Linear view of D&D alignments: your opinion?

[Solarn]

Most D&D players (or at least of those that I've met, including myself), even beyond the Good-Evil part of the alignment scale, tend to view every D&D alignment on a linear scale from "most good" to "most evil". The most common such scale is LG-NG-CG-LN-TN-CN-LE-NE-CE, which seems to stem from the belief that law/order itself is a "good" attribute and going against it makes one less good. As for myself, I view order, especially legal order, as a limiting force, holding back one's drive to either harm or aid others ("evil" and "good" respectively). So in my opinion, the linear progression should look more like CG-NG-LG-Neutrals-LE-NE-CE. As for my justification, I present a short description of each alignment as I see them:

Chaotic Good intends to help others regardless of any rules, laws or cosmic forces. The well-being of other beings is the only priority for her. If the sacrifice of an innocent is needed to uphold the stability of the universe, she will save that innocent and then endeavor to save the world because this course of action holds the possibility of saving everyone. Then she will likely rage against the gods for creating a universe that needs innocent sacrifices to maintain.
"Would you still agree if it was you laying on that slab there?"

Neutral Good prefers to help others and will do so in spite of oppressive or obstructive laws if the stakes are high enough, but tries not to upset the status quo if not necessary and weighs the immediate harm prevented against possible future harm caused by her actions. She probably wouldn't topple an entire local government to abolish oppressive taxes or mild institutional xenophobia.
"I don't know, who will irrigate the fields afterward?"

Lawful Good puts the same priority on following rules (whether they be legal procedure or a personal set of morals) as on protecting others. Order itself is a force of good for her, even if sometimes it causes immediate discomfort or harm. Note however that this doesn't mean that she is willing to overlook tyranny or obvious mitigating circumstances for the sake of upholding law and order, but she's unlikely to forgive even a thoroughly reformed villain.
"I don't care how much he's sorry, repentance won't resurrect my village or unrape my sister!"

The Neutral alignments don't follow any sort of linear progression from better to worse, as they don't concern themselves with what happens to other people. They can easily hurt or help others, the chances are about the same, it's only the drive that's different.

Lawful Neutral (what most people playing Lawful Good paladins actually play as; see also Miko) is driven by the need to follow and enforce the law and would condemn a party who broke it even if they did it to save the town from a mad necromancer.
"For the murder of Nasty J. Wickedington, you are hereby sentenced to death by hanging, which is to commence at dawn three days from now. Take these miscreants to their cells, officer."

True Neutral is the ultimate opportunist, doing only whatever benefits her the most. She's the burglar who kills the owner of the house she was robbing because he came home while she was packing up and then present a sob story to the guards who capture her, then try to escape when their attention is elsewhere.
"Look, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to kill the guy, but he just came at me with that cleaver and I was scared and... look, if I don't get that money back to the boss, he'll kill my family. Please don't take my children from me!"

Chaotic Neutral believes in individuality over anything else. She will gladly take part in the rebellion, but don't expect her to care whether it's right or wrong or whether the house she torched was an enemy knight's or a simple peasant's.
"**** your prissy little queen and her precious knighthood too! That's what you get for tilling her fields! Go 'till her fields' now if you can, with your 'plough' burned off! I suspect she won't even notice it! Hahaha!"

Lawful Evil appreciates the rules, as long as she makes them. She wants to make a profit off others, but doesn't particularly care for getting into trouble. Most of all, she wants to be in power. She might save your kidnapped heir if you pay her enough, but expect her to double-cross you if you give her the chance.
"The good news is, your daughter is back, safe and sound and with only a few more bruises than when we left the dragon's cave. The bad news is, I now have a dragon and you don't have a kingdom anymore."

Neutral Evil is the ultimate in selfishness. She will gladly lie, cheat, kill and hurt people to get what she wants and what she wants tends to be everything. The perennial backstabber, she only ever falls in with others to gain access to their valuables and weak points.
"You know, now that you've so graciously undone the binding spell on your pack, I don't see why you should keep holding on to that ledge."

