D&D alignments, how do they work?

[Maculo]

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.

Order is far from perfect, but I think it creates less issues than lawful. Something can be orderly, yet not lawful as in man-made law (e.g., natural law). At the same time, to be lawful does imply a degree of order.

I think "Order" would better distinguish and synthesize divine law, man-made law, or natural law in a setting. Then again, as Prime Junta said, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" do not roll off the tongue as well.

 

[Fairfax]

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."

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.

In all editions, NE characters will do anything as long as they can get away with it. Their reputation is not important, whereas the hypocrite would still have a "tolerable façade" to maintain, even if he doesn't believe in it. It's a signification restriction where the NE character wouldn't have one.

It could change depending on the details, though. It sounded like he makes the effort to behave and be seen as a law-abiding citizen. However, that depends on what "tolerable" entails, the society itself, the race's reputation, which circles would count, etc. For instance, would he turn on his own family? Would he rob his companions? How far will he go to protect his image?

Anyway, if it's a player character, it comes down to how important the façade is to the player, and also what edition is being played. In AD&D, "behaviour determines actual alignment". Maintaining a good reputation will requires lawful good/neutral/evil actions, and each will affect his alignment. In other editions or settings, beliefs and/or religion can be more important.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Order is far from perfect, but I think it creates less issues than lawful. Something can be orderly, yet not lawful as in man-made law (e.g., natural law). At the same time, to be lawful does imply a degree of order.

I think "Order" would better distinguish and synthesize divine law, man-made law, or natural law in a setting. Then again, as Prime Junta said, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" do not roll off the tongue as well.

To me, it seems that in the case of order, you'd still end up particularizing it to the domain of law, whether man-made or divine. A neutral druid subscribes to a natural order of things, but certainly not to a law. Likewise in the case of an anarchist whose outlook is guided by reason and not by impulse - it is orderly, but not lawful.

Replacing law with order would open a larger can of worms.

 

[Fairfax]

"Order" is used to describe the strongest form of "lawfulness" in D&D:

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

 

[Maculo]

Order is far from perfect, but I think it creates less issues than lawful. Something can be orderly, yet not lawful as in man-made law (e.g., natural law). At the same time, to be lawful does imply a degree of order.

I think "Order" would better distinguish and synthesize divine law, man-made law, or natural law in a setting. Then again, as Prime Junta said, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" do not roll off the tongue as well.

To me, it seems that in the case of order, you'd still end up particularizing it to the domain of law, whether man-made or divine. A neutral druid subscribes to a natural order of things, but certainly not to a law. Likewise in the case of an anarchist whose outlook is guided by reason and not by impulse - it is orderly, but not lawful.

Replacing law with order would open a larger can of worms.

You are correct to an extent. With order, you would still end up particularizing it to a domain of law, but it would allow several domains of law, which at times conflict or contradict (divine, man-made, natural, principle), to better coexist in my mind. For example, a king imposes a law that defies divine law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful? Can one lawfully defy a cosmic law with another law? Another example, is a knight that choose to obey a vow over a law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful?

With respect to the anarchist example, I would think the anarchist stills fall under chaotic alignment. While he may have a methodology to him/her, his stated goal is still upend a state of order. What would blur the line, however, would be if the anarchist stated goal was to upend a man-made order/law to better follow a divine order.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

g it to a domain of law, but it would allow several domains of law, which at times conflict or contradict (divine, man-made, natural, principle), to better coexist in my mind. For example, a king imposes a law that defies divine law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful? Can one lawfully defy a cosmic law with another law? Another example, is a knight that choose to obey a vow over a law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful?

With respect to the anarchist example, I would think the anarchist stills fall under chaotic alignment. While he may have a methodology to him/her, his stated goal is still upend a state of order. What would blur the line, however, would be if the anarchist stated goal was to upend a man-made order/law to better follow a divine order.

Well, in such cases, I think what matters is the importance assigned by the individual to a particular set of laws. In the case of lawful alignments, you could add a 'primary domain' as a subset.

