Recently I’ve been making some really fun characters. First was Declan Armand, a tortured but charming and determined assimar sorcerer. Then we have Jack, a plasmoid ranger who is slowly going insane even as he tries to free himself from the dark embrace of an ancient god. I then made Alabaster Kane, a mercenary-turned-wizard who is seeking revenge on his old mercenary organization after having a stroke and training in the arcane arts. Now I have an idea for a new character, a detective of sorts who is a bit dark, a bit tortured, and dead-set on solving his last case. However, his flaw is listed as “If someone gets in my way or interferes in my investigation then they are not long for this world.” Basically, he’s a killer, but only when someone threatens his mission. However, in his warped mind he thinks that could be anyone, from a guard stopping him from sneaking into a secure facility to an ally who shows a bit too much interest in (or knows too much about) his case. Is he a murderhobo, and if so, how could I play him without that? He is listed as LN. He follows his own code to get his goal.
I would move it from "If they oppose me, I kill them" to "If they oppose me, I will get past them". Basically going from the undeniably murderhobo approach of "I justify killing this person because backstory" to "I will not let anyone stop me, even if that means morally questionable approaches like bribery, blackmail, threats, or subterfuge".
It will lead to a much more interesting game with the DM having to scramble less to keep things going, as for example:
Scenario: The guard won't let you into a manor house which you believe contains a clue.
Murderhobo: "I kill them and try to hide the body", resulting in guards looking for the killer, possible exile from a town full of plothooks, and the rest of the party feeling like you're steering them by your kneejerk responses.
Stubborn Character: "I will try to dig up dirt on the guards to blackmail them with. Or sneak into the manor anyway. Or threaten the guards. Or distract the guards. Or bribe the guards. Or poison the guards with sleeping poison. Or knock them out with chloroform from behind."
The first is "I attack", and then the whole party sighs, and then you face the issue of if a party member stands with the guards instead of with you, derailing the session and making most people say "oh for goodness sake, not again".
The second is "I will form a plan to get past this, I'm not leaving here until I find that clue". It leads to cooperation with the party ("You distract them, I'll sneak in"), or small solo-sections ("If no-one is going to help me, I'll go alone"). It keeps a reason for you to be in the party, and allows roleplay for people to try and dissuade you, and all those other good things you'll lose out on if you just say "I attack the guard". It also means your party may avoid a bad reputation, soiling the game experience.
Bear in mind that the game experience is for everyone, so be prepared to be swayed from your chosen goals by the other players - their roleplay indicates what they want from the session, and whilst conflict is a good thing for roleplay, it's bad if you refuse to ever be pursuaded otherwise - people will stop roleplaying and say "just let them go do the thing", which is anitclimactic for something which should be fun!
I think in general, characters of rigid, singular focus are problematic to fit into a party. To work in most campaigns, there needs to be a reason your character would take a side quest, or do a beach episode with the other party members, or spend downtime. If your character is only here to do one thing, and that one thing has nothing to do with going off on a side quest to rescue a party member's aunt from fairies, then that character is going to have trouble fitting in.
You can still have the character obsessed with their last unsolved case, but if they're obsessed to the degree of random murder, then they're probably obsessed to the point of "no I will not take part in this arena game the fighter wants to do".
“If someone gets in my way or interferes in my investigation then they are not long for this world.” How this is phrased definitely isnt LN, it's absolutely a LE view. The paranoia is fine, but having the solution to resistance be automatically murder? that needs to change to avoid being LE and a "murderhobo". Perhaps have them take the stance of "Whomever gets in the way of this case shall be removed from my path", where the removing could change method depending on the situation. Is someone aware of the case and advising you to drop the case and/or preventing you from continuing out of concern? then murder probably isnt the right answer for a LN character, so you'd try other methods, such as persuasion or stealth etc.
If a Chaotic Evil character doesn't have to be a hobo-murderer, then no alignment does. "It's what my character would do" is never a valid reason to disrupt things for the other players. Try to put yourself in the shoes of another player before you commit to some Lawful ideal that cannot be broken. You're not playing the game alone for your own sake.
(YouTube Link: Jane Douglas talks about playing Chaotic Evil in a D&D and Oxventure featurette for WotC Idle Champions.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Recently I’ve been making some really fun characters. First was Declan Armand, a tortured but charming and determined assimar sorcerer. Then we have Jack, a plasmoid ranger who is slowly going insane even as he tries to free himself from the dark embrace of an ancient god. I then made Alabaster Kane, a mercenary-turned-wizard who is seeking revenge on his old mercenary organization after having a stroke and training in the arcane arts. Now I have an idea for a new character, a detective of sorts who is a bit dark, a bit tortured, and dead-set on solving his last case. However, his flaw is listed as “If someone gets in my way or interferes in my investigation then they are not long for this world.” Basically, he’s a killer, but only when someone threatens his mission. However, in his warped mind he thinks that could be anyone, from a guard stopping him from sneaking into a secure facility to an ally who shows a bit too much interest in (or knows too much about) his case. Is he a murderhobo, and if so, how could I play him without that? He is listed as LN. He follows his own code to get his goal.
It is only LN, when the code followed is Neutral. When he is that paranoid about threats to his mission, including eliminating allies who are simply literally showing interest/offering to help, then that is stepping into LE territory.
Personally I would argue he is more chaotic than lawful as well being closer to a chaotic neutral or a neutral evil, I know alignment is highly subjective to a degree but I am not seeing anything about this character that marks him as particularly lawful, OP says he follows his own code and maybe there is some more information here that would make the lawful alignment make more sense that OP is not telling us but I don't see much of a code beyond "everything is permitted in the pursuit of my mission" which really isn't much of a lawful code, if he is willing to cross the murder threshold (especially since he is willing to cross it with little provocation) then what lines are there left to cross?
Also not sure what others think but I would also think that paranoia, especially a paranoia that causes him to act irrationally is really much more on the chaotic end of the scale.
In the end I think we would need to know more about the character and what your intentions are with this character? Did you just want to play a murderer and wanted backstory justification for doing so? And how exactly do you plan to incorporate this character into a group? Unless the character is stealthy about their kills and is able to hide them from the group it really feels like you are creating a character that will end up in a situation where the rest of the party is either forced to go along with the murder hobo playstyle regardless of how they want to play or forced to oppose your character in a battle to the death.
