Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I had a terrible time Roleplaying one day where my character asked for a specific reward (he was Lawful Good) for something he was doing anyway, from people who barely had claim to it. While also having very little opportunity to actually roleplay.

After being called on asking for rewards as against my alignment, even though the book and the roleplaying guide said otherwise, it has driven me so crazy I HAD to write this.

No really... It has been over a month and I still can't get over it. Though it isn't that hard the dungeons and dragons (ANY version) alignment system is fundementally broken and is entirely ignored by the writers anyway (Heck I've seen the SAME monster without editing change alignments between editions, fundemental leaps). So I had to come up to my own understanding which eventually I did finally understand. I am sure any player can think of many examples where the book outright contradicts alignment or just ignores it.

Except that understanding is pointless because the no GM understands the alignment rules because the alignment rules make no sense. I am not applying real life morals because I know dungeons and dragons isn't about real life morals (sometimes... once again they are inconsistant) it is about a setting specific code of ethics.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hello and welcome to my guide on how to understand Dungeons and Dragons alignments, I hope it will be a big help to you.

Now I am sure you have been in this situation. You are walking through a dungeon and roleplaying along when all of a sudden “I don't think you would do that” is muttered by the GM. Yes indeed the alignments even though so elegantly written are still very confusing to almost anyone. It is my goal however to help you over the barriers to understanding.

Step 1: Forget anything the book or heck any book tells you about the alignments:

I cannot stress this enough but the books are too inconsistent with exactly how the alignments work as well as too strict and too loose at the same time. The best way to understand them is to entirely disregard the books. GMs don't listen to the layers of inconsistencies and the sheer variety that are within the alignments and neither should you.

A great example of this is just the Lawful alignment in general. While you would think it would be straight forward: If your character was in a car and saw a street light an it was red and he knew no one was there and he wouldn't get caught... would he pass that red light?

Or we can even get into the goal of “Forcing everyone to be your slave against their will”. Sounds Lawful Evil right? Well no that is in fact also the goal of the Formians who are Lawful Neutral.

Step 2: Alignments are irrational not rational

When first selecting your alignment remember that your choice is ultimately your characters irrationality and not his rational judgment.

Now this may sound like a joke but in fact this is actually how even the book interprets it as well (odd I know). Simply speaking a starving thief who needs to steal from the weaker or else he will die cannot be a good person. Morality is for the strong.

Thus always remember that your alignment defines what your character does even when it would injure them.

Step 3: Your alignment is NOT the overall personality, beliefs, and general course of action.

Yes the book indeed contradicts exactly what I am saying but it is clearly wrong as any GM will tell you indirectly. Forget it entirely. Alignments are a CLEAR template for what you may and may not do.

A common example of this are the “Not that good” neutral characters. Who are clearly forces of good but who also are ruled by logic and reason. Now that may sound good to you, but in dungeons and dragons a clearly good character who reacts to situations logically is clearly neutral. At least when a GM is involved.

So do NOT base your alignment on your character. That would be a very silly thing to do because alignments are not based on your character. Alignments are arbitrary rules on how your character can and cannot act free from logic. Treat them that way. Think of the worse thing your character could ever be forced to do and pick an alignment based off of that.

Step 4: Alignments are Absolute except when they are not

Stories of saints are full of people who did less then valiant things but made amend for it later. Heck Joan of Arc who would be an exemplar of Lawful Good clearly broke several laws and chose to kill innocent people because she believed that her king was the just ruler. IGNORE IT!

In fact ignore ever single example that the book gives you. Robin Hood will not be a Chaotic Good character as far as GMs are concerned if you are aware of what he did. The very limited view of him however is. Afterall if you ignored all the innocent guardsmen Robin Hood had to kill to get his way then obviously he sounds like an exemplar of law.

The exception however is smirking off your alignment. IGNORE any Grey area example the books give you they are false. No in this case you have to find ways to “wash your hands”. Get someone else to do things for you. If you are lawful then be unclear and lead people to belief things are false. This may sound like a very immoral thing to do but they are perfectly acceptable.

In fact seeing a member of your party doing something clearly against your alignment doesn't mean you have to stop them, afterall they are your friend, it only means you have to nag them. Make sure you nag them or else you may find the GM making you act out of character.

