So, I was once on a minecraft D&D server, and was having trouble dealing with alignment. Here is the explanation I got, and I hope that others find it useful. Lets start with Good.
Good: You do what you can for others, within your means.
Neutral(GoodvsEvil): You either work only for money or something like that.
Evil: Everything you do is for your personal gain.
Lawful: You work within the limits of Society, or a personal code. You usually keep your word.
Neutral(LawvsChaos): You either hold to both law and chaos, or neither.
Chaotic: You work by your own principles, often in ways not accepted in normal society.
All D&D alignments are combinations of these basic parts. Feel free to add on
I would only argue that the definition of Neutral (goodvevil) isn't "you work only for the money." That comes across more Chaotic, not caring about the outcomes of your actions. I would say neutrality along the good-evil spectrum world translate more to "I disagree with the dualistic view of morality" and/or "I find distinctions of good or evil to be arbitrary and choose to judge actions on their merit."
That is to say that, when your alignment ends in -Neutral (as in Lawful-neutral or chaotic-neutral), what you're saying is that your character opts out of the good-evil dichotomy and instead places their ideological stance completely with Law or Chaos.
Personally I like both interpretations of Neutral(GoodvsEvil). Regarding the Vuldovyol's interpretation, I tend to play most of my characters as [instert lawful, true, or chaotic here]-neutral and I think it is because I share your view of the prefix part of the alignment. to me, a good characters is someone who is driven to help others and see them happy. An evil character is one who's wants drive him to hurt others. A neutral character is one who is driven less by cravings of society and has a value (or values) such as money, knowledge, advancement of skill, etc. that doesn't matter where he is at in relative position to others.
To me, Good sympathizes, They can feel the pain and suffering of others and, whether it be selflessly or selfishly they don't like that pain and therefore work to relieve others. They can still have values and desires, such as wealth or knowledge, that bring them positive emotions, but no matter how much those values are sated they will still hurt when others hurt, and feel negative emotions at others suffering. They may have to sacrifice a part of their own desires to relieve the pain of those around them. For joy they may have to balance their own desires against the suffering of those around them.
Evil envies, they crave to be placed above others in some way; that can be power, political power, money, knowledge, it can even be a strong desire to be right and for someone else to be wrong. They hate it when another person has more of what they want than they do. They won't feel bad when the captain loses his position to mutiny, and if they wanted such a position it would even make them happy (if it didn't take them further from the position) or they might seethe in anger that someone else got the position instead of them. They wouldn't feel pity when a wealthy 'friend' goes bankrupt unless they lose benefits in the process, this is especially the case if their desire is wealth. They envy, hate when made a mockery of, get angry when belittled and aren't satisfied until they can put themselves above the offender in some way. They will derive joy from the suffering of others. They may cause the suffering of others, hence why good hates evil so much (and honestly even evil hates evil).
Neutral has values but it doesn't feel the need to take because others have more, it also doesn't feel the need to give because others have less. It simply craves what it values and doesn't crave a balance or imbalance to those values, it just needs to be sated.
This neutral fits the original post on neutral(GoodvsEvil), neutral works more for their values.
As I said I primarily play [instert lawful, true, or chaotic here]-neutral characters. To give an example of the two characters i'm playing in campaigns right now. The first is Vahlim Mah'Kerraduess, a lawful-neutral monk with a level in rogue. A human raised among elves he craves knowledge to the extent that he was always after their most safeguarded secrets, simply because he found them interesting. He was trained in both magic as a wizard, and monastic traditions, he became a rather powerful wizard with a near perfect memory. Then he was hit by a advanced version of a feeblemind spell by an elven wizard who's research specialized in the mind (he entered a state of sharp instinct and killed the mage). The feeblemind spell wore off but only partially. It left him in a state where his memory doesn't go back any further than 7 days. It is perfect for the first 4, then fades into nothingness over 5-7 days ago. He can access his vast pool of knowledge through sleep (and to a lesser degree alcohol). This crippling loss of memory has made him rather inept as a mage, thus he relies on the muscle memory his monk training kept. He keeps a journal to record enemies he has made and goals that would increase his pool of knowledge accessible through dream. He adventures to learn and craves it. No interest in others, whether it be for their benefit or demise.
