So it hardly matters to the mechanics - there are a few abilities and items that depend on it - but it gives you helpful guidelines for role play. There's a lot of confusion around it. What is good? What is evil? I think it's intentionally open-ended so you can explore your and your players interpretations of these concepts. Here's my take.
Lawful is when you follow a system of axioms or principles.
Neutral is when your decisions are more arbitrary or instinctual.
Chaotic is when you're deliberately unpredictable.
Good is when you share common goals with many or most other people.
Neutral is when your goals and values aren't shared, but they aren't incompatible.
Evil is when your goals and values are incompatible with most other people's.
An outlaw can be lawful, if they operate within the bylaws of a thieves' guild or pirate crew. Even a rogue barbarian can be lawful, if they follow a rigid personal code. The Punisher is as lawful as any paladin. Governments can be unlawful. A capricious monarch who beheads enemies without trial is unlawful. Evil governments can be lawful. Slavery and genocide have historically been conducted by governments with constitutions and bureaucrats.
Chaotic people see value in being difficult to predict. When dealing with a lawful evil government, it can be a good strategy to be chaotic good, like Robin Hood. Whereas if most people around you are good, it's probably advantageous for an evil person to be somewhat chaotic, to avoid being caught.
Most people have similar goals, but this is not the same as saying they have common goals. Many people want wealth, pleasure, beauty, or fame, but achieving these for yourself does not necessarily achieve them for others. The simplest way to be good is to make attaining these things for all people as much a part of your goals as attaining them for yourself. Another way would be to serve a god that many others also serve. And some goods are inherently collective, such as advancing learning and enlightenment or protecting the environment.
I would go as far as to say most people are neutral. They want to obtain goods for themselves, but avoid harming others and disrupting their efforts to seek their own good. They may go out of their way to help someone else from time to time, but even then, they usually reap some rewards in return, even if they don't demand them up front.
A few people, almost by definition, are evil. To be evil is not just to be selfish, but to be willing to do harm to others to obtain your selfish ends. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to rise to the level of sadism to be evil, although sadists certainly qualify. It isn't necessary that the suffering of others BE your goal, only that the suffering of others is a side effect of pursuing your goal, and you disregard it.
It's not surprising that good usually triumphs over evil in the end, because good by definition outnumbers evil. Even if there are more evil people than good, not all the evil peoples' goals align, so eventually dissention will spread. Good aligned factions might not always be harmonious with each other. We can easily imagine clashing sects of a religion, for example. But thousands or millions of good aligned people can cooperate and stay loyal through thick and thin, because their goals are shared.
Lawful is when you follow a system of axioms or principles.
Neutral is when your decisions are more arbitrary or instinctual.
Chaotic is when you're deliberately unpredictable.
Good is when you share common goals with many or most other people.
Neutral is when your goals and values aren't shared, but they aren't incompatible.
Evil is when your goals and values are incompatible with most other people's.
I excised your premises because that's all that I'm really speaking toward. I think this is a fair articulation. Me being a bit of of word nerd though would encourage you to think some of them a bit differently.
Lawful = principled. I like that, in fact "principled" was basically the lawful good equivalent alignment in Paladium's line of D&D derived TTRPG. Scrupulous was more toward the natural or chaotic good.
Neutrality for me is more a position where one does not strongly stand on principle, nor do they put in great effort to work counter to principle.
Chaotic as "deliberatively unpredictable" I'm careful of. I like that you use "deliberatively" because for me, while a lawful person subscribes to a code, a chaotic thought process isn't bound to such strictures. This sort of unbounded thinking can lead to creative genius, but also irrational stupidity. (Of course there is such a thing as legal genius and bureaucratic stupidity too, so thinking different isn't necessarily thinking better).
Most people are neutral. Laws and faiths and codes to adhere to are available and used, but they can be ignored or at least the mind is open to "other considerations."
Good, I wouldn't say is necessarily a shared goal. Good is an appreciation, a sympathy, an empathy, a feeling of value recognized in others. And seeing good recognizes something intrinsic in the other that has nothing to do with you, yet you recognize it as having value and worth in itself. Selflessness sometimes results in that recognition, sometimes sacrifice, but not always.
Evil isn't so much goals being incompatible. In fact grand evil plans require participation on a large scale. Rather, evil is the antithesis of good, it fails to recognize the worth or intrinsic value in other people (or beings, things, etc.). Evil is selfish in that being and things external to the self are seen either as means to advance oneself or things to be pushed aside to advance oneself. Doing injury to others could simply be a means to accomplish one's goals, it could also be a means of asserting the self.
