It definitely feels to me that violating the cycle of life and death would be a chaotic thing. That life is followed by death comes off to me as one of the oldest and most established laws there is, even followed by naturalistic neutral creatures who revere the cycles of life and death.
Where you fall on the spectrum of good and evil depends on your means and ends, but I will say that someone who just wants everyone to live happily ever after feels a bit boring. Adding some flaws/moral complications would be a lot more interesting IMO.
That ofcourse depends setting, but if we look example Forgotten Realms, then no. Cycle of life and death is not similar to real life. Death is just portal to other plane (to your god) and "raise dead" is portal back to material plane (and it is voluntary. Soul can stay in his/her "heaven" if they wish and I would say 99% souls would see his/her gods plane "better one" and would not come back). Your soul still stays on realm sphere and that is natural cycle there.
The spells Revivify, Raise Dead, and Resurrection are all learnable by Clerics and Paladins (except Resurrection which is too high of a level for Paladins) and are all Necromancy. Generally Clerics are Good and Paladins are Lawful, though not necessarily. Therefore I conclude that each of these spells is usable by a Lawful Good character. However it is not necessary that you be Lawful Good. There is no alignment restriction for any spell that I know of. Certain spells may be typical for certain alignments, but it's just one factor among many that determine your alignment.
Pretty much any aligment depending campaing setting (is necromancy allowed or illegal?) and character motivation (save life for ome purpose/torture or because it is "good thing to do")
The legality of something has nothing to do with character alignment. Lawful 'x' doesn't have to mean that you keep the law of the land. It could also be that you follow a set of dedicated rules or a code of honour - for example a dedicated Buddhist monk following the doctrine of his monastic order could be lawful, even if he breaks the law of a town he is travelling through.
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with character alignment, but it's not the final word.
It does. Lawfull good person will try to obey laws or rules of certain land as best as he/she can aslong it wont contradict his personal code of condcut or moral code (Lawfull Evil on other hand can have personal code that he only follows and dont care rest of sosiety rules). Chaotic good person dont give a shit about any rules and do what is in his opinion "best" at the moment while still thinking whatever he is going to do is not harmfull to others. Neutral good is something between and mostly follows rules/laws/codes but might also break those if sitatuation needs it.
That Good, neutral, Evil part mostly tells is character thinking about others or just itself.
No, it really doesn't. You have even said as much in your first line...
I don't really care for the "retro old school" prescriptive form of alignment. The extent to which alignment was actually a rule in prior editions in my experience was greatly overstated.
I think 5e has it right, though could do a better job articulating that alignment isn't an allegiance or team jersey. Not everyone LE will show fealty to Asmodeus. Not everyone LG believes Bahamut's wisdom is infallible. Alignment takes two axis (which have great import to the cosmology, but we're for the most part talking about it diluted amidst mortal affairs) and as far as players are concerned, give two spectrums through which a player can start to articulate the character's world view. It's a descriptive tool, not a prescriptive tool (at least at level 1, sure as the player grows they could become an incarnate expression of an alignment ... though many characters won't take such an extreme path).
So using alignment for a "good" necromancer is one tool to figure out what moral ground upon which this character stands.
For magic, let's face it most spell casters believe they're above the law, I mean even the Clerics of the most law and order bound faiths call upon divine intercession to affect what would otherwise be the natural outcome of an event in their world. So I wouldn't so much attach their lawful/chaotic leaning to mortally codified law. Rather, we need to think about your game's cosmological view or "natural law", sort of the moral implication of how the world works. If in the world "death" is seen as destructively negative force and something to be overcome and the broader scientific/magic enterprises are pioneering way to defeat it, one could say necromancy is lawful in that the way of progress leans toward the overcoming of death's disruption of the world. Now if you have a world where death is just a part of the natural cycle, and mortal existence is simply a step on a soul's progression to whatever Outer plane would claim it, necromantic intervention would be more Chaotic. A more ambivalent world where death happens sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, such ambivalence puts things toward the Neutral position, this could also include things where death is a force like gravity and can be overcome through the right mechanism.
