"In a society, what anyone desires for themselves often comes at the detriment of others." Yes. "If I don't care about others, if I'm all that matters, that at least skirts being evil." Yes. I think it skirts all the Alignments, its True Neutral. "And if I don't care about the rules of others, that at least skirts being chaotic." Yes.
So what exactly is the problem?
That's not true neutral. That's sociopathic, aka chaotic evil.
Chaotic Evil, in my view, is wanting to do harm, no matter what anyone says. Chaotic says that you will not obey others and will encourage them to not obey anyone. Evil says that you want to do harm, and it does not matter to you if they do or not. True Neutral is about only caring about yourself, if you care more about hurting others than you do about yourself, you are not True Neutral.
Chaotic Evil, in my view, is wanting to do harm, no matter what anyone says. Chaotic says that you will not obey others and will encourage them to not obey anyone. Evil says that you want to do harm, and it does not matter to you if they do or not. True Neutral is about only caring about yourself, if you care more about hurting others than you do about yourself, you are not True Neutral.
We seem to be in perfect agreement. Again.
No, your definition of 'evil' is much narrower than other people. People disagreeing with you classify indifference that results in harm as evil.
I see the Good/Evil spectrum as being altruistically inclined vs selfishly inclined. The majority of a Good aligned individuals actions will be for the benefit of others (or at least taking them into account), while the majority of an Evil aligned individuals actions will be for the benefit of themselves (or at least at the expense or detriment of others).
I see the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum as being inclined towards order or chaos. Order can be following the laws of a community, civilization, family, or other group unit, or that of an individual code or discipline (thus, a LE creature could still be at odds with a larger society with their lawful aspects focusing on a personal code, like Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, or fully integrated into society using the laws in the cruelest way possible, like Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter). Chaos can be seen then as a rejection of the laws of community, civilization, etc. or alternately a lack of a personal code or discipline. Robin Hood (CG) and the Joker from The Dark Knight (CE) are examples of those, with Robin Hood acting in defiance of existing societal structures and the Joker acting both against those and without any particular personal code or motivation (exemplified by his changing backstories and lack of concern for his own safety.
So to answer the OP question, a Lawful Good person would be inclined to altruistic behavior as dictated by the expectations of society or a personal code (following the "letter of the law"), a Chaotic Good person would be inclined altruistically regardless of the expectations of society, or without specific personal codes or motivations(following an "I don't care about the law" mentality), and a Neutral Good person would be inclined to altruistic behavior without fully being constrained by the expectations of society (following the "spirit of the law" or varying in their lawful/chaotic actions)
Chaotic says that you will not obey others and will encourage them to not obey anyone. Evil says that you want to do harm, and it does not matter to you if they do or not. True Neutral is about only caring about yourself, if you care more about hurting others than you do about yourself, you are not True Neutral.
If I disregard the authority of others but don't care if anyone else is what I'd probably consider a sheep, am I not chaotic? If I fulfill my personal desires at the cost of others, but want everyone else to play nice, am I not evil? If I choose to disregard some laws and enforce others, both to help friends and thwart enemies, am I devoid of alignment?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Disregard authority of others. Can be Chaos. Don't care about anyone else? Neutral.
Personal desires at the cost of others. Any Evil Alignment. Wanting everyone else to play nice? Any Good. Lawful or Chaotic Evil and none of the others.
Nobody gets to be entirely devoid of Alignment. Kind of sounds like Lawful Neutral to me.
1) Disregard authority of others. Can be Chaos. Don't care about anyone else? Neutral.
2) Personal desires at the cost of others. Any Evil Alignment. Wanting everyone else to play nice? Any Good. Lawful or Chaotic Evil and none of the others.
3) Nobody gets to be entirely devoid of Alignment. Kind of sounds like Lawful Neutral to me.
1) So chaotic doesn't mean you'll encourage others to disreard authority.
