The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The D&D Alignment Thread.
Anthrax! Please.
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Okay, listen up guys, I am a philosophy major. I know this stuff... like ethics and shit, right?
So, since we have been suffering from chronic derailments of threads all over the place (like the IC world building thread, and the evil PC thread), I have decided to make this thread as a forum for all discussions of alignment.
The basic rules still apply: No ad hominem, except against someone's mom because that's cool. That is all.
So. Here are some of the opening volleys fired in the war of DND alignment ideology.
This is just some fodder for the inevitable debate. Start fresh or work off points that are already here.
Casket, INeedNoSalt, Talonrazor, and Pkmoutl, sorry if I misrepresented you.
So, since we have been suffering from chronic derailments of threads all over the place (like the IC world building thread, and the evil PC thread), I have decided to make this thread as a forum for all discussions of alignment.
The basic rules still apply: No ad hominem, except against someone's mom because that's cool. That is all.
So. Here are some of the opening volleys fired in the war of DND alignment ideology.
Casket wrote:Of the nine alignment types, there are two extremities, Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. These two alignments are generally pretty rare, because they require the most prerequesites. Especially Chaotic Evil. A chaotic evil character generally results in as much chaos as possible. Often, this chaos goes unchecked, and if it does so for a very long time, then the Chaotic Evil ultimately meets it's horrible demise by it's own chaos. Chaotic evils should never favor the calculated, well-planned evil plots if they can cause more mayhem through another more haphazard method that is available. The only time a Chaotic Evil doesn't appear stupid, is when by some miracle all the plans manage to work, despite the shit poor planning and lack of forethought.
In the case of dieties or entities in a vacuum of existance, there are also 2 hidden alignments, True Good and True Evil, which branch off of True Neutral.
Also, *birdseeds* *birdseeds* olol
INeedNoSalt wrote:Casket wrote:INeedNoSalt wrote:You're looking at it the wrong way. Your alignment doesn't confine you or define your actions; your actions define your alignment. I don't mind it so much in hack-and-slash games, where it's just another value on a sheet, although it can get in the way for RP.Talonrazor wrote:It has been my opinion that the entire idea of "alignment" is pretty much one of the stupidest things in RPGs. The idea that your character is confined to a set of ethics is dumb.
That being said, I don't see at all what Casket is saying...
Casket doesn't seem to understand that Chaotic Good is just as extreme as Lawful good or Chaotic Evil (and True Neutral is just as sever and any other) and Neutral Good can be just as extreme as Lawful Evil or Lawful Good...
There is no alignment that is more 'extreme' or 'severe' than any other. Claiming otherwise is just slapping 'I don't get it' onto your face.
Neutral carries no charge. Lawful and Good both carry positive charges and Chaotic and Evil both carry negative charges. And now your going to tell me there are no extremes? There are 2 extremes and 2 alone.
No. You DON'T UNDERSTAND. LAWFUL is not POSITIVE. CHAOTIC is not NEGATIVE.
You can be so severely LAWFUL that you will kill anything that threatens to bring change. You can be so moderately chaotic evil that you've never bothered to organize your binder and you join in when you see people picking on others.
but, you know, the chaotic evil person who is just a little unorganized and a bit odd at times is far more negative than the Lawful Neutral who murders people for going against his idealized vision of the world.
If the PC's are playing evil characters, you really shouldn't make any big changes to what you are doing. It is up to them to play their characters according to alignment.
This is one of the things I absolutely hate about alignments. Everyone has a fucking apeshit whenever you bring up evil characters. I've had parties with mixed alignments that worked out just fine. It's not that an evil character is automatically going to kill a good character or vice-versa. Anyone who plays those kinds of idiot knee-jerk reaction games really needs to find themselves another hobby.
My advice is not to change anything. The trick is, if they are evil, they won't do a job just "in the service of the King" or whatever, they'll do it more for personal interests. It also will depend on the kind of evil characters they play. Remember that to a certain extent, a Lawful Evil will tend to agree more with a Lawful Good than a Chaotic Evil. The methods of the Lawful Good and the Lawful Evil or the end goals will just be different.
This is just some fodder for the inevitable debate. Start fresh or work off points that are already here.
Casket, INeedNoSalt, Talonrazor, and Pkmoutl, sorry if I misrepresented you.
Anthrax! Please. on
0
Posts
the problem with the alignments is imagination, they are not solid pieces of black and white right there in your hands objects. they are ideas, concepts, and above all must be concidered to the persons point of view. a lg character could seem like a tyrant while a chaotic evil guy seem like a kind person.
