Play a character, not an alignment. Make an actual PERSONALITY, not just base everything on two words on a character sheet.
I will say, though, that these last few posts demonstrate admirably to me why any attempt to codify 'good and evil', something philosophers and scholars have failed to do for millennia, is a fool's errand and should be, as I believe the kids say nowadays, yeeted from the game.
Play a character, not an alignment. Make an actual PERSONALITY, not just base everything on two words on a character sheet.
I will say, though, that these last few posts demonstrate admirably to me why any attempt to codify 'good and evil', something philosophers and scholars have failed to do for millennia, is a fool's errand and should be, as I believe the kids say nowadays, yeeted from the game.
I agree with you, but we do need a code that says, this is good, this is evil, this is chaotic. Without that, we would have people doing whatever they wanted, and without an agreed-upon code, there would be no consequences; no way to punish them; that being said, after reading yours and others responses, I have come to the conclusion that my real question should have been: Is the alignment of a person, a consequence of the way they have chosen to live their life or does the way a person lives their life, come from their alignment?
In other words; are there some people who are inherently good and others inherently evil, or chaotic, or any combination thereof?
I now have the answer to my question. Lord Genome is teetering between is Lawful Neutral. He wanted to be good - perhaps goodness was in his nature (it certainly seemed that it was later in the anime) but when good failed, he turned to evil.
I think he is a good example of someone who is so blinded by their desire to do good, that they will do whatever it takes - even being evil, so long as he can serve the greater good. I definitely do not think that he is naturally evil though. I think he is more Lawful Neutral, with a Good personality, since he tried to be the Lawful Good Paladin first, and it was only when that failed, that he became this other guy.
So, yes, I think that I will make this character Lawful Evil, but make him bend more towards Lawful Neutral.
This would seem to fit with the anime as well. When the humans on the surface, Simon and his gang, first learned of Lord Genome, they saw him as evil - he was this evil monster who had enslaved the human race. It wasn't until much later, when they learned the truth, that their ideas shifted. Also; in the anime, he is showing as having a love for his "children" he wants them to be happy and grow up and live their lives, and although he does end up discarding them in the end, he only does so after they begin to ask questions from which there is no return.
Anyway, I think he would naturally be Lawful Neutral, with a penchant for good and is only being evil because there is no other way that he can protect the home and the species and the people that he loves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Well, good and evil are not just abstract concepts. I'm sure this will not be the prevailing opinion, but it is a fact. Consider that you know when you are doing something wrong, such as stealing a cookie or damaging someone's property just to spite them. You may convince yourself that you are justified in doing the act, but it is either basically selfish or a case of two wrongs don't make a right. But there is no need in debating that here because it doesn't matter in D&D whether G&E are real or abstract concepts.
For D&D, I don't see why alignment should matter unless you are appealing to a deity for help. Then, it should be the most important factor, IMO. OK, there might be some weapons / armor / devices that are alignment specific, but it seems that need not be the case unless a deity is involved.
So many of the examples above and in other discussions want to discuss the difference between CG and LG when it seems to me the examples show the character is really LN or CN. For example, the observation that one leader is ruthless to individuals outside their circle but benevolent to those inside their circle are more in line with Neutral viewpoints. They don't have a world view that embraces goodness throughout, nor evil throughout, but they go either way depending on what they believe the situation calls for. As an aside, I don't see anything particularly benevolent in treating your "teammates" with kindness because you expect the same from them. So I would probably tag the leader of that nation as evil myself.
Someone said there are some things a player should just not do if they are "good" (or "evil"?). But I find there are many evil things folks will do to further their ends even they consider themselves to be good (in RL or as a character). How many good characters would kill an individual just because they were asked to do it if that furthered their quest? How many folks will attack and likely kill an individual on the "say so" of an NPC because they believe the NPC is "Good" alignment? What is the "victims" side of the argument? Most often this boils down to Might Makes Right justice. The Governor said he would like you to kill the "evil" warlock in the Ash Forest. You go find the warlock and kill him. The governor had the greater power and influence so he got what he wanted.
