Alighnment Philosophies

[Zolem]

In the Strip 606 thread, a lot of people were having philosophical discusions about different alignments. I foudn them interesting, and wondered if people would be interested in posting their own interpritations of various alignments. There are a couple rules:

1. No flaming. This is an intelectual discussion thread and I would hate to see it closed because people fought over ideas.

2. If you are presenting a new philosophy, please identify in large bold letters what the alignment is.

3. Since some of the philosophies might be long, if you want to comment on them, simply start off with a identifier as to what philosophy you are commenting on. Ex. Zolem, CG

And so without further adue, I present my first philosophy...

CHAOTIC GOOD

Chaotic Good is an often misunderstood alignment. It's not a total disregard for rulers and rules because you feel they are corupt and people would be better off without them. That is Chaotic Neutral, as quite often the rules and regulations are necesary, and discounting them out of hand is not an act taken with the good of the people in mind. Deposing dictators, sure that's a good act, but that's not the only way to be Chaotic Good. A Chaotic Good person does not necesarily disregard all laws. He understands that some laws are necesary for the good of people, but others get in the way of the wellfare of the general public. These are the laws that need to be opposed, though not necesarily in the open.

A prime example of a CG charecter that did not acticly opose the lawful powers of the land is Shojo, a decent man. He broke the rules true, but the ones he broke were impractical and stood in the way of protecting his people and the city. In order to help his people, he needed to decieve his enemies and his allies, bend break or re-write the rules, and operate behind peoples backs. That's the Chaotic part. The GOOD part is that he did it all so that his people would be safe and not have to worry about war or the world being destroyed because of some hide-bound paladin oath. He disregarded rules, regulations, and oaths for the good of his people. In essence using the strip 606 metaphore, he fudged his own dice-rolls true, but he also bumped the table for others as well. That in essence is CG, sombody who bends the rules so that others can do better.

[hamishspence]

Yes- in a sense- Granny Weatherwax might fit this concept- you have the rules, so you know just how serious breaking them is (but when you break them, you break them good and hard)

We Have A Duty is a classic Good concept- and witches in discworld, with their strong individualistic tendencies and wary attitude to authority (without necessarily opposing it all that time) fit.

the CG is the type to stand up to authority- when it needs it, and bend the rules, show mercy- when its called for. Sarah Aching.

[King of Nowhere]

I say that for a chaotic good person, rules are just guidelines. A rule represent what is normally a correct behaviour, but if you think that in a particular circumstance following the rules would have a bad effect, you break it. The important is not the rule, but what results your actions will have.
Many chaotic people have mostly a lawful behaviour, becuase they
a) Believe most rules are pretty good
and\or
b) Because breaking the rules would have being incarcerated\losing job\other unpleasant effects.
In that case the why you did the action is more important than what you did (it is the same principle of having an evildoer committing good acts by paying or threatening him).

[Warlord JK]

LG people strictly obey laws and always attempt to act for the good of the people, so long as they obey the rules and laws. CG are willing to bend rules and go behind the backs of their teamates and rulers in order to make sure the right thing is done. This is the stark contrast between the 2, a willingness to bend rules or not.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

D&D, Good and Evil

You set up a mythos of supernatural beings and magic. Some beings and some magic is evil. For the most part they are what is traditionally seen as evil in the real world, eg demons, devils, undead, monsters. Evil includes murder, intentionally spreading disease, bringing the dead back to life, using intelligent beings as food, using others as slaves, controlling the minds of others, destroying or corrupting nature, etc. If you think its bad thing in the real world, it's evil in the D&D world. For example, if you think environmentalism is something worthwhile, then you can come up with an evil Polluter prestige class in D&D. You would give it spell like abilities like Poison, Contagion, Blight, Cloudkill, Incendiary Cloud, etc. The evil Polluter villian would be to there to spread pollution, naturally enough.

The opposing side, Good, is made up of things normally considered good in the real world, like healing, angels, Care Bears and so forth.

Whenever you feel like it, you can make a monster arbitrarily good or evil. Just make sure to color code it for convenience. For ex, evil dragons have primary colors. Good dragons are metallic. Unseelie fay come out at night or in shadows. Seelie fay are creature of light and day. Etc.

Feel free to make exceptions and subversions to the rules. Do you want your hero to be an angst filled, rebellious and good warrior that escapes to the "strange" surface world and be the only exception to a fallen race of completely evil, magical beings ruled exclusively by women who live underground? Sure. No prob.

You can worry a lot about real world philosophy and real world concepts of good and evil but its not that important. If you have good heroes, they help people. Set good heroes up against evil villians 95% of the time. Make any good adverseries merely annoying. For ex, you can set your players up against a hideous undead creature that eats brains. Evil. Simple. Or maybe you want to set them up against some sort of creature that hides as one of the towns elders and has long range plans of exploitation. That's OK, just make it evil in motivation but hide its motivations/actions until the reveal.

If you have evil anti-heroes, they are out for themselves in an evil world. Set up both good and evil villians. Evil antagonists are competitors. If the evil party rogue wants to steal a gem, his villanous rival wants to do the same. You can also set up good villians who are trying to stop the anti-heroes. For example, a cop tries to stop the theft.

If you have heroes that want to play neutral, let them. They have to fall into the first two categories at various time. So set up both evil and good antagonists. But make the good antagonists especially obnoxious, this will make the heroes sense of neutrality seem superior.

