Would a figure who will care and protect people endlessly only if you do exactly what they say be Lawful Evil if not then what would there alignment be. Also for the protect-ee's they are there out of a mix of love fear respect and a desire for protection.
This is why I hate the new alignment system. At least one of the Dragonlance series is based on the idea of a Lawful Evil group of knights taking over the kingdoms.
Where do they fit in with 4e? The Knights of Tahkisis ALWAYS followed the law, or the code, or whatever it was called. They just had very evil goals. And I guess they technically made their own laws. My best guess would be that they're Evil. But doesn't that mean they'd be willing to break laws to get what they want...and the Knights of Tahkisis WERE remarkable from other evil minions of the goddess in that they respected the laws of their enemies, even if they didn't uphold them themselves. That...doesn't fit with 4e evil. And I wouldn't dare call it Unaligned, neither.
I will probably continue to use 3e alignment throughout the 4e rules, and wing it whenever alignment actually affects the mechanics.
Kill you? Evil.
Banish you? Unaligned.
Or most likely, is it actually far more complex then that? Burn the alignment system and just play your character.
If you're playing 4e he's Evil. Any other edition sounds like Lawful Evil. It's the torture part that makes him evil.
if they dont do as the protector figure says they get tortured then banished, and look Im new to D&D so just give a straight answer please.
I pretty gave you a straight answer: Under the 4e rules, he doesn't fit in any alignment; he is technically Lawful Evil.
Just stick to the 3e alignment system, 4e alignment rules suck. It's the one thing I outright hate about 4e. In general, there are actually nine alignments.
- Lawful Good
- Neutral Good
- Chaotic Good
- Lawful Neutral
- True Neutral
- Chaotic Neutral
- Lawful Evil
- Neutral Evil
- Chaotic Evil
So my example out of those wold be Lawful Evil correct?
This is why I hate the new alignment system. At least one of the Dragonlance series is based on the idea of a Lawful Evil group of knights taking over the kingdoms.
Where do they fit in with 4e? The Knights of Tahkisis ALWAYS followed the law, or the code, or whatever it was called. They just had very evil goals. And I guess they technically made their own laws. My best guess would be that they're Evil. But doesn't that mean they'd be willing to break laws to get what they want...and the Knights of Tahkisis WERE remarkable from other evil minions of the goddess in that they respected the laws of their enemies, even if they didn't uphold them themselves. That...doesn't fit with 4e evil. And I wouldn't dare call it Unaligned, neither.
I will probably continue to use 3e alignment throughout the 4e rules, and wing it whenever alignment actually affects the mechanics.
I just want to say that even if those characters respected an enemy's laws, you clearly said they didn't uphold them. They play by their own rules whether those rules match the rules of others or not doesn't matter, they have their own rules and go by them even if they respect the laws of other people. That falls them under evil, or lawful evil whatever.
I honestly don't see the fault in the alignment system, it's easy to get by with than 3.5 what with lawful good, good, neutral good, neutral, neutral evil, lawful evil, chaotic evil. Way too much.
I would say that Lawful Evil fullfils the alignment quota you want though, so stick with that one and you should be good. Erm, evil I mean. Lawful evil. Well, you know what I mean.
The Lawful-Chaotic spectrum determines their relationship with society - Lawful if they believe society has the right to subordinate the individual to the greater good, and Chaotic if they believe that individual primacy is absolute and inviolate (at least so far as it applies to themselves). (Neutral for "it depends".)
The Good-Evil spectrum is a bit misnamed, but it's basically about their relationship with other individuals. Good characters choose to sacrifice for the good of others, Evil characters are entirely selfish and self-motivated, and Neutral characters operate on the principle of enlightened self interest.
That'll basically cover the alignments for you. Plus there's an interesting traditional lacuna holding that "True Neutral" indicates an intention to not align with any faction or cause, although that should really be Chaotic Neutral, with True Neutral being perfect pragmatism.
Alignments serve as a helpful introduction to roleplaying during your first three sessions of play or so; after that they really just get in the way of portraying your character with as much or little complexity as you feel comfortable with, so I highly recommend you throw alignment as far out the door as the mechanics will allow.
Specific answer:
The difficulty with the system is evidenced by your example. He's Lawful Evil if he's only out for his own self-interest, but if he's subordinating others for some sort of greater good or communal protection then he's technically Lawful Good. Intention counts.
can I just get an answer?
I did provide you with an answer, outside of my own personal tastes and views:
I would say that Lawful Evil fullfils the alignment quota you want though, so stick with that one and you should be good. Erm, evil I mean. Lawful evil. Well, you know what I mean.
Would a figure who will care and protect people endlessly only if you do exactly what they say be Lawful Evil if not then what would there alignment be. Also for the protect-ee's they are there out of a mix of love fear respect and a desire for protection.
Well since you don't provide much info on the character I'll go against the grain and say he's good. Yes, good! Now here's why:
The way you define your guy is an iron fisted dictator. It's his way or the highway. He makes the rules, you follow, and he's more than willing to protect his citizens. You basically have Dr. Doom. Well more recent years Doom. Old school he was definitely evil. But Doom that centers himself of ruling Latveria is pretty much exactly what you've described as your guy.