Whether necromancy is good or evil comes down to the ends of the necromantic practice. If necromancy is purely utilitarian, just a magical form with practical applications in the character's exercise of magic, you're leaning more neutral. The distinction between using necromancy for good or for evil has been discussed here and don't really need to be parsed.
However you conceive of the character, in 5e recognize that you're not putting your character in one of nine boxes. Rather think of alignment as sort of role playing underwear. lt's arguably not necessary, but probably good to have. It can help you wear the rest of your character more comfortably by serving as something of a foundation that you shouldn't overthink. Generally it's only really clear what you're wearing in very intimate or almost naked moments. And really, if you make a mess of it, you can always clean it or just change it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Uh, it does. You really cannot be lawfull good if you dont follow local laws /rules (or lawfull neutral which basically are lawyers and judges). Anything else is Ok tought
Uh, it does. You really cannot be lawfull good if you dont follow local laws /rules (or lawfull neutral which basically are lawyers and judges)
Lawful doesn't (at least not exclusively) mean 'following the law of the land you happen to be in' but can be more about a personal code etc. For example a lawful good paladin fighting against a lawful evil tyrant can still be perfectly lawful.
Lawfull itself dont mean that, but lawful good does as that person respect others and in this case local laws/rules as they are made by those others. If it is personal code that you follow, you are more of neutral/evil in that good/neutral/evil axel
Lawfull itself dont mean that, but lawful good does as that person respect others and in this case local laws/rules as they are made by those other
No it doesn't. That's whatever alignment "when in Rome" applies to. A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with. Operating word is _could_, which goes to my point that alignment just isn't that prescriptive any more, if it ever was. Combining two words to create an underlying principle should do nothing but provide space for a range of conducts. A DM or anyone saying "you can't do that because you're ALIGNMENT" is always a bad call. Now a character taking an action that seems counter to their declared or exhibited morality, you can discuss that and ask for more consideration or deliberation of the character's action, but the alignment building blocks or kid shoes not shackles. Really if alignment was such a determinant of behavior as implied in most alignment discussions, D&D would be a boring game.
Lawfull itself dont mean that, but lawful good does as that person respect others and in this case local laws/rules as they are made by those other
No it doesn't. That's whatever alignment "when in Rome" applies to. A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with. Operating word is _could_, which goes to my point that alignment just isn't that prescriptive any more, if it ever was. Combining two words to create an underlying principle should do nothing but provide space for a range of conducts. A DM or anyone saying "you can't do that because you're ALIGNMENT" is always a bad call. Now a character taking an action that seems counter to their declared or exhibited morality, you can discuss that and ask for more consideration or deliberation of the character's action, but the alignment building blocks or kid shoes not shackles. Really if alignment was such a determinant of behavior as implied in most alignment discussions, D&D would be a boring game.
I totally agree that aligment is fluid and not set in stone. Your actions changes your aligment, but you are not anyway bound to follow it.
"A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with."
What you describe is totally diffent cultural enviroment. What Lawfull usually is compared is what you are used to and what im comparing to. Lets say "normal" good sosiety -> lawfull good cannot start to resist laws there forcefully wihtout starting to sift more neutral (either in that you totally disregard rules or by that think that your rules are more important than others).
And they can resist it even if it was not opressive sosiety. Their aligement just start to sift more neutral.
Lawfull itself dont mean that, but lawful good does as that person respect others and in this case local laws/rules as they are made by those other
No it doesn't. That's whatever alignment "when in Rome" applies to. A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with. Operating word is _could_, which goes to my point that alignment just isn't that prescriptive any more, if it ever was. Combining two words to create an underlying principle should do nothing but provide space for a range of conducts. A DM or anyone saying "you can't do that because you're ALIGNMENT" is always a bad call. Now a character taking an action that seems counter to their declared or exhibited morality, you can discuss that and ask for more consideration or deliberation of the character's action, but the alignment building blocks or kid shoes not shackles. Really if alignment was such a determinant of behavior as implied in most alignment discussions, D&D would be a boring game.
I totally agree that aligment is fluid and not set in stone. Your actions changes your aligment, but you are not anyway bound to follow it.