If you are writing a story based on D&D instead of the game then just think of your protagonists as if they were players. If you are world-building based on D&D without a particular story or game in mind then just think of the main players in your world as if they were your game players.

D&D, Chaos and Law

You set up a mythos of supernatural beings and magic. Some beings and some magic is chaotic. Few players know what this means. It's not world ending stuff but a sort of Platonic ideal like in Moorcock's novels. Chaos is "change, possibility, disorder". Law is "stability, predictability, structure". At times you can think of chaos as a destructive, entropic force as in some other games and stories, for example, as like the Chaos of Runequest*. But this is not typical.

Unlike good and evil, it's not useful to create characters which only show only the traits of Chaos or Law. For example, you can create a goddess of chaos whose appearance changes every second, no problem. But if her words and actions don't have some coherence over a given length of time, she is not useful to game play/story/word-building. (No Halaster Blackcloak is not a counter-example. Though he may act erratic in a personal encounter, his dungeon is a fixed point.)

It's easier to define what Law and Chaos are not. What they do not mean is that only Lawful have civilized society, laws, obey said rules, make or keep deals or keep their word. It would mean that Lawful characters can never lie , or displace a leader, or break a law, ever. That's just silly. It would mean, for example, that the chaotic aligned would have to act in an annoying, stupid manner that destroys the game/story/world-building. If this does happen, this is usually done by annoying and stupid teenage boys. If they play the game for any length of time, it's a phase they go through. The best way to handle them, if you are not an annoying, stupid teenage boy yourself, is either to not invite them back or to out play them psychologically.

D&D, Relationship between Evil and Chaos

Many are confused about good and evil alignments. Many are confused about law and chaos. Many confuse law with good and evil with chaos. To be honest, who can blame them? It's not as if the real world concepts of good, evil, law and chaos have not been debated for centuries by brilliant men and women. The fact that the same terms were included in a role-playing game is not going to make for less confusion.

For example, you can write a character based on D&D that is chaotic and evil to the point of being one-dimensional and overdone even though, at the same time, he is fun to write and read about. You can even tell people people that the character you wrote from your point of view is chaotic and evil. No matter. Some people will still disagree.

That's OK as long as everyone is having fun.


*Runequest, Chaos

You set up a mythos. Some gods created the world from nothing. But this nothing was not nothing. It was pure chaos. It, chaos, can came to life on its own. It infects life. It seeks to end the world completely not out of evil but because of its nature. It is entropy. Most people in the Runequest world associate evil and chaos even those that worship them. The gods of evil and chaos united in the beginning but it was only for convenience. The gods of evil needed a little destruction to happen to get their way at the beginning. But the ultimate aim of chaos is to destroy everything including evil. Recently new a new goddes came into being. She claims she is against evil but she accepts some chaos. Chaos is part of life in her philosophy. She creates a great empire.

[Blue Ghost]

No alignment has its own definitive philosophy. The nine alignments (or the five of 4e) are all broad categories, each containing many different types of philosophy, some of which are drastically different and completely incompatible. But each of the alignments does lend support to certain groups of philosophies.
I consider myself to be a Lawful Good individual, and I shall briefly describe my style of Lawful Good.

I believe strongly in an objective morality, governed by laws just like the natural world. Though I acknowledge the existence of many gray areas where absolute morality is not easily determined, I view morality as an unchanging law for which there can be no compromise. I base my day-to-day actions on this law to the best of my knowledge and ability. However, I acknowledge that I do not have a perfect knowledge of the moral law, and what I consider good may be actually evil, and vice versa. Thus, I try to keep an open mind, but not to the extent that I would think that everything is acceptable. I do not force my views on other people, but will freely offer wisdom as to what I believe is good.
Anyone who knows me well will know that I often act in random, unpredictable ways that resemble most depictions of Chaos rather than Law. However, I still consider myself a Lawful Good individual. I believe that within the bounds of moral law, there is a great amount of freedom for people to be individuals, and I intend to take full advantage of that freedom. Yet when a decidedly moral issue comes up, I am steady and unswerving in my views.

[Trazoi]

Zolem, CG: I've only played computer games based on D&D, not D&D itself, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the dividing line between neighbouring alignment types. If Chaotic Good is someone who only follows laws if they benefit the greater good, what is Neutral Good? I'm unclear as to what the difference is between the actions of a Neutral Good character and a Chaotic Good one.

[Tempest Fennac]

You may find this to be useful, Trazoi: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm (I tend to see Law as being about organizing things and keeping order while Chaos is more about personal freedom and doing what you want to do with Neutrality being somewhere in between). Ironically, I class myself as Neutral (Chaotic) Good, but most people on this forum class me as Lawful Good, so it is subjective to a degree.

[Trazoi]

My confusion is that I thought someone who respected law unless they felt it was restricting the greater good was more of a Neutral Good character than Chaotic Good. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between a Neutral Good character that breaks rules and a Chaotic Good one.

[Manga Shoggoth]

My confusion is that I thought someone who respected law unless they felt it was restricting the greater good was more of a Neutral Good character than Chaotic Good. I'm not sure where the dividing line is between a Neutral Good character that breaks rules and a Chaotic Good one.

