D&D alignments, how do they work?

[Heroic Liberator]

Phoneposting, so I'll keep it short.

Yes, I agree with your final statement, yet the third option is that of the monarch as the state.

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

 

[Luckmann]

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

This is not true. Lawful Neutral could put the state first, but Lawful Evil would most often put himself first. The fact that he may or may not be the state is entirely tangential to that. Selfishness (and acting upon it) is what ultimately defines Evil more than anything else.

Your stated dichotomy is still false. Good and Evil has literally nothing to do with the state. In the same way someone that is Lawful Good may oppose (or seek to change) an unjust state, someone that is Lawful Evil can and will oppose (or seek to change) a state that does not benefit him. Exactly how they do this is extremely debatable. Lawful Neutral, however, would generally have very little interest in whether the state is just or not and whether it benefits him personally or not, because to him, the being of the state is more important, even though he (like most people) would likely prefer to live in a just society that benefits him himself.

It is also a mistake to think that most people do this consciously. A Lawful Evil monarch would likely argue that while his system is imperfect, he is the one that is most fit to rule, for the good of all (and he might not even be wrong). A Lawful Good monarch could likewise argue the same, and maybe even be correct. A Lawful Neutral monarch could easily say that the existence of the state itself, while imperfect, is far preferable to anarchy, and benefits everyone. All might argue with the best of intentions for all, but it will not affect their alignment in terms of Good and Evil.

 

[Gorn]

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.

I agree about pragmatism, and I think P:F handles it OK - there is no BG1/2 'always pick good/naive options because loot and XP'. Being a dick can turn to your benefit in the long run (see Shadenuat's post on bullying Jamandi) while being a 'nice guy' for no real reason can hurt you badly (see alliance with Trolls where you miss on sweet loot and fail Harrim's quest, for starters).

 

[Yosharian]

It sucks that they didn't implement Antipaladin.

 

[hell bovine]

However, it would seem that being Evil inspire more stability and loyalty than Good.

Queen Bdaah for president empress.

 

[Elex]

a good or evil king is also about people that lives on others realms/city.

 

[Cael]

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

This is not true. Lawful Neutral could put the state first, but Lawful Evil would most often put himself first. The fact that he may or may not be the state is entirely tangential to that. Selfishness (and acting upon it) is what ultimately defines Evil more than anything else.

Your stated dichotomy is still false. Good and Evil has literally nothing to do with the state. In the same way someone that is Lawful Good may oppose (or seek to change) an unjust state, someone that is Lawful Evil can and will oppose (or seek to change) a state that does not benefit him. Exactly how they do this is extremely debatable. Lawful Neutral, however, would generally have very little interest in whether the state is just or not and whether it benefits him personally or not, because to him, the being of the state is more important, even though he (like most people) would likely prefer to live in a just society that benefits him himself.

It is also a mistake to think that most people do this consciously. A Lawful Evil monarch would likely argue that while his system is imperfect, he is the one that is most fit to rule, for the good of all (and he might not even be wrong). A Lawful Good monarch could likewise argue the same, and maybe even be correct. A Lawful Neutral monarch could easily say that the existence of the state itself, while imperfect, is far preferable to anarchy, and benefits everyone. All might argue with the best of intentions for all, but it will not affect their alignment in terms of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is even more simple than that:

Would you, as a person, trust the absolute monarch, be loyal to him, be content with his rule and love him as a monarch more if he is Good or if he is Evil?

It is as simple as that when you talk about things like the stability and happiness of a kingdom. Forget about the nuances of the alignment. Would you prefer a benevolent dictator, one who exhibits compassion, honour, truth and justice a la King Arthur, or would you prefer a murdering, enslaving, torturing, greedy asshole like Pol Pot? The game seems to be saying that the latter would create a more stable and happier kingdom than the former by giving the latter more options to increase stability and happiness than the former.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

This is not true. Lawful Neutral could put the state first, but Lawful Evil would most often put himself first. The fact that he may or may not be the state is entirely tangential to that. Selfishness (and acting upon it) is what ultimately defines Evil more than anything else.

Your stated dichotomy is still false. Good and Evil has literally nothing to do with the state. In the same way someone that is Lawful Good may oppose (or seek to change) an unjust state, someone that is Lawful Evil can and will oppose (or seek to change) a state that does not benefit him. Exactly how they do this is extremely debatable. Lawful Neutral, however, would generally have very little interest in whether the state is just or not and whether it benefits him personally or not, because to him, the being of the state is more important, even though he (like most people) would likely prefer to live in a just society that benefits him himself.

