had 8 layers before Asmodeus took an entire one in his fall.

[da newt]

PHB pg 122

"CHAOTIC GOOD creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect."

The above describes the PC's view of themselves perfectly.

"CHAOTIC EVIL creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred or bloodlust."

The above contradicts the PC's ethos - they are certainly not arbitrary, or greedy, or revel in killing / causing pain that is bloodlust. Depending on perspective, a case may be made that they are hateful ...

"LAWFUL EVIL creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code .."

The above may accurately describe the PC's actions except that they are not motivated by greed - taking anything for themselves, but believe they are altruistic - acting for other's benefit and the punishment of those they believe are guilty.

[TigerT20]

PHB pg 122

"CHAOTIC GOOD creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect."

The above describes the PC's view of themselves perfectly.

"CHAOTIC EVIL creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred or bloodlust."

The above contradicts the PC's ethos - they are certainly not arbitrary, or greedy, or revel in killing / causing pain that is bloodlust. Depending on perspective, a case may be made that they are hateful ...

"LAWFUL EVIL creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code .."

The above may accurately describe the PC's actions except that they are not motivated by greed - taking anything for themselves, but believe they are altruistic - acting for other's benefit and the punishment of those they believe are guilty.

How many pages did to take for someone to do this? Congrats, da newt.

But honestly, these descriptions are... not the best. They make CG too wide and CE AND LE somewhat too narrow. For example, kobolds aren't really LE under that description. They're LE because they're communists a highly communal and tribe-oriented species who don't care if they undermine the work of others (literally) and serve chromatic dragons.

[JackPhoenix]

PHB pg 122

"CHAOTIC GOOD creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect."

The above describes the PC's view of themselves perfectly.

Except the conscience part. What with the murdering people on sight.


"CHAOTIC EVIL creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred or bloodlust."

The above contradicts the PC's ethos - they are certainly not arbitrary, or greedy, or revel in killing / causing pain that is bloodlust. Depending on perspective, a case may be made that they are hateful ...

Yes, because murdering and torturing (hey, here's your bloodlust) rich and powerful people on sight (that sounds pretty arbitrary to me) because he hates them (well...) does not fit at all with what he's said so far.


"LAWFUL EVIL creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code .."

The above may accurately describe the PC's actions except that they are not motivated by greed - taking anything for themselves, but believe they are altruistic - acting for other's benefit and the punishment of those they believe are guilty.

There's also no mention of code or methodical approach.

[ProsecutorGodot]

There's also no mention of code or methodical approach.

Yea, all the information we have says that he punishes people who he thinks are rich/powerful/in charge so that he can reach his own definition of "equality". There isn't really any order here, because as soon as the vacuum of power is filled the poor sod who filled it is the new target.

"CHAOTIC EVIL creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred or bloodlust."

The above contradicts the PC's ethos - they are certainly not arbitrary, or greedy, or revel in killing / causing pain that is bloodlust. Depending on perspective, a case may be made that they are hateful ...

No it doesn't:

and is really radical about his belief everybody should be equal, so he will pretty much attempt to torture/kill anybody who is rich/powerful (or thinks that people are unequal) on sight.
If he thinks you're above someone else in society, he's liable to kill you on sight.

You could be a self made rich man who spends his vast fortune bettering the town, building orphanages and caring for the sick and elderly in your spare time and this guy would murder you because you have money. With the information we have, you're screwed whether you actually keep the money or not because the position of power you have isn't likely to go away even if all your wealth goes away because there will still be people who hold you in higher regard than others because of your benevolence towards them.

His reasons to kill are arbitrary, subjective to his own experiences, and spurned by hate. He would kill the rich man in the above example regardless of what information he has on them so long as he thinks they are rich.

[MaxWilson]

If he thinks you're above someone else in society, he's liable to kill you on sight.

You could be a self made rich man who spends his vast fortune bettering the town, building orphanages and caring for the sick and elderly in your spare time and this guy would murder you because you have money. With the information we have, you're screwed whether you actually keep the money or not because the position of power you have isn't likely to go away even if all your wealth goes away because there will still be people who hold you in higher regard than others because of your benevolence towards them.

