Query regarding alignment in 3.5E

[Sewblon]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I can't find any threads addressing these questions specifically. The more I think about the Good/Evil axis, the less sense it makes.

The Player's Handbook says that Good is associated with Altruism, and Evil is associated with egoism at the expense of others. But good people get better afterlives in most settings so wouldn't the conscious decision to be good count as an egoistic act? What really confuses me is the concept of evil gods, wouldn't gods usually have non-evil ways to get what they want? and wouldn't being evil just complicate forming alliances with other gods and gaining followers? Am I missing something? do any of you have ways to make this system make more sense?

[jmbrown]

Good people may have good afterlives awaiting them, but that's not why they're good. People who do good acts solely to get into the afterlife are leaning towards the selfish side and are more prone to make other selfish decisions. Lawful Evil is, essentially, based around maintaining a lawful appearance at the expense of others. An evil dictator will treat his subjects well but that's only because he expects their undying loyalty and continuing service, not because he actually cares about them.

As far as outsiders and gods go, their very existence is alignment personified. While some outsiders with alignment "always evil" may become good (and there are canon non-evil demons) they're always created evil because their very physical make up is the embodiment of evil. Evil's hierarchy is often based on power and mutual goals; if either of these is different then evil's hierarchy falls apart. It's often joked about that the only reason goblins haven't taken over the fantasy universe is because they can never stop killing each other long enough to band together. Based on the number of them in every fantasy setting, this is pretty much true.

As far as free will humans go, evil humans follow evil gods because of the temptation for power. Evil tempts with promises of instant rewards but at horrible costs. For example a glabrezu has the power to cast wish for a mortal but only if the mortal satisfies the glabrezu's request which usually revolves around horrific deeds.

Understand that D&D's alignment is very black and white and it was done this way on purpose. The basic concept was to play as great-but-slightly-flawed heroes and whomp monsters. TSR even removed all the monstrous aspects of the game, like half-orcs, and renamed demons and devils to avoid controversy with 2nd edition. Wizards let the cat out of the bag by encouraging players to experiment with non-good characters but they sort of screwed up by keeping the generic black-and-white descriptions of the game's classic alignment system.

[erikun]

Re: Evil, it's "egoism at the expense of others." You can be as much of an egomaniac as you'd like, but if it's not negatively affecting others, it isn't really evil. (It can be quite annoying, though.) Characters who are doing charity work in order to get into a "good" afterlife are ether good or neutral - it really isn't evil to do positive things for self motivated reasons.

[Talakeal]

D&D doesn't really have a rewarding afterlife. You lose all memories of your previous existence. Then you lose all but vestiges of your personality and free will as you are slowly consumed by the plane / god you worship.

Also, someone who only does good things (or refrains from doing evil things) for reward / under threat of punishment is really more neutral than good.

Oh, and if you think you understand the law / chaos axis of alignment that only shows how little you truly do.

[sofawall]

Law/Chaos gives me nightmares.

[Talakeal]

One example of the law / chaos paradox.

A character is purely logical. He has no emotion, and always does the most efficient thing to reach his goal. He ignores traditions and social mores, as he believes that they are meaningless and irrational.

Is this character extremely lawful or extremely chaotic?

[Sewblon]

One example of the law / chaos paradox.

A character is purely logical. He has no emotion, and always does the most efficient thing to reach his goal. He ignores traditions and social mores, as he believes that they are meaningless and irrational.

Is this character extremely lawful or extremely chaotic?

That sounds like True Neutral, or Neutral Evil depending on what his goals are. Because such a person would not necessarily have any interest in the struggle between Law and Chaos one way or the other.

[Harperfan7]

One example of the law / chaos paradox.

A character is purely logical. He has no emotion, and always does the most efficient thing to reach his goal. He ignores traditions and social mores, as he believes that they are meaningless and irrational.

Is this character extremely lawful or extremely chaotic?

Extremely neutral.

[Mahtobedis]

I like this explanation

http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00058.html

[Riffington]

One example of the law / chaos paradox.

A character is purely logical. He has no emotion, and always does the most efficient thing to reach his goal. He ignores traditions and social mores, as he believes that they are meaningless and irrational.

Is this character extremely lawful or extremely chaotic?

Neither. He has no soul and is incapable of having an alignment.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Being purely logical implies complete knowledge of relevant premises, and unless this character is Maxwell's Demon that's implausible. Neutral Delusional IMO.

[jmbrown]

One example of the law / chaos paradox.

A character is purely logical. He has no emotion, and always does the most efficient thing to reach his goal. He ignores traditions and social mores, as he believes that they are meaningless and irrational.