I would say that if you want to play a murderer you probably need to be a bit more subtle about it, don't just go for the kill always as the first course of action and don't just kill indiscriminately, pick your targets more carefully, targets that the party wont question so much if they happen to go missing, of course it does require a more evil leaning character and you still need a good backstory to justify the actions but there are ways to play a murderer that still can fit in with a mixed alignment party. For instance in one of the games I played in there was another player playing a cleric who served the Raven Queen, if the party encountered a character with a great deal of sorrow he would offer them an escape from their sorrow and if they accepted he would lead them into the woods where he and the DM would have a private conversation out of earshot of the rest of the party with him returning to the party alone.
Personally I would argue he is more chaotic than lawful as well being closer to a chaotic neutral or a neutral evil, I know alignment is highly subjective to a degree but I am not seeing anything about this character that marks him as particularly lawful, OP says he follows his own code and maybe there is some more information here that would make the lawful alignment make more sense that OP is not telling us but I don't see much of a code beyond "everything is permitted in the pursuit of my mission" which really isn't much of a lawful code, if he is willing to cross the murder threshold (especially since he is willing to cross it with little provocation) then what lines are there left to cross?
A coherent, consistent pattern of behaviour is, by virtue of that consistency, lawful in nature. Rational or not, they are saying that their character always responds to specific stimuli (perceived risk to a specific mission) in a similar way (eliminate source of risk).
A chaotic alignment does not mean that an individual is random or incapable of consistency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Personally I would argue he is more chaotic than lawful as well being closer to a chaotic neutral or a neutral evil, I know alignment is highly subjective to a degree but I am not seeing anything about this character that marks him as particularly lawful, OP says he follows his own code and maybe there is some more information here that would make the lawful alignment make more sense that OP is not telling us but I don't see much of a code beyond "everything is permitted in the pursuit of my mission" which really isn't much of a lawful code, if he is willing to cross the murder threshold (especially since he is willing to cross it with little provocation) then what lines are there left to cross?
A coherent, consistent pattern of behaviour is, by virtue of that consistency, lawful in nature. Rational or not, they are saying that their character always responds to specific stimuli (perceived risk to a specific mission) in a similar way (eliminate source of risk). The implication is a willingness and indeed imperative to consider such threats as part of the mission and to carry out the elimination of such threats regardless of any wider or longer range consequences, or, for that matter, expediency.
All that said, it is still murderhobo. After all, 'Kill all life' is a lawful concept too, counter-intuitive as that sounds, as long as there are no arbitrary exceptions (excepting oneself is not really arbitrary).
Personally I think the trick to playing a chaotic character is to realize that chaos does not truly exist, by your logic there are very few characters that could actually be considered chaotic, I know there are many out there that consider the chaotic alignment to mean "lol random" and use the alignment as an excuse to do stupidly inappropriate things which is why so many refer to chaotic neutral as chaotic stupid, but you want to play a chaotic character well that does not piss off the group you are playing with they still need to act on a logic that makes sense to that character.
Every character in D&D needs something that gives meaning to their actions, whether it be a personality, goal or guiding principle, a chaotic good character is not going to suddenly murder an orphan because he is of a chaotic alignment and the chaotic part of his alignment demands that he acts randomly, he still needs a reason to murder the orphan that fits with their personality, goals or beliefs and if no reason exists then it makes no sense for them to murder the orphan, even a crazy person operates on some twisted form of logic that makes sense to them.
The code presented by the OP really isn't much of a code, a pattern of behaviour sure but not really a code, perhaps if the character worshiped a god of death and saw the living as an abomination then you might be able to justify a code that requires that character to kill the living as a lawful code, however from what we have read of this character his urge to kill does not really stem from a code so much as a paranoid feeling that these characters might interfere with his mission which really screams chaotic to me.
In the end though I am not sure this character is really the most well thought out character, feels like it was created to justify a more murder hobo playstyle and the backstory and "code" is more of a flimsy afterthought to try and justify it. I don't know if the OP has really thought about how this character fits into a group as it feels like somewhat more of a lone wolf character that would constantly be at odds with the party unless they are forced to go along with what this character wants. Perhaps I have a bad read on the character and there is more information that would make it make sense but this is just my impression of the character based on the info given.
Regarding the "lawful vs chaotic" debate, the principles are applied at a macro level, not a personal one. Saying "I have a code" doesn't make a character lawful, most individuals have a set of principles they won't violate. A lawful character conforms to some larger set of codes/principles/etc because they believe that's the most effective way for them to function in society. For some contrast, I've got a CN Archfey Warlock I'm playing right now who deliberately follows many of the same customs and mannerisms of the high Fey- such as abiding by the principles of hospitality as a guest- but he does this simply because he enjoys affecting these behaviors rather than a belief it's the most effective way for him to get by.
A Punisher-type character- which seems to very much be the type the original character of this thread is- is Chaotic, because they're basing how they respond to society at large with how it affects them. Not sure they're full-on murderhobo, but overall this is really not a good trait for a character in a cooperative game like D&D if you take it to this kind of extreme. In general, the "dangerous renegade/lone wolf" character type doesn't play well in D&D, since they force the rest of the party to be pulled along by their impulses. This works in fiction where there's a single hand managing everything that's happening in a story, but in a group endeavor like D&D it's bad form to frequently make unilateral decisions that alter the entire party's standing in the setting like that.
Holding to a personal code that contradicts the law isn't lawful, it's chaotic.
That's a common misconception.
Lawful does not mean that you follow the laws of the land, though following the laws of the land would mean that you are, at least in some manner, lawful. Apples are fruits, fruits aren't all apples ,and other such similes.
"Lawful" literally means that you have a cide that you follow and you stick to it. This could be "I follow the laws of the land", or it could be "I do not follow laws that I consider to be stupid". Most of us fall into that second one - how often do you really drive at the exact speed limit everywhere, even when it's a long, straight, open road with no houses to either side and a 30mph speed limit slapped on it for no reason?
When was the last time you dismantled your car to allow a horse to pass?
I tend to think of them as "Predictable" and "Unpredictable", because I feel that represents their methods better. A "chaotic" individual who follows a code to cause as much chaos as possible everywhere they go is in fact Lawful, because they follow that code. If you have a player who you know will say "I do >most chaotic thing possible here<" in every situation, they're lawful in their pursuit of chaos. Go figure.
So, if you can predict their actions easily, they're lawful - the princess was kidnapped? I know exactly what the paladin, dogood holymann, knight of the realm and protector of princesses will do in this situation! Whereas Lonewolf Edgypast the Rogue could do anything - save the princess, or try to use the king & queens search to raid the castle whilst there are less guards. Predictable vs unpredictable. Neutral characters are somewhat predictable but can surprise you.
To this end, I consider the "chaotic neutral" barbarian in my game to be Lawful, because he will do anything he can to try and make a situation chaotic. Predictable.
I'll say this again: the lawful-chaotic spectrum, as described in the PHB, is awfully inconsistent and ill-thought out. The discussion of what it means to be lawful or chaotic a few posts back is very illustrative of that, both sides were right and both were wrong. Following a personal code is in the definition of lawful evil (which contradicts the good version of the lawful-chaotic spectrum which describes being lawful as following the law/what society sees as good), but being single-minded and willing to do whatever it takes without consideration of the cost is not the definition of lawful either - that's being focused and single-minded. If anything, that suggests not being bound by principles (I will do X unless Y, Eg I will help the downtrodden, unless it involves breaking the law - the second part is the lawful aspect, not willing to break principles in order to achieve the goal, which is the first part).
As described in the books, the definitions are inconsistent and contradictory. That leads to people taking very different things away from what they mean. Almost every argument I've seen about this kind of thing has stemmed from these problems where two or more people have taken different things away from the descriptions and clash when they express their opinions which are based on those differing interpretations.
Ultimately though, it's more important to be consistent than "right". OP, while these opinions might show you different understandings and expose you to different points of view, you have to make up your own mind as to what lawful v chaotic means.
My tu'pence:
Lawful means principled. They have a code that they abide by. That code can be a personal one, it can be the law, it can be their religious commandments, it can come from almost anywhere, but they have a code,.a set of principles that they use to resolve how act in a situation. They believe that the means justify the ends - they will follow the code as they interpret it, even if it produces bad results. There is inherent value in keeping the code.
Chaotic means that the ends justify the means. It's about the end goal, how you get there doesn't really matter so much as where you end up. While the means aren't irrelevant (at least on the good side of the spectrum), if no one's harmed in the process, then it's fine, even if it's against the law etc.
I'd say he's chaotic because "Basically, he’s a killer, but only when someone threatens his mission". In other words, he generally thinks he killing is not the right course of action...but he's willing to kill if it's advantageous to his goals. That smacks of chaotic to me, although there is a ton of context missing that could change that judgement.
Again, that's my take on it. You need to form your own.
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.
Holding to a personal code that contradicts the law isn't lawful, it's chaotic.
That's a common misconception.
Lawful does not mean that you follow the laws of the land, though following the laws of the land would mean that you are, at least in some manner, lawful. Apples are fruits, fruits aren't all apples ,and other such similes.
"Lawful" literally means that you have a cide that you follow and you stick to it. This could be "I follow the laws of the land", or it could be "I do not follow laws that I consider to be stupid". Most of us fall into that second one - how often do you really drive at the exact speed limit everywhere, even when it's a long, straight, open road with no houses to either side and a 30mph speed limit slapped on it for no reason?
When was the last time you dismantled your car to allow a horse to pass?
I tend to think of them as "Predictable" and "Unpredictable", because I feel that represents their methods better. A "chaotic" individual who follows a code to cause as much chaos as possible everywhere they go is in fact Lawful, because they follow that code. If you have a player who you know will say "I do >most chaotic thing possible here<" in every situation, they're lawful in their pursuit of chaos. Go figure.
So, if you can predict their actions easily, they're lawful - the princess was kidnapped? I know exactly what the paladin, dogood holymann, knight of the realm and protector of princesses will do in this situation! Whereas Lonewolf Edgypast the Rogue could do anything - save the princess, or try to use the king & queens search to raid the castle whilst there are less guards. Predictable vs unpredictable. Neutral characters are somewhat predictable but can surprise you.
To this end, I consider the "chaotic neutral" barbarian in my game to be Lawful, because he will do anything he can to try and make a situation chaotic. Predictable.
Under this framework however chaos simply does not exist, all characters are lawful they just follow different laws or react in different ways as according to their own personality and motivations, even Lonewolf Edgypast the rogue has a behavioural pattern even if it is not immediately recognizable by yourself.
The "I do not follow laws that I consider to be stupid" is not really so much of a code as it is a behavioural pattern and I would say that this statement would put a character in the neutral zone between law and chaos, they understand the importance of law to a degree but also recognize it's pitfalls as well, a chaotic character does not really pay much heed to laws at all and simply does what they think is the best course of action for their own goals and personality.
A chaotic good character would do a morally good deed not because there is a law saying that they should do it but because they believe it is the right course of action, a good action is good regardless of what the law says.
A chaotic evil character would do what either selfishly benefits or amuses themselves or screws over their enemies in the moment and not care about any collateral damage it may cause.
A chaotic neutral character is somewhere in between mainly focused on their own personal freedom but they wont stoop to the levels that a chaotic evil character might to achieve their goals nor are they altruistic enough to do the right thing if there is no real benefit for them to do so.
A Lawful good character on the other hand follows the law because they believe that ultimately in doing so they are serving the greater good, a chaotic good character would not punish the hungry orphan for stealing a loaf of bread from the greedy merchant because they know that they are only doing what they need to do to help their siblings survive. A lawful good character however while they might not punish the orphan harshly would still return the loaf to the greedy merchant because ultimately the laws against stealing serve a greater purpose and to let one person break the law even for a noble cause weakens the foundation of that law and becomes a slippery slope where people come up with increasingly flimsy justifications for breaking it.