Chaotic Evil doesn't just want to make a profit off you, she wants to hurt you. She's willing to act counter-intuitively just to cause even more pain and torment. With neither regard for rules or self-interest holding her back, she's the most dangerous and cruel of all alignments. If she had to choose between subjugating a town or razing it, she'd probably only wait before razing to figure out even more atrocities to commit.
"What's the matter? Thought that you would get off easy just because you let me through? The only one here doing any getting off will be me and only on your corpses!"

With that said, this is still only the way I see things. What are your opinions? Can the D&D alignments be presented realistically on a linear scale? If they can, what order would you put them in?

[TheCountAlucard]

...unrape...

...this word has just officially entered my vocabulary.

Can the D&D alignments be presented realistically on a linear scale?

I don't think they can, not without some serious overhauling.

[Saph]

Most D&D players (or at least of those that I've met, including myself), even beyond the Good-Evil part of the alignment scale, tend to view every D&D alignment on a linear scale from "most good" to "most evil".

I think this was the case for 1e and to a certain extent it's been brought back for 4e. However, for 3rd edition, alignments run on two axes, Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic. Your position on one has no bearing on your position of the other. So the question of whether Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good really doesn't make any sense - it's like asking whether a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.

[Solarn]

I think this was the case for 1e and to a certain extent it's been brought back for 4e. However, for 3rd edition, alignments run on two axes, Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic. Your position on one has no bearing on your position of the other. So the question of whether Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good really doesn't make any sense - it's like asking whether a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Note that I mentioned that these views are based on the belief that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" have inherent "Good" or "Evil" connotations, that is, if "Good" is defined as the desire to aid people, then being either Lawful or Chaotic helps or hinders that desire.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I think this was the case for 1e and to a certain extent it's been brought back for 4e. However, for 3rd edition, alignments run on two axes, Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic. Your position on one has no bearing on your position of the other. So the question of whether Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good really doesn't make any sense - it's like asking whether a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Not exactly. We still had the 3x3 "grid" with two axes (otherwise a Help of Opposite Alignment would not work). However, lawful Good was considered the "best" alignment, and Chaotic Evil the "worst", which sounds like alignments a la 4e.

(Just noticed your location. Welcome back)

[Saph]

Not really. We still had the 3x3 "grid" with two axes (otherwise a Help of Opposite Alignment would not work). However, lawful Good was considered the "best" alignment, and Chaotic Evil the "worst", which sounds like alignments a la 4e.

The best according to who? None of the 3.0 and 3.5 material that I have makes any reference to Lawful Good being better than Chaotic Good. In fact the 3rd-ed PHB pretty much explicitly spells out that they're not.

I think the idea that alignment is linear is a holdover from early-edition D&D (and from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, where it still is).

And yeah, I've been back in England 6 months, I should probably get around to changing that. :P

[Solarn]

The best according to who? None of the 3.0 and 3.5 material that I have makes any reference to Lawful Good being better than Chaotic Good. In fact the 3rd-ed PHB pretty much explicitly spells out that they're not.

I think the idea that alignment is linear is a holdover from early-edition D&D (and from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, where it still is).

And yeah, I've been back in England 6 months, I should probably get around to changing that. :P

According to fluff, mostly. There are precious few stories where the Lawful Good guys aren't the most shining examples of heroism that serve as role models for Neutral and Chaotic Good characters.

Also according to many players. There's somehow a very strong idea that law itself is inherently good while chaos and individualism is inherently bad.

[Emmerask]

According to fluff, mostly. There are precious few stories where the Lawful Good guys aren't the most shining examples of heroism that serve as role models for Neutral and Chaotic Good characters.

Also according to many players. There's somehow a very strong idea that law itself is inherently good while chaos and individualism is inherently bad.

