The subject of alignment came up elsewhere online (as it tends to do) and my thoughts on the subject got a bit out of hand for a comment so I thought I'd share them here and see if we could get a good discussion going.
Alignment in D&D is often a hotly debated topic even though 5e marginalized it considerably when compared to past editions. Alignment can often get tricky, confusing, and sometimes boring which is why my table doesn't use alignments. In my past games, with past editions, how much alignment was used varied a lot from table to table unless someone was playing a Paladin or a Druid.
Alignment still varies from table to table in general so what is "correct" is not clear cut, nor can it really be defined. As is said often, there is no wrong way to play D&D if the table is in agreement. With that in mind the following is just my perspective on the subject.
In my opinion alignment has two distinct portions that people often conflate as the same. I read somewhere that the Law/Chaos side of the spectrum equates to a character's "Ethics", while the Good/Evil side equates to their "Morals". That helps and is a good, though imperfect, way to look at it for me. They are similar, but not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive.
To look at it a little deeper let's start with the Good/Evil portion. A character who is Good is someone who wants to do what's right for others regardless (but not necessarily exclusive) of themselves. On the other hand someone who is Evil wants to do what's right for themselves regardless (but again not necessarily exclusive) of others. They are very different approaches. Neutral, on this spectrum lands In the broad gray area that exists between them.
Taking a look at the Law/Chaos side, A Lawful character believes in the power of regulation and society, while a Chaotic character believes in.the power of freedom and individualism. Again, neutral on this spectrum lands somewhere in the sea of gray between these two shores.
It seems simple enough, but gets a little tricky quicky.
In discussions about D&D alignment people often suggest a Lawful Good ruler, city council, or society could treat people terribly, oppressively, etc. To me that's debatable. By definition if someone is Good, they want to do right by others. Often what we think of as a Lawful Good oppressive society (perhaps due to to our own out of game biases) is really a Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil society, depending on just how dark and tyrannical the leadership gets. A Lawful Good society uses law to protect and treat everyone fairly for the benefit of all. A Lawful Evil society uses the power of law to oppress and abuse as needed for the benefit of a few. Lawful Neutral societies on the other hand fall in the massive gap between these two and they make up the vast majority of organized societies in my opinion.
We also often hear folks say someone could see themselves as Good, even if they are Evil. This is often true, but also irrelevant when it comes to alignment. The "bad guys" often think they know best, are the best ones to rule, will bring about a better future, are doing the right thing, etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are committing evil acts to do it. How they perceive themselves doesn't determine what their alignment is, their actions do that. Even in fiction there aren't many characters who really see themselves as evil as opposed to smarter, better, more devoted, etc. Good fiction rarely has maniacal laughter in my opinion.
Alignments are also not intended to be two dimensional straight jackets.
A Lawful Good character, can violate local law if that law violates their personal code or Oath. Leading a rebellion against a Lawful Evil ruler is a great example of this. They can also be unkind to people they see as beneath them while still being willing to protect them from harm, fairly compensate them for their work, etc. Good doesn't have to mean good social graces or likeability.
On the other hand a Chaotic Evil character can be a team player in a party of adventurers if they see the party as the most likely path to accomplishing their nefarious goals and know that going along to get along is the best way to get the party to help achieve them. They are all about themselves, but that doesn't mean they are psychotic and incapable of being friendly or kind, to accomplish those goals.
Then there is True Neutral. This is sometimes described as someone who is intent on maintaining balance (going back to past edition Druids). However, how many people really act like this? How many folks actually devote themselves to maintaining a balance between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil? In my opinion True Neutral is just that, Neutral. Most people of this alignment don't seek to be the scales of the universe (though there are some). They just aren't that invested in any of this. They care more about getting by, safety, etc then how they get there. They care about others to a degree, but balance that with a healthy self interest. In my opinion neutral is the predominant alignment of commoners and regular folks in the worlds of D&D. Staying feed, warm, secure, and healthy are what they care about the most because it's what they work hard to maintain every day. They can lean a bit towards thievery or charity, but ultimately, they just want themselves, their families, and their friends to get by in peace.