Final Review (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) is probably a good illustration of how to arbitrate the differences - or at least the principles behind the concept.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

From the SRD
Chaotic Evil...A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Strangely enough Drow are considered the epitome of Chaotic Evil. Oh sure a Drow is typically depicted doing whatever her "greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive her to do." But usually they are cold, calculating violent and predictable schemers. Drow plans are rarely haphazard and their society, even the groups within their society are well organized. However, Drow are typically depicted trying to overthrow or kill their superiors.

In breaking rules and laws, Drow sure do seem to follow a lot of rules and laws. But if every character in a game or story that was chaotic evil behaved in a "hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable", then chaotic evil would be the most boring of alignments.

Similarly, the SRD states
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Again, strangely D&D devils are considered Lawful Evil. Sure devils have the evil part down. But typically devils are cast as working to undermine the hierarchy they serve. Devils typically depicted as motivated by their own goals rather than the overall goal of devildom. In fact, you could say, that as typically depicted, an individual devil seems to be "simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal." This would fit with the description of Chaotic Evil, no?

Why? Again, if Lawful Evil devils could not take actions outside the "limits of his code of conduct", they would be boringly stupid.

Evil and Good, however difficult they are to define are easy to fit into character. The Good guy will risk his life to save a puppy. The Evil guy will tear a puppy's head off.

Law and Chaos, as easy as they seem to be to define are rather hard to put into character. Sure a Chaos Beast is an example of mindless randomness and a Modron is an example of mindless law. But if you limit Law and Chaos to just that then you miss out on a lot of possible characterizations.

That's why it's not strange that Chaotic and Lawful characters don't often act in strictly "Chaotic" and "Lawful" ways. If you treat alignment, especially on the Law and Chaos axis, as anything other than very broad and vague categories, they can quickly become a straight-jacket for the character.

Consider Belkar, or your favorite epitome of Chaotic Evilness. Once you have a Belkar, you can't make other Chaotic Evil character like Belkar simply because its boring.

Belkar for the most part, while Roy was around, was a wannabe, annoying evil. Xykon on the other hand is far more powerful and sinister. Despite their love of hurting others, Xykon is capable of deep and subtle long range planning. Though Xykon and Belkar are similar, their differences are greater, even in terms of fundamental motivation.

Similarly, both Roy and Durkon are different though they are Lawful Good. Durkon is respectful of authority while Roy is not.

The easiest way to handle alignment is fit the alignment to the character rather than fit the character to the alignment. That is, let the character be the character and then judge the character's alignment.

If you think about it, this is how it's happening in OotS. Roy went along his business without thought to his alignment until he was judged in the afterlife. And though you might have loved or hated Miko, it certainly was not out of character for her to kill Shojo. Once she did, the Twelve gods judges her not to be a paladin and no longer to be Lawful Good.

[Evil DM Mark3]

From the SRD

Strangely enough Drow are considered the epitome of Chaotic Evil.

This is extra strange because this is not their given aligment. See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm) for their true alignment, Neutral Evil.

My alignment phylosphies to follow later today.

[Desilva]

Good and evil are by their very nature impossible to objectively define; law and chaos are just as tough, and the four hybrid alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) even worse. Hence all the philosophy. Personally, I take a fairly realistic standpoint.

My philosophy is that alignment has everything to do with Social Instincts.

I find that a person who hurts and kills because he enjoys it is a rare and brutal creature indeed - certainly there aren't enough villains like that to justify an entire third of the alignment wheel devoted to them. Similarly, I find that it's an even more rare person who is rarely motivated by selfish ends at all and is devoted entirely to defending others.

The vast majority of sentient beings are selfish. I.E., they won't do something unless they have some selfish reason for doing it, even if that reason is as simple as guilt (that woman is dead because I didn't save her life, I must be a terrible person). The best of heroes may be nothing more than a powerfully capable man who does good things because he'd feel like crap otherwise. The good feelings one has when one helps someone are another reason to help, and it's also self-motivated.

I feel that most people are Good - not because I'm idealistic - but simply because they're too weak to defy the social instincts with which everyone is born. The average person will help someone in need, if it's not too much of a personal burden. Their action is Good, but their motivation is not entirely altruistic. That doesn't make them Neutral; it's just worth consideration.

An actual Neutral person (on the G/E scale) is someone who defies those social instincts as his defining charicteristic, and acts in his best interest in the great majority of situations in which he finds himself. If he saves an old woman from being mugged, he's probably got some ulterior motive. Maybe he wants a reward. However, he draws the line at directly hurting or killing people, either because it's too risky he'll be caught and punished, or because he's still at least partially a slave to social convention and would feel guilty for doing so.

An evil person, then, is entirely free from society and its shackles, and will hurt and kill whenever doing so would be in some way beneficial. And in committing such an evil act, he would either feel no remorse at all, or would easily ignore it.

Law and Chaos is different and somewhat less broad in scope. Lawfulness is being disciplined and enjoying order and organization, while Chaos is more about freedom and expression.

The interesting thing about the concept of Alignment is that it involves a lot of hypothetical or rhetorical questions. What you would do in a hypothetical situation that best supports and illustrates the difference between two or more alignments is more important than what you would actually do in an actual, real life situation. Exploring your own alignment is hard because there may be many, many factors that limit your ability to judge your own reaction. Lack of self-confidence, or lack of emotional or fiscal resources, are just a few of those things. A lot of people would rate themselves lower just because they would feel unable to help due to poverty or something else, so to rate yourself involves a lot of stacking what-ifs.