Well if the law would be inherently good then they would be right but it is not and this is why they are wrong ^^

[absolmorph]

I ignore the Law/Chaos axis when determining my position on the Good/Evil axis.
I don't think they have any bearing on each other, and personally consider NE to be the "most evil" and NG the "most good". A tendency towards order (Lawful) can be restrictive, and a tendency towards chaos (Chaotic, duh) can lead to a lack of progress.
Thus, a NG character can work more good than a LG or CG character, because they focus on just getting the Good done, rather than worrying about keeping it in a pattern or anything like that. And a NE character can get more evil done, because they don't worry about ruling people or causing chaos; they just do their best to reach their goals, regardless of the consequences for others.

[Saph]

According to fluff, mostly. There are precious few stories where the Lawful Good guys aren't the most shining examples of heroism that serve as role models for Neutral and Chaotic Good characters.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think you need some citations here. Which stories are you talking about? And which pieces of fluff in the rulebooks are you referring to?

Also according to many players. There's somehow a very strong idea that law itself is inherently good while chaos and individualism is inherently bad.

That's a pretty straw-mannish quote. Got any links to players explaining why they believe that?

[Siosilvar]

My opinion? There is a linear view, but it's on two lines.

I think your definition of "Good" is my definition of "Neutral". Your "Neutral" is my "Evil".

Law vs. Chaos is hard to define, but one that I think works is that Law wants to help the people by helping the group, and Chaos wants to help the group by helping the people.

I'd continue, but my post is graduating off-topic of the "linear view".

[Solarn]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think you need some citations here. Which stories are you talking about? And which pieces of fluff in the rulebooks are you referring to?



That's a pretty straw-mannish quote. Got any links to players explaining why they believe that?

I wasn't aware that I needed citations and quotes to explain my personal experiences. But so be it.

As for rulebook fluff, it actually tends to be very good about this, although in settings with actual pantheons instead of loose associations of gods (like Dragonlance or Eberron), the main Good god is invariably Lawful. The other kind of fluff (stories written in a setting that are accepted as the setting's canon background) also has Lawful characters as either the main character or someone the main character aspires to.

The Dragonlance trilogy has Sturm Brightblade, who for his minor role provided a permanent role model to the rest of the Good characters except maybe Tas; the Cleric quintet has Cadderly, who although is claimed to be Neutral Good, acts much more like a stereotypical Lawful Good cleric; the Cormyr saga has King Azoun; the Avatar series has Kelemvor and... well, most of the Good gods who play a major part; the Drizzt books (at least the less well written ones) have everyone except Drizzt himself, even though not one of them is supposed to be Lawful according to their character sheets.

[Kurald Galain]

According to fluff, mostly. There are precious few stories where the Lawful Good guys aren't the most shining examples of heroism that serve as role models for Neutral and Chaotic Good characters.

would like a word with you.

[Harperfan7]

Neverwinter nights and wikipedia both use a nonlinear scale when presenting alignments.

LG-NG-CG
LN-N-CN
LE-NE-CE

Which is what it really is. Have you ever seen the wheel of core gods symbols picture in the PHB?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Most D&D players (or at least of those that I've met, including myself), even beyond the Good-Evil part of the alignment scale, tend to view every D&D alignment on a linear scale from "most good" to "most evil". The most common such scale is LG-NG-CG-LN-TN-CN-LE-NE-CE, which seems to stem from the belief that law/order itself is a "good" attribute and going against it makes one less good.

I've never subscribed to that idea, though it does seem to be a persistent one.

For one thing, the very order of alignments doesn't logically mesh with the idea: in order for LN to be Gooder than CN, it has to be placed next to CG. And for CN to be Eviler than LN, it has to be placed next to LE. Having Ls and Ns right next to each just seems to undermine the idea of a smooth linear progression.

And for another thing, I'd hope that if anyone really meant for LG to be the Goodest Good and CE to be the Evilest Evil, they would have been named more like T-shirts: XX Good and XX Evil.

But maybe that's just my personal sense of symmetrical style.

[OldTrees]

If you believe that the alignments should fit a linear plot (instead of the planar plot I favor)

The these questions should help you plot it.