My other character is a rogue/wizard (4 levels rogue, 8 wizard, all the rest are going into rogue). Chaotic-Neutral. A hyper-paranoid, over-analyzing character who's flaws have made him extremely observant. He takes every precaution he can to simply survive. There it is, survival is his goal, he doesn't needlessly steal things (except secrets seen through observation, he sees everything; then he sees more than how things are, coming up with conspiracy theories), doesn't needlessly kill, doesn't needlessly harm others, doesn't needlessly sacrifice himself for those around him. His purpose for traveling with companions is survival, the whole campaign has a darker tone. He is tricky (rogue arcane trickster, has nondetection, greater invisibility, and multiple forms of teleportation) and therefore believes that if he walks into a trap, he would be the more likely to survive than his companions. They are his contingency plan. This campaign has a darker tone and sanity is included as a stat.
There it is neutral(GoodvsEvil). Not altruistic, not overly egotistic.
I don't think you have taken it as far as it should go in several cases. I see it more like this:
Good - You support the virtues of Charity, Loyalty, Faith, Kindness, etc. even when that support is not convenient for you in the present circumstance
Neutral (G-E) - You find the virtues of good and evil comical because none of it matters in any real sense to you
Evil - You support virtues of Strength, Power, Control, Greed, Cunning, etc. to help weed out the weak and give you Dominance over others (those who have what it takes to take what they want)
Lawful - You support structured society. Emperors run empires, Judges decide guilt and innocence, Officers command armies, Bishops administer churches, A parent is the head of the family, and the decisions of duly appointed/elected officials are honored
Neutral (L-C) - You see some benefits in structured societies and some in less structured societies and you dislike it when either approach is taken too far (e.g. laws are necessary to protect individuals from theft but excessive structure stifles creativity)
Chaotic - You despise authority structures. You believe everyone has the power to come and go as they please, to join of leave an organization or community at their whim, to speak their mind at any time, to wear whatever they want, go wherever they want, etc.
I'm not sure that the L/C and G/E parts can be taken separately.
The Lawful aspect changes when combined with Good, Neutral, and Evil. It's not just one flavor of Lawful. Lawful with Good follows a specific range of tenets, disregarding all contradictory tenets. Lawful with Neutral follows one tenet only. Lawful Evil follows any tenet to the strict letter if it gives them what they want. One Lawful is selective, another is singular, and the last is opportunistic yet bound to the exact verbiage.
Likewise with Neutral on the G/E axis. Lawful Neutral has a cold, uncaring process of thought. True Neutral is impartial. Chaotic Neutral is whimsical. One is distant, another takes all views into account, and the last is filled with emotion.
The alignments seem to me to be 9 distinct alignments instead of 3 flavors of each other.
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.
So, I was once on a minecraft D&D server, and was having trouble dealing with alignment. Here is the explanation I got, and I hope that others find it useful.
Lets start with Good.
Good: You do what you can for others, within your means.
Neutral(GoodvsEvil): You either work only for money or something like that.
Evil: Everything you do is for your personal gain.
Lawful: You work within the limits of Society, or a personal code. You usually keep your word.
Neutral(LawvsChaos): You either hold to both law and chaos, or neither.
Chaotic: You work by your own principles, often in ways not accepted in normal society.
All D&D alignments are combinations of these basic parts. Feel free to add on
I would only argue that the definition of Neutral (goodvevil) isn't "you work only for the money." That comes across more Chaotic, not caring about the outcomes of your actions. I would say neutrality along the good-evil spectrum world translate more to "I disagree with the dualistic view of morality" and/or "I find distinctions of good or evil to be arbitrary and choose to judge actions on their merit."
That is to say that, when your alignment ends in -Neutral (as in Lawful-neutral or chaotic-neutral), what you're saying is that your character opts out of the good-evil dichotomy and instead places their ideological stance completely with Law or Chaos.
Personally I like both interpretations of Neutral(GoodvsEvil). Regarding the Vuldovyol's interpretation, I tend to play most of my characters as [instert lawful, true, or chaotic here]-neutral and I think it is because I share your view of the prefix part of the alignment. to me, a good characters is someone who is driven to help others and see them happy. An evil character is one who's wants drive him to hurt others. A neutral character is one who is driven less by cravings of society and has a value (or values) such as money, knowledge, advancement of skill, etc. that doesn't matter where he is at in relative position to others.
To me, Good sympathizes, They can feel the pain and suffering of others and, whether it be selflessly or selfishly they don't like that pain and therefore work to relieve others. They can still have values and desires, such as wealth or knowledge, that bring them positive emotions, but no matter how much those values are sated they will still hurt when others hurt, and feel negative emotions at others suffering. They may have to sacrifice a part of their own desires to relieve the pain of those around them. For joy they may have to balance their own desires against the suffering of those around them.