And while yes, Doom is considered a villain there's plenty of times that Doom is simply a hardass dictator and nothing more. He still cares about his people, will protect them, but he does lay down the law and expects it to be followed.
Now I know people will disagree, but I don't necessarily view that as being evil. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as evil. Here's where your description falls into the grey though. What happens if people don't follow the rules.
Does he kill them flat out for disobedience? Does he just banish them because they failed to follow the rules? Or does he imprison them for a termed sentence and then allow them to try and follow the rules, or lastly give them the option of serving a sentence and repenting on their choice to break the rules or leave the city/kingdom and find their place somewhere else?
Killing flat out: Evil, but not chaotic since he has a set of laws and abides by them but just killing a person for a simple rule break would in my book be an evil practice.
Banishment: Still good, though maybe unaligned as someone mentioned. He set the rules, the person broke them so they can no longer be part of the city.
Imprisonment: As long as it has a defined term for the jail time and all I still say good. I mean in old days they had the stockades for law breakers and those aren't evil, maybe not what people nowadays would say is the "best" way to deal with troublemakers in a town but not evil.
And giving them the choice between prison or banishment: Probably again good or unaligned. He's giving the person a chance to repent on their actions and rejoin society which is good. Or if they feel that they cannot live in the city and abide the rules then they can certainly go out into the world to find a place where their beliefs are more acceptable maybe. No harm in that.
Overall I say your guy is good but a dick dictator.
Well since you don't provide much info on the character I'll go against the grain and say he's good. Yes, good! Now here's why:
The way you define your guy is an iron fisted dictator. It's his way or the highway. He makes the rules, you follow, and he's more than willing to protect his citizens. You basically have Dr. Doom. Well more recent years Doom. Old school he was definitely evil. But Doom that centers himself of ruling Latveria is pretty much exactly what you've described as your guy.
And while yes, Doom is considered a villain there's plenty of times that Doom is simply a hardass dictator and nothing more. He still cares about his people, will protect them, but he does lay down the law and expects it to be followed.
Now I know people will disagree, but I don't necessarily view that as being evil. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as evil. Here's where your description falls into the grey though. What happens if people don't follow the rules.
Does he kill them flat out for disobedience? Does he just banish them because they failed to follow the rules? Or does he imprison them for a termed sentence and then allow them to try and follow the rules, or lastly give them the option of serving a sentence and repenting on their choice to break the rules or leave the city/kingdom and find their place somewhere else?
Killing flat out: Evil, but not chaotic since he has a set of laws and abides by them but just killing a person for a simple rule break would in my book be an evil practice.
Banishment: Still good, though maybe unaligned as someone mentioned. He set the rules, the person broke them so they can no longer be part of the city.
Imprisonment: As long as it has a defined term for the jail time and all I still say good. I mean in old days they had the stockades for law breakers and those aren't evil, maybe not what people nowadays would say is the "best" way to deal with troublemakers in a town but not evil.
And giving them the choice between prison or banishment: Probably again good or unaligned. He's giving the person a chance to repent on their actions and rejoin society which is good. Or if they feel that they cannot live in the city and abide the rules then they can certainly go out into the world to find a place where their beliefs are more acceptable maybe. No harm in that.
Overall I say your guy is good but a dick dictator.
Hmm. A very in-depth analysis, but I have to disagree.
Straight from the PHB on the Lawful Good alignment, page 20:
When leaders exploit their authority for personal
gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens
and reduce others to slavery or untouchable
status, law has given in to evil and just authority
becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging
such injustice, but morally bound to do so.
However, you would prefer to work within the system
to right such problems rather than resorting to more
rebellious and lawless methods.
Lawful Good is the antithesis of being a dictator. And Good will fight AGAINST laws if it means fighting for a just cause (thus I see Good as Chaotic Good).
You MIGHT be able to get away with saying the OP's example is Lawful Neutral. A Lawful Neutral character will uphold the law, whether it is just, or unjust. He won't care about the moral ramifications. However, you typically see this as representing a Judge or an Enforcer type personality, so Lawful Evil is definitely what describes him.
*sigh*
Again...
There should be no alignments, just motivations, goals, and personality descriptors...
IMHO of course...
I can partially agree with this. I think alignment should be considered a simplified method of describing your character's personality, but that it shouldn't restrict him from how he acts. If somebody asks me what my character's personality is, and I don't feel like launching into a page-long explanation, I will simply say "Chaotic Neutral." And that both shuts them up AND gives them their answer.
Most everybody I play D&D with follows this sort of logic already, so I normally am not bothered by alignment.
I am fine with HAVING alignment. But having alignment affect mechanics, and having the DM suddenly change your alignment because of an action you took, should not be in the game.
If only.
Lawful Good is the antithesis of being a dictator. And Good will fight AGAINST laws if it means fighting for a just cause (thus I see Good as Chaotic Good).
