Had a hefty argument with someone I'd theoretically be playing alongside with who was under the impression that it was wildly irresponsible for me to want to play a lawful evil character.
Context: I proposed to my friend the entirely theoretical idea of a hobgoblin, who found out that one of her superiors was making a deal with some evil entity that would probably lead to the destruction of the entire hobgoblin town/fort/whatever. She tries to out him and instead gets exiled and branded, to eventually of course stumble into the adventuring party. Being a typical hobgoblin prior to expulsion shes lawful evil, but over time would learn to be a better person.
My friend pretty much lost their mind at (what in my opinion) this pretty mundane concept. Arguing that I would be making alignment checks at just about everything, and that it was more likely that my hobgoblin would have sided with the guy who was going to blow up her town, despite the fact that she lives in said town and its the only thing she give's a dang about. Friend also tried to argue hobgoblin should join party as a chaotic neutral / already adjusted member of society, which sounds incredibly dull and like it defeats the purpose. Friend also seemed to think that the sheer act of leaving hobgoblin society, despite it being by force, made my character no longer lawful by default. Even though she still thinks its "right" and that that one dude is a bad egg.
Friend even tried to argue that paladins would be able to detect her if she was evil via divine sense (which obviously it does not since its based on species not alignment), on pointing that out friend said our current dm would probably make it about alignment. Only the paladin would have to be within 60ft anyways and at that point he'd probably see that the big nosed hulking behemoth is a hobgoblin. But apparently that makes me a 'risk' and 'irresponsible' to the party.
Like the obvious answer is just to not use this character with this person, I'm just more frustrated than anything to be honest. I was imagining this character in a dungeon of the mad mage sort of setting, so it's not even like I'd be walking about in broad daylight trying to be overly heroic.
I've never gotten an alignment check in all 5 years of my playing dnd (3.5-5) and thats with all 3 types of good in there. The first time I've ever even seen one was last weekend with the aforementioned dm (who would apparently misuse divine sense), and that was when the neutral good pali suggested ways to deal with a body we had to hide.
Like is it that bad for me to play a evil character? And I know alignments are super subjective too to meaning which is probably half my problem here. But I'm also pretty sure that shes not 'chaotic neutral' as the backup option that my friend suggested
Personally I see lawful evil as someone who will obey (or abuse) social and civil laws to further their own goals of greed/power/etc. This does not mean that they can't create strong bonds with fellow adventurers and act in a good way towards them. They may also do good things to further their overarching goal, just like a good character will sometimes do evil things for the greater good.
Given that you want to slowly change the alignment towards good I don't see anything wrong with playing that char.
Taking the example of dealing with a body, they would suggest the easiest way to do so without anyone being able to track them. However being lawful, they would also give in to the party consensus.
Chaotic evil is the bad PC to play in a serious campaign (for the most part) as they and only they do evil for the fun of it. And this might be the source of the annoyance of the other player.
A lawful neutral is only 1 step from lawful evil. They follow a personal code (not laws), tradition, or law, just like lawful evil. The only difference is what they're willing to do to achieve their goals or maybe what their goals are or what their code is. (This might be the better fall back as opposed to CN)
On the whole I agree with you and think LN is the best way to still play the character with that group.
What is an alignment check? It sounds like something from a previous edition. In 5e alignment has almost exactly zero mechanical impact at all. A few magic items and exactly three spells interact with it. That's about it. Everything else is free to be interpreted or ignored at the table. I absolutely don't consider it a thing worth arguing about.
What is an alignment check? It sounds like something from a previous edition. In 5e alignment has almost exactly zero mechanical impact at all. A few magic items and exactly three spells interact with it. That's about it. Everything else is free to be interpreted or ignored at the table. I absolutely don't consider it a thing worth arguing about.
There are spells that actually interact with alignment?
And also I second the question, what is an alignment check? I play since 3rd and vaguely know 2nd edition through games like Icewind Dale. Never even heard of it.
As for your friend: They're having an incredibly narrow view of alignment that makes me wonder how they can even make a character with a personality of their own. Going against a leader doesn't make you non-lawful. And going against an evil entity doesn't make you non-evil.
Also i would argue that a CN character can easily be a less adjusted member of society than a lawful evil one.
Your alignment is not a hard and fast prescription of your character's personality, it's a very VEEERY simplified summary of their ethical compass.
Unless your friend is the DM, i would ignore their "advice" and hash it out with the DM instead. Personally i welcome evil characters as long as they're played by someone who understands that alignment doesn't overwrite reason.
