D&D alignments.

Remove all ads!

A few items of opinion:

Evil, in the early works, was simply selfish. They were in it for their own personal gain. That doesn't mean they would kill a crippled orphan on the street for a few coppers in a cup. A CE person also wouldn't rebel against a law just to rebel against the law. A comparison to today's society is the risk/gain philosophy used in organized crime -- a million dollar reward may be worth the risk of 5 years in prison while a $100 gain is not even worth a week in jail. CE is certainly not opposed to taking calculated risks for gain -- murder, at low risk, for high gains is definitely within CE alignment.

As I mentioned before a chaotic character believes individual rights are more important than any particular government. A government cannot infringe on those rights. Think more of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights -- freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, etc.. Even a CE individual would not believe in the right to go on a mass murder spree. A chaotic character will still function in society; they will also cooperate with a government so long as they believe individual rights are not being suppressed.

A chaotic adventurer is still disciplined, to be an adventurer of great skill there needs to be intense training (and willingness to maintain that training). Relegating action to a die roll (I played with a guy who every decision for his CE character was a d6 roll) is not within the normal mindset of a disciplined soldier, thief, priest, or mage regardless of alignment.

I think the example of Vlad the Impaler is more an example of an insane person. Vlad was a psychopathic megalomaniac, he was quite likely Lawful Evil but also quite insane. You could have a character that is insane. An insane character will generally not gain experience in pnp games I've played -- with the possible exception of a schizophrenic who could have multiple characters, each gaining their own experience.

I absolutely agree that characters, regardless of alignment, will have an honor code. A good example is in the movie "Leon the Professional" the title character (an assassin and by definition evil) had a code of "no women, no kids." He was also human and stepped in to help Natalie Portman's character, albeit in a selfish act (he didn't want to get caught).

 

@WickedPrince
Few people actually care about committing evil, but they do care about advancing themselves. So you can change most of your "only care about advancing evil" or "always choose evil" to "only care about advancing themselves" or "always choose themselves over others" and your above definitions will work better.
Evil is often considered extreme selfishness where you don't care about hurting others as long as it benefits you.

 

There is a definite leaning towards selfishness in evil; but it's not a necessity; there are those who enjoy cruelty for the vicarious thrill; though that is a sort of selfishness. Seeing somebody else suffer for your own pleasure in watching them suffer. But still there are those who are willing to make others suffer simple because, just as there are those who will always try to do good to others simply because. Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic are inherent moralities for most; they follow them because they believe it makes life better in some way - even when they are applying something equivalent to the "law of the jungle." And to the chaos thing, I've said before that no alignment has to be completely consistent; just MOSTLY so. If a so-called Chaotic person obeys the laws say 50% of the time (roughly) they aren't chaotic, they are neutral on that axis. I wouldn't expect that even the LG gods would expect a Paladin (older editions at least) to utterly adhere to the alignment; a slip here and there isn't a total fall - at least unless the god decides to overreact and MAKE it a fall. In most mythologies the gods may usually adhere to an ethos; but they always have their own moments when they stray, so it would be rather selfish for them to expect mere-mortals to be better than they themselves are - not that the gods aren't prone (mythologically) to being rash. Assume when I have said "always" I meant "most often" I'm being disgruntled by the people that think they can almost always break their supposed ethos and still claim it's correct: IE: the "I can act lawful good when I'm chaotic evil" people - sure - very very rarely; or if I was GM I'd start telling you your alignment was sliding and tell you what your new alignment was. Then let you decide if you want to rectify your characters actions. This wouldn't be a first occurrence thing; this would only happen if the contradictory actions became overly routine. If the supposed CE person pretty much always acted LG.

Back to the basics though; the reason I started this thread was because a group I am about to start playing D&D with insisted that following a code of honor was inherently lawful. I disagreed and got shouted down. The thing about pretending to opposite alignments was something a friend suggested long ago and I've heard a couple times since. I don't buy the code of honor thing because somebody could follow the anarchist's code of honor of almost always trying to disobey law and order and according to these people this person/character is lawful for following a personal code when they clearly are the opposite. A chaotic person follows a code that follows some variation of the anarchist code or they are not chaotic. A "Lawful" character has to be more than simply orderly or structured; they have to be "Lawful" - they have to be obedient to the laws of their people - not personal codes.

 

I'm afraid that for P&P I'm only experienced with 2nd edition definitions. My group broke up in the fall of 1997 (technically the end of summer when most of us went off to different colleges in different States) and failed to reconcile schedules the following summer. All of us got summer jobs, most in retail with unpredictable schedules that included night and weekend work.
However, I agree, selfishness and cruelty were considered evil. So was a need to dominate and control others whether they liked it or not.

As indicated, we always had trouble figuring out if a given character was neutral or chaotic evil.