For example, a paladin's status as a servant of his deity is conditioned by the primacy of the divine domain in his hierarchy of roles. A fallen paladin might still be lawful good, yet having put the law of the crown or the social domain above the one of his deity, he has fallen from the grace of his god.

In more mundane cases such as the knights, it really depends on the setting and particularities of the knightly order - whether we interpret knighthood in a de jure or de facto manner and whether the knightly code stipulates which domain of law has priority in a conflict of roles such as this.

 

[Maculo]

g it to a domain of law, but it would allow several domains of law, which at times conflict or contradict (divine, man-made, natural, principle), to better coexist in my mind. For example, a king imposes a law that defies divine law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful? Can one lawfully defy a cosmic law with another law? Another example, is a knight that choose to obey a vow over a law. Both can be orderly acts, but can both be lawful?

With respect to the anarchist example, I would think the anarchist stills fall under chaotic alignment. While he may have a methodology to him/her, his stated goal is still upend a state of order. What would blur the line, however, would be if the anarchist stated goal was to upend a man-made order/law to better follow a divine order.

Well, in such cases, I think what matters is the importance assigned by the individual to a particular set of laws. In the case of lawful alignments, you could add a 'primary domain' as a subset.

For example, a paladin's status as a servant of his deity is conditioned by the primacy of the divine domain in his hierarchy of roles. A fallen paladin might still be lawful good, yet having put the law of the crown or the social domain above the one of his deity, he has fallen from the grace of his god.

In more mundane cases such as the knights, it really depends on the setting and particularities of the knightly order - whether we interpret knighthood in a de jure or de facto manner and whether the knightly code stipulates which domain of law has priority in a conflict of roles such as this.

I think you can avoid having to make those distinctions and subsets, by just using the word order. Whether one emphasizes a law, a god, a vow, or principle, the intent to follow that path can be considered orderly, even if it conflicts with the another. "Order" just seems like a larger umbrella term to hold all the different and sometimes contradictory concepts.

Still, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" are not that sexy to say out loud or write.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I think you can avoid having to make those distinctions and subsets, by just using the word order. Whether one emphasizes a law, a god, a vow, or principle, the intent to follow that path can be considered orderly, even if it conflicts with the another. "Order" just seems like a larger umbrella term to hold all the different and sometimes contradictory concepts.

Still, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" are not that sexy to say out loud or write.

Yet you end up with the same problem being under a different name. You can trade an orderly path for another, just as you can trade one law.

That being said, I'm by no means suggesting the mechanical implementation of domains, but it is something which a GM could implement as to avoid the pitfalls of lawful stupid characters - whether a bleeding heart paladin or a moustache twirling despot.

 

[Maculo]

I think you can avoid having to make those distinctions and subsets, by just using the word order. Whether one emphasizes a law, a god, a vow, or principle, the intent to follow that path can be considered orderly, even if it conflicts with the another. "Order" just seems like a larger umbrella term to hold all the different and sometimes contradictory concepts.

Still, "Orderly Good" and "Orderly Evil" are not that sexy to say out loud or write.

Yet you end up with the same problem being under a different name. You can trade an orderly path for another, just as you can trade one law.

That being said, I'm by no means suggesting the mechanical implementation of domains, but it is something which a GM could implement as to avoid the pitfalls of lawful stupid characters - whether a bleeding heart paladin or a moustache twirling despot.

Personally, I do not think it creates the same issue, or at least not to the same extent. A knight that emphasizes a vow or divine law over the king's law still is unlawful in some respect. Whereas with order, the knight could break the law, but still maintain an orderly trait or characteristic. One could argue that to breaking the law inherently creates disorder, but that would come down to the main intent behind the act.

It just seems broader and carries less preconceived notions than lawful, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Prime Junta]

Anyway, if it's a player character, it comes down to how important the façade is to the player, and also what edition is being played. In AD&D, "behaviour determines actual alignment". Maintaining a good reputation will requires lawful good/neutral/evil actions, and each will affect his alignment. In other editions or settings, beliefs and/or religion can be more important.