His reasons to kill are arbitrary, subjective to his own experiences, and spurned by hate. He would kill the rich man in the above example regardless of what information he has on them so long as he thinks they are rich.

I think you guys are taking this short description waaaay too seriously. What's next? Claiming that the PC in question can be driven to suicide simply by giving him enough money to make him rich?

Besides, "holds to a dangerous and insane moral code" is still not the same thing as "kills arbitrarily." "Chaotic Evil" and "dangerously insane" are not synonyms.

[Millstone85]

But honestly, these descriptions are... not the best.Indeed, and I think there are also too many of them.

It would have been enough to say:
Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral).
Neutral good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Neutral evil is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Lawful neutral individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Chaotic neutral creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Does a LG character "do the right thing as expected by society"? Yes, but they might also try to make society do the right thing, feel conflicted between upholding public peace and exposing a wrong, or combine these ideals in some other way.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think you guys are taking this short description waaaay too seriously. What's next? Claiming that the PC in question can be driven to suicide simply by giving him enough money to make him rich?

Besides, "holds to a dangerous and insane moral code" is still not the same thing as "kills arbitrarily." "Chaotic Evil" and "dangerously insane" are not synonyms.

I'm not basing it off of one comment

That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.

What about the wealthy businessman in the last session who barely paid his workers and did basically nothing while middle manager types bossed the workers around? My character killed the managers and the big boss, and gave the whole property over to the workers, so they could co-own everything themselves, and the DM assured me that, yes, the workers were going to make more money now because they were their own bosses and the workers were fine with everything because they didn't like the manager or the big boss very much.

My character sees kings and queens and the wealthy as unjust hierarchies, and my character things that by removing all unjust hierarchies, he can create a radically equal world.

So we actually do know a lot:
-He is driven by anger, slaughtering those he hates
-He will kill those he perceives to be better off than those he perceives to be the downtrodden
-His acts of charity are only done under the condition that the rewards are shared equally
-He sees the highest authority as unjust and would remove them from power by force given the chance

This is one of the most telling aspects though:

I start a lot of combats in games, and the DM kind of builds around that, now.
This is making some assumptions, but with this characters behavior the DM has started to adjust the game world under the assumption that he is going to be prone to violence. The world sees him as violent now.

You also joke about the "suicide because I'm rich now" angle but I feel like the character is unknowingly (perhaps known by the player though) a huge hypocrite. They've put themselves in the ultimate position of power, believing their ideals are the best options and willing to kill those who would oppose them. Whether intentional or not, I do kind of like the irony here.

I guess it's not so easy to argue the Chaotic/Lawful aspect of the character but "Good" seems easy enough to argue against.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not basing it off of one comment

So we actually do know a lot:
-He is driven by anger, slaughtering those he hates
-He will kill those he perceives to be better off than those he perceives to be the downtrodden
-His acts of charity are only done under the condition that the rewards are shared equally
-He sees the highest authority as unjust and would remove them from power by force given the chance

And he lives in a dark world where rich and powerful people are prone to do evil. <<<That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.>>>

This isn't just a guy who slaughters Warren Buffet for having money--from what we've learned, he's more like someone who slaughters a murdering murderous drug lord and everyone in his social circle because he figures they're all cut from the same cloth. He's like... Kelsier from Mistborn, the vengeful criminal half-noble anti-noble.


This is making some assumptions, but with this characters behavior the DM has started to adjust the game world under the assumption that he is going to be prone to violence. The world sees him as violent now.

Sounds like it was already dark and wretched and probably violent, it's just that this PC gets used as a scenario hook to start the violence instead of the DM making up a different trigger.


You also joke about the "suicide because I'm rich now" angle but I feel like the character is unknowingly (perhaps known by the player though) a huge hypocrite. They've put themselves in the ultimate position of power, believing their ideals are the best options and willing to kill those who would oppose them. Whether intentional or not, I do kind of like the irony here.

I guess it's not so easy to argue the Chaotic/Lawful aspect of the character but "Good" seems easy enough to argue against.