Of course there is the cultural tendency for barbaric and stupid people to find the CE more easily but that's cos democracy, justice and all that good stuff is more work than rule by the sword and vengeance. Tribes of monstrous humanoids being an example. Gangs of thugs and criminals and bandits being another.
A CE character isn't compelled by his alignment to discard a good plan, however, if it works for his selfish interests (unless he's some sort of extremist zealot serving a CE god who demands irrational behavior or something). A corrupt politician comes to mind.
The extreme alignments I can't agree with either. Your alignment is only as extreme as you make it. If you follow the rule of law and generally try to be nice to people that makes you Lawful Good. If you back down from your stand when threatened that might make you a coward but not any less LG.
Likewise if you as a CE don't do murder, mayhem and pillaging in cities because you'd get thrown to jail that doesn't make you any more lawful or good.
Or maybe that's just my experience.
No restraint at all is Chaotic Neutral, not true neutral.
Alignment is silly and should be dropped from the rules, anyhow.
It gives you a great idea of what they all represent and how the philosophies can be used (and used to the nth degree)
Planescape gives some beautiful examples of how any given Alignment can be horribly twisted.
My later post had funnier lines in it.
Now, what were we talking about?
Oh yeah, Alignment.
The thing is, even way back in the early days of D&D, they said that Alignment was a guideline. Too many people tend to take it as this written-in-stone way to portray your character. Yes, you do have to act a certain way if you are Lawful or Chaotic, and you would have certain ethics if you are Good or Evil or whatever. However, the thing is, with a mixture of Alignments and concepts like Neutral Evil, you have to realize that you have a large area of behaviors to cover. Evil makes you selfish to a certain extent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you would kill for something, or even steal for that matter. You may do one or the other, but that's pretty much up to you as a PC.
On the adverse side, a Chaotic Good may be inclined to steal, but it would usually be for the greater good of the party or the town or whatever. Or, in the case of something like a Kender, it may just be an innocent form of their socialization. Kenders don't believe in ownership, so taking something you like or need isn't technically bad. However, if you accuse a Kender of stealing, it's an insult. Stealing is an evil, malicious act done with a purpose, and they don't stand for that. Hence the reason most Kender are Chaotic Good or Neutral Good. But I'm kind of getting off on a tangent here (I kind of like Kender).
We had this discussion in my group a couple of years ago when we were building our own world with its own Pantheon of gods, and we decided to base the Pantheon on Alignment. So there is one Lawful Good god, one Lawful Evil god..all the way around (except that we made two True Neutral gods. The God of Death and the God of Nature are both True Neutral). So someone brings up Lawful Good vs. Lawful Evil. One thing someone brought up is that as a Lawful, no matter if it's Good, Neutral or Evil, the Law is the final word. So a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil would be more likely to agree on something, although their ethics for getting to that same point might be rather different. They may both agree that someone should be executed for an infringement of the law, but the reasons behind their decisions may not be the same. The Lawful Evil one may be doing it for a more personal reason. Or maybe they're just sadistic and tyrranical. The Good person would be doing it to keep the accused from harming others, or possibly even in the belief that in the next world or life or whatever, that this person will have the chance to redeem their actions in this life.
I kind of forgot what my final point on all this was.
Shit.
But I hope you all see what I'm getting at here.
Because I sure don't. I lost myself about ten minutes ago when I had to stop to answer the damn phone.
But then what would we talk about?
First, in most D&D settings, alignment is based on a more or less codified set of axes, represented and enforced by forces of varying transparency. These are ineffable ideas, beyond the ken of man, bound only by the capriciousness of the pantheon in question. Whatever forces, known or unknown, responsible for crafting the plane in question and designing its inner workings, labeled some ideas and actions Good or Evil, some modes of behavior Chaotic or Lawful, and keyed some abilities to these axes. In this way, on these planes, alignment is simply another attribute, much like race or skin color. It can be changed, true, but the precepts forming its architecture are beyond the influence of the creatures inhabiting these planes.
Second, as someone who's played with several titanically inexperienced players, I can say that I fully support alignment's usefulness as a tool. Some new players need a little bit of architecture, if you will, to support and provide consistency to their nascent character concepts.
Does alignment always make perfect sense? Of course not. Does it belong in all systems and all games? No, that's just silly. But on most planes in D&D, it simply exists.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
The biggest problems comes with axiomatic effects and how you determine whether they apply. The DM usually just has to arbitrarily decide; some players get ticked when their old tricks don't function quite the same, but most of them adapt and overcome.
