D&D alignments, how do they work?

[Shadenuat]

I don't care.

Or right, I forgot, sry
(pats head)

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

All I know for sure is

1. that it generally takes significantly more effort to intelligently play Lawful characters.
2. that there is no ability or spell, to my knowledge, that targets Neutrality on either axis.
and 3. that Chaotic characters are a go-to for edgelords and rebels-without-a-cause.

 

[Fairfax]

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.

He dislikes pre-determined alignment systems, and usually plays as Chaotic Neutral IIRC.

Also, I was tired of many actual RPG mechanics. The idea that you should choose your alignment and your outlook on the world (which D&D required you do) before you actually immersed yourself in the world never clicked with me – again, I’ve seen a lot of players create characters who they felt would make excellent paladins or the most vicious psychotic assassins, and within a single play session, discover that the class of character and alignment didn’t suit them when they tried to actually role-play the character for the first time. So the idea of amnesia and immortality in Torment lent itself to a “blank slate” kind of RPG mechanics where you could slowly shape your alignment over time, rather than decide it at the outset.

 

[PorkBarrellGuy]

So I guess the better question is what alignment does Avellone usually find himself ending any given game as?

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I think that alignment only make sense in D&D as:

- In OD&D they represent general principles of allegiance (i.e. "Before the game begins, it is not only necessary to select a role [i.e. class], but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take -- Law, Neutrality, or Chaos."
- In newer edition (except for murky interpretation of 4/5th) they are attunement to specific planes of existence (or at least that's how I see them)

Personally when I DM outside of actual D&D world (or the equivalent like Forgotten Realms), I scratch the concept of alignment. In all cases, even Gygax thought the evil-good axis was framed around a point of reference (moral/ethos) : "law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this author to some extent."

 

[gestalt11]

Almost all villains believe themselves to be good. Perhaps the only exceptions are true sociopaths and even they seem to have some kind of a narrative to justify their actions.

Chaos and Order are more complicated and, by and large, are shit for the D&D alignment system. A person can be highly disorganized in their personal life and yet truly believe in the importance of civil order. The same is true in reverse, there are very meticulous anarchists. The D&D system conflates these things together, the personality aspects of a person are not the same as their ideals.

Even worse sticking the chaos/order portion with the good/evil portion is inherently incomprehensible. Since a person who thinks civil order to be highly important would consider violating the civil order to be evil. Thus in the D&D way of doing things a highly Lawful but also Good person could consider an extremely Chaotic but also Good person to be evil. It can't actually make any internal sense and is therefore an un-repairably flawed system that requires you to ignore various internal contradictions to make something practicable.

All deep delving into D&D and style alignment eventually results in a bunch of hand waving and "yeah, but"s. At some point players and DMs learn to leave it at a very shallow level because its not actual resovable due to its flaws.

 

[SerratedBiz]

So I guess the better question is what alignment does Avellone usually find himself ending any given game as?

He can't even make it through the fucking wolves, how is he going to finish a game?

 

[Fairfax]

I think that alignment only make sense in D&D as:

- In OD&D they represent general principles of allegiance (i.e. "Before the game begins, it is not only necessary to select a role [i.e. class], but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take -- Law, Neutrality, or Chaos."
- In newer edition (except for murky interpretation of 4/5th) they are attunement to specific planes of existence (or at least that's how I see them)

Personally when I DM outside of actual D&D world (or the equivalent like Forgotten Realms), I scratch the concept of alignment. In all cases, even Gygax thought the evil-good axis was framed around a point of reference (moral/ethos) : "law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this author to some extent."

Pre-3E, the player bought into an archetype, and the alignment was a part of it. Alignment was more about goals and behaviour, and was also related to deities, whether the PC was religious or not:

Whether or not the character actively professes some deity, he or she will have an alignment and serve one or more deities of this general alignment indirectly and unbeknownst to the character. Changing of alignment is a serious matter, although some players would have their characters change alignment as often as they change socks. Not so!

[from the AD&D 1E DMG]

Newer editions changed every aspect of the game to accomodate more LARPing and different playstyles. They use alignments as a tool to define the character's personality. It may sound similar, but it's a fundamental change. See the different definitions of "Law and Chaos":

1E:

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.

3E:

Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Or the difference between Lawful Evil:

1E:

Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

3E

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Notice the amount of assumptions and adjectives about the character in 3E. It also created a contradiction within the system. Mechanically, alignments became less relevant and more flexible. At the same time, each alignment gives a much narrower description of the character's personality.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

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...)

Right, but is the cover image that of a lion smooching a dragonoid? WTF men

 

[Morality Games]

Chaotic usually means retarded. Usually.

Depends on your culture and mindset. "Chaotic" societies are one that allow people to pursue their own inclinations (like free market capitalism, freedom of religion, etc), which ensures the stuff that gets made, done, thought about, etc, are things that people want, are passionate about, and can do well, but may not be good for the continuation of society, especially in the long term. Government is patterned more on guidance and partnerships than direct control and whatever authority exists owes its existence to respect rather than force or fear. These are ideal societies if the things people want to do are also the things that are good for them.

Meanwhile lawful societies see freedoms more as courtesies and and ensure that the stuff that gets made, done, or thought about are the things which are beneficial to the continuing existence of society -- although not necessarily to the happiness of anyone in it (and if anyone's happiness is guaranteed, it is the happiness of the guardians of the law and their families -- the social, economic, and political elite). Authority is commanded through the force of law rather than respect or personality.

A lot of the good things laws do (such as outlawing rape or murder) are things that human beings are inclined to do anyway (with or without laws) because of the desire to fit in with the group. Rape and murder are certainly more common in historic anarchic societies (like the Vikings) than lawful ones, but usually not at epidemic levels because retribution is bound to occur whether it comes in an organised or chaotic fashion.

 

[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.

We are generally brought up in a Lawful society. There are rules we have to obey, there are peope whom we need to respect, there are absolutes which we were taught are virtues (e.g., be honest), and we are taught discipline and to strive for things. Perhaps this is the last generation which will be for a while until we get the SJW fucks out of the system.

That is why we are biased towards Lawful = Good: The Chaotics are liars and/or insane bastards with no respect for authority and only love anarchy in which no society can function effectively. They are selfish bastards who don't think of anyone else, just their own gratification. Rules can go to hell, and the society that depends on those rules can go to hell. Chaotics are, therefore, assholes. And anarchists are bad.

In DnD, we need to be less absolute about these things, not more. That is the counterintuitive thing about alignment. Why? Because it is a fucking game. A game that you are playing with friends around a table. In a social setting. Hello! If you go ultra fanatic about the nuances of alignment at the table and cry and rant about how your Paladin should be allowed to commit genocide, at best you will piss everyone else off. At worst, you gain an asphalt tattoo and the DM has to get a new door.

 

[Cael]

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.

Order/Chaos is good as a cosmological constant, yes, but not for alignment. I have no problem that Arcadia is the plane of ultimate Good without bias towards Order or Chaos, or Mechanus being the plane of ultimate Order, or Pandemonium as the plane of ultimate Chaos.

But as a tool to describe alignment, personality or personal beliefs, Order and Chaos would end up the same way as Law and Chaos.

We have a altruistic-selfish axis in Good and Evil. To some, that is enough. The intentions justifies the means and so it doesn't matter if you lie in order to do Good. To others, they want it more nuanced. Is the guy an honourable type? Will he keep his word? Is he a known liar? Obviously a person who keeps his word and his contracts to the letter no matter how heinous the result is to others is someone you'd want to do business with than a guy who is a known liar and violates contracts on a whim. Yet, the first one is a very selfish person who is always looking out for his own gain, while the latter actually does good and lies to augment his abiity to do good. That is where a single axis runs into problems. That is what DnD was trying to capture.

The problem is, when the word "Law" or "Order" was used, it inevitably because a fight of Law vs Good, not Good vs Evil. Why? Because dumbfuck muppets insist that their idea of Lawful Good is correct, when they are, at best, Lawful Neutral (i.e., Law above all). Their entire arguments devolve into Law vs Good at every single turn, and yet they claim they are describing Lawful Good. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

 

[thesheeep]

1. that it generally takes significantly more effort to intelligently play Lawful characters.

Yeah, having a single lawful character in a group that isn't entirely lawful tends to grind things to a halt.
A focused lawful group, however, can be pretty interesting.

 

[ArchAngel]

Even D&D owners tire of Alignment wars so for 5th edition they removed Detect "insert alignment" spells.

Edit: They even changed how Paladin's Detect Evil works:

Divine Sense
The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover. You know the type (celestial, fiend, or undead) of any being whose presence you sense, but not its identity. Within the same radius, you also detect the presence of any place or object that has been consecrated or desecrated, as with the hallow spell.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Cael
Prime Junta
Luckmann

In DnD verse, What would be the alignment of someone who maintains a tolerable facade in society/circles outwardly but would do anything to further his self-interest as long as he can get away with it?

 

[ArchAngel]

Cael
Prime Junta
Luckmann

In DnD verse, What would be the alignment of someone who maintains a tolerable facade in society/circles outwardly but would do anything to further his self-interest as long as he can get away with it?

Unless that person is going out of its way to hurt others, that would be TN or LN.

 

[vota DC]

...

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.