My own alignment and my judgment of it seems to change day by day, but is always some combination of chaos, good, and neutral. At this moment I'd say that under ideal circumstances, I'd be somewhere between Neutral and Chaotic Good. More interested in challenging the law and being personally free than upholding traditions and organizing myself, but I do have some respect for conventionality, and I'd always be available to help someone if they need me. I don't think I could ever actually hurt or kill anyone, no matter what the potential reward.

Anyway, that's my take on it. If you read all that, kudos.

[hamishspence]

What about those willing to cause a lot of harm for what they believe to be the good of others? "Well intentioned extremists"?

I consider that while motives are important, actions matter more- you can be really nice in your personal life, but utterly ruthless to those not in your immediate sphere. Savage Species covers this, though in little detail- Evil guys can love, even be self-sacrificing, its what they do most of the time that matters. Champions of Ruin does the same in much more detail.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Good and evil are by their very nature impossible to objectively define;

In the real world? Well that's a point of heavy contention in the real world, moral objectivism. My question is what does real world good and evil have to do with fictional/D&D Good and Evil?

Good and Evil are easy to objectively define in D&D, by fiat. Undead are evil. Demons and Devils are evil. Drow are evil. The Blasphemy spell is evil. Character X is evil.

What is not objectively easy to define even in fiction/D&D is how an Evil character would behave. This is a great source of confusion. An Evil character in a fictional/D&D world does not have to act any particular way because they are Evil. For example, an Evil Drow character playing in a party of Neutral, mercenary adventurers can still be Evil and the player can play him with Evil intention even though, for all intense and purposes, the character is acting the same as the Neutral characters. If you think about Belkar in OotS, he has for the most part done something similar. He has most acted in accord with his Good aligned party. It is only before he joined the party in Start of Darkness and in recent strps that his Evil has been manifest as evil acts.



law and chaos are just as tough, and the four hybrid alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) even worse. Hence all the philosophy. Personally, I take a fairly realistic standpoint.

Conversely law and chaos are easy to define objectively in the real world. And similarly, Law and Chaos easy to define in a fictional/D&D setting. However it is almost impossible to have a character act strictly in accord with the concepts of Law and Chaos as defined in D&D and be at all interesting. Again take Belkar as an example, Belkar is Chaotic in that he seeks to disrupt the party/people's peace of mind if at all possible and in this he is perversely predictable or overdone.



I find that a person who hurts and kills because he enjoys it is a rare and brutal creature indeed - certainly there aren't enough villains like that to justify an entire third of the alignment wheel devoted to them.

Unfortunately, in the real world, they are not as rare as one might want. Regardless, the real world has nothing to do with alignment. Fortunately for plot, in heroic fiction/D&D such villians are common place. For example, Xykon. You usually have at least one per story/game at least.



Similarly, I find that it's an even more rare person who is rarely motivated by selfish ends at all and is devoted entirely to defending others.

In the real world, those are rare but not as rare as one might think. Fortunately for the story, in the heroic fantasy, they are common place. Usually, it is the hero and there is usually one per game.



The vast majority of sentient beings are selfish. I.E., they won't do something unless they have some selfish reason for doing it, even if that reason is as simple as guilt (that woman is dead because I didn't save her life, I must be a terrible person). The best of heroes may be nothing more than a powerfully capable man who does good things because he'd feel like crap otherwise. The good feelings one has when one helps someone are another reason to help, and it's also self-motivated.

I feel that most people are Good - not because I'm idealistic - but simply because they're too weak to defy the social instincts with which everyone is born. The average person will help someone in need, if it's not too much of a personal burden. Their action is Good, but their motivation is not entirely altruistic. That doesn't make them Neutral; it's just worth consideration.

Though this may or may not be a fine description of real world heroics, it has nothing to do with fictional heroes. Fictional heroes and villians have fictional motivations which can be more or less like real world motivations. However, in-story, the motivation of characted, and how much we can suspend belief in it, often has little to do with its real-worldly-ness.

For example, Redcloak has a more "humane" motivation for his evil acts because in his mind, he is seeking to right the wrongs of Goblinkind. On the other hand, Xykon is almost caricature of Evil. Xykon is Evil and he knows it. He relishes in it. He makes an effort to act as Evil as he can. This is rarely, if ever, a real world motivation. However, it is a believable and more sinister in-story motivation. In fact, Xykon's motives and actions are almost more believable than Redcloak's in-story given the premises of the OotS verse.



An evil person, then, is entirely free from society and its shackles, and will hurt and kill whenever doing so would be in some way beneficial. And in committing such an evil act, he would either feel no remorse at all, or would easily ignore it.

This goes to the heart of the confusion. An evil person in the real world would not necessarily "hurt and kill whenever doing so would be in some way beneficial". Many real world factors would go into such a decision, for example, a desire or inclination to hurt or kill. It is certainly the case that in general a person will do some thing whenever it is beneficial or else everyone would find some time for moderate exercise.

In a story/game world, an Evil character will likewise not "hurt and kill whenever doing so would be in some way beneficial". This makes all evil characters the same. The evil fighter might be inclined to intimidate innocents, the assassin to kill, and the necromancer to rob graves and raise zombies, the evil NPC might only be there to be a red-herring.