Personally, I prefer the Allegiances system from d20M. Of course, I prefer d20M period, so take that with a grain of salt.
Exactly, which is why I dislike it. Most people define their actions by their alignment, rather than vice-versa, even though the player's handbook specifically reminds players not to do this. (at least the 2nd ed. one did, I think 3rd does, too).
If players use the alignment properly, its a helpful tool for the DM to know generally how players should react to an encounter, nothing more.
Given how most players do not even understand what each alignment represents, its hardly even useful for that.
This right here sums up my entire argument about alignment. It just isn't a good system compared to understanding a character and really representing that line of thinking. Players tend to use alignment as a lazy way of defining their character. Sure, it works good for those players who are more into hack-and-slash then story settings. But when trying to represent a really fleshed out character, it's just a weak system.
To me, it's always been more along the lines of those political tests, the straight alignments only signifying a greater quadrant of many smaller, different personalities and motives. And really, it's always been a secondary concern, a character's placement has only been for the purposes of game mechanics.
Might be kinda interesting. Especially when players aren't sure whether or not they're of pure enough heart to enter some ancient temple, etc.
I essentially did that last time I DM'd, except I did it based on in-game actions. Everyone in the party turned out to be pure Chaotic Neutral, and I guess that makes sense, thats how they played. Their reign of chaos eventually came to a brutal end, but they had a great run.
so, like it always describes, the good characters are, to a greater or lesser extent within the law, selfless and always looking to help others, whereas the 'evil' characters are not rapists or murderers by definition but are rather just looking out for number one to greater or lesser degrees within the law
the neutral character is one i always think is most interesting if played right because they shouldn't (again, i think) be looking out for others or for themselves. they're more in tune with the big picture, as it were. the ol' cosmic balance.
i guess basically i've always thought of it as three different categories, selfless, selfish, and a, i dunno, 'balance-seeker', if there's a more graceful way of saying that. the lawful/chaotic thing just define how willing they are to break the law in service of themselves, others, or a cosmic balance
I THINK
Generally speaking Neutral folks are just people who don't have a strong moral view one way or the other. They don't try to make sure everyone they know follows the laws, but they're not especially motivated to Stick it up to the Man either. They won't risk their necks for strangers unless there's a good reason but they don't really fancy the idea of hurting people either.
True Neutral on the other hand... Well, I never really got a good grip on that idea. Supposedly they want to somehow keep the cosmic forces in balance but I really don't see how that'd be a fun way to spend your time unless you're starting to reach the Epic Levels or regularly visit Sigil. That whole idea is just alien to me. Any other alignment I can sympathize with.
If you're aligned on one axis (NG, NE, LN, CN) then that pretty much gives you enough "purpose" to ignore the Neutral you have on the other axis. If you're devoted to Law then it takes precedence over the wishy washy questions of good and evil.
If you're Chaotic you usually have a certain tolerance towards evil actions and people... Good and evil? Who gives a fuck, life's a party!
If you're Good then people's well-being is more important arbitrary and exploitative laws, but if the laws keep people safe then they're a good thing.
If you're Evil then only the best method to get rich and powerful matters.
By the by, evil isn't always all about selfishness either. Sometimes it feels pretty damn warm inside to give other people... let's say... things to remember you by. Being happy is always nicer when others aren't.
This is all just personal thought but playing a character like that would be quite interesting because you can save people's lives and then rob them blind or just play the judge jury and executioner and pick which people from a party you save from the orcs, and which die. If they don't all die, well then you kill some to balance the act out.
I guess playing as true neutral you're not going to be making many friends, or if you do manage to you're going to have a hit list with their names on it for later.
Just my two cents on the matter.
True Neutral might side with an evil faction, because while they're evil, and do lots of nasty things, they occupy most of the attention of the zelous good faction, who would be going out into the world and causing all sorts of problems with their zealousness. The neutral faction is working to maintain a balance where the good and evil keep eachother neutralized.
However, the core books themselves note that neutral will tend to side with good because Good people tend to make better neighbors.
But for other classes "maintaining status quo" doesn't sound very interesting. Hm hm.
Actually, one thing that comes to mind is Lady of Pain and Lord Vetinari type of city rulers. :P
D&D alignment traditionally constricts itself to a black and white system (with the neutral in there to mess things up a bit). The universe itself supports this, with powers representing good, evil and (sometimes) neutral. A paladin is gifted by his god to detect evil for a reason. It's possible to start greying alignments up a bit (which I personally prefer [yay philosophy degree]) but this can cause problems for planar travelling (whoops, the guy who doesn't organise his day just stepped into Mechanis) and people who's prefer a simpler 'evil slaying' game.