It is also a mistake to think that most people do this consciously. A Lawful Evil monarch would likely argue that while his system is imperfect, he is the one that is most fit to rule, for the good of all (and he might not even be wrong). A Lawful Good monarch could likewise argue the same, and maybe even be correct. A Lawful Neutral monarch could easily say that the existence of the state itself, while imperfect, is far preferable to anarchy, and benefits everyone. All might argue with the best of intentions for all, but it will not affect their alignment in terms of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is even more simple than that:

Would you, as a person, trust the absolute monarch, be loyal to him, be content with his rule and love him as a monarch more if he is Good or if he is Evil?

It is as simple as that when you talk about things like the stability and happiness of a kingdom. Forget about the nuances of the alignment. Would you prefer a benevolent dictator, one who exhibits compassion, honour, truth and justice a la King Arthur, or would you prefer a murdering, enslaving, torturing, greedy asshole like Pol Pot? The game seems to be saying that the latter would create a more stable and happier kingdom than the former by giving the latter more options to increase stability and happiness than the former.

Come on, Machiavelli figured this out centuries ago. People might believe they want to live under King Arthur, but especially under feudalism, they might be better off being ruled by the biggest bastard around (not Pol Pot, but maybe Genghis Khan). You want a feudal overlord who is strong enough that his lands don’t get invaded very often. Even if his taxes squeeze you dry, even if his courts are unjust, even if he’s practicing prima nocte (which probably wasn’t a real thing, at least not legally), you’re much better off as long as no invaders are burning your fields and stealing your shit.

Ideally you’d want a ruler who’s both benevolent and strong. But there are clearly tradeoffs. A benevolent ruler doesn’t murder the innocent children of his enemies. A strong ruler strangles them in the cradle—what’s one kid compared to a civil war? A benevolent ruler doesn’t excessively tax his people, but then he doesn’t have the money to pay for a large company of mercenaries when invaders show up. You want a ruler who’ll betray his allies when it’s advantageous to do so. A little realpolitik goes a long way. You’re probably safe under someone who pursues power for its own sake and that’s evil.

Day-to-day, it’s preferable to live under a lawful good monarch. But long-term, there’s a good case for lawful evil producing the best outcomes. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be happy about it.

 

[Cael]

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

This is not true. Lawful Neutral could put the state first, but Lawful Evil would most often put himself first. The fact that he may or may not be the state is entirely tangential to that. Selfishness (and acting upon it) is what ultimately defines Evil more than anything else.

Your stated dichotomy is still false. Good and Evil has literally nothing to do with the state. In the same way someone that is Lawful Good may oppose (or seek to change) an unjust state, someone that is Lawful Evil can and will oppose (or seek to change) a state that does not benefit him. Exactly how they do this is extremely debatable. Lawful Neutral, however, would generally have very little interest in whether the state is just or not and whether it benefits him personally or not, because to him, the being of the state is more important, even though he (like most people) would likely prefer to live in a just society that benefits him himself.

It is also a mistake to think that most people do this consciously. A Lawful Evil monarch would likely argue that while his system is imperfect, he is the one that is most fit to rule, for the good of all (and he might not even be wrong). A Lawful Good monarch could likewise argue the same, and maybe even be correct. A Lawful Neutral monarch could easily say that the existence of the state itself, while imperfect, is far preferable to anarchy, and benefits everyone. All might argue with the best of intentions for all, but it will not affect their alignment in terms of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is even more simple than that:

Would you, as a person, trust the absolute monarch, be loyal to him, be content with his rule and love him as a monarch more if he is Good or if he is Evil?

It is as simple as that when you talk about things like the stability and happiness of a kingdom. Forget about the nuances of the alignment. Would you prefer a benevolent dictator, one who exhibits compassion, honour, truth and justice a la King Arthur, or would you prefer a murdering, enslaving, torturing, greedy asshole like Pol Pot? The game seems to be saying that the latter would create a more stable and happier kingdom than the former by giving the latter more options to increase stability and happiness than the former.

Come on, Machiavelli figured this out centuries ago. People might believe they want to live under King Arthur, but especially under feudalism, they might be better off being ruled by the biggest bastard around (not Pol Pot, but maybe Genghis Khan). You want a feudal overlord who is strong enough that his lands don’t get invaded very often. Even if his taxes squeeze you dry, even if his courts are unjust, even if he’s practicing prima nocte (which probably wasn’t a real thing, at least not legally), you’re much better off as long as no invaders are burning your fields and stealing your shit.

Ideally you’d want a ruler who’s both benevolent and strong. But there are clearly tradeoffs. A benevolent ruler doesn’t murder the innocent children of his enemies. A strong ruler strangles them in the cradle—what’s one kid compared to a civil war? A benevolent ruler doesn’t excessively tax his people, but then he doesn’t have the money to pay for a large company of mercenaries when invaders show up. You want a ruler who’ll betray his allies when it’s advantageous to do so. A little realpolitik goes a long way. You’re probably safe under someone who pursues power for its own sake and that’s evil.