My own alignment and my judgment of it seems to change day by day, but is always some combination of chaos, good, and neutral. At this moment I'd say that under ideal circumstances, I'd be somewhere between Neutral and Chaotic Good.

What's the point of having a real world alignment? Do you roll dice to see if you can open doors too?

Alignment is a game term invented for a particular game/genre. It groups characters in broad, vague and subjective categories which have game mechanical effects. Some people see this as good for the game, some as bad for the game. That's a fair debate as is what constitutes an alignment description in-game or in-story. But I can see no good reason to extend D&D alignment to real world ethics and/or human psychology.

[hamishspence]

if you wanted to play yourself in D&D-verse, (D20 Modern to D&D crossover, for example) you might weigh up your preferred style and see what it would be regarded as in a D&D context.

This doesn't mean that you are that alignment in any meaningful way, but its an answer to the question- If a D&D character behaved exactly like me, what alignment would that character be?

same principle applies to many fictional heroes transplanted into D&D- Complete Scoundrel lists a few.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

if you wanted to play yourself in D&D-verse, (D20 Modern to D&D crossover, for example) you might weigh up your preferred style and see what it would be regarded as in a D&D context.

This doesn't mean that you are that alignment in any meaningful way, but its an answer to the question- If a D&D character behaved exactly like me, what alignment would that character be?

same principle applies to many fictional heroes transplanted into D&D- Complete Scoundrel lists a few.

Except I hope your D&D character is not deciding things like which Presidential candidate to vote or whether or not to cheat on your girlfriend with the new girl in the office.

Conversely, is your real world self deciding whether to take on the 50 foot long, flying beast that breathes fire armed with a magical sword after having been wounded by the creatures minions with axe blows that would have felled a tree? And though you fictional character has gashes across his body entire body, somehow even without magical healing, the bleeding, pain and damage does not make you any less effective in combat.

D&D combat is to real world combat as alignment is to real world ethics.

[hamishspence]

Well, in low magic games activities of heroes, while a little more aggressive, may not be that different from real-people activities. "deep-immersion gaming"

Sure, the combat system isn't that realistic- thats what houseruling is for.

Alignment sometimes gets houseruled too. However, that absolute- "Its wrong" attitude to some things appears in other fiction, not just D&D.

Anakin's massacre of the tusken. They are characterised as "vicious animals" by the people around them, yet even he is troubled by his killing of Tusken women and childen.

[hamishspence]

torture is the preferred choice for "its evil, and we all know it" in many books. when the character says "Its evil, We know it. I'm doing it anyway" thats a fairly dark hero.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Well, in low magic games activities of heroes, while a little more aggressive, may not be that different from real-people activities. "deep-immersion gaming"

Even low magic heroic games are heroic. If you want non-heroic games, there are those, like the Sims. Entertaining, yes. Heroic, no. (There's a story out today that a couple who got married online and in real life divorced in real life after an online affair.)


Well, in low magic games activities of heroes, while a little more However, that absolute- "Its wrong" attitude to some things appears in other fiction, not just D&D.

Sure but that's not alignment. Like I've said, each fiction/game has its morality even if just implied. D&D alignment is a particular abstraction of morality for a particular game and one which is often house-ruled away. Regardless, the relationship between fictional morality and real world morality is indirect. It is not unrelated because real people are reading/creating the fiction. It is not directly related because the fiction/story is not real.


Anakin's massacre of the tusken. They are characterised as "vicious animals" by the people around them, yet even he is troubled by his killing of Tusken women and childen.
The greatest Evil there was how badly that was written Lucas.

[hamishspence]

the "Hero massacres men, women and children in revenge for death of person he loves" trope was done before Lucas, and will likely be done after.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

the "Hero massacres men, women and children in revenge for death of person he loves" trope was done before Lucas, and will likely be done after.

It's not the trope that was bad, it was the writing, the directing, and the acting. In fact, the scene was so badly done that I did not care one way or the other.

[randomnondescri]

I find it helpful to think of there being eighteen, rather than nine alignments, since most characters will have one axis or the other that is more important to them.

A Chaotic Good character, for instance, might see the imposition of laws as fundamentally unjust, and places great importance on personal freedoms. They are characters who actively subvert the system for the perceived good of all. They will try to use methods of accomplishing chaos that do as little harm as possible, but are more willing to accept harm to some for widespread liberty.

A Good Chaotic character, on the other hand, places others' well-being at the forefront of their actions, and will not shy away from breaking the law to help others. Chaos, (through law-breaking, or subversion and manipulation of the system) is an acceptable, maybe even preferred method through which to achieve good, but not an end in itself.

The same kind of thing can be done for other alignments, although distinguishing the names gets tricky for TN ;)

Seeing things this way gives a little bit more nuance to the alignment system, and helps so that players don't feel as pigeonholed.

[hamishspence]

in second ed- "Tendencies" was the phrase- Chaotic Neutral with good tendencies, Chaotic Good with neutral tendencies, etc.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

This is extra strange because this is not their given aligment. See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm) for their true alignment, Neutral Evil.
So since 3rd ed they've been retcon'ed to NE? But in the first 2 editions they were CE. And the Drow in Salvatore's Dissolution series emphasized their chaotic nature.

That Drow can grouped as NE or CE as fits the author's/game maker's need only underscores that NE and CE are just very broad and overlapping categories.