Well, that is exactly what it is supposed to be, a general description of how a player will react to a given situation. What always happens in my experience is that players react to every encounter with the logic that they must always follow their alignment, rather than what they feel like doing. If you're just doing hack and slash, it doesn't really matter, but if you want to have anything interesting going on otherwise, its annoying to have the players react based on what the player's handbook says, rather than what they would say. They substitute the alignment blurb in the handbook for their character's personality.
With the group I played, the only way I could them to play interesting characters was to remove the alignment, other than a hidden modifier that only I knew. When I play a PC, I assign my character a fitting alignment, then ignore it otherwise, it doesn't really mean anything as far as I am concerned, its too simplistic for my liking.
The DM told me today (he probably shouldn't have) that there will be a cursed item that identifies as a headband of intellect +2 which is actually a headband of opposite alignment, which can only be removed by a wish or miracle.
I imagine the newly lawful good bugbear might see my side of things a little more.
I don't use the monk class, as its wapanese, and don't particularly like the paladin class (too many prime stats), but were I to play a Paladin, I would follow the laws and code of my deity or religion to the letter, yes, as well as act honorably in accordance to the code of honor that my order followed. Thats part of being a paladin, though, I wouldn't consider it acting in alignment so much as following the paladin code, which coincidentally mirrors the lawful good alignment. I do love the paladin archetype, though, so I often play a Cleric or Fighter who acts as a paladin.
I don't like the hardcoded "Player is Lawful Good", so much as "said action is Lawful Good", and the character is behaving in a lawful good manner.
Though, if the setting were something like Planescape, where alignment actually means something, or any other setting making use of the upper and lower planes, then it would make sense to use alignment in a more strict sense.
In actual game terms, though, my opinion doesn't really make that much of a difference, unless the DM makes absurd alignment changes for single actions or something.
In general, this is one of the things that makes Eberron great, as it allows for you to enter into grey areas without having to alter your alignment.
Out of curiosity, are you an intellect class as well?
SoogaGames Blog
Monk, so no. However if it wouldn't have ruined my future as a monk I would have put it on anyways.
Interestingly enough, the Bugbear's player didn't come tonight, and the True Neutral Bard ended up putting it on. They rolled randomly for her new alignment.
Yes, it used to be that True Neutral meant that the character always sought a neutral balance and standpoint - this made it almost impossible to play, because invariably there would be situations in which a True Neutral character would side with the "bad" side, or whoever the PCs were fighting.
There is nothing about Chaotic that suggests Evil, and nothing about Lawful that suggests Good. The Chaos-Law and Good-Evil scales aren't related. And, Chaos doesn't mean messy, or entropy. It means you can't be trusted to keep/respect/uphold oaths, promises, and society's laws. Or, if you do care, you can't be depended upon to stick to these bounds. Lawful is the opposite - you keep your promises, your oaths, and follow society's rules. It has nothing to do with how organized your binder is, or how sparkly clean and shined you keep your shoes (unless your organization expects this of you).
Lawful evil = an evil baron/lord. They follow the rules, but they sure ain't good.
Chaotic good = Robin Hood. He was an outlaw, but for the greater good.
Anyway, the reason a Paladin must be lawful is because their nature is to hold to their oaths and promises, and to respect authority. The reason monsters are Chaotic is because they couldn't care less what your king/emperor/whatever says is law.
Good = works towards the wellbeing of others/society. Evil = purely selfish. Neutral is what most of us are - we don't usually inconvenience ourselves to help society, and we don't usually act so selfishly that we think of nobody else before ourselves.
<TRON> if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCALATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
Also, this.
The DM?
:P I, too, usually prefer Chaotic Neutral as an alignment. The first allows my character to do whatever the hell they want. They aren't selfish and evil, but they don't have to go rescue the king's son and face likely death with no pay, and they don't have to go two days out of their way to help the little old lady cross the street. Also, because of the Chaotic bit, I can say as I please, and do as I please, without regard to past promises or the rules of the land.
Chaotic Neutral is really the most do-whatever-the-hell-you-want alignment that exists. Since I'm really nothing like this in real life (I fall somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good, leaning far towards the Good side), it is fun to be able to play this in games.
<TRON> if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCALATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
Also, this.