D&D alignments, how do they work?

[Luckmann]

Book of Exalted Deeds

The Book of Exalted Deeds ...

The Book of Exalted Deeds (and to a lesser degree Book of Vile Darkness) is absolutely horrid in the context of an alignment discussion, because much of what especially BoED states or implies do not jive with what has been said earlier and in other sources, and is incredibly inconsistent when it comes to both the stated intent of original writers such as Gygax and practical application and expression of alignment as seen in most actual works, and it implies especially ridiculous things such as pacifism being a virtue, which we all know empathically not to be true. It is a painfully ill-written book that has thrown a very much not needed wrench into alignment discussions for over a decade, unnecessarily muddying the waters of things that have been expressed very clearly time and time again both before and after. There's pages upon pages discussion just how ridiculous the rules for being "exalted" are, and the writers couldn't help but to insert their own (presumably, at least) moral stances as some kind of objective "Good" without any regard for what this did to the underlying idea of alignments and the cosmology it implies.

Much of this is probably because the authors tried to model the book after the Book of Vile Darkness, written primarily by Monty Cuck (which had issues too, because.. well.. Monty), but without any firm understanding of alignments and with multiple different authors, it probably became a "too many chefs"-situation.

I'll take the 1980's article discussing the meta and the why's and how's of alignment over BoED any day of the week (and if Prime Junta would dig out which article, I'd love to read it), but more importantly, I'll take the actual core books and the original author's word over it, too.

Btw, this discussion is much older and bigger than "What is a RPG?" one . Let me summon our own little GM Infinitron , I think this all needs to go somewhere else and let this topic be for discussion of P:KM.

OK, where did it start?

The dawn of time and the discussion of what is Evil, and what makes a virtuous life.

You should just give up right now and fold all other threads on the Codex into this one.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[TheEntitledOne]

Alwys had issues understanding how Law works when compared between Prime and Outer planes.

If the mortal laws of a nation allow you to cheat and lie as long as you respect all the fine print wouldn't that be more lawful that a LG paladin that breaks a few small laws following his code (staying honoroble, following internal codes or laws of his order, etc), with the motivation for said actions being less important?

 

[Random]

DnD alignments are basically anus
For this I think we can thank Law v. Chaos,
Where law of man is held up too high
By unthinking cucks who think they're so sly.
Please God in Heaven, spare us this gay-ass
Debate, it is real bad, and just slay us.

"Why DnD Alignments Suck"

 

[Damned Registrations]

Law would be better defined as Order- it's relatively easy to distinguish something that is orderly or not, as opposed to 'lawful' given that contradictory laws exist and there's no way to determine which is the right one.

Good vs. Evil is obviously an age old question, but a good shorthand for games would be something like generous vs selflish. Killing other evil people isn't inherently good, but since evil people are by definition so selfish and greedy that they hurt others for their own gain, killing them for the purpose of helping the people they were harming is good. Likewise you could justify killing a good person if it was to help people, regardless of your or their lack of knowledge regarding the big picture. To use Game of Thrones as an example, Jaime killing his king would be a chaotic good act, and if someone had tried to stop him, it could have been an orderly good act if it were to defend the king and honour the vow to serve him, or lawful evil if it were to honor those vows just to maintain one's own reputation, knowing full well it would lead to immense bloodshed.

This is a very mechanical kind of view of alignment that you can apply to any situation without much dispute, which is what you need for a game to function smoothly.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'll take the 1980's article discussing the meta and the why's and how's of alignment over BoED any day of the week (and if Prime Junta would dig out which article, I'd love to read it), but more importantly, I'll take the actual core books and the original author's word over it, too.

Huh, imagine that, I found it. Somebody's scanned all those old Dragons and Google does the rest.

Memory is a rum thing though, I had retained some of the gist of the article when I read it as a kid (I was 9 years old at the time)... but there's a lot there that I didn't remember, or remembered differently.