Step 5: Pick the Non-alignments

I know what you are thinking: What are the non-alignments? Well I will tell you. The Non-alignments are the alignments that carry absolutely no requirements or justification and yet affect your character the least.

Thus if you want to play a good person who is willing to get things done and knows the futility of charity, then you will want to pick these non-alignments. Here they are:

-Chaotic Good: You are a overall good character who doesn't care about the law. Depending on your GM it means you can actually have a good well rounded character who isn't bounded by acts of stupidity.
-True Neutral: This character believes in nothing and does nothing. Thus that means your character is ruled by their personality, story, and abilities and not their alignment.
-Chaotic Neutral: The most logical and well rounded alignment in existence. Do you understand that the defeat of the villain is more important then anything in the way even the saving of innocents? Perfect alignment for you. Plus you get to roleplay your character perfectly every time.

In fact neutrality tends to do this. The closer to Chaos and Neutral you are the more of a good, logical, well rounded person you are.

Step 6: Evil is weighed more heavily then good, Chaos more then Law. Evil means nothing and Chaos means nothing.

You may think because both ends represent the same axis that they would be equal. You would of course be absolutely wrong. No you see in Dungeons and dragons evil and chaotic actions mean a lot more.

Are you a very good person, in fact angelic... and there is someone you just hate soo much you murder them? Well you are neutral now

Are you a very lawful person who would never tell a lie and you just told a lie? Well you are neutral now

However this absolutely does not go the other way. As a evil or chaotic character you can be as good or as lawful as you want and there is no broken roleplay at all. After all Lawful people follow laws because they HAVE to not because they want to.

Which brings us to

7: Avoid Good and Lawful

Enough said.

8: Do not argue alignment with the GM

If the GM says you are acting out of character. Don't argue because you see inside every GMs room is a stone tablet that expressed exactly what the alignments are in a language only they can understand. Yet these words hold so much truth that even you cannot change their mind.

Just bite your tongue and consider asking for a new alignment later saying you made a mistake. If you are a class that requires an alignment well then you are out of luck.

9: Learn what alignment means to that GM

You see the books are wrong and your GM is wright. Always ask what they think the alignments are if you are planning to play a non-neutral alignment.

10: Evil is Evil

While evil is meaningless it means something story wise. It means that people are allowed to kill you, suspect you, or shun you even though the requirements to be evil are so arbitrary that a few people in the government should flare up as “Evil” quite easily.

Don't be evil.

Well I hope this guide on JUST BE NEUTRAL! Was helpful.

I don't know... What about you? What is the most frustrating part about rule interpretation for you?

[Bdthemag]

I really dislike the D&D alignments too, they almost never accurately define a character's alignment. Most groups I play in, every including the DM just disregards alignments because it really isn't able to define their characters well.

[Heron TSG]

“I don't think you would do that” is muttered by the GM.

As a Master of Dungeons, I can assure you that any DM who says this is an idiot. (Unless the players are doing something ridiculously gamey, like asking a monster what its HD is.)

My group always uses either common sense or the Eberron alignment system. (In the first, the alignments mean what the group generally accepts them to mean, and in the latter, alignments are relative. If someone has reason to believe that what they're doing is 'good', they're performing a 'good' act.)

If the GM says you are acting out of character. Don't argue because you see inside every GMs room is a stone tablet that expressed exactly what the alignments are in a language only they can understand. Yet these words hold so much truth that even you cannot change their mind.

I... uh... have you ever been a dungeon master? Or talked to one? It's in the job description to make sure everyone is having fun. Most DMs will make concessions, at least to a point.

Just bite your tongue and consider asking for a new alignment later saying you made a mistake. If you are a class that requires an alignment well then you are out of luck.

If you're Lawful Good and it's required, I assume you're a paladin. I recommend the Paladin of Freedom alternate class feature. Replaces your anti-fear aura with an anti-compulsion aura and changes you to Chaotic Good.

10: Evil is Evil

While evil is meaningless it means something story wise. It means that people are allowed to kill you, suspect you, or shun you even though the requirements to be evil are so arbitrary that a few people in the government should flare up as “Evil” quite easily.

Don't be evil.

Well I hope this guide on JUST BE NEUTRAL! Was helpful.