1) Is LG or LE more Lawful?
2) Is CE or CG more Chaotic?


Any linear plot (that I can think of) would require a basis of:
Most Orderly to Most Chaotic

another non-standard alignment plot would be a diamond shape

XXXXXG
xxLGXXXXCG
LXXXXNXXXXN
xxLEXXXXCE
XXXXXE

[Coidzor]

would like a word with you.

Well, that's more of an indictment of a system for caring only about the deeds and ignoring the heart of an individual.

[Zovc]

I think part of the problem stems from things like this:

Which is more selfish: 'Chaotic Neutral' or 'Neutral Evil'?

It's easy to mix up things like that. Which is more altruistic: Lawful Good or Chaotic Good? Technically, they should be equally altruistic (assuming Good is 'binary'), but I'm sure people have had an argument somewhat based around this 'question'.

The alignment system is vague, and yet it is supposed to represent extremes. That in and of itself is contradictory, in my opinion.

(Sorry in advance,) I forgot who proposed this here, but there was a thread involving three steps to each alignment, or something along those lines. For example, there were three specific descriptors for "Good." Good and Evil's 'criteria' were contradictory, as were Law and Chaos'. So one could have all three Law characteristics and be considered Axiomatic (Lawful by the current game's terminology), or be Lawful by having either I believe two lawful traits and one chaotic trait, or one/two lawful traits and no chaotic traits. Being "Lawful", in most cases was roughly half as beneficial/penalizing as being Axiomatic. This is perhaps one of the best solutions that can be applied to the system without having to mechanically overhaul things like Paladins and Cleric Domains/Spells.

[Optimystik]

Lawful Good is not "Better Good." Even BoED agrees on this point, for all that it glorifies the difficult path of the paladin.

Lawful good characters by no means have a monopoly on goodness. Though all paladins are lawful good, plenty of exalted characters of all character classes are chaotic good or neutral good, and they exemplify the ideals of good in the D&D universe no less than the paladin.

[magic9mushroom]

Lawful Good is not "Better Good." Even BoED agrees on this point, for all that it glorifies the difficult path of the paladin.

Book of Exalted Deeds is also hypocritical, for most of the Exalted feats are Lawful Good-ish in flavour.

The Monster Manual gets in on it as well, with the descriptions of Angels - it says they can be any Good alignment, but then immediately shows the lie by saying they "never lie, cheat, or steal", and saying that they are "impeccably honorable", both extraordinarily Lawful traits.

[Rainbownaga]

Just wanted to add that when alignment was all about Law vs. Chaos (i.e. before the good/evil axis was even included) it was still noted that chaos isn't necessarily evil (though it was associated with evil in those days).


In the new system, Chaos is about freedom and Law is about order and security. Since both of these are contradictory virtues, it is impossible to determine which is better apart from a personal or cultural viewpoint.

I've heard it said on forums that NG and NE are the extremes purely because they don't have the ethical limitations getting in the way of their moral alignment.

[Deca]

As others have said, I would rank NG as the 'goodest' on a linear scale. LG is good while obeying whatever personal code or laws. CG is good while disrespecting laws and being individualist. NG is just being good without that other baggage.
Of course, the idea of the 3.5 alignment being linear doesn't really work. It depends on the characters. In one campaign, a LG character might be more 'good' than the NG character. In the next campaign, it might be completely different.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I don't necessarily subscribe to the linear scale view of alignment but in practice I find Ghaotic good to be the least good with Neutral and Lawful Good be equal here's why.

In my personal experience, CG's are played with an irrational distrust or even hatred for authority/order/rules/laws and break/defy them for the sake of it to the ultimate detriment of themselves/the party/society. Now the problem here is of course that they are being played Chaotic Neutral and just get to keep their "G" becausethey go along on whatever quest that progresses the cause of Good the party is on and cause the player would throw a fit.