Anyhow for better or for worse, here it is -- page 10, "The problem of morality in fantasy:" https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg039.pdf

Edit: also plus ça change and all that commotion -- another article is about women in gaming and the prejudices they face (cutely illustrated with a picture of a blonde in some rather, uh, generous attire...)

 

[111111111]

They work by being a great handholding device for new PnP dnd roleplayers. Since in the real world nobody calls themselves chaotic neutral or shit like that , it serves to break your own identity and immerse yourself into the mindset of a fictional character.

This is really helpful when playing with little kids! Instead of explaining to a 6 year old the nuance of morality you have this little guide that explains everything how to act. This way they can understand that a goody paladin doesnt try to kill every storekeeper and person that says hi.

 

[Luckmann]

Alwys had issues understanding how Law works when compared between Prime and Outer planes.

If the mortal laws of a nation allow you to cheat and lie as long as you respect all the fine print wouldn't that be more lawful that a LG paladin that breaks a few small laws following his code (staying honoroble, following internal codes or laws of his order, etc), with the motivation for said actions being less important?

Not necessarily. But both would be Lawful. The example given doesn't really carry anything to judge one better or worse than the other. All I can say is that the nation is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil; it could not be Lawful Good, because cheating others and lying are generally evil acts, even though that is not necessarily true if it is in the pursuit of greater Good, in which case it may be chaotic or even simply neutral. Lawful Good implies not just following the letter of the law, but also living by the spirit of the law, as long as the law is in the pursuit of Good.

Which, to be fair, probably isn't true for the nation you mentioned. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of laws (not to be confused with Lawful) to be morally agnostic. Even in a Lawful Good nation, the law itself generally permits you to cheat and lie as long as you follow the letter of the law and respect all the fine print. The difference lies in that in a Lawful Good society, you'd still be shat upon for that kind of behaviour, even if not held legally accountable.

In the kitchen sink that is Golarion, there's actually a whole country, Cheliax, that can be described as nothing else than Lawful Evil, and it's got a lot of things like that, where following the letter of the law but completely disregarding some higher purpose in the spirit of the law is the norm, and corruption (although not in the legal sense, obviously) is rife. I generally dislike such one-sided interpretations, and it's just one facet in showcasing how extremely "flat" Golarion is as a setting, but I guess it can be used as a good example of an entire society that is generally to be considered Lawful Evil.

Arguably, the Red Wizards of Thay in Forgotten Realms would also qualify, but it's more debatable.

I'll take the 1980's article discussing the meta and the why's and how's of alignment over BoED any day of the week (and if Prime Junta would dig out which article, I'd love to read it), but more importantly, I'll take the actual core books and the original author's word over it, too.

Huh, imagine that, I found it. Somebody's scanned all those old Dragons and Google does the rest.

Memory is a rum thing though, I had retained some of the gist of the article when I read it as a kid (I was 9 years old at the time)... but there's a lot there that I didn't remember, or remembered differently.

Anyhow for better or for worse, here it is -- page 10, "The problem of morality in fantasy:" https://www.annarchive.com/files/Drmg039.pdf

Edit: also plus ça change and all that commotion -- another article is about women in gaming and the prejudices they face (cutely illustrated with a picture of a blonde in some rather, uh, generous attire...)

Ah, so it was very much the same one I had already found. And yes, pretty much every single Dragon Magazine (and more) is really easy to get. Some are missing some pages, though, which is frustrating, because nobody seems to realize and you can't really report it to anyone.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

Lawful Good is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. That is the whole point. That is why Paladins have always been saddled with that alignment. It is the hardest alignment to uphold, and will always be because human nature being what it is.

Yes. This is the best explanation of what Lawful is supposed to mean. The ability to act within a framework; moral or otherwise.

A lawful <-> Chaotic distinction must acknowledge the fact that the difference is having or not having an ethical standard. Neutral is applying that on a case basis.