Probably or perhaps. I suspect if I had more information and were the DM, there's a good chance I'd privately view the PC as Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but it depends a lot on the gameworld context for the killing--before forming any firm opinion I'd spend a certain amount of time asking the player, "Why did you just do that?" after he did something violent. If the answer is, "That guy was evil!" then it looks more like a neutral or evil motivation, about punishment or vengeance; if the answer is "That guy was oppressing those people" or "He would hurt them" then it's more about prevention and might qualify as Good. And either way I wouldn't tell my player about my private opinions; the only way he'd ever learn would be through the handful of items and effects which interact with alignment. E.g. "Strange, that cloak of the Neutral Archmage appears to function for you. It seems attracted to your cynicism."

[Amdy_vill]

Wait, the serpent as in Ahriman and Jazirian, the Serpents of Law? Has DiA or some other recent book made reference to that?

I am sorry that I can't dig up the exact book but there's a novel that brings up Azuth(the god Asmodeus use to become a god) and Asmodeus and it illudes to Asmodeus being Ahriman. It's throw away and may mean nothing but is an example of calling back to old lore. it also seemed like it was setting up something but nothing has come from it.

Edit: Ashes of the Tyrant, 99% sure but going to flip through to find it.

[Unoriginal]

How many pages did to take for someone to do this? Congrats, da newt.

But honestly, these descriptions are... not the best. They make CG too wide and CE AND LE somewhat too narrow. For example, kobolds aren't really LE under that description. They're LE because they're communists a highly communal and tribe-oriented species who don't care if they undermine the work of others (literally) and serve chromatic dragons.

The way kobolds' culture influence them often result in them choosing to be actively malevolent when they can afford it. It's not just "not caring if they hurt other".

[Zhentarim]

I'm not basing it off of one comment




So we actually do know a lot:
-He is driven by anger, slaughtering those he hates
-He will kill those he perceives to be better off than those he perceives to be the downtrodden
-His acts of charity are only done under the condition that the rewards are shared equally
-He sees the highest authority as unjust and would remove them from power by force given the chance

This is one of the most telling aspects though:

This is making some assumptions, but with this characters behavior the DM has started to adjust the game world under the assumption that he is going to be prone to violence. The world sees him as violent now.

You also joke about the "suicide because I'm rich now" angle but I feel like the character is unknowingly (perhaps known by the player though) a huge hypocrite. They've put themselves in the ultimate position of power, believing their ideals are the best options and willing to kill those who would oppose them. Whether intentional or not, I do kind of like the irony here.

I guess it's not so easy to argue the Chaotic/Lawful aspect of the character but "Good" seems easy enough to argue against.


And he lives in a dark world where rich and powerful people are prone to do evil. <<<That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.>>>

This isn't just a guy who slaughters Warren Buffet for having money--from what we've learned, he's more like someone who slaughters a murdering murderous drug lord and everyone in his social circle because he figures they're all cut from the same cloth. He's like... Kelsier from Mistborn, the vengeful criminal half-noble anti-noble.



Sounds like it was already dark and wretched and probably violent, it's just that this PC gets used as a scenario hook to start the violence instead of the DM making up a different trigger.



Probably or perhaps. I suspect if I had more information and were the DM, there's a good chance I'd privately view the PC as Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but it depends a lot on the gameworld context for the killing--before forming any firm opinion I'd spend a certain amount of time asking the player, "Why did you just do that?" after he did something violent. If the answer is, "That guy was evil!" then it looks more like a neutral or evil motivation, about punishment or vengeance; if the answer is "That guy was oppressing those people" or "He would hurt them" then it's more about prevention and might qualify as Good. And either way I wouldn't tell my player about my private opinions; the only way he'd ever learn would be through the handful of items and effects which interact with alignment. E.g. "Strange, that cloak of the Neutral Archmage appears to function for you. It seems attracted to your cynicism."

I really enjoyed reading these two posts. Also, I've never heard of mistborn, but I'll look into reading it on the next break I have from my public teaching job.

{scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I want to say three things:

(1) This is pretty much the real-life backstory I expected, although I didn't expect quite so many deaths. (I suspect pharmaceuticals probably figure into the backstory here, hence "killed by greed".)