Personally I'm not a fan of alignments in D&D as I think they are rarely played "correctly" and can sometimes hamstring gameplay, for no reason. New players often struggle to figure out which one to play and how to play it because it's all new to them, while long time players often get stuck in the alignment troupes of past editions. If at some point I find myself in a game that uses alignments again, I hope they are used gently and with a realistic variety of dimensions.
This was just my perspective on the subject of alignment. It's not "right" for all but it is "right" for me. That said, I am open to discussing different points of view. Once again, sorry this ran so long. Once I wrote it, I wanted to share it but didn't have a better place to post it I'm afraid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Gideon Hawke Just a Valor Bard trying to find his way through D&D after a 20+ year "break". Enjoying being back and sharing with my RL family.
As eberron: rising from the last war stated, good people can be driven to do bad things, and sometimes the line between good and evil blurs and sometimes alignments fail to describe people, but I don't think any system can be perfect and your 'ethics and morals' system seems like a great substitute if you enjoy it.
My rule of thumb for re alignments is the same as real life. A person's alignment is defined by their actions, and really nothing more. If you have a Paladin char in your group that says he is Lawful Good, but tortures people for information, he is not Lawful Good, and depending on his god, and Oath, there could be real trouble ahead for that char. That is the extreme case, but it is pretty clear.
At some point in the last decade, I burnt myself out on long winded philosophical monologues, so I'll just smile and keep it light with a tangentially related anecdote:
One of my games just wrapped up the Curse of Strahd adventure arc and is segueing into something more freeform. One of the players is a Nun of Ilmater (Rogue) who started off relatively mellow and eventually turned into a merciless executioner. By the time we were leaving Castle Ravenloft, if any NPC detected as "Evil", she would immediately slay them without much thought. Vampires were easy to brush off as they were inherently evil, and weren't much interested in redemption, but the random commoner support staffers were a little harder to swallow. They were greedy and deceitful, but generally just inconsequential. They were evil, in part, because they were cowards living in a harsh world who could align themselves with more powerful forces for protection and small luxuries. In a world where alignment changes happen, and magic exists to facilitate that process, there are startlingly few cases where ones alignment is a strong indicator of their value as a person in the big picture.
This change in the player's zealousness was going to be interesting, because, well before this change, I had decided to continue the new arc with a decidedly neutral evil character. (A spider-mongrel Belview [Simic Hybrid] who had fled into the woods and had been eating random adventurers who prowled around his territory out of a mix of self-preservation and preference.) It would have been really difficult if the player immediately cast Detect Evil and Good and committed to reacting in-character. Fortunately, that player has also decided to swap their character out for something new, so that particular interaction will probably be avoided.
There isn't really a follow up for that, but it does lead me toward "moral intensity":
In 3.5e (and probably earlier editions), the Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos spells also offered "Aura Power", which scaled by level and nature of the target. Random creatures needed to be at least level 11 to register as moderately evil, while Clerics and Outsiders only needed to be level 2+.
For games where the traditional Good/Evil/Law/Chaos paradigm isn't good enough, it might be enough to simply say "This target has not performed enough acts to leave a clear mark on their soul", or "While this individual clearly has a very chaotic nature, their moral character has not been strongly tested". This is as a means of communicating ambiguity, in contrast with neutrality.
As if to say, "Sure, they regularly steal food, but it comes from a place of immaturity, rather than being tied to their nature."
Alternatively, it could be worth including an "Apathy <---> Hypocrisy" scale, where targets would be ranked by how invested they are in their worldview:
Creatures who register as "Apathetic Evil" might behave poorly if ignored, but can be easily swayed to change their behavior in the moment. (e.g. A troll that likes to eat children, but is also a fan of the theater. If the players can negotiate lifetime tickets to the local stage production, then the troll will be willing to change their diet for as long as they can catch the Sunday Matinee).
Whereas a "Hypocritical Evil" creature will pursue their evil agenda even when it conflicts with their other values. (e.g. A vampire who will drain their own spouse in times of desperation.)