2) So wanting to be the only one who puts his own before the wellbeing of others is good?
3) So I can break the law if it suits me or my friends, and care about those friends, and that makes me kind of lawful neutral?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I once heard that alignments were an outgrowth of Gygax's wargames. That there were basically two factions, which they called lawful for the good guys and chaotic for the bad guys, but the names were just a shorthand. Then a third faction came along, and thus was neutral born. And since one of the ideas behind D&D was that your character would be someone who was basically a footsoldier in the wargame who would slip out of the wargame, become a hero and then slip back into the wargame after you hit name level (usually around 9 or 10) then the character would need to have a faction identification. The idea that the faction identification defined behavior was sort of bolted on later. Could be just made up, of course, but it does track with a lot of the early game systems development.
This.... actually makes a lot of sense. It'd make sense especially because if you look at Warhammer, with the Imperium being basically "law" and chaos being chaos. I also heard that Warhammer grew out of DnD.
Chaotic people rarely *have* to encourage anything.
Wanting to be the only one who puts their own good before the wellbeing of others is Evil. Didn't I say that?
"If I choose to disregard some laws and enforce others, both to help friends and thwart enemies, am I devoid of alignment?" Nobody is entirely devoid of Alignment. Disregard for the law is usually chaos, wanting to enforce others is lawful, so that is Neutral and if you help allies that's more good, while thwarting enemies could be anyone. Neutral Good. I guess I got confused somewhere.
1) Chaotic people rarely *have* to encourage anything.
2) Wanting to be the only one who puts their own good before the wellbeing of others is Evil. Didn't I say that?
3) "If I choose to disregard some laws and enforce others, both to help friends and thwart enemies, am I devoid of alignment?" Nobody is entirely devoid of Alignment. Disregard for the law is usually chaos, wanting to enforce others is lawful, so that is Neutral and if you help allies that's more good, while thwarting enemies could be anyone. Neutral Good. I guess I got confused somewhere.
1) Not really the point - you said not caring is neutral, not chaotic.
2) You said evil doesn't care if others do evil as well or not. I think evil can certainly care nobody else does.
3) Helping allies and thwarting enemies comes out as good, regardless of who those allies and enemies are and regardless of motive? And acting chaotic in some instances but lawful in others comes down to neutral? That doesn't strike me as entirely in line with "being truly neutral means you don't care".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A LG character would stop the beggar, but seek a method where the beggar can get food, or can help himself (such as giving him a job).
A LN character would stop the beggar.
A LE character would stop the beggar, and make sure his hands were cut off for stealing.
A CG character would ignore or assist the beggar.
A CN character ignores the fellow shoplifter (in practice CN is a somewhat incoherent alignment).
A CE character points out the theft, and uses the distraction to steal to shopkeeper's purse.
Neutral characters generally fall between these points.
Actually, the Lawful Neutral character is more likely lop the hand off the person stealing if the penalty for such a crime were the loss of an appendage. They generally care not for whether a law is Good or Evil, just that its followed. A Lawful Evil character would likely try and convince the beggar to steal for him on the promise not to rat him out to the authorities.
A Lawful Neutral might decide to enforce the standard penalty, but I doubt they would unless it was already their job to do so. If it wasn't clearly defined ahead of time to be their job, and in the absence of any orders why would they bother? Those who are Lawful respect the law, and that would seem to include not taking extra authority they were not given.
A Lawful Evil might think cutting off the hands was Just Perfect. That beggar is going to suffer, and suffering is good. Making them obey is also just fine. Either would work.
A LG character would stop the beggar, but seek a method where the beggar can get food, or can help himself (such as giving him a job).
A LN character would stop the beggar.
A LE character would stop the beggar, and make sure his hands were cut off for stealing.
A CG character would ignore or assist the beggar.
A CN character ignores the fellow shoplifter (in practice CN is a somewhat incoherent alignment).
A CE character points out the theft, and uses the distraction to steal to shopkeeper's purse.
