I agree that much of the confusion over Alignment arises from taking them to their logical extreme in every case. Now in D&D, the logical extremes have their place: in the cosmic beings that represent them. Angels, the Fey, Devils, Demons, Yugoloths, Slaads, Modrons, etc. Even Elementals, who are the Truest Neutral, because they just ARE. All these beings are what the Alignments represent when dialed up to 11. For humanoid characters, though, we need to paint the Alignment brush with a light hand. Mortals aren't cosmically set in their ways; they can change, and must balance the tenets of their Alignment against their needs and context. Moreover, they are flawed, meaning they don't always perfectly practice what they preach, or see the value in doing so. Sometimes, personal entanglements cause them to act more moderate in certain contexts than their Alignment would suggest. Imagine, for example, you had a Neutral Evil character. He knows what he wants, and generally doesn't care what he needs to do to satisfy those needs, or who he needs to step on. Except for the members of his adventuring party, who he might like and work to protect, in spite of his selfishness and anti-social tendencies. This Neutral Evil character might say, "I don't like people as a rule...but I've grown fond of your faces. You are important to me, and I won't let anyone take you away." He might even love someone, or have certain wrongs he cannot abide, because they offend him personally or philosophically. Generally, the man is Evil, and not particularly Lawful or Chaotic. But he's got complexities, and his behavior can be skewed by certain people or situations. The best way to use Alignment, I think, is as a starting point for developing a character's more in-depth morality and philosophy. Not as a cage to confine, but as rich soil from which a strong character might be grown. As archetypal as they are, the characters should ultimately be human (even when they're a non-human humanoid).
I could argue that being neutral then. Everybody does what it takes to get what they want (to some extent) and they care more about their loved ones than strangers. Hell lizardfolk eat people but they are true neutral or lawful neutral.
As time has went on, I've began to see Lawful less and less about "Law" and more about Order. Reliability, code of conduct, tradition, community, duty, honor etc. Two lawful neutral characters from different nations could have complete disregard to eachothers' goverments and their rule, simply because they believed the other one was in the wrong. Example: USA vs USSR during the Cold War. A lawful character would have every reason not to hand over a criminal to a goverment he disagreed with, it would go against his principles. Many people seem to hold the belief that opposing a ruling party or breaking the law are inherently chaotic acts and I just can't agree with that. Context matters. The terms can be confusing and they're such a brand that they're not about to change, nor would I really want them to. Endless conflict keeps everything in balance, as Ao wants it.
I think you're totally right, and it's this dynamic of being able to wrestle with ideas of good and evil, order and chaos--that they're things that are clear on one hand but also have enough depth that you can really debate them, I think that's part of why they've stuck around so long.
my brother and I have argued for hours on each alignment because I think it all drills down to how you view morality and God, or any higher power, within the real world.
I could also see those two LN characters completely understanding that their opposing part will follow their home nations laws and tradition, and lose respect for them if they change their mind to agree with the first party.
this is totally true and also what i do... the problem is that alignment are not in depth. and people take them too literal. chaotic means you change idea as fast as you change your clothes. while order is all about having a code, rules that you follow. now good and evil are different
This is a good way of looking at it. To pitch in, I've rolled a (but haven't gotten to play yet, sadly) Tabaxi who I view as Lawful Neutral. However, the, "lawful," in that stems from his dedication to the teachings of his clan elder. Those teachings are in some cases very different to the laws and customs of Faerun, and just because he's Lawful, doesn't mean that he'll automatically subscribe to those ideas.
At its simplest, True Neutral is ambivalent about good or evil, the individual or society. So while they might seem freer (in that they don't have strong attachments) they also end up being more aloof as a group (in that they don't have strong attachments).
@@robertblank5206 Not necessarily it could be someone who is in the process of transitioning across the centre of the alignment divide. My barbarian for an example is in a moral journey from evil to good, habit still has him acting evil from time to time because it's his habit but his ideal is to try and redeem himself.
@@DaDunge No I get that. I do like the idea that alignment is organic and fluid and that it can track with the growth and change of players--but if the needle stops for you at TN and that's where you end up rather than on your way to another alignment, the idea is that it suggests ambivalence, or at least detachment from ideals of law or chaos, good or evil.
@@DaDunge That's fair if you do. Disagreements are part of the fun of the hobby. That said I think we really are saying the same thing but just maybe not understanding each other. Regardless best of luck in your games. D&D is awesome.
I once ran the same CN character in a 14-year long campaign. The other Players believed him to be completely random and unpredictable, a "force of nature." I think they were hung up on the CN "label" and never tried to understand him. Despite their jokes and private concerns with his sanity, he became the party's de facto leader. He had a consistent, if sometimes seemingly contradictory, set of values that he was never asked to share. He was a manipulative, self-centered Libertarian, with a strong backbone of internal justice and personal responsibility. He also fused together a prickly sense of contrary individualism, and a compulsion for vengeance. His demonstrations of retribution were always disproportionate to the offense with a flair for the dramatic designed to create the maximum amount of buzz among the bystanders. The party quickly gained a sense of notoriety and enjoyed their celebrity status everywhere they went.
I usually describe Alignments to my friends like this: Good: care for people, even strangers Neutral: doesn't care much for strangers but doesn't wish bad thing for them Evil: doesn't care for strangers, may even like others people suffering remember that all of them may like a person or two in particular, even a cruel serial killer may love his mother Chaotic: focus in do what he wishs to do Lawfull: believe there a certain way he himself must behave and act my favorites exemples are a Chaotic good: helps people even against their will. "I know you dont want my help, but i will help you anyway" Lawfull Evil: A villain who thinks he is better than everyone and everybody should be his slaves BUT never stabs someone in the back, he will prove his "point" by beating you face-to-face
I sent this video to all of my players to watch as homework before our next session. I love his last point: law vs chaos defines/describes how you do something. good vs evil defines/describes what you do.
I as DM focus more on the Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws of my player characters than their alignment. How they act within those is what matters for me. Alignment have many interpretations and points of view that almost never comes into an agreement. So for player characters I don't use alignment to define/describe them. But I do use it for the cosmos, because in D&D it have a role to play.
I thinks its best to think of alignments as a title and on where their actions will take them in the afterlife. Like a quick summary of the character's stance within the cosmos viewed from thousands of miles away as a blur.
The trouble with seeing Chaos as "me first" as opposed to "the individual first" is that like in that example of the tyrant who's making people serve in the militia, if it didn't affect him personally he wouldn't have a reason to care. He just wants to be left alone, right? With Chaos, it's that he'd get riled up about The Man kicking around the Little Guy and it would get him up in arms. Whereas Law tends to value authority figures and see those who try to break away from the law as weakening the law, and making things worse for everyone else--so maybe some people get to dodge being in the militia and get to live, but it weakens the militia both in numbers and morale that some folks get an out. So he sides with the tyrant.
I view chaotic calendar lawful as good of the group (ends justify the means) and chaotic as (individuals matter more, evil care more only about themselves).
Alignment is a role playing guide. We used to hand out pre-generated characters with some background and an alignment. The player was expected to skew decisions based on that alignment. When you role up (or point buy) your character and generate your own PC background you are also generating your own PC alignment. Lawful has a set of standards that they expect to be followed (that may or may nt fit the law of the land they are in at the moment) Good will tend to choose what will help the most people (Elves, Humans, Halflings... whoever they see as their people would get preference) Evil will do whatever profits themselves the most. This might be acting good for a time in order to set up a more profitable situation... but really they do not care about causing harm to others. They might actually enjoy causing harm to everyone possible. Chaotifc will do whatever looks enertaining at the moment... tempered with the good/neutral/evil flavor.
i use alignment as the characters perception of them self rather than an actual good or evil. i have a lawful good paladin, but his religion allows him do things which others would consider evil. like executing some whose done something sacrilegious. its bad for someone not of their religion. but he justifies it. its definitely that more got, moral ambiguity style. i think its more interesting
that would work within a game where the alignments aren't defined strictly by extremely powerful cosmic forces, such as the outer planes. In the generic setting, things are good because the angels are good, things are evil because they are like the devils and demons who are evil. If a Demon wasn't evil it would cease to be a Demon, that is how it is usually stated. You can have your setting have such moral relativity, but normally in order for a paladin to gain cosmic divine power they must be like the Angels, ergo Lawful Good.
@Budo Ka Depends if the fundamental law underlying his belief in his own morality has explicitly said that is the crime and punishment for the circumstances. Lawful means you adhere to some sort of code more formalized than your own judgement.