Alignment, in D&D, is for the most part so players (and by extension their characters) can slake their murder hobo blood lust with an apologetics clear conscience. As an illustration of the illusion of static morality I offer a quote from The Expanse
“Good and bad, don’t get distracted by that. It will just confuse you. Good men do bad things, like Fred Johnson. And bad men do things believing it’s for the good of all mankind.” -Anderson Dawes
If my character murders a village of Orcs because the Monster Manual says they are inherently evil (oooh, do smell the stench of "original sin"?) the act is evil no matter what the rules say. If I help that same Orc village escape the murderous intentions of a group of close minded Paladins who wish to "cleanse the wilds of Orcish evil taint" then that act is good, and I don't give a fig what the rules say. Most of these morality questions are just excuses for the players to turn off their brains, like identity politics, and pigeon hole the entire world into predetermined paradigms. It's like the most low brow video game, make sure you only kill the "evil" ones so you get the good cut scene at the end. As further evidence that "morality" is a matter of perspective depending on the culture I offer a bit of Scandinavian lore:
A raiding group was captured during a raid and was held captive in the barn. The raiders escaped their bonds in the night, sneaked into the house and stole a bunch of stuff. About halfway back to the boats they thought "crap, sneaking away in the night, that's thievery, we could end up in Hel's Halls". So, they walked back to the house, put their former captor's possessions on the ground, lit his house on fire and killed him when he came out. That way he had a chance to defend his possessions with his life and die gloriously in battle. Then, with a clear conscience they picked the now "loot" and headed back to the boats.
Stealing his stuff but letting him live was evil, killing him and taking his stuff was right and proper.
Now, as for Law/Chaos, insert, in my mind, Power of the State/Rights of the Individual. Imagine the moral quandary a Lawful Good Paladin might go through when the Law says thieves are to be hanged, never mind it's a 10 year old kid accused by corrupt lying nobles with fake evidence, the Law is the Law.
Now, to refute my own premise, I get why people are attracted to the whole Alignment system, they get to be confrontational when in the real world they would never think of such bravado. I agree withe the OP, morality should be dictated by actions and any campaign should spell out what, that isn't covered by law, constitutes an evil act. Law is whatever local nobility says it is, within the confines of a pseudo middle ages feudal society with a veneer of magic.
The subject of alignment came up elsewhere online (as it tends to do) and my thoughts on the subject got a bit out of hand for a comment so I thought I'd share them here and see if we could get a good discussion going.
Alignment in D&D is often a hotly debated topic even though 5e marginalized it considerably when compared to past editions. Alignment can often get tricky, confusing, and sometimes boring which is why my table doesn't use alignments. In my past games, with past editions, how much alignment was used varied a lot from table to table unless someone was playing a Paladin or a Druid.
Alignment still varies from table to table in general so what is "correct" is not clear cut, nor can it really be defined. As is said often, there is no wrong way to play D&D if the table is in agreement. With that in mind the following is just my perspective on the subject.
In my opinion alignment has two distinct portions that people often conflate as the same. I read somewhere that the Law/Chaos side of the spectrum equates to a character's "Ethics", while the Good/Evil side equates to their "Morals". That helps and is a good, though imperfect, way to look at it for me. They are similar, but not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive.
To look at it a little deeper let's start with the Good/Evil portion. A character who is Good is someone who wants to do what's right for others regardless (but not necessarily exclusive) of themselves. On the other hand someone who is Evil wants to do what's right for themselves regardless (but again not necessarily exclusive) of others. They are very different approaches. Neutral, on this spectrum lands In the broad gray area that exists between them.
Taking a look at the Law/Chaos side, A Lawful character believes in the power of regulation and society, while a Chaotic character believes in.the power of freedom and individualism. Again, neutral on this spectrum lands somewhere in the sea of gray between these two shores.
It seems simple enough, but gets a little tricky quicky.
In discussions about D&D alignment people often suggest a Lawful Good ruler, city council, or society could treat people terribly, oppressively, etc. To me that's debatable. By definition if someone is Good, they want to do right by others. Often what we think of as a Lawful Good oppressive society (perhaps due to to our own out of game biases) is really a Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil society, depending on just how dark and tyrannical the leadership gets. A Lawful Good society uses law to protect and treat everyone fairly for the benefit of all. A Lawful Evil society uses the power of law to oppress and abuse as needed for the benefit of a few. Lawful Neutral societies on the other hand fall in the massive gap between these two and they make up the vast majority of organized societies in my opinion.