So I guess my thesis is most players are generally Spasmodic Neural. They will be any of the other eight alignments as it suits them in their current situation, and it probably balances out to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic about the same. They are not trying to stay Neutral in these situations, they are just being expedient.
As to the original question, a Lawful Good Paladin would certainly do evil things, such as murder, to further his ends. But in D&D we don't get caught up in good and evil to the degree we should to save our souls. I've played many hours of Skyrim: ES5. I am certain I committed may evil acts and I consider myself to be a good guy. I have always wanted to see what Skyrim would be like if I tried to be truly Good. I imagine I'd spend a lot of time hunting. Getting the enemy to attack me so I could claim self defense enough not to be evil would probably lead to a short life.
So I guess my thesis is most players are generally Spasmodic Neural. They will be any of the other eight alignments as it suits them in their current situation, and it probably balances out to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic about the same. They are not trying to stay Neutral in these situations, they are just being expedient.
"Spasmodic Neutral"! That's hilarious. I'm going to use that term to describe murder-hobo PCs from now on!
Any being with free will is capable of determining its own path in life; absolutely nobody is 'inherently' good or evil. (If it has no free will or choice in the matter, it's neither.) If an angel can fall, a demon can rise.
Actions determine alignment, alignment does not determine actions.
SocialFoxes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'punishing' people for alignment stuff. There are no punishments anymore. No class changes, no loss of class abilities or feat access ... heck, back in 1e and 2e, if your alignment shifted, you lost a character level, which was as dumb as it sounds.
If the PCs are wildly inconsistent in their personalities, you don't need alignment, you need better players. I've not used alignment at all for over a decade (even weeding out most of its intrusions into 3e), and I have never had a problem like that.
Any being with free will is capable of determining its own path in life; absolutely nobody is 'inherently' good or evil. (If it has no free will or choice in the matter, it's neither.) If an angel can fall, a demon can rise.
Actions determine alignment, alignment does not determine actions.
SocialFoxes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'punishing' people for alignment stuff. There are no punishments anymore. No class changes, no loss of class abilities or feat access ... heck, back in 1e and 2e, if your alignment shifted, you lost a character level, which was as dumb as it sounds.
If the PCs are wildly inconsistent in their personalities, you don't need alignment, you need better players. I've not used alignment at all for over a decade (even weeding out most of its intrusions into 3e), and I have never had a problem like that.
I didn't mean punishing the players, I meant punishing the characters according to the in-game social code.
If somebody does something like kill a shop keeper because they wanted a magical item that they couldn't afford, so just decided to kill the shop keeper and take it; you'd say that was evil.
Now that murderer might have bounty hunters sent after them, they might be arrested and put in prison, they might just not be trusted by anyone again because, by the codes of that society, they are evil.
But if there was no in-game social code; no laws essentially, how would we know what was evil and what was not.
What I was saying is that the codes and laws of an in-game society are built upon alignment. The LG Paladin, is going to hunt down the CE Sorcerer, who has just killed that shop keeper and stole the magic item; because the laws of society say that person needs brought to justice, and the moral codes of that society, say that person is evil.
The world is built upon alignments, we need them to replicate the real world in-game, and that was really what I was saying.
Actions determine alignment, alignment does not determine actions.
What came first for the character you rolled up? Their written Alignment or their first real action? :)
Joking aside, I agree with your statement, because in my mind it has to be true. if it wasn't you couldn't change over the a campaign. But since you need to start somewhere its not a bad start. Having a character with bonds/flaws/ideals in conjunction is better.
Honestly, It is more useful for a for how monsters or NPCs in a pinch might act. It's good enough for that. Topic example of that: compare the three very different Succubus from Dnd canon:
Malcanthet is the "default" here. The other two have by their actions, changed their alignment. For a DM its helpful to know how they act. For Player it is helpful reminder on how you generally act. But you certainly should change it if your actions lead you down a different path.