I'm not sure why evil is meaningless to you. If someone is evil in my campaign, they do evil things. That's why most villains are chaotic neutral or lawful evil for me - either conniving backstabbers working their selfish plots or twisted tyrants. Only the rare baby-kicking lunatics are chaotic evil. There's nothing set in stone for alignment weighting. Remember, the DM is right, not the book? As a side note, I generally disallow my players from playing evil characters. Even Dread Necromancers have the option of being neutral by the rules, and I don't expect any heroes to try and make an evil one work with the plot. Evil classes are necessary for world balance, and make great enemies to make as a DM, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with someone whining about how I'm 'stifling' his character all the time because I won't let him act out his evil fantasies.

On a related note, you sound really bitter about today's events. I recommend talking it over with your DM. Believe it or not, he/she is a real person who will most likely listen to you.

(I don't know the whole situation, but asking for a reward for something that you're obviously not going out of your way to do - you were doing it anyway - doesn't exactly jive with the 'good' archetype in my opinion. I mean, it's not an evil act by any stretch of the imagination, but seriously, imagine a plumber asking the mayor if he can be paid extra for fixing some citizen's plumbing? He's already doing his job. If you mean that your DM isn't giving you -any- rewards, make sure he knows that you haven't taken the Vow of Poverty feat, and that not all good-aligned characters take it.)

[Lectorog]

Most frustrating:

As a evil or chaotic character you can be as good or as lawful as you want and there is no broken roleplay at all.

But, of course, that comes down to:

9: Learn what alignment means to that GM

It just seems to be the idea that people who identify as evil or chaotic would (even infrequently) do good things or purposely follow the law.

The main issue is that the entire range of human motivation is broken up into nine possibilities. That just doesn't work. Alignment is intended as a guideline, but that depends on the GM.

The way my RP group generally handles this is to avoid the concept of specified alignment* and just roleplay the character as they wish. Most roleplaying in my group is about the amount of roleplaying you get from a video game, though; meaning that they make decisions from their own mind, not much considering their character. It creates consistency, so it works. As a GM, if someone does something that their character would almost certainly not do, I remind them of that and/or don't let them do it, but that doesn't happen much.

*For situations where alignment matters, like playing a cleric, I enforce things as above based on that alignment. The interpretation is reasonably loose, though - a lawful good person who kills one person out of anger but is otherwise lawful and good is still lawful good. If they do that frequently, they're not. These situations are mostly involving gods, so I remind the players that their gods would not tolerate such actions.

Really, it all comes down to the GM. I don't have problems with alignment as a loose, basic guideline. You must not have a very good GM on this matter, or fellow players who agree with you; that's no fun.

Barbarossa covered many of my other thoughts. I would recommend talking to the GM. If you're not having fun, they've failed here and need to do better.

[Neonivek]

Oooh someone actually argued against these points.

I... uh... have you ever been a dungeon master? Or talked to one? It's in the job description to make sure everyone is having fun. Most DMs will make concessions, at least to a point.

Actually it is important to keep the game's flow going. Arguing that you are acting in character during a game is detrimental to the game. As well if you understand what he is talking about then you can simply quietly revise your character.

Also yes I have been a dungeon master and talked to one.

If you're Lawful Good and it's required, I assume you're a paladin.

Barbarians, Monks, and Druids all have alignment requirements (Thiefs in older dungeons and dragons but I understand classic dungeons and dragons was more epic and less real).

I'm not sure why evil is meaningless to you

If you are evil it means you can be benevolent, beneficial, and truthful so long as your evil in some way. It is why being evil is rather meaningless.

Evil is weighed so heavily that it is quite easy to fall into the alignment, for limited GMs, just by having character.

you sound really bitter about today's events

Over a month ago. It drives me crazy because it is always on the back of my mind.

Whenever I play a game now I have to remember that. Normally I'd just pick a better GM but I don't have that option.

Only the rare baby-kicking lunatics are chaotic evil.

Ahh I see you have also made a mistake. You see Chaotic evil arn't all lunatics. In fact it could be argued that they are Neutral Evil (In fact... they have been before).

Chaotic Evil just means they are evil and Chaotic and Chaotic Evil. You just made up Chaotic Evil because of an early mistake of the alignment system they have long since fixed OUTSIDE THE 3.5 EDITION RULEBOOK!

So you got some reading to do.

Heck "Baby-kicking lunatics" may not even be evil. They could fall under the "Neutral as Evil" of playing alignments.

doesn't exactly jive with the 'good' archetype in my opinion

Right but you see that alone almost forced a alignment shift all on its own. The fact that I on my own good will saved this very town several times not asking a reward does NOT counter balance the fact that I just once asked for a reward I could have just as easily taken for myself (It was that my order take ownership the fortress the villains made).

Lawful Good essentially became less based on my character who forsaw the need for such a thing and more on "YOU LAWFUL GOOD YOU MUST Always ALWAYS abide by this VERY limited set of actions".

imagine a plumber asking the mayor if he can be paid extra for fixing some citizen's plumbing? He's already doing his job

I wasn't getting paid at all. So example destroyed. Even then a Plumber asking to be paid extra for an especially difficult or dangerous job makes perfect sense to me. so example destroyed.

You may be surprised to hear this... but I actually know the alignment system very well. I also know that Dungeons and Dragons is both a book and a person.

Evil classes are necessary for world balance, and make great enemies to make as a DM, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with someone whining about how I'm 'stifling' his character all the time because I won't let him act out his evil fantasies.

To me it represents the player stupidity of evil. You see the average person's understanding of evil is rather cartoonish. It is why I like the idea of a evil campaign but loathe the idea of playing in one.

Evil is a self-centered goal but it is often interpreted as evil for the sake of evil. Which unless you are somewhat crazy or a font of evil it has little place in a truely evil character.

Mind you Neutral easily goes into the realm of evil as well (It is the point. Neutral characters represent the sort of balance between wanting to do what is right but also the self-centeredness to do what benefits you at the expense of everyone else. It is why the Formians are Lawful Neutral. Sure their goal is evil but they are doing it for what they percieve as good.)

If you mean that your DM isn't giving you -any- rewards, make sure he knows that you haven't taken the Vow of Poverty feat, and that not all good-aligned characters take it.

Ok I have to say it. My character was a Lawful Good Knight whos class was Cleric of a Lawful Neutral god of self-enlightenment (Honestly the god of "I don't care" when I read into it). I had no tenants restricting my actions.

The issue was that I was going to get alignment shifted from that one action because the weight of it was more grand then everything I did to that point.

I would recommend talking to the GM

I did but they didn't offer me realistic solutions and they are what I call Absolutists when it comes to the alignment system. As in that good characters never do neutral actions.

Had I known that, I would have just picked an alignment that reflected my character more closely while at the same time pleasing them.

I have NEVER EVER in my entire life of playing it... been told that a character was clearly a lawful good character who was playing True Neutral.

Always remember Dungeons and Dragons is both a book and a person. It is why Rule 9 is vital.

These situations are mostly involving gods, so I remind the players that their gods would not tolerate such actions

Actually this is also a mistake. It is important to read the tenants on the religions in dungeons and dragons. Religions are not alignments, it is just that a cleric must be within a certain alignment to have a true connection with their god.

Thus it is more then possible to do actions that seem against a god's alignment but are in fact perfectly in-line with the tenants of faith. Thus if you get alignment shifted you can lose your connection but not be chastised by the god itself. You would be surprised what a god will tollerate if you actually spend time reading (goodness it is easy to be a good god while being a total arse). For example did you just mug someone leaving them bed ridden and injured for their clothes? Well don't worry the god of light did the same.

Plus not all religions have tenants chosen by their god. You also have to understand the god while at the same time understand the GM.

[Sensei]

The problem is not so much with the system as with your DM, frankly. Going "Good characters NEVER/CAN'T ask for a reward!" is pretty much misapplying it three ways to Friday, as others in this thread have already discussed in detail.

Of course, the system is certainly known for PROVOKING incidents of this ilk, and often. However, I don't think they do any harm when treated as a rule of thumb and mainly relevant to the purposes of magical effects. For that matter, consider laying some ground rules with your friends as well- for example, thinking of "good" and "evil" as being "benevolent" and "malicious" is one, more clear way you could think about it.

Of course, if your GM/friends won't listen, play DnD with someone else or play a different game.

[G-Flex]

Also, a good character should be able to "act evil" just as much or as little as an evil character should be able to "act good". Some posts above make it sound like there's an asymmetry there where there really shouldn't be.

Seriously, a lot of this just boils down to having a DM/group who know what they're doing.

[Neonivek]

if your GM/friends won't listen, play DnD with someone else or play a different game

I can't! It is probably why I can't drop it.

Eventually the game will go back to dungeons and dragons and I'll have to make another character... and here is the thing

I play GOOD characters. I don't play neutral characters... and I actually really dislike it when players make their good characters neutral (it actually bugs me). Yet they play Neutral because they believe that good is saint personified good (This is ignoring the good creatures that are rather malicious).

thinking of "good" and "evil" as being "benevolent" and "malicious" is one

Well that isn't exactly it but it is good enough groundwork for players to understand. (Afterall a Malicious good character is often a great "Good as Evil" villain).

Seriously, a lot of this just boils down to having a DM/group who know what they're doing

Yeah.

[Lectorog]

Actually this is also a mistake. It is important to read the tenants on the religions in dungeons and dragons. Religions are not alignments, it is just that a cleric must be within a certain alignment to have a true connection with their god.

Yes, you're mostly right there. But I'm GMing Pathfinder, which provides nothing on specific gods but alignment and their "portfolios", one-word descriptions of what they're gods of (ex. farm, merchants). So I have to go with this different approach (unless I wanted to provide detailed descriptions myself, which I don't).

Barbarossa is probably going to explain things better than I can, so I'll let him do that if he will. Just two things:
1: Alignment is not a counterbalance system. If you do a lot of good things and only a few bad things, you can't be good, because you do bad things. Neutral is a bad way to put it, but that's the only way D&D has it.
2: Your GM is wrong if he thinks that keeping the game flowing is more important than a player's unhappiness. If he refuses to reach a point of understanding with you outside of the game, then it's only going to create more problems later. Ask him if you can change alignment to neutral. If that fits your actions better, then that's what you should be. Alignment should be based on the character, not the other way around (though a character with a changing alignment is a poor character).

I play GOOD characters. I don't play neutral characters... and I actually really dislike it when players make their good characters neutral (it actually bugs me)

Then play as a good character and ignore what the box on your sheet says.

[Yoink]

I'm not too knowledgable on the subject, but isn't creating this thread to hit out at your GM/group a bit of a petty move?
Oh wait you edited the OP. Don't mind me!
Yeah, I've heard countless complaints about the DnD alignment system. I haven't played that much DnD, but it does seem a bit too flexible at times. In my group I think just about everyone was Chaotic Neutral/good, which kept things simple.

[Neonivek]

Then play as a good character and ignore what the box on your sheet says

That is what the guide says. It is also what I like to do sometimes with classes (I made a Knight and made him a Cleric because he isn't a exemplar)

Alignment is not a counterbalance system

On the contrary, and the easiest way to understand this is to understand what Neutral is.

Neutral is about balance, the balance between benevolence and selfishness.

A person who is benevolent but has a few bouts of selfishness is good. They arn't dipping into full neutrality. Especially since Alignments are also stances and occasionally weakening doesn't represent a shift in character but that you are playing a character who has an alignment and not an alignment that is attached to a character.

If you do a lot of good things and only a few bad things, you can't be good, because you do bad things

Or you are a flawed good character. I remember in one of the earlier dungeons and dragons setting they actually made one of the gods alignments "Pure Good" because she didn't represent good the way the other gods did. She got it because she was a force of pure goodness who absolutely would not and cannot do evil. The purist and unfiltered example of goodness (Now adays she would probably be Neutral Good)

A flawed good is still good. In the same way that Robin Hood is still Chaotic Good even though he murders innocents (The opposite of the meaning of good), and that Superman is Lawful Good even though he lies to people constantly and has a secret identity (the opposite of the meaning of Law). I should remind you that Superman is considered the prime example of Lawful Good and Robin Hood is the prime example of Chaotic Good.

The alignments do not represent absolute viewpoints but rather a sphere of activity. You can venture outside the sphere only for so long until you shift because that would represent your character residing outside. It is why the Noble Thief is Chaotic Good inspite of his selfishness.

A character who is too flawed is neutral of course. They represent characters who may want to be good but for some reason fail to do so. OR they represent good characters who are absolutely evil in their persuit of justice (The Punisher for example). They do not represent good characters who are not 100% good all the time.

Neutral can also represent unconventional morality. The steriotypical Samurai is Lawful Neutral. They are bound by a code of ethics and those ethics are not bound by the same morality as the good-evil alignments. A samurai can be devilishly evil or angelically good without ever venturing outside its alignment because they all fall under those ethics.

