Beyond Good and Evil: Relabeling the Alignment Grid

[SuperDave]

I was recently watching a Seth Skorkowsky video about How to Play Evil Characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRgTu6FTHgI&t=5s), in which he pointed out that there's a difference between a "villainous" characters (characters who oppose the protagonists, regardless of their alignment) and "evil" characters (who do bad things but aren't necessarily always working directly against the PCs). His insight caused me to have an epiphany: the Alignment Grid might be a lot less controversial if we change the good/evil axis to an altruism/self-interest axis.

For example, in Magic: The Gathering, Black is the color of individuality and personal freedom, a kind of Ayn Randian philosophy that holds enlightened self-interest as the highest form of good. Obviously this leads to a lot of stereotypically "evil" behavior like necromancy and vampirism, but Black creatures and planeswalkers are not always evil, just like White creatures and planeswalkers aren't always the good guys. It's easy for White's religious zealotry to turn into oppression, groupthink, and persecution of minorities and those who hold differing opinions. Conversely, Black is the color of self-enrichment and greed, but it's also the color of self-care, of standing up for your ideas and beliefs even when the whole world tells you you're wrong.

To borrow a second example from Mr Skorkowsky's video, even though Jayne Cobb of Firefly does unquestionably evil things (like betraying his partners in crime) on a regular basis, he's not a mustache-twirling evildoer who punts orphaned puppies off buildings at every opportunity. Being evil isn't about wearing black and cackling madly, it's about putting yourself and your own benefit above/before that of others.

That said, I think it would help people to step back from the extremely loaded and moralistic terms of "good" and "evil" if we used more descriptive, scientific words like "altruism" and "self-interest" instead. It might allow us to step outside our preconceived notions of what "evil" and "good" look like, and focus more on what a given character actually does. Or maybe I'm just stirring the pot and muddying the waters. :smalltongue:

So what do you think? Would relabeling the good/evil axis have any effect on the Alignment Grid's contentiousness? Should D&D switch over to something more like Chronicles of Darkness' Integrity (https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Integrity) system, or Magic's Color Wheel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?174163-Alignment-Replacement-The-Color-Wheel-Now-With-More-Green!)? Or are we doomed to argue about where to draw the line between "chaotic evil" and "neutral jackass" until Judgement Day?

[carrdrivesyou]

Personally, I think that trying to qualify certain behaviors into certain groups of thought to be a fairly fruitless endeavor. Allow me to explain...

Take Villain One for example. Villain one is "evil" in the conventional sense because he kidnaps children and turns them into zombies.

Enter the "heroes" of the story, bent on stopping Villain One.

Paladin will smite him because he is righteous and just, and because Villain is a criminal and generally considered evil by the law of the land and church.
Wizard will kill him for his arcane grimoire, to learn the secrets of unlife and to further protect the realm.
Rogue will kill him for profit and maybe he just doesn't like the guy.

Looking at these qualifiers...they can each be sorted into "selfish" or "selfless" behavior, depending on personal perspective.

Examining further:

Paladin is being totalitarian, despite noble intentions, following groupthink and mob mentality. That does not make him "noble" or "righteous," it just makes him a tool.
BUT
Paladin is also saving innocent lives from being destroyed. So that COULD make him "good" or "pure."

Wizard is being greedy, putting education above the life of another person, eager for self advancement. He is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

Rogue is being purely selfish, consequences and motives be dam*ed. Adversely, he may be settling a personal grudge.


None of these reasonings, motives, or intents could really fall squarely into one category of thought or another. To some, these folk are just following their own impulses, or doing what the people want. To others, they may resemble heroic figures of old, doing what must be done for the greater good.


The real issue is trying to quantify the difference between intent and deed, and comparing it to public perception. Perspective varies depending on the individual, and is bound to vary from person to person. Imagine a group of ten people standing in a circle around a statue. Those ten people may agree that they all see a statue, but how they describe their view will depend on where they are standing in relation to that statue.

EDIT: I think that the Mass Effect Renegade/Paragon system is a good example of showing how opposing actions and schools of thought can reach eerily similar conclusions. Often times, the actions taken vary little, but perception from others varies greatly.

[Unoriginal]

I was recently watching a Seth Skorkowsky video about How to Play Evil Characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRgTu6FTHgI&t=5s), in which he pointed out that there's a difference between a "villainous" characters (characters who oppose the protagonists, regardless of their alignment) and "evil" characters (who do bad things but aren't necessarily always working directly against the PCs). His insight caused me to have an epiphany: the Alignment Grid might be a lot less controversial if we change the good/evil axis to an altruism/self-interest axis.

For example, in Magic: The Gathering, Black is the color of individuality and personal freedom, a kind of Ayn Randian philosophy that holds enlightened self-interest as the highest form of good. Obviously this leads to a lot of stereotypically "evil" behavior like necromancy and vampirism, but Black creatures and planeswalkers are not always evil, just like White creatures and planeswalkers aren't always the good guys. It's easy for White's religious zealotry to turn into oppression, groupthink, and persecution of minorities and those who hold differing opinions. Conversely, Black is the color of self-enrichment and greed, but it's also the color of self-care, of standing up for your ideas and beliefs even when the whole world tells you you're wrong.

To borrow a second example from Mr Skorkowsky's video, even though Jayne Cobb of Firefly does unquestionably evil things (like betraying his partners in crime) on a regular basis, he's not a mustache-twirling evildoer who punts orphaned puppies off buildings at every opportunity. Being evil isn't about wearing black and cackling madly, it's about putting yourself and your own benefit above/before that of others.

That said, I think it would help people to step back from the extremely loaded and moralistic terms of "good" and "evil" if we used more descriptive, scientific words like "altruism" and "self-interest" instead. It might allow us to step outside our preconceived notions of what "evil" and "good" look like, and focus more on what a given character actually does.

In D&D 5e, evil is not self-interest, and good is not altruism.

Yes, all three of the evil alignments include not caring about the harm you do to others as long as you get what you want, but what you want does not necessarily self-interest. The kobold miner who charges at a plate-armored lvl 15 Paladin in the hope they can do some damage before dying, so that the Paladin will be weakened/slowed down in a way that will ultimately help the kobold's dragon overlord, cannot really be described as acting out of self-interest (outside of the fact that succeeding would bring them satisfaction to see their side win, of course).

Self-interest vs self-sacrifice is a question of chaos and of lawfulness. Lawful good, lawful neutral and lawful evil individuals all believe that the group/traditions/concepts are greater than the individual (with the caveat that no one act 100% in accordance to an alignment 100% of the time, since of course lawful people are capable of betraying their ideals or their group for self-interest or self-preservation when push comes to shove). An Hobgoblin Warlord may be a slaver, torturer and oppressor of their own people, but if they are challenged to a formal duel to the death with the stakes being "the hobgoblin army will stop their attempt at invasion and leave" if the Warlord loses and "the country will surrender to hobgoblin's rule" if they win, there is a chance the Warlord accepts. Part of it would be cultural norms that would threaten the order of society if not followed publicly, part of it would be to avoid losing face and being considered a coward for refusing, part of it would be the benefit both in personal glory and in the lesser cost for the Warlord's side if the land is conquered that way, and part of it would be genuine belief in martial honor. And there is also a good chance the hobgoblin army will obey the terms of the deal if the Warlord loses.