This is true, there's certainly a circumstantial aspect to the question. Depending on his actions he could very well end up in some other part of the compass. Still, it was a simple short question and deserved a simple answer, and I do think NE is where he would at least start at. I think a law-abiding citizen by day, criminal by night would end up there, more or less. He would be Lawful Neutral in his public persona, Chaotic Evil in his private one, and with nothing pulling the needle towards good and Chaotic canceling Lawful, that's where he'd be.

It could be he'd drift one way or another but then who doesn't?

 

[Konflyto]

Just out of curiosity: In Brazil "Lawful" was translated sometimes as "Loyal", sometimes as "orderly". Did we get screwed in translation?

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Holy shit, Cael is a DM, God have mercy on souls of his players *starts praying to all Gods that mankind has worshiped during last 40000 years*

On a serious note: answer on "How D&D alignments works?" Should be : "They not working at all" And 7 pages of discussion + failed implementation in cRPG + abusive DMs who enforce their political views on players and game rules ("you disagree with me? You SJW/Nazi then." - classic example) prove my point. Not to mention that "Good" and "Evil" isn't absolutes, entire philosophy though history of humanity proves this. Fraction system always better in computer games - especially it would fits nice where players should become a king/president/etc.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Question related to all this alignment stuff: Do you guys think alignment should work in such a way that a character could be forced to 'fall' by a situation alone, no matter what choice he makes, without the use of magic? Like being forced to choose between betraying one's faction or committing evil on their behalf, having to pick sides between two innocent groups fighting each other, etc.?

 

[Incendax]

Question related to all this alignment stuff: Do you guys think alignment should work in such a way that a character could be forced to 'fall' by a situation alone, no matter what choice he makes, without the use of magic? Like being forced to choose between betraying one's faction or committing evil on their behalf, having to pick sides between two innocent groups fighting each other, etc.?

Answer 1: Alignment shouldn’t be used at all.

Answer 2: This would be a pretty shitty thing to do as a DM, but does happen in actual myths. So it depends if you are telling a story or playing a cooperative game.

Answer 3: If the “No Win” situation was the result of many prior failures? Or you discussed it with your players first? Sure.

 

[Cael]

Holy shit, Cael is a DM, God have mercy on souls of his players *starts praying to all Gods that mankind has worshiped during last 40000 years*

No point praying to God. Stop being a fucktard at the table and get along with others and you'll be fine. Fuckards that try to be smart generally ends up being stripped if all abilities and tied up in a bear den covered in honey. The character that is. The player gets his head mounted on a pole in my front lawn.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Neutral Evil it is. Own advancement is first choice, fuck the rest. Of course keeping a low profile/ tolerable facade helps when the character is weak so as not to invite judgememts and smitings but he simply doesn't give a fuck if his reputation is shit and he has enough power/ leverage to ignore the crippling negative consequences of the negative reputation.

Thanks for the exposition guys, it cleared it up.

 

[Eyestabber]

... 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.)

The "personal code of conduct" thing is IMO "controversial". I've always interpreted "Lawful" as a character that follows an objective set of rules that existed before him and have actual "jurisdiction" over him. As in, if you're born in "Fictional Kingdom X" then you're a subject of "King X" and you should (at least in theory) obey his laws. If you think his laws should be obeyed to avoid jail, you're neutral. If you think his laws must be obeyed because everyone should obey his king, you're lawful. If you couldn't give less of a fuck about the king OR his laws, you're chaotic. So far so good, but if you pull a brand new set of rules out of your ass and decides to follow them instead of the King's laws, then you're still a chaotic character. If you find other people willing to follow your new set of rules, you're a chaotic leader of a criminal organization. Because you're not the King, boyo.

OTOH, if instead of being a random dude from Kingdom X you're actually part of a secluded group of hardcore loyalists of King Y, the descendant of the original ruler of the land before King X's ancestors conquered your people and took your lands, then you can break each and every one of King X's laws while still being a Lawful character. Because you actually follow King Y's laws, which are different. But, again: you didn't pull them out of your ass.