Take the word evil for instance. It is a hotly debated concept in the real world. But say you think evil means X. Now apply the word evil to a fictional character in a story or game. It now means something different because you are applying real world definition X to a fictional world.

Whatever you mean by evil inside the game or story, its most important property is its believability. If your character hard to believe in then his evil is hard to believe. For example, for me the character of Anakin in the Star Wars prequels is badly written and acted. The character could have killed off an entire roomful or puppies with a butter knife and I still would not have belived him to be evil in-story.

As for Drow, any real Drow is Chaotic Evil...

[hamishspence]

Even in second ed the average drow was NE. Only the clerics were always (or nearly always) CE.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Even in second ed the average drow was NE. Only the clerics were always (or nearly always) CE.The problem lies, I think, in that they are the only major race that worships a god who's alignemnt they do not share. Plus of course the whole theocracy lead government means that the CE memebers of their society get more spotlight. But you make a very convicing argument as to why they are not infact CE HamsterOfTheGod and thus have proven the people who wrote the stat blocks right.

[hamishspence]

an NE race in a society organized along CE lines "They maintain structure through chaos" Elaine Cunningham.

Maglubiyet- NE, offers the Chaos domain, worshipped by Usually LE hobgoblins.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Maglubiyet- NE, offers the Chaos domain, worshipped by Usually LE hobgoblins.But is the god of Goblinoids in general who are Usually Neutral Evil.

Anyway here is the document I usually give my players on alignment. Some are more fleshed out than others.


EvilDMMk3's alignemnts.

Please note that these differ somewhat from the default but are what I use in my games. Primarily there are sub-alignments to some alignments. Also well over 98% of all human beings (although adventurers buck this trend) and many other humanoids are NN Uninterested, although their culture (founded by their gods and heroes) may operate on different principles. It takes real commitment to be good or lawful and chaotic and evil are often ingrained right into your default personality (although they can still be avoided or gained of course)

Lawful
Law implies and demands order and structure. A Lawful character will seek the logic and reason behind things. They make their choices and run their lives according to a set of personal rules (that may or may not be derived from more general rules) that they are loathe to break. They see the world as a place of reason that can be predicted and controlled towards whatever ends they have. They prefer to operate in a well structured environment. They can be analytical, sensible, systematic, traditional, stubborn, close minded or even prejudiced.
Good
Good has, at its core, the idea that one should place the needs of others before one’s own interests. By aiding others without seeing repayment and exposing yourself to harm at the sake of others you improve the world around you. They see the world as a place that they can improve upon and strive to build a newer better world. To this end they will often work with anyone who seems willing to aid their cause. They can be honest, gallant, compassionate, pacifistic, trusting or even naive.
Chaotic
Chaotic individuals hold little regard for order or the systematic approach. They tend to rely far more on their intuition and emotional responses that logic. They make choices based on what seems like the best idea at the time. Whilst they may have long term goals they will rarely have much in the way of definite plans for realising them. They will however understand the presence and purpose of society, although they often bend, break or ignore its conventions obeying them only when it suites their desires. They tend to prefer action over planning and operate well alone or in informal organisations. They can be creative, passionate, open minded, slipshod, careless, annoying or even outright anti-social.
Evil
Evil comes from placing your own desires before the needs of others. To the evil person the world exists to further their ends. Selfishness lies at the heart of evil, even the lowliest minions at least dream of the power of their masters and the opportunity to abuse it. Whatever structures and organisations they side with are sided with for the reason that it is most convenient to them. They can be ruthless, selfish, pragmatic, jaded, cruel and out and out vile.