Meanwhile, neutral good, neutral and neutral evil people consider that *some* concessions and sacrifices for the group are acceptable, but they don't think it's more important than the individual, especially if the individual in question is them or their loved ones. They can accept the circumstances taking their pound of flesh to keep the system working, but generally won't have an issue if they find a way to avoid it, unless it's something they really care about

And on the third hand, you have the chaotic good, chaotic neutral, and chaotic evil folks, who are centered on their selves. Every single Demon is convinced they are the only actual being in the multiverse, and even a chaotic good individual is unlikely to do an altruistic gesture to help the masses in general, if it involves sacrificing something or someone they care about. The gnome illusionist who spends 500gp on a special cake baked in Sigil isn't evil for putting that personal benefit (a moment of gustative pleasure) above the needs of others (literally anyone whose life would be improved by even a fraction of that 500gp being given to them instead).

[jjordan]

I think the alignment mechanic is too deeply embedded into other mechanics in D&D to get rid of it and I already have sort of made that mental substitution in my head. If it were possible to get rid of it then I'd scrap it altogether. While it's a useful reference mechanic there's a tendency for it to be misused by players (e.g. I cast detect good/evil, he's evil, I smite him!). I'd prefer we drop the inherent good/evil mechanic and move to a system in which the participants are being judged by actions (which is, admittedly, less fun because it removes the ability to murder 'evil' creatures with impunity) rather than a simplistic mechanic. So far as detecting good/evil go I would replace that with the ability to detect origins and influences. So a character that regularly interacts with the Nine Hells would show traces of that.

[Unoriginal]

I think the alignment mechanic is too deeply embedded into other mechanics in D&D to get rid of it and I already have sort of made that mental substitution in my head. If it were possible to get rid of it then I'd scrap it altogether. While it's a useful reference mechanic there's a tendency for it to be misused by players (e.g. I cast detect good/evil, he's evil, I smite him!). I'd prefer we drop the inherent good/evil mechanic and move to a system in which the participants are being judged by actions (which is, admittedly, less fun because it removes the ability to murder 'evil' creatures with impunity) rather than a simplistic mechanic. So far as detecting good/evil go I would replace that with the ability to detect origins and influences. So a character that regularly interacts with the Nine Hells would show traces of that.

That's how the 5e alignment system is.

[OldTrees1]

His insight caused me to have an epiphany: the Alignment Grid might be a lot less controversial if we change the good/evil axis to an altruism/self-interest axis.

Sudden the controversy is about which alignment is the most moral.

Even in MtG, the topic of good and evil arises despite it not being on their color wheel.
(White believes in Objective Morality vs Black being Amoral but good/evil don't appear on the color wheel)

No, the controversy about good/evil will only end when every person IRL is omniscient. Although the discussion can become more mature if the participants choose.

[Garfunion]

It would be easier to just drop the alignment system entirely, seeing as how in 5th edition there are no spells or abilities that actually detect a creature’s alignment.

[carrdrivesyou]

It would be easier to just drop the alignment system entirely, seeing as how in 5th edition there are no spells or abilities that actually detect a creature’s alignment.

There is one that comes to mind actually. Its not a spell, but rather a specific effect...that being one regarding alignment and planar effects on denizens. Some outer planes force saves vs alignment changes. Flavored as the plane itself influencing the individual.

[Garfunion]

There is one that comes to mind actually. Its not a spell, but rather a specific effect...that being one regarding alignment and planar effects on denizens. Some outer planes force saves vs alignment changes. Flavored as the plane itself influencing the individual.
That sounds more like a setting mechanic not baseline 5th edition mechanic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is one that comes to mind actually. Its not a spell, but rather a specific effect...that being one regarding alignment and planar effects on denizens. Some outer planes force saves vs alignment changes. Flavored as the plane itself influencing the individual.

That's both setting, not core mechanics, and it's explicitly marked as optional.

There are, however, magic items that interact with alignment. I've cut out mechanized alignment entirely for everything and it's gone quite well.

[Naanomi]

Planescape did a good job showing Cosmological ‘good’ isn’t always ‘right’ from a mortal perspective; nor is ‘evil’ always ‘wrong’... the universe operates on such polarizing terms, but things are more nuanced and grey for most beings...

Alignment has a fair number of (minor, mostly removable) mechanical effects that one should be aware of if one plans on moving away from those setting expectations

[GiantOctopodes]

Though this topic is very interesting to discuss, it's one I find is difficult to discuss with meaningful depth without diving into topics which are beyond the scope of discussion of this board. Suffice to say, from all I've ever read or understood, D&D morality at a baseline is an Objective morality system, rather than a Subjective one. Regardless of someone's rationalizations or motivations, and regardless of the consequence of adherence to standards and principles, it judges certain actions, including but not limited to theft and killing non-combatants as evil. Those who engage in those actions, or who believe those actions are acceptable, are in turn evil, deity and mortal alike. It has nothing to do with self interest, it's strictly behavior driven, as well as being tied to folks beliefs about those behaviors.

As others have indicated that's closer to a lawful / chaotic split, though I disagree it's that simple. Lawful beliefs are not necessarily in that the greater good is more important than individual good, but rather that adherence to existing contracts and societal structures is more important than individual outcomes. They don't care whether or not a law is good for society, it's a law, and because laws must exist for society to function, it should be followed. Chaotic individuals believe that outcomes and merit matter, and that there are conditions under which it is acceptable to disregard those laws, contracts, or societal structures.

Both evil and chaotic people in that system are more likely to be self-serving than lawful and good people, but neither axis is inherently about self-interest vs altruism, they simply correlate. That being said you are of course free to use whatever morality and alignment system you like, and in 5E especially it makes virtually no difference if you just rip out alignments wholesale as well as any effects which reference them, or alternately modify references to alignment with references to friendly vs hostile. A replacement of altruism and self-interest for good vs evil and / or a replacement of idealism vs pragmatism for lawful vs chaotic would similarly function just fine, or whatever other scales you want to use. You could have Utilitarianism vs Deontology as one of the scales, it really doesn't matter as long as your players are on board.

[MoiMagnus]

IMO, D&D should double down on "the alignment is where you get when you die" by adding "you get to the afterlife of the god which is the nearest to you, morally speaking". You get one alignment per god of a pantheon.

They might have labels like "Chaotic Good", but that's not their definition, in this vision, that's a label a posteriori.
All the "good" alignments are just different interpretation of what it means to be good according to the different "good" gods. Etc. God disagree on what it mean to be good, and in-universe characters too.

Does necromancy makes you irremediably bad? Some gods think so and you have no chance of getting in their afterlife as a necromancer. Others might agree that the end justifies the mean and will welcome you if you use it for the greater good.

[Naanomi]

IMO, D&D should double down on "the alignment is where you get when you die" by adding "you get to the afterlife of the god which is the nearest to you, morally speaking". You get one alignment per god of a pantheon.

They might have labels like "Chaotic Good", but that's not their definition, in this vision, that's a label a posteriori.
All the "good" alignments are just different interpretation of what it means to be good according to the different "good" gods. Etc. God disagree on what it mean to be good, and in-universe characters too.