The old style 1st edition view is buried for a reason. No need for that.
Any being with free will is capable of determining its own path in life; absolutely nobody is 'inherently' good or evil. (If it has no free will or choice in the matter, it's neither.) If an angel can fall, a demon can rise.
Actions determine alignment, alignment does not determine actions.
SocialFoxes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'punishing' people for alignment stuff. There are no punishments anymore. No class changes, no loss of class abilities or feat access ... heck, back in 1e and 2e, if your alignment shifted, you lost a character level, which was as dumb as it sounds.
If the PCs are wildly inconsistent in their personalities, you don't need alignment, you need better players. I've not used alignment at all for over a decade (even weeding out most of its intrusions into 3e), and I have never had a problem like that.
I didn't mean punishing the players, I meant punishing the characters according to the in-game social code.
If somebody does something like kill a shop keeper because they wanted a magical item that they couldn't afford, so just decided to kill the shop keeper and take it; you'd say that was evil.
Now that murderer might have bounty hunters sent after them, they might be arrested and put in prison, they might just not be trusted by anyone again because, by the codes of that society, they are evil.
But if there was no in-game social code; no laws essentially, how would we know what was evil and what was not.
What I was saying is that the codes and laws of an in-game society are built upon alignment. The LG Paladin, is going to hunt down the CE Sorcerer, who has just killed that shop keeper and stole the magic item; because the laws of society say that person needs brought to justice, and the moral codes of that society, say that person is evil.
The world is built upon alignments, we need them to replicate the real world in-game, and that was really what I was saying.
The character would not be punished because of 'violating an alignment'; he'd be punished for committing a crime. The paladin would also hunt down a CG Sorcerer who did that, or the LG Monk who did that, or ANYBODY who did that. Or he might let the actual law enforcement authorities do it.
Legal does not mean moral or right. Slavery was legal in the US for centuries. Marital r*pe was legal until the 1970s. Similarly, illegal does not mean immoral or wrong. In California, it's illegal to put money in other peoples' parking meters. In some places, feeding the homeless is illegal. In New Jersey, it's illegal to pump your own gas.
The world is most definitely not built on alignments. People don't know they have alignments,. The very concept of alignment is ludicrous. That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
Play a character, not an alignment. Make an actual PERSONALITY, not just base everything on two words on a character sheet.
I will say, though, that these last few posts demonstrate admirably to me why any attempt to codify 'good and evil', something philosophers and scholars have failed to do for millennia, is a fool's errand and should be, as I believe the kids say nowadays, yeeted from the game.
It yeeted into space, and flung from the game thank you!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MissionReaction yea hi. If you have any ligit homebrew creations, send them to me. Also newly appointed priest of… THE SUPREME COURT OF SAUCE!!!also, cool color text: llllllllllllllll (: I get most of my homebrew from This (dev dm) fight monster v monsterhere!
It all depends on the character and situation, I see a lawful good character as unlikely to become evil for the greater good, but anything is possible.
Alignment is just one factor in the equation of how your character acts, a lawful good character generally is presumed to most likely follow society's norms, but again it completely depends on the character and situation.
In short, if you feel like your character would do it, they can. Alignment should help guide your characters actions and not be used to restrict them.
I'll just put it simply.
Play a character, not an alignment. Make an actual PERSONALITY, not just base everything on two words on a character sheet.
I will say, though, that these last few posts demonstrate admirably to me why any attempt to codify 'good and evil', something philosophers and scholars have failed to do for millennia, is a fool's errand and should be, as I believe the kids say nowadays, yeeted from the game.
I agree with you, but we do need a code that says, this is good, this is evil, this is chaotic. Without that, we would have people doing whatever they wanted, and without an agreed-upon code, there would be no consequences; no way to punish them; that being said, after reading yours and others responses, I have come to the conclusion that my real question should have been: Is the alignment of a person, a consequence of the way they have chosen to live their life or does the way a person lives their life, come from their alignment?