You MIGHT be able to get away with saying the OP's example is Lawful Neutral. A Lawful Neutral character will uphold the law, whether it is just, or unjust. He won't care about the moral ramifications. However, you typically see this as representing a Judge or an Enforcer type personality, so Lawful Evil is definitely what describes him.
I hated the old alignment because good and evil has very little to do with how pressed you like your shirt or whatever scale you used when determining the law/chaos nonsense.
If you hurt people for personal gain, you're evil. If you only hurt people when the personal gain is REALLY good and the hurting isn't that bad, you're probably unaligned. If you can only name situations where you would hurt a guilty person for personal gain, you're probably good. If you feel honorbound to sacrifice yourself for the gain of others, you're lawful good. Although I wish they hadn't called it lawful. It doesn't really mean what it used to.
Hmm. A very in-depth analysis, but I have to disagree.
Straight from the PHB on the Lawful Good alignment, page 20:
When leaders exploit their authority for personal
gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens
and reduce others to slavery or untouchable
status, law has given in to evil and just authority
becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging
such injustice, but morally bound to do so.
However, you would prefer to work within the system
to right such problems rather than resorting to more
rebellious and lawless methods.
Lawful Good is the antithesis of being a dictator. And Good will fight AGAINST laws if it means fighting for a just cause (thus I see Good as Chaotic Good).
You MIGHT be able to get away with saying the OP's example is Lawful Neutral. A Lawful Neutral character will uphold the law, whether it is just, or unjust. He won't care about the moral ramifications. However, you typically see this as representing a Judge or an Enforcer type personality, so Lawful Evil is definitely what describes him.
Alright maybe dictator isn't the right word, but I still say he could be good even by the definition. Since all we know is that the character has a set of rules that he requires his subjects to obey. In turn as a leader he will protect those who follow his rules and live in his city/kingdom. That's not exploiting the authority for personal gain. That's just a hardass leader.
I mean in society we have rules and if we break those rules we will get punished. In turn those of us who follow the laws expect our leader(the Prez), to protect us. Now this isn't a fantasy game where we're the peasant farmer folk of the kingdom and when we're under siege by an orc army our valient leader Obama goes charging off at the head of an army in full armored regal glory and comes back blood splattered with tales of the man orc heads he severed from their bodies. But the same basic principle I see applies.
His character has rules he expects to be followed, which is reasonable, and in turn as a good leader he'll look out for his subjects and protect them. If you don't follow the rules you aren't one of his subjects and as such don't fall under his jurisdiction for protection, makes sense. Hardcore but not necessarily evil.
Now if the OP gives more information as to the details of the character that could easily change my opinion but until that time I still say he's a hardcore gruff, good guy.
Alright maybe dictator isn't the right word, but I still say he could be good even by the definition. Since all we know is that the character has a set of rules that he requires his subjects to obey. In turn as a leader he will protect those who follow his rules and live in his city/kingdom. That's not exploiting the authority for personal gain. That's just a hardass leader.
I mean in society we have rules and if we break those rules we will get punished. In turn those of us who follow the laws expect our leader(the Prez), to protect us. Now this isn't a fantasy game where we're the peasant farmer folk of the kingdom and when we're under siege by an orc army our valient leader Obama goes charging off at the head of an army in full armored regal glory and comes back blood splattered with tales of the man orc heads he severed from their bodies. But the same basic principle I see applies.
His character has rules he expects to be followed, which is reasonable, and in turn as a good leader he'll look out for his subjects and protect them. If you don't follow the rules you aren't one of his subjects and as such don't fall under his jurisdiction for protection, makes sense. Hardcore but not necessarily evil.
Now if the OP gives more information as to the details of the character that could easily change my opinion but until that time I still say he's a hardcore gruff, good guy.
He did give more information in a later post, actually. Something about torture and banishment to those who break the law.
"If you don't do what I say, I'm gonna slit your throat."
Does that sound like Good to you, even if he does have the good intentions of protecting them and actually cares about their well-being?
Rather then protection in return for obedience, it's death/pain in return for disobedience. Regardless of his intentions, I find that to be inherently evil, but he specifically said that he cares about his people and upholds the law, which means he doesn't fit with either of the evil 4e alignments.
Thus do I prefer to stick to 3e alignments, while following the rest of the 4e rules...since alignment doesn't really matter anymore.
He did give more information in a later post, actually. Something about torture and banishment to those who break the law.
"If you don't do what I say, I'm gonna slit your throat."
Does that sound like Good to you, even if he does have the good intentions of protecting them and actually cares about their well-being?
Rather then protection in return for obedience, it's death/pain in return for disobedience. Regardless of his intentions, I find that to be inherently evil, but he specifically said that he cares about his people and upholds the law, which means he doesn't fit with either of the evil 4e alignments.
Thus do I prefer to stick to 3e alignments, while following the rest of the 4e rules...since alignment doesn't really matter anymore.
Fair enough I missed that, thanks for letting me know. Fine then, probably more toward evil or lawful evil to be more defined. Maybe unaligned since the person was tortured then banished. I don't see banishment as evil but to torture and banish, I say it'd be easier to define him as evil than unaligned. Unless of course the people were being tortured and banished for SEVERE rule breakings. But if it's just everyone as seems to be the case, yeah evil.