Does necromancy makes you irremediably bad? Some gods think so and you have no chance of getting in their afterlife as a necromancer. Others might agree that the end justifies the mean and will welcome you if you use it for the greater good.
May work for systems where Gods are more powerful or more universal; but the existing cosmology has plenty of people whose afterlife doesn’t have any involvement with the Gods at all... heck some places where the Gods have no influence in the first place

[PhoenixPhyre]

May work for systems where Gods are more powerful or more universal; but the existing cosmology has plenty of people whose afterlife doesn’t have any involvement with the Gods at all... heck some places where the Gods have no influence in the first place

And settings where there really isn't a confirmed "afterlife" by any normal meaning of that phrase. At least that's how I understand Eberron and Dark Sun's model.

And it's certainly how my homebrew setting's "afterlife" works...or doesn't, really.

Honestly, I think that if a table doesn't have a good collective agreement about alignment in the first place[1] then just ditching it entirely as anything mechanical is the easiest and best option. You can still talk about people being good and evil, but Good and Evil aren't cosmological constants anymore. Yeah, you give up a couple of items and the sprite, but really...are they that much of a loss?

[1] if they do, then no changes are needed. Or at least any changes are clear.

[Naanomi]

And settings where there really isn't a confirmed "afterlife" by any normal meaning of that phrase. At least that's how I understand Eberron and Dark Sun's model.
Athas (Darksun) explicitly has no afterlife; unless the soul gets devoured or becomes undead the Soul gets stuck in a hostile astral Demi-Plane called 'The Grey' where it gets shredded into bits and destroyed after a while; and experiences nothing in the meantime. The only exception perhaps being Elemental Clerics (who may slip out the backdoor to the Elemental Planes for their afterlife) and Druids (who ride the reincarnation train or become nature spirits)

Eberron is more of a 'no one knows for sure' thing

[PhoenixPhyre]

Athas (Darksun) explicitly has no afterlife; unless the soul gets devoured or becomes undead the Soul gets stuck in a hostile astral Demi-Plane called 'The Grey' where it gets shredded into bits and destroyed after a while; and experiences nothing in the meantime. The only exception perhaps being Elemental Clerics (who may slip out the backdoor to the Elemental Planes for their afterlife) and Druids (who ride the reincarnation train or become nature spirits)

Eberron is more of a 'no one knows for sure' thing

That's what I thought. I knew Eberron was a "shrug" afterlife, and I had a pretty good idea that Athas (I keep wanting to type Arthas...stupid WoW influence) didn't have anything like a conventional afterlife.


Mine is sort of a spin off of Athas's, but in some ways kinder and gentler and in other ways harsher.

The spirits of the dead pass into Shadow (the combined replacement for Ethereal, Shadowfell, and Feywild). There they accrete "bodies" of shadowstuff and continue "living", for a while. Eventually (within 100 years normally) they pass on, their shadow body disintegrating and the eternal part of the soul going...somewhere. Or maybe just fading out. No one knows, and I refuse to answer the question canonically.

In the normal flow of things, they pass on somewhat voluntarily, having come to a peace with themselves and their existence. But others have their shadow bodies torn apart by shadow creatures or fey, overloaded by bursts of energy passing through Shadow, or have their entire souls devoured and caged by demons in the Waste (the portion of Shadow tainted by the Abyss). Or they wander into a portion of Shadow that's so soporific that they just lie down and dissolve into the realm. Shadow is not a safe place.

The influence of the gods (and other ascended beings) is to create "safe" enclaves within Shadow for their worshipers/those that contract with them to rest. You can get in without being a worshiper, but you'll likely not fit. And those vary tremendously in their natures, sizes, etc. And first you have to find one or be led to them. There are agents spread throughout Shadow to point newly dead souls to the nearest suitable enclave. Some of which are liars or false agents.

[micahaphone]

Okay I want you to pretend you don't know anything about previous dnd editions, only 5th. What does alignment do? Does it make the game more interesting or does it bog things down?


Personally I don't see much value or interesting stuff from alignment. I do see lots of debates about prescriptive vs descriptive or how your character's actions count for or against alignment. If you want to use it for legacy reasons then go for it but I don't see the value.

[Naanomi]

Okay I want you to pretend you don't know anything about previous dnd editions, only 5th. What does alignment do? Does it make the game more interesting or does it bog things down?


Personally I don't see much value or interesting stuff from alignment. I do see lots of debates about prescriptive vs descriptive or how your character's actions count for or against alignment. If you want to use it for legacy reasons then go for it but I don't see the value.
Setting-wise, it defines the structure of the Outer Planes

Mechanics wise....
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[Unoriginal]

Okay I want you to pretend you don't know anything about previous dnd editions, only 5th. What does alignment do?

It's an one-or-two-sentences description of a character's typical behavior. Same value as one's Flaw or the like.


Does it make the game more interesting or does it bog things down?

The first.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay I want you to pretend you don't know anything about previous dnd editions, only 5th. What does alignment do? Does it make the game more interesting or does it bog things down?


Personally I don't see much value or interesting stuff from alignment. I do see lots of debates about prescriptive vs descriptive or how your character's actions count for or against alignment. If you want to use it for legacy reasons then go for it but I don't see the value.

As someone with very little attachment to prior editions, the only value I see for alignment is purely descriptive--as a reminder/shorthand for players and DMs about how the character will react by default when no other part of their characterization controls.

So a LG person will kneejerk toward "hey, how can we help people, even at a substantial cost to myself? Let's do it in a way that promotes society" while a CG person will kneejerk toward "hey, how can we help people, even at a substantial cost to myself? Rules will just get in the way, I'll do what I think is best to get there." and a LE person will kneejerk toward "Hey, what's in this for me and it's fine if it comes at a substantial cost to others? I'd like to play by the rules if I can/must/could be caught, however." and a CE person will kneejerk toward "Hey, what's in this for me and it's fine if it comes at a substantial cost to others? Rules just get in the way, I'll do what I want and if it hurts people or society, good."

But a LG person who struggles with a temper might not always get to that level. He'll regret lashing out and breaking that evil-doer's face instead of following process, and he'll not usually do it. While a CE person can totally care for a whole orphanage, especially if it gives him something he wants more right then than slaughter. Until he gets bored.

[Millstone85]

In D&D 5e, evil is not self-interest, and good is not altruism.I disagree, at least in regard to good. The PHB says that "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs", which sounds like textbook altruism. And the way I read the whole thing, the definition of NG is also the definition of G.

[micahaphone]

Setting-wise, it defines the structure of the Outer Planes

Mechanics wise....
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

You got me on the setting stuff. I personally don't look much at the cosmology of my homebrew world, I'm a very bottom-up worldbuilder. "It doesn't matter how the world was created if you don't know what the next village the party will visit looks like" kind of stuff.

Thank you for the list of mechanical effects though! That's very helpful. I feel like 95% of that list is stuff that will never come up for me, and the remaining 5% is mostly legacy stuff that I would handwave or work around.


It's an one-or-two-sentences description of a character's typical behavior. Same value as one's Flaw or the like.


The first.

If it works as a good shorthand for you and your friends, that's great. I've seen too much discussion of "You're acting awfully chaotic good, won't you lose your powers now?" "Nu-uh, I'm following my personal moral code" "that's still chaotic" etc etc etc for me to really get much info from a player telling me their character's alignment.
Whereas the bonds/flaws system has plenty of clearcut statements that don't take long to describe either, even amongst the pregens. "Everything I do is for the common people." or "I'm guilty of a terrible crime. I hope I can redeem myself for it." or "I have an ancient text that holds terrible secrets that must not fall into the wrong hands." all tell me a lot more about a character than "CG" "LG" "NG"



As someone with very little attachment to prior editions, the only value I see for alignment is purely descriptive--as a reminder/shorthand for players and DMs about how the character will react by default when no other part of their characterization controls.

So a LG person will kneejerk toward "hey, how can we help people, even at a substantial cost to myself? Let's do it in a way that promotes society" while a CG person will kneejerk toward "hey, how can we help people, even at a substantial cost to myself? Rules will just get in the way, I'll do what I think is best to get there." and a LE person will kneejerk toward "Hey, what's in this for me and it's fine if it comes at a substantial cost to others? I'd like to play by the rules if I can/must/could be caught, however." and a CE person will kneejerk toward "Hey, what's in this for me and it's fine if it comes at a substantial cost to others? Rules just get in the way, I'll do what I want and if it hurts people or society, good."

But a LG person who struggles with a temper might not always get to that level. He'll regret lashing out and breaking that evil-doer's face instead of following process, and he'll not usually do it. While a CE person can totally care for a whole orphanage, especially if it gives him something he wants more right then than slaughter. Until he gets bored.


And that to me only works once the table has a consensus on what counts as LG, CG, and all the other squares. You've laid out some good examples but I feel like it gets overly reductive pausing your roleplay to determine what square your current actions fit into.

[Unoriginal]

As someone with very little attachment to prior editions, the only value I see for alignment is purely descriptive--as a reminder/shorthand for players and DMs about how the character will react by default when no other part of their characterization controls.

That is literally all what alignment is in this edition, yes.


I disagree, at least in regard to good. The PHB says that "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs", which sounds like textbook altruism. And the way I read the whole thing, the definition of NG is also the definition of G.

It's the definition of neutral good, true, but neutral good is not the same as good. Lawful good and chaotic good is just as much good as neutral good is.

Or if you prefer another wording: a lawful good character or a chaotic good character is not less good than the neutral good character, even if the latter "does the best they can to help others according to their needs" and the two others respectively "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" and "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."

[Anymage]

If it works as a good shorthand for you and your friends, that's great. I've seen too much discussion of "You're acting awfully chaotic good, won't you lose your powers now?" "Nu-uh, I'm following my personal moral code" "that's still chaotic" etc etc etc for me to really get much info from a player telling me their character's alignment...

The "losing your powers" part is 99% old edition crud. And while DMs might well carry it over, characters in general only fall if the player signs on for it.

Realistically speaking, though, legacy stuff is kept in because a lot of it is iconic and expected by now. Axing alignment entirely would be more fuss than it's worth. (See how many people wanted to bring back the full grid when 4e cut it down to just five entries.) Making it easy to excise while also offering bonds/ideals/flaws as alternative character jumping off points is the best they can reasonably do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And that to me only works once the table has a consensus on what counts as LG, CG, and all the other squares. You've laid out some good examples but I feel like it gets overly reductive pausing your roleplay to determine what square your current actions fit into.

That's just it. If you're using it purely descriptively, it's just there to jog your memory and give you ideas if you don't have anything else to react with. It's a catch-all--if all else fails, I'm a good guy who plays by the rules. It's not designed to be interrogated in any detail, it's supposed to be broad and vague and for your eyes only. I don't ask what my player's characters' alignments are. That's for them. The world doesn't mechanically care. I do write down alignments for my NPCs (sometimes). But they're not tested against, other than "oh yeah, this guy's supposed to really only care about the rules (ie LN, roughly)".

And characters are expected to wander all over the place. There's no "you're LG, so you can only do LG things". It's just that your default home, if you have nothing else to go off of, is in the vague generality that is LG.


The "losing your powers" part is 99% old edition crud. And while DMs might well carry it over, characters in general only fall if the player signs on for it.

Realistically speaking, though, legacy stuff is kept in because a lot of it is iconic and expected by now. Axing alignment entirely would be more fuss than it's worth. (See how many people wanted to bring back the full grid when 4e cut it down to just five entries.) Making it easy to excise while also offering bonds/ideals/flaws as alternative character jumping off points is the best they can reasonably do.

Right. Mechanical alignment is currently a sacred tradition, kept in there because they're not wanting fights. It's basically vestigial. Descriptive alignment has some value, but it's really not worth fighting about.

Paladins only fall if they knowingly, intentionally abandon their Oath and refuse to repent. Which isn't fixed to alignment, although some Oaths are easier to keep in some alignments over others.

[MaxWilson]

I was recently watching a Seth Skorkowsky video about How to Play Evil Characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRgTu6FTHgI&t=5s), in which he pointed out that there's a difference between a "villainous" characters (characters who oppose the protagonists, regardless of their alignment) and "evil" characters (who do bad things but aren't necessarily always working directly against the PCs). His insight caused me to have an epiphany: the Alignment Grid might be a lot less controversial if we change the good/evil axis to an altruism/self-interest axis.

...

That said, I think it would help people to step back from the extremely loaded and moralistic terms of "good" and "evil" if we used more descriptive, scientific words like "altruism" and "self-interest" instead. It might allow us to step outside our preconceived notions of what "evil" and "good" look like, and focus more on what a given character actually does. Or maybe I'm just stirring the pot and muddying the waters. :smalltongue:

So what do you think? Would relabeling the good/evil axis have any effect on the Alignment Grid's contentiousness? Should D&D switch over to something more like Chronicles of Darkness' Integrity (https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Integrity) system, or Magic's Color Wheel (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?174163-Alignment-Replacement-The-Color-Wheel-Now-With-More-Green!)? Or are we doomed to argue about where to draw the line between "chaotic evil" and "neutral jackass" until Judgement Day?

I think that actually makes alignment LESS useful in a sense, as in "less worth the time to write it on your character sheet." Conceptually I think Detect Villain is a more useful spell than Detect Selfish, because what you're actually looking for when you cast the spell is "who can I trust"?

Before I read the thread, the thread title had me pondering hypothetical spells like "Detect Communist" and "Detect Elf Sympathizer," and I think such spells actually imply a pretty interesting campaign world, compared to Detect Law and Detect Chaos, etc. Might be fun to take Paranoia's approach to secret societies but splice it in with D&D's (original) simplistic approach to faction-detection and spells/items usable only by certain factions. Instead of a Book of Vile Darkness that only works for Team Evil, how about a Book of Revelations which only works for Team Xoriat and drives anyone else mad?


It would be easier to just drop the alignment system entirely, seeing as how in 5th edition there are no spells or abilities that actually detect a creature’s alignment.

FWIW, Sprites have an ability to detect alignment:


Heart Sight: The sprite touches a creature and magically knows the creature's current emotional state. If the target fails a DC 10 Charisma saving throw, the sprite also knows the creature's Alignment. Celestials, Fiends, and Undead automatically fail the saving throw.