(2) I suspect I would strongly, strongly disagree with you about the culpability of the people you have chosen to hate. My refusal to label you or your proxies "Evil" is not because I agree with your views, it's actually the opposite: I'm trying to see things from your (or your character's) perspective instead of my own. "Wrong" is not the same thing as "evil." If I were a PC in another party in your DM's game there's a good chance I would be trying to apprehend your party and bring all you vigilantes to justice. I'll be Captain America to your Tony Stark, or the other way around if you want. :-P

(3) Yeah, it sounds like you might enjoy Mistborn. The premise of the book is basically, "What if the Good Guys fail? What if Sauron had won? What does the world look like a thousand years later?" There's a twist of course.



What if Sam had betrayed Frodo and taken the ring for himself? What if the guy you thought was Sauron triumphant was actually Sam all along?

[Millstone85]

I am sorry that I can't dig up the exact book but there's a novel that brings up Azuth(the god Asmodeus use to become a god) and Asmodeus and it illudes to Asmodeus being Ahriman. It's throw away and may mean nothing but is an example of calling back to old lore. it also seemed like it was setting up something but nothing has come from it.

Edit: Ashes of the Tyrant, 99% sure but going to flip through to find it.Thank you. It is not a problem if you don't find the quote.

[RifleAvenger]

You could be a self made rich man who spends his vast fortune bettering the town, building orphanages and caring for the sick and elderly in your spare time and this guy would murder you because you have money. With the information we have, you're screwed whether you actually keep the money or not because the position of power you have isn't likely to go away even if all your wealth goes away because there will still be people who hold you in higher regard than others because of your benevolence towards them.

OP's PC just stabbing this rich man because he wears Gucci is pretty suspect morally. However, there's a point to be made that a more clearly CG type might still have issues with the rich man. Just because the rich man means well and is engaging with the economy in good faith (let's say he's Good aligned), doesn't mean that the machinery of that economy is itself Good.

No one is truly "self-made;" we've all had support from others, and that rich man probably has employees doing the bulk of the labor generating his wealth (or we can trace the money back to such, such as if his wealth is from investments). A Good character who wants to eliminate the unjust factors of that system (or the system itself, if it's beyond saving) has to address the rich man's complicity in it.

Of course, just stabbing rich men and nothing else isn't a strategy a smart or wise CG would take. When the issue underlying inequity is a social system, demonizing and eliminating only a set of individuals is futile; the man at the top is ultimately as replaceable as the lowliest slave. Actual change would need to involve people changing how they live, which requires the willingness to teach.

If OP's character is aware of this and keeps going on as they do, that implies a personal attachment to the killing itself which is distinctly non-Good.


And he lives in a dark world where rich and powerful people are prone to do evil. <<<That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.>>>

This isn't just a guy who slaughters Warren Buffet for having money--from what we've learned, he's more like someone who slaughters a murdering murderous drug lord and everyone in his social circle because he figures they're all cut from the same cloth. He's like... Kelsier from Mistborn, the vengeful criminal half-noble anti-noble.

I agree.

Also, insomuch as alignment is "objective" in D&D, I think it is also subject to variation by setting. Look no further than Eberron for a setting that loosens what "Good" and "Evil" mean despite retaining them at all. An awful world where Evil won long ago (as OP's setting seems to be) is going to produce a darker breed of "hero," unless "Good" is so naïve as to be a joke in-setting.




What if Sam had betrayed Frodo and taken the ring for himself? What if the guy you thought was Sauron triumphant was actually Sam all along?




And, if I remember this analogy correctly, defeating Darklord Sam unleashes Sauron.Or is Ruin more akin to Morgoth?

[Nhorianscum]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That, is some very seriously misdirected anger there my dude.

Not even saying this as a joke, seek therapy, it helps.

[Taevyr]

And he lives in a dark world where rich and powerful people are prone to do evil. <<<That said, my character is a very wrathful idealistic person who has seen a lot of evil from powerful and rich people. He's become a "dark robin hood" slaughtering the rich and powerful to help the poor and downtrodden by giving away the loot, while keeping very little for himself. He also has a soft spot for animals and nature and has killed a few people he's caught hurting animals and despoiling nature in this campaign.>>>

This isn't just a guy who slaughters Warren Buffet for having money--from what we've learned, he's more like someone who slaughters a murdering murderous drug lord and everyone in his social circle because he figures they're all cut from the same cloth. He's like... Kelsier from Mistborn, the vengeful criminal half-noble anti-noble.