@Budo Ka They absolutely could. Think of the Knights Templar, think of the stuff they did to non Christians in the Holy Lands. It was considered lawful and righteous as long the church backed them. Same thing in D&D, if the God says kill all Orcs then a lawful good Paladin would be compelled to follow those beliefs and would not be in conflict with their alignment even outside their own realm. Your view the of Lawful Good being akin to the literally chivalrous knight is just one view of that. Even if you read something like Perceval, the Story of the Grail, by Chretien you can see how the water get muddied pretty quickly and that was written in the late 1100's. Your point of view could be right but it's by no means a contradiction and typically not going to be universal unless you as a DM makes it so. The problem you can run into is what the presenter speaks to, the universal concept does not fit into the D&D neatly if you try to reconcile it too much. It's something you can say like he did but it's clearly a logical fallacy if you think about it. To resolve it to be centrist from that point of view would require re-writing most of the creatures lore. So best not dwell on too much.
Yeah, I should mention our group has been playing homebrew stuff since we started. Ive always felt like writing our own lore was more interesting than playing someone else's. Just recently we started lost mine of phendelver and were playing more in line with 5e lore. So yeah alignment is dictated by the context of gods and factions in the world
7 หลายเดือนก่อน
This happened in play: we used Roll20 where the character sheet has no dedicated place to record Alignment. When I was finally hit by some Alignment based monster attack, the DM asked about my Alignment. I answered what was best for my character at the moment. And I will never know whether I was playing by the rules or not: as Mike admits at 1:15, the rules for it are purposefully not done, not ready to use. At least we know that the way to change alignment is "You just change your alignment" as Crawford tweeted it. I am happy for his clarification because it would make me sad to pay with my Reaction for their mistake.
I like to use alignment as my character's tendency. It is what they will tend toward, but things like bravery, cowardice, stubbornness, flexibility, circumstance, and a host of other things give flavor to these alignments. Using alignment as a hard rule on how to play your character is restrictive, and takes away so much freedom of nuance that you could have. You need that freedom to have inner conflicts, regrets from decisions made, and other things that give characters a touch of life that standard archetypes have in very small supply..
I'm a bit of a murder hobo at heart, so I use alignment as a reference for what my character would do instead of using my first instinct. And the results are very interesting. (At least to me) For example, I have a half elf bard that's chaotic evil and a gnome druid that's chaotic good. Both avoid combat in favor of diplomacy, but that's because the druid genuinely doesn't want to hurt anyone, while the bard just doesn't want to get hurt. The bard would trade his allies for a turkey sandwich if that sandwich could fight monsters for him.
I've been playing it this way for years. Your alignment is not very important when you are 1st level. However, regardless of your beliefs, the forces of alignment are in play on the cosmic scale. The alignments of the most powerful entities in the multiverse is very important. Just like Mearls points out here. As players rise in power, and actually begin to be able to affect their position in the cosmos, then, a character's alignment becomes more important.
I don't like seeing True Neutral as a person who have no convictions. Acting neutral and relativizing the moments one have to act doesn't exclude anyone to have opinions and beliefs. True Neutral just don't believe that one needs to push beliefs to make a point. Balance is a virtue and True Neutral is about putting everything under balance, including himself. Cool video of one of my favorite aspects of D&D, btw.
Not at all. You don’t go out of your way to help or hurt without reason and you tolerate law and order and only break it for personally interests. Most people in real life fall under this.
As a DM I like to run it where your actions determine your alinement rather then the other way around. I think it is more interesting to watch the player characters grow and change as the campaign goes on.
Not a D&D player, but I do have an interest, I see alignment more as a moral compass. The Shin Megami Tensei series breaks it down to the simplest logic. Law = order and code of ethics, Chaos = thrill seeker with a disregard for systems and loves being random, and Nuetral = laws are important, but so is freewill. So if I understand a lawful evil character is more or less a tyrant who follows a code of ethics, while a chaotic good character doesn't like being confined by laws, but would randomly help people Robin Hood style. Then a true nuetral character would go about following certain laws and disregarding others and may do both good and evil within the same day.
Alignment arguments always seem to stem from how the alignments are defined. People often have mildly different definitions of good, diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive definitions of lawful, no definitions at all when it comes to chaotic, and idiotic definitions of evil and neutral. Here's the over simplification that works for me. Good = Selfless Evil = Selfish Lawful = Dogmatic Chaotic = Shameless Neutral = Pragmatic
That comparison of the tyrant makes me think I might be more Chaotic Good than Neutral Good. Maybe the next campaign I join, I should go in as Neutral Good with a chance to go either Chaotic Good or Lawful Good. Give the DM a chance to bring character development into the story.
Alignment for player characters causes too many problems. There are conflicting interpretations about alignment and players use it to justify their character’s actions. When I DM I reserve alignment for monsters and beings that have specific purposes. Players can choose how their characters act however they know there can be consequences, depending on local laws and any oaths taken.
I like the way background ideals talks about "people" being neutral, as in "I take care of the people who take care of me, that's what keeps us alive" I have a CN barbarian who's morality focuses heavily on survival and loyalty. So he acts in a benevolent and protective way towards those within his narrow circle but anyone outside of that circle doesn't factor much into his moral calculations. They are often little more than opportunities, obstacles or threats to him. He isn't selfish, he's groupish.
I've always seen alignment as a an RP crutch. Not to mention that there is little to no consensus on what the alignments mean in any given situation, which can lead to arguments about alignment as opposed to the actions or RP of the game. Also I believe 5e only has two mechanical references to alignment, "Glyphs and Wards" as well as some magical trap sensors both of which can trigger or not trigger based off of the alignment of the creature interacting with it is. Something that is easily removed from the game with little notice.
I love your description of Neutral Good. While I think most of my NG characters would oppose the tyrant, it is the moral debate and decision making that I enjoy about playing that alignment.
Man, reminds me of this webcomic about philosophers; some of the stories were about philosophers playing D&D. To answer your question with another question: With respect to what? Forgotten Realms? Planescape? Dark Sun? I'm pretty sure Kant would see himself as LG, but his axiomatic mode of thinking lends itself to Mechanus.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who found it strange that Mearls explained the thought process of both Neutral Good and Lawful Good in terms of a Utilitarian viewpoint, whereas the Chaotic Good justification sounded more deontological/Kantian. I sometimes think of 'Lawful' as something like following general maxims of action (deontological), whether those be provided by the laws of a governing body, a knightly oath, religious doctrine, etc. However, I could see an argument being made for 'lawful' being not the literal following of express laws but something like a general value of orderliness (which would be more akin to a virtue ethics). And as Mearls showed, you can attempt to give a utilitarian justification for either of these ways of revering the 'law'. Chaotic follows the dictates of either 'conscience' or whims on a case-by-case basis with no overarching principle other than general concern for one's own interests (even if those interests aren't wholly selfish) and perhaps a value on personal freedom (this could manifest as something like an attitude about the need to defend individual 'rights' (again a deontological stance), or it could be about following certain values without explicit principles (virtue ethics), or a weighing of consequences for oneself or for everyone (consequentialism). My character is neutral good, but he doesn't think in terms of either consequences, case-by-case consultations of 'conscience', or general maxims (he might be closest to a 'virtue ethicist', but even that doesn't quite fit). I regard the term 'neutral' as necessarily meaning not some amalgamation of the two poles or 'sometimes going one way, sometimes another', but a position where something entirely different and unique can show up. But like the other alignments, a neutral good character could justify himself on any of those grounds (deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethical) as well. Perhaps in tension with what Mearls said here, I suppose it may be better to think of the lawful-chaotic pole as having to do with a broader question of what the character values (more so than how they go about justifying their decisions): order/harmony or personal freedom. The neutral character might have values that trump both of those, and/or think in entirely different terms than a dichotomy between the two. (For example: the character might think that laws aren't inherently just and social harmony not valuable for its own sake, but also that personal freedom is meaningless unless right and good choices are made, so that in the ideal world, freedom would just be the ability to do choose what everyone knew was good, and there would be harmony only as a result of everyone having freely chosen the same good).
I see law/chaos as being your character’s personality, but the good/evil side of alignment is more of a faction reputation slider for the metaphysical moral forces of the universe.