Evil envies, they crave to be placed above others in some way; that can be power, political power, money, knowledge, it can even be a strong desire to be right and for someone else to be wrong. They hate it when another person has more of what they want than they do. They won't feel bad when the captain loses his position to mutiny, and if they wanted such a position it would even make them happy (if it didn't take them further from the position) or they might seethe in anger that someone else got the position instead of them. They wouldn't feel pity when a wealthy 'friend' goes bankrupt unless they lose benefits in the process, this is especially the case if their desire is wealth. They envy, hate when made a mockery of, get angry when belittled and aren't satisfied until they can put themselves above the offender in some way. They will derive joy from the suffering of others. They may cause the suffering of others, hence why good hates evil so much (and honestly even evil hates evil).
Neutral has values but it doesn't feel the need to take because others have more, it also doesn't feel the need to give because others have less. It simply craves what it values and doesn't crave a balance or imbalance to those values, it just needs to be sated.
This neutral fits the original post on neutral(GoodvsEvil), neutral works more for their values.
As I said I primarily play [instert lawful, true, or chaotic here]-neutral characters. To give an example of the two characters i'm playing in campaigns right now. The first is Vahlim Mah'Kerraduess, a lawful-neutral monk with a level in rogue. A human raised among elves he craves knowledge to the extent that he was always after their most safeguarded secrets, simply because he found them interesting. He was trained in both magic as a wizard, and monastic traditions, he became a rather powerful wizard with a near perfect memory. Then he was hit by a advanced version of a feeblemind spell by an elven wizard who's research specialized in the mind (he entered a state of sharp instinct and killed the mage). The feeblemind spell wore off but only partially. It left him in a state where his memory doesn't go back any further than 7 days. It is perfect for the first 4, then fades into nothingness over 5-7 days ago. He can access his vast pool of knowledge through sleep (and to a lesser degree alcohol). This crippling loss of memory has made him rather inept as a mage, thus he relies on the muscle memory his monk training kept. He keeps a journal to record enemies he has made and goals that would increase his pool of knowledge accessible through dream. He adventures to learn and craves it. No interest in others, whether it be for their benefit or demise.
My other character is a rogue/wizard (4 levels rogue, 8 wizard, all the rest are going into rogue). Chaotic-Neutral. A hyper-paranoid, over-analyzing character who's flaws have made him extremely observant. He takes every precaution he can to simply survive. There it is, survival is his goal, he doesn't needlessly steal things (except secrets seen through observation, he sees everything; then he sees more than how things are, coming up with conspiracy theories), doesn't needlessly kill, doesn't needlessly harm others, doesn't needlessly sacrifice himself for those around him. His purpose for traveling with companions is survival, the whole campaign has a darker tone. He is tricky (rogue arcane trickster, has nondetection, greater invisibility, and multiple forms of teleportation) and therefore believes that if he walks into a trap, he would be the more likely to survive than his companions. They are his contingency plan. This campaign has a darker tone and sanity is included as a stat.
There it is neutral(GoodvsEvil). Not altruistic, not overly egotistic.
I don't think you have taken it as far as it should go in several cases. I see it more like this:
Good - You support the virtues of Charity, Loyalty, Faith, Kindness, etc. even when that support is not convenient for you in the present circumstance
Neutral (G-E) - You find the virtues of good and evil comical because none of it matters in any real sense to you
Evil - You support virtues of Strength, Power, Control, Greed, Cunning, etc. to help weed out the weak and give you Dominance over others (those who have what it takes to take what they want)
Lawful - You support structured society. Emperors run empires, Judges decide guilt and innocence, Officers command armies, Bishops administer churches, A parent is the head of the family, and the decisions of duly appointed/elected officials are honored
Neutral (L-C) - You see some benefits in structured societies and some in less structured societies and you dislike it when either approach is taken too far (e.g. laws are necessary to protect individuals from theft but excessive structure stifles creativity)
Chaotic - You despise authority structures. You believe everyone has the power to come and go as they please, to join of leave an organization or community at their whim, to speak their mind at any time, to wear whatever they want, go wherever they want, etc.
I'm not sure that the L/C and G/E parts can be taken separately.
The Lawful aspect changes when combined with Good, Neutral, and Evil. It's not just one flavor of Lawful. Lawful with Good follows a specific range of tenets, disregarding all contradictory tenets. Lawful with Neutral follows one tenet only. Lawful Evil follows any tenet to the strict letter if it gives them what they want. One Lawful is selective, another is singular, and the last is opportunistic yet bound to the exact verbiage.
Likewise with Neutral on the G/E axis. Lawful Neutral has a cold, uncaring process of thought. True Neutral is impartial. Chaotic Neutral is whimsical. One is distant, another takes all views into account, and the last is filled with emotion.
The alignments seem to me to be 9 distinct alignments instead of 3 flavors of each other.
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.