Just want to chime in, saying his character is similar to Kelsier sort of strengthens the argument for him not being Good-aligned (in my opinion). Awesome, charismatic and "necessary evil" (or rather, necessary neutral) are certainly possible if the comparison fits, but not good.

[MaxWilson]

Just want to chime in, saying his character is similar to Kelsier sort of strengthens the argument for him not being Good-aligned (in my opinion). Awesome, charismatic and "necessary evil" (or rather, necessary neutral) are certainly possible if the comparison fits, but not good.

Hoid says something very interesting (by proxy) to the Lord of Scars...

And I agree, Kelsier doesn't fit an alignment well (most characters don't) but if I had to I'd peg him as Neutral with both good and evil tendencies. No strong tendencies towards law or chaos.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: I'm going to tentatively re-open this.

[Amdy_vill]

Hoid says something very interesting (by proxy) to the Lord of Scars...

And I agree, Kelsier doesn't fit an alignment well (most characters don't) but if I had to I'd peg him as Neutral with both good and evil tendencies. No strong tendencies towards law or chaos.

the reason most characters in media don't fit an alignment well is because alignments are snapshots, moments in time, character change so characters will long history or in this cast, a well-writen progression of character have trouble fitting into a box without giving a time frame to contextual. also, many well-written stories have characters fall into NN because sadly most characters who have realistic motivations and actions are NN.

[MaxWilson]

the reason most characters in media don't fit an alignment well is because alignments are snapshots, moments in time, character change so characters will long history or in this cast, a well-writen progression of character have trouble fitting into a box without giving a time frame to contextual. also, many well-written stories have characters fall into NN because sadly most characters who have realistic motivations and actions are NN.

Agreed. Most interesting characters in fiction have internal conflicts ("I believe in looking out for number one but this Skywalker kid is going to get himself killed if I don't help", "I believe in obeying the law but the law in Gotham is corrupt!") which in D&D terms can sometimes look a lot like Neutral. D&D alignments are practically _designed_ to create simplistic caricatures, in the interest of keeping the gameplay focus on external events like fighting monsters instead of internal emotional conflicts.

[RifleAvenger]

Also, many well-written stories have characters fall into NN because sadly most characters who have realistic motivations and actions are NN.


Agreed. Most interesting characters in fiction have internal conflicts ("I believe in looking out for number one but this Skywalker kid is going to get himself killed if I don't help", "I believe in obeying the law but the law in Gotham is corrupt!") which in D&D terms can sometimes look a lot like Neutral. D&D alignments are practically _designed_ to create simplistic caricatures, in the interest of keeping the gameplay focus on external events like fighting monsters instead of internal emotional conflicts.

I can't really get behind that idea that a D&D character with a G or an E in the alignment section of their statline has to be a less interesting character. Well or ill-intentioned people still have personal conflicts. So long as the GM doesn't demand an alignment change the moment a G kicks a dog or an E pets one, there's fair wiggle room to work with.

I think Order of the Stick is a pretty good example of how to produce interesting Good characters; I'd hardly say NN Vaarsuvius is definitely the most engaging character of the Order.

On a more anecdotal note, one Pathfinder 1e games I played had an interesting intra-party dynamic because each PC had a different view on what "Good" was. Or at least how to go about doing the most good (education and social welfare? a strong social contract enshrined in law? destroying evil?). Two of us were NG too, so it wasn't like the L-C axis stereotypes were supplying all the differences in perspective. Plus the NG Arcanist was being chased by a LG church for heresy.

[Unoriginal]

Agreed. Most interesting characters in fiction have internal conflicts ("I believe in looking out for number one but this Skywalker kid is going to get himself killed if I don't help", "I believe in obeying the law but the law in Gotham is corrupt!") which in D&D terms can sometimes look a lot like Neutral. D&D alignments are practically _designed_ to create simplistic caricatures, in the interest of keeping the gameplay focus on external events like fighting monsters instead of internal emotional conflicts.