Neutral characters generally fall between these points.
Actually, the Lawful Neutral character is more likely lop the hand off the person stealing if the penalty for such a crime were the loss of an appendage. They generally care not for whether a law is Good or Evil, just that its followed. A Lawful Evil character would likely try and convince the beggar to steal for him on the promise not to rat him out to the authorities.
Could also go this way:
LG: Stops the beggar, but seeks a way to help him.
LN: Stops the beggar and does with him, whatever the rules for stealing are.
LE: Stops the beggar, takes the stolen goods, and keeps them, because in the 10th verdict of the 3rd amendment of the book of law, there is a loophole making it legal to keep goods taken from someone who doesn't own them. Afterwards the LE punishes the beggar for stealing in the harshest way the law allows.
A Lawful Neutral might decide to enforce the standard penalty, but I doubt they would unless it was already their job to do so.
Lawful Neutrals will support malign laws because they're not concerned with Good or Evil. They most certainly will enforce the law. The least likely person to rebel is a Lawful Neutral whereas Lawful Good will do so if the laws are Evil and a Lawful Evil will if they can gain advantage in doing so.
"A neutral person is someone who believes that there should be some laws or structures."
No, that's a slightly lawful person.
I know I say this on every alignment thread, and I’ve probably already said it on this one, but Lawful has nothing to do with the law. It’s unfortunately named. What it really means is that someone has a specific code they follow, which may or may not involve the law. So neither of these claims are fully correct.
Again, this isn't what the PHB says.
Yes, I've focuses too much on law itself in my examples, but:
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Society and order. Not a specific code they follow.
However, this it's another thing which shows how bad the alignment system is. Few seem to understand it as written, and most seem to conflate it with other aspects of the character's morality, ethics or personality. It's a poorly understood, ill defined blunt instrument which rarely works well, and seems more of a throwback to previous editions to appease the traditionalists than a useful tool to define aspects of a character.
However, this it's another thing which shows how bad the alignment system is. Few seem to understand it as written, and most seem to conflate it with other aspects of the character's morality, ethics or personality. It's a poorly understood, ill defined blunt instrument which rarely works well, and seems more of a throwback to previous editions to appease the traditionalists than a useful tool to define aspects of a character.
Wholeheartedly agree. Good and evil are obvious points of contention but they're common enough constructs you can work with them. The law and chaos dichotomy falls to pieces just trying to think about it.
I think it was fairly obvious that I meant they are not neutral on the L/C scale if they care about the law.
Yes, but you still can't ignore the good and evil scale.
Given the existence of people who actively wish to subvert and break the law, that being the opposite of those who actively attempt to enforce and follow the law, the scale of lawful to chaotic must include each of those. We know lawful is one end, so chaos must be the other. That puts those who do neither in the middle... Or neutral.
You don't have to actively pursue the extremes just because you belong to them. Most lawful people aren't a part of the law enforcement for example. There's no requirment to "ctively attempt to enforce the law" to be lawful.
And of course you miss the whole thing about "lawful" doesn't have to do strictly with laws.
"A neutral person is someone who believes that there should be some laws or structures."
No, that's a slightly lawful person.
I know I say this on every alignment thread, and I’ve probably already said it on this one, but Lawful has nothing to do with the law. It’s unfortunately named. What it really means is that someone has a specific code they follow, which may or may not involve the law. So neither of these claims are fully correct.
Again, this isn't what the PHB says.
Yes, I've focuses too much on law itself in my examples, but:
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Society and order. Not a specific code they follow.
Exactly. Not a mention of the word "law". Glad to to see you admit to being wrong. Good fo you!
However, this it's another thing which shows how bad the alignment system is. Few seem to understand it as written, and most seem to conflate it with other aspects of the character's morality, ethics or personality. It's a poorly understood, ill defined blunt instrument which rarely works well, and seems more of a throwback to previous editions to appease the traditionalists than a useful tool to define aspects of a character.