Now you can even go further and get characters who are good but have evil alignment... but that is more complicated.

[Lectorog]

But you're a fantasy hero; you have no flaws. If you're good you will sacrifice your life for that peasant, if you're neutral you won't help anyone, and if you're evil you'll kill things for enjoyment. If you're lawful you'll never disobey the law, if you're neutral you'll ignore the law, and if you're chaotic you'll actively go against the law. That's how it's supposed to be, right?

[Neonivek]

But you're a fantasy hero; you have no flaws. If you're good you will sacrifice your life for that peasant, if you're neutral you won't help anyone, and if you're evil you'll kill things for enjoyment. If you're lawful you'll never disobey the law, if you're neutral you'll ignore the law, and if you're chaotic you'll actively go against the law. That's how it's supposed to be, right?

That was how it was in classical dungeons and dragons where your character was supposed to be the absolute paragon of the alignment. If they were Lawful then the thought of a lie should be distasteful. It is because the alignments were almost physical things.

But the problem is that even fantasy characters. Even the ones they use as the perfect example of alignments. Don't follow them absolutely... This is because they are characters.

You don't play alignments, you play characters who think, and live, and breathe. Even within the same alignment there are so many interpretations (Neutrality is actually the most complex alignment IF you use it properly). There are few characters who truely fit an alignment.

It is why there are whole books on JUST how alignment works in dungeons and dragons. Heck there are books on just part of the alignments (there is a book on JUST the evil alignment). It is that complex.

It is when this complexity is stripped away and simplified that problems arise. Heck "Just play neutral" is essentially just ignoring it even exists.

[Lectorog]

Yep. That's why I don't always directly follow the rules, I use them as guidelines. You play with a particular GM, so you'll just have to make the most of that playstyle. You could try talking to the other players and seeing how they feel about it. Even two people talking to the GM about this carries a lot more weight than one.

[Heron TSG]

Arguing that you are acting in character during a game is detrimental to the game. As well if you understand what he is talking about then you can simply quietly revise your character.

Argue after the game session ends, of course.

If you're Lawful Good and it's required, I assume you're a paladin.

Barbarians, Monks, and Druids all have alignment requirements (Thiefs in older dungeons and dragons but I understand classic dungeons and dragons was more epic and less real).

That's true, though druids and barbarians can't be lawful good, and I didn't think anyone actually played monk. I was guessing paladin because most alignment fights stem from there. Monks tend to be more neutral from what I've seen, leaving paladins fairly alone up in that upper-left corner.

If you are evil it means you can be benevolent, beneficial, and truthful so long as your evil in some way. It is why being evil is rather meaningless.

Evil is weighed so heavily that it is quite easy to fall into the alignment, for limited GMs, just by having character.

Not everything is absolute. An evil warlord may have a soft spot for his child, and help them out while oppressing the general populace. If someone is consistently benevolent, beneficial, and truthful, well, they sure aren't chaotic evil, and if they were a paladin of tyranny or slaughter, they'd lose some class features. (Except that paladins of tyranny are lawful evil and as such usually tell the truth. Brutality with honor, and all that.)

Only the rare baby-kicking lunatics are chaotic evil.

Ahh I see you have also made a mistake. You see Chaotic evil aren't all lunatics. In fact it could be argued that they are Neutral Evil (In fact... they have been before).

Chaotic Evil just means they are evil and Chaotic and Chaotic Evil. You just made up Chaotic Evil because of an early mistake of the alignment system they have long since fixed OUTSIDE THE 3.5 EDITION RULEBOOK!

So you got some reading to do.

Heck "Baby-kicking lunatics" may not even be evil. They could fall under the "Neutral as Evil" of playing alignments.

I'm not sure what you mean by me making up the chaotic evil alignment, which clearly exists, and I'm not sure what alignment system mistake you're talking about.