I'll argue here most people land more in the neutral part of the map with some slight leanings toward good. I wouldn't say actual history is actually a grand narrative of good triumphing over evil. It's a lot muddier than that. There's a reason a book called "Beyond Good and Evil" is still looked at a lot these days, as well as theories on "the banality of evil" -- that is how many people truly care about the world beyond themself in the their conduct. It's a lot muddier than that. However, it doesn't have to be in a game where heroism is idealized. That sort of play is mostly harmless, so to speak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Lawful is when you follow a system of axioms or principles.
Chaotic is when you're deliberately unpredictable.
What if being deliberately unpredictable is one's main principle, or at least, an essential part of achieving that end? Eg, Batman and co utilize surprise to get the drop on villains and protect their city. Joker's main principle is to be chaotic.
Other classically "Chaotic" law-breakers also come to mind. Eg, all vigilantes driven by a personal code (Robin Hood, Punisher, Ezio Auditore). And likewise, would lawfully elected villains then move to Neutral or Chaotic due to lack of motives other than ego/profit? Eg, Presidents Lex Luthor or Norm Osborn (Earth X).
Would this also put strongly opposed rivals into the same category if they have competing principles? Eg, Batman vs Superman (law vs disregard for societal law), Ubisoft's Assassins vs Templars (order vs personal freedom).
I'm new to DnD, but I've thought of Lawful vs Chaotic as basically Order vs Chaos. This summary seems to lean that way, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Even a rogue barbarian can be lawful, if they follow a rigid personal code. The Punisher is as lawful as any paladin. Governments can be unlawful.
I think I disagree with this. A personal code is not law, necessarily. I think a personal code that contradicts the laws of the land would put someone more in the neutral category, if not the chaotic. The Punisher does not kill innocents, but he does not scruple to kill the bad guys, despite that being against the law. I would put the Punisher as chaotic good or neutral good.
Even a rogue barbarian can be lawful, if they follow a rigid personal code. The Punisher is as lawful as any paladin. Governments can be unlawful.
I think I disagree with this. A personal code is not law, necessarily. I think a personal code that contradicts the laws of the land would put someone more in the neutral category, if not the chaotic. The Punisher does not kill innocents, but he does not scruple to kill the bad guys, despite that being against the law. I would put the Punisher as chaotic good or neutral good.
These are the descriptions of the lawful alignments:
”Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.”
”Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.”
“Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.”
Only one of these explicitly mentions law, and two mention “codes”. Lawful is not necessarily about the written laws of the land, despite the name.
For my two cents, here’s my definitions of the alignments. (That said, I’ve often done away with the Law/Chaos side of the axis: it leads to too much unrealistic stereotyping for a lot of players.)
Lawful people usually believe the benefit of the group is more important than individual freedom, while chaotic people usually believe individual freedom is more important than the benefit of the group.
Good people are often willing to sacrifice themselves to help others. Evil people are often willing to hurt others to help themselves. (Note that neutral people usually want the best for others: they’re just not willing to go much out of their way to help.)
As for the question of evil motives: lawful evil is motivated by ideology or wanting to help your people even at the cost of others: see Nazis, mafia. Neutral evil is motivated by power, greed, or other forms of pure selfishness. Chaotic evil is unique because not only does it not care about others’ suffering, but it enjoys it; it is motivated by unreasoned sadism, hate, and bloodlust.
Also note that (with the possible exception of CE) every alignment still has people they care about, which has no alignment, and will put aside their alignment for. A Neutral Evil character might put aside her power lust where her wife is concerned. All alignments are still human, not stereotypes.
I always have a hard time applying alignment to characters because it's such a simplistic way to describe a person. However there are atleast two different ways one can be lawful/chaotic in my opinion. One being the way you chose to act personally, the other being your worldview.
For example, I consider my own character "chaotic good" but he's not particularly random or unpredictable.. However his worldview is that most laws and structured societies end up being bad for the average person and such has a great distaste of kings and other people of power... He also has no issue breaking laws if he thinks it's the best for the people around him.
I always have a hard time applying alignment to characters because it's such a simplistic way to describe a person. However there are atleast two different ways one can be lawful/chaotic in my opinion. One being the way you chose to act personally, the other being your worldview.