Day-to-day, it’s preferable to live under a lawful good monarch. But long-term, there’s a good case for lawful evil producing the best outcomes. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be happy about it.

Yes. Please invade the lands of that LG level 20 wizard. I am sure that is conducive to your- oh look, you're dead from a scry and die.

Equating a fantasy world, where the leader and his advisors are high level adventurers and therefore have more power than entire armies, to the real world is rather... simplistic.

 

[Commissar Draco]

While characters of all three lawful alignments could be autocratic rulers, only Lawful Good is hindered by morals, while both LN and LE put the state first, whether for law - order - tradition in and of itself or for his own sake respectively.

This is not true. Lawful Neutral could put the state first, but Lawful Evil would most often put himself first. The fact that he may or may not be the state is entirely tangential to that. Selfishness (and acting upon it) is what ultimately defines Evil more than anything else.

Your stated dichotomy is still false. Good and Evil has literally nothing to do with the state. In the same way someone that is Lawful Good may oppose (or seek to change) an unjust state, someone that is Lawful Evil can and will oppose (or seek to change) a state that does not benefit him. Exactly how they do this is extremely debatable. Lawful Neutral, however, would generally have very little interest in whether the state is just or not and whether it benefits him personally or not, because to him, the being of the state is more important, even though he (like most people) would likely prefer to live in a just society that benefits him himself.

It is also a mistake to think that most people do this consciously. A Lawful Evil monarch would likely argue that while his system is imperfect, he is the one that is most fit to rule, for the good of all (and he might not even be wrong). A Lawful Good monarch could likewise argue the same, and maybe even be correct. A Lawful Neutral monarch could easily say that the existence of the state itself, while imperfect, is far preferable to anarchy, and benefits everyone. All might argue with the best of intentions for all, but it will not affect their alignment in terms of Good and Evil.

Actually, it is even more simple than that:

Would you, as a person, trust the absolute monarch, be loyal to him, be content with his rule and love him as a monarch more if he is Good or if he is Evil?

It is as simple as that when you talk about things like the stability and happiness of a kingdom. Forget about the nuances of the alignment. Would you prefer a benevolent dictator, one who exhibits compassion, honour, truth and justice a la King Arthur, or would you prefer a murdering, enslaving, torturing, greedy asshole like Pol Pot? The game seems to be saying that the latter would create a more stable and happier kingdom than the former by giving the latter more options to increase stability and happiness than the former.

Come on, Machiavelli figured this out centuries ago. People might believe they want to live under King Arthur, but especially under feudalism, they might be better off being ruled by the biggest bastard around (not Pol Pot, but maybe Genghis Khan). You want a feudal overlord who is strong enough that his lands don’t get invaded very often. Even if his taxes squeeze you dry, even if his courts are unjust, even if he’s practicing prima nocte (which probably wasn’t a real thing, at least not legally), you’re much better off as long as no invaders are burning your fields and stealing your shit.

Ideally you’d want a ruler who’s both benevolent and strong. But there are clearly tradeoffs. A benevolent ruler doesn’t murder the innocent children of his enemies. A strong ruler strangles them in the cradle—what’s one kid compared to a civil war? A benevolent ruler doesn’t excessively tax his people, but then he doesn’t have the money to pay for a large company of mercenaries when invaders show up. You want a ruler who’ll betray his allies when it’s advantageous to do so. A little realpolitik goes a long way. You’re probably safe under someone who pursues power for its own sake and that’s evil.

Day-to-day, it’s preferable to live under a lawful good monarch. But long-term, there’s a good case for lawful evil producing the best outcomes. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be happy about it.

Lawful neutral is the best of both words you get the ruler who is ready to do anything for the stability and strenght of Kingdom but is not only for himself asshole cause he believes in laws, customs and traditions you know those little things which protect subjects. Of course one could argue what is good given that King David is Lawful Good and had no problem with genocide of his external enemies. He did spoiled Salomon a bit though but lets not get into this rabbit hole.

 

[Cael]

Lawful neutral is the best of both words you get the ruler who is ready to do anything for the stability and strenght of Kingdom but is not only for himself asshole cause he believes in laws, customs and traditions you know those little things which protect subjects. Of course one could argue what is good given that King David is Lawful Good and had no problem with genocide of his external enemies. He did spoiled Salomon a bit though but lets not get into this rabbit hole.

I think it is a bit controversial, but there is a school of thought that God exhibited different sides between the two Testaments.

In the Old, He was more Lawful Neutral. You obeyed the law or you are in deep shit, no questions asked.

In the New, He was more Lawful Good. You obeyed the spirit of the law and there is a bit of leeway in how you are punished if you violate the law.

Given that, the epitome of a Judaic King would be Lawful Neutral, and those have no problems punishing his enemies to the nth degree if the law so calls for it, and let's face it, genocide was in the cards pretty much from the time of Exodus.