That said this is why conversations about alignment become so messy as everyone has their own interpretation, what is good and what is evil while having some constants that most people would agree on is still largely subjective, law vs chaos is sort of similar in a way but I think in that case it is more of a discussion on what constitutes as a law and whether or not chaos truly exists. Some would argue that law explicitly means the law of the land however I would argue that it can include personal codes of conduct as well however this one can be more flimsy. I would say when creating a lawful character that follows a personal code then that code needs to be something that would prevent the character from potentially doing something that may benefit them or be a good action in the short term.
A code against stealing for example, while you may be able to justify stealing something in the short term as morally justifiable a lawful character would still refuse to do it as they fear the consequences of eroding those binding laws and codes that guide their actions. As cliche as it is to bring up Batman in a conversation about alignment I would argue that he is closer to Lawful good, sure he is more of a vigilante who often acts outside the rules of Gotham but he still has ties with commissioner Gordon and the police and he still has his own personal code, a chaotic good character would have probably killed the Joker by now as they would have recognized that the character is simply irredeemable and by killing him they would end up saving more lives in the long run, however Batman cannot break his rule against killing no matter how justified it may be because he fears that once he crosses that line there is no going back.
I 100% agree that this is where these conversations get hung up, where people have a different opinion on the nature of lawful/chaotic and good/evil.
I am interested in trying to single out what it is that we agree on with the Lawful side of things. I will try and keep it brief so we can all talk more smoothly on it!
Taking your example of a Lawful Good character who would return the loaf of bread stolen by the orphan, because the law must not be broken. I agree with you that yes, this character is lawful, but I would argue that they are Lawful Neutral, not Lawful good. In my mind, the 3 types of Lawful would be:
Lawful Good: They have morals that guide them to do good, and their laws (rules for themselves) would be along the lines of "Nobody will suffer unjustice whilst I can prevent it" or something like that. They would see the situation, and would likely buy the bread to give to the orphan. This is because attacking/threatening or otherwise siding against the merchant would be an injustice for them, who just want to trade peacefully. Siding against the orphan is an injustice that they will go hungry. So they will do what they need to to resolve the situation.
Lawful Neutral means that they do not let their morals interfere excessively with their mantra, that the rules must be followed. They would give the bread back to the trader, and then decide what to do with the orphan - help them or turn them in, they will decide based on the situation. If their rules state that they will follow the law, then they will do so regardless of the morals of the law - if a law states that any who extend a hand to beg in this city must have it struck off, then the lawful neutral character is going to obey it.
Lawful Evil might have a set of rules that "any who break the law must be punished", or they might have a rule saying "Any who do not care for others are unworthy of care". Both of these are lawful outlooks, in that they are rules to follow, and both lead to different conclusions - the first sees the orphan punished, and the second sees the trader punished. In both cases, their actions may not obey the laws of the land, but they are following what they believe to be right.
I won't waffle on as I'm interested in what people think of this!
Yeah I mostly agree with that, the point I was getting at with the loaf of bread analogy was that the Lawful Good character would be against stealing the bread regardless of how it could help those in need, though you are right that the lawful good character would try to help both parties in a way that does not break the law where the lawful neutral character may return the bread and turn in the orphan to be subject to the rule of law.
As for the "any who do not care for others are unworthy of care" I would say that is more of a belief rather than a code of lawful conduct and does not seem like the sort of belief an evil character would hold, I think a lawful evil character would believe the laws are meant to enforce the status quo and support those with the power and ambition to rise through the ranks and thus would punish the orphan for the impertinence of breaking the laws that keep those in their station in their place.
Yeah I mostly agree with that, the point I was getting at with the loaf of bread analogy was that the Lawful Good character would be against stealing the bread regardless of how it could help those in need, though you are right that the lawful good character would try to help both parties in a way that does not break the law where the lawful neutral character may return the bread and turn in the orphan to be subject to the rule of law.
As for the "any who do not care for others are unworthy of care" I would say that is more of a belief rather than a code of lawful conduct and does not seem like the sort of belief an evil character would hold, I think a lawful evil character would believe the laws are meant to enforce the status quo and support those with the power and ambition to rise through the ranks and thus would punish the orphan for the impertinence of breaking the laws that keep those in their station in their place.
Awesome, we have an agreement on the good/neutral side of societal law interaction!
The second point is a difficult one - I feel like you are looking through a very tightly societal lens, where everything that happens is either inside or outside of a set of laws set out by a governing body/higher power. I agree that a character who follows the law out of principle is lawful, but disagree that a character must follow the law to be lawful. How does this character interact with things in the wild? Does anything go in the "law of the jungle"? What if they travel from a good city (EG London) to a chaotic neutral city (EG Tortuga) through a jungle with no laws? What standards to they hold themselves to? IF they change how they act depending on where they are, then they are not holding themselves to a code, and thus are not sounding all that lawful!
Regarding the evil character who seeks to punish those who don't care for others - this character may attack or blackmail the trader, or threaten them ("I'm stealing the bread now, what are you going to do about it? Not so tough when it's not a child?"). Their actions may have good consequences, but they may still be evil. The way I see good/neutral/evil is something I've taken the time to write down, so here's the text dump!
“Others”.
“Others” are used in the definition of Good, Neutral, and Evil alignments. It is important, therefore, that “Others” be defined accurately.
“Others” refers to creatures in the world to which the character holds no emotional ties. A party member is not an “Other”, nor is a companion NPC, or a NPC with which the character has interacted with enough to form an opinion of. “Others” instead refers to creatures and humanoids which will be affected by the characters actions, but which the character does not know - for example, if a villain is holding a commoner hostage, the commoner is an “Other”. The Villain is not, as they will be interacting with the character extensively.
Good
A Good character will always hold the effect of their actions upon Others as an important aspect of their decision making. If their actions would cause Others harm, then they will likely reconsider their options rather than risk harming an Other. The welfare of Others forms a strong argument in their decision making, moreso than their own needs.
Neutral
A Neutral character will factor the needs of Others into their decision making, but this does not hold a greater weight than their own needs, or the needs of their comrades. They can be easily swayed by improvements of a deal, such as being offered rewards - the rewards lessening the needs of them and their comrades, and putting the Others first.
