Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Paul_V 04-03-08, 03:58 PM	So I had the colossal task of explaining alignments to people who had never played the game. As such, I've decided to write an essay for future convenience. Alignments in Dungeons and Dragons Note: It requires a minimum of 3 points in Intelligence to be able to develop an Alignment. This why small children and animals are always True Neutral. Good versus Evil There are three possibilities when it comes to Morals: Good, Neutral or Evil. I will briefly define each of them. A few definitions first: Positive acts: Actions or inactions that cause positive effects on others, as opposed to harmful effects. Negative acts: Actions or inactions that cause negative effects on others, such as pain, injury, torture and all other acts that threaten the physical or mental integrity of the person. Positive feelings: Love, friendship, care, and all other feelings that trigger a desire to aid. Negative feelings: Hatred, contempt, uncare, and all other feelings that trigger a desire to harm. Good: A good person will be usually inclined to perform positive acts on ALL other creatures, whether they inspire positive feelings on her or not. A good person, however, will not necessarily perform positive acts on other creatures if such creatures will use those acts to further negative acts. They will never claim that the ends justify the means. Neutral: A neutral person will be usually inclined to perform positive acts on creatures that evoke or inspire positive feelings in her, and negative acts on those that evoke negative feelings on her. A neutral person will not have compunctions to harm or aid a complete stranger. In certain occasions, they will accept that the end justifies the means. Evil: An evil person will be usually inclined to perform negative acts on ALL other creatures, whether they inspire negative feelings on her or not. An evil person, however, will not necessarily perform negative acts on other creatures if a greater gratification can be extracted by performing positive acts. They always believe that the ends justify the means. Law versus Chaos By far the hardest axis to clearly define, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic behaviour will be approached from a less scientific point of view. Lawful: A lawful person feels a strong sense of duty towards an external authority. That authority might vary from person to person. One might hold her family as an external authority, another the government, another her employer, while another simply her own word. Neutral: A neutral person feels a strong sense of duty towards an internal authority. That authority is usually her own philosophy or principles. In this particular case, the Moral axis matters greatly, since it defines the form of the internal authority. Neutral Good people have a very developed philosophy and strong principles. True Neutral people have a set of "codes" that they obey and improve as they live, like "don't date your friend's ex-girlfriend" or "an eye for an eye". Neutral Evil people have only one maxim: "Always look after yourself." That single maxim differentiates them from Chaotic Evil people. A Neutral Evil person will not risk herself for immediate gratification, she will prefer to wait or change her plans. Chaotic: A chaotic person feels no sense of duty at all towards anything or anybody. Chaotic people are driven by their sense of immediate self-gratification, and they will not consider anything beyond the immediate consequences of their actions in making a decision. The Nine Alignments The following are examples of the stereotypical behaviour of the members of the Nine Alignments. Lawful Good: A Lawful Good person is someone who has a strong sense of duty to her superiors, and will be happiest when the orders she's given make others happy and promote the greater good. Wherever she goes, she brings order and peace with her, and is a firm believer that a benevolent monarchy with flawless legal codes is the best way to govern. Neutral Good: A Neutral Good person is someone who has a strong sense of duty towards her own principles. She will always try to stay true to herself, whether it gets her into trouble with authority or not. Wherever she goes, she brings solidarity and empathy with her, and is a firm believer that a benevolent democracy with a loose set of legal codes and plenty of civil liberties is the best way to govern. Chaotic Good: A Chaotic Good person is someone who is always looking to help others to be truly free. She will oppose tyranny where she sees it, and will pity those that refrain themselves from doing what they want simply because of social conventions. Wherever she goes, she brings freedom and understanding with her, and is a firm believer that without an oppresive government, people will naturally seek to good to others. Lawful Neutral: A Lawful Neutral person is someone with a strong sense of duty towards an external authority, regardless of that authority's morality. She never questions her authority (perhaps because that's what she was taught, or because she finds mental peace that way) and expects the same from her underlings. Wherever she goes, she brings stability and security with her, and is a firm believer that a firm government focused on legality is the best way to govern. True Neutral: A True Neutral person is someone that will always stay true to herself. She treats people the same way they treat her, and while she sees herself as a good person, she doesn't have moral compunctions against well-deserved vengeance. Wherever she goes, she brings awareness and equanimity, and is a firm believer that the best government is the one that is less involved with people's private affairs. Chaotic Neutral: A Chaotic Neutral person is someone that lives for life's sensations. The world's her oyster, and she's not afraid of taking a bite. Even though she generally tries to treat others as they treat her, her moods get the better of her and she's somewhat unpredictable. Wherever she goes, she brings freshness and a carefree attitude, and is a firm believer that anarchy may not be the best choice, but it's the lesser of a million evils. Lawful Evil: A Lawful Evil person is someone with a strong sense of duty towards the chain of command and one's given word. She delights in following a system and exploiting it for her own benefit. Wherever she goes, she brings impersonality and cunning, and is a firm believer that tyranny is the best way to govern. Neutral Evil: A Neutral Evil person is someone of supreme selfishness. While not devoted to immediate self-gratification like someone who's Chaotic Evil, she is very close nonetheless. Wherever she goes, she brings resourcefulness a self-sufficient attitude, and is a firm believer that the best government is the one that doesn't get in your way. Chaotic Evil: A Chaotic Evil person is someone determined to satisfy herself through destruction. She doesn't have a care in the world, taking what she wants when she wants. Wherever she goes, she brings carelessness and impetuosity, and is a firm believer that things in life belong to those powerful enough to take them. Well, as it is, it's painfully short. I'm trying to cover all the basics without making it too confusing on new players. I'll be open to any advice you might have!