...A few magic items and exactly three spells interact with it...
There are spells that actually interact with alignment?...
Glyph of Warding can use alignment of a creature as a trigger condition. Arcanist's Magic Aura can mask it or make it appear different (mostly to counter things like that glyph, I guess). And one of the options for Ceremony can restore it after has been changed by some other effect. No others I can think of.
Edit: Spotted another. Spirit Guardians deals necrotic damage if you are evil, radiant otherwise.
I think Ceremony is intended as the cure for the corruption effect that is an optional rule in the DMG for hanging about too long in the Abyss. I don't think it fixes you if you turn yourself evil by just being an incorrigible jerkface.
Like the only time I've ever had to even really worry about alignments was when I played in the 3 area, bc I play clerics and that weirdness with matching your god, since thats realistic xD
Cause yea I'd never heard of 'alignment checks' prior to this dm and I'd sort of assumed they were either archaic, or like some single line in the phb most people ignore. What it appears to be is basically:
neutral good guy: we should kill this serial killer and make him suffer for it! Let him see his entrails! Then we hide the body! DM: um thats dark, alignment check, steve, your guy wouldn't be saying that lawful good guy: ...we should kill the serial killer and make it clean and quick...? DM: thats better! me: ???
and yea apart from some mostly aesthetic changes to spells (that might occasionally be useful like the necrotic/radiant damage) it dosen't really matter? I can also see ceremony used after the balance card with the deck of many things, but again, thats super obscure xD
and I definitely thought that chaotic neutral was a more problematic character xD
I think Ceremony is intended as the cure for the corruption effect that is an optional rule in the DMG for hanging about too long in the Abyss. I don't think it fixes you if you turn yourself evil by just being an incorrigible jerkface.
I'm not so sure about that. That option is called "atonement" and it doesn't say anything about the target's alignment having been forcefully changed or changed by outside influences. I think the expectation, much like in real life, is that the cleric would only perform the ceremony if the target actually wants to atone.
Someone could try to game the system with the wedding option of that spell but again you'd expect a cleric to take that seriously too.
At any rate Ceremony is an optional spell from an optional book and you don't have to include it in your game if you think it causes problems.
I think Ceremony is intended as the cure for the corruption effect that is an optional rule in the DMG for hanging about too long in the Abyss. I don't think it fixes you if you turn yourself evil by just being an incorrigible jerkface.
I'm not so sure about that. That option is called "atonement" and it doesn't say anything about the target's alignment having been forcefully changed or changed by outside influences. I think the expectation, much like in real life, is that the cleric would only perform the ceremony if the target actually wants to atone.
The problem with that though is that if the character is willing to be X alignment, why dont they just act by X alignment? And if they do, they should have X alignment.
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying that seems to be the expectation based on the wording. But for whatever it's worth, wanting to be good doesn't guarantee that someone will consistently behave like a good person. Old habits die hard and recognizing your shortcomings is only the first step to being a better person.
Personally I agree that it's simpler to just ignore that aspect of the spell unless someone's alignment was forced to change.
just want to point out that sleazy politicians and underhanded lawyers can be expressed as Lawful Evil characters... and they can exist with or around the party. it sounds like the original poster and their friend have vastly different interpretations on alignment. I think the LE Hobgoblin makes perfect sense, and I, personally, agree with OP's interpretation.
I generally like to let a DM handle things in their own game. That said, a vert telling/worthy ruling comes out of the WoTC's Adventurers League. A lawful evil character may exist; however they have to be members/associates of the factions, the Lords Alliance or the Zhentarim.
Both factions (~ish) are mainstream in the game world's society. Much less so than say some Chaotic Neutral PC that tries to disrupt society as a joke or some other reason.
The problem comes from the 9 allignments system being quite restrictive in character depth.
It's great that 5th edition moved away from the mechanical reliance on alignments that earlier editions had.
Let's consider a complex character, we'll call him Liam.
Liam has a family and he loves them - they are really important to him. He goes out of his way to be there for them and will put their needs over his own (this makes him good).
He'also has a really important job working with the military and respects the chain of command. He has a strong sense of duty (this makes him lawful).
So Liam is Lawful Good, right?
Ok, now some criminals kidnap his daughter and taunt him. He vows to track them down, rescue hius daughter and make them pay for this.
Liam starts tracking them down, breaking many laws whilst doing so. Is this Chaotic behaviour? He's putting his own wants and desires above the law. Maybe it's neutral.