"A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with."
What you describe is totally diffent cultural enviroment. What Lawfull usually is compared is what you are used to and what im comparing to. Lets say "normal" good sosiety -> lawfull good cannot start to resist laws there forcefully wihtout starting to sift more neutral (either in that you totally disregard rules or by that think that your rules are more important than others).
And they can resist it even if it was not opressive sosiety. Their aligement just start to sift more neutral.
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
I like to think of alignment like religion. Different people have them to different degrees, and some people don't have one. They can be something your character holds as a high ideal even if they, flawed mortal that they are cannot always live up to it, or thet can represent a rigid personal code that the character lives their life by. Or maybe being evil is just something you do on Sunday and the big four holidays.
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
And this is why alignment is a bad tool in general. It's meant to provide a consistent standard, but it does the opposite, dividing players into different readings. Honestly, we'd be better off without an alignment system than with one as...debatable...as this.
And this is why alignment is a bad tool in general. It's meant to provide a consistent standard, but it does the opposite, dividing players into different readings. Honestly, we'd be better off without an alignment system than with one as...debatable...as this.
Well aligment system already is pretty much irrelevant. But I still like to depate consept of it :)
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
"The PHB is wrong here" -> You are literally arguing against RAW :) You can play how you like, but in RAW Lawfull good put society rules above personal ones.
"Evil" society in D&D terms put inviduals above others (good, neutral, evil is just slider how much person is selfless or selfish)
The problem is that WotC are not very good at being clear and easy to understand with their descriptions. I've come across several instances already within the last month of playing where what is written is either clear as mud, contradictory or just plain silly. Their descriptions of alignment is one of them.
Lawful suggests an adherence to the law by its very name, and as you go across the scale to chaotic on the good alignment, it changes to "do what I think is right at the time". Fine.
As you head to neutral and then evil, lawful stops referring to the law and refers to personal codes, which is a related but fundamentally different concept to being lawful as referencing the law. Uh oh, we have a problem.
Reading RAW (no personal interpretation being pushed onto it to force it to make sense), let's interpret my personal character. I'm principled, but I'm also willing to go against the law when it disagrees with those principles. Now, I'm fortunate enough to have been born in a country whose laws rarely live disagrees with them and even then it's mostly small fries so it's not an issue. So let's plonk me down in an evil society that disagrees with my principles instead. Let's say, Nazi Germany in a Schindler situation and that I'm a lot braver than I suspect I would be and would stick to my guns, protecting Jews, and I would do so regardless of what others might think because it's the right thing to do.
RAW on what Lawful-Good, Neutral-Good and Chaotic-Good are:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Nope, certainly not me. I'm not doing what the society considers the right thing.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
There's an element of that I guess, but let's look at Chaotic-Good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
There we go! This is where I fit in. Im doing what I think is right, regardless of the expectations of others. I'm firmly in the Chaotic-Good camp.
OK, let's change me from good to evil. Everything else is the same, except I'm evil. I have my principles, they're just evil this time. Antisemitism leaves a foul taste in my mouth, so I'm not going to explore that thought on the inverse, but you get the picture.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
That isn't me. I'm not being violent arbitrarily or out of bloodlust or some such. I have my code and principles, and I'm being evil because of those principles.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Again, not really me. I'm not doing evil just because I can get away with it or because I'm selfish and I can.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
That's more like it. Not perfect, but its there. I'm doing what I'm doing because I have a code and I'm loyal to my cause. I'm, in this mirror universe as it were, Lawful-Evil.
The exact same characteristic that makes me chaotic when I'm good, makes me lawful when I'm evil, which makes no sense. Looking at the scale, there is no space for a law abiding evil person, suggesting that, in the view of the writers, being law abiding is something that inherently makes you good and that laws are inherently good (since being law abiding is part to the definition of Lawful-Good). Anyways, the fact that the same personality trait renders me on the opposite side of the scale when an independent trait is changed shows us that it is contradictory and is actually a composite scale.
You can have a scale of law v conscience (the law must be upheld, even if I disagree with it v just do the right thing, and if the law agrees, all the better), or you can have principled v "what I feel like at the time" (this the right thing to and is set in stone v every situation is different, I'll know good when I see it), but these are two fundamentally different scales, despite being related. According to one I'm very lawful, according to the other I'm very chaotic. Looking at it, it seems like the creator had an authoritarian bent - obeying the law is a "good" trait and having your own code is an "evil" trait. I disagree with that premise, but that's what it looks like to me.
I'm convinced a lot of the arguments about alignment come from this frankensteining together of the two different scales. People try to form an understanding based on these descriptions, and because there are actually three scales involved while there are ostensibly only two, there are very different understandings coming through.
WotC need to clarify and fix this. We need to know if lawful means lawful, or principled. Does chaotic mean conscientious/chaotic or just whimsical? At the moment, alignment means nothing because there is no clear and unambiguous meaning behind it that everyone can agree on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
"The PHB is wrong here" -> You are literally arguing against RAW :) You can play how you like, but in RAW Lawfull good put society rules above personal ones.
"Evil" society in D&D terms put inviduals above others (good, neutral, evil is just slider how much person is selfless or selfish)
It's more that lawful good characters have a standard by which they feel society should function. A lawful good character in a town oppressed by the government and their excessive laws will not happily be like "well, that's just the law!".
If a lawful good (heroic) person were to travel back in time to the 18th century and witness a woman being tied up and burnt as a witch, they wouldn't just be like "well, as long as it's legal then I guess it's good!".
A Lawful Good person in real life would not look at the case where many people with physical disabilities are marked as fit for work because they are asked if they could walk half a mile, and they answer "yes, but it would hurt a lot and I'd be crippled for a day afterwards", and the person making the survey just ticks "Yes", and their benefits are denied, and think that it was right.
But the issue there isn't in whether the Phb has it right - it's in the confusion between "Society" and "the law". If someone speeds on their way home to get to their significant other who is hurt, and no-one else was hurt, then the law says they get a speeding ticket, but anyone you ask about it would say "that's just harsh, they needed to get there!". Society is about what the people consider normal and right. "The Law" allows you to shoot a welshman from the border with a longbow on a certain day, but society would not consider such an act as lawful or good.
Take an extreme example - the Purge. For those unfamiliar, the concept is that once per year, on one day only, you can kill each other. It's part of the law of the land. Does that allow a lawful good character to go full murderhobo for a day without it actually affecting whether they are lawful or good?
While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
1. Lawfull - Chaotic which tell how much you like to play with the rules (here is what is confusing -> Lawfull dont mean actual laws but some rules)
2. Good - Evil which tells how Selfless - Selfish you are
So:
When you are Lawfull good you are person that follow rules that are put up majority of people (in other word laws in "civilized societys).
When you are Neutral good you are person that follow rules that are put up majority of people most of the time (in other word laws in "civilized societys).
When you are Chaotic good you are person that dont follow any rules, but still are selfless
When you are Lawfull Evil you are person that follow rules that yourself have setup (can be personal code or it it can be local "law" -> your alone determine what to follow).
When you are Neutral Evil you are person that follow most of the time rules that yourself have setup (can be personal code or it it can be local "law" -> your alone determine what to follow).
When you are Chaotic Evil you are person that dont follow any rules and do what ever is best for you at the moment.
That ofcourse depends setting, but if we look example Forgotten Realms, then no. Cycle of life and death is not similar to real life. Death is just portal to other plane (to your god) and "raise dead" is portal back to material plane (and it is voluntary. Soul can stay in his/her "heaven" if they wish and I would say 99% souls would see his/her gods plane "better one" and would not come back). Your soul still stays on realm sphere and that is natural cycle there.
The spells Revivify, Raise Dead, and Resurrection are all learnable by Clerics and Paladins (except Resurrection which is too high of a level for Paladins) and are all Necromancy. Generally Clerics are Good and Paladins are Lawful, though not necessarily. Therefore I conclude that each of these spells is usable by a Lawful Good character. However it is not necessary that you be Lawful Good. There is no alignment restriction for any spell that I know of. Certain spells may be typical for certain alignments, but it's just one factor among many that determine your alignment.
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with character alignment, but it's not the final word.
No, it really doesn't. You have even said as much in your first line...
I don't really care for the "retro old school" prescriptive form of alignment. The extent to which alignment was actually a rule in prior editions in my experience was greatly overstated.
I think 5e has it right, though could do a better job articulating that alignment isn't an allegiance or team jersey. Not everyone LE will show fealty to Asmodeus. Not everyone LG believes Bahamut's wisdom is infallible. Alignment takes two axis (which have great import to the cosmology, but we're for the most part talking about it diluted amidst mortal affairs) and as far as players are concerned, give two spectrums through which a player can start to articulate the character's world view. It's a descriptive tool, not a prescriptive tool (at least at level 1, sure as the player grows they could become an incarnate expression of an alignment ... though many characters won't take such an extreme path).
So using alignment for a "good" necromancer is one tool to figure out what moral ground upon which this character stands.
For magic, let's face it most spell casters believe they're above the law, I mean even the Clerics of the most law and order bound faiths call upon divine intercession to affect what would otherwise be the natural outcome of an event in their world. So I wouldn't so much attach their lawful/chaotic leaning to mortally codified law. Rather, we need to think about your game's cosmological view or "natural law", sort of the moral implication of how the world works. If in the world "death" is seen as destructively negative force and something to be overcome and the broader scientific/magic enterprises are pioneering way to defeat it, one could say necromancy is lawful in that the way of progress leans toward the overcoming of death's disruption of the world. Now if you have a world where death is just a part of the natural cycle, and mortal existence is simply a step on a soul's progression to whatever Outer plane would claim it, necromantic intervention would be more Chaotic. A more ambivalent world where death happens sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, such ambivalence puts things toward the Neutral position, this could also include things where death is a force like gravity and can be overcome through the right mechanism.
Whether necromancy is good or evil comes down to the ends of the necromantic practice. If necromancy is purely utilitarian, just a magical form with practical applications in the character's exercise of magic, you're leaning more neutral. The distinction between using necromancy for good or for evil has been discussed here and don't really need to be parsed.
However you conceive of the character, in 5e recognize that you're not putting your character in one of nine boxes. Rather think of alignment as sort of role playing underwear. lt's arguably not necessary, but probably good to have. It can help you wear the rest of your character more comfortably by serving as something of a foundation that you shouldn't overthink. Generally it's only really clear what you're wearing in very intimate or almost naked moments. And really, if you make a mess of it, you can always clean it or just change it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Uh, it does. You really cannot be lawfull good if you dont follow local laws /rules (or lawfull neutral which basically are lawyers and judges). Anything else is Ok tought
Lawful doesn't (at least not exclusively) mean 'following the law of the land you happen to be in' but can be more about a personal code etc. For example a lawful good paladin fighting against a lawful evil tyrant can still be perfectly lawful.
Lawfull itself dont mean that, but lawful good does as that person respect others and in this case local laws/rules as they are made by those others. If it is personal code that you follow, you are more of neutral/evil in that good/neutral/evil axel
No it doesn't. That's whatever alignment "when in Rome" applies to. A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with. Operating word is _could_, which goes to my point that alignment just isn't that prescriptive any more, if it ever was. Combining two words to create an underlying principle should do nothing but provide space for a range of conducts. A DM or anyone saying "you can't do that because you're ALIGNMENT" is always a bad call. Now a character taking an action that seems counter to their declared or exhibited morality, you can discuss that and ask for more consideration or deliberation of the character's action, but the alignment building blocks or kid shoes not shackles. Really if alignment was such a determinant of behavior as implied in most alignment discussions, D&D would be a boring game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I totally agree that aligment is fluid and not set in stone. Your actions changes your aligment, but you are not anyway bound to follow it.
"A lawful good character in an oppressive society could very well resist the practices and laws of that society in service to whatever notion of justice they feel aligned with."
What you describe is totally diffent cultural enviroment. What Lawfull usually is compared is what you are used to and what im comparing to. Lets say "normal" good sosiety -> lawfull good cannot start to resist laws there forcefully wihtout starting to sift more neutral (either in that you totally disregard rules or by that think that your rules are more important than others).
And they can resist it even if it was not opressive sosiety. Their aligement just start to sift more neutral.
No, it doesn't. Lawful can be about a personal code. You can resist the government while still following a personal code. Taking an example from another genre, there are many stories in Star Trek about honorable Klingons going against the High Council. Klingons follow an honor code that involves loyalty to those who are loyal to them, never backing down from a fight or an insult, etc. That code makes them Lawful. Some Klingons are Lawful Good (Worf); some Klingons are Lawful Neutral (Gowron); some Klingons are Lawful Evil (Lursa and B'Etor). Worf does not become Neutral Good or Chaotic good when he enters the Klingon Empire under an evil ruler. He remains Lawful to his own personal code, even when he breaks the law. Worf does not even always obey the laws of the arguably Lawful Good Federation. He follows his own personal code when it conflicts with the law of the Federation.
I like to think of alignment like religion. Different people have them to different degrees, and some people don't have one. They can be something your character holds as a high ideal even if they, flawed mortal that they are cannot always live up to it, or thet can represent a rigid personal code that the character lives their life by. Or maybe being evil is just something you do on Sunday and the big four holidays.
Any and all answers are acceptable.
You are wrong. If you follow only personal code you are Lawfull neutral or Lawfull evil and I was specifically talking about Lawfull Good. Lets see what PHB says:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society" (no personal code mentioned here, because rules/needs of many are more important rule/needs of one. LG person can have invidual rules/codes but sociaty rules are always more important)
"Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral."
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
And this is why alignment is a bad tool in general. It's meant to provide a consistent standard, but it does the opposite, dividing players into different readings. Honestly, we'd be better off without an alignment system than with one as...debatable...as this.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Well aligment system already is pretty much irrelevant. But I still like to depate consept of it :)
The PHB is wrong here. If you live in an evil society, then if you do the right thing as expected by society, you are evil (or at least lawful neutral).
I think these are just meant to be typical descriptions of how alignments act, not definitions that cover all bases.
"These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
"The PHB is wrong here" -> You are literally arguing against RAW :) You can play how you like, but in RAW Lawfull good put society rules above personal ones.
"Evil" society in D&D terms put inviduals above others (good, neutral, evil is just slider how much person is selfless or selfish)
The problem is that WotC are not very good at being clear and easy to understand with their descriptions. I've come across several instances already within the last month of playing where what is written is either clear as mud, contradictory or just plain silly. Their descriptions of alignment is one of them.
Lawful suggests an adherence to the law by its very name, and as you go across the scale to chaotic on the good alignment, it changes to "do what I think is right at the time". Fine.
As you head to neutral and then evil, lawful stops referring to the law and refers to personal codes, which is a related but fundamentally different concept to being lawful as referencing the law. Uh oh, we have a problem.
Reading RAW (no personal interpretation being pushed onto it to force it to make sense), let's interpret my personal character. I'm principled, but I'm also willing to go against the law when it disagrees with those principles. Now, I'm fortunate enough to have been born in a country whose laws rarely live disagrees with them and even then it's mostly small fries so it's not an issue. So let's plonk me down in an evil society that disagrees with my principles instead. Let's say, Nazi Germany in a Schindler situation and that I'm a lot braver than I suspect I would be and would stick to my guns, protecting Jews, and I would do so regardless of what others might think because it's the right thing to do.
RAW on what Lawful-Good, Neutral-Good and Chaotic-Good are:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Nope, certainly not me. I'm not doing what the society considers the right thing.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
There's an element of that I guess, but let's look at Chaotic-Good.
Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
There we go! This is where I fit in. Im doing what I think is right, regardless of the expectations of others. I'm firmly in the Chaotic-Good camp.