For Law vs Chaos, I see it more as 'protect and dedication' vs pursue and obtain. Neutral in this case would then be the desire for change. For Good vs Evil, I see it as wanting the people around you to have better lives vs gaining a better life for oneself. Neutral in this case to being satisfied with your place in life. Interestingly, this reasoning then leads True neutral to being satisfied and desiring to live within a system of change, therefore they can have the 'life is a game' mentality, immerse themselves in commerce, politics or worship and immerse themselves in nature, which is a very different mindset from 'go with the flow'
that was only true when the head was disconnected or corrupted; why the hell wouldn't the turning of the wheel be harmonious amongst all aspects of creation. If the head leads the way, then the right arm (lawful good) will work in one section, the left (lawful evil) arm in another, same for the legs but they all inwardly have the same ideal. (For the awakened ones at least or gods and above). Vecna found a way to enter sigil from his experimental abyss and rule there for a while and orcus usurped the positions of primus on mechanus where the order of the universe has to be maintained. All the conceptions of people fell into disarray, brothers fighting against sisters, evil against good; that is what division creates contrary to what harmony would. The lady of pain finally killed the nameless one, kicked vecna out of sigil and demoted him to a lesser thing and a new primus was installed. The rogue modrons however are corrupted intellects still able to affect people's mind.
I'm running a pirate campaign, my characters are lawful to the pirate code but chaotic to the laws of the rest of the world. My characters are good to their crew and orphan children, but evil to trade merchants and nobility. we don't use alignment anymore....
I see it as order and chaos in one axis and a personal morality so stick you impose in on orders vs be amorale. A good example of a lawful good character that is a true monster would be the high sparrow from game of thrones.
I'm going to be roleplaying an Chaotic Neutral Copper Dragonborn Bladelock, he's a Chaotic because he believes it gives more freedom and following your feelings are great, and he's neutral because he's a good person and he loves being good to people and making them happy, but he's a person who recognizes that he may have to eventually do evil acts, either willingly or unwillingly. Like his Hexblade patron or another outlet of pressure, forces him into a situation where he does evil, heinous things. He's a Chaotic Neutral person who chooses Good, but like everyone else, is connected to Evil and Law.
Awesome. So I got true neutral right. Law and chaos sorta right, and to be rightfully pissed when my character was forced to wear the helmet of alignment change.
The real problem isn't the law chaos axis the problem is the good evil one, either it is metaphysical good evil serving the higher planes of these things or it is personal good and evil altruism versus egoism, these are not the same thing. You can have an egoistic servant of higher good, Han Solo comes to mind. He's there because people he likes are there not because he has any strong loyalty to the cause. Or an altruistic servant of darkness. Say someone trying to blunt the regime of evil. Or the noble demon archetype.
Interesting topic. My main gripe with the (otherwise effective) way alignment works is that it fails to show the general view of the world you have is not universally applicable to everyone. Your general outlook to life is unlikely to extend to close relatives and friends, ancestors, descendants and even love interests. I especially refer to the "second" part of the alignment, as the lawful/neutral/chaotic one is more inbuilt. You may actively put your interests above those of others, and forcibly do so when you feel like it. But would you do the same with your own kin? Or with your significant other? So, does it mean you can, for example, be "lawful evil" towards most people and, say, lowful neutral (or even good) when dealing with a few selected contacts?
I have come to see the Good vs. Evil axis as less defined by putting others first as on a character's view of morality (self-imposed rules that limit some behaviours and require others). A good person has a well-developed set of rules and sticks to them quite closely (but maybe not perfectly). A neutral person has a perhaps simplified set of rules and thinks of them more as guidelines, bendable in certain circumstances. In this way a neutral person is very pragmatic. An evil person views such self-imposed rules as a con, and a weakness. It's just a way for the surrounding culture to attempt to exert unearned control over you. It might be a useful way to control others but should never limit your own actions.
1:45 No, the Norse gods are personable deities, Loki is the good of trickery because of the kind of person he is not the kind of person he is because what he is God of. Loki is more often shown as Thor's clever sidekick than as the malicious trickster. You should look up Peter Madsens Valhalla comics they show the gods a lot better than any other source I've seen.
Yes!!!! I play Chaotic Good pretty much always because it reflects me best. And what he said about the Chaotic Good person was sooo freaking true. The evil king has no justification, and needs to go.
In my universe the plans must be what they are if one is forced to change or one is destroyed every thing goes crazy even limbo and then it will reform
That Loki analogy doesn't work well, myth-wise. Loki isn't the Trickster. Odin tricks and deceives as ably as Loki, arguably. Loki is Fire. Tended, watched carefully, he is useful and helpful to the Aesir. Left unsupervised or neglected, he becomes destructive. Fire can help you forge, cook, build, or it can kill your family and burn your house down. Also, Lord of the Rings isn't morally nuanced. There is objective, physically corruptive, evil and there is good. LotR falls into the same category as old-school D&D, and inspired it in part. Game of Thrones, being inspired by historical dynastic wars like the War of the Roses, is more nuanced, because it doesn't have cosmological entities, or at least not morally aligned ones (even the Red God opposes the Walkers because light opposes darkness, not because he values any moral stance). In most D&D cosmological constructions, there are morally aligned planes of reality, and morally aligned beings. There is objective good and evil and law and chaos, with cosmic beings aligned along those lines as well as entire universes. It makes sense for Game of Thrones not to dwell on objective good and evil. To the extent it has gods, they don't speak on those issues. In a world that has an eons-long Blood War between forms of evil that are differently aligned in terms of law and chaos, and various afterlives that attract or require specific character traits (brave warriors in Valhalla, just and merciful souls on Mount Celestia, pure-hearted inhabitants of Elysium, etc.), moral alignments with tangible effects (and spells like Detect Evil, Know Alignment, Protection from Good, etc.) make more sense to have than to leave out. It would be fair to have a spell like that not effect regular humans much on the grounds that their alignment might not be pure or strong enough to be detectable, but a cleric or paladin ought to stand out, and a celestial or devil ought to give off a reading strong enough to peg the meter, as it were.
LG: Does the right thing while upholding the law. Example: Superman (most of the time), Captain America (Most of the time) NG: Does the right thing. Example: Most humans who are good. CG: I don't care what happens as long as the right thing is done. Example: Robin Hood, Sonic the Hedgehog LN: The law is the law and must be followed even if people get hurt. Example: Judge Dread TN/N: I don't care/I will not pick a side/Bark! Bark! Grrrurrrrurrrff... Example: A bear CN: Is it easier to talk to the enemy to stop them or chop their head off? Whatever's easiest is fine/Bought a kid a puppy with money they stole from the kids neighbor/PIZZA! POTATO! SPONGE! SPONGE POTATO! POTATO PIZZA! SPONGEY POTATO PIZZA! PUDDING! Example: Deadpool. LE: I get the job done but I won't/can't break a code. Example: Two Face NE: Whoever gets hurt, it doesn't matter. My ends justify the means. Example: Sephiroth CE: Whoever is in my way will get killed. Whoever ISN'T in my way will get lethally injured. Whoever tries stopping me gets killed. Example: Joker.
So If I have a theif or rouge who is usually nice and trustworthy but is known to steal people's stuff when no one is looking what alignment would he be?
The alignment system need to be put out of its misery as explained way back in Dragon #101's (Sept 1985) "For King and Country". Later systems, like GURPS, use a series of traits ie I have a Code of Honor or am a coward, or I can't tell a lie to save my life (Truthfulness) which far better flesh out character.. Take the GURPS Who's Who write up of Vlad Tepes Dracula: Bully (12), Code of Honor (Warrior), Intolerance (Muslim), and Sadism (12) is far more descriptive then LE or perhaps LN(E)
There's a lot, but most importantly, Chaotic anything is /against/ the ideas of order. Chaos means many things and it means different things to different people, but if you're a chaotic anything, you wish to promote chaos in whatever way suits your character.
Looking into the comments, I can easily see why alignment is so disliked. Everyone has a different definition because WoTC refuses to put out concrete ones. Instead of hammering it down, they waffled a bunch and started trying to shuffle it off to the trash.
I would see lawful good sooner side with chaotic good than lawful evil for simple reason that Lawful good and Chaotic good share end goal while they share only lawful methods of pursuing very different end goal with lawful evil. Lawful good would take issue with evil (even if they are lawful) methods and evil end goal of lawful evil character, while lawful good would take an issue with chaotic methods he would be cool with end goal of chaotic good. To point it simply lawful evil wants to establish law for sake benefiting their cause (most often selfish one like money and power) and will apply tyrannical power for their advantage, lawful good abhore this as he would different that order that doesn't bring well-being to all is bad. If both chaotic good and lawful good character were to start society conflict would come just to how to menage it to bring well-being to all, chaotic good would want more freedom and little regulations, while lawful good would want more regulations. If Neutral Good tried to start society he would try to balance order and freedom, meaning their society would be less strict than those of lawful goods but also not so lax that of chaotic good characters.
if lawful good takes over everything, then nothing would have an alignment. Can't have good without evil so in the case where good does somehow break this and takes over everything, then being lawful good is as meaningless as lawful evil. Morality breaks down when there's only one alignment, which is why alignment wouldn't make sense anymore, as you pointed out. Lawful good = Lawful evil? That doesn't make sense.