Take a character who has ten people in his care. He has the honest belief that they will all die, unless he kills one of them - so he does. Is he Lawful? Is he Good? What if he's right? What if he's wrong?
A person mistakes a small child for a world-destroying demon and kills it. If it had been a world-destroying demon he just saved the world in the most Lawful Good manner possible. But he's wrong, and he's killed a child. Is he still Lawful Good? What if he kills every other child in the village, in the honest belief it's necessary? None of them are, in fact, demons. It's poor judgement - but can a person's poor judgement affect their alignment? Can gross stupidity constitute evil?
How do conflicting cultures mix in? If a person who honestly believes that civilisation is tantamount to slavery spends their life promoting law and order are they good, or evil? When someone incites revolution and anarchy in accordance with the traditions and scriptures of their organised religion, are they Lawful, or Chaotic?
It's ultimately so deeply unhelpful as to drive you mad. If the entirety of human morality and philosophy could be so helpfully encapsulated in a three-by-three grid someone would have done so long before Gary Gygax. It's a nice little tool in as much as it makes you think about these things, but once you've thought, you really need to move on.
Fair enough I missed that, thanks for letting me know. Fine then, probably more toward evil or lawful evil to be more defined. Maybe unaligned since the person was tortured then banished. I don't see banishment as evil but to torture and banish, I say it'd be easier to define him as evil than unaligned. Unless of course the people were being tortured and banished for SEVERE rule breakings. But if it's just everyone as seems to be the case, yeah evil.
Yes, if it weren't for that additional information, though cryptic, that he had provided, I could have had it swing either good or evil.
In case it's not clear, the problem with the alignment grid is that it doesn't distinguish between ends and means.
Take a character who has ten people in his care. He has the honest belief that they will all die, unless he kills one of them - so he does. Is he Lawful? Is he Good? What if he's right? What if he's wrong?
A person mistakes a small child for a world-destroying demon and kills it. If it had been a world-destroying demon he just saved the world in the most Lawful Good manner possible. But he's wrong, and he's killed a child. Is he still Lawful Good? What if he kills every other child in the village, in the honest belief it's necessary? None of them are, in fact, demons. It's poor judgement - but can a person's poor judgement affect their alignment? Can gross stupidity constitute evil?
How do conflicting cultures mix in? If a person who honestly believes that civilisation is tantamount to slavery spends their life promoting law and order are they good, or evil? When someone incites revolution and anarchy in accordance with the traditions and scriptures of their organised religion, are they Lawful, or Chaotic?.
First two: evil. A good person would have done everything they could to find alternative methods. The first one, that is difficult to do, but it's a vague example. There is always a choice. It also does not take into account the concept of one person offering to sacrifice himself for the greater good, or a majority of people forcing one of the others to go forth as the sacrifice. In that particular example, if it was true that one person HAD to die, no matter what, a good person would have told this to the people. That is an act of good faith, and a good person would feel they have the right to know of this horrible fate. Thus, it leads to a more complicated analysis of alignment, because it now involves the alignments of 11 people, instead of just one.
In the second one, a good person would have first tried to prove that it was a demon, or at least tried to release the demon possessing the child (if that proved to be the case). Or, perhaps, he would have simply banished the demon back to the Abyss. However, in Forgotten Realms at least, killing a demon does exactly that.
In the case that, no matter what, he did kill the child, it would be viewed as either an accidental killing, or being tricked into killing somebody undeserving, and a good person would either be wrought with guilt over the action, or come to terms with it, with the comfort that they are not the ones who caused the death, at least not intentionally.
In the third, it would be chaos. Because the scriptures and traditions of their religion promote chaos. It's one of the paradoxes OF a chaotic mindset, in fact, a true embodiment of chaos at least. In being chaotic, he will sometimes be the antithesis of chaotic, but only insofar as promoting or furthering a more chaotic agenda in the future.
Under 3.5..the person in question would be Lawful Evil. Assuming there arn't some large factors you didn't tell us. In 4.0...lawful evil has been largely folded into the Evil category..so evil in 4.0.
As for the later post by GregT. The first person...that single scenario has no bearing on their entire personality. So going to the act itself. Murder..sacrifice, whatever, of an innocent is an evil act. doing it for a good cause does not change that fact. Rolling in the dirt is rolling in the dirt is rolling in the dirt. But as I said..one single act does not your alignment make.
For number two...yeah giving this some serious thought. Given the source D&D comes from....looking over things..if that guy was ever a pally he just lost his powers, no if ands or butts. Again, evil is evil is evil. And if any DM set this up..with no warning whatsoever, and made it appear the person had no choice......unless the player wanted this type of game in the first place..that is someone I would never play under again. For mister law and order..he is..well.....not good or evil..you gave no descriptor towards that one way or another..law and order can be good or evil. You noted what the person believed about civilization..but you never noted any actions beyond just establishing law and order...so from those very simple, very vague descriptions...the person is Lawful neutral.