At the same time, I feel that the Good and Bad labels heavily affect the Lawful/Chaotic alignments as well. They are not really independent criteria.

 

[Incendax]

In practice, that objective standard is how your DM sees it. You'll learn soon enough.

Pretty much! The important thing is that alignment is NOT what the character thinks about themself, but an external judgement.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

. Another example would be Antigone vs. King Creon, with Antigone sacrificing herself to do what is Lawful under the laws of the gods and nature, while Creon is Chaotic and wishes to defy the way of the world and right for the dead to be buried properly

False. The king was also lawful. He didn't allow a proper burial to scary off anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the law. It was done to maintain order. He murdered Antigone because showing favoritism to his family members would be unlawful. Proper, lawful king judges everyone in accordance to the law, without giving anyone a special treatment. Both Antigone and the King were acting lawfully, which is the basis for the tragedy.

 

[Commissar Draco]

. Another example would be Antigone vs. King Creon, with Antigone sacrificing herself to do what is Lawful under the laws of the gods and nature, while Creon is Chaotic and wishes to defy the way of the world and right for the dead to be buried properly

False. The king was also lawful. He didn't allow a proper burial to scary off anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the law. It was done to maintain order. He murdered Antigone because showing favoritism to his family members would be unlawful. Proper, lawful king judges everyone in accordance to the law, without giving anyone a special treatment. Both Antigone and the King were acting lawfully, which is the basis for the tragedy.

Gods law is superior to secular one in DnD too so Antigone was LG and Creon LN? Antigone did what she did cause leaving unhurried member of family was sacrilege Creon did it to discourage future traitors. (her brother joined forces with enemy of Kingdom), he would be LE if he was not legitimate King.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

. Another example would be Antigone vs. King Creon, with Antigone sacrificing herself to do what is Lawful under the laws of the gods and nature, while Creon is Chaotic and wishes to defy the way of the world and right for the dead to be buried properly

False. The king was also lawful. He didn't allow a proper burial to scary off anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the law. It was done to maintain order. He murdered Antigone because showing favoritism to his family members would be unlawful. Proper, lawful king judges everyone in accordance to the law, without giving anyone a special treatment. Both Antigone and the King were acting lawfully, which is the basis for the tragedy.

Gods law is superior to secular one in DnD too so Antigone was LG and Creon LN? Antigone did what she did cause leaving unhurried member of family was sacrilege Creon did it to discourage future traitors. (her brother joined forces with enemy of Kingdom), he would be LE if he was not legitimate King.

Creone was stupid and didn't think about consequences of his new law. When he realized the situation he has put himself in, it was already too late to change the decision. So I would argue that LG is not out of option for him.

 

[Luckmann]

Lawful Good is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. That is the whole point. That is why Paladins have always been saddled with that alignment. It is the hardest alignment to uphold, and will always be because human nature being what it is.

Yes. This is the best explanation of what Lawful is supposed to mean. The ability to act within a framework; moral or otherwise.

A lawful <-> Chaotic distinction must acknowledge the fact that the difference is having or not having an ethical standard. Neutral is applying that on a case basis.

At the same time, I feel that the Good and Bad labels heavily affect the Lawful/Chaotic alignments as well. They are not really independent criteria.

I'd say it goes beyond an "ethical standard". Chaotic people generally have some form of ethical standard too, or rules that they live by, but they are a lot more flexible when it comes to their actions, and they don't allow themselves to be held down or controlled by principles. Instead of thinking of it in terms of having a standard or not, think of it in terms of having principled ideals or a code of tenets to live by. Lawful-ness is defined by a belief in a structured approach to reaching whatever ethical standard you support, and implies a general belief (and the actions to support that belief) that structures and principles are worth living by and a good way to pursue what the character would consider a desirable outcome.

Generally Chaotic people, on the other hand, would likely criticize this in that it allows people to act against Good (if Chaotic Good) or against you or other ethical standards/self-centered lack thereof (if Chaotic Evil), and that this leads to societies or structures that are oppressive to the pursuit of said ethical standard/lack thereof. A Chaotic Evil person might detest a Lawful Evil person because said Lawful Evil person is essentially "chained down", cannot be trusted due to a misguided belief in law & order, or is essentially a hypocrite that sticks to rules and regulations despite being fundamentally selfish. A Chaotic Good person might similarly revile a Lawful Good person because the ordered structure of society and the rule of law creates the structures that allows evil agents to abuse it and often get away, and may in itself become oppressive and quite easily slide towards Lawful Neutral (and subsequently Lawful Evil), and might consider a paladin woefully naive.

Unfortunately, this is a conflict that we get to see all too rarely, and have been touched upon in precious few quality supplements. I think Champions of Valor explored the idea of violent/ideological conflict between agents/nations of Good, which was pretty cool. Unfortunately, what we get is often Good vs. Evil, but it would be very refreshing to see two fundamentally good factions come to blows. A lot of the intrigue that is present in many works of fiction, and which is always (to me) more interesting to explore lies on that axis, rather than good vs. evil.

 

[vota DC]

It is quite easy.
In ancient D&D you have just lawful, neutral and chaotic.

A lawful is good. Never lies, forgives, protect and help without nothing in exchange.
A chaotic just does whatever wants if it means gaining something.
A neutral does whatever wants but can harm someone else only if in danger or forced by the diet.

If the law says hang the murderers the lawful good will disobey if the murder repents even if disobey can mean danger. The neutral good will obey. A chaotic good may hang the murder even if there isn't such law if he perceives the murder as a danger.
A lawful evil can spare a prisoner even if there is nothing to gain. A chaotic evil can still spare a prisoner: he may spare for pursuing in his hideout (a classic) but can also spare for gaining reputation with his soldiers.

 

[Luckmann]

...

If the law says hang the murderers the lawful good will disobey if the murder repents even if disobey can mean danger. ...

No, this is objectively wrong especially when discussing early D&D. Gygax expressed it in no uncertain terms that "... as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good" and continuing; "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc."

And further on this exact topic: "Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good."

Yes, Gygax flat-out says that not only can Paladins kill those that try to "repent" by (possibly) paying lip service to the cause of good or renounces their evil ways, but they can execute villains right there on the fucking spot by fucking strangling them.

 

[Random]

. Another example would be Antigone vs. King Creon, with Antigone sacrificing herself to do what is Lawful under the laws of the gods and nature, while Creon is Chaotic and wishes to defy the way of the world and right for the dead to be buried properly

False. The king was also lawful. He didn't allow a proper burial to scary off anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the law. It was done to maintain order. He murdered Antigone because showing favoritism to his family members would be unlawful. Proper, lawful king judges everyone in accordance to the law, without giving anyone a special treatment. Both Antigone and the King were acting lawfully, which is the basis for the tragedy.

The entire point of the play is that Antigone is objectively correct, but Creon is too blinded by his pride to allow his enemies a proper burial. Whether Creon is right to do so by established law is irrelevant because, as the play itself states, the laws of man are inferior to the laws of the gods. In the end, Creon's insistence on avoiding any more bloodshed that might be caused by letting them bury the dead only causes more innocent lives to be lost, in this case Antigone's. EDIT: As King, Creon made all the laws, and chose to make a law that went against all good principles because he was afraid of another uprising as well as too proud to admit he fucked up. He denied honor and the laws of higher justice than his own, so he was Chaotic.

 

[Cael]

Lawful Good is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. That is the whole point. That is why Paladins have always been saddled with that alignment. It is the hardest alignment to uphold, and will always be because human nature being what it is.

Yes. This is the best explanation of what Lawful is supposed to mean. The ability to act within a framework; moral or otherwise.

A lawful <-> Chaotic distinction must acknowledge the fact that the difference is having or not having an ethical standard. Neutral is applying that on a case basis.

At the same time, I feel that the Good and Bad labels heavily affect the Lawful/Chaotic alignments as well. They are not really independent criteria.

The Law-Chaos axis was badly chosen in the first place. It leads to problems when idiots keep insisting on following the law, when it really isn't about that. The Law-Chaos axis is better served as an Honour-Dishonour axis.

Basically, it is more of a reputation axis, except it is real, not a perception thing. If you are honourable, you always tell the truth, honour bargains and the like. Good or Evil, it doesn't matter. When you are dishonourable, you are a deceitful, conniving fellow and cannot be trusted to keep your word. You can and will break it at the drop of a hat if it means you get your way. Whether your way is to help other or yourself is up for debate (i.e., Good-Evil axis).

That effectively takes the whole law-chaos thing out of the picture and stops the whole "you must follow law, you must follow law because law is in the name" shit we perpetually get when this kind of discussion crops up.

 

[Cael]

Book of Exalted Deeds

The Book of Exalted Deeds ...

The Book of Exalted Deeds (and to a lesser degree Book of Vile Darkness) is absolutely horrid in the context of an alignment discussion, because much of what especially BoED states or implies do not jive with what has been said earlier and in other sources, and is incredibly inconsistent when it comes to both the stated intent of original writers such as Gygax and practical application and expression of alignment as seen in most actual works, and it implies especially ridiculous things such as pacifism being a virtue, which we all know empathically not to be true. It is a painfully ill-written book that has thrown a very much not needed wrench into alignment discussions for over a decade, unnecessarily muddying the waters of things that have been expressed very clearly time and time again both before and after. There's pages upon pages discussion just how ridiculous the rules for being "exalted" are, and the writers couldn't help but to insert their own (presumably, at least) moral stances as some kind of objective "Good" without any regard for what this did to the underlying idea of alignments and the cosmology it implies.

Much of this is probably because the authors tried to model the book after the Book of Vile Darkness, written primarily by Monty Cuck (which had issues too, because.. well.. Monty), but without any firm understanding of alignments and with multiple different authors, it probably became a "too many chefs"-situation.

I'll take the 1980's article discussing the meta and the why's and how's of alignment over BoED any day of the week (and if Prime Junta would dig out which article, I'd love to read it), but more importantly, I'll take the actual core books and the original author's word over it, too.

Actually, given how it is written, it was obvious that it was over a decade of complaints from players about alignment, particularly Lawful Good (because Paladins) that is the basis for the book. It is so obvious that even TVTropes lampshaded the damned thing.

The problem lies, as I have mentioned before, when idiots emphasise Law over Good. That has always been the problem. Even the 3.x PHB tried to avert this by stating outright that in a dilemma between Law and Good, a paladin always chooses Good over Law. And to underline that, go look at the punishment for intentional Chaotic acts vs intentional Evil acts.

If the morons want Law to be emphasised over all others, they are talking Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. And that is the problem there, as I have also said before: They want to be of a certain alignment and so claim whatever they believe is of that alignment regardless of what is written and intended. Bad players, not bad system.

 

[Luckmann]

Lawful Good is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. That is the whole point. That is why Paladins have always been saddled with that alignment. It is the hardest alignment to uphold, and will always be because human nature being what it is.

Yes. This is the best explanation of what Lawful is supposed to mean. The ability to act within a framework; moral or otherwise.

A lawful <-> Chaotic distinction must acknowledge the fact that the difference is having or not having an ethical standard. Neutral is applying that on a case basis.

At the same time, I feel that the Good and Bad labels heavily affect the Lawful/Chaotic alignments as well. They are not really independent criteria.

The Law-Chaos axis was badly chosen in the first place. It leads to problems when idiots keep insisting on following the law, when it really isn't about that. The Law-Chaos axis is better served as an Honour-Dishonour axis.