Panartias 04-03-08, 07:15 PM	Very nice work Paul_V! Should be good for beginners. Especially the distinction between external and internal authority's and the ideal governments are an excellent points! I'd like to add a few of my thoughts on the topic: 1.) The 9 alignments a convenient simplification: you have 2 axis and could actually map the characters alignment. One of my favorite characters is neutral with strong good and chaotic tendencies. As long as the class has no alignment - restrictions you can be generous. The alignments should help role-playing with internal consistency. Even a lawful person can have a few chaotic quirks! 2.) Evil persons usually don't see themselves as evil -how often do you hear someone say: "Come on, we can't do this - we are the bad guys!" They rather think of themselves as successful, strong, smart, intelligent, determined, ambitious, competent and opportunistic; people who do what it takes to reach their goals. The good guys in turn are seen as weak, stupid or naive, incompetent, idealistic dreamers - to soft to reach their goals. Or they are just people, who use "goodness" as a pretense/ excuse for their actions! To the question: "Are you good?" my BBEGs usually answer:"Good? - I'm better!" 3.) A lot comes down to the question: Do the ends justify the means? always = evil sometimes, to a certain extend = probably neutral never = good 4.) Evil persons lack or override compassion. Selfishness is evil! Even good persons can have evil desires like sadism, revenge, bloodlust.... As long as they control themselves and don't give in they are at least neutral. But selflessness and idealism is not always good! Terrible things are often done to reach a higher goal! (Think of the Nazis or some Communists.) 5.) You have to have a certain intelligence/ awareness to qualify for an (extreme) alignment. Thats why animals and small children are usually neutral. 6.) Evolution (survival of the fittest) is actually an evil thing! (Just ask the ones on the receiving end of the selection thing...) Darwinism would be (chaotic) evil Social-Darwinism would be lawful evil 7.) The outcome of an action dos not matter (alignment wise); the intent (ends) and the means do! The circumstances too! 8.) Lawful could be described as orderly, systematic, organized - chaotic as spontaneous, creative, individualistic and freedom- loving (as well es un- orderly, unsystematic, unorganized and whimsical). Lawful people tend to respect rules/laws/authorities. They tend to plan ahead, follow orders and work good in larger groups (under a leader). Puh - longer than I thought and less systematic than I hoped...:embarrass
Paul_V 04-03-08, 10:03 PM	Very nice work Paul_V! Should be good for beginners. Especially the distinction between external and internal authority's and the ideal governments are an excellent points! I'd like to add a few of my thoughts on the topic: 1.) The 9 alignments a convenient simplification: you have 2 axis and could actually map the characters alignment. One of my favorite characters is neutral with strong good and chaotic tendencies. As long as the class has no alignment - restrictions you can be generous. The alignments should help role-playing with internal consistency. Even a lawful person can have a few chaotic quirks! 2.) Evil persons usually don't see themselves as evil -how often do you hear someone say: "Come on, we can't do this - we are the bad guys!" They rather think of themselves as successful, strong, smart, intelligent, determined, ambitious, competent and opportunistic; people who do what it takes to reach their goals. The good guys in turn are seen as weak, stupid or naive, incompetent, idealistic dreamers - to soft to reach their goals. Or they are just people, who use "goodness" as a pretense/ excuse for their actions! To the question: "Are you good?" my BBEGs usually answer:"Good? - I'm better!" 3.) A lot comes down to the question: Do the ends justify the means? always = evil sometimes, to a certain extend = probably neutral never = good 4.) Evil persons lack or override compassion. Selfishness is evil! Even good persons can have evil desires like sadism, revenge, bloodlust.... As long as they control themselves and don't give in they are at least neutral. But selflessness and idealism is not always good! Terrible things are often done to reach a higher goal! (Think of the Nazis or some Communists.) 5.) You have to have a certain intelligence/ awareness to qualify for an (extreme) alignment. Thats why animals and small children are usually neutral. 