No, his argument is if LG conquers all, it is still LG. It is done from the viewpoint of LG, so they would jail the CG and NG last, after they help conquer the evils. I don't really agree with cut and dried system of alignment. Just becuase a paladin claim LG, their kills are better than an assassins? Maybe from a motivational standpoint. Eh, this argument can go on for eternity, and no answer is more right or wrong than anyone else's.
Chaotic Evil is more the pure random one with (at least how I play) Chaotic Neutral is finding weird alternate solutions that can be comedic or they can be reasonable.
I'm not quite sure, how Evil(tm) has a "place" per se in the world. Or how a real person would ever self-associate them self as Evil(tm), outside of them being somehow altered via arcane, primal, divine, or psionic means.
In the real world, I imagine every evil person would call themselves "different" or even justified. Or "the ends justify the means." Perhaps they're so crazy that they think that they are above everyone else like a god-complex.
evil allignments don't have to be EVIL. They simply put their own needs above the needs of others, and are fine with causing harm if needed. I had a character called Charon who despised undead, and would go through whatever means necessary to rid the world of as many as he could, he burned down an entire village and parts of a forest, and this was to protect his family. The allignmemt system while it doesn't mention it I think is best imagined as a grid, or two sets of scales and where he fit the most was a point between CN and NE that was called (-L)(-G) or not lawful, and not good. I also imagine most people, unless their a Paladin or Cleric and MAYBE a druid wouldn't describe themselves as any alignment. However they still have one as they have the freewill and intelligence to naturally lean towards one.
Evil is a very broad spectrum. Not every evil character will go around killing people and burning stuff or what have you. Being on the evil spectrum simply means that your character will pursue their goals and ideals even if it causes harm to someone or something else.
Alignment is not really used in 5e. It makes zero sense for a Paladin or a Monk to be unlawful yet there is no restrictions. A drunken master monk could possibly be chaotic but for a Paladin to swear an oath but not be Lawful is just dumb. There are a few magic items that have an alignment restriction but not many. Otherwise it never comes into play which I personally dislike. You may as well scap alignment and assume everyone is Chaotic Neutral in 5e....
" Not the moral relativism bs thats in GOT and today world" By which you mean... Not making everything about human interaction out to be literally two-dimensional (actually accounting only for the good-vs-evil dichotomy would be one dimensional, which is worse)? LOTR was about more than a simple notion of 'good vs evil', which you would know had you read the books. Gandalf and Frodo discuss the ethics of killing Gollum, with Gandalf convincing Frodo that doing so without need would be unjust. The Elves are lauded for treating Gollum with kindness (imprisoning him but treating him with humanity) while at the same time having the flaws in their mode of justice pointed out when Gollum escapes with the assistance of the Enemy. The morality of Boromir's actions are discussed by his brother and Frodo, as is the morality of war and Boromir's regret for having to fight the Haradrim, who were once allies of Gondor, but became corrupted by Sauron. In the second book of The Two Towers, part of a chapter is devoted to a weird tangent, the writing of which goes off at a right angle to the rest of that chapter (not to mention the rest of the series). There is much discussion in The Two Towers and The Return of the King over all the rightness and wrongness of all manner of things, from war, to Eowyn's desires and how they contrast to her role in her society, to the place of women as a whole in society, to the winding down of magic that causes the Elves to leave Middle Earth and usher in the Age of Men. LOTR is problematic in many ways, it does have its flaws, but to present the story as a morally simplistic conflict of good-vs-evil is not only an interpretation that is impossible for one to draw from the books without eliding almost all of their content, but is also inherently disrespectful to the work a whole. I'm sorry you find realistic human interactions and discussions and conflicts so dull, and I'm sorry you felt the need to lie about LOTR.
Well apparently he was a maiar, like Gandalf and Saruman. so while we never see his love life it's quite likely he had one. Plus he was said to once have been the fairest and most charming of the maiar. So maybe. Certainly when he was horribly burned by Morgoth during his betrayal, and likely before that when he sided with Morgoth against his kin, any family he had probably turned from him. It's one reason he loves the orcs. They too have been mutilated and discarded.
Murder, theft, rape, slavery and oppression, etc... are intrinsically morally wrong even if your "culture" says otherwise. Never doubt that there is genuine good and evil and the world and it cannot and should not be ignored for the sake of not offending someone's cultural sensibilities as the relativists would have you believe.
It's not an outdated idea. In other editions, alignment is a tangible force that binds the multiverse together. The entire Planescape setting resolves around faith, philosophy, and morals having a concrete power to shape the multiverse, and the game had the mechanics to reflect that. In 5th Edition, the designers decided to remove all that. I'd respect that decision, but they decided to keep alignments anyway for no other reason than giving the illusion they're staying true to older editions. As I said above, it's a cop out.
Why is he using Game of Thrones as his example so much? I get it's popular but we play D&D so the good guys get to win, unless we are playing an evil group, yet if you follow GOT's example then it doesn't matter what alignment you play. Just make sure you're a scumbag and you'll ultimately succeed in all your endeavors.
Peter Rants you know what's great about D&D is the fact that it is a procedurally generated story with the RNG being the players themselves. It's not a surly about whether or not the campaign is good or evil players can die at any moment and if they Heroes do win kind of leaves no place for future Heroes.
Game of Thrones IS the current baseline of what mainstream audiences think of when they think "fantasy." We're 15 years out from the LOTR movies and the Hobbit trilogy didn't exactly dominate the popular discourse like they did. And honestly it doesn't sound like you even watch much GOT because some of the most popular characters are Jon Snow and Brienne of Tarth. Classic Lawful Good characters.
No I read the books, which I know is just a crazy thing to do in the millennial world today, but hey name one movie or show that can grasp the true moments a book can? Like when Jon Snow first saw giants atop of mammoths past the wall? I get that in today's world it's passe to be "good", but sir if you read the books than you know that what I was saying wasn't trolling. Besides I don't base LOTR and GOT by their television sales, because if LOTR had all its content included in the movies than you'd have to dedicate an entire month just to watch two of em. I didn't mean to come off as a troll, as much as I don't feel like modern high fantasy has to be over sexualized where the nobelist people die because it should be considered a naive notion. Good and Evil is not relative, but hey don't go getting upset cuz prefer the book that your tv show is based on I'm sorry.
![[Official Music Video] ฝังใจ - BOW Maylada [Prod. By Tan LIPTA]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rSjk1jKWRN4/mqdefault.jpg)
True Neutral dying: "Tell my wife I said, Hello."
I agree that much of the confusion over Alignment arises from taking them to their logical extreme in every case. Now in D&D, the logical extremes have their place: in the cosmic beings that represent them. Angels, the Fey, Devils, Demons, Yugoloths, Slaads, Modrons, etc. Even Elementals, who are the Truest Neutral, because they just ARE. All these beings are what the Alignments represent when dialed up to 11.
For humanoid characters, though, we need to paint the Alignment brush with a light hand. Mortals aren't cosmically set in their ways; they can change, and must balance the tenets of their Alignment against their needs and context. Moreover, they are flawed, meaning they don't always perfectly practice what they preach, or see the value in doing so. Sometimes, personal entanglements cause them to act more moderate in certain contexts than their Alignment would suggest.
Imagine, for example, you had a Neutral Evil character. He knows what he wants, and generally doesn't care what he needs to do to satisfy those needs, or who he needs to step on. Except for the members of his adventuring party, who he might like and work to protect, in spite of his selfishness and anti-social tendencies. This Neutral Evil character might say, "I don't like people as a rule...but I've grown fond of your faces. You are important to me, and I won't let anyone take you away." He might even love someone, or have certain wrongs he cannot abide, because they offend him personally or philosophically.
Generally, the man is Evil, and not particularly Lawful or Chaotic. But he's got complexities, and his behavior can be skewed by certain people or situations.
The best way to use Alignment, I think, is as a starting point for developing a character's more in-depth morality and philosophy. Not as a cage to confine, but as rich soil from which a strong character might be grown. As archetypal as they are, the characters should ultimately be human (even when they're a non-human humanoid).