Other people try to stop Liam during his mission, but he thinks nothing of hurting them, as he will not give up his mission. He hurts some innocent people that are just doing their job. Does this make him evil? He's pursuing his goals at the expense of others. Possibly neutral again.
When he finally tracks down the kidnappers and rescues his daughter, he doesn't hand the criminals over to the authorities, he kills them, after having incapacitated them. Is that murder? It's certainly not lawful or goodly.
So overall our Liam character has behaved in a way that marks him as true neutral, with tendencies for Good, Evil, Lawful & Chaotic.
That's the problem with alignment systems - any well developed character is likely to be the same, unless they are a classic paladin with inflexible morals, or a cartoon villain.
So, personally I view a character's alignment in Dungeons & Dragons as their general inclination when there is no specific motivation. It's there so the player can indicate to me the sort of actions their character is likely to take in a generic situation.
Goodly characters will likely stop to help a farmer fix their broken cart (allowing me to use such as a plot hook).
Evil characters might look for an opportunity to steal something from the cart while the farmer is distracted (again can make a good plot hook knowing this).
As a DM, I would never tell a player how they should play their character due to the alignment on their sheet.
In fact, I often tell my players that they don't need to write down their character's alignment on the sheet if they don't want to and should wait until they have played a couple of sessions anyway, so they have developed the character a bit.
If a player continually plays their character significantly different to the alignment written on their sheet? I'd probably discuss with them whether the alignment on the sheet should change to match their actions, but I've not seen that happen in 30 years.
I agree with stormknight; alignment is a tool for players and DMs to form an understanding of social and moral bearing. from that launchpad the collaborative storytelling unfolds.
liam's DM obviously knew family was important to him, so he used a plot hook. and maybe liam went down a dark and lawless path but he did it by taking single steps. His DM reacted to these steps and together they told a story of how Lawful Good is anything but black and white.
The example of Liam might have Taken a step too far.
Let's consider named Badakkin Groundwater. He started out as a junkyard slave, but eventually was brought into an order of knighthood and given authority and respect. Eventually Badakkin jumped the shark and started killing children because his wife was sick. He eventually changed his name to Moth Dagger and helped purge the corruptions of his goverment and his order of knighthood. His actions led him to be the righthand man of a lawful ruler who was interested in protecting national assets and learning new ways to 'bring people together'.
I consider Lawful Evil to be "there is no line I wouldn't cross."
Dirty Harry is lawful evil, as are some incarnations of Batman. James Bond crosses the line sometimes. And these are all protagonists in their stories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Had a hefty argument with someone I'd theoretically be playing alongside with who was under the impression that it was wildly irresponsible for me to want to play a lawful evil character.
Context: I proposed to my friend the entirely theoretical idea of a hobgoblin, who found out that one of her superiors was making a deal with some evil entity that would probably lead to the destruction of the entire hobgoblin town/fort/whatever. She tries to out him and instead gets exiled and branded, to eventually of course stumble into the adventuring party. Being a typical hobgoblin prior to expulsion shes lawful evil, but over time would learn to be a better person.
My friend pretty much lost their mind at (what in my opinion) this pretty mundane concept. Arguing that I would be making alignment checks at just about everything, and that it was more likely that my hobgoblin would have sided with the guy who was going to blow up her town, despite the fact that she lives in said town and its the only thing she give's a dang about. Friend also tried to argue hobgoblin should join party as a chaotic neutral / already adjusted member of society, which sounds incredibly dull and like it defeats the purpose. Friend also seemed to think that the sheer act of leaving hobgoblin society, despite it being by force, made my character no longer lawful by default. Even though she still thinks its "right" and that that one dude is a bad egg.
Friend even tried to argue that paladins would be able to detect her if she was evil via divine sense (which obviously it does not since its based on species not alignment), on pointing that out friend said our current dm would probably make it about alignment. Only the paladin would have to be within 60ft anyways and at that point he'd probably see that the big nosed hulking behemoth is a hobgoblin. But apparently that makes me a 'risk' and 'irresponsible' to the party.
Like the obvious answer is just to not use this character with this person, I'm just more frustrated than anything to be honest. I was imagining this character in a dungeon of the mad mage sort of setting, so it's not even like I'd be walking about in broad daylight trying to be overly heroic.
I've never gotten an alignment check in all 5 years of my playing dnd (3.5-5) and thats with all 3 types of good in there. The first time I've ever even seen one was last weekend with the aforementioned dm (who would apparently misuse divine sense), and that was when the neutral good pali suggested ways to deal with a body we had to hide.