For the final...they are doing something chaotic...and that action is chaotic..if overall they are chaotic or not..depends on how common such an action is. But if they follow a chaotic god..and do the tenants of a chaotic god, and spread chaos for the god...then they'll be kinna chaotic..yaknow?
The problem people have with alignment...is that they are unwilling to think outside the box..in order to think inside the box. The trick is to remember the rules of the world, the source of the world, and then any house rules your particular group may have. In D&D, morality is not subjective. The closest there is to grey grounds..are unaligned in 4e..and neutrals in previous editions.
The other thing to remember is that each and every box of alignment is huge. This is because your character isn't on a box. They are on a coordinate plane. Good/evil is one axis..chaotic/neutral is the other. If you remember that..and also remember that (per the core rules) if you can't tell if a char is good or evil..or if they are good or neutral..or neutral or evil...then that character is neutral (same for the law/chaotic axis). Then you'll be fine by core rules. But you, as a dM, only insist on alignment change if they are obviously not playing their alignment (as Core rules). In other words if they blurlines..then you take them at their word.
But you, as a dM, only insist on alignment change if they are obviously not playing their alignment (as Core rules). In other words if they blurlines..then you take them at their word.
I would only resort to the extreme of forcing a player to change his alignment if they claimed to be Lawful Good, and continually chose to do something Chaotic Evil. A pyromaniac, for example, will just never be lawful good...
Or a similar extreme. I wouldn't make an issue of Chaotic Neutral vs Chaotic Evil. *maybe* Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil. But it would have to be a rather constant break from their alignment.
And it would be more along the lines of "Ya know, you're not really this alignment with the way you're acting..." than "Okay, now you're evil."
oh missed that thanks man and I see what my friend meant when he said that alignment was the cause of most fights in D&D.
It's not quite as bad as the forum makes it look. Unless you're playing with a bunch of geeks with extreme "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, it isn't an issue in actual practice. When a disagreement happens, the DM makes a call and everyone moves on. On the forum we get about one alignment mega-bicker-fest-thread a month, but in all my years of gaming I've never once seen it argued over in real life.
I would only resort to the extreme of forcing a player to change his alignment if they claimed to be Lawful Good, and continually chose to do something Chaotic Evil. A pyromaniac, for example, will just never be lawful good...
Or a similar extreme. I wouldn't make an issue of Chaotic Neutral vs Chaotic Evil. *maybe* Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil. But it would have to be a rather constant break from their alignment.
And it would be more along the lines of "Ya know, you're not really this alignment with the way you're acting..." than "Okay, now you're evil."
I was trying to be short and just paraphrase things..but yes that is pretty much what the core rules say to do.
And yeah..Tequila is right about it being exaggerated. I've been in more than a few groups, some with problems..some with none. I've never really met anyone who didn't agree on alignment after a short (not even minute long) discussion. This board has just exaggerated, to an extreme, the 'problems' people have with alignment. Its an easy system and most people do get it...you just got some people who are completely opposed to an absolutist moral system..in any way at all..and will make a mountain out of a molehill.
Here's a quote from the PHB as to what alignment actually means. I suggest that you (and practically everyone else who posted in this topic) give it some thought.
If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your
character’s dedication to a set of moral principles:
good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil.
In other words, if you say that this guy is Good, you are saying that he is dedicated to the set of moral principles described as Good. Same for Evil. If he is dedicated to none of those sets of moral principles, then he is Unaligned.
This is a very easy, obvious choice. He is either dedicated to one of the four sets of moral principles described in the PHB, which you would be able to tell quite easily, or he is Unaligned.
Personally, I'm guessing that he is pretty dedicated to the idea that it is his right to abuse people for his own benefit, thus making him Evil. If he weren't dedicated to the idea that it is okay for him to do the whole evil dictator thing, I couldn't see him keeping it up for any significant amount of time.
*sigh*
Again...
There should be no alignments, just motivations, goals, and personality descriptors...
IMHO of course...
You know, kind of like how every other RPG ever does it, rather than holding on to these silly notions of "sacred cows".
"But Alignment has always been in the game!"
Yeah, well for a while, lead was always in petrol. Notice how that went for us.
Would a figure who will care and protect people endlessly only if you do exactly what they say be Lawful Evil if not then what would there alignment be. Also for the protect-ee's they are there out of a mix of love fear respect and a desire for protection.
By 3.x edition this character would probably be Lawful Neutral.
The combination of "protect people endlessly" and "if you do exactly what they say" are clearly where the "Lawful" part comes from (because of the personal discipline and the demand for obedience).
The Good/Evil part is a bit trickier....but Good says life is inherently valuable and there exists an inherent and inalienable right to dignity - which goes against the conditional protection on offer. Similarly, Evil is an inappropriate label, as Evil is in it for themselves (and so would not be interested in any potential sacrifice of self).
NOTE: The Knights of Tarkisis were, in practice, made up of LEs and LNs (regardless of what was written on any character sheet - its actions that measure alignment).
Lawful Good = Lawful Good
Neutral Good, Chaotic Good = Good
Lawful Evil, Nuetral Evil = Evil
Chaotic Evil = Chaotic Evil
Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral (as well as the new concept of Undecided) = Unaligned
Following that concept, The guy you are talking about is Lawful Evil before 4th edition, and Evil in Fourth Edition
So, the 9 tier alignment system in relation to the 4th edition alignments pretty much is expressed as thus:
Lawful Good = Lawful Good
Neutral Good, Chaotic Good = Good
Lawful Evil, Nuetral Evil = Evil
Chaotic Evil = Chaotic Evil
Lawful, True and Chaotic Neutral (as well as the new concept of Undecided) = Unaligned
Following that concept, The guy you are talking about is Lawful Evil before 4th edition, and Evil in Fourth Edition
Agreed, mostly. It may be closer to:
4e Evil = 3e LE and 4e Good = 3e CG.
They essentially kept the four "extreme" alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE), and made Unaligned to cover anyone who doesn't really fall into those four.
With no mechanics tied to alignment why waste the time? Its utterly worthless. Just play the character how he would act. Alignment should have been shot in the face. It has never been anything other than a straight jacket for RP. You cannot RP a complex character within an alignment system. To get a morally complex character you have to toss alignment out the window, light it on fire, and scatter the ashes. Extreme I know but if you don't do all that it will come back and haunt you.
Some of us like alignment. Some of us also don't really care about being complex.:D
True Neutral was, IMO, the hardest alignment to play. You had to do what? Pretend like you didn't care about anything? Do whatever you wanted? We weren't sure at our table, but one player tried. What he wound up with was a PC who was more accurately described as Neutral Good. Anytime a moral quandry came up, he'd make decisions that most people would describe as 'good'.
I'm glad that in 4e alignment is not involved in any mechanical aspect of the game. It's only a tentative adjective. What it does for me as a DM is to give me an idea of how a monster or NPC is likely to act in any given circumstance.
What does your character look like? Who cares? No mechanical purpose for that, either. Alignment is only a "straightjacket" if you use it that way. I've heard of DMs who've thrown hissy fits because someone was "acting out of alignment" and I think they've got control issues. Alignment is a DM's authoring tool, as far as I see it. You can start out claiming you're LG, start acting like a jerk and the DM should just keep quiet track of your PCs personality shift. No bonus, no punishment, just make note of it and use the information to craft stories that will more than likely engage the character. If the PC was gaining some kind of bonus from it, such as "All LG characters get +2 to their CHA", then by all means it becomes more important. Other than that, it's just a writer's tool. The labels for the alignments are just a matter of convenience. Everything's gotta be called something.
Why not just let them act how their character would? Alignment leads to meta game thinking rather incharacter thinking. This is an rpg which means meta game thinking should be limited as much as possible.
Why not just let them act how their character would? Alignment leads to meta game thinking rather in character thinking. This is an rpg which means meta game thinking should be limited as much as possible.
Above all else, D&D is a game. It is in the sub-genre known as Role-Playing game, but really, it is a game, which means it should be fun first. If you hate alignment, then leave it out of your game, but don't claim that it shouldn't be there, because there are those of use who like it. For us, it makes the game more fun, and really, that's what the game is all about.
In general, there are actually nine alignments.
There is no One True Alignment system. You've internalized the alignment of previous editions so much that you can't even conceive of other systems, and that's your own failing, not a failing of 4e's alignment system.
4e alignment is much better, honestly, because it acknowledges that the majority of people are just looking to get by, without sticking their neck out for anyone but family and friends.
Why not just let them act how their character would? Alignment leads to meta game thinking rather incharacter thinking. This is an rpg which means meta game thinking should be limited as much as possible.
I don't understand what in my post indicates that I'm making anyone behave in a certain way?
In old editions, some spells and magic items had mechanical considerations for alignment. For example, a suit of armor might bestow it's properties only on those who were "pure of heart" (LG). Should an Evil PC also gain access to those benefits? ("Pure evil" doesn't count!:D )
I recently had an Evil PC act "out of alignment". He had the chance to walk away and let an in-party enemy die. He started to, but then returned and gave it an honest effort to save the guy, whom he openly despised. I certainly didn't penalize him for it, nor did I consider the metagaming aspect in that the player knew that there would be no way for the other player to replace his PC in this particular dungeon. Havoc returned to save Xillthrak, and we just figured that Havoc's player had Havoc act in the way he wanted him to. C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est Havoc.
Alignment is only a signpost, not an order from on high. Read it if you like. I get use out of it.
With no mechanics tied to alignment why waste the time? Its utterly worthless. Just play the character how he would act. Alignment should have been shot in the face. It has never been anything other than a straight jacket for rp. You cannot rp a complex character within an alignment system. To get a morally complex character you have to toss alignment out the window, light it on fire, and scatter the ashes. Extreme I know but if you dont do all that it will come back and haunt you.