But I think it would be more interesting if they detected alignment with factions like "Xoriat" and "Communist" and "Baator" and "Mutant" and "Elvish Imperial Navy" and "Renegade Bionoid" and "Dustmen", instead of "Chaotic Good" and "Neutral Evil." "Who owns your loyalty?"

[lall]

IHis insight caused me to have an epiphany: the Alignment Grid might be a lot less controversial if we change the good/evil axis to an altruism/self-interest axis.
Wouldn’t work for me personally as I don’t believe in altruism. If you jump on the holy hand grenade to save others, you do so selfishly.

[Millstone85]

It's the definition of neutral good, true, but neutral good is not the same as good. Lawful good and chaotic good is just as much good as neutral good is.Disagree with the first sentence. Agree with the second.

Hmm, I have a sudden craving for pretty colors.

So let's say I have 3 tubes, in which I pour 3 liquids representing law, good and chaos.


#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#



The middle tube got good and nothing else. It can be called "pure" or "100%" good, while the others are "mixed" or "50%" good. To describe it is to describe good.

At the same time, there is actually the same amount of good in all three tubes. And so are places like Celestia, Elysium, and Arborea, all equally good.

Now, an alternate interpretation would have the second tube be "balanced" rather than "pure".


#
#
#
#



But I think it still works, in that good is the most notable trait.


Or if you prefer another wording: a lawful good character or a chaotic good character is not less good than the neutral good character, even if the latter "does the best they can to help others according to their needs" and the two others respectively "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" and "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect."But see, if "the right thing" and "their conscience" are divorced from NG altruism, then there is no difference between LG and LN, or between CG and CN.

Same goes with how LE characters "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code". That doesn't sound very evil, unless of course they also act "without compassion or qualms" as a NE character does.

No, really, I am convinced that "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" is meant to be understood as "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" combined with "does the best they can to help others according to their needs". Same goes with any other XY, XN and NY alignments.

[Temperjoke]

*checks calendar*

Huh, didn't realize it was time for the monthly alignment argument discussion again on the forum.

[Lunali]

My gauges have always been selfless vs selfish and proactive vs reactive. The first is fairly self explanatory, the second is about whether the character plans ahead and/or considers the consequences of their actions versus reacting to circumstances in the moment and dealing with the consequences after.

[Unoriginal]

But I think it would be more interesting if they detected alignment with factions like "Xoriat" and "Communist" and "Baator" and "Mutant" and "Elvish Imperial Navy" and "Renegade Bionoid" and "Dustmen", instead of "Chaotic Good" and "Neutral Evil." "Who owns your loyalty?"

An interesting idea. Don't think it should be a replacement or linked to an alignment system, but it'd be interesting to see it developed.

Although for a *lot* of beings the answer would be "myself", depending on how subtle the detection method is.

Now I'm imagining a game where the PCs are some kind of bounty hunters having to navigate in a world controlled by different Factions on a fundamental level.



Disagree with the first sentence. Agree with the second.

Hmm, I have a sudden craving for pretty colors.

So let's say I have 3 tubes, in which I pour 3 liquids representing law, good and chaos.


#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#



The middle tube got good and nothing else. It can be called "pure" or "100%" good, while the others are "mixed" or "50%" good. To describe it is to describe good.

At the same time, there is actually the same amount of good in all three tubes. And so are places like Celestia, Elysium, and Arborea, all equally good.

Now, an alternate interpretation would have the second tube be "balanced" rather than "pure".


#
#
#
#



By the standard lore, this last interpretation is the correct one. A neutral good person does not lack law and chaos, they are just more-or-less equal.


But I think it still works, in that good is the most notable trait.

It does not work, as while good is the most notable trait, it is not the *only* trait.

To put it in other terms: good would be #, on its own. #### is good influenced by both law and chaos.


Or to use numbers: lawful good = (2law2good), chaotic good = (2chaos2good) and neutral good = (1chaos1law2good)



But see, if "the right thing" and "their conscience" are divorced from NG altruism, then there is no difference between LG and LN, or between CG and CN.

Sorry but this is circular reasoning. You're affirming that NG altruism is the definition of "good", then using that definition to argue LG and CG cannot be divorced from it.

The altruism of neutral good is not the default definition of good, it is the form that good form when combined with neutrality. It is what happens when you mix ## with # and #.

The "right thing" is the expression of good combined with the rigid, group-oriented principles of law. # # + ##. And "their conscience" is the result of good and the individualistic, changing chaos influencing each other, or ##+ ##.

Neutral good is just as influenced by the chaos-law axis as lawful good and chaotic good, and the neutral good's good is just as impure as theirs.



Same goes with how LE characters "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code". That doesn't sound very evil, unless of course they also act "without compassion or qualms" as a NE character does.e

I have no idea how you can argue that "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code" does not sounds very evil. I don't know any characters I'd describe as good or neutral if their description was "they'll take whatever they want, unless their code stop them".


If you claim lawful evil is a mix of the lawful neutral "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes" mixed with the neutral evil "do that do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms", you will have to explain how "act in accordance with law" and "do whatever they can get away with" can coexist.



No, really, I am convinced that "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" is meant to be understood as "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" combined with "does the best they can to help others according to their needs". Same goes with any other XY, XN and NY alignments.

But "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" and "does the best they can to help others according to their needs" are separate and sometime contrary directives.

A chaotic neutral person has their personal freedom as top priority. Meaning that in general, if they had to choose between themselves being free or the needs of others, they'll choose being free. Meanwhile the neutral good character does what they can to help those in needs, meaning that if they have to choose between their freedom and the needs of others, they'll typically give up their freedom.

Similarly, as said above, mixing ""act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes"" with "do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." does not result in lawful evil. "do whatever they can get away with" contains both law and chaos, while the second part of the sentence contains the evil. In other words, mixing lawful neutral and neutral evil would not result in the lawful evil's ####, but in something that would be: ## ## ####.


In other words, (2law2evil) is not the same as (((2law+1good+1evil)+(1chaos+1law+2evil))/2). Or to reuse your chaotic good example: (2chaos+2good) is not the same as (((2chaos+1good+1evil)+(1chaos+1law+2good))/2).

[MaxWilson]

An interesting idea. Don't think it should be a replacement or linked to an alignment system, but it'd be interesting to see it developed.

Although for a *lot* of beings the answer would be "myself", depending on how subtle the detection method is.

Yep, in such a game "unaligned" could potentially cover a lot of very, very bad people.

I wonder how Goodman Grey and pre-Tattooine Han Solo would show up...

[Tanarii]

I prefer Us Vs. Them, it removes all the chafe and gets right down to business

[MaxWilson]

I prefer Us Vs. Them, it removes all the chafe and gets right down to business

Unless your game is complex enough for there to be multiple Thems whom you might want to play off each other. (Blood War.)

[Millstone85]

By the standard lore, this last interpretation is the correct one. A neutral good person does not lack law and chaos, they are just more-or-less equal.

It does not work, as while good is the most notable trait, it is not the *only* trait.
Neutral good is just as influenced by the chaos-law axis as lawful good and chaotic good, and the neutral good's good is just as impure as theirs.The character does not significantly deviate toward law or chaos. The only direction worth mentioning is that of good, and what is mentioned is helping others. It is also put opposite to a lack of compassion.