In other words; are there some people who are inherently good and others inherently evil, or chaotic, or any combination thereof?
I now have the answer to my question. Lord Genome is teetering between is Lawful Neutral. He wanted to be good - perhaps goodness was in his nature (it certainly seemed that it was later in the anime) but when good failed, he turned to evil.
I think he is a good example of someone who is so blinded by their desire to do good, that they will do whatever it takes - even being evil, so long as he can serve the greater good. I definitely do not think that he is naturally evil though. I think he is more Lawful Neutral, with a Good personality, since he tried to be the Lawful Good Paladin first, and it was only when that failed, that he became this other guy.
So, yes, I think that I will make this character Lawful Evil, but make him bend more towards Lawful Neutral.
This would seem to fit with the anime as well. When the humans on the surface, Simon and his gang, first learned of Lord Genome, they saw him as evil - he was this evil monster who had enslaved the human race. It wasn't until much later, when they learned the truth, that their ideas shifted. Also; in the anime, he is showing as having a love for his "children" he wants them to be happy and grow up and live their lives, and although he does end up discarding them in the end, he only does so after they begin to ask questions from which there is no return.
Anyway, I think he would naturally be Lawful Neutral, with a penchant for good and is only being evil because there is no other way that he can protect the home and the species and the people that he loves.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Well, good and evil are not just abstract concepts. I'm sure this will not be the prevailing opinion, but it is a fact. Consider that you know when you are doing something wrong, such as stealing a cookie or damaging someone's property just to spite them. You may convince yourself that you are justified in doing the act, but it is either basically selfish or a case of two wrongs don't make a right. But there is no need in debating that here because it doesn't matter in D&D whether G&E are real or abstract concepts.
For D&D, I don't see why alignment should matter unless you are appealing to a deity for help. Then, it should be the most important factor, IMO. OK, there might be some weapons / armor / devices that are alignment specific, but it seems that need not be the case unless a deity is involved.
So many of the examples above and in other discussions want to discuss the difference between CG and LG when it seems to me the examples show the character is really LN or CN. For example, the observation that one leader is ruthless to individuals outside their circle but benevolent to those inside their circle are more in line with Neutral viewpoints. They don't have a world view that embraces goodness throughout, nor evil throughout, but they go either way depending on what they believe the situation calls for. As an aside, I don't see anything particularly benevolent in treating your "teammates" with kindness because you expect the same from them. So I would probably tag the leader of that nation as evil myself.
Someone said there are some things a player should just not do if they are "good" (or "evil"?). But I find there are many evil things folks will do to further their ends even they consider themselves to be good (in RL or as a character). How many good characters would kill an individual just because they were asked to do it if that furthered their quest? How many folks will attack and likely kill an individual on the "say so" of an NPC because they believe the NPC is "Good" alignment? What is the "victims" side of the argument? Most often this boils down to Might Makes Right justice. The Governor said he would like you to kill the "evil" warlock in the Ash Forest. You go find the warlock and kill him. The governor had the greater power and influence so he got what he wanted.
So I guess my thesis is most players are generally Spasmodic Neural. They will be any of the other eight alignments as it suits them in their current situation, and it probably balances out to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic about the same. They are not trying to stay Neutral in these situations, they are just being expedient.
As to the original question, a Lawful Good Paladin would certainly do evil things, such as murder, to further his ends. But in D&D we don't get caught up in good and evil to the degree we should to save our souls. I've played many hours of Skyrim: ES5. I am certain I committed may evil acts and I consider myself to be a good guy. I have always wanted to see what Skyrim would be like if I tried to be truly Good. I imagine I'd spend a lot of time hunting. Getting the enemy to attack me so I could claim self defense enough not to be evil would probably lead to a short life.
"Spasmodic Neutral"! That's hilarious. I'm going to use that term to describe murder-hobo PCs from now on!