Not all interesting internal conflicts result in a neutral character.

Luke Skywalker's internal conflicts in the original SW trilogy are interesting, but neither at a specific point nor overall could he be described as neutral-aligned. Same for Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings, or Mr Incredible in the Incredibles, or Miles Morales in Into the Spider-verse.



I think Order of the Stick is a pretty good example of how to produce interesting Good characters; I'd hardly say NN Vaarsuvius is definitely the most engaging character of the Order.

Well not to start a controversy or anything, especially given that OotS uses a whole different definition of alignment than 5e, but Vaarsuvius's arguably had a big, red E in their alignment for nearly half of the webcomic's strips, now.

[MaxWilson]

Not all interesting internal conflicts result in a neutral character.


Granted. And as RifleAvenger says, it is possible to play with internal nuance. Still, I do think alignment, especially as designed by Gygax where you can actually LOSE XP for acting outside your alignment, is a powerful mechanism for channeling gameplay towards external conflicts like fighting and sneaking, which are exactly what D&D is designed around. I think it's deliberate, and kind of brilliant for producing a certain type of play experience which D&D happens to be very good at. It's the opposite of DramaSystem/Hillfolk, which excels at emotional conflict and is terribly boring about external conflicts.

BTW RifleAvenger, I don't think "interesting to read about in fiction" and "interesting to interact with in a game" are the same thing, or even similar. I'm certainly not claiming that aligned D&D characters are boring to interact with.

[Amdy_vill]

I can't really get behind that idea that a D&D character with a G or an E in the alignment section of their statline has to be a less interesting character. Well or ill-intentioned people still have personal conflicts. So long as the GM doesn't demand an alignment change the moment a G kicks a dog or an E pets one, there's fair wiggle room to work with.

I think Order of the Stick is a pretty good example of how to produce interesting Good characters; I'd hardly say NN Vaarsuvius is definitely the most engaging character of the Order.

On a more anecdotal note, one Pathfinder 1e games I played had an interesting intra-party dynamic because each PC had a different view on what "Good" was. Or at least how to go about doing the most good (education and social welfare? a strong social contract enshrined in law? destroying evil?). Two of us were NG too, so it wasn't like the L-C axis stereotypes were supplying all the differences in perspective. Plus the NG Arcanist was being chased by a LG church for heresy.

it has less to G or E not being interesting and more to do will higher levels of writing focusing on morals complex character. by definition, these characters are written to be between typical ideas of good and evil. you can have great Good and Evil characters even complex one but they're just less common.

deep and complex characters don't have to be Neutral, but often they are written as such. not a rule but a generalization of data

[greenstone]

Thievery isn't necessarily evil, but just because you're Chaotic doesn't mean you steal. Chaotic strives for freedom, and it's not your place to deprive others. Thievery is a separate thing from chaotic.

A chaotic person might be less inclined to steal than a lwful person.

The chaotic person might believe so strongly in individual freedoms that they would not impinge on others' freedoms by stealing from them.

The lawful character might justify the stealing on some grounds of "the needs of the society overweigh the rights of this person to not have their stuff stolen."

[ProsecutorGodot]

A chaotic person might be less inclined to steal than a lwful person.

The chaotic person might believe so strongly in individual freedoms that they would not impinge on others' freedoms by stealing from them.

The lawful character might justify the stealing on some grounds of "the needs of the society overweigh the rights of this person to not have their stuff stolen."

Lawfulness tends to send the wrong message at a glance, since in D&D alignments it doesn't have to mean you follow any actual societal laws.

[Amdy_vill]

Lawfulness tends to send the wrong message at a glance, since in D&D alignments it doesn't have to mean you follow any actual societal laws.

Yeah, lawful is just s stong restrictive moral code. one of the things I don't like is players who say they're lawful but only have 1 or 2 rules that are things like help the needy and protect the weak. things like that don't make you lawful, just good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Previously you claimed that torture was pointless brutality because it never produces true information. That is a convenient claim because it lets you escape the moral dilemma: if it's both horrible and ineffective, then of course you'd never do it except out of sadism. Based on the experiences of POWs in Viet Nam, whose experience was translated into SERE training that I and many others received, I can only state that a lot of misinformation has been running around since about 2003 and I need to stop there.