I could argue that being neutral then. Everybody does what it takes to get what they want (to some extent) and they care more about their loved ones than strangers. Hell lizardfolk eat people but they are true neutral or lawful neutral.
Well said to both of you
"Good is but a point of view."
- Palpatine.
That guy has no ground to stand on.
@@slyfer60
Because he didn’t have any high ground
@@nerdysniper6194 ..........Slowly begin to applaud.
@@slyfer60
*“I Am The Senate” starts playing in the background*
As time has went on, I've began to see Lawful less and less about "Law" and more about Order. Reliability, code of conduct, tradition, community, duty, honor etc. Two lawful neutral characters from different nations could have complete disregard to eachothers' goverments and their rule, simply because they believed the other one was in the wrong. Example: USA vs USSR during the Cold War. A lawful character would have every reason not to hand over a criminal to a goverment he disagreed with, it would go against his principles. Many people seem to hold the belief that opposing a ruling party or breaking the law are inherently chaotic acts and I just can't agree with that. Context matters.
The terms can be confusing and they're such a brand that they're not about to change, nor would I really want them to. Endless conflict keeps everything in balance, as Ao wants it.
I think you're totally right, and it's this dynamic of being able to wrestle with ideas of good and evil, order and chaos--that they're things that are clear on one hand but also have enough depth that you can really debate them, I think that's part of why they've stuck around so long.
my brother and I have argued for hours on each alignment because I think it all drills down to how you view morality and God, or any higher power, within the real world.
I could also see those two LN characters completely understanding that their opposing part will follow their home nations laws and tradition, and lose respect for them if they change their mind to agree with the first party.
this is totally true and also what i do... the problem is that alignment are not in depth. and people take them too literal. chaotic means you change idea as fast as you change your clothes. while order is all about having a code, rules that you follow. now good and evil are different
This is a good way of looking at it. To pitch in, I've rolled a (but haven't gotten to play yet, sadly) Tabaxi who I view as Lawful Neutral. However, the, "lawful," in that stems from his dedication to the teachings of his clan elder. Those teachings are in some cases very different to the laws and customs of Faerun, and just because he's Lawful, doesn't mean that he'll automatically subscribe to those ideas.
I like his laugh. I can tell he would be a fun DM.
he loves giving cursed items to his players, if that tells you anything
True Neutral is literally one step away from everything, the freer one.
At its simplest, True Neutral is ambivalent about good or evil, the individual or society. So while they might seem freer (in that they don't have strong attachments) they also end up being more aloof as a group (in that they don't have strong attachments).
@@robertblank5206 Not necessarily it could be someone who is in the process of transitioning across the centre of the alignment divide. My barbarian for an example is in a moral journey from evil to good, habit still has him acting evil from time to time because it's his habit but his ideal is to try and redeem himself.
@@DaDunge No I get that. I do like the idea that alignment is organic and fluid and that it can track with the growth and change of players--but if the needle stops for you at TN and that's where you end up rather than on your way to another alignment, the idea is that it suggests ambivalence, or at least detachment from ideals of law or chaos, good or evil.
@@robertblank5206 I disagree I fully plan on talking to my DM about letting my alignment shift further later in the campaign.
@@DaDunge That's fair if you do. Disagreements are part of the fun of the hobby. That said I think we really are saying the same thing but just maybe not understanding each other. Regardless best of luck in your games. D&D is awesome.
I think of Chaotic Neutral as: "Not my problem."
I once ran the same CN character in a 14-year long campaign. The other Players believed him to be completely random and unpredictable, a "force of nature." I think they were hung up on the CN "label" and never tried to understand him. Despite their jokes and private concerns with his sanity, he became the party's de facto leader. He had a consistent, if sometimes seemingly contradictory, set of values that he was never asked to share. He was a manipulative, self-centered Libertarian, with a strong backbone of internal justice and personal responsibility. He also fused together a prickly sense of contrary individualism, and a compulsion for vengeance. His demonstrations of retribution were always disproportionate to the offense with a flair for the dramatic designed to create the maximum amount of buzz among the bystanders. The party quickly gained a sense of notoriety and enjoyed their celebrity status everywhere they went.
Could be but it could also be the sword and sorcery hero like Conan. "Look I'm just doing my thing the way I like it."
I usually describe Alignments to my friends like this:
Good: care for people, even strangers
Neutral: doesn't care much for strangers but doesn't wish bad thing for them
Evil: doesn't care for strangers, may even like others people suffering
remember that all of them may like a person or two in particular, even a cruel serial killer may love his mother
Chaotic: focus in do what he wishs to do
Lawfull: believe there a certain way he himself must behave and act
my favorites exemples are a
Chaotic good: helps people even against their will. "I know you dont want my help, but i will help you anyway"
Lawfull Evil: A villain who thinks he is better than everyone and everybody should be his slaves BUT never stabs someone in the back, he will prove his "point" by beating you face-to-face
Thank you so much 💕
Can you explain Neutral Good please?
I sent this video to all of my players to watch as homework before our next session.
I love his last point:
law vs chaos defines/describes how you do something.
good vs evil defines/describes what you do.
I think law and chaos defines what you do good and evil define why you do it.
@@DaDunge
Yes!
I as DM focus more on the Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws of my player characters than their alignment. How they act within those is what matters for me. Alignment have many interpretations and points of view that almost never comes into an agreement.
So for player characters I don't use alignment to define/describe them. But I do use it for the cosmos, because in D&D it have a role to play.
I thinks its best to think of alignments as a title and on where their actions will take them in the afterlife. Like a quick summary of the character's stance within the cosmos viewed from thousands of miles away as a blur.
The trouble with seeing Chaos as "me first" as opposed to "the individual first" is that like in that example of the tyrant who's making people serve in the militia, if it didn't affect him personally he wouldn't have a reason to care. He just wants to be left alone, right?
With Chaos, it's that he'd get riled up about The Man kicking around the Little Guy and it would get him up in arms.
Whereas Law tends to value authority figures and see those who try to break away from the law as weakening the law, and making things worse for everyone else--so maybe some people get to dodge being in the militia and get to live, but it weakens the militia both in numbers and morale that some folks get an out. So he sides with the tyrant.
I view chaotic calendar lawful as good of the group (ends justify the means) and chaotic as (individuals matter more, evil care more only about themselves).
The goose from the Untitled Goose Game is the pinnacle of CN
Alignment is a role playing guide.
We used to hand out pre-generated characters with some background and an alignment. The player was expected to skew decisions based on that alignment.
When you role up (or point buy) your character and generate your own PC background you are also generating your own PC alignment.
Lawful has a set of standards that they expect to be followed (that may or may nt fit the law of the land they are in at the moment)
Good will tend to choose what will help the most people (Elves, Humans, Halflings... whoever they see as their people would get preference)
Evil will do whatever profits themselves the most. This might be acting good for a time in order to set up a more profitable situation... but really they do not care about causing harm to others. They might actually enjoy causing harm to everyone possible.
Chaotifc will do whatever looks enertaining at the moment... tempered with the good/neutral/evil flavor.
i use alignment as the characters perception of them self rather than an actual good or evil. i have a lawful good paladin, but his religion allows him do things which others would consider evil. like executing some whose done something sacrilegious. its bad for someone not of their religion. but he justifies it. its definitely that more got, moral ambiguity style. i think its more interesting
that would work within a game where the alignments aren't defined strictly by extremely powerful cosmic forces, such as the outer planes. In the generic setting, things are good because the angels are good, things are evil because they are like the devils and demons who are evil. If a Demon wasn't evil it would cease to be a Demon, that is how it is usually stated. You can have your setting have such moral relativity, but normally in order for a paladin to gain cosmic divine power they must be like the Angels, ergo Lawful Good.
@Budo Ka Depends if the fundamental law underlying his belief in his own morality has explicitly said that is the crime and punishment for the circumstances. Lawful means you adhere to some sort of code more formalized than your own judgement.
@Budo Ka They absolutely could. Think of the Knights Templar, think of the stuff they did to non Christians in the Holy Lands. It was considered lawful and righteous as long the church backed them. Same thing in D&D, if the God says kill all Orcs then a lawful good Paladin would be compelled to follow those beliefs and would not be in conflict with their alignment even outside their own realm.
Your view the of Lawful Good being akin to the literally chivalrous knight is just one view of that. Even if you read something like Perceval, the Story of the Grail, by Chretien you can see how the water get muddied pretty quickly and that was written in the late 1100's. Your point of view could be right but it's by no means a contradiction and typically not going to be universal unless you as a DM makes it so.