6.) Evolution (survival of the fittest) is actually an evil thing! (Just ask the ones on the receiving end of the selection thing...) Darwinism would be (chaotic) evil Social-Darwinism would be lawful evil 7.) The outcome of an action dos not matter (alignment wise); the intent (ends) and the means do! The circumstances too! 8.) Lawful could be described as orderly, systematic, organized - chaotic as spontaneous, creative, individualistic and freedom- loving (as well es un- orderly, unsystematic, unorganized and whimsical). Lawful people tend to respect rules/laws/authorities. They tend to plan ahead, follow orders and work good in larger groups (under a leader). Puh - longer than I thought and less systematic than I hoped...:embarrass Wow! Thanks for the long reply! 1) I agree, but it tends to confuse new players, what with the alignment restrictions and all that. I don't think a Paladin should get away with "But I'm a good character with lawful tendencies!" That'd be useful once the players get used to the alignment system. 2) Actually, I believe most evil people don't care if what they do is evil or not. They don't deny being evil and instead object the notion than doing evil is "bad". They don't care how you call what they do, because your opinion doesn't matter and their actions allows them to have what they want. Obviously, there are evil people that don't see themselves are evil, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call them Evil anyways. And then there's the small twisted little group that know they're evil and say it proudly. Those are usually Chaotic Evil, since they brag about their nature just to spite authority. 3) Oh... I'll add that. 4) Technically, no. Selfishness on itself isn't evil. Evil are often selfish, yes, but sometimes terrible evils come from people who didn't have the willpower to be selfish, and ended up giving everything they had to people that took advantage of them. Look at those wacky cults that prey on people's sense of selflessness when it comes to religion. If only they had been more selfish, they wouldn't have been scammed. 5) Gonna add that too. 6) Technically, no, since those who survive didn't kill the others. If I survive by killing someone else, then yes, it is evil. However, if I survive but my friend didn't, and he failed on his own accord, then I'm not evil, since I had nothing to do with his death. And as you said yourself, you can't blame nature for taking down the weak (I personally don't like survival of the fittest, since I believe the fittest should aid the unfit for the common prosperity of the species), since nature isn't sentient. It's like saying the weather is evil because a lightning struck someone who wasn't quick enough to move from under the tree (failed Reflex save ftl). 7) The outcome of the action matters greatly, yes. Imagine if I aimed with my bow at someone who was about to kill an innocent child (which would be an act of good, since I'm saving someone's life), and right as I let the arrow loose, someone accidentally gets in the way and I kill them. Even though it wasn't my intention, I killed someone without provocation, and therefore committed an evil act. However, even though it's murder, it's only a minor act of evil (not all acts are of the same intensity or gravity). 8) I skipped that on purpose. I find that lawful people being orderly and chaotic people being irresponsible is a little clichéd, and there have been many cases where this isn't true. I'll add it if you can find a solid logical reasoning behind it, though.
elliott20 04-04-08, 09:28 AM	I would shy away from assigning governmental forms to a particular alignment. (Though, personally I would shy away from alignments all together because of the problems they cause) Short of an outright totalitarian regime, all governmental forms could in some way fit into any of the 9 alignments.
lamrar 04-04-08, 09:57 AM	An evil person perform negative acts on ALL other creatures, whether they inspire negative feelings on (in?) her or not. An evil person, however, will not necessarily perform negative acts on other creatures if a greater gratification can be extracted by performing positive acts. It seems that these two statements contradict eachother. If you change the first part to something like; "An evil person is willing to perform negative acts on all creatures, whether they inspire negative feelings in her or not" I believe it would be more accurate. They always believe that the ends justify the means. I believe that this statement is to broad. Think of a villain that will do anything to achieve world domination, except sacrificing his daughter. He would still be evil, even though he doesn't believe that the ends justify all means. I would personally refrain from describing each of the specific alignements (the nine combinations), beacuse I think that this can lead players to think that all LN (for example) characters has to fit in the description of LN. So I would either drop the entire section or specify that it's just examples. Other than this nitpick; good post.