Evil
An Evil character does not consider the needs of Others in their decision making. They will consider the needs of their comrades and friends, and are not dedicated to harming the welfare of Others, but they do not consider the welfare of Others to be their problem nor their concern. When an Evil character meets and interacts with a creature or humanoid, they will form some form of bond or opinion of it, and it will cease to be an Other - and can therefore be considered in their decision making. An example of this might be an Evil character deciding that themselves and their party should work together to protect themselves, without considering the needs of Others who also might benefit from protecting.
It is important to note that there is no inherent aspect of an Evil character which will not consider the needs of their comrades, unless the character is also Selfish - which is a flaw, not an alignment.
Anyways, that's what I wrote on it, and I think it makes sense - will welcome feedback on that!
I 100% agree that this is where these conversations get hung up, where people have a different opinion on the nature of lawful/chaotic and good/evil.
What most of the Lawful alignments seem to say is that people who follow them do what society, or the society they have grown up and interacted with, expects of them.
The one Lawful alignment that mentions a "personal code" is Lawful Neutral, which goes against the precedent of what the other two lawful alignments say.
Despite alignment being quite a useful tool, there are some flaws and confusing areas like this that need to be clarified in the next edition. Personally, I think that lawful should mean something along the lines of: "Does what is expected by the society they interact with or effect most."
I 100% agree that this is where these conversations get hung up, where people have a different opinion on the nature of lawful/chaotic and good/evil.
What most of the Lawful alignments seem to say is that people who follow them do what society, or the society they have grown up and interacted with, expects of them.
The one Lawful alignment that mentions a "personal code" is Lawful Neutral, which goes against the precedent of what the other two lawful alignments say.
Despite alignment being quite a useful tool, there are some flaws and confusing areas like this that need to be clarified in the next edition. Personally, I think that lawful should mean something along the lines of: "Does what is expected by the society they interact with or effect most."
They are not completely incompatible concepts. Rules learnt from one's upbringing are going to be the greatest factor in shaping any personal code. However, the flaw in the 'follow the expectations of society' definition is that it assumes a lawful society. By that definition, demons are all lawful, since they all follow the expectations of the Abyss. Denizens of Limbo are all lawful as long as they all or mostly avoid laws.....
Problematic definition.
Hmm. True. You raise a good point. I guess we do need to assume that the society is lawful and reasonable if we want the definition to make some sense.
So maybe we should say something like "Does what is expected by the reasonable society they interact with or effect most."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
There is Lawful as self-motivation and Lawful as perceived by others.
They overlap but don't always agree.
Oxventure defines it by perception instead of motivation. One could argue that the Chaotic Evil character mentioned earlier ITT dogmatically follows a code that causes chaos for other characters (in a fun and non-obstructive way to the other players).
I prefer to go by how it appears to local society rather than the reasoning behind it. Reason is logical and often considered non-chaotic, being at least Neutral and usually Lawful. An extremely rare few would be Chaotic anything if we went by motivations.
As for reasons behind killing people who get in the way, that's immaterial to those affected by it. Killing people because "it's what my character would" do is the refrain of the characters who murder hobos. Don't do it. You might have fun at first until everyone gets tired of you ruining everything for them. You'll hoard all opportunities for anyone to contribute. Nobody likes players to do that to them. Don't be that player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently I’ve been making some really fun characters. First was Declan Armand, a tortured but charming and determined assimar sorcerer. Then we have Jack, a plasmoid ranger who is slowly going insane even as he tries to free himself from the dark embrace of an ancient god. I then made Alabaster Kane, a mercenary-turned-wizard who is seeking revenge on his old mercenary organization after having a stroke and training in the arcane arts. Now I have an idea for a new character, a detective of sorts who is a bit dark, a bit tortured, and dead-set on solving his last case. However, his flaw is listed as “If someone gets in my way or interferes in my investigation then they are not long for this world.” Basically, he’s a killer, but only when someone threatens his mission. However, in his warped mind he thinks that could be anyone, from a guard stopping him from sneaking into a secure facility to an ally who shows a bit too much interest in (or knows too much about) his case. Is he a murderhobo, and if so, how could I play him without that? He is listed as LN. He follows his own code to get his goal.
I would move it from "If they oppose me, I kill them" to "If they oppose me, I will get past them". Basically going from the undeniably murderhobo approach of "I justify killing this person because backstory" to "I will not let anyone stop me, even if that means morally questionable approaches like bribery, blackmail, threats, or subterfuge".
It will lead to a much more interesting game with the DM having to scramble less to keep things going, as for example:
Scenario: The guard won't let you into a manor house which you believe contains a clue.
Murderhobo: "I kill them and try to hide the body", resulting in guards looking for the killer, possible exile from a town full of plothooks, and the rest of the party feeling like you're steering them by your kneejerk responses.
Stubborn Character: "I will try to dig up dirt on the guards to blackmail them with. Or sneak into the manor anyway. Or threaten the guards. Or distract the guards. Or bribe the guards. Or poison the guards with sleeping poison. Or knock them out with chloroform from behind."
The first is "I attack", and then the whole party sighs, and then you face the issue of if a party member stands with the guards instead of with you, derailing the session and making most people say "oh for goodness sake, not again".
The second is "I will form a plan to get past this, I'm not leaving here until I find that clue". It leads to cooperation with the party ("You distract them, I'll sneak in"), or small solo-sections ("If no-one is going to help me, I'll go alone"). It keeps a reason for you to be in the party, and allows roleplay for people to try and dissuade you, and all those other good things you'll lose out on if you just say "I attack the guard". It also means your party may avoid a bad reputation, soiling the game experience.
Bear in mind that the game experience is for everyone, so be prepared to be swayed from your chosen goals by the other players - their roleplay indicates what they want from the session, and whilst conflict is a good thing for roleplay, it's bad if you refuse to ever be pursuaded otherwise - people will stop roleplaying and say "just let them go do the thing", which is anitclimactic for something which should be fun!
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!
I think in general, characters of rigid, singular focus are problematic to fit into a party. To work in most campaigns, there needs to be a reason your character would take a side quest, or do a beach episode with the other party members, or spend downtime. If your character is only here to do one thing, and that one thing has nothing to do with going off on a side quest to rescue a party member's aunt from fairies, then that character is going to have trouble fitting in.
You can still have the character obsessed with their last unsolved case, but if they're obsessed to the degree of random murder, then they're probably obsessed to the point of "no I will not take part in this arena game the fighter wants to do".