Yeah. This is a problem. Especially when people throw in things like "slightly lawful" which has no basis in the system at all.
I think it was fairly obvious that I meant they are not neutral on the L/C scale if they care about the law.
Yes, but you still can't ignore the good and evil scale.
Given the existence of people who actively wish to subvert and break the law, that being the opposite of those who actively attempt to enforce and follow the law, the scale of lawful to chaotic must include each of those. We know lawful is one end, so chaos must be the other. That puts those who do neither in the middle... Or neutral.
You don't have to actively pursue the extremes just because you belong to them. Most lawful people aren't a part of the law enforcement for example. There's no requirment to "ctively attempt to enforce the law" to be lawful.
And of course you miss the whole thing about "lawful" doesn't have to do strictly with laws.
"A neutral person is someone who believes that there should be some laws or structures."
No, that's a slightly lawful person.
I know I say this on every alignment thread, and I’ve probably already said it on this one, but Lawful has nothing to do with the law. It’s unfortunately named. What it really means is that someone has a specific code they follow, which may or may not involve the law. So neither of these claims are fully correct.
Again, this isn't what the PHB says.
Yes, I've focuses too much on law itself in my examples, but:
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Society and order. Not a specific code they follow.
Exactly. Not a mention of the word "law". Glad to to see you admit to being wrong. Good fo you!
However, this it's another thing which shows how bad the alignment system is. Few seem to understand it as written, and most seem to conflate it with other aspects of the character's morality, ethics or personality. It's a poorly understood, ill defined blunt instrument which rarely works well, and seems more of a throwback to previous editions to appease the traditionalists than a useful tool to define aspects of a character.
Yeah. This is a problem. Especially when people throw in things like "slightly lawful" which has no basis in the system at all.
I think the point you may be missing is that, while simplified down to 3 values on each axis, both are a continuous scale. Two characters can both be Evil, but one can be more Evil than another. The same goes for Good, Lawful and Chaotic. Neutral, on both axes, is the middle portion, where the character is neither Good nor Evil, or neither Lawful nor Chaotic.
Given that scale, you can have 3 lawful people, but one is extremely lawful, one is pretty lawful, and the last is slightly lawful. The first would follow, uphold and enforce the law and defend society and order at all costs. The second will do their utmost, but may let minor things slide if they conflict with other values, and may do minor things which work against society where necessary. The last will try to follow the law, but will break them if they get in the way too much, and will support society while occasionally working against what is best for everyone to achieve something they consider more important.
None of the above is neutral, because they all try to follow the law and support society and order, but they consider that with varying levels of importance within their own value system.
If you wish to sledgehammer it down even further to say that everyone is either complete, pure evil, absolutely holy and good, or has no inclination whatsoever in either direction, I'll drop the discussion there. If you believe that everything is that absolute and there are no shades of grey in the system, I believe we are too far apart to ever agree.
Finally, I must point out that you have the most irritating habit of twisting peoples words and then shouting "good for you, admitting you are wrong" when they have done no such thing. This is a childish tactic, which will do nothing but irritate the person you are having speaking to. It looks like cheap point-scoring, and devalues your entire argument. I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your use of this tactic, as you do not come out looking good when using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not true neutral. That's sociopathic, aka chaotic evil.
Good = is willing to sacrifice/harm self to help innocents.
Evil = is willing to sacrifice/harm innocents to help self.
Neutral = will do neither without a big personal reason.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Chaotic Evil, in my view, is wanting to do harm, no matter what anyone says. Chaotic says that you will not obey others and will encourage them to not obey anyone. Evil says that you want to do harm, and it does not matter to you if they do or not. True Neutral is about only caring about yourself, if you care more about hurting others than you do about yourself, you are not True Neutral.
We seem to be in perfect agreement. Again.