Lawful good (and sometimes NG) generally sees law and order as an inately good thing because presumably LG's and NG's did the lion's share of the lawmaking and wrote laws that were intended to be benevolent and to provide a structure for good persons to interact and raise more good persons. There is a reasonablr expectation that benevolently designed laws (help) create good people this is why LG's care about protecting their laws.

NG is alot like LG but is more willing to compromise but still shares many of LG's views, otherwise they'd be CG, but is simply a measure more flexible and might be concerned about making sure that laws aewn't more restrictive than necessary you function while LG might be afraid of changing a law for risk of ruining a functional though imperfect system.

[Godskook]

I find that attempting to place D&D alignments on a linear scale is the mental equivalent of trying to put complex numbers on a linear scale. I mean, does this:

i < 1

Make anyone else's brain hurt, or just mine?

For those of you who know Algebra, but not Complex Numbers, 'i' is not a variable. It has a defined value such that it literally can't be less than one, nor equal to, nor greater than. I suggest reading the wiki article on Complex Numbers to sort it out. I'd post the link, but that'd defeat the purpose of white-text, wouldn't it?

[absolmorph]

I find that attempting to place D&D alignments on a linear scale is the mental equivalent of trying to put complex numbers on a linear scale. I mean, does this:

i < 1

Make anyone else's brain hurt, or just mine?

That makes me giggle.

[White Blade]

While emotionally I generally structure it LG-CE linear if I were to stop and think about it, I would explain that I don't really think CG is worse than LG, except insofar as I'm lawful myself (which is really very far), because I generally regard the Good/Evil axis as the intention and the Law/Chaos axis as the decision making process. I intend to help/harm (G/E) people and I decide when to do that through Reason/Emotion (L/C).

[Fiery Diamond]

My opinion? There is a linear view, but it's on two lines.

I think your definition of "Good" is my definition of "Neutral". Your "Neutral" is my "Evil".

Law vs. Chaos is hard to define, but one that I think works is that Law wants to help the people by helping the group, and Chaos wants to help the group by helping the people.

I'd continue, but my post is graduating off-topic of the "linear view".

I agree with this post.

[Mastikator]

There is an argument to be made that CG are more good than LG, since a CG will base their goodness purely on empathy and conscience. And that CG would always do good regardless of protocol, whereas LG would have to (at best) re-define protocol, or (at worst) ignore good. Since protocol becomes meaningless if it's whimsically altered all the time, it would in some instances not be changed and thus obstruct the LG char to do good.
CG could be said to be the "unleashed" form of good. That is more empathetical, more merciful, more kind, more generous. Just like honesty, honor and respect are LG traits, kindness, empathy and conscience are CG traits. Kindness is better than honesty, empathy is better than honor, conscience is more good important than respect.


Now, let me make this clear, I do not think that CG is more good than LG. I just wanted to add a little for the less popular side.

[OldTrees]

CG uses their own opinion of morality as a guide to do good.

LG uses society and traditions opinion as a guide to do good.

I would purpose that both opinions are equally fallible and thus equally restrained. As such neither is more likely than the other to achieve good deeds.

[Serpentine]

I despise the idea that Law is more Good than Chaos I've been complaining about that apparent bias since way back. Unfortunately, Saph, the only example I can think of off the top of my head was a Dragon Magazine monster that "ate" a person's Goodness, making them become more and more Chaotic Evil.
If anything, I would consider Neutral Good to be the "Goodest" - it's a devotion to Goodness alone, without any other ideology.
Moreover, although it would be tricky to do properly just because I think Good/Evil matters more to people, in my opinion a Chaotic Good character should be just as opposed to a Lawful Good one as to a Chaotic Evil person - one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and all that jazz.

In defense of the "Law is Gooder than Chaos" attitude, "evil" is often associated with "chaos" in real-life mythology. Egyptian Set is probably the best example of this, but also things like Tiamat, the goddess of the primordial ocean that had to be destroyed for civilisation to be built. But just because it's old doesn't mean it's right dagnabbit!