“If someone gets in my way or interferes in my investigation then they are not long for this world.”
How this is phrased definitely isnt LN, it's absolutely a LE view.
The paranoia is fine, but having the solution to resistance be automatically murder? that needs to change to avoid being LE and a "murderhobo".
Perhaps have them take the stance of "Whomever gets in the way of this case shall be removed from my path", where the removing could change method depending on the situation. Is someone aware of the case and advising you to drop the case and/or preventing you from continuing out of concern? then murder probably isnt the right answer for a LN character, so you'd try other methods, such as persuasion or stealth etc.
If a Chaotic Evil character doesn't have to be a hobo-murderer, then no alignment does. "It's what my character would do" is never a valid reason to disrupt things for the other players. Try to put yourself in the shoes of another player before you commit to some Lawful ideal that cannot be broken. You're not playing the game alone for your own sake.
(YouTube Link: Jane Douglas talks about playing Chaotic Evil in a D&D and Oxventure featurette for WotC Idle Champions.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Personally I would argue he is more chaotic than lawful as well being closer to a chaotic neutral or a neutral evil, I know alignment is highly subjective to a degree but I am not seeing anything about this character that marks him as particularly lawful, OP says he follows his own code and maybe there is some more information here that would make the lawful alignment make more sense that OP is not telling us but I don't see much of a code beyond "everything is permitted in the pursuit of my mission" which really isn't much of a lawful code, if he is willing to cross the murder threshold (especially since he is willing to cross it with little provocation) then what lines are there left to cross?
Also not sure what others think but I would also think that paranoia, especially a paranoia that causes him to act irrationally is really much more on the chaotic end of the scale.
In the end I think we would need to know more about the character and what your intentions are with this character? Did you just want to play a murderer and wanted backstory justification for doing so? And how exactly do you plan to incorporate this character into a group? Unless the character is stealthy about their kills and is able to hide them from the group it really feels like you are creating a character that will end up in a situation where the rest of the party is either forced to go along with the murder hobo playstyle regardless of how they want to play or forced to oppose your character in a battle to the death.
I would say that if you want to play a murderer you probably need to be a bit more subtle about it, don't just go for the kill always as the first course of action and don't just kill indiscriminately, pick your targets more carefully, targets that the party wont question so much if they happen to go missing, of course it does require a more evil leaning character and you still need a good backstory to justify the actions but there are ways to play a murderer that still can fit in with a mixed alignment party. For instance in one of the games I played in there was another player playing a cleric who served the Raven Queen, if the party encountered a character with a great deal of sorrow he would offer them an escape from their sorrow and if they accepted he would lead them into the woods where he and the DM would have a private conversation out of earshot of the rest of the party with him returning to the party alone.
A chaotic alignment does not mean that an individual is random or incapable of consistency.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Holding to a personal code that contradicts the law isn't lawful, it's chaotic.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Personally I think the trick to playing a chaotic character is to realize that chaos does not truly exist, by your logic there are very few characters that could actually be considered chaotic, I know there are many out there that consider the chaotic alignment to mean "lol random" and use the alignment as an excuse to do stupidly inappropriate things which is why so many refer to chaotic neutral as chaotic stupid, but you want to play a chaotic character well that does not piss off the group you are playing with they still need to act on a logic that makes sense to that character.
Every character in D&D needs something that gives meaning to their actions, whether it be a personality, goal or guiding principle, a chaotic good character is not going to suddenly murder an orphan because he is of a chaotic alignment and the chaotic part of his alignment demands that he acts randomly, he still needs a reason to murder the orphan that fits with their personality, goals or beliefs and if no reason exists then it makes no sense for them to murder the orphan, even a crazy person operates on some twisted form of logic that makes sense to them.
The code presented by the OP really isn't much of a code, a pattern of behaviour sure but not really a code, perhaps if the character worshiped a god of death and saw the living as an abomination then you might be able to justify a code that requires that character to kill the living as a lawful code, however from what we have read of this character his urge to kill does not really stem from a code so much as a paranoid feeling that these characters might interfere with his mission which really screams chaotic to me.
In the end though I am not sure this character is really the most well thought out character, feels like it was created to justify a more murder hobo playstyle and the backstory and "code" is more of a flimsy afterthought to try and justify it. I don't know if the OP has really thought about how this character fits into a group as it feels like somewhat more of a lone wolf character that would constantly be at odds with the party unless they are forced to go along with what this character wants. Perhaps I have a bad read on the character and there is more information that would make it make sense but this is just my impression of the character based on the info given.
Regarding the "lawful vs chaotic" debate, the principles are applied at a macro level, not a personal one. Saying "I have a code" doesn't make a character lawful, most individuals have a set of principles they won't violate. A lawful character conforms to some larger set of codes/principles/etc because they believe that's the most effective way for them to function in society. For some contrast, I've got a CN Archfey Warlock I'm playing right now who deliberately follows many of the same customs and mannerisms of the high Fey- such as abiding by the principles of hospitality as a guest- but he does this simply because he enjoys affecting these behaviors rather than a belief it's the most effective way for him to get by.
A Punisher-type character- which seems to very much be the type the original character of this thread is- is Chaotic, because they're basing how they respond to society at large with how it affects them. Not sure they're full-on murderhobo, but overall this is really not a good trait for a character in a cooperative game like D&D if you take it to this kind of extreme. In general, the "dangerous renegade/lone wolf" character type doesn't play well in D&D, since they force the rest of the party to be pulled along by their impulses. This works in fiction where there's a single hand managing everything that's happening in a story, but in a group endeavor like D&D it's bad form to frequently make unilateral decisions that alter the entire party's standing in the setting like that.
That's a common misconception.
Lawful does not mean that you follow the laws of the land, though following the laws of the land would mean that you are, at least in some manner, lawful. Apples are fruits, fruits aren't all apples ,and other such similes.
"Lawful" literally means that you have a cide that you follow and you stick to it. This could be "I follow the laws of the land", or it could be "I do not follow laws that I consider to be stupid". Most of us fall into that second one - how often do you really drive at the exact speed limit everywhere, even when it's a long, straight, open road with no houses to either side and a 30mph speed limit slapped on it for no reason?