Is this character extremely lawful or extremely chaotic?

Lawful doesn't mean logical. Lawful exactly means you adhere to traditions and social mores, even if they make no sense or inefficient. A lawful neutral person may serve a tyrant because he has no other choice. A lawful good person would refuse to serve and actively challenge a tyrant while a lawful evil person would serve, take pleasure in the power afforded to him and scheme for a way to succeed his lord.

Having no emotions and doing only what is purely logical on a survival basis is purely neutral. You're a plant, have a hive mentality like an ant or bee, or you're robot. Literally. Even animals have limited emotions.

[Talakeal]

It is kind of funny, I never know what sort of response I will get when I ask this question. This time the response has been pretty much agreed upon as neutral, other times it has been unanimously lawful, chaotic, or mixed.

I am not sure I agree with the "no emotion makes you neutral" statement. Would you consider Spock non lawful? How about an inevitable?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Spock is not purely logical if I heard correctly, but is rather staid and formulaic and generally Lawful. Inevitables hold to their laws and traditions despite what logic would suggest, making them definitely Lawful.

[CockroachTeaParty]

One of the ways I look at Good/Evil are short-term rewards vs. long-term rewards. Living a life of active, honest Good is hard in D&D land. You've got to be honest, help others without expecting a reward, and in some cases even fight evil, which will surely outnumber you and fight dirty. However, if you stick to your guns, you are rewarded with a much more pleasant afterlife, and the warm feeling that accompanies altruism and charity. If you want short-term, immediate satisfaction now, Evil has many tempting options. In the often-dangerous medieval-style world of D&D, very little is stopping you from acting like a monster, waylaying people on the road and stealing their stuff, then spending your ill gotten gains on drugs, alcohol, and whores. Demons and devils are chomping at the bit to give you power, and you can champion the ruinous powers and be granted all sorts of profane, unholy gifts. The major trade-off for all the fun you get to have during your life of evil is a wretched, painful, tortured afterlife. Read what happens to new petitioners arriving in Baator. *shivers*
Understandably, most people fall in-between these two extremes; they haven't the dedication to be Good, but they don't have the viciousness to be Evil, and so they wind up as Neutral. They act pretty much like normal people: they can be nice, or they can be d-bags. As to where neutral souls go... I don't know. If they're lawful, they become a cog in Mechanus? If they're chaotic, they become a set of bagpipes in a jar of peanut butter on Limbo? Or do they just mill about the Outlands, with their hands in their pockets for all eternity? YOU DECIDE!!

Or you could live in Eberron, where everyone goes basically to a crappy, Hades-esque plane upon death. It's amazing that anyone is Good in Eberron, and somehow makes the cause they fight for even more badass.

[jmbrown]

It is kind of funny, I never know what sort of response I will get when I ask this question. This time the response has been pretty much agreed upon as neutral, other times it has been unanimously lawful, chaotic, or mixed.

I am not sure I agree with the "no emotion makes you neutral" statement. Would you consider Spock non lawful? How about an inevitable?

Vulcans don't actually lack emotion, they suppress their emotions because of the damage unchecked emotion could cause. Vulcan's practice rituals to suppress their emotions of their race's tradition. Vulcans are the quintessential Lawful Neutral race in Star Trek terms.

Inevitables are also the embodiments of a purely Lawful Neutral plane (Mechanus or Nirvana depending on what version you're playing). They're created to hunt down those that break the laws of the multiverse and they think, act, or pursue their mission without rest. If inevitables were true neutral, they wouldn't feel motivated to hunt oppressors unless said oppressor would bring problems to them.

The classic example of true neutral is a druid who would help a band of fighters attack a camp of gnolls but if the gnolls retreat or are in danger of being extinct he'll try to prevent further slaughter simply because it isn't necessary.

[Samb]

everyone is motivated by rewards. But for good people being good is often a reward intself.

D&D doesn't really have a rewarding afterlife. You lose all memories of your previous existence. Then you lose all but vestiges of your personality and free will as you are slowly consumed by the plane / god you worship.

Becoming one with the god or plane that matches you exactly is in itself rewarding. Also, strong souls are recycled in the form of native life. So a good adventurer would be reborn as an angel and retain his personality while losing his memories. Again, being under the service of your god or/and being the eptotme of goodness is an intrinsc reward. And the fact that even a simple trumpet archon has a LA of 15 isn't too shabby either.


Most info able petioners and the afterlife are from Planescape and warriors of heaven books. Both are AD&D books but I think planer handbook (what a dissappointment) says basically the same thing.