Which of the nine alignments scares you the most?

[CoffeeIncluded]

Self explanatory title, really. Which of the nine alignments do you find the scariest, and why?

For me, it would have to be Lawful Evil. Why? Because I consider myself to be Lawful Good, with an emphasis on Good.

See, the thing that scares me about Lawful Evil is how far one is willing to go to maintain order. That's why Robespierre both fascinates and completely terrifies me. He's me, but evil.

When a guy who was called "The Incorruptible" suddenly becomes very, very corruptible and orchestrates the Reign of Terror, then I get a bit scared. Why? Because that could happen to me.

One of my biggest problems is my stubbornness, mixed with pride. That's generally a good thing, because I don't back down from my principles. But the bad thing about it is that I have trouble admitting that I can be wrong.

It's the whole "As you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you" deal. I see the ruthlessness and evil, for lack of a better word, and I get scared because I see how easily I myself could become that.

And that is why Lawful Evil scares me the most. What about you guys?

[Gamerlord]

Lawful good, nuff said.

[Lord_Gareth]

Frankly, the whole system scares me - because it deals in absolutes.

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.

[Britter]

Lawful good, nuff said.

I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

[Yuki Akuma]

Chaotic Evil, because he doesn't need any more reason to rip your head off than "you look funny".

[Siegel]

Lawfull Evil

and

True Neutral

[Lord_Gareth]

I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer is, "Legislated Persecution."

[Toliudar]

Chaotic neutral scares me: the official alignment of the sociopath, and those who wish to play them.

[Britter]

In response to Lord_Gareth.

Sure, but to my mind that is more the realm of Lawful Neutral.

Maybe I just have a more idealistic view of the concept of good than most, but I don't believe that such a government would create such legislation.

Mind you, I don't think there has ever been a government in the history of the world that could be classified as good, so I am speaking in terms of how I view a DnD style LG government or individual. I just wonder what it is about LG that tends to attract so much ire from people.

[jmbrown]

True neutral. In a world of absolutes you at least know where a good person and an evil person stand (and what a lawful person believes and the lack of a chaotic person's belief). Neutrality in D&D terms usually goes hand in hand with "unchecked pragmatism." If it works or makes sense for him at that particular point in time then so be it. The AD&D description of "A neutral person favors the underdog; he may help defeat a band of gnolls then switch sides to protect them from extinction" scares me the most.

"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me." -Zapp Brannigan

[Yzzyx]

I am kind of curious as to why you say that. Would you mind elaborating? I would really like to hear your reasoning.

Good people brutally murder and loot the bodies of Evil people while lecturing them about how terrible they are for brutally murdering and looting the bodies of Good people. Worse still, only Lawful Good people start alignment threads. That's reason enough to fear them.

[erikun]

The things that really scare me don't fit into the alignment system.

That said, Lawful Evil is the most likely to organize and be capable for intentionally starting a Good-on-Good fight, or be protected by otherwise good people, so they're probably the scariest. Characters from the other alignments would need to be incredibly individually powerful to do that, or be a comparable thread.

[Gralamin]

Chaotic Good. They try to change the system to make it better while breaking the systems rules, It's hypocrisy. They are at their best when they are trying to topple an actually corrupt government. At any other time though, they are a bane to society, which may very well wreck it in the name of good.

[Lord_Gareth]

See, here's the thing though - real morality does not work in absolutes. Any attempt to seriously apply the alignment system fails because the system is inherantly flawed, and the biggest failing is that their definition of absolute good does some pretty horrible things on a fairly regular basis, while their definition of evil is arbitrary and annoying. People get a bug up their ass about LG because, basically, LG characters end up "enforcing" contradictions that lead to party infighting, flagrant racism, self-righteousness, and holy wars.

Like I said, at least Evil is honest about its motivations.

Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

[Optimystik]

Neutral Evil. If they hate you enough, they can find any way to get rid of you - working within the system, or dispensing with it entirely.

(Naturally, I am NG.)

[Fortuna]

Neutral Evil. Although that depends on your definition of Chaotic Evil - Whichever one of those would set the world on fire to see it burn.

[Randalor]

As jmbrown said, True Neutral, because you don't know who's side they're on. Remember that Humans are the prime example of true neutral, and look at how devious they are.

[hamishspence]

Do you want to know the difference between Good and Evil in D&D? Good only massacres people whose entry reads "usually evil" or worse. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal. Both sides commit murders, and neither side feels guilty about these things. At least Evil is honest.

This is very much depending on the DM. Some sourcebooks (BoVD, BoED) stress that murder is murder whether the person carrying it out is Good or Evil.

And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

[Gralamin]

This is very much depending on the DM. Some sourcebooks (BoVD, BoED) stress that murder is murder whether the person carrying it out is Good or Evil.

