Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

D&D alignments, how do they work?

Prime Junta

Guest
... by the way, this is one of the best illustrations/explanations of the D&D alignment system I've come across recently: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1138.html

Those phrases next to the planes map to points in the alignment compass.


I'm in the little pale green bubble between the big yellow and medium sky-blue one. So not quite a :whiteknight:

Edit: replaced image with a link since apparently OOTS doesn't like deep-linking
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Prime Junta

Guest
D&D alignment is one of the most contentious and stupid system. Stupid because it is contentious. I would rather have replaced the Paladin alignment restriction with a Knightly code of honour and be done with the damn thing.

On the contrary, it's one of the handful of things in AD&D that would be worth keeping.

It's interesting because it's contentious. It hits a sweet spot where the basic thing is easy to understand and you can tie all kinds of interesting mechanical effects to it, yet if used intelligently it's possible to fit just about any kind of behaviour, creature, or moral conundrum into it.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
4,229
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.

I may remember wrong, I read the thing years ago, but I remember he wanted to let Antigone go, but felt obliged to not change laws for his personal benefit. The problem was not his ego, but that in this instance the person who broke the law in couldn't be forgiven without causing unrest. This is a conflict between lawful principles.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
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.
I mean for starters, he'd be expected to have access to the same kinds of spells as the rest of them, such as healing and bless and all that, which his god wouldn't be able to grant. He'd be barred from entering places warded against evil (like, presumably, his fucking church) be injured by and unable to use or even hold various holy objects... the list is endless, even assuming he's got 24/7 coverage against being detected by various divination spells.

This isn't like infiltrating a political organization, it's like infiltrating a hospital or MMA and nobody noticing you're a total layman.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
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.
NE doesn't care about putting up a tolerable façade.

1E: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.
2E: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the everyman-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
3E: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

His description is close to LE in 2E and 3E:

2E: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.
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.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
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.
I mean for starters, he'd be expected to have access to the same kinds of spells as the rest of them, such as healing and bless and all that, which his god wouldn't be able to grant. He'd be barred from entering places warded against evil (like, presumably, his fucking church) be injured by and unable to use or even hold various holy objects... the list is endless, even assuming he's got 24/7 coverage against being detected by various divination spells.

This isn't like infiltrating a political organization, it's like infiltrating a hospital or MMA and nobody noticing you're a total layman.
What the hell made you think heal and bless are Good aligned only?

Warded against Evil would mean that his church refuse to let Evil doers atone or try to move them back towards the auspises of Good. BAD assumption for a Lawful Good church. Seriously, your answer to Bill Gates is, "Fuck you! You don't deserve heaven! Die and burn in Hell, infidel!"???
 

Prime Junta

Guest
NE doesn't care about putting up a tolerable façade.

Nope, it's NE.

Key phrase in the LE description is "within the limits of his code of conduct" (in the 3E description) and "believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves" (in the 2E one).

Our hypothetical was about a hypocrite. He has no code of conduct. He doesn't believe in exploiting society and its laws. He doesn't care about the façade, he does it because it's the most efficient strategy to get away with whatever he wants to get away with.

That's a highly pure form of NE actually.

-- Put another way: breaking a law to benefit yourself is not a lawful act. If a LE character did that, his alignment would shift towards NE. Our hypothetical hypocrite has no such qualms whatsoever. He will only obey the law if somebody's watching or if it benefits him, cheerfully break it if he can get away with it and it benefits him.

(If he got a kick out of breaking laws for the sake of breaking them, or out of wreaking destruction for its own sake, he'd be CE. So given the opportunity, a NE character might break into a goldsmith's and steal his merchandise, but a CE one would also set the place on fire. A LE one would prefer to find a way to force him into bankruptcy so he can take over his business.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
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.
Which is the main reason badly played paladins tend to fall. Forgetting the fact that PHB outright stated that Paladins must err on the side of Good rather than Law when in a dilemma, the description of Lawful Good in the PHB would blow that out of the water.