<Insert clever signature here>
No, your definition of 'evil' is much narrower than other people. People disagreeing with you classify indifference that results in harm as evil.
I see the Good/Evil spectrum as being altruistically inclined vs selfishly inclined. The majority of a Good aligned individuals actions will be for the benefit of others (or at least taking them into account), while the majority of an Evil aligned individuals actions will be for the benefit of themselves (or at least at the expense or detriment of others).
I see the Lawful/Chaotic spectrum as being inclined towards order or chaos. Order can be following the laws of a community, civilization, family, or other group unit, or that of an individual code or discipline (thus, a LE creature could still be at odds with a larger society with their lawful aspects focusing on a personal code, like Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, or fully integrated into society using the laws in the cruelest way possible, like Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter). Chaos can be seen then as a rejection of the laws of community, civilization, etc. or alternately a lack of a personal code or discipline. Robin Hood (CG) and the Joker from The Dark Knight (CE) are examples of those, with Robin Hood acting in defiance of existing societal structures and the Joker acting both against those and without any particular personal code or motivation (exemplified by his changing backstories and lack of concern for his own safety.
So to answer the OP question, a Lawful Good person would be inclined to altruistic behavior as dictated by the expectations of society or a personal code (following the "letter of the law"), a Chaotic Good person would be inclined altruistically regardless of the expectations of society, or without specific personal codes or motivations(following an "I don't care about the law" mentality), and a Neutral Good person would be inclined to altruistic behavior without fully being constrained by the expectations of society (following the "spirit of the law" or varying in their lawful/chaotic actions)
If I disregard the authority of others but don't care if anyone else is what I'd probably consider a sheep, am I not chaotic?
If I fulfill my personal desires at the cost of others, but want everyone else to play nice, am I not evil?
If I choose to disregard some laws and enforce others, both to help friends and thwart enemies, am I devoid of alignment?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Pretty sure I agree with Iconarising.
Panguarjan...
Disregard authority of others. Can be Chaos. Don't care about anyone else? Neutral.
Personal desires at the cost of others. Any Evil Alignment. Wanting everyone else to play nice? Any Good. Lawful or Chaotic Evil and none of the others.
Nobody gets to be entirely devoid of Alignment. Kind of sounds like Lawful Neutral to me.
<Insert clever signature here>
1) So chaotic doesn't mean you'll encourage others to disreard authority.
2) So wanting to be the only one who puts his own before the wellbeing of others is good?
3) So I can break the law if it suits me or my friends, and care about those friends, and that makes me kind of lawful neutral?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This.... actually makes a lot of sense. It'd make sense especially because if you look at Warhammer, with the Imperium being basically "law" and chaos being chaos. I also heard that Warhammer grew out of DnD.
"h"
Chaotic people rarely *have* to encourage anything.
Wanting to be the only one who puts their own good before the wellbeing of others is Evil. Didn't I say that?
"If I choose to disregard some laws and enforce others, both to help friends and thwart enemies, am I devoid of alignment?" Nobody is entirely devoid of Alignment. Disregard for the law is usually chaos, wanting to enforce others is lawful, so that is Neutral and if you help allies that's more good, while thwarting enemies could be anyone. Neutral Good. I guess I got confused somewhere.
<Insert clever signature here>
1) Not really the point - you said not caring is neutral, not chaotic.
2) You said evil doesn't care if others do evil as well or not. I think evil can certainly care nobody else does.
3) Helping allies and thwarting enemies comes out as good, regardless of who those allies and enemies are and regardless of motive? And acting chaotic in some instances but lawful in others comes down to neutral? That doesn't strike me as entirely in line with "being truly neutral means you don't care".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We still keep agreeing entirely. I think. I'm neutral on the subject.
<Insert clever signature here>
Actually, the Lawful Neutral character is more likely lop the hand off the person stealing if the penalty for such a crime were the loss of an appendage. They generally care not for whether a law is Good or Evil, just that its followed. A Lawful Evil character would likely try and convince the beggar to steal for him on the promise not to rat him out to the authorities.