And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

To be fair, they also contradict themselves and suggest do what you want to evil because they are evil (See: Ravages)

[Duke of URL]

None of the nine alignments scare me nearly as much as X Stupid or Stupid X.

Because not only are they absolutist, but they're totally irresponsible about it.

[Yzzyx]

As jmbrown said, True Neutral, because you don't know who's side they're on. Remember that Humans are the prime example of true neutral, and look at how devious they are.

If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.

Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality.

Edit:

None of the nine alignments scare me nearly as much as X Stupid or Stupid X.

I agree. Stupidity is a lot worse than Evil.

[Lord_Gareth]

If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.

Trust no one!

*/paranoia*

[Britter]

Fair enough, I guess that it is possible to interpret RAW Lawful Good that way. Which, among many of the other excellent points made in this thread, is why I do not use the alignment system in my games.

When I did use alignments, most of the actions people are attributing to LG here would earn you an almost immediate alignment shift to LN, and to LE if they continued, becasuse they are not in line with how I interpret good. Of course, YMMV, and I do realize that my approach is horribly biased by my own opinions of good. I would always clarify my expectations with my players and try not to spring this sort of thing on them without some warning and an understanding of my position. :)

Thanks for the clarification guys.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, they also contradict themselves and suggest do what you want to evil because they are evil (See: Ravages)

Ravages only work on the evil- thats a far cry for "using ravages is never Evil"

An evil guy could poison a fellow evil guy with a ravage- that wouldn't make doing so non-evil. Motive and justification is a big part of things.

And (at least by BoED) you need more justification for harming someone than "he is evil"

Like "he is harming others and to save them, you must stop him, and the only way to stop him involves harming him"

Interestingly, some of the things BoED recommends, go right back to 1978 D&D or before- like "do not torture prisoners"

[Optimystik]

If you can trust the Player's Handbook, this is not correct.

Races of Destiny contradicts that, and is a more specific source on human nature than the PHB.

[Lord_Gareth]

Here's a question - do you take motive into consideration when dealing with alignment?

For example, say you have someone obsessed with maintaining order. They commit atrocities to do so, but they don't enjoy or take pleasure from them - it's just the cost of maintaining order. LE, or LN?

The most commonly used definitions of evil involve self-benefit and self-gratification, not just committing a certain class of act. This idea lends to the image of an LE beauracrat gaming the system for all it's worth (and is also why Weird Al Yankovic's I'll Sue Ya is the LE theme song). Do the atrocities themselves make you evil, or does your motivation do so?

[hamishspence]

Races of Destiny contradicts that, and is a more specific source on human nature than the PHB.

But supposedly, its "not core".

like any other source that fills out alignment in more detail.

According to BoED, for Good acts at least, motive matters. Acts of "charity" done to boost your own image among others, are Neutral rather than good.

However, BoVD, BoED, and FC2 do suggest that for some acts, no amount of motive makes them non-evil.

[Atelm]

Chaotic neutral scares me: the official alignment of the sociopath, and those who wish to play them.

This; although I've mentioned it to my own players, one of them consistently takes the CN alignment as a freeway ticket to acting however they want, which has at times led to said player's characters acting more evil than the "officially" evil members of the party.

[Lycan 01]

Chaotic anything. If a player does it good, no problem. If they use it as an excuse to do whatever they think will be funny or entertaining, it can lead to problems.

Good examples I've had:

The Chaotic Good Dragonborn Cleric who fights for the greater good, but is okay with bending a few rules or threatening a few people as long as nobody actually gets hurt and things turn out for the better. Also, she starts fights when she gets drunk...

The Chaotic Evil Halfling Warlock. Yes, I knew I was playing with fire, but it turned out okay. He kept his destructive tendancies in order, only being cruel and wicked towards enemies. He had a tendancy to kill his foes in slow and painful manners, and he liked to cause a bit of mischief. But he never actively tried to be evil and cause serious chaos. Except for the time he blew up the cow. But that actually helped a farmer start a restaraunt chain...


Bad examples I've had:

...


Come to think of it, I've never had a bad alignment. Just bad players, regardless of alignment... I'm just scared of one day having somebody abuse the Chaotic aspect of their alignment...

[Coidzor]

Personally, if I were designing an alignment system, it'd be Law/Chaos and Community/Self. You know - Lawful Selfish, Lawful...group-oriented? (Note to self - find better names). Works out much, much better.

Hmm... Comm...Commun....Commuian? Commilian? Chameleon?!

And these sources usually get castigated- possibly by people who want Good guys to be able to do anything they want to Evil guys- just because their victims are Evil.

Snake, do you think morality can bloom, even on the battlefield?

This; although I've mentioned it to my own players, one of them consistently takes the CN alignment as a freeway ticket to acting however they want, which has at times led to said player's characters acting more evil than the "officially" evil members of the party.

How evil are we talking here?