We also often hear folks say someone could see themselves as Good, even if they are Evil. This is often true, but also irrelevant when it comes to alignment. The "bad guys" often think they know best, are the best ones to rule, will bring about a better future, are doing the right thing, etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are committing evil acts to do it. How they perceive themselves doesn't determine what their alignment is, their actions do that. Even in fiction there aren't many characters who really see themselves as evil as opposed to smarter, better, more devoted, etc. Good fiction rarely has maniacal laughter in my opinion.
Alignments are also not intended to be two dimensional straight jackets.
A Lawful Good character, can violate local law if that law violates their personal code or Oath. Leading a rebellion against a Lawful Evil ruler is a great example of this. They can also be unkind to people they see as beneath them while still being willing to protect them from harm, fairly compensate them for their work, etc. Good doesn't have to mean good social graces or likeability.
On the other hand a Chaotic Evil character can be a team player in a party of adventurers if they see the party as the most likely path to accomplishing their nefarious goals and know that going along to get along is the best way to get the party to help achieve them. They are all about themselves, but that doesn't mean they are psychotic and incapable of being friendly or kind, to accomplish those goals.
Then there is True Neutral. This is sometimes described as someone who is intent on maintaining balance (going back to past edition Druids). However, how many people really act like this? How many folks actually devote themselves to maintaining a balance between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil? In my opinion True Neutral is just that, Neutral. Most people of this alignment don't seek to be the scales of the universe (though there are some). They just aren't that invested in any of this. They care more about getting by, safety, etc then how they get there. They care about others to a degree, but balance that with a healthy self interest. In my opinion neutral is the predominant alignment of commoners and regular folks in the worlds of D&D. Staying feed, warm, secure, and healthy are what they care about the most because it's what they work hard to maintain every day. They can lean a bit towards thievery or charity, but ultimately, they just want themselves, their families, and their friends to get by in peace.
Personally I'm not a fan of alignments in D&D as I think they are rarely played "correctly" and can sometimes hamstring gameplay, for no reason. New players often struggle to figure out which one to play and how to play it because it's all new to them, while long time players often get stuck in the alignment troupes of past editions. If at some point I find myself in a game that uses alignments again, I hope they are used gently and with a realistic variety of dimensions.
This was just my perspective on the subject of alignment. It's not "right" for all but it is "right" for me. That said, I am open to discussing different points of view. Once again, sorry this ran so long. Once I wrote it, I wanted to share it but didn't have a better place to post it I'm afraid.
Gideon Hawke
Just a Valor Bard trying to find his way through D&D after a 20+ year "break". Enjoying being back and sharing with my RL family.
As eberron: rising from the last war stated, good people can be driven to do bad things, and sometimes the line between good and evil blurs and sometimes alignments fail to describe people, but I don't think any system can be perfect and your 'ethics and morals' system seems like a great substitute if you enjoy it.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
My rule of thumb for re alignments is the same as real life. A person's alignment is defined by their actions, and really nothing more. If you have a Paladin char in your group that says he is Lawful Good, but tortures people for information, he is not Lawful Good, and depending on his god, and Oath, there could be real trouble ahead for that char. That is the extreme case, but it is pretty clear.
At some point in the last decade, I burnt myself out on long winded philosophical monologues, so I'll just smile and keep it light with a tangentially related anecdote:
One of my games just wrapped up the Curse of Strahd adventure arc and is segueing into something more freeform. One of the players is a Nun of Ilmater (Rogue) who started off relatively mellow and eventually turned into a merciless executioner. By the time we were leaving Castle Ravenloft, if any NPC detected as "Evil", she would immediately slay them without much thought. Vampires were easy to brush off as they were inherently evil, and weren't much interested in redemption, but the random commoner support staffers were a little harder to swallow. They were greedy and deceitful, but generally just inconsequential. They were evil, in part, because they were cowards living in a harsh world who could align themselves with more powerful forces for protection and small luxuries. In a world where alignment changes happen, and magic exists to facilitate that process, there are startlingly few cases where ones alignment is a strong indicator of their value as a person in the big picture.