For example, I consider my own character "chaotic good" but he's not particularly random or unpredictable.. However his worldview is that most laws and structured societies end up being bad for the average person and such has a great distaste of kings and other people of power... He also has no issue breaking laws if he thinks it's the best for the people around him.
I would regard that as neutral good. Your character's opposition to law is based on his good alignment. If the laws were just, he would be lawful. However, it's not an important distinction, as your character acts much the same as a chaotic one would in the circumstances.
I think alignment holds up a lot better when applied to individual actions rather than "so-an-so is lawful good." How many gallons of virtual ink have been spilled on the internet arguing about the alignment of Batman? Any decently developed character is a scatterplot on the alignment grid - they may cluster in one area but often it gets complicated.
Yeah. Those descriptions sway me away from Principle vs Self re Lawful vs Chaotic. Eg, Spartans practiced infanticide to ensure only the most fit potential soldiers would consume their limited resources. Someone who rescued babies would go against that societal norm and I think be either NG or CG?
Going off of the linked descriptions, the warring factions I mentioned from Assassin's Creed might be LN (Templars) & CG (Assassins)? Though an argument could be made for the Templars being CG, as they too act on their conscience to help humanity.
I've also heard that LG Paladins no longer have to take a penalty when breaking an unjust law, even if it'd cause great personal turmoil.
I don't think a player should let their alignment limit their actions. In the moment, if you think based on your character's background, motivations, and ideals, your character would do something outside their alignment, that's okay. Alignment can also change from the start to the end of a campaign. It's part of being a round character.
I do think alignment can help players, especially new ones, remember to make choices for their character that are not necessarily the same as the choices as the player would make, thus making more interesting conflicts.
1 thing I've always gone by is some don't necessarily have a set meaning. Lawful for 1 could mean laws or principals, but for another it coild mean they follow a group. Chaotic could mean disregard rules or they're just more independent. This way of thought could just be my group not liking alignment and usually disregarding it.
I have a player who plays chaotic neutral characters because she says it means she can do whatever she wants. No, it doesn't. If you are chaotic neutral, you cannot run into a burning building to save a baby (that is good). But I don't say anything to her about it, because it hasn't come up at the table. IMO alignment is optional, and if you want to play a character who does whatever she wants (as long as it doesn't disrupt the rest of the party's goals all the time) that's fine with me, and if you want to call yourself chaotic neutral while doing that, that's also fine with me.
I have a player who plays chaotic neutral characters because she says it means she can do whatever she wants. No, it doesn't. If you are chaotic neutral, you cannot run into a burning building to save a baby (that is good). But I don't say anything to her about it, because it hasn't come up at the table. IMO alignment is optional, and if you want to play a character who does whatever she wants (as long as it doesn't disrupt the rest of the party's goals all the time) that's fine with me, and if you want to call yourself chaotic neutral while doing that, that's also fine with me.
Sure you can. Any given alignment is an 'on average' thing. One incident has to be really extreme to shift your alignment all in one go...
Then you can be any alignment and do whatever you want. You don't have to be chaotic neutral.
There are definitely a few things. Not very many, though.
Heart Sight. The sprite touches a creature and magically knows the creature's current emotional state. If the target fails a DC 10 Charisma saving throw, the sprite also knows the creature's alignment. Celestials, fiends, and undead automatically fail the saving throw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So it hardly matters to the mechanics - there are a few abilities and items that depend on it - but it gives you helpful guidelines for role play. There's a lot of confusion around it. What is good? What is evil? I think it's intentionally open-ended so you can explore your and your players interpretations of these concepts. Here's my take.
Lawful is when you follow a system of axioms or principles.
Neutral is when your decisions are more arbitrary or instinctual.
Chaotic is when you're deliberately unpredictable.
Good is when you share common goals with many or most other people.
Neutral is when your goals and values aren't shared, but they aren't incompatible.
Evil is when your goals and values are incompatible with most other people's.
An outlaw can be lawful, if they operate within the bylaws of a thieves' guild or pirate crew. Even a rogue barbarian can be lawful, if they follow a rigid personal code. The Punisher is as lawful as any paladin. Governments can be unlawful. A capricious monarch who beheads enemies without trial is unlawful. Evil governments can be lawful. Slavery and genocide have historically been conducted by governments with constitutions and bureaucrats.
Chaotic people see value in being difficult to predict. When dealing with a lawful evil government, it can be a good strategy to be chaotic good, like Robin Hood. Whereas if most people around you are good, it's probably advantageous for an evil person to be somewhat chaotic, to avoid being caught.
Most people have similar goals, but this is not the same as saying they have common goals. Many people want wealth, pleasure, beauty, or fame, but achieving these for yourself does not necessarily achieve them for others. The simplest way to be good is to make attaining these things for all people as much a part of your goals as attaining them for yourself. Another way would be to serve a god that many others also serve. And some goods are inherently collective, such as advancing learning and enlightenment or protecting the environment.
I would go as far as to say most people are neutral. They want to obtain goods for themselves, but avoid harming others and disrupting their efforts to seek their own good. They may go out of their way to help someone else from time to time, but even then, they usually reap some rewards in return, even if they don't demand them up front.
A few people, almost by definition, are evil. To be evil is not just to be selfish, but to be willing to do harm to others to obtain your selfish ends. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to rise to the level of sadism to be evil, although sadists certainly qualify. It isn't necessary that the suffering of others BE your goal, only that the suffering of others is a side effect of pursuing your goal, and you disregard it.
It's not surprising that good usually triumphs over evil in the end, because good by definition outnumbers evil. Even if there are more evil people than good, not all the evil peoples' goals align, so eventually dissention will spread. Good aligned factions might not always be harmonious with each other. We can easily imagine clashing sects of a religion, for example. But thousands or millions of good aligned people can cooperate and stay loyal through thick and thin, because their goals are shared.
I excised your premises because that's all that I'm really speaking toward. I think this is a fair articulation. Me being a bit of of word nerd though would encourage you to think some of them a bit differently.
Lawful = principled. I like that, in fact "principled" was basically the lawful good equivalent alignment in Paladium's line of D&D derived TTRPG. Scrupulous was more toward the natural or chaotic good.
Neutrality for me is more a position where one does not strongly stand on principle, nor do they put in great effort to work counter to principle.
Chaotic as "deliberatively unpredictable" I'm careful of. I like that you use "deliberatively" because for me, while a lawful person subscribes to a code, a chaotic thought process isn't bound to such strictures. This sort of unbounded thinking can lead to creative genius, but also irrational stupidity. (Of course there is such a thing as legal genius and bureaucratic stupidity too, so thinking different isn't necessarily thinking better).
Most people are neutral. Laws and faiths and codes to adhere to are available and used, but they can be ignored or at least the mind is open to "other considerations."
Good, I wouldn't say is necessarily a shared goal. Good is an appreciation, a sympathy, an empathy, a feeling of value recognized in others. And seeing good recognizes something intrinsic in the other that has nothing to do with you, yet you recognize it as having value and worth in itself. Selflessness sometimes results in that recognition, sometimes sacrifice, but not always.
Evil isn't so much goals being incompatible. In fact grand evil plans require participation on a large scale. Rather, evil is the antithesis of good, it fails to recognize the worth or intrinsic value in other people (or beings, things, etc.). Evil is selfish in that being and things external to the self are seen either as means to advance oneself or things to be pushed aside to advance oneself. Doing injury to others could simply be a means to accomplish one's goals, it could also be a means of asserting the self.
I'll argue here most people land more in the neutral part of the map with some slight leanings toward good. I wouldn't say actual history is actually a grand narrative of good triumphing over evil. It's a lot muddier than that. There's a reason a book called "Beyond Good and Evil" is still looked at a lot these days, as well as theories on "the banality of evil" -- that is how many people truly care about the world beyond themself in the their conduct. It's a lot muddier than that. However, it doesn't have to be in a game where heroism is idealized. That sort of play is mostly harmless, so to speak.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Quote from pavilionaire >>
What if being deliberately unpredictable is one's main principle, or at least, an essential part of achieving that end? Eg, Batman and co utilize surprise to get the drop on villains and protect their city. Joker's main principle is to be chaotic.
Other classically "Chaotic" law-breakers also come to mind. Eg, all vigilantes driven by a personal code (Robin Hood, Punisher, Ezio Auditore).
And likewise, would lawfully elected villains then move to Neutral or Chaotic due to lack of motives other than ego/profit? Eg, Presidents Lex Luthor or Norm Osborn (Earth X).
Would this also put strongly opposed rivals into the same category if they have competing principles? Eg, Batman vs Superman (law vs disregard for societal law), Ubisoft's Assassins vs Templars (order vs personal freedom).
I'm new to DnD, but I've thought of Lawful vs Chaotic as basically Order vs Chaos. This summary seems to lean that way, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Even a rogue barbarian can be lawful, if they follow a rigid personal code. The Punisher is as lawful as any paladin. Governments can be unlawful.