Sorry but this is circular reasoning. You're affirming that NG altruism is the definition of "good", then using that definition to argue LG and CG cannot be divorced from it.Because, as I said, it leaves LG and CG with nothing to set them apart from LN and CN.


The "right thing" is the expression of good combined with the rigid, group-oriented principles of law. # # + ##. And "their conscience" is the result of good and the individualistic, changing chaos influencing each other, or ##+ ##.Here, you are giving various precisions to the concepts of law and chaos. "Rigid, group-oriented" for one. "Individualistic" and "changing" for the other. Things that are indeed common trends through the definitions.

What about good? What do the texts of LG and CG tell us about it? Nothing, AFAICT. Only the text of NG gives us a clue.


I have no idea how you can argue that "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code" does not sounds very evil. I don't know any characters I'd describe as good or neutral if their description was "they'll take whatever they want, unless their code stop them".Then you should be equally afraid of the PHB's LN guy, who is also all about his code and nothing else. Or even of the LG gal, for her society might consider it right to let you drown.


If you claim lawful evil is a mix of the lawful neutral "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes" mixed with the neutral evil "do that do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms", you will have to explain how "act in accordance with law" and "do whatever they can get away with" can coexist.Small prints. Some obscure rule from page 616, paragraph 13 of the Infernal Code, latest revision. The uninitiated call these loopholes, not realising the system demands blood.


But "follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else" and "does the best they can to help others according to their needs" are separate and sometime contrary directives.They are separate because they address different things. "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)". Here, one is the character trusting institutions as far as they can throw them, while the other is the character caring about their fellow man. And yes, there may be times when these ideals conflict.

[MaxWilson]

The character does not significantly deviate toward law or chaos. The only direction worth mentioning is that of good, and what is mentioned is helping others.

If it were so, you wouldn't say "Neutral Good," just Good. Neutral is a statement about law and chaos.

5 + 2i and 5 are both complex numbers with an imaginary component; but the imaginary component of 5 is 0i.

[Unoriginal]

The character does not significantly deviate toward law or chaos. The only direction worth mentioning is that of good, and what is mentioned is helping others. It is also put opposite to a lack of compassion.

"Between the two points" is still a direction


Because, as I said, it leaves LG and CG with nothing to set them apart from LN and CN.

Untrue. "Follow one's conscience" or "do the right thing" is just as different from "follow your whims"/"follow your code" as it is from "do your best to help people in accordance to their needs".



Here, you are giving various precisions to the concepts of law and chaos. "Rigid, group-oriented" for one. "Individualistic" and "changing" for the other. Things that are indeed common trends through the definitions.

What about good? What do the texts of LG and CG tell us about it? Nothing, AFAICT. Only the text of NG gives us a clue.

Untrue. The lawful good text indicates that "doing the right thing" is the lawful-influenced version of good, while the chaotic good one tells us the chaos-influenced version is "follow your conscience".


Then you should be equally afraid of the PHB's LN guy, who is also all about his code and nothing else. Or even of the LG gal, for her society might consider it right to let you drown.

While both of those things can be scary in their extreme, the lawful evil *basis* is "take what they want (unless stopped)". A lawful good person may let their ruler drown because the law and custom says they're not allowed to intervene, but they're unlikely to decide they're going to kill a peasant for looking at them just because they have that right legally.



Small prints. Some obscure rule from page 616, paragraph 13 of the Infernal Code, latest revision. The uninitiated call these loopholes, not realising the system demands blood.

So you're arguing that the lawful evil person will, in fact, the same as a neutral evil person in the sense that they're both doing whatever they can get away with, it's just that a lawful evil person will have an harder time getting away with it?



They are separate because they address different things. "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)". Here, one is the character trusting institutions as far as they can throw them, while the other is the character caring about their fellow man. And yes, there may be times when these ideals conflict.

Indeed. And as the text you just quoted says, the "neutral" part of "neutral good" describe the person's attitudes toward society and order. And such "neutral good" is not just "good" without other influence.


If it were so, you wouldn't say "Neutral Good," just Good. Neutral is a statement about law and chaos.

5 + 2i and 5 are both complex numbers with an imaginary component; but the imaginary component of 5 is 0i.

Thank you, I couldn't have put it better.

Neutral is not the same as null.

[Millstone85]

If it were so, you wouldn't say "Neutral Good," just Good. Neutral is a statement about law and chaos.

5 + 2i and 5 are both complex numbers with an imaginary component; but the imaginary component of 5 is 0i.So your illustration to NG ≠ G includes the statement that 5 + 0i = 5. Do you see how that might fail to convince me?

But rather than complex numbers, it is simply coordinates along two axes. When describing a position in that context, you still mention both x and y even when one or both are equal to zero. That's why the alignment is called neutral good.

And it would have been similarly appropriate if the description of NG included a statement about finding a just equilibrium between security and liberty, common rules and individual decisions, or some such.

Yeah, I was wrong, it would totally have been worth mentioning.

But all that got written is an altruist principle. What, then, am I to make of it, if not that it describes the good component alone?


So you're arguing that the lawful evil person will, in fact, the same as a neutral evil person in the sense that they're both doing whatever they can get away with, it's just that a lawful evil person will have an harder time getting away with it?Not necessarily harder, no.

Your average devil would not thrive in the unruly free-for-all of the Abyss, or the wishy-washy planes between it and Baator, even if they could hide that they are a devil. They want a rigid hierarchy in which to kiss up kick down. They want titles to flaunt. They want exquisite decorum at the slave market.

What they are getting away with, from a moral standpoint, is indifference to, or even revelry in, the suffering of others. But they want a society, preferably one that condones or endorses such cruelty.

[Unoriginal]

So your illustration to NG ≠ G includes the statement that 5 + 0i = 5. Do you see how that might fail to convince me?

But rather than complex numbers, it is simply coordinates along two axes. When describing a position in that context, you still mention both x and y even when one or both are equal to zero. That's why the alignment is called neutral good.

And it would have been similarly appropriate if the description of NG included a statement about finding a just equilibrium between security and liberty, common rules and individual decisions, or some such.

Yeah, I was wrong, it would totally have been worth mentioning.

But all that got written is an altruist principle. What, then, am I to make of it, if not that it describes the good component alone?

Before continuing this discussion, I have one question for you:

If you consider neutral good to be only good, neutral evil to be only evil, lawful neutral to be only lawful and chaotic neutral to be only chaotic, what do you consider neutral to be?

[Tanarii]

But rather than complex numbers, it is simply coordinates along two axes.
This is provably not true in 5e, where there 9 distinct Alignments, each with their own different associated typical behavior. And no "axis" theory of alignment it discussed.

The closest it comes is telling us it's a combination of two factors, but that is not the same thing at all. Combining factors is one thing, but axis implies they have separate existence with measurable traits or value along each, and that alignments are merely one plus the other. But they aren't. Each combination results in a uniquely defined associated typical behavior.

[Unoriginal]

This is provably not true in 5e, where there 9 distinct Alignments, each with their own different associated typical behavior. And no "axis" theory of alignment it discussed.

The closest it comes is telling us it's a combination of two factors, but that is not the same thing at all. Combining factors is one thing, but axis implies they have separate existence with measurable traits or value along each, and that alignments are merely one plus the other. But they aren't. Each combination results in a uniquely defined associated typical behavior.