When was the last time you dismantled your car to allow a horse to pass?
I tend to think of them as "Predictable" and "Unpredictable", because I feel that represents their methods better. A "chaotic" individual who follows a code to cause as much chaos as possible everywhere they go is in fact Lawful, because they follow that code. If you have a player who you know will say "I do >most chaotic thing possible here<" in every situation, they're lawful in their pursuit of chaos. Go figure.
So, if you can predict their actions easily, they're lawful - the princess was kidnapped? I know exactly what the paladin, dogood holymann, knight of the realm and protector of princesses will do in this situation! Whereas Lonewolf Edgypast the Rogue could do anything - save the princess, or try to use the king & queens search to raid the castle whilst there are less guards. Predictable vs unpredictable. Neutral characters are somewhat predictable but can surprise you.
To this end, I consider the "chaotic neutral" barbarian in my game to be Lawful, because he will do anything he can to try and make a situation chaotic. Predictable.
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!
I'll say this again: the lawful-chaotic spectrum, as described in the PHB, is awfully inconsistent and ill-thought out. The discussion of what it means to be lawful or chaotic a few posts back is very illustrative of that, both sides were right and both were wrong. Following a personal code is in the definition of lawful evil (which contradicts the good version of the lawful-chaotic spectrum which describes being lawful as following the law/what society sees as good), but being single-minded and willing to do whatever it takes without consideration of the cost is not the definition of lawful either - that's being focused and single-minded. If anything, that suggests not being bound by principles (I will do X unless Y, Eg I will help the downtrodden, unless it involves breaking the law - the second part is the lawful aspect, not willing to break principles in order to achieve the goal, which is the first part).
As described in the books, the definitions are inconsistent and contradictory. That leads to people taking very different things away from what they mean. Almost every argument I've seen about this kind of thing has stemmed from these problems where two or more people have taken different things away from the descriptions and clash when they express their opinions which are based on those differing interpretations.
Ultimately though, it's more important to be consistent than "right". OP, while these opinions might show you different understandings and expose you to different points of view, you have to make up your own mind as to what lawful v chaotic means.
My tu'pence:
Lawful means principled. They have a code that they abide by. That code can be a personal one, it can be the law, it can be their religious commandments, it can come from almost anywhere, but they have a code,.a set of principles that they use to resolve how act in a situation. They believe that the means justify the ends - they will follow the code as they interpret it, even if it produces bad results. There is inherent value in keeping the code.
Chaotic means that the ends justify the means. It's about the end goal, how you get there doesn't really matter so much as where you end up. While the means aren't irrelevant (at least on the good side of the spectrum), if no one's harmed in the process, then it's fine, even if it's against the law etc.
I'd say he's chaotic because "Basically, he’s a killer, but only when someone threatens his mission". In other words, he generally thinks he killing is not the right course of action...but he's willing to kill if it's advantageous to his goals. That smacks of chaotic to me, although there is a ton of context missing that could change that judgement.
Again, that's my take on it. You need to form your own.
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.
Under this framework however chaos simply does not exist, all characters are lawful they just follow different laws or react in different ways as according to their own personality and motivations, even Lonewolf Edgypast the rogue has a behavioural pattern even if it is not immediately recognizable by yourself.
The "I do not follow laws that I consider to be stupid" is not really so much of a code as it is a behavioural pattern and I would say that this statement would put a character in the neutral zone between law and chaos, they understand the importance of law to a degree but also recognize it's pitfalls as well, a chaotic character does not really pay much heed to laws at all and simply does what they think is the best course of action for their own goals and personality.
A chaotic good character would do a morally good deed not because there is a law saying that they should do it but because they believe it is the right course of action, a good action is good regardless of what the law says.
A chaotic evil character would do what either selfishly benefits or amuses themselves or screws over their enemies in the moment and not care about any collateral damage it may cause.
A chaotic neutral character is somewhere in between mainly focused on their own personal freedom but they wont stoop to the levels that a chaotic evil character might to achieve their goals nor are they altruistic enough to do the right thing if there is no real benefit for them to do so.
A Lawful good character on the other hand follows the law because they believe that ultimately in doing so they are serving the greater good, a chaotic good character would not punish the hungry orphan for stealing a loaf of bread from the greedy merchant because they know that they are only doing what they need to do to help their siblings survive. A lawful good character however while they might not punish the orphan harshly would still return the loaf to the greedy merchant because ultimately the laws against stealing serve a greater purpose and to let one person break the law even for a noble cause weakens the foundation of that law and becomes a slippery slope where people come up with increasingly flimsy justifications for breaking it.
That said this is why conversations about alignment become so messy as everyone has their own interpretation, what is good and what is evil while having some constants that most people would agree on is still largely subjective, law vs chaos is sort of similar in a way but I think in that case it is more of a discussion on what constitutes as a law and whether or not chaos truly exists. Some would argue that law explicitly means the law of the land however I would argue that it can include personal codes of conduct as well however this one can be more flimsy. I would say when creating a lawful character that follows a personal code then that code needs to be something that would prevent the character from potentially doing something that may benefit them or be a good action in the short term.
A code against stealing for example, while you may be able to justify stealing something in the short term as morally justifiable a lawful character would still refuse to do it as they fear the consequences of eroding those binding laws and codes that guide their actions. As cliche as it is to bring up Batman in a conversation about alignment I would argue that he is closer to Lawful good, sure he is more of a vigilante who often acts outside the rules of Gotham but he still has ties with commissioner Gordon and the police and he still has his own personal code, a chaotic good character would have probably killed the Joker by now as they would have recognized that the character is simply irredeemable and by killing him they would end up saving more lives in the long run, however Batman cannot break his rule against killing no matter how justified it may be because he fears that once he crosses that line there is no going back.
I 100% agree that this is where these conversations get hung up, where people have a different opinion on the nature of lawful/chaotic and good/evil.
I am interested in trying to single out what it is that we agree on with the Lawful side of things. I will try and keep it brief so we can all talk more smoothly on it!