 

Depends on the kind of campaign you're willing to run. It's definitely something that needs to be pointed out beforehand though. Alignment leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but this doesn't, and I've had it create problems in my groups far more often than alignment did, particularly with non-regulars.

I have no issues with people playing evil alignments in my heroic campaigns. There's plenty of antihero stereotypes to go around these days. Nothing wrong with a bit of tension between good and evil party members every now and then either. But if you can't actively work toward the same goal as your party, then why bother playing in the campaign? I didn't ask you to come play the villain, that's my job. Ugh, it gets my blood boiling just thinking about it.

 

I agree, you can have a person of evil alignment become a hero in spite of himself. He's probably not doing it for altruistic reasons, but a big enough reward can motive evil people to fulfill the mission. Alternately he might be serving his own ends by helping the rest of the party defeat the Big Bad. Especially if the Big Bad directly threatens the evil party member's interests. Pitching in to help eliminate the threat serves his own interest, especially if he can get payment out of it.

 

I was going to put this out a couple days back but forgot. Neutral Evil would be a tough one to recognize as they would be willing to use law and order; or chaos and anarchy to further their evil - but the greater evil is always the end goal. You might only see them use one of the two because of limited contact. The core of Chaotic Evil is not just the evil; but the chaos and anarchy. An individual might have a leaning one way or the other but in general both alignments are intended to support each other. A terrorist who uses random violence to frighten others to gain personal freedom to continue is Chaotic Evil. An anarchist that sews chaos, death, and destruction would be Chaotic Evil. To the CE Evil supports chaos and freedom; and Chaos supports their evil. With individuals it might lean one way or the other, but overall it's an even mix. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil will both want some level of organization - though much less so with Neutral Evil because it's all about the Evil. Yet Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil will often usually be ruled by pure physical force; either through someone with raw personal power; or because s/he has a coterie of loyal subordinates who benefit from his/her "leadership."Look at it through the lens of the Devils and Demons: Devils are evil but they follow a lawful structure; their leaders are granted political position because of the laws they follow. Demons rule by force of raw power and the ability to manipulate their slaves.

But I'll add a bit more Kenneth; yes, I'm willing to let people be edgy as long as they understand that ultimately they WILL work with the rest of the party without creating personal friction. I wouldn't mind running a campaign with the concept of minor villains trying to stop a greater villain - depending on how far the PCs villainy goes. (I had a story I was going to write about four EVIL adventurers who all had the goal of "same thing we do every night, Pinky, Try To Take Over The World." - but found themselves two steps behind somebody else with the same goal. Realizing that a world that's more or less in chaos is easier to overthrow than one that's already under the boot-heels of Szass Tam; they opt to work together to stop him; and then it's back to their own contest to see who wins.) But most of the time; especially if I'm running something like Star Wars; I tell my players that they are the heroes; not villains in training. I'll ignore morally grey; but not morally DARK. I run SAGA edition (the last D20 ed) where the GM can hand out Dark Side points for evil acts to anyone, Force User or not; and if the character's Darkside Score exceeds their Wisdom; the character becomes MINE - not just for as long as I want before I give it back, permanently. I also don't make removing Darkside points easy, I don't want my players to treat them like dark licorice candy - enjoy; then throw away the wrapper and it never happened. They can have conflicts within the party, that's fine, as long as it isn't personal between the players; and that's hard to do except with players who are very good friends outside the game IMHO. I've been in too many games where inter-party strife ended the game on a very bad note. I'd rather really not have it besides in very minor things. I played a Jensaari in a group with a Fallen Jedi; my guy felt he was superior to Jedi and saw them as nothing special. He wasn't full on (Jedi are EVIL and Sith are GOOD) He didn't much care, what mattered to him was who was standing in the way of his Destiny. Destiny in SAGA is another way to manipulate the players but vetting their definition of their destiny "Murder all Jedi" is an absolute NO.

 

I should note that I keep talking about "chaos and anarchy" but those are just the worst terms for what really is just freedom. Freedom to make your own choices instead of the choices somebody else tells you you have. For us American's Chaos/Freedom was the Forefather's Goal; but within the limit's of Good. The Doctor's Hippocratic Oath says "and first do no harm" - that was supposed to be part of OUR creed as a nation. But we've bastardized that over and over.

 

That last comment made me think of the old "Things Mr. Welch is No Longer allowed to do in an RPG" list.
https://theglen.livejournal.com/tag/mr. welch
Specifically #476:
476. The alignment of 2 years olds is not automatically Neutral Evil.
Besides, that is correct, most are Chaotic Evil, only a few are Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral, and none are lawful. The absolute best behaved ones are true neutral.