If you-the-PC save the family and the farm but people on the real-world Internet condemn you as chaotic evil for "torturing" the orc, are you-the-player even going to care about their opinions? I wouldn't. They weren't there.
Nicely put.
Alignment labels don't matter (usually). Roleplaying matters. Take responsibility for your own character's moral character. Yeah. And as a DM, fill the world with consequences. :smallcool:

Yes, that idea causes mass panic among lore nerds. But it's well and thoroughly overdue. The biggest problem D&D has (especially in FR) is the mass of contradictory, old-edition-dependent lore that's accreted over the decades. Most of which makes very little sense and fits very poorly with 5e's overall philosophy. True. Love your opening sentence that I quote there, it got me grinning. When I am DM, the lore is what I say it is. Whatever deities exist in my world answer to me, the DM. :smallwink:

And I've heard Mearls and Crawford say just as much, that you should basically ignore all previous edition stuff...unless you want to use it. Unlike prior editions, they're not making official lore. They're just providing myths. Which is for my money the best starting point for a given DMs game.

Yes, but lore is not canon. Nothing they say is gospel--it's ideas. Hmm, I could swear that I hear the voice of Rufus from Dogma in that post ...

We know that Mike was the gatekeeper of rules during 5E's development--as in, if you wanted to add a new mechanic to the game, Mike was the designated guy-you-had-to-persuade. (BTW this explains a lot about the paucity of distinct mechanics for things like tracking, climbing, Keen Smell/Keen Hearing, setting traps, etc.) Yeah.

although it turns out that if you want to be VP of Dungeons and Dragons now is a good time to apply (https://company.wizards.com/content/jobs?gh_jid=4832525002).
Mrs Starmast is not gonna move to Seattle. Nope. Not gonna happen. So I can't even indulge in a fantasy about that.

Problem is, Wizards can't keep their 5e lore straight either. Descent into Avernus, with continuity paradoxes intrinsic to itself, says hi. Dealing with Forgotten Realms in any edition basically requires the GM to straighten out the tangle themself. Yep.

What is wrong with the daelkyr? Bloat.

Ilmater is not the god of torture. In 3E he was referenced as the god of Suffering but not to inflict it. In 5E they use the more accurate term of Endurance. Ilmater hates torture. His followers relieve pain, not cause it. If they can't stop it then they would rather take the pain themselves in place of another. They're martyrs. Yep.

OP's PC just stabbing this rich man because he wears Gucci is pretty suspect morally. That's putting it charitably.

[Kvard51]

I'm not basing it off of one comment




So we actually do know a lot:
-He is driven by anger, slaughtering those he hates
-He will kill those he perceives to be better off than those he perceives to be the downtrodden
-His acts of charity are only done under the condition that the rewards are shared equally
-He sees the highest authority as unjust and would remove them from power by force given the chance

This is one of the most telling aspects though:

This is making some assumptions, but with this characters behavior the DM has started to adjust the game world under the assumption that he is going to be prone to violence. The world sees him as violent now.

You also joke about the "suicide because I'm rich now" angle but I feel like the character is unknowingly (perhaps known by the player though) a huge hypocrite. They've put themselves in the ultimate position of power, believing their ideals are the best options and willing to kill those who would oppose them. Whether intentional or not, I do kind of like the irony here.

I guess it's not so easy to argue the Chaotic/Lawful aspect of the character but "Good" seems easy enough to argue against.
I would say he is Neutral Evil.

He does whatever he wants, based on whatever criteria he rationalizes, for his own selfish enjoyment.

[Witty Username]

I think inflexible alignment in d&d is also related to change, most characters in fiction change over time, but in d&d alignment has a tendency to be more limiting than descriptive .
Players roleplaying a shift from one alignment to another is not really done intentionally, in comparison to a DM decreeing that their conduct warrants an alignment change.
This is part of why I take a hands off approach DMing, let players roleplay and if their alignment drifts overtime that is not a worry to me until they need to be mechanically "Good".