A Lawful Neutral might decide to enforce the standard penalty, but I doubt they would unless it was already their job to do so. If it wasn't clearly defined ahead of time to be their job, and in the absence of any orders why would they bother? Those who are Lawful respect the law, and that would seem to include not taking extra authority they were not given.
A Lawful Evil might think cutting off the hands was Just Perfect. That beggar is going to suffer, and suffering is good. Making them obey is also just fine. Either would work.
<Insert clever signature here>
Could also go this way:
LG: Stops the beggar, but seeks a way to help him.
LN: Stops the beggar and does with him, whatever the rules for stealing are.
LE: Stops the beggar, takes the stolen goods, and keeps them, because in the 10th verdict of the 3rd amendment of the book of law, there is a loophole making it legal to keep goods taken from someone who doesn't own them. Afterwards the LE punishes the beggar for stealing in the harshest way the law allows.
Lawful Neutrals will support malign laws because they're not concerned with Good or Evil. They most certainly will enforce the law. The least likely person to rebel is a Lawful Neutral whereas Lawful Good will do so if the laws are Evil and a Lawful Evil will if they can gain advantage in doing so.
Again, this isn't what the PHB says.
Yes, I've focuses too much on law itself in my examples, but:
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Society and order. Not a specific code they follow.
However, this it's another thing which shows how bad the alignment system is. Few seem to understand it as written, and most seem to conflate it with other aspects of the character's morality, ethics or personality. It's a poorly understood, ill defined blunt instrument which rarely works well, and seems more of a throwback to previous editions to appease the traditionalists than a useful tool to define aspects of a character.
Wholeheartedly agree. Good and evil are obvious points of contention but they're common enough constructs you can work with them. The law and chaos dichotomy falls to pieces just trying to think about it.
"h"
Yes, but you still can't ignore the good and evil scale.
You don't have to actively pursue the extremes just because you belong to them. Most lawful people aren't a part of the law enforcement for example. There's no requirment to "ctively attempt to enforce the law" to be lawful.
And of course you miss the whole thing about "lawful" doesn't have to do strictly with laws.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. Also, I can't find the alignment "slightly lawful" so...
Exactly. Not a mention of the word "law". Glad to to see you admit to being wrong. Good fo you!
Yeah. This is a problem. Especially when people throw in things like "slightly lawful" which has no basis in the system at all.
I think the point you may be missing is that, while simplified down to 3 values on each axis, both are a continuous scale. Two characters can both be Evil, but one can be more Evil than another. The same goes for Good, Lawful and Chaotic. Neutral, on both axes, is the middle portion, where the character is neither Good nor Evil, or neither Lawful nor Chaotic.
Given that scale, you can have 3 lawful people, but one is extremely lawful, one is pretty lawful, and the last is slightly lawful. The first would follow, uphold and enforce the law and defend society and order at all costs. The second will do their utmost, but may let minor things slide if they conflict with other values, and may do minor things which work against society where necessary. The last will try to follow the law, but will break them if they get in the way too much, and will support society while occasionally working against what is best for everyone to achieve something they consider more important.
None of the above is neutral, because they all try to follow the law and support society and order, but they consider that with varying levels of importance within their own value system.
If you wish to sledgehammer it down even further to say that everyone is either complete, pure evil, absolutely holy and good, or has no inclination whatsoever in either direction, I'll drop the discussion there. If you believe that everything is that absolute and there are no shades of grey in the system, I believe we are too far apart to ever agree.
Finally, I must point out that you have the most irritating habit of twisting peoples words and then shouting "good for you, admitting you are wrong" when they have done no such thing. This is a childish tactic, which will do nothing but irritate the person you are having speaking to. It looks like cheap point-scoring, and devalues your entire argument. I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your use of this tactic, as you do not come out looking good when using it.