Now, if you were Lawful Neutral, I would be supporting your statement without hesitation (i.e., "evil" in this case being violators of the law).
 

Prime Junta

Guest
... by the way ...

I think one nuance that's partly missing from the conversation has to do with law and the breaking thereof. I think a lot of the time we just assume that by "law" we mean "the law of the land." That's not what Law in D&D means though, even apart from the cosmic dimension that was already mentioned.

Example? An old-school Mafia style crimelord. He could easily be a Lawful Evil villain even though he literally lives on breaking the laws of the land. Why? Because he has a different set of laws he strictly adheres to. These could be omertà, honour, loyalty (to the crime family), retribution (to its enemies), and so on and so forth.

This is relevant for Lawful Good characters as well: the code of conduct a Lawful Good character could very well come into conflict with the laws of the land, especially if the laws of the land were at all Evil. In that case, breaking the laws of the lands in order to adhere to the laws the Lawful Good character willingly and whole-heartedly follows is, itself, a Lawful act.

(This is another angle which could justify rebellion against an evil tyrant as a Lawful Good act -- always assuming there is intent and a plan to establish a Lawful Good order after he's gone.)
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
SJfs8eL.jpg


Alignments are awful. You should be able to tell who an NPC is by who they are and what they do, not because of a silly alignment.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,681
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
The only way where D&D alignment is interesting is things like Planescape where ideas manifest as reality. Outside of that it only adds to emo foolishness.
Disagree. I think that making values and concepts like good and evil an element of objective reality, something that cannot be rejected because it's an undeniable and easily verifiable part of physical reality within the made-up universe is exactly what makes it interesting. Because it's different from the real world, it's what fantasy is supposed to be about after all, exploring such strange possibilities. The ability of your average player to understand it and practical implementation on the other hand can be problematic.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
The only way where D&D alignment is interesting is things like Planescape where ideas manifest as reality. Outside of that it only adds to emo foolishness.

"Things like Planescape" is a pretty broad category though, and "manifest as reality" is too. Any campaign that involves the cosmic forces of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil in more than a trivial sense would qualify.

But if it's about dungeon-diving or political shenanigans on a human scale like most campaigns are, then alignment is and probably should be safely ignored.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
I am going to focus on this part because you seem to actually agree with me.

I think I do, broadly speaking.

Cosmic forces only acquire moral character when viewed from a Sentient sense. In the most reasonable ethical system, a cosmic force is strictly neutral. And I don't mean evaluating neutral but rather incapable and disinterested in evaluation neutral. It would also be Lawful, because of its fundamental cosmic nature. End of story.

Cool story bro but nothing to do with D&D.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
Indeed. which is why D&D is actually ill thought out. But that does not mean it is not interesting at points.

As a model for actual real-world moral philosophy, D&D alignment is rather ridiculous.

But as a game of ethics it's kind of brilliant. The alignment compass is really fucking dumb without the cosmic dimension, but with the cosmic dimension it can make for some tremendously interesting gaming based on a whole stack of what-ifs. And as you say, if that's not what the campaign is all about, it is trivially simple to just ignore while keeping some entertaining mechanics – Detect Evil and Smite Evil and what have you will work just fine as long as the Monster Manual says that a critter is Evil.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
What the hell made you think heal and bless are Good aligned only?

Warded against Evil would mean that his church refuse to let Evil doers atone or try to move them back towards the auspises of Good. BAD assumption for a Lawful Good church. Seriously, your answer to Bill Gates is, "Fuck you! You don't deserve heaven! Die and burn in Hell, infidel!"???
Evil clerics can cast them, but in 3rd edition good clerics can just cast them spontaneously from any spell level.

Warded areas allow for evil people to enter via password if necessary. And it wouldn't make any sense for such a lofty position to not be heavily warded against evil in sensitive areas where commoners wouldn't be allowed. "Oh, we need to consult the ancient sacred text, let us step into the holy vault and retrieve it. You can't? Boy that's fucking strange!