You should have a look at Elric! or Pendragon for good alignment systems. Some gameworlds actually do have alignment as an integral part of the world, not just a "moral straightjacket" that you choose when you create a character. In the Elric novels Elric himself is "chaotic" to begin with not because he is disordered or all over the place or obeys no rules, but because he, like all of his race, is dedicated to the lords of chaos and spreading their influence. He gradually changes "alignment" as the saga goes on until he ends up supporting the balance (neutral I guess). Right before he destroys the world. The key is the word - alignment indicates that you have chosen a side in some struggle - it's not just meant to describe your personality.
Pendragon's "alignment" system is designed to encourage characters to think before they act, and allows quests to be played out which depend as much on a character's piety or virtue as they do on their sword arm. It looks weird, but works really well in play.
Which is all..in the end..that alignment is about. It is a quick and easy way to see what God..or whatever powers that be..thick of the character. As much as I like em..I do think its a bit questionable that some core classes relied on an alignment (I don't mind it...but like others..it has caused me to never play some chars..just because I don't like playing people of a certain alignment.....but I still like the world flavor it adds). But..thats bout the only thing I really find questionable about alignment....and even that never bothered me.
But in the end..some people just hate alignment..and will say anything to make it look bad...even when it is a completely unfounded untruth. Or is a representation of someone abusing rather than properly using the system (its like saying critical hits..or auto fails are broken..because someone allows an insta kill on 3 20's in a row...or uses a random 'bad stuff happens' chart whenever someone rolls a 1......)
The main problem with alignment is just that people look into it slightly differently IRL..and when they take these assumptions ingame..instead of actually taking time to read and understand alignment..is when they have problems asigning it. I know I had problems with lawful and chaotic for awhile..but thats because I was raised in such a way that I was taught Good is synonimous with Lawful...Chaotic with Evil....when I started playing D&D..I had to start learning..'this thing I think is good..is actually lawful in D&D terms, while this thing I think is bad..is actually chaotic'.
Now I've gotten so used to the 9 alignment system...I'm greatly missing it in 4e. Simply because it gave a bit more of a description of the character. Basically it's overall easier in 4e to do alignment...but no longer as in depth..as they rolled 3 alignments into one...and then 2 into 1..and 2 into 1 again. And basically made lawful equal good..and chaotic equal evil (though both are to a much lesser extent than actual good/evil).
The alignments are fantasy concepts and should be treated as such. 95% of all characters should be unaligned.
Honestly don't worry too much about the 'straitjacket' complaint people use. It's just something that some people repeat when they have nothing else about alignment to throw out. Usually the people who complain about it most..hate roleplay..or rather, they hate it when the world actually reacts to their roleplay...rather than being stoic and not changing a bit based on a characters roleplaying.
Which is all..in the end..that alignment is about. It is a quick and easy way to see what God..or whatever powers that be..thick of the character. As much as I like em..I do think its a bit questionable that some core classes relied on an alignment (I don't mind it...but like others..it has caused me to never play some chars..just because I don't like playing people of a certain alignment.....but I still like the world flavor it adds). But..thats bout the only thing I really find questionable about alignment....and even that never bothered me.
But in the end..some people just hate alignment..and will say anything to make it look bad...even when it is a completely unfounded untruth. Or is a representation of someone abusing rather than properly using the system (its like saying critical hits..or auto fails are broken..because someone allows an insta kill on 3 20's in a row...or uses a random 'bad stuff happens' chart whenever someone rolls a 1......)
The main problem with alignment is just that people look into it slightly differently IRL..and when they take these assumptions ingame..instead of actually taking time to read and understand alignment..is when they have problems asigning it. I know I had problems with lawful and chaotic for awhile..but thats because I was raised in such a way that I was taught Good is synonimous with Lawful...Chaotic with Evil....when I started playing D&D..I had to start learning..'this thing I think is good..is actually lawful in D&D terms, while this thing I think is bad..is actually chaotic'.
Now I've gotten so used to the 9 alignment system...I'm greatly missing it in 4e. Simply because it gave a bit more of a description of the character. Basically it's overall easier in 4e to do alignment...but no longer as in depth..as they rolled 3 alignments into one...and then 2 into 1..and 2 into 1 again. And basically made lawful equal good..and chaotic equal evil (though both are to a much lesser extent than actual good/evil).
Uh no the problem is people will start rping the alignment rather than the character. They will do things to stay their current alignment especially in previous edditions where it mattered a lot more. The games where we tossed alignment out the window had a much higher quality of rp. It also made it more interesting because you did not automatically know who the villian was. It was much easier to create fully fleshed out developed characters with real personality. Ive never seen a character that actually used alignment that had a fully fleshed out personality, never. People who use alignment use it in place of role playing and character development.
A GM I know drew up a different set of 'guidelines' for those classes that require alignment. Stuff like 'Charity and Compassion' work better for bleeding-heart Mary Sue Paladins than just being 'Lawful Good'.
TN was, IMO, the most difficult alignment to play. I never saw anyone actually pull it off per the description. I prefer the 'Unaligned' adjective to describe what most attempts at TN turned out to be.
But if you don't like the 9 point alignment title, you probably never saw the CN(G) alignment. Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies. Every alignment could be followed by an alignment letter in parentheses to indicate the general tendencies of the character. LN(G). TN(L). CE(N). Late 2e, I believe. NOW you may throw up your hands and go "Arrrrgh!"