The problem you can run into is what the presenter speaks to, the universal concept does not fit into the D&D neatly if you try to reconcile it too much. It's something you can say like he did but it's clearly a logical fallacy if you think about it. To resolve it to be centrist from that point of view would require re-writing most of the creatures lore. So best not dwell on too much.
Yeah, I should mention our group has been playing homebrew stuff since we started. Ive always felt like writing our own lore was more interesting than playing someone else's. Just recently we started lost mine of phendelver and were playing more in line with 5e lore. So yeah alignment is dictated by the context of gods and factions in the world
This happened in play: we used Roll20 where the character sheet has no dedicated place to record Alignment. When I was finally hit by some Alignment based monster attack, the DM asked about my Alignment. I answered what was best for my character at the moment. And I will never know whether I was playing by the rules or not: as Mike admits at 1:15, the rules for it are purposefully not done, not ready to use. At least we know that the way to change alignment is "You just change your alignment" as Crawford tweeted it. I am happy for his clarification because it would make me sad to pay with my Reaction for their mistake.
I like to use alignment as my character's tendency. It is what they will tend toward, but things like bravery, cowardice, stubbornness, flexibility, circumstance, and a host of other things give flavor to these alignments. Using alignment as a hard rule on how to play your character is restrictive, and takes away so much freedom of nuance that you could have. You need that freedom to have inner conflicts, regrets from decisions made, and other things that give characters a touch of life that standard archetypes have in very small supply..
I'm a bit of a murder hobo at heart, so I use alignment as a reference for what my character would do instead of using my first instinct. And the results are very interesting. (At least to me) For example, I have a half elf bard that's chaotic evil and a gnome druid that's chaotic good. Both avoid combat in favor of diplomacy, but that's because the druid genuinely doesn't want to hurt anyone, while the bard just doesn't want to get hurt. The bard would trade his allies for a turkey sandwich if that sandwich could fight monsters for him.
Very good discussion of alignment!
I've been playing it this way for years. Your alignment is not very important when you are 1st level. However, regardless of your beliefs, the forces of alignment are in play on the cosmic scale. The alignments of the most powerful entities in the multiverse is very important. Just like Mearls points out here. As players rise in power, and actually begin to be able to affect their position in the cosmos, then, a character's alignment becomes more important.
I don't like seeing True Neutral as a person who have no convictions.
Acting neutral and relativizing the moments one have to act doesn't exclude anyone to have opinions and beliefs.
True Neutral just don't believe that one needs to push beliefs to make a point.
Balance is a virtue and True Neutral is about putting everything under balance, including himself.
Cool video of one of my favorite aspects of D&D, btw.
Not at all. You don’t go out of your way to help or hurt without reason and you tolerate law and order and only break it for personally interests. Most people in real life fall under this.
As a DM I like to run it where your actions determine your alinement rather then the other way around. I think it is more interesting to watch the player characters grow and change as the campaign goes on.
Not a D&D player, but I do have an interest, I see alignment more as a moral compass. The Shin Megami Tensei series breaks it down to the simplest logic. Law = order and code of ethics, Chaos = thrill seeker with a disregard for systems and loves being random, and Nuetral = laws are important, but so is freewill.
So if I understand a lawful evil character is more or less a tyrant who follows a code of ethics, while a chaotic good character doesn't like being confined by laws, but would randomly help people Robin Hood style. Then a true nuetral character would go about following certain laws and disregarding others and may do both good and evil within the same day.
Alignment arguments always seem to stem from how the alignments are defined. People often have mildly different definitions of good, diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive definitions of lawful, no definitions at all when it comes to chaotic, and idiotic definitions of evil and neutral.
Here's the over simplification that works for me.
Good = Selfless
Evil = Selfish
Lawful = Dogmatic
Chaotic = Shameless
Neutral = Pragmatic
Agreed, but I have a slightly different definition of the alignments:
Good = Selfless
Evil = Selfish
Lawful = Principled
Chaotic = Unprincipled
That comparison of the tyrant makes me think I might be more Chaotic Good than Neutral Good.
Maybe the next campaign I join, I should go in as Neutral Good with a chance to go either Chaotic Good or Lawful Good.
Give the DM a chance to bring character development into the story.
Alignment for player characters causes too many problems. There are conflicting interpretations about alignment and players use it to justify their character’s actions. When I DM I reserve alignment for monsters and beings that have specific purposes. Players can choose how their characters act however they know there can be consequences, depending on local laws and any oaths taken.
I like the way background ideals talks about "people" being neutral, as in "I take care of the people who take care of me, that's what keeps us alive"
I have a CN barbarian who's morality focuses heavily on survival and loyalty. So he acts in a benevolent and protective way towards those within his narrow circle but anyone outside of that circle doesn't factor much into his moral calculations. They are often little more than opportunities, obstacles or threats to him. He isn't selfish, he's groupish.
I wish I could sit my players down and make them watch this.
I've always seen alignment as a an RP crutch. Not to mention that there is little to no consensus on what the alignments mean in any given situation, which can lead to arguments about alignment as opposed to the actions or RP of the game. Also I believe 5e only has two mechanical references to alignment, "Glyphs and Wards" as well as some magical trap sensors both of which can trigger or not trigger based off of the alignment of the creature interacting with it is. Something that is easily removed from the game with little notice.
Statist vs. Voluntarian & Help vs. Harm and Disinterest = Neutral
I love your description of Neutral Good. While I think most of my NG characters would oppose the tyrant, it is the moral debate and decision making that I enjoy about playing that alignment.
So Neutral Good is a utilitarian, huh?
Topic for discussion: is a kantian Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral?
Man, reminds me of this webcomic about philosophers; some of the stories were about philosophers playing D&D. To answer your question with another question: With respect to what? Forgotten Realms? Planescape? Dark Sun? I'm pretty sure Kant would see himself as LG, but his axiomatic mode of thinking lends itself to Mechanus.
Existential comics is a hoot.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who found it strange that Mearls explained the thought process of both Neutral Good and Lawful Good in terms of a Utilitarian viewpoint, whereas the Chaotic Good justification sounded more deontological/Kantian.
I sometimes think of 'Lawful' as something like following general maxims of action (deontological), whether those be provided by the laws of a governing body, a knightly oath, religious doctrine, etc. However, I could see an argument being made for 'lawful' being not the literal following of express laws but something like a general value of orderliness (which would be more akin to a virtue ethics). And as Mearls showed, you can attempt to give a utilitarian justification for either of these ways of revering the 'law'.
Chaotic follows the dictates of either 'conscience' or whims on a case-by-case basis with no overarching principle other than general concern for one's own interests (even if those interests aren't wholly selfish) and perhaps a value on personal freedom (this could manifest as something like an attitude about the need to defend individual 'rights' (again a deontological stance), or it could be about following certain values without explicit principles (virtue ethics), or a weighing of consequences for oneself or for everyone (consequentialism).
My character is neutral good, but he doesn't think in terms of either consequences, case-by-case consultations of 'conscience', or general maxims (he might be closest to a 'virtue ethicist', but even that doesn't quite fit). I regard the term 'neutral' as necessarily meaning not some amalgamation of the two poles or 'sometimes going one way, sometimes another', but a position where something entirely different and unique can show up. But like the other alignments, a neutral good character could justify himself on any of those grounds (deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethical) as well.
Perhaps in tension with what Mearls said here, I suppose it may be better to think of the lawful-chaotic pole as having to do with a broader question of what the character values (more so than how they go about justifying their decisions): order/harmony or personal freedom. The neutral character might have values that trump both of those, and/or think in entirely different terms than a dichotomy between the two. (For example: the character might think that laws aren't inherently just and social harmony not valuable for its own sake, but also that personal freedom is meaningless unless right and good choices are made, so that in the ideal world, freedom would just be the ability to do choose what everyone knew was good, and there would be harmony only as a result of everyone having freely chosen the same good).
I see law/chaos as being your character’s personality, but the good/evil side of alignment is more of a faction reputation slider for the metaphysical moral forces of the universe.
For Law vs Chaos, I see it more as 'protect and dedication' vs pursue and obtain. Neutral in this case would then be the desire for change.
For Good vs Evil, I see it as wanting the people around you to have better lives vs gaining a better life for oneself. Neutral in this case to being satisfied with your place in life.