And yeah, I don't have a memorized list of all the good aligned spells, but they include Bless Water, Consecrate, Aid, Any Blablah vs Evil, Summoning Monsters, Aligning weapons, and oh, yeah, fucking ATONEMENT.
 

Maculo

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
2,533
Strap Yourselves In Pathfinder: Wrath
This would mean that alignment is not a part of you as a person. You might be the most virtuous person in the world, but still end up in the Hells because you aren't omniscient and didn't know some of your actions would have bad consequences. This seems pretty fucked up and ripe for Avellone style deconstruction.

D&D ethics is primarily intentionalist, not consequentialist, with that cosmic dimension. I.e. if you were acting out of Good motives and in tune with the Cosmic Good, but evil nevertheless resulted (probably due to interference by agents of Cosmic Evil), then that would not doom your soul (nor cause a paladin to fall).

There's a parallel that might make it easier to understand. Consider a modern-day religious zealot who believes that (1) his religion's law is God's Law and (2) he, or his religious leader, has a divinely inspired understanding of it. Such a zealot would strive to act in accordance with God's Law in every situation, regardless of imperfect or downright Satanic human laws.

D&D ethics is like that, except that there really is a universally acknowledged Cosmic Law (although being what it is, it cannot be fully expressed in any human terms; even the most just laws enacted by the wisest and most benevolent of kings are at best a pale reflection of it), and there are ways to determine if a being or act is in accordance with it or not. That's frankly terrifying -- your religious zealot isn't just convinced he's right, he's objectively and demonstrably right. In those circumstances, it would be immoral to not go to any lengths needed to act in accordance with Cosmic Law -- it is the proverbial, final, ultimate Greater Good after all!
This is an interesting take on it.

I always presumed, perhaps wrongfully, that good and evil on the D&D spectrum turned on whether an entity was benign to mortal races or hostile/abused mortal races. The distinction of law versus chaotic turned on restraint or lack thereof.

It always surprises me how many arguments or issues I see just over the use of the word "lawful." Just by virtue of its definition(s) and application, it just seems to create a train-wreck. Why did D&D use "lawful" and not "order"? Does anyone know? Order is not a perfect word either, but it seems less ambiguous than lawful.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
Why did D&D use "lawful" and not "order"? Does anyone know?

I may be mistaken about this, but I believe Michael Moorcock's fiction was this inspiration behind this. Specifically Elric of Melniboné. The world in that is poised in a continuous struggle between Law and Chaos.

OD&D only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic as alignments. AD&D introduced Good and Evil, and the alignment compass we all know.

Why they called Lawful Lawful is, I believe, purely a feature of language. "Orderly" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It sounds more like keeping your socks arranged by colour than smiting the forces of cosmic Chaos.
 

Maculo

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
2,533
Strap Yourselves In Pathfinder: Wrath
I am actually reading the Elric saga now (well, finished the first book anyway). I will double check if the author uses law to define the gods. I do not know how I missed this series until now. I also do not know how there were not massive lawsuits, because I am seeing possible "inspirations" or "homages" everywhere.

Order seems, in my opinion, to better emphasize a characteristic or methodology, without inciting a debate between between cosmic/heavenly law, man-made law, natural law, or principle. Then again, your prior post does have a better answer to that issue (i.e., cosmic or divine law of the universe is first and foremost).
 
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
17,897
Location
大同
Order can be quite the misnomer. There is law of custom in a tribe of barbarians just as there is written law in a civilized kingdom, yet you wouldn't quite call the first as being 'orderly', even though there is an inherent order in how it functions. In one form or another, being lawful derives from subscribing to a 'sovereign order' - whether by being within the boundaries of a state with its monopoly of violence or deriving/retaining that specific code of conduct while being outside of the realm.

In the case of paladins in particular, you've sold your soul to your deity in a manner of speaking. While your body remains within the earthly realm, your soul is subject to the laws of the divine realm, thus an alignment shift is akin to banishing yourself from the divine realm through your act of transgression ergo forfeiting your privileges alongside your divine duties.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom