Some Points: Note this is very general as often a person needs to look at many things to be able to determine what the persons intent is and the effects and affects of that intent.
1) the PC sounds like they are working on their own set of morals, not directed to by a competent higher authority.
2) Doing things to mainly benefit your self tends to be evil (depending on the act)
3) Just saying follow the law does not mean your alignment is lawful. Again it has to do with "do you have the authority to enforce the law and how you choose to enforce the law"
4) Other things a person does or does not do often provide insight into the question you are asking.
Some Points: Note this is very general as often a person needs to look at many things to be able to determine what the persons intent is and the effects and affects of that intent.
1) the PC sounds like they are working on their own set of morals, not directed to by a competent higher authority.
2) Doing things to mainly benefit your self tends to be evil (depending on the act)
3) Just saying follow the law does not mean your alignment is lawful. Again it has to do with "do you have the authority to enforce the law and how you choose to enforce the law"
4) Other things a person does or does not do often provide insight into the question you are asking.
3) does not follow in a classic 'obey local laws' sense. A lawful being can have their own complete code of conduct. They are lawful because they follow that code strictly, irrespective of other codes they may consider compatible with theirs. Otherwise it would be impossible for lawful beings to exist in chaotic regions.
The lawful being could respect the chaos as being the local law.
Some Points: Note this is very general as often a person needs to look at many things to be able to determine what the persons intent is and the effects and affects of that intent.
1) the PC sounds like they are working on their own set of morals, not directed to by a competent higher authority.
2) Doing things to mainly benefit your self tends to be evil (depending on the act)
3) Just saying follow the law does not mean your alignment is lawful. Again it has to do with "do you have the authority to enforce the law and how you choose to enforce the law"
4) Other things a person does or does not do often provide insight into the question you are asking.
3) does not follow in a classic 'obey local laws' sense. A lawful being can have their own complete code of conduct. They are lawful because they follow that code strictly, irrespective of other codes they may consider compatible with theirs. Otherwise it would be impossible for lawful beings to exist in chaotic regions.
I agree, the issue is local "laws" may not be in the overall sense good or evil as defined by them. ie a universal world/universe concept of good and evil not influenced or corrupted by "people" trying to use it to their advantage or justify things they want to do. Does that make sense?
To make something up that hopefully is not serious but gets my point across, the local law says everyone must at noon stop and dance to electronic dance music as decreed by the deity EDM, and if you do not then they must be killed (to use the idea from the OP). So if you are in combat with a bear at noon and do not start dancing (note if humor is part of your campaign maybe blade-dancing would be approved) then someone else after the allotted time of 5 min could kill you.
So does the action fit the supposed crime? Or is the action way out of proportion with the crime.
Some Points: Note this is very general as often a person needs to look at many things to be able to determine what the persons intent is and the effects and affects of that intent.
1) the PC sounds like they are working on their own set of morals, not directed to by a competent higher authority.
2) Doing things to mainly benefit your self tends to be evil (depending on the act)
3) Just saying follow the law does not mean your alignment is lawful. Again it has to do with "do you have the authority to enforce the law and how you choose to enforce the law"
4) Other things a person does or does not do often provide insight into the question you are asking.
3) does not follow in a classic 'obey local laws' sense. A lawful being can have their own complete code of conduct. They are lawful because they follow that code strictly, irrespective of other codes they may consider compatible with theirs. Otherwise it would be impossible for lawful beings to exist in chaotic regions.
The lawful being could respect the chaos as being the local law.
But the chaos is chaos, so they must cease to act in any orderly fashion and are no longer lawful. They shouldn't even consistently believe in such freedom... only sometimes... but holding themselves to that would be breaking the code you are attributing to them.
It is hard to tell but I think you might be taking taking the chaos and law thing to a extreme, (IMHO) a chaotic PC would use law to possibly create chaos or use the law to break the law.
Edit: and it depends on what your definitions or law and chaos are and how you use them in your game.
It is hard to tell but I think you might be taking taking the chaos and law thing to a extreme, (IMHO) a chaotic PC would use law to possibly create chaos or use the law to break the law.
Edit: and it depends on what your definitions or law and chaos are and how you use them in your game.
...as the thread goes the way of all alignment threads, disappearing in a mess of varying definitions.
Fundamentally, the law-chaos axis has always been wonky, because it was lifted from the Eternal Champion (probably mostly Elric) stories, where it was used for defining a conflict between cosmic entities with incomprehensible motivations, both sides of which were fundamentally unconcerned with how it affected mortals. It then gets extra complication by conflating law: the rules by which a society operates, with Law: the force of Cosmic Order, whatever that means.
And then there's the question of whether it represents your adherence to a personal code, or your belief as to society should operate. (Once again, heavily brought about by the use of the word Law.)
There are a bunch of possible axes it can be interpreted as:
The good of the group vs the good of the individual
discipline/adhering to a code of conduct vs doing what seems best at the time
Whether you think it's better to work within the rules of society to achieve goals vs breaking them if they're in the way
And several others that I can't come up with right now
What it can't be is all of those at once.
(The good-evil axis is also wonky, but for different reasons.)
So, if the OP really feels the need to nail down the character's alignment, they need to pick a law-chaos axis that works for them, and place the character on it.
Then do the same for good-evil, but that one's usually easier.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
It is hard to tell but I think you might be taking taking the chaos and law thing to a extreme, (IMHO) a chaotic PC would use law to possibly create chaos or use the law to break the law.
Edit: and it depends on what your definitions or law and chaos are and how you use them in your game.
...as the thread goes the way of all alignment threads, disappearing in a mess of varying definitions.
Fundamentally, the law-chaos axis has always been wonky, because it was lifted from the Eternal Champion (probably mostly Elric) stories, where it was used for defining a conflict between cosmic entities with incomprehensible motivations, both sides of which were fundamentally unconcerned with how it affected mortals. It then gets extra complication by conflating law: the rules by which a society operates, with Law: the force of Cosmic Order, whatever that means.
And then there's the question of whether it represents your adherence to a personal code, or your belief as to society should operate. (Once again, heavily brought about by the use of the word Law.)
There are a bunch of possible axes it can be interpreted as:
The good of the group vs the good of the individual
discipline/adhering to a code of conduct vs doing what seems best at the time
Whether you think it's better to work within the rules of society to achieve goals vs breaking them if they're in the way
And several others that I can't come up with right now
What it can't be is all of those at once.
(The good-evil axis is also wonky, but for different reasons.)
So, if the OP really feels the need to nail down the character's alignment, they need to pick a law-chaos axis that works for them, and place the character on it.
Then do the same for good-evil, but that one's usually easier.
I agree it can be problematic and there are some others out there (that I have used that are more complex). If there is one that fits 1D&D then I would be all for a UA with the info so people could talk about it.
I try and provide some solid examples for players, when I use the system and explain that I shift their alignment as they play their PC based on how the PC acts and what the consequences are if their alignment does shift. But that might be too much for 5e and or 1D&D.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Think i said this already, but my big thing is that you kind of "expect" things from players using certain alignments. Like if you tell me you are playing a Chaotic Evil Bard, and then roll in with MF'ing Mr. Rogers, I'm going to spend the whole session (if not a host of sessions) waiting for the big twist. I know it's meta gaming, but at the same point there is something to be said about having a rough idea of what to expect from the other players, so you don't commit to a game where you are not going to have any fun.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Think i said this already, but my big thing is that you kind of "expect" things from players using certain alignments. Like if you tell me you are playing a Chaotic Evil Bard, and then roll in with MF'ing Mr. Rogers, I'm going to spend the whole session (if not a host of sessions) waiting for the big twist. I know it's meta gaming, but at the same point there is something to be said about having a rough idea of what to expect from the other players, so you don't commit to a game where you are not going to have any fun.
I agree and this can be discussed ins session zero, what alignments and or player behavior is ok and not ok for the group of games.
In general I do not allow evil PC's unless they are all evil, and I do not allow PC killing PC's unless that is the focus of the game. I explain that I expect the players to work together (not necessarily all of the time) to solve problems. But I do make allowances for thematic PC vs PC conflict such as 2 worshipers of different deities to say by deity is better then yours because of X.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Think i said this already, but my big thing is that you kind of "expect" things from players using certain alignments. Like if you tell me you are playing a Chaotic Evil Bard, and then roll in with MF'ing Mr. Rogers, I'm going to spend the whole session (if not a host of sessions) waiting for the big twist. I know it's meta gaming, but at the same point there is something to be said about having a rough idea of what to expect from the other players, so you don't commit to a game where you are not going to have any fun.