OK, let's change me from good to evil. Everything else is the same, except I'm evil. I have my principles, they're just evil this time. Antisemitism leaves a foul taste in my mouth, so I'm not going to explore that thought on the inverse, but you get the picture.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
That isn't me. I'm not being violent arbitrarily or out of bloodlust or some such. I have my code and principles, and I'm being evil because of those principles.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Again, not really me. I'm not doing evil just because I can get away with it or because I'm selfish and I can.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
That's more like it. Not perfect, but its there. I'm doing what I'm doing because I have a code and I'm loyal to my cause. I'm, in this mirror universe as it were, Lawful-Evil.
The exact same characteristic that makes me chaotic when I'm good, makes me lawful when I'm evil, which makes no sense. Looking at the scale, there is no space for a law abiding evil person, suggesting that, in the view of the writers, being law abiding is something that inherently makes you good and that laws are inherently good (since being law abiding is part to the definition of Lawful-Good). Anyways, the fact that the same personality trait renders me on the opposite side of the scale when an independent trait is changed shows us that it is contradictory and is actually a composite scale.
You can have a scale of law v conscience (the law must be upheld, even if I disagree with it v just do the right thing, and if the law agrees, all the better), or you can have principled v "what I feel like at the time" (this the right thing to and is set in stone v every situation is different, I'll know good when I see it), but these are two fundamentally different scales, despite being related. According to one I'm very lawful, according to the other I'm very chaotic. Looking at it, it seems like the creator had an authoritarian bent - obeying the law is a "good" trait and having your own code is an "evil" trait. I disagree with that premise, but that's what it looks like to me.
I'm convinced a lot of the arguments about alignment come from this frankensteining together of the two different scales. People try to form an understanding based on these descriptions, and because there are actually three scales involved while there are ostensibly only two, there are very different understandings coming through.
WotC need to clarify and fix this. We need to know if lawful means lawful, or principled. Does chaotic mean conscientious/chaotic or just whimsical? At the moment, alignment means nothing because there is no clear and unambiguous meaning behind it that everyone can agree on.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's more that lawful good characters have a standard by which they feel society should function. A lawful good character in a town oppressed by the government and their excessive laws will not happily be like "well, that's just the law!".
If a lawful good (heroic) person were to travel back in time to the 18th century and witness a woman being tied up and burnt as a witch, they wouldn't just be like "well, as long as it's legal then I guess it's good!".
A Lawful Good person in real life would not look at the case where many people with physical disabilities are marked as fit for work because they are asked if they could walk half a mile, and they answer "yes, but it would hurt a lot and I'd be crippled for a day afterwards", and the person making the survey just ticks "Yes", and their benefits are denied, and think that it was right.
But the issue there isn't in whether the Phb has it right - it's in the confusion between "Society" and "the law". If someone speeds on their way home to get to their significant other who is hurt, and no-one else was hurt, then the law says they get a speeding ticket, but anyone you ask about it would say "that's just harsh, they needed to get there!". Society is about what the people consider normal and right. "The Law" allows you to shoot a welshman from the border with a longbow on a certain day, but society would not consider such an act as lawful or good.
Take an extreme example - the Purge. For those unfamiliar, the concept is that once per year, on one day only, you can kill each other. It's part of the law of the land. Does that allow a lawful good character to go full murderhobo for a day without it actually affecting whether they are lawful or good?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
While I agree it can be very confusing it actually very simple after "you get it".
There are 2 invdiual scales.
1. Lawfull - Chaotic which tell how much you like to play with the rules (here is what is confusing -> Lawfull dont mean actual laws but some rules)
2. Good - Evil which tells how Selfless - Selfish you are
So:
When you are Lawfull good you are person that follow rules that are put up majority of people (in other word laws in "civilized societys).
When you are Neutral good you are person that follow rules that are put up majority of people most of the time (in other word laws in "civilized societys).
When you are Chaotic good you are person that dont follow any rules, but still are selfless
When you are Lawfull Evil you are person that follow rules that yourself have setup (can be personal code or it it can be local "law" -> your alone determine what to follow).
When you are Neutral Evil you are person that follow most of the time rules that yourself have setup (can be personal code or it it can be local "law" -> your alone determine what to follow).
When you are Chaotic Evil you are person that dont follow any rules and do what ever is best for you at the moment.