That is true, which makes me realize I misspoke when I mentioned an axis earlier.

[Millstone85]

Before continuing this discussion, I have one question for you:

If you consider neutral good to be only good, neutral evil to be only evil, lawful neutral to be only lawful and chaotic neutral to be only chaotic, what do you consider neutral to be?The origin of the graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Coordinate_with_Origin.svg/212px-Coordinate_with_Origin.svg.png

Or, you know, this:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/2/23/Outlands3e.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/400


This is provably not true in 5e, where there 9 distinct Alignments, each with their own different associated typical behavior. And no "axis" theory of alignment it discussed.

The closest it comes is telling us it's a combination of two factors, but that is not the same thing at all. Combining factors is one thing, but axis implies they have separate existence with measurable traits or value along each, and that alignments are merely one plus the other. But they aren't. Each combination results in a uniquely defined associated typical behavior.I hope I am not being impolite here, but I find this reading... convoluted? I don't get why anyone would insist to read each description as if it were in a vacuum. And yet here you are, Unoriginal too, and maybe MaxWilson as well.

I am invoking the cosmology again (the only place where alignment is interesting, really) to point out all the intermediary outer planes and gate-towns with lawfulish, chaotish, goodish and evilish alignments. Or is it okay to imagine places that would illustrate "shades of philosophical difference" (DMG p43) between LG and LN, LG and NG, or LG and TN, but not okay to regard LG itself as part of a continuum?

[Unoriginal]

The origin of the graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Coordinate_with_Origin.svg/212px-Coordinate_with_Origin.svg.png

Or, you know, this:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/2/23/Outlands3e.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/400


Do you argue the fact that the Outlands' neutral nature is because they're equally influenced by all of the Outer Planes?


Or, to re-use your color symbolic from before, do you argue that neutral is not:####




I hope I am not being impolite here, but I find this reading... convoluted? I don't get why anyone would insist to read each description as if it were in a vacuum. And yet here you are, Unoriginal too, and maybe MaxWilson as well.

I am invoking the cosmology again (the only place where alignment is interesting, really) to point out all the intermediary outer planes and gate-towns with lawfulish, chaotish, goodish and evilish alignments. Or is it okay to imagine places that would illustrate "shades of philosophical difference" (DMG p43) between LG and LN, LG and NG, or LG and TN, but not okay to regard LG itself as part of a continuum?

There are indeed planes that are influenced by more than one alignment. Ysgard is both chaotic neutral and chaotic good, for example, which means that it is firmly chaotic (if one forgive me that oxymoron) on the "describes attitudes toward society and order" factor, while on the "morality" factor it is 3/4 good and 1/4 evil (as befitting of a plane where that is still about people maiming and killing for fun and glory).


My argument is that neutrality is not an absence of the chaos/law component or of the good/evil component of the alignment. It is actually the presence of both in equal measure.

[OldTrees1]

The Great Wheel:

########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########


(some speculated planes between the great wheel and the outlands):
Source: https://mimir.net/mapinfinity/cordance.html (fanon)

########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########


The Outlands
########

[Unoriginal]

The Great Wheel:
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########


Wonderful.



The Outlands
########

Indeed.



Mildly Neutral Planes(some speculated planes between the great wheel and the outlands):

That's a pretty fun thing to speculate about.

[OldTrees1]

That's a pretty fun thing to speculate about

Mostly evil, mostly lawful, but not absolutely so... I'm imagining
Yes Sheol is between the Nine Hells and the Outlands
Source: https://mimir.net/mapinfinity/cordance.html (fanon)
Turns out I remembered 8 more than the article wrote about. Now fixed back to the 8.

I also really like the take on the inner planes:
https://mimir.net/mapinfinity/puras.html (3E canon)
https://mimir.net/mapinfinity/quasi.html (fanon)

[TigerT20]

What about moving completely away from good and evil and using a different conflict, to match the setting?

So a Norse mythology campaign would likely have Fate vs Free Will.

Other examples could be technology vs nature, tradition vs progress, justice vs mercy, loyalty vs impartiality etc.

You could even exchange the two-axis system for a 5-point system, like MtG (where each point represents two things, like technology and progress - it's opposites being the ones containing tradition and nature)

[Millstone85]

Do you argue the fact that the Outlands' neutral nature is because they're equally influenced by all of the Outer Planes?

Or, to re-use your color symbolic from before, do you argue that neutral is not:####In the post where I first brought that symbolism, I accepted both interpretations of NG as either good and nothing else or good with balanced law and chaos.


#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#



In that same post and later ones, I said that it was in practice a distinction without a difference.


There are indeed planes that are influenced by more than one alignment. Ysgard is both chaotic neutral and chaotic good, for example, which means that it is firmly chaotic (if one forgive me that oxymoron) on the "describes attitudes toward society and order" factor, while on the "morality" factor it is 3/4 good and 1/4 evil (as befitting of a plane where that is still about people maiming and killing for fun and glory).

My argument is that neutrality is not an absence of the chaos/law component or of the good/evil component of the alignment. It is actually the presence of both in equal measure.Alright, yes, let's accept that Elysium is ####. And with the addition of evil to the color palette, the Outlands is indeed ####.

Of course, the Outlands shows increasing dominances the farther away you get from the Spire. Around the gate-town of Excelsior, for example, the nature of the plane might be:

Socially, 3/4 lawful and 1/4 chaotic.
Morally, 3/4 good and 1/4 evil.

That's what makes the presence of opposing factors more relevant than it is in Elysium.

Now, here is my question:

"do whatever they can get away with" contains both law and chaos, while the second part of the sentence contains the evil.Could you please do the same analysis on "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs"? What part of that sentence contains both law and chaos, and what part contains the good?


The Great Wheel:

########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
########
Sorry, I do not understand this. For starters, I don't think that we are using the same colors for the same things.

[Naanomi]

Note that this sort of thing isn't 'settled science' even in setting... Baernoloth definitely felt that Chaos and Law 'diluted' the 'purity' of Evil; but the original scions of Good happily spread their influence to foster into new LG and CG forms in the early cosmos

[EggKookoo]

I prefer Us Vs. Them, it removes all the chafe and gets right down to business

Alignment doesn't come up much in my current game. Mainly because I and my players believe that people are too all over the map to be locked down. And while many people want to be good and will try to be good, there's a price above which being good is too expensive. It's an exceptional person who remains good (or evil) in all circumstances. Alignment is just too fuzzy to matter as a mechanic, so we don't bother. However, as DM, I have built a moral structure into the campaign. It revolves around pain.

Good creatures believe pain is a bad thing and should be eliminated if possible. This could be because the good creature simply can't tolerate pain, either in itself or in others. A good creature may be excessively empathetic, and witnessing pain is like experiencing some of it. A good creature may also have a philosophical view of pain. Pain is an obstacle. It's the root of all problems. People aren't living their best, fullest lives because of pain, or the fear of it. Pain makes people cruel and fearful. Disease is a problem because of the pain it causes. Dishonesty is a kind of ethical pain. The fear of pain keeps corrupt leaders in power. And so on...

Evil creatures believe pain is important. As with the good creature, an evil creature may simply crave the sensations of pain. A creature may turn to sadism and cruelty in order to experience this pain, and does so for no other reason that it derives a visceral pleasure from it. It may even inflict pain on itself, "painsturbating" so to speak. But also like a good creature, an evil creature may have an ideology about pain. Pain is a required component for progress. You can't really learn anything of value without experiencing pain ("No pain, no gain. Pain is weakness leaving the body."). If you gain something of value without causing or experiencing pain, that value is a sham.

Good creatures can cause pain if doing so alleviates a larger amount of pain. Wiping out a bandit camp to save the village those bandits have preyed on for years, for example. Evil creatures can alleviate pain if doing so causes more (and more profitable) pain down the line. Prompting the villagers and bandits to fight each other, for example, with the idea that one side will come through the conflict stronger.

I haven't really brought it up to the players. I don't think it would change much. Most people would oscillate between these two extremes, and while a lot of us don't want pain in our lives, most responsible adults also know you sometimes need to rip the bandage off now. But I find it more interesting and tactile than the generic presentations of good and evil.

[Unoriginal]

In the post where I first brought that symbolism, I accepted both interpretations of NG as either good and nothing else or good with balanced law and chaos.


#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#



In that same post and later ones, I said that it was in practice a distinction without a difference.

That is what we're disagreeing on, then, as my assertions are 1. only the second is valid 2. it is not a distinction without a difference, it is crucially different.


Alright, yes, let's accept that Elysium is ####. And with the addition of evil to the color palette, the Outlands is indeed ####.

Of course, the Outlands shows increasing dominances the farther away you get from the Spire. Around the gate-town of Excelsior, for example, the nature of the plane might be:

Socially, 3/4 lawful and 1/4 chaotic.
Morally, 3/4 good and 1/4 evil.

That's what makes the presence of opposing factors more relevant than it is in Elysium.

Sounds good to me. A Slaad would be uncomfortable with Excelsior's setup and expectations, but it wouldn't be complete Terra Incognita for them either.




Now, here is my question:
Could you please do the same analysis on "NG folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs"? What part of that sentence contains both law and chaos, and what part contains the good?

While I admit it's harder than for the other, here is my take:

"Do the best they can to help others" is the good outlook. "According to their needs" is the neutral outlook.

"Pure good" has no reason to care about the concept of "need", it would just help others to the best they can. The idea of giving less than everything you can is a factor of the lawful-neutral-chaos part of alignment.

To exemplify:

Situation:The character encounters a person dying of thirst in the desert

Lawful good answer: Character is from a culture where providing hospitality in such circumstances is the thing to do. They will provide help as much as the traditions/laws say should be provided, without limiting themselves to the person's needs and regardless of their own needs.

Chaotic good answer: Character's conscience tells them they can't let someone in a bind like that, and so they will provide as much help as they deem appropriate at the moment, regardless of if it fails to meet, meets or exceed the person's needs at the moment

Neutral good answer: Character will do what they can to help with what the person needs, but likely not much more than that due to a) there's other people with needs b) they themselves have needs

"Pure good" answer: Character will assist the person unconditionally and selflessly, as long as a third party is not harmed in the process.

Or another exemple:

Situation: Character is charged to distribute 1000gp through 10 families. They are the sole judge of who gets how much money.

Lawful good: will distribute the gold in shares fitting the traditions or social order they recognize. Might result in giving an equal amount to all, or giving each an amount corresponding to their social statuses.

Chaotic good: will distribute the gold in shares fitting how they feel about each family's situation.

Neutral good: will distribute in shares fitting how much each family needs. If there is any leftover gold, will probably petition to have it given to an eleventh family in need.

"Pure good": Not giving 1000gp to each family is harming all of them, as giving less than the maximum means they are favoring one family at the expense of the others. Is not suited to accomplishing this task.



Sorry, I do not understand this. For starters, I don't think that we are using the same colors for the same things.

The Nine Hells of Baator:########

The Infinite Battlefield of Acheron:########

The Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus:########

The the Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia: ########

The Seven Heavens of Mount Celestia: ########

The Twin Paradises of Bytopia: ########

The Blessed Fields of Elysium: ########


The Wilderness of the Beastlands: ########

The Olympian Glades of Arborea: ########

The Heroic Domains of Ysgard: ########

The Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo: ########

The Windswept Depths of Pandemonium: ########

The Infinite Layers of the Abyss: ########

The Tarterian Depths of Carceri: ########

The Gray Wastes of Hades: ########

The Bleak Eternity of Gehenna: ########

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, I do not understand this. For starters, I don't think that we are using the same colors for the same things.

The colors are the same. You used Yellow=Law, Green=Chaos, Blue=Good, and Red=Evil. Each row was a plane starting at the Nine Hells and going clockwise around the great wheel. I had to double the length of each row (8 #s instead of 4) to show the difference between Major and Minor alignment dominance. This is similar to when you rated the gate town of Excelsior using 8 #s (1:3:3:1).

Although I did it mostly for the benefit of the other readers. If I followed your points, your focus in that discussion was moving to a slightly different point. I quoted that point again below.


And it would have been similarly appropriate if the description of NG included a statement about finding a just equilibrium between security and liberty, common rules and individual decisions, or some such.

Yeah, I was wrong, it would totally have been worth mentioning.

But all that got written is an altruist principle. What, then, am I to make of it, if not that it describes the good component alone?

[Millstone85]

The colors are the same. You used Yellow=Law, Green=Chaos, Blue=Good, and Red=Evil.Gold and teal, to be precise, but it turns out that wasn't the source of my confusion. I was wondering why law and chaos were both on the left of the map. Yeah, that's how much the design went over my head.


Each row was a plane starting at the Nine Hells and going clockwise around the great wheel. I had to double the length of each row (8 #s instead of 4) to show the difference between Major and Minor alignment dominance. This is similar to when you rated the gate town of Excelsior using 8 #s (1:3:3:1).Thank you for explaining this. And to Unoriginal, for naming each row.


"Do the best they can to help others" is the good outlook. "According to their needs" is the neutral outlook.

"Pure good" has no reason to care about the concept of "need", it would just help others to the best they can. The idea of giving less than everything you can is a factor of the lawful-neutral-chaos part of alignment.Interesting. I figured that both the "according to their needs" and "can get away with" clauses were there to discourage comically self-destructive behaviors. Like a good-aligned PC immediately giving all their starting equipment to charity, and an evil-aligned PC then proceeding to mug said charity in broad daylight.

The second example you provided
"Pure good": Not giving 1000gp to each family is harming all of them, as giving less than the maximum means they are favoring one family at the expense of the others. Is not suited to accomplishing this task. adds paralyzing indecisiveness, further bringing to mind a "stupid-aligned" character. I imagine evil might similarly get stuck on whether it would be more heartless to keep all the money to themselves or use it to incite jealousy among the families.

But the idea that realism would be rooted in law and chaos is an intriguing one. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that we humans could never make any decision if it weren't for an emotional factor. And I suppose that tradition would be an alternative.

Now I am imagining some plane of pure good lost in its own paradoxes, somewhere in the Far Realm or the Hinterlands.

[Prince Vine]

I wonder how Goodman Grey [excised] would show up...

Alignment: Rent (the R is ALWAYS capitalized)