Like is it that bad for me to play a evil character? And I know alignments are super subjective too to meaning which is probably half my problem here. But I'm also pretty sure that shes not 'chaotic neutral' as the backup option that my friend suggested
Personally I see lawful evil as someone who will obey (or abuse) social and civil laws to further their own goals of greed/power/etc. This does not mean that they can't create strong bonds with fellow adventurers and act in a good way towards them. They may also do good things to further their overarching goal, just like a good character will sometimes do evil things for the greater good.
Given that you want to slowly change the alignment towards good I don't see anything wrong with playing that char.
Taking the example of dealing with a body, they would suggest the easiest way to do so without anyone being able to track them. However being lawful, they would also give in to the party consensus.
Chaotic evil is the bad PC to play in a serious campaign (for the most part) as they and only they do evil for the fun of it. And this might be the source of the annoyance of the other player.
A lawful neutral is only 1 step from lawful evil. They follow a personal code (not laws), tradition, or law, just like lawful evil. The only difference is what they're willing to do to achieve their goals or maybe what their goals are or what their code is. (This might be the better fall back as opposed to CN)
On the whole I agree with you and think LN is the best way to still play the character with that group.
What is an alignment check? It sounds like something from a previous edition. In 5e alignment has almost exactly zero mechanical impact at all. A few magic items and exactly three spells interact with it. That's about it. Everything else is free to be interpreted or ignored at the table. I absolutely don't consider it a thing worth arguing about.
There are spells that actually interact with alignment?
And also I second the question, what is an alignment check? I play since 3rd and vaguely know 2nd edition through games like Icewind Dale. Never even heard of it.
As for your friend: They're having an incredibly narrow view of alignment that makes me wonder how they can even make a character with a personality of their own. Going against a leader doesn't make you non-lawful. And going against an evil entity doesn't make you non-evil.
Also i would argue that a CN character can easily be a less adjusted member of society than a lawful evil one.
Your alignment is not a hard and fast prescription of your character's personality, it's a very VEEERY simplified summary of their ethical compass.
Unless your friend is the DM, i would ignore their "advice" and hash it out with the DM instead. Personally i welcome evil characters as long as they're played by someone who understands that alignment doesn't overwrite reason.
Glyph of Warding can use alignment of a creature as a trigger condition. Arcanist's Magic Aura can mask it or make it appear different (mostly to counter things like that glyph, I guess). And one of the options for Ceremony can restore it after has been changed by some other effect. No others I can think of.
Edit: Spotted another. Spirit Guardians deals necrotic damage if you are evil, radiant otherwise.
Oh wow, Ceremony sets a terrible precedent. It doesn't even make sense.
Magic Aura and Glyph of Warding totally fell out of my mind.
I think Ceremony is intended as the cure for the corruption effect that is an optional rule in the DMG for hanging about too long in the Abyss. I don't think it fixes you if you turn yourself evil by just being an incorrigible jerkface.
thanks everyone, so glad I'm not crazy xD
Like the only time I've ever had to even really worry about alignments was when I played in the 3 area, bc I play clerics and that weirdness with matching your god, since thats realistic xD
Cause yea I'd never heard of 'alignment checks' prior to this dm and I'd sort of assumed they were either archaic, or like some single line in the phb most people ignore. What it appears to be is basically:
neutral good guy: we should kill this serial killer and make him suffer for it! Let him see his entrails! Then we hide the body!
DM: um thats dark, alignment check, steve, your guy wouldn't be saying that
lawful good guy: ...we should kill the serial killer and make it clean and quick...?
DM: thats better!
me: ???
and yea apart from some mostly aesthetic changes to spells (that might occasionally be useful like the necrotic/radiant damage) it dosen't really matter? I can also see ceremony used after the balance card with the deck of many things, but again, thats super obscure xD
and I definitely thought that chaotic neutral was a more problematic character xD
That's the moment when i start getting a twitchy eyelid.
I still wonder how you would roll an alignment check? What modifiers do you get, what determines the DC?
"Your guy wouldn't be saying that"
Oh, well then his alignment is whatever fits the way I'm playing him.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm not so sure about that. That option is called "atonement" and it doesn't say anything about the target's alignment having been forcefully changed or changed by outside influences. I think the expectation, much like in real life, is that the cleric would only perform the ceremony if the target actually wants to atone.
Someone could try to game the system with the wedding option of that spell but again you'd expect a cleric to take that seriously too.