This is to avoid batman-joker situation.
Feeding a prisoner at expense of innocent villagers is evil.
Let an evil guy go if he can harm someone else is evil too.
In general a kind act that cause harm to innocents is evil.
So lawful good is more "the greater good justify the means", they don't care at all about neutral law even when disobey means danger. Robin Hood is much more lawful good than batman or superman.

 

[Cael]

Cael
Prime Junta
Luckmann

In DnD verse, What would be the alignment of someone who maintains a tolerable facade in society/circles outwardly but would do anything to further his self-interest as long as he can get away with it?

The tolerable facade is not really a consideration. Anyone can lie to be more acceptable to the general society. Just about everyone does it in real life. The second part of the question, however, is of importance.

It depends on how far he is willing to go to further his self-interest. What are his self-interests? Given the thrust of the question, I will assume that he is in it for his own self-satisfation, basically giving himself a stiffy for his own jollies.

Would he cheat, steal and lie? Would he hurt others without qualms? Does he have no regard for laws and societal norms? If it is yes to both, then you are looking at CE. It goes without saying that SJWs are of this alignment.

If he is willing to follow laws but will try to find loopholes and other not-dishonest but not really honourable ways of getting what he wants, he is probably LE. He may even push the interpretation of the laws a fair bit if he feels he can get away with it. Remember that LE people follows laws to the letter partly because they don't want to get arrested or the like. That is as far as his "can get away with" appetite for risk is willing to go. Most ruthless entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Brad Wardell and Bill Gates fall into this category.

Others would run the spectrum of NE, I guess, although it is hard to tell without a specific example.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Cael
Prime Junta
Luckmann

In DnD verse, What would be the alignment of someone who maintains a tolerable facade in society/circles outwardly but would do anything to further his self-interest as long as he can get away with it?

Unless that person is going out of its way to hurt others, that would be TN or LN.

i disagree.
the person can and will hurt others as long as he gets some benefit from it and he can get away with it.

 

[Prime Junta]

Cael
Prime Junta
Luckmann

In DnD verse, What would be the alignment of someone who maintains a tolerable facade in society/circles outwardly but would do anything to further his self-interest as long as he can get away with it?

Neutral Evil.

 

[Cael]

Actually, Chaotic_Heretic, you might want to read up on the Eberron setting. There are quite a few examples of people doing exactly what you are asking. One of the Cardinals of the Church of the Silver Flame (a LG diety), for example, is actually LE and has put up such a facade of being a good person, he is now a Cardinal (one of the highest positions in the Church).

 

[Damned Registrations]

How the fuck does that work, given all the alignment related spells he'd have no access to/be affected by in such a position?

 

[Cael]

How the fuck does that work, given all the alignment related spells he'd have no access to/be affected by in such a position?

Why would he? Who would cast spells at him? Would you run up to the Pope while he is in Vatican City and cast Holy Smite on him just on the off chance that he is Evil? Assuming you get close enough before the Swiss Guards make Swiss cheese out of you.

 

[Prime Junta]

How the fuck does that work, given all the alignment related spells he'd have no access to/be affected by in such a position?

That's a very cool question and my DM mind immediately went into overdrive finding ways to answer it.

In D&D everything is possible though, and certainly this. I love the idea of a LE high priest of a LG church.

 

[Xunwael]

Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin.

There can be no compassion or tolerance for evil, fool.

But seriously, a paladin isn't going to want to sit down and work on trying to rehabilitate those murderers or whatever, never mind consider whether intelligent monsters are really evil or if they're just acting as if they are because of circumstances beyond their control and maybe if those changed they could be as good as you or me. Instead, he's gonna see evil creatures as dictated by the alignment describing them in the setting, and he's gonna destroy them - be they demons, hobgoblins, or bandits. Lawful Goods especially are gonna do this, considering the laws in pretty much every medieval-style fantasy setting make banditry and so on punishable by death. Paladins in particular often have divine or even cosmic mandates to destroy those things whenever they encounter them. It also doesn't matter if 'from my perspective the paladins are evil', because we're dealing with an objective morality system that describes these behaviours or even the creatures themselves as inherently evil.

So a "lawful stupid" paladin who runs around casting detect evil on everything in range and breaking into a frenzy of violence the second he detects one is not doing anything wrong, at least as far as his alignment is concerned. He's doing it STUPIDLY, but he's perfectly "lawful good".

It gets a little weird if you have very intelligent lawful goods, though. Much like how stupid lawful goods can act like the above and get away with it, intelligent lawful goods can use their intellect to bend or twist things to allow them to get away even with doing evil things if they think it's for the greater good. E.g. Trias attempting to instigate a war on heaven (or whatever exactly it was he was planning again), because he believes that will lead to more lawfulness and goodness in the long run. How long they manage to maintain their alignment while doing this though...