 

I know I was somewhere on the border of chaotic evil and chaotic neutral. I've always had a thing for wanting to do the things I'm told not to just to find out why. Part of my instinct for believing that people keep falling into the trap of repeating others mistakes is from a long time of personal experience. Mostly I never wanted to hurt anyone; but I had a temper that got out of control frequently and I still regret it. There were also the rare times I came up with a stupid idea I thought was clever and had to try it to the detriment of friends. Nothing ever really serious though. But it's pretty amazing that even as adults so many still can't figure out the harm they do; or simply don't care. The ones who can justify anything even if they have to use the most twisted logic imaginable. One might try to argue though that committing atrocities by complete accident isn't necessarily evil without intent to do so.

 

And as a response to Keneth and SlickRCBD about players wanting to play anti-heroes who become heroes; I'm fine with something like that. I've done similar things myself from time to time. I'm ok with it though on the assumption that they intend to slide their alignment towards where the rest of the party is rather than the opposite. If for example I'm running Star Wars SAGA ed and a player wants to play a Sith seeking redemption I'm cool with it. I'm not cool with somebody who will push the party to the edge of party self-destruction over and over again. I won't stop the good members of the party killing the evil PC and force them to play nice; it's an outcome the player accepted when they created the character and when they insisted on playing their character as a monster.

 

I was thinking more of an evil character joining the party in an "enemy mine" situation.

• A mercenary fighter who only cares about money joining for the huge reward offered by the king.
• A rogue bandit who is upset how this evil horde is killing off and blocking the merchant caravans he preys upon.
• A cleric of an evil deity who is commanded to oppose the Big Bad who is nominally a follower of a rival deity.
• A mastermind or wanna be Big Bad (could be fighter, thief, cleric, or almost any class) who wants to manipulate the party into killing off the competition.
• An evil barbarian that joins the party to get rid of the horde of evil orcs/goblins/kobolds etc or the evil dragon that threatens the area he rules with an iron fist. He can't exploit the people if the monsters eat them.

 

The important thing IMHO; is a willingness to work with the rest of the party, rather than against them. TSR back in the day produced a few novels. One was a "Genghis Khan" sort of thing in Forgotten Realms with a tribe that would have fit perfectly in Genghis' Mongolia deciding to take over the world. The two countries that could pull armies in time to meet the hordes was Cormyr and one of it's evil neighbors it'd often fought with. THEY sent a horde of Orcs. The Cormyr forces half expected the orcs to turn on them at any time; but the orcs held true; at least until AFTER the marauding Horde had been soundly beaten. I mentioned the story idea above of a party of evil PCs fighting a greater evil so that they could eventually continue their own plans; having somebody like that join the party would be fine - same conditions - they gotta play nice with everyone else. Another one they did was a Dragonlance variation on Seven Samurai; seven vagrant soldiers decide to defend a defenseless village in the middle of no-where - because it has to be done. Amongst the cast of characters you'd expect to take on a suicide mission with no reward: one of Takhisis Black Knights - who of course would never do something like that without promise of substantial reward. I think he was on the outs with his faction for some reason; but in any case he threw in with the rest; and more or less for the same reason. He ends up being the first one to sacrifice himself to save the rest. He might have been on the outs with his faction but he was still a believer; and still in the end he did the right thing. I'm cool with that. A little RP drama maybe over differences of philosophy is fine. But actions from the evil PC that triggers the others into wanting to kill him, I won't stop them. I played in one of the WOTC/Hasbro weekly games. A new player who was new to gaming admitted he was going to play an evil character. We let him and didn't judge until he actively started doing things that were evil and against the rest of the parties ethos. I was playing the party healer. I warned him not to do anything that convinces me he's not worth healing when he's on the brink of death. He was playing a Wizard. We found this near-dead knight in a cave; he was hanging on only because he'd been pierced by his own magic blade and refused to let anyone evil have it. He used the last of his strength to make his body the stone the sword wouldn't come out of until he found somebody worthy. Evil Wizard who can't even USE the sword climbs up on his chest and yanks on it for all his life - utterly determined to defy the guy and take the sword for himself - I pushed him off (I'm the healer, won't stomach something like that right?) and the others hold him back. I talk to the knight and tell him I don't think I'm worthy; but I'll give my own life to make sure the sword goes to somebody who is. He lets me have it, and expires. We leave the cave and evil wizard backstabs me and nearly kills me. Rest of party saves me. I insist evil wizard be jailed. Rest of party agrees for the remainder of that session; next session they insist on letting him out because we might need the help. I tell him that I warned him before; he stepped over the line; so if he dies in battle I'll do nothing to save him and take it as justice. Something like his actions are a hard no.