At any rate Ceremony is an optional spell from an optional book and you don't have to include it in your game if you think it causes problems.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The problem with that though is that if the character is willing to be X alignment, why dont they just act by X alignment? And if they do, they should have X alignment.
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying that seems to be the expectation based on the wording. But for whatever it's worth, wanting to be good doesn't guarantee that someone will consistently behave like a good person. Old habits die hard and recognizing your shortcomings is only the first step to being a better person.
Personally I agree that it's simpler to just ignore that aspect of the spell unless someone's alignment was forced to change.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
just want to point out that sleazy politicians and underhanded lawyers can be expressed as Lawful Evil characters... and they can exist with or around the party. it sounds like the original poster and their friend have vastly different interpretations on alignment. I think the LE Hobgoblin makes perfect sense, and I, personally, agree with OP's interpretation.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I generally like to let a DM handle things in their own game. That said, a vert telling/worthy ruling comes out of the WoTC's Adventurers League. A lawful evil character may exist; however they have to be members/associates of the factions, the Lords Alliance or the Zhentarim.
Both factions (~ish) are mainstream in the game world's society. Much less so than say some Chaotic Neutral PC that tries to disrupt society as a joke or some other reason.
-IT
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe problem comes from the 9 allignments system being quite restrictive in character depth.
It's great that 5th edition moved away from the mechanical reliance on alignments that earlier editions had.
Let's consider a complex character, we'll call him Liam.
Liam has a family and he loves them - they are really important to him. He goes out of his way to be there for them and will put their needs over his own (this makes him good).
He'also has a really important job working with the military and respects the chain of command. He has a strong sense of duty (this makes him lawful).
So Liam is Lawful Good, right?
Ok, now some criminals kidnap his daughter and taunt him. He vows to track them down, rescue hius daughter and make them pay for this.
Liam starts tracking them down, breaking many laws whilst doing so. Is this Chaotic behaviour? He's putting his own wants and desires above the law. Maybe it's neutral.
Other people try to stop Liam during his mission, but he thinks nothing of hurting them, as he will not give up his mission. He hurts some innocent people that are just doing their job. Does this make him evil? He's pursuing his goals at the expense of others. Possibly neutral again.
When he finally tracks down the kidnappers and rescues his daughter, he doesn't hand the criminals over to the authorities, he kills them, after having incapacitated them. Is that murder? It's certainly not lawful or goodly.
So overall our Liam character has behaved in a way that marks him as true neutral, with tendencies for Good, Evil, Lawful & Chaotic.
That's the problem with alignment systems - any well developed character is likely to be the same, unless they are a classic paladin with inflexible morals, or a cartoon villain.
So, personally I view a character's alignment in Dungeons & Dragons as their general inclination when there is no specific motivation. It's there so the player can indicate to me the sort of actions their character is likely to take in a generic situation.
Goodly characters will likely stop to help a farmer fix their broken cart (allowing me to use such as a plot hook).
Evil characters might look for an opportunity to steal something from the cart while the farmer is distracted (again can make a good plot hook knowing this).
As a DM, I would never tell a player how they should play their character due to the alignment on their sheet.
In fact, I often tell my players that they don't need to write down their character's alignment on the sheet if they don't want to and should wait until they have played a couple of sessions anyway, so they have developed the character a bit.
If a player continually plays their character significantly different to the alignment written on their sheet? I'd probably discuss with them whether the alignment on the sheet should change to match their actions, but I've not seen that happen in 30 years.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I agree with stormknight; alignment is a tool for players and DMs to form an understanding of social and moral bearing. from that launchpad the collaborative storytelling unfolds.
liam's DM obviously knew family was important to him, so he used a plot hook. and maybe liam went down a dark and lawless path but he did it by taking single steps. His DM reacted to these steps and together they told a story of how Lawful Good is anything but black and white.
imo
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I think being related to Liam is a serious health hazard - his family keeps getting Taken for gods sake!
How to add Tooltips
The example of Liam might have Taken a step too far.
Let's consider named Badakkin Groundwater. He started out as a junkyard slave, but eventually was brought into an order of knighthood and given authority and respect. Eventually Badakkin jumped the shark and started killing children because his wife was sick. He eventually changed his name to Moth Dagger and helped purge the corruptions of his goverment and his order of knighthood. His actions led him to be the righthand man of a lawful ruler who was interested in protecting national assets and learning new ways to 'bring people together'.
I consider Lawful Evil to be "there is no line I wouldn't cross."
Dirty Harry is lawful evil, as are some incarnations of Batman. James Bond crosses the line sometimes. And these are all protagonists in their stories.