I think I disagree with this. A personal code is not law, necessarily. I think a personal code that contradicts the laws of the land would put someone more in the neutral category, if not the chaotic. The Punisher does not kill innocents, but he does not scruple to kill the bad guys, despite that being against the law. I would put the Punisher as chaotic good or neutral good.
These are the descriptions of the lawful alignments:
”Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.”
”Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.”
“Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.”
Only one of these explicitly mentions law, and two mention “codes”. Lawful is not necessarily about the written laws of the land, despite the name.
For my two cents, here’s my definitions of the alignments. (That said, I’ve often done away with the Law/Chaos side of the axis: it leads to too much unrealistic stereotyping for a lot of players.)
Lawful people usually believe the benefit of the group is more important than individual freedom, while chaotic people usually believe individual freedom is more important than the benefit of the group.
Good people are often willing to sacrifice themselves to help others. Evil people are often willing to hurt others to help themselves. (Note that neutral people usually want the best for others: they’re just not willing to go much out of their way to help.)
As for the question of evil motives: lawful evil is motivated by ideology or wanting to help your people even at the cost of others: see Nazis, mafia. Neutral evil is motivated by power, greed, or other forms of pure selfishness. Chaotic evil is unique because not only does it not care about others’ suffering, but it enjoys it; it is motivated by unreasoned sadism, hate, and bloodlust.
Also note that (with the possible exception of CE) every alignment still has people they care about, which has no alignment, and will put aside their alignment for. A Neutral Evil character might put aside her power lust where her wife is concerned. All alignments are still human, not stereotypes.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I always have a hard time applying alignment to characters because it's such a simplistic way to describe a person. However there are atleast two different ways one can be lawful/chaotic in my opinion. One being the way you chose to act personally, the other being your worldview.
For example, I consider my own character "chaotic good" but he's not particularly random or unpredictable.. However his worldview is that most laws and structured societies end up being bad for the average person and such has a great distaste of kings and other people of power... He also has no issue breaking laws if he thinks it's the best for the people around him.
I would regard that as neutral good. Your character's opposition to law is based on his good alignment. If the laws were just, he would be lawful. However, it's not an important distinction, as your character acts much the same as a chaotic one would in the circumstances.
I think alignment holds up a lot better when applied to individual actions rather than "so-an-so is lawful good." How many gallons of virtual ink have been spilled on the internet arguing about the alignment of Batman? Any decently developed character is a scatterplot on the alignment grid - they may cluster in one area but often it gets complicated.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yeah. Those descriptions sway me away from Principle vs Self re Lawful vs Chaotic.
Eg, Spartans practiced infanticide to ensure only the most fit potential soldiers would consume their limited resources. Someone who rescued babies would go against that societal norm and I think be either NG or CG?
Going off of the linked descriptions, the warring factions I mentioned from Assassin's Creed might be LN (Templars) & CG (Assassins)? Though an argument could be made for the Templars being CG, as they too act on their conscience to help humanity.
I've also heard that LG Paladins no longer have to take a penalty when breaking an unjust law, even if it'd cause great personal turmoil.
I don't think a player should let their alignment limit their actions. In the moment, if you think based on your character's background, motivations, and ideals, your character would do something outside their alignment, that's okay. Alignment can also change from the start to the end of a campaign. It's part of being a round character.
I do think alignment can help players, especially new ones, remember to make choices for their character that are not necessarily the same as the choices as the player would make, thus making more interesting conflicts.
1 thing I've always gone by is some don't necessarily have a set meaning. Lawful for 1 could mean laws or principals, but for another it coild mean they follow a group. Chaotic could mean disregard rules or they're just more independent. This way of thought could just be my group not liking alignment and usually disregarding it.
I have a player who plays chaotic neutral characters because she says it means she can do whatever she wants. No, it doesn't. If you are chaotic neutral, you cannot run into a burning building to save a baby (that is good). But I don't say anything to her about it, because it hasn't come up at the table. IMO alignment is optional, and if you want to play a character who does whatever she wants (as long as it doesn't disrupt the rest of the party's goals all the time) that's fine with me, and if you want to call yourself chaotic neutral while doing that, that's also fine with me.
Then you can be any alignment and do whatever you want. You don't have to be chaotic neutral.
The problem with the alignment system is there are roughly as many interpretations of each alignment as there are players.
There are definitely a few things. Not very many, though.