People who use alignment use it in place of role playing and character development.
This assumes that people are playing this game (or any RPG for that matter),With a primary focus on Roleplaying. My roleplaying usually comes second or even third. My primary focus is on the 'game' part of RPG. So for me, I like a shorthand such as alignment.
This assumes that people are playing this game (or any RPG for that matter),With a primary focus on Roleplaying. My roleplaying usually comes second or even third. My primary focus is on the 'game' part of RPG. So for me, I like a shorthand such as alignment.
Thats okay, but my focus is on the role playing aspect of it, there a ton of games i could be playing, that are far cheaper money wise then dnd for that matter i could break out hero quest if all i wanted was a hack and slash board game. But the role playing aspect is what makes it dnd.
Well, I believe williamhm75 has a valid observation. I too have found that players will tend to "role"play their characters alignment rather than their character. That's why in the games we play, we use motivations, goals, and some personality descriptors. Makes more sense, is a lot more usable, and is much more realistic than an alignment system..
Again, IMHO of course.
Alignment has always been a hot topic, because even with 9 to choose from, you're still somehow put in a box. "Lawful Good MUST act like this", for example. It IS still handy to be able to point to someone and be able to say "Him. He's the Evil bad guy."
I always liked the idea of a simple form of alignment where "good" characters get hurt if they try to use "evil" swords.
But, motivations and goals is a good way to play it. Characters can be good, but be forced to do evil deeds. (Kill everyone in the plague infested town or the disease will spread.) Motivations and goals let different "aligned" people work together.
Well, I believe williamhm75 has a valid observation. I too have found that players will tend to "role"play their characters alignment rather than their character. That's why in the games we play, we use motivations, goals, and some personality descriptors. Makes more sense, is a lot more usable, and is much more realistic than an alignment system..
Again, IMHO of course.
So the problem with alignment lies more with the players than any personality tendency label. Agreed, it should not be used in lieu of character development. The process should be to build the PC's personality and then see, if you like, what alignment label most accurately describes it, not select a label and then build around it.
So the problem with alignment lies more with the players than any personality tendency label. Agreed, it should not be used in lieu of character development. The process should be to build the PC's personality and then see, if you like, what alignment label most accurately describes it, not select a label and then build around it.
Why do you need the label though? If you know your characters personality the label is meaningless anyway.
Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?
Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.
We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions.
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page, the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.
Ethics Option 1: A level of Organization.
[You can interpret the rules to mean that Law and Chaos are related to control and organization.] Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.
Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.
Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity.
Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results.
In this model we get a coherent explanation for why, when all the forces of Evil are composed of a multitude of strange nightmarish creatures, and the forces of Good have everything from a glowing patch of light to a winged snake tailed woman, every single soldier in the army of Chaos is a giant frog. This is because in this model Limbo is a place that is totally insane. It's a place where the answer to every question really is "Giant Frog". Creatures of Chaos then proceed to go to non Chaotically-aligned planes and are disappointed and confused when doors have to be pushed and pulled to open and entrance cannot be achieved by "Giant Frog".
If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between effective and ineffective.
Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land.
Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree.
I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that.
Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond.
Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not.
Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members. [The contradiction here is that Lawful characters would actually work less well together, which kinda goes against the common view of a Lawful society.]
Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.
Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law
Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.
I apologize for the length of this reply, but if you’re going to seriously hold up the nine-alignment system as a working, functional one, be prepared for serious analysis. And frankly, I think from this analysis it can be shown that if you’re looking for a deep, nuanced way to generate character systems, you’d be better off throwing out alignment and just creating a character personality. If you’re looking for a quick indicator of how your character feels about greater issues, you’d be better of throwing out 3.X alignment and using 4E.
If you’d take what I believe to be the far more rational approach, and discard this weighty, ridiculous system altogether, stick with 4E alignments. In 4E, the alignments essentially mean, “I believe in these things more than those things.” It doesn’t mean you’re going to act on the them in every situation, it just shows what side you believe yourself to be on in the great “Good versus Evil” conflict. Also note that it is not the only aspect of your character’s personality. Just like you could have a Good character in 4E with other personality facets, such as being unwilling to harm clergy of any religion, you could have an Evil character in 4E with a personality trait, such as believing in the power of the law, and being willing to work within it’s structure. So, to respond to the OP, I would say that the character you describe sounds like an Evil character, with a developed personality and past that also affects his actions and thinking.
Now if you dont want those, by all means I suggest to use them to let you know what you can and cannot do. I would recommend the 9 system, its easy to understand and yet there are enough options for anyone to find something they like (even if its shallow).
However, after many years of playing multiple systems. I simply dont like them anymore.
oh missed that thanks man and I see what my friend meant when he said that alignment was the cause of most fights in D&D.
Right, ignore alignment. It is just not really needed. Tell your gamers what you may be looking for :"Listen I want you guys to be playing Heroes" or "You guys can play mercs or villains if you want" then just let them play and have fun.