Cosmically the sub-alignments are identical. In the eyes of mortals however the divide between two types of a single aliment can often be wider than between two sub alignments of different alignments. Alignment is determined by intentions and emotions, not deeds. A person who commits atrocities because he is blinded by fear is not evil, although he is also certainly not good.
[/b]Lawful good[/b]
The Champion: The world is inherently a place of disorder and evil. You take up the mantle of Lawful Good in order to impose a just and benevolent order to as much of the world as you can. You are scrupulous and judge everything as fairly and honestly as you can. You do not believe that a perfect system of order exists but you do believe that one can be forged. You use rules and systems to reinforce the overall position but are more than willing to reconsider them if needs be. At the end of the day what is important is what is fair and if that is not what the rules say then the rules are at fault and must be replaced with better ones. You seek to shield the innocent from what you see as the inherent evil of creation.
The Paladin: To you order and justice are more than words or ideas, they are the true and pure form of creation. The world inherently runs on such principles and it is the corrupting influence of chaos and evil that has reduced it to the mess that it is. Not only does Lawful Good make sense, it is right and others simply lack that ability to see this. It is not their fault however and you seek to show them the truth of the world, the open, glorious truth of Justice. You tend more towards demonstration that protection, you seek to remove the corrupting influences rather than build the order that you see as inherent in creation. As the name may suggest this is the most common outlook for Paladins.
The Crusader: Your primary concern is for the wellbeing of those around you. You seek to forge out of the morass of evil and deceit about you a place of peace and tranquillity, a place of honesty and truth. Your primary interest is in protecting and championing those weaker than yourself and you see a well structured society as the ideal way to do this. You see order as the perfect servant of Good and strive to foster that world view in others.
Lawful Neutral
The Judge: Order is a valuable commodity. Civilisation and culture have been hard won from the formless, meaningless, tide of chaos and barbarism of the past. You probably see Good as preferable to Evil, quite possibly seeing it as preferable to neutrality too, but for whatever reason you lack the ability to be Good to the scale where that alignment is open to you. Perhaps you are jaded, lack the force of will or the nature of your life prevents you from taking the road, forcing you to commit less than noble acts to preserve your precious Order.
The Justicar: Good and Evil are irrelevant distractions from the true needs of society. Good would have you waste precious resources helping those who refuse to help themselves and evil would see your order destroyed for its own goals. Everything in the universe points towards Order and Harmony as universal constants. You seek to champion Law and destroy Chaos in whatever ways you can. Good and evil are merely the effects of a destabilising influence on the world.
The Scholar. You have sought a Lawful outlook on life to better understand the universe. You firmly believe that all things, even Chaos, have rules that underpin them and that allow them to be predicted. You seek to contribute to the search for such knowledge and through that improve the world. Good and Evil are concepts that you may well have strong views on but that you avoid committing to in order to better study the whole from which they come.
Lawful Evil
The Tyrant. In a perfect universe Law would be unopposed and civilisation would be able to flourish. A just and humane society would exist for all and all would be able to live in peace and harmony. This is not a perfect world. As much as it pains you to do so you take the darker path not because it is appealing but because it allows you to create the Order that you desire from the world. You deplore needless cruelty but are right alongside necessary cruelty. You see you acts as being for the greater good, for the eventual benefit of all. Anarchy and suffering are your foes and choice is a luxury too often abused and a burden too often taken lightly.
The Perverter. You seek Order and systems not out of any obligation to the concepts of Law but because you see such systems as the ideal ground for furthering your own ends. You twist and pervert the laws and traditions around you to further your ends, stretching them to the very limit of their definitions in an attempt to get everything you can from life.
The Diabolic: Life is a cruel place filled with pain and suffering. Nature and by extensions the entire universe exists to teach one lesson, the weak exist to further the ambitions of the strong. You embrace this philosophy whole heartedly laying down cast iron rules and order on your subordinates but also bending to the wills and desires of your superiors. You understand that this is the true and natural way of the universe and strive to take your rightful place in it.
Neutral Good
The Saint. People are inherently good. Oh their lives and their society may have altered this, damaged it, corrupted it, altered it, but at the end of the day they are, deep down, good people. They just don’t know it yet. You intend to help everyone who wants to to get in touch with this inner goodness and everyone who does not, well you can talk them round sooner or later. Sometimes though you have to choose between those who want help and those who spurn you. It isn’t easy but no one ever said it would be.
The Empathetic. Being Good was not really a choice for you. You just understand how others feel. You understand how they want things, how they need things and how you can help. All in all life as set you on the path of Goodness and you intend to see the journey through. It often shocks you exactly how cruel and sadistic the world is but that is not a very good reason to stop now is it?
The Dreamer. This world is a tarnished one. There are cruel and evil people in it. Tyrants and Destroyers, Murderers and Thieves. But one day that will be over. The world around you is not a good place but the people in it will one day come together to make it such. You seek to make the world the place that you know it can be, despite the efforts of others.
True Neutral
The Uninterested. It's not that alignment is not an issue for you it is just that for whatever reason you have not made the effort required to get one other than True Neutral. Living as a peasant farmer or common soldier allows for very few moments where you can get anywhere. You almost certainly have leanings towards one or the other, but no actual alignment.
The Unthinking. You lack the ability to make the choices in the first place. You either have no mind or it is too simple to grasp the concepts required.
The Bargainer. You stand in the middle out of choice. From here you can reach out to all sides and find the best way forward. By bringing all sides together by choosing not to choose you can do things that others would only dream of, you hope.
The Naturalist. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, where are these in nature? Nature is pure and unsullied by these needless hindrances, and so are you.
The Pragmatist. Sometimes Evil can get done what Good cannot. At times Law can deal with problems Chaos cannot fathom. At times Law becomes flustered and Chaos can find the path. Many would follow Good where Evil would never convince them to tread. You may have doubts but all in all your concerns are for your survival, not for abstract goals. You will side with whoever can do the best for you and those you represent, no matter who they are.
Neutral Evil
The Selfish. It's your life and your lookout. Who gives a damn about other people. OK so they are useful in their way but as soon as they stop being of use then dump them. They would either dump you or worse be the kind of moron who lets themselves get burdened by weaklings. You take what you want from life and anyone who gets in your way pays for it in blood.
The Fiend. Evil is how the world turns. In their hearts, deep down, everyone and everything knows this. But they are too scared of their inner natures to take hold and go where their true natures take them. You aren't. Let the evil flow unto the world, let all things that try and stop it die. Evil is the supreme power of reality and if you are lucky you can hitch a ride.
Chaotic Good
The Anarchist. Laws and the systems they prop up are inherently bad. All creatures would be equals and operate for their common good if it were not for the crushing force and distorting effects of those things. You seek to free the universe's inherent nature by removing them.
The Rebel. The universe is built out of rules that lead inexorably and inevitably to death and silence. Everything that has ever been made has been built in defiance of this order. You know that in order to survive you have to overthrow and rewrite the inherent rules of existence, to find a way for the good and peaceful to overcome the rules of existence and thrive.
The Revisionist. Order is not bad, perse, but it does need constant watching. Every government should be afraid of its people, every law constantly on the brink of revision, every authority figure aware of the fleeting nature of his power. Those that serve the needs of the whole without impinging on the freedom of the individual should be allowed to be but those that don’t should be torn down.
Chaotic Neutral
The Trickster. The universe is a place of random order. Whilst gods and kings might try and sort things from each other it is all an illusion. People have only authority over themselves and their own lives, regardless of on what or how they spend their time. Anyone who tries to give you orders will come to understand this in short order.
The Scoundrel. There are people who live within the system, who act as little cogs in the great machine of life. Not you. You are aware of the rules, you might even acknowledge that in order for the world not to fall apart most people would have to obey them. You on the other hand don’t. You lie, cheat, steal, con, trick and deceive to get on and get by. If it comes back on you you wing it and get out that way. One day it might fall apart but for now it is one hell of a buzz.
Chaotic Evil
The Survivor. Life is hard. It is a place where you look out for number one. You use those who are too weak to stop you and kill them and take what they have when you are done. For all the shine and polish that people put on it this is what all life is about and if they don’t like it, well, how does that even affect you anyway?
The Killer. You kill. You rape, you steal, you torture and you do it because you enjoy it. Forget morals, forget ethics, forget reasons, forget excuses you just do and sod anyone who gets in your way. This is what you want and you do what you want, the rest of the world be damned.
The Demonic. Burn it all!