I was using hyperbole there, but you have a point. Not all crazy people are evil. It's likely that a psychopath could be neutral, or in rare cases even good-aligned, assuming they thought they were doing what they were for the right reasons. If you want to see what I consider to be truly evil in a campaign, think more 'Book of Vile Darkness' than 'Heroes of Horror'. Dread Necromancers can be fairly benevolent, using their undead legions to help others. Thralls of Demogorgon kill intelligent beings to gain class features. That is evil, self-serving, and obviously against the law. Such classes require the chaotic evil alignment. Any character using a vile ritual is evil, because it involves torturing and slaying one or more beings, with mechanical incentives to kill more people in ever bloodier ways. For more clarification, here is the Book of Vile Darkness excerpt about 'defining evil in your campaign' on the topic of vengeance.

Revenge is a powerful force. An act of vengeance does not have to be evil, but the evil mindset usually redefines the
concept as “revenge at any price.” Vengeance without limits can quickly lead to all sorts of evil acts. For example,suppose someone steals a magic ring from a kuo-toa wizard. The wizard breaks into a duergar fortress to use a crystal ball to locate the thief. The kuo-toa teleports to the thief’ s location—a busy tavern—and begins hurling lightning bolts into the crowd. The thief gets away and uses a nondetection spell to keep such a close call from happening again. Undaunted,the wizard magically adopts an inconspicuous form and begins to track down the thief’s family members, torturing them for information regarding his whereabouts. Such a scenario depicts the evil side of revenge. Forgiveness and mercy are not traits that most evil creatures possess. Vengeance for wrongs committed against them—or even for perceived wrongs—is the only appropriate response.

A good character might track the thief down and ask for it back. Perhaps pay the thief a small fee to get it back and avoid violence. Maybe even knock it unconscious and take it, delivering the thief to the local guards. The above is what an evil character might do.

doesn't exactly jive with the 'good' archetype in my opinion

Right but you see that alone almost forced a alignment shift all on its own. The fact that I on my own good will saved this very town several times not asking a reward does NOT counter balance the fact that I just once asked for a reward I could have just as easily taken for myself (It was that my order take ownership the fortress the villains made).

Lawful Good essentially became less based on my character who forsaw the need for such a thing and more on "YOU LAWFUL GOOD YOU MUST Always ALWAYS abide by this VERY limited set of actions".

This is less a fault of the alignment and more the fault of your DM being too strict. If it's not even personally going to you, there isn't even much of a balance reason to consider. Nothing that should cause an alignment shift.

imagine a plumber asking the mayor if he can be paid extra for fixing some citizen's plumbing? He's already doing his job

I wasn't getting paid at all. So example destroyed. Even then a Plumber asking to be paid extra for an especially difficult or dangerous job makes perfect sense to me. so example destroyed.

You may be surprised to hear this... but I actually know the alignment system very well. I also know that Dungeons and Dragons is both a book and a person.

You were being paid in plot and character development, experience from fighting, the thrill of adventure, you name it. All that is gold does not glitter, all that. My point was that even if the mayor wanted to give the plumber extra money, it's simply not in their jurisdiction. What right does a crowd of townsfolk have to confer a castle upon an order of paladins/monks? (unclear which.) It's not really relevant to your alignment, either way.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Dungeons and Dragons is a person.

If you mean that your DM isn't giving you -any- rewards, make sure he knows that you haven't taken the Vow of Poverty feat, and that not all good-aligned characters take it.

Ok I have to say it. My character was a Lawful Good Knight whose class was Cleric of a Lawful Neutral god of self-enlightenment (Honestly the god of "I don't care" when I read into it). I had no tenants restricting my actions.

The issue was that I was going to get alignment shifted from that one action because the weight of it was more grand then everything I did to that point.

Not a problem with the system, but again with the operator. (DM)

I have NEVER EVER in my entire life of playing it... been told that a character was clearly a lawful good character who was playing True Neutral.

That's because for the most part, DMs don't generally give a flying fuck what your alignment is unless it has a mechanical effect a la the paladin or barbarian. Most people don't want to force your alignment, but when you have a class like Paladin where it's required to stay a certain alignment or face severe penalties, DMs are on the lookout for that. It's not that your character shouldn't be lawful good, it's that your DM will most likely just let you change that if you care so much about it. Paladins and the like don't have that luxury. The fighter does not need to be watched to make sure he isn't consorting with necromancers.

I am unsure of what Rule 9 is, and googling has brought me no information.

NINJA EDIT: On neutrality, I've heard that it can be several things: a balance between opposing alignments, or an actual dedication to neutrality. Eberron takes both stances into account.

NINJA EDIT II: Holy crap, 8 new posts!