Any being with free will is capable of determining its own path in life; absolutely nobody is 'inherently' good or evil. (If it has no free will or choice in the matter, it's neither.) If an angel can fall, a demon can rise.
Actions determine alignment, alignment does not determine actions.
SocialFoxes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'punishing' people for alignment stuff. There are no punishments anymore. No class changes, no loss of class abilities or feat access ... heck, back in 1e and 2e, if your alignment shifted, you lost a character level, which was as dumb as it sounds.
If the PCs are wildly inconsistent in their personalities, you don't need alignment, you need better players. I've not used alignment at all for over a decade (even weeding out most of its intrusions into 3e), and I have never had a problem like that.
I didn't mean punishing the players, I meant punishing the characters according to the in-game social code.
If somebody does something like kill a shop keeper because they wanted a magical item that they couldn't afford, so just decided to kill the shop keeper and take it; you'd say that was evil.
Now that murderer might have bounty hunters sent after them, they might be arrested and put in prison, they might just not be trusted by anyone again because, by the codes of that society, they are evil.
But if there was no in-game social code; no laws essentially, how would we know what was evil and what was not.
What I was saying is that the codes and laws of an in-game society are built upon alignment. The LG Paladin, is going to hunt down the CE Sorcerer, who has just killed that shop keeper and stole the magic item; because the laws of society say that person needs brought to justice, and the moral codes of that society, say that person is evil.
The world is built upon alignments, we need them to replicate the real world in-game, and that was really what I was saying.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
What came first for the character you rolled up? Their written Alignment or their first real action? :)
Joking aside, I agree with your statement, because in my mind it has to be true. if it wasn't you couldn't change over the a campaign. But since you need to start somewhere its not a bad start. Having a character with bonds/flaws/ideals in conjunction is better.
Honestly, It is more useful for a for how monsters or NPCs in a pinch might act. It's good enough for that. Topic example of that: compare the three very different Succubus from Dnd canon:
Malcanthet is the "default" here. The other two have by their actions, changed their alignment. For a DM its helpful to know how they act. For Player it is helpful reminder on how you generally act. But you certainly should change it if your actions lead you down a different path.
The old style 1st edition view is buried for a reason. No need for that.
The character would not be punished because of 'violating an alignment'; he'd be punished for committing a crime. The paladin would also hunt down a CG Sorcerer who did that, or the LG Monk who did that, or ANYBODY who did that. Or he might let the actual law enforcement authorities do it.
Legal does not mean moral or right. Slavery was legal in the US for centuries. Marital r*pe was legal until the 1970s. Similarly, illegal does not mean immoral or wrong. In California, it's illegal to put money in other peoples' parking meters. In some places, feeding the homeless is illegal. In New Jersey, it's illegal to pump your own gas.
The world is most definitely not built on alignments. People don't know they have alignments,. The very concept of alignment is ludicrous. That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
His first real action, because I don't even waste pencil lead writing alignment on a sheet. :)
You wasted lead, while you use a site like DnDBeyond!?! :)
I think that lawful evil can just be oppressive, but can still do good.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
My homebrew - Adohand’s Kitchen - Off-Topic - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Knight of random
It yeeted into space, and flung from the game thank you!
MissionReaction yea hi. If you have any ligit homebrew creations, send them to me. Also newly appointed priest of… THE SUPREME COURT OF SAUCE!!! also, cool color text: llllllllllllllll (: I get most of my homebrew from This (dev dm) fight monster v monsterhere!
It all depends on the character and situation, I see a lawful good character as unlikely to become evil for the greater good, but anything is possible.
Alignment is just one factor in the equation of how your character acts, a lawful good character generally is presumed to most likely follow society's norms, but again it completely depends on the character and situation.
In short, if you feel like your character would do it, they can. Alignment should help guide your characters actions and not be used to restrict them.
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.PENCILS CAN BE USED FOR DND BEYONDS SHORTCOMINGS (sorry caps lock)
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
My homebrew - Adohand’s Kitchen - Off-Topic - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Knight of random