[hamishspence]

Actually, Bugbears are Usually Chaotic evil (but tend to follow hruggek) goblins Usually Neutral evil (but their clerics can take the Chaos domain) and Hobgoblins Usually Lawful evil.

If drow are a subrace of elves, hobgoblins are a subrace of goblinoids- you don't have to roll the others in to say "Usually LE race, NE, nearly CE, deity (if Chaos domain is considered important)"

EDIT:
some of the above tropes bear close resemblance to those in Champions of Ruin. So, there is D&D support for some of your views.

I think though, you may have stretched selfishness and altruism a little too far. in BoED, we are told- "No amount of altruistic motive can make a morally wrong act Neutral or Good."

Though we are also told "no matter how benevolent and helpful the act, if its done for purely selfish reasons, or comes at no sacrifice, its neutral"

A rich man who donates loose change to charity is doing a Neutral act- if he does it purely to look nice and be popular, or the amount is tiny to his huge coffers.

And so on. Point is- the very selfish can't be good, but they need to cause harm in their selfishness, to be evil. same with those who help people, but at no real cost to themselves.

[Evil DM Mark3]

You have put your finger on the very point I dislike most about the standard alignment system (infact my only major gripe). What people do is what matters. If you have a mean spirited and foul man who plots murder and rape but does not carry out the act because he is too scared of the consequences then that makes him not evil?

Of course you missed the part early in the text (understandable as there is a lot of it) where I make it clear as crystal that one has to be VERY altruistic or selfish to be good or evil as the overwhelming majority of people are neutral.

[hamishspence]

ah, yes. Fiendish Codex 2 had answer- must commit some form of evil act to be defined as evil enough to go to Baator. It doesn't have to be much, but a person who just fantasises about doing evil can't be sent there.

in practice, it would be highly improbable that someone would think all the time about evil things and not have done Something. Most people get angry at others, doesn't mean they do what they momentarily think about.

I prefer the heavy emphasis on acts- it means Well Intentioned Extremists can't claim "I want to fix the world- I'm good!" when in the process they have done very evil things.

EDIT: and coercion counts. Bad guy says- Torture this man to death or I will destroy this village- you do it- thats Neutral bordering on Evil at best.

and the 98% is a bit of a stretch. While 3rd party books mention this as a possibility, D&D isn't like that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutrality"

[Evil DM Mark3]

ah, yes. Fiendish Codex 2 had answer- must commit some form of evil act to be defined as evil enough to go to Baator. It doesn't have to be much, but a person who just fantasises about doing evil can't be sent there.

in practice, it would be highly improbable that someone would think all the time about evil things and not have done Something. Most people get angry at others, doesn't mean they do what they momentarily think about.

I prefer the heavy emphasis on acts- it means Well Intentioned Extremists can't claim "I want to fix the world- I'm good!" when in the process they have done very evil things.

EDIT: and coercion counts. Bad guy says- Torture this man to death or I will destroy this village- you do it- thats Neutral bordering on Evil at best.

and the 98% is a bit of a stretch. While 3rd party books mention this as a possibility, D&D isn't like that "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutrality"

I said this is what I use. It does not sink up with ordinary DnD because I changed it. For the most part however I feel that breaking the aligments up is the only way to get some of the more IQ challenged players to get why alignment =/= character.

[hamishspence]

there is plenty of text in PHB to stress alignmnet is basic guideline- character can have flaws or virtues. A CE character whose word is his bond, for example. A LG character who steals when he can justify it to himself.

Apart from the focus on motives over acts, your version is very similar to the D&D version, when other WOTC supplements are used- Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, BoVD, BoED.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

The problem lies, I think, in that they are the only major race that worships a god who's alignemnt they do not share. Plus of course the whole theocracy lead government means that the CE memebers of their society get more spotlight. But you make a very convicing argument as to why they are not infact CE HamsterOfTheGod and thus have proven the people who wrote the stat blocks right.
The people who write the stats blocks always have it right alignment, CR, etc.

But I like your alignment descriptions.