You know; we've gotten pretty far off the original topic; which was about the idea that players can define the alignments however they feel; even when they are using weird logic to explain how somebody can be Lawful Good while acting Chaotic Evil just because he has a "code of honor." I can except that people might have variances in how they define an alignment; but some things are two steps too far. I know 5E pretty much takes the teeth out of the alignments by allowing almost any alignment in any class; but I'm old school. The alignments are part of the game still; good or bad; that's how it is. In a game I run the players will be the heroes; even if maybe their character didn't really intend that. I don't run games where the PCs are the villains.

And again I'm posting a day late; I started writing this and realized I was late to a dinner with a guy I used to be friends with 45 years ago. Whooops.

 

Back on that track, a lot of tyrants in their own mind consider themselves lawful good or at least lawful neutral while they were actually neutral evil (or lawful evil).
There have been child abusers (non-sexual) who truly believed they were doing what they did to the kid "for his/her own good" and that what they did was right and just.
In their minds, they were of good alignment.

I'd put the principal of my 8th grade school in the evil category, when he probably thought he was being a Good Catholic. Of course, he and the pastor are why I refused Confirmation and no longer consider myself Catholic, having only been to a church for weddings and funerals since 8th grade.
He was telling me to "just ignore it" and enabling bullying on par with Winslow from Worm sans The Locker by refusing to punish the sons of the richest donors to the church but punishing the victim if he responds in kind, or stands up for himself and they escalate to violence. In the latter case the fighting was always deemed my fault "for provoking" (no amount of provoking would a rich kid punished, I'd be told to "just ignore it and walk away") and I was told I should "turn the other cheek" and "just walk away", NEVER hit back.
Yeah, I saw him as evil, and not lawful evil because he was enforcing different standards on me and him, but he probably saw himself as Lawful Good even if he was giving those rich boys some extra leeway to keep their parents donating.

 

I agree; there are a lot of people who believe in their own minds that they aren't evil; that what they are doing is the right thing even when they are doing things that are horrific. But their personal mind-set about themselves is irrelevant in the Schemes of the alignments - which is what I was trying to tell the gaming group but they weren't having it - so I began wondering if this was the new view on the alignments. Like I said once before; I'm old school on this. The members of a particular alignment might have minor disagreements about what this means; but on the whole they'd recognize each other as fundamentally the same compared to the other alignments; they wouldn't be prevaricating to figure out how each individual qualifies for their alignment when their regular actions don't agree with the alignment - or each other. Even the most fractious group - Chaotic Evil - would easily recognize each other as such. And yes I agree that a lot of "Bible-thumper" type religious types are not kind; the fundamental for being Good, nor Lawful when they change the application of the rules based on who they are targetting. But even they are fractious. With every religion there are the fanatics who can justify anything by creatively defining what is correct for their religion - and those who use their creativity in exactly the opposite way. Personally I find the latter to be the best examples of what we WISH humans were like. Most of us are just muddling along trying to survive and maybe working to protect our families as well if we have them - IMHO WE make more mistakes on the kindness front - we get too locked up in wondering "what's in it for me?" to see the bigger picture. Learning to care about each other and take care of each other when it's a big hassle and there is no direct reward is when we'll have become truly civilized and more advanced as a species - but we are far from it still - we're still just cavemen in better clothes with better hygiene.

 

Then there is the problem of labels, if there is a label with a perceived (or real) down side, people will come up with the most twisted arguments or technicalities to avoid the undesired label. Thus you have many evil ones arguing they are not evil because being labeled "evil" means no one will trust them and they want to hurt/exploit/boss around others, so need to insist they are not evil. So they will come up with convoluted explanations with moon logic on why they are actually lawful good instead of evil.
That could be a case of what was going on with those arguments.

 

True. I was going to make some statements on that front but realized I was stepping into the "racism" quicksand; where intended and unintended racism (or even non-racism expressed in certain ways) ceases to matter; you are going down. Humans label things by habit. If we label an animal a dog; we know in probability what it's capable of and how it's going to act/react. We can individualize that dog once we get to know it. It's breed will give us further opinions; but they are only opinions. I wonder how long we've been saying "everybody has a right to their own opinion." But sometimes having an opinion about something like the "law" of gravity is silly. The opinion of what the alignments in D&D hasn't really changed since 1stEd Basic; so in this case the alignments mean what the book says they mean - not some weird interpretation of others.

 

Actually, alignments are what the DM wants them to mean. Each PHB only attempts to guide the players and the DM in the "right" direction. And alignments have evolved over the years. They are a lot less rigid these days.

 

Well true Keneth; the rules say what the GM says they say. But IMHO GM fiat and GM houserules should be kept to a minimum, easier for everyone to remember what they are if they can pull out their PHB or similar and look them up. Hm, I actually had to dig around in the 5E phb to find the alignments; there isn't even a listing in the front index. To me it mostly seems they've changed the wording; but the spirit feels the same.

 

It's not GM fiat, the rules in newer RPGs literally say that the GM is the arbiter on alignments, precisely because these issues are in fact so common.