Interestingly, this reasoning then leads True neutral to being satisfied and desiring to live within a system of change, therefore they can have the 'life is a game' mentality, immerse themselves in commerce, politics or worship and immerse themselves in nature, which is a very different mindset from 'go with the flow'
I've come to prefer the Principled-Unprincipled Selfless-Selfish axis.
that was only true when the head was disconnected or corrupted; why the hell wouldn't the turning of the wheel be harmonious amongst all aspects of creation. If the head leads the way, then the right arm (lawful good) will work in one section, the left (lawful evil) arm in another, same for the legs but they all inwardly have the same ideal. (For the awakened ones at least or gods and above). Vecna found a way to enter sigil from his experimental abyss and rule there for a while and orcus usurped the positions of primus on mechanus where the order of the universe has to be maintained. All the conceptions of people fell into disarray, brothers fighting against sisters, evil against good; that is what division creates contrary to what harmony would. The lady of pain finally killed the nameless one, kicked vecna out of sigil and demoted him to a lesser thing and a new primus was installed. The rogue modrons however are corrupted intellects still able to affect people's mind.
I'm running a pirate campaign, my characters are lawful to the pirate code but chaotic to the laws of the rest of the world. My characters are good to their crew and orphan children, but evil to trade merchants and nobility. we don't use alignment anymore....
I see it as order and chaos in one axis and a personal morality so stick you impose in on orders vs be amorale. A good example of a lawful good character that is a true monster would be the high sparrow from game of thrones.
The most adaptable are Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil
I'm going to be roleplaying an Chaotic Neutral Copper Dragonborn Bladelock, he's a Chaotic because he believes it gives more freedom and following your feelings are great, and he's neutral because he's a good person and he loves being good to people and making them happy, but he's a person who recognizes that he may have to eventually do evil acts, either willingly or unwillingly. Like his Hexblade patron or another outlet of pressure, forces him into a situation where he does evil, heinous things. He's a Chaotic Neutral person who chooses Good, but like everyone else, is connected to Evil and Law.
Be chaotic bring the party to the party
Awesome. So I got true neutral right. Law and chaos sorta right, and to be rightfully pissed when my character was forced to wear the helmet of alignment change.
The real problem isn't the law chaos axis the problem is the good evil one, either it is metaphysical good evil serving the higher planes of these things or it is personal good and evil altruism versus egoism, these are not the same thing.
You can have an egoistic servant of higher good, Han Solo comes to mind. He's there because people he likes are there not because he has any strong loyalty to the cause.
Or an altruistic servant of darkness. Say someone trying to blunt the regime of evil. Or the noble demon archetype.
So All this time... ive been living my life as a Neutral Evil? I don't think i can stay in the priesthood anymore then
Interesting topic. My main gripe with the (otherwise effective) way alignment works is that it fails to show the general view of the world you have is not universally applicable to everyone. Your general outlook to life is unlikely to extend to close relatives and friends, ancestors, descendants and even love interests. I especially refer to the "second" part of the alignment, as the lawful/neutral/chaotic one is more inbuilt. You may actively put your interests above those of others, and forcibly do so when you feel like it. But would you do the same with your own kin? Or with your significant other? So, does it mean you can, for example, be "lawful evil" towards most people and, say, lowful neutral (or even good) when dealing with a few selected contacts?
A great video!
Steven Moffat solved the chaotic neutral issue when he created River Song. She's the perfect chaotic neutral character.
I have come to see the Good vs. Evil axis as less defined by putting others first as on a character's view of morality (self-imposed rules that limit some behaviours and require others). A good person has a well-developed set of rules and sticks to them quite closely (but maybe not perfectly). A neutral person has a perhaps simplified set of rules and thinks of them more as guidelines, bendable in certain circumstances. In this way a neutral person is very pragmatic. An evil person views such self-imposed rules as a con, and a weakness. It's just a way for the surrounding culture to attempt to exert unearned control over you. It might be a useful way to control others but should never limit your own actions.
1:45 No, the Norse gods are personable deities, Loki is the good of trickery because of the kind of person he is not the kind of person he is because what he is God of. Loki is more often shown as Thor's clever sidekick than as the malicious trickster.
You should look up Peter Madsens Valhalla comics they show the gods a lot better than any other source I've seen.
Yes!!!! I play Chaotic Good pretty much always because it reflects me best. And what he said about the Chaotic Good person was sooo freaking true. The evil king has no justification, and needs to go.
In my universe the plans must be what they are if one is forced to change or one is destroyed every thing goes crazy even limbo and then it will reform
Know Alignment was a spell, before they depreciated the role of alignment in game.
If all the characters we create and play can be so easily divided into 9 alignments then we play incredibly boring game.
That Loki analogy doesn't work well, myth-wise. Loki isn't the Trickster. Odin tricks and deceives as ably as Loki, arguably. Loki is Fire. Tended, watched carefully, he is useful and helpful to the Aesir. Left unsupervised or neglected, he becomes destructive. Fire can help you forge, cook, build, or it can kill your family and burn your house down. Also, Lord of the Rings isn't morally nuanced. There is objective, physically corruptive, evil and there is good. LotR falls into the same category as old-school D&D, and inspired it in part. Game of Thrones, being inspired by historical dynastic wars like the War of the Roses, is more nuanced, because it doesn't have cosmological entities, or at least not morally aligned ones (even the Red God opposes the Walkers because light opposes darkness, not because he values any moral stance).
In most D&D cosmological constructions, there are morally aligned planes of reality, and morally aligned beings. There is objective good and evil and law and chaos, with cosmic beings aligned along those lines as well as entire universes. It makes sense for Game of Thrones not to dwell on objective good and evil. To the extent it has gods, they don't speak on those issues. In a world that has an eons-long Blood War between forms of evil that are differently aligned in terms of law and chaos, and various afterlives that attract or require specific character traits (brave warriors in Valhalla, just and merciful souls on Mount Celestia, pure-hearted inhabitants of Elysium, etc.), moral alignments with tangible effects (and spells like Detect Evil, Know Alignment, Protection from Good, etc.) make more sense to have than to leave out.
It would be fair to have a spell like that not effect regular humans much on the grounds that their alignment might not be pure or strong enough to be detectable, but a cleric or paladin ought to stand out, and a celestial or devil ought to give off a reading strong enough to peg the meter, as it were.
LG: Does the right thing while upholding the law. Example: Superman (most of the time), Captain America (Most of the time)
NG: Does the right thing. Example: Most humans who are good.
CG: I don't care what happens as long as the right thing is done. Example: Robin Hood, Sonic the Hedgehog
LN: The law is the law and must be followed even if people get hurt. Example: Judge Dread
TN/N: I don't care/I will not pick a side/Bark! Bark! Grrrurrrrurrrff... Example: A bear
CN: Is it easier to talk to the enemy to stop them or chop their head off? Whatever's easiest is fine/Bought a kid a puppy with money they stole from the kids neighbor/PIZZA! POTATO! SPONGE! SPONGE POTATO! POTATO PIZZA! SPONGEY POTATO PIZZA! PUDDING! Example: Deadpool.
LE: I get the job done but I won't/can't break a code. Example: Two Face
NE: Whoever gets hurt, it doesn't matter. My ends justify the means. Example: Sephiroth
CE: Whoever is in my way will get killed. Whoever ISN'T in my way will get lethally injured. Whoever tries stopping me gets killed. Example: Joker.
So If I have a theif or rouge who is usually nice and trustworthy but is known to steal people's stuff when no one is looking what alignment would he be?
I think he would be chaotic good
The alignment system need to be put out of its misery as explained way back in Dragon #101's (Sept 1985) "For King and Country". Later systems, like GURPS, use a series of traits ie I have a Code of Honor or am a coward, or I can't tell a lie to save my life (Truthfulness) which far better flesh out character.. Take the GURPS Who's Who write up of Vlad Tepes Dracula: Bully (12), Code of Honor (Warrior), Intolerance (Muslim), and Sadism (12) is far more descriptive then LE or perhaps LN(E)
Neutral = pragmatic
i don't understand the difference between CN and True Neutral
There's a lot, but most importantly, Chaotic anything is /against/ the ideas of order. Chaos means many things and it means different things to different people, but if you're a chaotic anything, you wish to promote chaos in whatever way suits your character.
Looking into the comments, I can easily see why alignment is so disliked. Everyone has a different definition because WoTC refuses to put out concrete ones. Instead of hammering it down, they waffled a bunch and started trying to shuffle it off to the trash.
Anyone else hear that laugh?
