Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Well, it varies by depth. If you've got someone who's worked out an entire philosophy that they could write a book on, that's probably Lawful. If the rules can be typed out on single sheet of paper and clarification comes in the form of some kind of "I trust my instincts", that's on the Chaotic side of things.
Ultimately, the whole law-chaos axis is extremely open to interpretation. (AKA it doesn't make sense.) That's what happens when you try to impose coherent ethics on what was originally an oppositional conflict between two different sets of cosmic entities, both of which were jerks, and AFAIR, neither really had an expressed moral system.
The current rules try to define it in terms of the expectations of society vs the desires of the individual, which is coherent as long as you ignore the fact that "society" is highly variable in and of itself, but these are supposed to be universal moral codes. (In practice, it just assumes "society" is "modern western society".)
One can also see it as whether you favor the needs of the larger whole, or those of the individual. Some try to frame it as having a rigid moral code vs not. These are all at best moderately coherent, none of them can cleanly divide up moral codes into only three divisions where one of them is "not firmly anchored to either end", and they all break down badly as soon as people with different definitions start trying to discuss things without agreeing on their starting point.
If you look at which creatures/NPCs are characterized as lawful in sourcebooks, there's a significant dearth of examples who follow an individual internal code.
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.
Adult Blue Dragon Adult Bronze Dragon Adult Gold Dragon
All Lawful, none written as being followers of a particular external doctrine. Not saying Lawful doesn't tend towards big formal systems, but other iterations do exist.
Paladins with their oaths …
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would describe it this way.
NG - All that matters is doing good, how you achieve that is irrelevant. Sometimes you do it in an organized fashion, other times you go it alone. Will ally with organizations or lone wolves, so long as good is the result. Sometimes you follow the law, sometimes you need to break the law, so long as the end result is good (and no evil committed along the way).They do good solely because it is the good thing to do. Won't commit evil under any circumstances.
CG - Values personal freedom, doesn't like being told what to do, might be disorganized, doesn't believe in organizational membership or rules - but always has good intentions. Also would not commit evil, so although they may be willing to break laws to achieve a good outcome, they won't murder to do it, etc.
To me, Elminster was more NG than CG. Yes, he sometimes did his own thing his own way, but he also worked with (and founded) several organizations devoted to working against evil. That's not something a CG individual would have done as often as he did it.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Paladins aren't required to be lawful. And their oaths are still to a higher organization.
Dragons are and always have been weird in terms of alignment because as species they're antisocial to the point of not really having a society as we would ordinarily recognize it.
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.
After thinking about it, Elminster's alignment doesn't actually matter since the game no longer has any mechanical effects based on alignment. So he can be whatever alignment you want him to be.
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.
That I can agree with - and, as others have said, it is really mostly in the player and DM’s perception.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.