This change in the player's zealousness was going to be interesting, because, well before this change, I had decided to continue the new arc with a decidedly neutral evil character. (A spider-mongrel Belview [Simic Hybrid] who had fled into the woods and had been eating random adventurers who prowled around his territory out of a mix of self-preservation and preference.) It would have been really difficult if the player immediately cast Detect Evil and Good and committed to reacting in-character. Fortunately, that player has also decided to swap their character out for something new, so that particular interaction will probably be avoided.
There isn't really a follow up for that, but it does lead me toward "moral intensity":
In 3.5e (and probably earlier editions), the Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos spells also offered "Aura Power", which scaled by level and nature of the target. Random creatures needed to be at least level 11 to register as moderately evil, while Clerics and Outsiders only needed to be level 2+.
For games where the traditional Good/Evil/Law/Chaos paradigm isn't good enough, it might be enough to simply say "This target has not performed enough acts to leave a clear mark on their soul", or "While this individual clearly has a very chaotic nature, their moral character has not been strongly tested". This is as a means of communicating ambiguity, in contrast with neutrality.
As if to say, "Sure, they regularly steal food, but it comes from a place of immaturity, rather than being tied to their nature."
Alternatively, it could be worth including an "Apathy <---> Hypocrisy" scale, where targets would be ranked by how invested they are in their worldview:
Creatures who register as "Apathetic Evil" might behave poorly if ignored, but can be easily swayed to change their behavior in the moment. (e.g. A troll that likes to eat children, but is also a fan of the theater. If the players can negotiate lifetime tickets to the local stage production, then the troll will be willing to change their diet for as long as they can catch the Sunday Matinee).
Whereas a "Hypocritical Evil" creature will pursue their evil agenda even when it conflicts with their other values. (e.g. A vampire who will drain their own spouse in times of desperation.)
Alignment, in D&D, is for the most part so players (and by extension their characters) can slake their murder hobo blood lust with an apologetics clear conscience. As an illustration of the illusion of static morality I offer a quote from The Expanse
“Good and bad, don’t get distracted by that. It will just confuse you. Good men do bad things, like Fred Johnson. And bad men do things believing it’s for the good of all mankind.” -Anderson Dawes
If my character murders a village of Orcs because the Monster Manual says they are inherently evil (oooh, do smell the stench of "original sin"?) the act is evil no matter what the rules say. If I help that same Orc village escape the murderous intentions of a group of close minded Paladins who wish to "cleanse the wilds of Orcish evil taint" then that act is good, and I don't give a fig what the rules say. Most of these morality questions are just excuses for the players to turn off their brains, like identity politics, and pigeon hole the entire world into predetermined paradigms. It's like the most low brow video game, make sure you only kill the "evil" ones so you get the good cut scene at the end. As further evidence that "morality" is a matter of perspective depending on the culture I offer a bit of Scandinavian lore:
A raiding group was captured during a raid and was held captive in the barn. The raiders escaped their bonds in the night, sneaked into the house and stole a bunch of stuff. About halfway back to the boats they thought "crap, sneaking away in the night, that's thievery, we could end up in Hel's Halls". So, they walked back to the house, put their former captor's possessions on the ground, lit his house on fire and killed him when he came out. That way he had a chance to defend his possessions with his life and die gloriously in battle. Then, with a clear conscience they picked the now "loot" and headed back to the boats.
Stealing his stuff but letting him live was evil, killing him and taking his stuff was right and proper.
Now, as for Law/Chaos, insert, in my mind, Power of the State/Rights of the Individual. Imagine the moral quandary a Lawful Good Paladin might go through when the Law says thieves are to be hanged, never mind it's a 10 year old kid accused by corrupt lying nobles with fake evidence, the Law is the Law.
Now, to refute my own premise, I get why people are attracted to the whole Alignment system, they get to be confrontational when in the real world they would never think of such bravado. I agree withe the OP, morality should be dictated by actions and any campaign should spell out what, that isn't covered by law, constitutes an evil act. Law is whatever local nobility says it is, within the confines of a pseudo middle ages feudal society with a veneer of magic.
Don’t kill the goblin babies. It’s a trap!