Paul_V 04-04-08, 11:22 AM	I would shy away from assigning governmental forms to a particular alignment. (Though, personally I would shy away from alignments all together because of the problems they cause) Short of an outright totalitarian regime, all governmental forms could in some way fit into any of the 9 alignments. I was against that first, but then I realized I needed examples of "Lawful societies", "Good societies", "Lawful Good societies" and all that. I personally wouldn't apply the notion of alignment to a government, but D&D does, so I have to find a way to explain that to the new players. It seems that these two statements contradict eachother. If you change the first part to something like; "An evil person is willing to perform negative acts on all creatures, whether they inspire negative feelings in her or not" I believe it would be more accurate. I believe that this statement is to broad. Think of a villain that will do anything to achieve world domination, except sacrificing his daughter. He would still be evil, even though he doesn't believe that the ends justify all means. I would personally refrain from describing each of the specific alignements (the nine combinations), beacuse I think that this can lead players to think that all LN (for example) characters has to fit in the description of LN. So I would either drop the entire section or specify that it's just examples. Other than this nitpick; good post. Actually, whether that person is willing or not doesn't matter. Every alignment is willing to perform an Evil act given the right circumstances (except, of course, the character that takes ALL the exalted Vows, and even then it finds itself in the tricky position of having to obey a potentially evil order). I wanted to make a distinction between the Neutral person, who believes that evil should only be used to fight evil, and the Evil person, who believes that if being evil yields results, why discriminate? That villain could be either Neutral or Lawful Evil. If he believes that all those others he's willing to sacrifice have done him a perceived wrong (such as a villain that wants revenge against an oppresive society), and his daughter, being the innocent loving girl she is, hasn't done anything wrong, he's Neutral(Lawful, True or Chaotic). If he believes that A)He can use his daughter for a future scheme/raise her to be Evil like him or B) She's family, and family members are never expendable, but if she wasn't family he'd sacrifice her in a heartbeat; then he's Lawful Evil. I will clarify that they're only examples. Thanks for the corrections! :D
lamrar 04-04-08, 04:07 PM	Actually, whether that person is willing or not doesn't matter. Every alignment is willing to perform an Evil act given the right circumstances. You are right. However, I still feel that this statement is incorrect: Evil: An evil person perform negative acts on ALL other creatures, whether they inspire negative feelings on her or not. In my ears this sounds like "An evil person has to be cruel to all creatures he meets, all the time." If you changed it to something like: "An evil person can perform negative acts on ALL other creatures" we would be on the same page though.
Paul_V 04-04-08, 07:48 PM	You are right. However, I still feel that this statement is incorrect: In my ears this sounds like "An evil person has to be cruel to all creatures he meets, all the time." If you changed it to something like: "An evil person can perform negative acts on ALL other creatures" we would be on the same page though. Settle for "will be usually inclined to"?
Anansi 04-04-08, 08:41 PM	How about "An evil person performs negative acts without remorse" or that they decide to perform a positive/negative act purely based on which is easier/more profitable, without really caring about whether or not they hurt anyone?
Paul_V 04-04-08, 08:55 PM	How about "An evil person performs negative acts without remorse" or that they decide to perform a positive/negative act purely based on which is easier/more profitable, without really caring about whether or not they hurt anyone? Actually, I want to emphasize the fact that Evil people are more inclined to perform acts of evil, as they yield more satisfaction than acts of good. Think about it: Good asks of us to sacrifice something from ourselves for the sake of others (whether it's time, money, effort, our lives, our energy or anything) without asking or expecting anything in return. Evil doesn't ask anything from us, and provides us with immediate and tangible rewards at the expense of the suffering of others(whether it's mental, physical or spiritual). In the eyes of the Evil character, who doesn't care about hurting others, not going for the free profit is retarded. That's why the only way they'll consider being good is if it provides a greater reward than being evil.
lamrar 04-06-08, 07:04 AM	Settle for "will be usually inclined to"? I'm in on that :)
Paul_V 04-06-08, 10:46 AM	Done! Anything else?
ApollyonsChosen 04-06-08, 11:42 AM	Aren't they doing away with alignment for the most part in the new edition?And doesn't the core rules give us all this in the first place?
Paul_V 04-06-08, 02:09 PM	Aren't they doing away with alignment for the most part in the new edition?And doesn't the core rules give us all this in the first place? And your point is...?
ApollyonsChosen 04-06-08, 02:22 PM	And your point is...? Yes that sums up my questions quite nicely.What is your point?This is all really old hat.Available in the PHB,or in a quick summation by any DM capable of running the game.
Paul_V 04-06-08, 02:33 PM	Yes that sums up my questions quite nicely.What is your point?This is all really old hat.Available in the PHB,or in a quick summation by any DM capable of running the game. A) My point is finding an easier and simpler way to explain alignments to new players than what it appears in the PHB. B) No capable DMs here. I'm the closest thing to a DM we have and I've only had a few games' practice (as a player only).
ApollyonsChosen 04-06-08, 11:07 PM	Well good luck then.It just takes practice and as long as your players have patience,it should all work out in the end.Alignment is one of those things that can needlessly confuse some newer players,so maybe this is a good idea.But also i wouldn't let alignment be too big of an issue. Unless of course someone wants to play a class heavily influenced by it's alignment,like clerics ,druids,monks etc.