Taking your example of a Lawful Good character who would return the loaf of bread stolen by the orphan, because the law must not be broken. I agree with you that yes, this character is lawful, but I would argue that they are Lawful Neutral, not Lawful good. In my mind, the 3 types of Lawful would be:
Lawful Good: They have morals that guide them to do good, and their laws (rules for themselves) would be along the lines of "Nobody will suffer unjustice whilst I can prevent it" or something like that. They would see the situation, and would likely buy the bread to give to the orphan. This is because attacking/threatening or otherwise siding against the merchant would be an injustice for them, who just want to trade peacefully. Siding against the orphan is an injustice that they will go hungry. So they will do what they need to to resolve the situation.
Lawful Neutral means that they do not let their morals interfere excessively with their mantra, that the rules must be followed. They would give the bread back to the trader, and then decide what to do with the orphan - help them or turn them in, they will decide based on the situation. If their rules state that they will follow the law, then they will do so regardless of the morals of the law - if a law states that any who extend a hand to beg in this city must have it struck off, then the lawful neutral character is going to obey it.
Lawful Evil might have a set of rules that "any who break the law must be punished", or they might have a rule saying "Any who do not care for others are unworthy of care". Both of these are lawful outlooks, in that they are rules to follow, and both lead to different conclusions - the first sees the orphan punished, and the second sees the trader punished. In both cases, their actions may not obey the laws of the land, but they are following what they believe to be right.
I won't waffle on as I'm interested in what people think of this!
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!
Yeah I mostly agree with that, the point I was getting at with the loaf of bread analogy was that the Lawful Good character would be against stealing the bread regardless of how it could help those in need, though you are right that the lawful good character would try to help both parties in a way that does not break the law where the lawful neutral character may return the bread and turn in the orphan to be subject to the rule of law.
As for the "any who do not care for others are unworthy of care" I would say that is more of a belief rather than a code of lawful conduct and does not seem like the sort of belief an evil character would hold, I think a lawful evil character would believe the laws are meant to enforce the status quo and support those with the power and ambition to rise through the ranks and thus would punish the orphan for the impertinence of breaking the laws that keep those in their station in their place.
Awesome, we have an agreement on the good/neutral side of societal law interaction!
The second point is a difficult one - I feel like you are looking through a very tightly societal lens, where everything that happens is either inside or outside of a set of laws set out by a governing body/higher power. I agree that a character who follows the law out of principle is lawful, but disagree that a character must follow the law to be lawful. How does this character interact with things in the wild? Does anything go in the "law of the jungle"? What if they travel from a good city (EG London) to a chaotic neutral city (EG Tortuga) through a jungle with no laws? What standards to they hold themselves to? IF they change how they act depending on where they are, then they are not holding themselves to a code, and thus are not sounding all that lawful!
Regarding the evil character who seeks to punish those who don't care for others - this character may attack or blackmail the trader, or threaten them ("I'm stealing the bread now, what are you going to do about it? Not so tough when it's not a child?"). Their actions may have good consequences, but they may still be evil. The way I see good/neutral/evil is something I've taken the time to write down, so here's the text dump!
“Others”.
“Others” are used in the definition of Good, Neutral, and Evil alignments. It is important, therefore, that “Others” be defined accurately.
“Others” refers to creatures in the world to which the character holds no emotional ties. A party member is not an “Other”, nor is a companion NPC, or a NPC with which the character has interacted with enough to form an opinion of. “Others” instead refers to creatures and humanoids which will be affected by the characters actions, but which the character does not know - for example, if a villain is holding a commoner hostage, the commoner is an “Other”. The Villain is not, as they will be interacting with the character extensively.
Good
A Good character will always hold the effect of their actions upon Others as an important aspect of their decision making. If their actions would cause Others harm, then they will likely reconsider their options rather than risk harming an Other. The welfare of Others forms a strong argument in their decision making, moreso than their own needs.
Neutral
A Neutral character will factor the needs of Others into their decision making, but this does not hold a greater weight than their own needs, or the needs of their comrades. They can be easily swayed by improvements of a deal, such as being offered rewards - the rewards lessening the needs of them and their comrades, and putting the Others first.
Evil
An Evil character does not consider the needs of Others in their decision making. They will consider the needs of their comrades and friends, and are not dedicated to harming the welfare of Others, but they do not consider the welfare of Others to be their problem nor their concern. When an Evil character meets and interacts with a creature or humanoid, they will form some form of bond or opinion of it, and it will cease to be an Other - and can therefore be considered in their decision making. An example of this might be an Evil character deciding that themselves and their party should work together to protect themselves, without considering the needs of Others who also might benefit from protecting.
It is important to note that there is no inherent aspect of an Evil character which will not consider the needs of their comrades, unless the character is also Selfish - which is a flaw, not an alignment.
Anyways, that's what I wrote on it, and I think it makes sense - will welcome feedback on that!
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!
What most of the Lawful alignments seem to say is that people who follow them do what society, or the society they have grown up and interacted with, expects of them.
The one Lawful alignment that mentions a "personal code" is Lawful Neutral, which goes against the precedent of what the other two lawful alignments say.
Despite alignment being quite a useful tool, there are some flaws and confusing areas like this that need to be clarified in the next edition. Personally, I think that lawful should mean something along the lines of: "Does what is expected by the society they interact with or effect most."
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Hmm. True. You raise a good point. I guess we do need to assume that the society is lawful and reasonable if we want the definition to make some sense.
So maybe we should say something like "Does what is expected by the reasonable society they interact with or effect most."
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.There is Lawful as self-motivation and Lawful as perceived by others.
They overlap but don't always agree.
Oxventure defines it by perception instead of motivation. One could argue that the Chaotic Evil character mentioned earlier ITT dogmatically follows a code that causes chaos for other characters (in a fun and non-obstructive way to the other players).
I prefer to go by how it appears to local society rather than the reasoning behind it. Reason is logical and often considered non-chaotic, being at least Neutral and usually Lawful. An extremely rare few would be Chaotic anything if we went by motivations.
As for reasons behind killing people who get in the way, that's immaterial to those affected by it. Killing people because "it's what my character would" do is the refrain of the characters who murder hobos. Don't do it. You might have fun at first until everyone gets tired of you ruining everything for them. You'll hoard all opportunities for anyone to contribute. Nobody likes players to do that to them. Don't be that player.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.