I agree and this can be discussed ins session zero, what alignments and or player behavior is ok and not ok for the group of games.
In general I do not allow evil PC's unless they are all evil, and I do not allow PC killing PC's unless that is the focus of the game. I explain that I expect the players to work together (not necessarily all of the time) to solve problems. But I do make allowances for thematic PC vs PC conflict such as 2 worshipers of different deities to say by deity is better then yours because of X.
And that's a fine way to deal with your games. I like to think that you can run an evil character in a group of good/neutral characters. Like you don't have to be cartoon villain levels of evil, and a personal brand of evil doesn't always mean a party level of evil. "I want to start a criminal organization" seems a fairly "evil" character motivation, but so long as you are (more or less) helping the party reach their goals, i can't imagine there being too much conflict... Maybe if you get a fanatical "good" player, that could lead to some interparty conflict. But those type of players often cause interparty problems regardless.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Think i said this already, but my big thing is that you kind of "expect" things from players using certain alignments. Like if you tell me you are playing a Chaotic Evil Bard, and then roll in with MF'ing Mr. Rogers, I'm going to spend the whole session (if not a host of sessions) waiting for the big twist. I know it's meta gaming, but at the same point there is something to be said about having a rough idea of what to expect from the other players, so you don't commit to a game where you are not going to have any fun.
I agree and this can be discussed ins session zero, what alignments and or player behavior is ok and not ok for the group of games.
In general I do not allow evil PC's unless they are all evil, and I do not allow PC killing PC's unless that is the focus of the game. I explain that I expect the players to work together (not necessarily all of the time) to solve problems. But I do make allowances for thematic PC vs PC conflict such as 2 worshipers of different deities to say by deity is better then yours because of X.
And that's a fine way to deal with your games. I like to think that you can run an evil character in a group of good/neutral characters. Like you don't have to be cartoon villain levels of evil, and a personal brand of evil doesn't always mean a party level of evil. "I want to start a criminal organization" seems a fairly "evil" character motivation, but so long as you are (more or less) helping the party reach their goals, i can't imagine there being too much conflict... Maybe if you get a fanatical "good" player, that could lead to some interparty conflict. But those type of players often cause interparty problems regardless.
Yeah, that's probably the best way to play "evil" characters, and I find that lawful evil characters tend to be the best at it.
If being Lawful meant following the law, then LE characters wouldn't steal, commit murder etc.
Think of Lawful as believing that laws are needed/useful, that organization is necessary, etc.
A CG person could believe that laws are useful, but hold that you merely need to ban nonconsensual violence and theft, not regulate the maximum size of cheese wheels.
So your character, IMO, would be definitely be Lawful Evil. He's going to steal, and is willing to kill to do so.
A thief who flees when discovered could be Neutral instead of Evil. Sure he would kill to avoid being killed or possibly captured. But your guy is going to kill to make sure the job succeeds. That's Evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would say LE based on your follow up info.
Some Points: Note this is very general as often a person needs to look at many things to be able to determine what the persons intent is and the effects and affects of that intent.
1) the PC sounds like they are working on their own set of morals, not directed to by a competent higher authority.
2) Doing things to mainly benefit your self tends to be evil (depending on the act)
3) Just saying follow the law does not mean your alignment is lawful. Again it has to do with "do you have the authority to enforce the law and how you choose to enforce the law"
4) Other things a person does or does not do often provide insight into the question you are asking.
The lawful being could respect the chaos as being the local law.
I agree, the issue is local "laws" may not be in the overall sense good or evil as defined by them. ie a universal world/universe concept of good and evil not influenced or corrupted by "people" trying to use it to their advantage or justify things they want to do. Does that make sense?
To make something up that hopefully is not serious but gets my point across, the local law says everyone must at noon stop and dance to electronic dance music as decreed by the deity EDM, and if you do not then they must be killed (to use the idea from the OP). So if you are in combat with a bear at noon and do not start dancing (note if humor is part of your campaign maybe blade-dancing would be approved) then someone else after the allotted time of 5 min could kill you.
So does the action fit the supposed crime? Or is the action way out of proportion with the crime.
It is hard to tell but I think you might be taking taking the chaos and law thing to a extreme, (IMHO) a chaotic PC would use law to possibly create chaos or use the law to break the law.
Edit: and it depends on what your definitions or law and chaos are and how you use them in your game.
...as the thread goes the way of all alignment threads, disappearing in a mess of varying definitions.
Fundamentally, the law-chaos axis has always been wonky, because it was lifted from the Eternal Champion (probably mostly Elric) stories, where it was used for defining a conflict between cosmic entities with incomprehensible motivations, both sides of which were fundamentally unconcerned with how it affected mortals. It then gets extra complication by conflating law: the rules by which a society operates, with Law: the force of Cosmic Order, whatever that means.
And then there's the question of whether it represents your adherence to a personal code, or your belief as to society should operate. (Once again, heavily brought about by the use of the word Law.)
There are a bunch of possible axes it can be interpreted as:
What it can't be is all of those at once.
(The good-evil axis is also wonky, but for different reasons.)
So, if the OP really feels the need to nail down the character's alignment, they need to pick a law-chaos axis that works for them, and place the character on it.
Then do the same for good-evil, but that one's usually easier.
Just don't use alignment then. In 5e it affects literally nothing. Have the world react to the character's actions and not whatever two letter abbreviation they put on their sheet.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I agree it can be problematic and there are some others out there (that I have used that are more complex). If there is one that fits 1D&D then I would be all for a UA with the info so people could talk about it.
I try and provide some solid examples for players, when I use the system and explain that I shift their alignment as they play their PC based on how the PC acts and what the consequences are if their alignment does shift. But that might be too much for 5e and or 1D&D.
Not literally nothing. Assuming you use some of the prewritten stuff anyway. And also I don't know how they'd handle Planescape, but that setting was heavy on alignment as a theme (fiends, celestials, deities, the Outer Planes, etc). Not to mention for NPCs in general, it can be used as a rule of thumb for how they behave.
But for player characters at least, it's probably not appropriate, and if you have to use it for PCs, it's best to be very flexible with it.
Think i said this already, but my big thing is that you kind of "expect" things from players using certain alignments. Like if you tell me you are playing a Chaotic Evil Bard, and then roll in with MF'ing Mr. Rogers, I'm going to spend the whole session (if not a host of sessions) waiting for the big twist. I know it's meta gaming, but at the same point there is something to be said about having a rough idea of what to expect from the other players, so you don't commit to a game where you are not going to have any fun.
I agree and this can be discussed ins session zero, what alignments and or player behavior is ok and not ok for the group of games.
In general I do not allow evil PC's unless they are all evil, and I do not allow PC killing PC's unless that is the focus of the game. I explain that I expect the players to work together (not necessarily all of the time) to solve problems. But I do make allowances for thematic PC vs PC conflict such as 2 worshipers of different deities to say by deity is better then yours because of X.
And that's a fine way to deal with your games. I like to think that you can run an evil character in a group of good/neutral characters. Like you don't have to be cartoon villain levels of evil, and a personal brand of evil doesn't always mean a party level of evil. "I want to start a criminal organization" seems a fairly "evil" character motivation, but so long as you are (more or less) helping the party reach their goals, i can't imagine there being too much conflict... Maybe if you get a fanatical "good" player, that could lead to some interparty conflict. But those type of players often cause interparty problems regardless.
Yeah, that's probably the best way to play "evil" characters, and I find that lawful evil characters tend to be the best at it.
If being Lawful meant following the law, then LE characters wouldn't steal, commit murder etc.
Think of Lawful as believing that laws are needed/useful, that organization is necessary, etc.
A CG person could believe that laws are useful, but hold that you merely need to ban nonconsensual violence and theft, not regulate the maximum size of cheese wheels.
So your character, IMO, would be definitely be Lawful Evil. He's going to steal, and is willing to kill to do so.
A thief who flees when discovered could be Neutral instead of Evil. Sure he would kill to avoid being killed or possibly captured. But your guy is going to kill to make sure the job succeeds. That's Evil.