I use Order/Freedom and Selfless/Selfish instead
I would see lawful good sooner side with chaotic good than lawful evil for simple reason that Lawful good and Chaotic good share end goal while they share only lawful methods of pursuing very different end goal with lawful evil. Lawful good would take issue with evil (even if they are lawful) methods and evil end goal of lawful evil character, while lawful good would take an issue with chaotic methods he would be cool with end goal of chaotic good. To point it simply lawful evil wants to establish law for sake benefiting their cause (most often selfish one like money and power) and will apply tyrannical power for their advantage, lawful good abhore this as he would different that order that doesn't bring well-being to all is bad. If both chaotic good and lawful good character were to start society conflict would come just to how to menage it to bring well-being to all, chaotic good would want more freedom and little regulations, while lawful good would want more regulations. If Neutral Good tried to start society he would try to balance order and freedom, meaning their society would be less strict than those of lawful goods but also not so lax that of chaotic good characters.
So... if Lawful Good conquers everything, they become Lawful Evil? Yeah, makes sense.
if lawful good takes over everything, then nothing would have an alignment. Can't have good without evil so in the case where good does somehow break this and takes over everything, then being lawful good is as meaningless as lawful evil. Morality breaks down when there's only one alignment, which is why alignment wouldn't make sense anymore, as you pointed out. Lawful good = Lawful evil? That doesn't make sense.
After lawful good destroys evil, what would it do with the neutral?
No, his argument is if LG conquers all, it is still LG. It is done from the viewpoint of LG, so they would jail the CG and NG last, after they help conquer the evils. I don't really agree with cut and dried system of alignment. Just becuase a paladin claim LG, their kills are better than an assassins? Maybe from a motivational standpoint. Eh, this argument can go on for eternity, and no answer is more right or wrong than anyone else's.
Chaotic Evil is more the pure random one with (at least how I play) Chaotic Neutral is finding weird alternate solutions that can be comedic or they can be reasonable.
Ahh.
I'm not quite sure, how Evil(tm) has a "place" per se in the world. Or how a real person would ever self-associate them self as Evil(tm), outside of them being somehow altered via arcane, primal, divine, or psionic means.
In the real world, I imagine every evil person would call themselves "different" or even justified. Or "the ends justify the means." Perhaps they're so crazy that they think that they are above everyone else like a god-complex.
evil allignments don't have to be EVIL. They simply put their own needs above the needs of others, and are fine with causing harm if needed. I had a character called Charon who despised undead, and would go through whatever means necessary to rid the world of as many as he could, he burned down an entire village and parts of a forest, and this was to protect his family. The allignmemt system while it doesn't mention it I think is best imagined as a grid, or two sets of scales and where he fit the most was a point between CN and NE that was called (-L)(-G) or not lawful, and not good.
I also imagine most people, unless their a Paladin or Cleric and MAYBE a druid wouldn't describe themselves as any alignment. However they still have one as they have the freewill and intelligence to naturally lean towards one.
Evil is a very broad spectrum. Not every evil character will go around killing people and burning stuff or what have you. Being on the evil spectrum simply means that your character will pursue their goals and ideals even if it causes harm to someone or something else.
Alignment is not really used in 5e. It makes zero sense for a Paladin or a Monk to be unlawful yet there is no restrictions. A drunken master monk could possibly be chaotic but for a Paladin to swear an oath but not be Lawful is just dumb.
There are a few magic items that have an alignment restriction but not many. Otherwise it never comes into play which I personally dislike. You may as well scap alignment and assume everyone is Chaotic Neutral in 5e....
No LOTR was about good vs evil. Not the moral relativism bs thats in GOT and today world
" Not the moral relativism bs thats in GOT and today world"
By which you mean... Not making everything about human interaction out to be literally two-dimensional (actually accounting only for the good-vs-evil dichotomy would be one dimensional, which is worse)?
LOTR was about more than a simple notion of 'good vs evil', which you would know had you read the books. Gandalf and Frodo discuss the ethics of killing Gollum, with Gandalf convincing Frodo that doing so without need would be unjust. The Elves are lauded for treating Gollum with kindness (imprisoning him but treating him with humanity) while at the same time having the flaws in their mode of justice pointed out when Gollum escapes with the assistance of the Enemy. The morality of Boromir's actions are discussed by his brother and Frodo, as is the morality of war and Boromir's regret for having to fight the Haradrim, who were once allies of Gondor, but became corrupted by Sauron.
In the second book of The Two Towers, part of a chapter is devoted to a weird tangent, the writing of which goes off at a right angle to the rest of that chapter (not to mention the rest of the series). There is much discussion in The Two Towers and The Return of the King over all the rightness and wrongness of all manner of things, from war, to Eowyn's desires and how they contrast to her role in her society, to the place of women as a whole in society, to the winding down of magic that causes the Elves to leave Middle Earth and usher in the Age of Men.
LOTR is problematic in many ways, it does have its flaws, but to present the story as a morally simplistic conflict of good-vs-evil is not only an interpretation that is impossible for one to draw from the books without eliding almost all of their content, but is also inherently disrespectful to the work a whole.
I'm sorry you find realistic human interactions and discussions and conflicts so dull, and I'm sorry you felt the need to lie about LOTR.
Robert Hickey but... like the Eternal Champion played on moral relativism too
Well apparently he was a maiar, like Gandalf and Saruman. so while we never see his love life it's quite likely he had one. Plus he was said to once have been the fairest and most charming of the maiar. So maybe. Certainly when he was horribly burned by Morgoth during his betrayal, and likely before that when he sided with Morgoth against his kin, any family he had probably turned from him. It's one reason he loves the orcs. They too have been mutilated and discarded.
How is moral relativism bs?
Murder, theft, rape, slavery and oppression, etc... are intrinsically morally wrong even if your "culture" says otherwise. Never doubt that there is genuine good and evil and the world and it cannot and should not be ignored for the sake of not offending someone's cultural sensibilities as the relativists would have you believe.
Although I'm disappointed there is no Lawful Chaotic ;)
Still honestly feels like a cop out to have alignments in the game and make them have absolutely nothing to do with the game mechanics and setting.
cyrad it's meant for the role playing aspect is all flesh the characters out a bit
If that was the case, then alignments should also affect the game in some way as it did prior to 4th Edition.
It can for Clerics and Paladins. Plus, semi-sentient/sentient items pick up on alignment and can embrace or reject the wielder consequently.
Clerics and paladins in 5th Edition don't have alignment restrictions. Paladins don't even have to abide by any code of honor at 1st level.
It's not an outdated idea. In other editions, alignment is a tangible force that binds the multiverse together. The entire Planescape setting resolves around faith, philosophy, and morals having a concrete power to shape the multiverse, and the game had the mechanics to reflect that. In 5th Edition, the designers decided to remove all that. I'd respect that decision, but they decided to keep alignments anyway for no other reason than giving the illusion they're staying true to older editions. As I said above, it's a cop out.
Why is he using Game of Thrones as his example so much? I get it's popular but we play D&D so the good guys get to win, unless we are playing an evil group, yet if you follow GOT's example then it doesn't matter what alignment you play. Just make sure you're a scumbag and you'll ultimately succeed in all your endeavors.
Peter Rants you know what's great about D&D is the fact that it is a procedurally generated story with the RNG being the players themselves. It's not a surly about whether or not the campaign is good or evil players can die at any moment and if they Heroes do win kind of leaves no place for future Heroes.
Game of Thrones IS the current baseline of what mainstream audiences think of when they think "fantasy." We're 15 years out from the LOTR movies and the Hobbit trilogy didn't exactly dominate the popular discourse like they did. And honestly it doesn't sound like you even watch much GOT because some of the most popular characters are Jon Snow and Brienne of Tarth. Classic Lawful Good characters.
Troll...you've obviously never watched the show.
No I read the books, which I know is just a crazy thing to do in the millennial world today, but hey name one movie or show that can grasp the true moments a book can? Like when Jon Snow first saw giants atop of mammoths past the wall? I get that in today's world it's passe to be "good", but sir if you read the books than you know that what I was saying wasn't trolling. Besides I don't base LOTR and GOT by their television sales, because if LOTR had all its content included in the movies than you'd have to dedicate an entire month just to watch two of em. I didn't mean to come off as a troll, as much as I don't feel like modern high fantasy has to be over sexualized where the nobelist people die because it should be considered a naive notion. Good and Evil is not relative, but hey don't go getting upset cuz prefer the book that your tv show is based on I'm sorry.
P.S. LORT is far superior to GOT, if you don't believe go ask Led Zeppelin.
Good and bad are social constructs to determine who deserves what, which is a load of bull