Subcultures (like the Mafia) are a WHOLE different dilemma, since you have a mixture of conflicting Laws that should bind you. I still don't think a mobster can possibly be considered "Lawful" since the Mafia is not a completely different society (like my previous example), but rather a minor group that still fits into the major group without splintering away from it. Mobsters remain part of the society at large, they still send their kids to school, buy groceries etc. This conflict of cultures doesn't really work into the ruleset because it doesn't really work in real life either. These people bend and break their own set of "Laws" the moment it becomes profitable to do so. IMO a super strict "never betray the family" mobster would be NE, while the average "no honor among thieves" type would be CE. And yes, Evil. Because they rob, steal and murder for their own benefit. Which means Evil, lol.

TL;DR: Dexter Morgan is NOT a Lawful character.

 

[FreeKaner]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice. If doing an act of charity is also the most beneficial option, then it's not an act of charity at all. Pragmatist and good choice should overlap way less.

 

[Cael]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

Good ones think about the good of the people while evil ones think about the good of the state.

 

[Cael]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

Good ones think about the good of the people while evil ones think about the good of the state.

Wrong. Evil ones think about the good of themselves. The very definition of Evil in the game is selfishness. The good of the state is a purely coincidental outcome where Evil is concerned.

 

[ArchAngel]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

Good ones think about the good of the people while evil ones think about the good of the state.

Wrong. Evil ones think about the good of themselves. The very definition of Evil in the game is selfishness. The good of the state is a purely coincidental outcome where Evil is concerned.

Wrong. You can be Evil while having good intentions. It is not about being selfish, it is what actions you do.
You can be a Evil just for murdering one innocent to save 1000.

 

[Reinhardt]

Infinitron itz happening again!

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

Good ones think about the good of the people while evil ones think about the good of the state.

Wrong. Evil ones think about the good of themselves. The very definition of Evil in the game is selfishness. The good of the state is a purely coincidental outcome where Evil is concerned.

And in what amounts to an absolute monarchy, the monarch is the state.

Lawful Evil is not stupid evil, lad. Lawful good on the other hand is tied to his morals and between the wellbeing of the state itself or that of its subjects, he'll pick the latter (otherwise he'd be either Lawful Neutral or not lawfull at all).

 

[Luckmann]

Being good should be its own reward. In way too many games being good is also the optimal metagaming choice.

I don't know, man. In governing a state, I would think that being Good aligned would give bonuses to stability and loyalty. However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Somehow, selfish, self-serving advisors are better advisors than selfless ones who think about the good of the state first and foremost. Funny how that works.

Good ones think about the good of the people while evil ones think about the good of the state.

What if the people are the state?

Seriously though, no. While Evil people often have people or things that they care about - perhaps even moreso than themselves - good or evil have nothing to do with the state. You might exemplify a Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral dichotomy in that way, in that someone that is Lawful Neutral could definitely be Neutral precisely because he considers the good of the state to be the best way to secure the well-being of all, to the point where he doesn't actually care for the well-being of individual people or may even act against them in the interest of the state, but it has very little to do with Good or Evil.

A Lawful Good Cleric of Abadar (in PF) might be a good example of someone that could easily slip into Lawful Neutral (as his deity) by acting more in the name of the state and order and civilization than in the interests of good or innocent individuals, but the same could be true for a Lawful Evil Cleric of Bane (in FR); he might focus so much on the aspects of order and law as societal goods that he might actually leave Evil behind entirely, since it no longer concerns him and he has no interest in abusing his position.

State over people or state over self as a dogma would be textbook lawful neutral. It goes both ways.

And in what amounts to an absolute monarchy, the monarch is the state.

Yes. What would determine if he's good or evil would be how he wields that power, whether he acts as an enlightened monarch or a ruthless dictator. The fact that he himself represents the totality of the state has no bearing on his alignment in terms of good or evil. Hell, he could be chaotic, even, if he's the kind of king that rules as a despot at his own whim - and this could, again, go towards either Good or Evil. Or neither, if he's insane or balances everything out.