Roleplay help Neutral vs evil vs good with examples

[Mooglir]

I never really play neutral characters and i think ive been doing ok, but id like people opinions if im staying in the lines or blurring them. Ill give a few scenarios below and id like a rank from -5 to 5 for the acts. -5 being bad and 5 being good for arbitrary reasons! I took the charlatan background and maybe im not playing the way i should. I am attempting to play a chaotic neutral bard half elf.

1. Forging a note to receive more money for a bounty from a bank
2. Risking life to save another from slavery
3. Giving a poor person a few bucks
4. Freeing slaves, but not helping them escape. Continued on a quest for treasure deeper in dungeon. My party later found some slaves we freed dead and tied up in the town they got to.
5. If someone helps me a lot ill try to return the favor. My barb friend saved my butt in a fight and when he was knocked down later i ran over to help while putting myself at harm. Otherwise it kind of depends.

I guess its mostly my "good" conscience telling me the first one was bad enough to make me evil? If i had to rank them id say
1. -2.5
2. 4
3. 1
4. 1 They were close to where we were going so it wasnt too much out of the way. after we freed them we went in to find money vs helping them to safety. Maybe a 2-3?
5. 2

I would rate myself about a 1.1 average from this. If others see me as more evil or good ill see if its worth changing a little gameplay. Im trying my best to be Neutral and its so hard. Its "easy" to be good. Oh hey peasants in trouble? let me go throw myself at the assailants and save them! Thank you in advance, i realize my thoughts are a little jumbled.

[OldTrees1]

My first piece of advice is to not worry about labels too much. Play Jane Doe as themselves, and let them care about moral quandaries. This helps you avoid "trying to target an alignment".

Is this a good person? What are their moral failings? What are they willing to do that they ought not do? What lines will they never cross? Maybe these are more intuitive tendencies rather than a disciplined code, but that helps you understand this John Doe.

From your description they are willing to do minor fraud, reciprocity, charity, and risking their life for slaves. From that snapshot they could be Evil, Neutral, or Good. However I see a strong tendency towards moral behavior. Without further context this would sound as a generally moral person who still has room for improvement and a moral failing they might work on.

[Tanarii]

Alignment isn't determined by specific actions. The typical, but not required behavior in the PHB is something you can use along with your other personality traits (personality, ideal, bond, flaw) if you need something to assist you in determining how to act.

So, what are your personality, ideal, bond and flaw traits? If we know those, we can give you our opinions on if the actions are ones that we would have chosen, if we were to combine them with "Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else."

[Kurt Kurageous]

My table objective statement is, "Play to find out what happens." Alignment is a bunch of arbitrary categories in 5e, not really a good source of conflict anymore.

The following is my interpretation in my world and for the characters I create.

Good is arbitrary. If you are a member of a good race/civilization and you want your way of life to prosper, you are good. If you secretly work against that way of life, you aren't good and might be evil.

Evil is arbitrary. If you are a member of an evil race/civilization and you want your way of life to prosper, you are evil. If you secretly work against that way of life, you aren't evil and might be good.

Neutral (on the good v evil spectrum) is another way, radically different from good and evil. You don't want anyone's civilization to fall, but you do want them to stay as they are, balanced with the natural order.

The good v evil spectrum is, of course opposite the law v chaos, which also has a neutral. The law chaos is a lot harder to put into words like I did above.

[Pex]

A tomato exists.

The Good person gives it to someone who is hungry even if he's hungry himself.
The Neutral person takes it if no one else is claiming it. If someone else does claim it, he keeps it if he was first.
The Evil person takes it from someone else, harming the person in the process.

[ezekielraiden]

If I had to "rank your actions as requested, I'd probably go
-2.5 (evil-leaning, but not horrific; you are knowingly stealing and doing so with active dishonesty)
+4 (pretty close to pure good)
+1 (charity is good, but small charity is small)
-1.5 (abandoning the weak to their own devices is slightly evil, unless you're pretty confident they'll be okay)
+0 (aiding those who have aided you already isn't particularly "good," even if you took a risk to do it; you take risks simply by fighting at all)

This gives an average goodosity of 0.2, making you pretty much Neutral in this specific calculated sense.

Thing is...I don't think Good people actually feel okay about their position by doing a calculation to determine if they haven't crossed a line yet. Honestly that sounds non-Good (meaning it could be Neutral or Evil); the Neutral do it out of, as you implied, wanting to assuage their guilty consciences, while the Evil would do it because it is efficient and "proves" people should be okay with the actions they've taken.

Abandoning those slaves, especially when you found (some of) them dead later? Not great. I'd call that a pretty serious blemish. Stealing from a bank isn't great either, but we allow some leeway for the puckish rogue with a heart of gold. The two combined make it seem like you're okay with deceiving people just to get more reward, and okay with leaving helpless victims to be victimized a second time. That comes across as pretty heartless and selfish.

So, what should you do? That depends. Maybe this character isn't as Good as they thought they were, and needs to recalibrate their sense of moral neutrality. Maybe they need to seek out some atonement for this stuff, and try to do better. Maybe they need to stop hiding their true self and enjoy being selfish and a little callous. It all depends on what you think would be most interesting to play and what your group is willing to play alongside. (E.g. I don't allow ACTUALLY Evil PCs in my game, so if you went full Evil I'd ask you to retire the character and draft a new one, but if you wanted to spend a while flirting with darkness or being sorely tempted by it, I'd be totally on board.)

[Pandamonium]

Morality is always fun to look at.
Personally I've always looked at it as degrees of selfishness.
Good is someone who often places others at cost of the self, Evil is someone who almost always puts self first at the cost of others and Neutral acts depending on the situation, probably after some sort of code.
Lawful and Chaotic determines how much the law is seen to have an impact on decision making.
Neutral could also be that you have no qualms about saving peasants and doing "good", but you want (or expect) something in return to balance it out.

I am playing a Wizard currently who is neutral, he has no problem doing "good" deeds with the group but always wants to be compensated in some way.
On the other hand, to some (who remind him of family) he is very generous and sometimes have to defend his actions in contrast to the rest of the group.
Other times he can be outright petty to people in need if they have created the situation themselves or haven't tried to solve it on their own.
I think if you have a grip of the characters "code" you will make it easier to navigate :) sometimes you might be good to some, othertimes not, what do I know?

Following your system without any input as to your characters ideals, flaws and personality traits is hard as it gives few notes as to how your character visions his neutrality and values others and what are their limits.

1. -1
I mean it is selfish at the cost of others but is it enough to say that the bank is harmed?

2. 4
A deed at potential high cost is squarely good

3. 1
Minor cost to self puts it in good graces but nothing major

4. 1 or 3
I mean depending on your character, freeing them is very good, if your character would feel guilty about not abandoning your plans to get them safe then it is 1, otherwise I see little difference from situation #2. It's not your fault that they didn't wait for you to finish and that the place they ran to killed them.

5. 0 or 4.
If your characters considers it a debt to be repaid it is 0 as it is not a decision made from selflessness. If you save him because you want him to live and is willing to risk your life for it I say it is very good.

It seems your characters values freedom highly :) whether it be from chains or poverty

[MoiMagnus]

Im trying my best to be Neutral and its so hard. Its "easy" to be good. Oh hey peasants in trouble? let me go throw myself at the assailants and save them! Thank you in advance, i realize my thoughts are a little jumbled.

Being neutral is hard when goodness has no real obstacle. "Let me go throw myself at the assailants" is an easy choice when it doesn't cost you anything.

The first step to play a neutral character is to have an ambition/objective which will go above helping others. You need to have something you're not willing to sacrifice (or alternatively something you're not willing to reject if available).

Most real life neutral peoples have "self-preservation and comfort" as such objectives, as while they believe in good, they tend to not follow up with acts when it requires them to make some sacrifices.

[Witty Username]

Neutral actions with a good/evil leaning are best found in low risk and low awareness. For example, giving tipping a waitress or handing money to a beggar is unlikely to be a great sacrifice to a character. Meanwhile, mugging people in dark alleys is easy to see the effects of in comparison cheating a bank out of money or stealing jewels from a king.
Now low risk is tricky because PC's are heroic in terms of power, but you can add a motivation to add risk to a situation. Maybe you are motivated by debts, or revenge.
Now, do you stop and free the slaves or let the lord that murdered your father escape? Instant personal risk.
Neutral will tend towards personal goals without malicious intent. A neutral character may steal to pay off a debt but avoid harming/killing people in the process maybe too the point of avoiding situations that they can't guarantee lack of harm.
True neutral will act entirely within these specific personal motivations. Avoiding risk and obvious evil. But also, obvious lawlessness and needless conflict.

[ezekielraiden]

Neutral actions with a good/evil leaning are best found in low risk and low awareness. For example, giving tipping a waitress or handing money to a beggar is unlikely to be a great sacrifice to a character. Meanwhile, mugging people in dark alleys is easy to see the effects of in comparison cheating a bank out of money or stealing jewels from a king.
Now low risk is tricky because PC's are heroic in terms of power, but you can add a motivation to add risk to a situation. Maybe you are motivated by debts, or revenge.
Now, do you stop and free the slaves or let the lord that murdered your father escape? Instant personal risk.
Neutral will tend towards personal goals without malicious intent. A neutral character may steal to pay off a debt but avoid harming/killing people in the process maybe too the point of avoiding situations that they can't guarantee lack of harm.
True neutral will act entirely within these specific personal motivations. Avoiding risk and obvious evil. But also, obvious lawlessness and needless conflict.

In general, I agree with this. Neutrality generally means having some specific, personal goal but some disinclination to doing "whatever it takes" to accomplish that goal. In most cases, this will mean Neutrality cashes out as "choosing not to do the Good/Lawful thing when the personal-motive thing comes up," but that's mostly because Evil and Chaos are inherently "unfettered" alignments while Good and Lawful are inherently "fettered" alignments, though Chaos is more likely to have the occasional "value-driven" moment than Evil is.*

Some other hopefully-useful examples of what I'd call reasonably Neutral behavior:
- Turning down a job offer that pays very little but does something noble for others, because you need the money in order to seek revenge against the person who ruined your family's reputation. I would call this Neutral rather than Evil because, as others have said, it implies no malice or desire for harm, merely "I'm sorry guys, I have something more important to do, unless you can pay me."
- Breaking a solemn promise (like attending a wedding--not caring for a dependent), because an opportunity to advance your career has unexpectedly arrived, and will almost certainly never appear again. I would call this Neutral rather than Chaotic unless it became a pattern of behavior; breaking an occasional promise because of a big opportunity seems pretty Neutral.
- Allowing a lie to go unquestioned because, if the truth came out, it would make people hate you. Classic "protect my own safety" Neutral behavior. Failing to give testimony that would exonerate an innocent person because it would incriminate yourself is a common moral dilemma and while we think poorly of those who don't speak up, it's not so much Evil as "morally weak."
- Extracting favors or promises from someone who "owes" you. Think "life-debt" stuff, taking full advantage of the debt without being cruel. Frex, Loki calling in favors to sit (and stay) at the feast-table before revealing he caused Balder's death. I consider this a Lawful-leaning but still Neutral act, because it exploits a rigid code of conduct without espousing one.
- Ratting out a well-meaning criminal to the authorities for the reward or reputation. Especially if the crime is real but not heinous (such as theft to save a dying child), this is a pretty clearly Neutral act. It's not compassionate, since the motive is materialistic, but it's also not cruel, since in general there are consequences even for deeds that save lives.
- Neglecting parental responsibilities to spouse and children in order to pursue a goal you've had all your life. Pretty classic conflict-driver in family drama today, and pretty clearly Neutral. It's not wicked or malicious, and indeed it may have very positive end goals ("I just wanted to be sure you'd never live through poverty like I did..."), but it's also pretty clearly not Good either.

Hopefully, these give you enough to work with. As others have noted, choosing a clear and not-really-Good-or-Evil motive is a good way to get started on playing a Neutral person. It's also a great way to create real behavioral dilemmas down the line, both if the character feels guilty about doing Evil-leaning things in pursuit of their goal, and also if the character actually accomplishes their goal and....can't figure out what to do next.

*Evil, in a rather meaningful way, is the only truly "unfettered" alignment, making it rather different from the other three. Good and Law both involve adhering to rules, which will often deny you access to what you want. Chaos, while not interested in rules, generally upholds at least certain principles like never respecting un-"earned" authority or opposing formal systems purely because they're formal, not specifically because they're slow or whatever. Only Evil is free to do nearly anything it wants, so long as it can come up with a sufficiently heartless and/or selfish motive...and that's really not very hard. Love, a desire for justice, even wishing to defend the weak...all of these things can motivate Evil when taken to extremes, or even just be incredibly selfish, e.g. "my husband belongs to me, so I take care of him and reward his loyalty to me"--very transactional, very materialistic. It is this diversity of motive behind Evil that makes it both so tempting and so difficult to work with; with Good, or Lawful, or even to some extent Chaotic, you can get some idea of a person's overall behavior simply from knowing their goals. With Evil? No chance.

[Naanomi]

In practice, quantifying things like this in 5e... beyond an also small number of situations that only care about your 'absolute' alignment descriptor... only matter in... the barest number of cases

~Roleplaying directly with 'alignment exemplar' Outsiders of various types
~In rare cases of 'forced alignment change', functionally a very specific type of mind control effect that needs to be moderated like any mental effect on PCs

Note that 1, 2, and 4 are at least partially Law/Chaos issues as well

[Tanarii]

The important thing to keep in mind here is Alignment is a fictional concept. And in 5e's fictional alignment concept, good and neutral and evil are not separately defined, and nor are they action-level determinations. They're one aspect of personality, and each of the nine alignments has a separate associated typical but not required behavior.

[Sigreid]

My assessments:

1. Forging a note to receive more money for a bounty from a bank: Most likely 0 for me. It's opportunistic and shady, but unless you got ridiculous you didn't cause any real harm. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't go to jail if caught.
2. Risking life to save another from slavery: 4 This is a good act, assuming the slavery wasn't a sentence for some horrific crime. If it was and you knew it you effectively just let a monster back into the world.
3. Giving a poor person a few bucks: 0. Sounds like it was just pocket change to a beggar to you. While it's a kind thing to do it's not going to tip the cosmic scales of good and evil and nothing about being neutral says you can't do random acts of kindness just because at that moment you want to.
4. Freeing slaves, but not helping them escape. Continued on a quest for treasure deeper in dungeon. My party later found some slaves we freed dead and tied up in the town they got to.: 0. This is to me real neutral alignment. You gave them an opportunity, but did not take responsibility for their future choices or outcomes.
5. If someone helps me a lot ill try to return the favor. My barb friend saved my butt in a fight and when he was knocked down later i ran over to help while putting myself at harm. Otherwise it kind of depends. 0 as being neutral doesn't mean you can't have friendships or feel gratitude to those who look out for you and show they can be relied upon.



None of these single instances would affect your alignment standing IMO. The way I see it, there are 2 kinds of neutral in D&D. The first type basically just looks after themselves and theirs first and foremost, treating every situation that doesn't affect the wellbeing of themselves and those they have bonded with in a fairly haphazard "what do I feel like doing right now" way. The second is the active neutral that thinks too much good or evil in the world will lead to unhealthy consequences and thus will fight against good or evil that they believe has the potential to become too strong. That's the Old School D&D way of looking at it.

Again, you can play a generally kind character that doesn't take any real long term responsibility for the strangers he helps without becoming "good".

Edit: All this is to say that just because you saved the kingdom today doesn't mean you have to burn down an orphanage tomorrow to remain "neutral".

[Teklese]

1. Forging a note to receive more money for a bounty from a bank (-1 evil)

2. Risking life to save another from slavery (5 good)

3. Giving a poor person a few bucks (1 good)

4. Freeing slaves, but not helping them escape. Continued on a quest for treasure deeper in dungeon. My party later found some slaves we freed dead and tied up in the town they got to. (0 neutral)

5. If someone helps me a lot ill try to return the favor. My barb friend saved my butt in a fight and when he was knocked down later i ran over to help while putting myself at harm. Otherwise it kind of depends. (0 neutral)

I say your character is Chaotic good. character acts as their own conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. The bank forging makes him bend more toward the chaotic side for me, the rest of his choices seem to be either good or neutral.

Your character could also be Chaotic neutral. Character follows their whims, holding their personal freedoms above all else. It seems he leans toward being good but isn't afraid to bend the law to his own needs. This is just a small snap shot and your character could be different.

[Frogreaver]

I never really play neutral characters and i think ive been doing ok, but id like people opinions if im staying in the lines or blurring them. Ill give a few scenarios below and id like a rank from -5 to 5 for the acts. -5 being bad and 5 being good for arbitrary reasons! I took the charlatan background and maybe im not playing the way i should. I am attempting to play a chaotic neutral bard half elf.

1. Forging a note to receive more money for a bounty from a bank
2. Risking life to save another from slavery
3. Giving a poor person a few bucks
4. Freeing slaves, but not helping them escape. Continued on a quest for treasure deeper in dungeon. My party later found some slaves we freed dead and tied up in the town they got to.
5. If someone helps me a lot ill try to return the favor. My barb friend saved my butt in a fight and when he was knocked down later i ran over to help while putting myself at harm. Otherwise it kind of depends.

I guess its mostly my "good" conscience telling me the first one was bad enough to make me evil? If i had to rank them id say
1. -2.5
2. 4
3. 1
4. 1 They were close to where we were going so it wasnt too much out of the way. after we freed them we went in to find money vs helping them to safety. Maybe a 2-3?
5. 2

I would rate myself about a 1.1 average from this. If others see me as more evil or good ill see if its worth changing a little gameplay. Im trying my best to be Neutral and its so hard. Its "easy" to be good. Oh hey peasants in trouble? let me go throw myself at the assailants and save them! Thank you in advance, i realize my thoughts are a little jumbled.

I don't agree with how your calculating neutral. Neutral is not "my good and bad deeds somehow balance out in the end". IMO, being good is about doing good things despite personal risk. Being evil is about harming others. Neutral should be the easiest thing imaginable to be as it's everything else.

Running into a burning building to save someone = good.
Not running into a burning building to save someone = neutral.
Setting the building on fire = evil.
Not setting the building on fire = neutral.
Not setting the building on fire knowing that someone is going to come after your life for not doing so = good.
Setting the building on fire knowing your life is in danger if you don't = neutral.

**Note that being good despite personal risk doesn't mean being stupid good. It means "be willing to put yourself in actual danger", not "be willing to do something that is certain death".

For your 5 acts
1. Neutral but unlawful (victimless crime)
2. Good (You put yourself at risk doing the right thing)
3. Neutral (no risk to yourself - could change if it was your last few dollars)
4. Neutral (no real risk to yourself)
5. Neutral (paying someone back)

I would say you are playing a mostly neutral character that sometimes leans towards good.

[Witty Username]

"victimless crime" is a great phrase for a neutral character action. Something that is small enough that you won't get punished, where any wrongs are out of sight or minimal.
The main difference between Chaotic, Evil, Good and Lawful and Neutral is that neutral doesn't imply a purpose/motivation. Most alignments will reach a conflict point either with each other or with a character's more personal motivation. And give some guidance on which should win out.
A paladin may be lawful good, but the will have to decide which is more important from situation to situation. A chaotic character will have to decide between being independent and progressing a project by accepting a structure. Neutral does not conflict, other than by avoidance. Does this stick the character's neck out too much? is this too heinous? Is this too far off track?
Any alignment can struggle with these questions, but a neutral character will be filled with them.

[Kvess]

I don't see Neutral as halfway on a grid between Evil and Good, carefully balancing out heroic and villainous acts. There are a few characters in D&D canon who do act this way, but it doesn't seem like a thing that most people would do.

Most people in a society are Neutral. They will have compassion for their neighbours and would help a stranger if it doesn't put them at great risk — say, rescuing a drowning person from a shallow pool of water. An Evil person might also rescue a drowning person from a shallow pool of water if it benefits them to do so — say, if there are observers nearby. A Good person would be willing to put themselves at risk to help someone else, just because it is the right thing to do.

In most situations, a Neutral person wouldn't commit murder or commit heinous crimes. A Neutral person might be tempted to steal or commit fraud if they were in great need, but they would probably be hesitant to do so and would feel guilty afterwards. Neutral people tend to define morality negatively: They mainly try not to commit what they understand to be Evil acts.

In this framework: Good is selflessness, Evil is disregard for others, and Neutral is a person who is just trying to get by. With that in mind, it shouldn't be too difficult to put yourself in the mindset of a neutral character. If we are both spending our free time discussing fantasy games instead of helping the needy, we are probably both Neutral.

[Sigreid]

I don't see Neutral as halfway on a grid between Evil and Good, carefully balancing out heroic and villainous acts. There are a few characters in D&D canon who do act this way, but it doesn't seem like a thing that most people would do.

Most people in a society are Neutral. They will have compassion for their neighbours and would help a stranger if it doesn't put them at great risk — say, rescuing a drowning person from a shallow pool of water. An Evil person might also rescue a drowning person from a shallow pool of water if it benefits them to do so — say, if there are observers nearby. A Good person would be willing to put themselves at risk to help someone else, just because it is the right thing to do.

In most situations, a Neutral person wouldn't commit murder or commit heinous crimes. A Neutral person might be tempted to steal or commit fraud if they were in great need, but they would probably be hesitant to do so and would feel guilty afterwards. Neutral people tend to define morality negatively: They mainly try not to commit what they understand to be Evil acts.

In this framework: Good is selflessness, Evil is disregard for others, and Neutral is a person who is just trying to get by. With that in mind, it shouldn't be too difficult to put yourself in the mindset of a neutral character. If we are both spending our free time discussing fantasy games instead of helping the needy, we are probably both Neutral.

In the modern style, yes. In the earlier styles of the game cosmology, Neutral was very much it's own side in the cosmic war.

I tend to prefer Palladium's alignment breakdown of Good, evil and selfish. Though now I'd probably go something more on the lines of Good, Evil and unaligned/disinterested.

[Naanomi]

In the modern style, yes. In the earlier styles of the game cosmology, Neutral was very much it's own side in the cosmic war.

Well... sort of. Beings of Neutrality had an interest in the conflicts of others, but were not really a 'side'. The original beings of Neutrality (the Kamarel) were obsessed with purity and not being influenced by outside influences; they became increasingly xenophobic and isolationist... ultimately sealing themselves away in a demi-plane to escape. They were replaced by the Rilmani, who were more concerned with keeping 'balance' so that no other side 'won' (so that evil wouldn't extinguish good, or water wouldn't forever douse fire, etc)... but in practice things almost never got out of hand enough for them to do much more than talk about it.

[Tanarii]

In the modern style, yes. In the earlier styles of the game cosmology, Neutral was very much it's own side in the cosmic war.

I tend to prefer Palladium's alignment breakdown of Good, evil and selfish. Though now I'd probably go something more on the lines of Good, Evil and unaligned/disinterested.

one of the nine alignments has the associated typical but not required behavior:

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

That's pretty close.

But it doesn't apply to all three neutral alignments. Because good, evil and neutral aren't a separate thing from lawful, chaotic and neutral. There are 9 combinations insofar as associated behavior, not 2 axis.

Edit: To elaborate on that, what's relevant about the OP isn't a question of Good vs Evil, it's that the character is Chaotic Neutral specifically, as opposed to CG, CE, LN, or N. That and 5e alignment not having action-level determinations for alignment.

[VonKaiserstein]

Alignment is all about context and motivation. An individual action is not enough. Let's take your initial example, forging a note to defraud a bank.
NG- I am going to use the money to help others, possibly even the victims of the crime. I forged it because we suspect the bank is behind this, or the bounty was on a Robin Hood type character, and I agreed with their motivations.
NE- I am not going to be caught, and this will benefit me with a very low chance of coming back on me. I of course, also took the precaution of planting the note on a body to be found by one of my more upstanding party members so if there is any fallout it will look like enemy actions. My share, especially for translating the 'secret' thieves cant it was written in, will be spent on blackjack and hookers.
CN- Banks are just organized theft. If they really had people's best interest at heart, then I wouldn't have to lie to them to get them to give me money to help individuals, or at least get it out of the heartless bureaucracy.

Same ultimate action, different motivations. Did you save this person from slavery because it was the right thing to do (good), they made you laugh (neutral), or because you're looking for some 'thank you for saving my life' action (evil)?

Know your character. Complex characters have complex motivations. John Wick doesn't care about killing dozens of humans- but the death of a dog sets him off? His DM was scratching his head over that one. Achilles is in the greatest war of his age- and sits a lot of it out? Petty and whimsical, or complex, and really fun to play.

[Kvess]

In the modern style, yes. In the earlier styles of the game cosmology, Neutral was very much it's own side in the cosmic war.

I tend to prefer Palladium's alignment breakdown of Good, evil and selfish. Though now I'd probably go something more on the lines of Good, Evil and unaligned/disinterested.

Sure, there are beings of Neutrality and factions like The Free League or the Circle of Eight who follow particular philosophies about being impartial, uninvolved, or balancing the forces of the cosmos, but The Planes also house people who aren't innately heroic or villainous. YMMV, but in my campaigns most Neutral-aligned folk aren't flipping coins deciding whether to help or eat everyone they meet. They're ordinary people who are preoccupied with their own problems.

I mean, the system is and always has been inconsistent, and I think it probably wasn't helped by a need for realms with their own equivalent to angels and fiends.

[greenstone]

The law chaos is a lot harder to put into words like I did above.

Let me try.

Law is tradition, heritage, institutions, habits, stability, order, predictability, stagnation, slow change, reliability, planning, regulations, team-based, conformist, hierarchical.

Chaos is revolution, creativity, imagination, unpredictability, unreliability, originality, paradigm shifts, game-changing activities, seat-of-the-pants flying, individualist, anarchic.

[Sigreid]

Sure, there are beings of Neutrality and factions like The Free League or the Circle of Eight who follow particular philosophies about being impartial, uninvolved, or balancing the forces of the cosmos, but The Planes also house people who aren't innately heroic or villainous. YMMV, but in my campaigns most Neutral-aligned folk aren't flipping coins deciding whether to help or eat everyone they meet. They're ordinary people who are preoccupied with their own problems.

I mean, the system is and always has been inconsistent, and I think it probably wasn't helped by a need for realms with their own equivalent to angels and fiends.

Unaligned is probably the best D&D alignment for most people.

[Kvess]

YMMV but for me...

Law is a focus on behaviours. A lawful person might care about virtues, rules, agreements or taboos, and would believe that you define who you are based on the intrinsic qualities of your actions. A Lawful Good hero would not resort to falsifying evidence against someone they know is guilty, because they don't believe that any ends justify such corrupt means. A Lawful Evil tyrant might see themselves as a rightful ruler who is imposing honour and discipline on a corrupt and ignorant populace.

Chaos is a focus on consequences. A chaotic person would care more about the effects of one's actions, and would judge themselves based on the harms and benefits they cause. A Chaotic Good hero would have no use for following an honourable rule if it would allow a guilty person to continue causing harm. A Chaotic Evil tyrant could be just as oppressive, but would cynically see their position as a means to enrich themselves.

Someone who is Neutral on this axis might be conflicted on whether to focus on behaviours or consequences.

[Sigreid]

For me:

Law: It's better if everyone knows and plays by the same rules. Helps us all get along and get things done.

Chaos: You do you, Boo.

[Kvess]

Unaligned is probably the best D&D alignment for most people.

For what it's worth, in 5e the PHB reserves Unaligned for creatures that lack capacity for rational thought. It defines Neutral as an alignment followed by "many humans."

I can't recall seeing Unaligned in an NPC statblock. I've seen a number of humanoid NPCs that are various flavours of neutral.

[Sigreid]

For what it's worth, in 5e the PHB reserves Unaligned for creatures that lack capacity for rational thought. It defines Neutral as an alignment followed by "many humans."

I can't recall seeing Unaligned in an NPC statblock. I've seen a number of humanoid NPCs that are various flavours of neutral.

I'm aware. It's typically assigned to animals. I just think that realistically most people just comply with their cultural norms and don't think about it.

[Tanarii]

If you feel the need to treat Lawful and Chaotic and Good and Evil as separate things, going off the PHB ideals, some key words

Good: charity, friendship, redemption, beauty, respect, generosity, greater good, noble obligation

Evil: greed, might, power, mastery, retribution

Lawful: tradition, power, faith, fairness, honor, community, logic, responsibility

Chaotic: change, independence, creativity, freedom, free thinking, no limits

Neutral: people, sincerity, live and let live, nature, knowledge

Any: aspiration, honesty, destiny, self-knowledge, family, glory, nation


Of course, all these keywords have a sentence or so to elaborate on how they apply to the specific background, and may have some overlap without it. For example, power (lawful Acolyte, evil Hermit/Noble/Sage), and possibly honor (lawful Criminal) vs honesty (any Entertainer), and friendship (good Charlatan) vs people (neutral Criminal/Entertainer/Guild Artisan/Sailor/Urchin).

[Witty Username]

For what it's worth, in 5e the PHB reserves Unaligned for creatures that lack capacity for rational thought. It defines Neutral as an alignment followed by "many humans."

I can't recall seeing Unaligned in an NPC statblock. I've seen a number of humanoid NPCs that are various flavours of neutral.

Before 5e, unaligned and neutral were the same thing. Notably, 4e used unaligned to describe neutral. It has gotten a bit more complex since then.