Basically, it is more of a reputation axis, except it is real, not a perception thing. If you are honourable, you always tell the truth, honour bargains and the like. Good or Evil, it doesn't matter. When you are dishonourable, you are a deceitful, conniving fellow and cannot be trusted to keep your word. You can and will break it at the drop of a hat if it means you get your way. Whether your way is to help other or yourself is up for debate (i.e., Good-Evil axis).

That effectively takes the whole law-chaos thing out of the picture and stops the whole "you must follow law, you must follow law because law is in the name" shit we perpetually get when this kind of discussion crops up.

Given that the entire thjng is originally ripped straight from Moorcock, it would be more accurate to think of it as Order vs. Chaos, but on a strictly mortal level, Honourable va. Dishonourable isn't entirely wrong. The best part is that on a cosmic level, part of the issue is that at their extremes - well beyond the realms of what is reasonable, far, far away from anything of mortal make - either side is utterly debilitating and uncaring. Lawful/Order is unmoving, stagnant, and homogeneous, like a field of marbled whiteness stretching to infinity in a realm where even time stands still, perfectly distributed evenly, forever. Chaotic/Chaos, in the same way, is a churning hell of nothingnness, in which not even thoughts take shape, and everything is torn apart in an endless black process of entropy; there is no time there either, but only because the concept of time is a progression that can never take place.

I personally like to imagine that Good and Evil are much the same, even though such extremes are never really depicted or described, possibly because it can be considered as lying on higher metaphysical planes that cannot be depicted or described in a way that makes sense, which is part of why we also see very little of the most extreme planes, and always through the lens of mortal eyes. The pinnacle of Good on a cosmic scale doesn't necessarily mean "Good for you" as a mortal.

But that's just me.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Honour is a fickle thing, just like laws. It's very easy to make more vows than you can possibly uphold. Indeed, doing that is the honourable thing to do right up until it isn't.

“How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?"

Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”

Best thing he ever wrote.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

. Another example would be Antigone vs. King Creon, with Antigone sacrificing herself to do what is Lawful under the laws of the gods and nature, while Creon is Chaotic and wishes to defy the way of the world and right for the dead to be buried properly

False. The king was also lawful. He didn't allow a proper burial to scary off anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the law. It was done to maintain order. He murdered Antigone because showing favoritism to his family members would be unlawful. Proper, lawful king judges everyone in accordance to the law, without giving anyone a special treatment. Both Antigone and the King were acting lawfully, which is the basis for the tragedy.

The entire point of the play is that Antigone is objectively correct, but Creon is too blinded by his pride to allow his enemies a proper burial. Whether Creon is right to do so by established law is irrelevant because, as the play itself states, the laws of man are inferior to the laws of the gods. In the end, Creon's insistence on avoiding any more bloodshed that might be caused by letting them bury the dead only causes more innocent lives to be lost, in this case Antigone's. EDIT: As King, Creon made all the laws, and chose to make a law that went against all good principles because he was afraid of another uprising as well as too proud to admit he fucked up. He denied honor and the laws of higher justice than his own, so he was Chaotic.

He did it to show that he doesn't give favors to family members, so that no one is above the law. He was lawful. Who was correct in the end isnt important. Creon was Lawful Stupid.

 

[Random]

He did it to show that he doesn't give favors to family members, so that no one is above the law. He was lawful. Who was correct in the end isnt important. Creon was Lawful Stupid.

He didn't do it for the sake of the law. He did it because it was his law, and he didn't want to admit that he made a shitty law. He is the king, it is perfectly within his powers to change the law, but he refused to out of hubris which is in Greek myth a force of Chaos, a force which compels men to defy the gods and the natural order, in this case being the right of family to bury their fallen. His law was a sin against the law of the gods and a violation of all good principles, so I don't see how you can possibly say he was lawful.

 

[Roguey]

wonder what Chris Avellone thinks about alignments by the way. Roguey?

Fairfax would be the one to ask.

You can also tell what Josh thinks

I don't care.