Print

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

[Neonivek]

I didn't think anyone actually played monk

I like monks... but I realise that they are only good with high-stat characters unless you min-max.

If someone is consistently benevolent, beneficial, and truthful, well, they sure aren't chaotic evil

Actually that is also incorrect you are forgetting the biding time excuse. You see while good cannot do evil for the greater good without falling under Ire.

Evil can DEFINATELY do so.

You have no idea how many games I played in with a "Secretly evil" character.

But that is because alignments arn't Karma and they never were Karma. The reason why a character who acts constantly outside his alignment gets changes is because of interpretation.

As well what if nothing comes up?

if they were a paladin of tyranny or slaughter, they'd lose some class features

This is ignoring of course that Tyranny and Slaughter fall within the good alignment's sphere of activity.

As well Paladins can "fall" without EVER changing alignment. That is because they are held up to a higher example of their alignment then other classes (I should recheck to see if that still appplies)

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

You made up what Chaotic Evil was. Which your interpretation was blind destruction... Which is True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. (Though in Pathfinder this is also Neutral Evil)

Demons fall under Chaotic Evil because they revel in destruction and pain and torment.

Oddly enough many of the Lovecraftian gods inspite being alien beings of destruction, torment, and pure unadulterated insanity... wouldn't even touch evil. They are more apathetic then evil. Heck Azathoth (The Blind Idiot God and the Demon Saultan... the most powerful of the Lovecraftian gods) would probably fall under True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral... and his ultimate goal is total destruction.

or in rare cases even good-aligned, assuming they thought they were doing what they were for the right reasons

No, the way alignment seems to be implied suggests that "interpretation of the character" is rather narrow. The Formians believe what they are doing is good and they are Neutral. Samurai do what is good and they are neutral as well. Including some evil creatures also believe they are good but are evil.

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

Or just kill the thief if he doesn't surrender... Chop off his hands or his feet. All perfectly within good. Heck threaten to chop off the feet of anyone who doesn't tell you where the theif is (ENTIRELY within Lawful Good believe it or not. You are dispensing fair justice according to the laws of the land and exercising mercy if they assist in the upkeeping of justice)

Yes you would be surprised how wide Lawful Good is. Execution exists within lawful good societies.

If you want to see what I consider to be truly evil in a campaign, think more 'Book of Vile Darkness' than 'Heroes of

They are sort of examples of outright evil but not subtle evil.

You were being paid in plot and character development, experience from fighting, the thrill of adventure, you name it

Intangible and metagaming of course. So no nothing. It is like saying the Plumber was being paid in having something to do.

Not a problem with the system, but again with the operator

Actually the thing is. It is easy to counter my arguements and everyone's arguements simply by reading the alignments.

The problem with the alignment system is that to understand it you have to actually read between the lines and see it applied within the setting. It is why I often have to remind people that even wizards of the coast do not apply the alignments as written. Plus there are alignments that are broken (but later fixed outside the books. The evil alignments)

[Heron TSG]

Alright, I'm tired and as such will keep this short. Let me quote the D&D 3.5 SRD at you.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Good Vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Just so we all know what we're talking about here. (Namely the D&D 3.5 alignment system.)

If someone is consistently benevolent, beneficial, and truthful, well, they sure aren't chaotic evil

Actually that is also incorrect you are forgetting the biding time excuse. You see while good cannot do evil for the greater good without falling under Ire.

Evil can DEFINITELY do so.

You have no idea how many games I played in with a "Secretly evil" character.

But that is because alignments aren't Karma and they never were Karma. The reason why a character who acts constantly outside his alignment gets changes is because of interpretation.

I did not forget the excuse of biding ones' time. If someone is planning to commit an evil act by pretending to be good, they are stilling planning an evil act. Which makes the action evil. It's all about intent. Good can absolutely do evil for the greater good, just ask the Silver Flame Zealot or Church Inquisitor prestige classes.

I wonder, was your character so secretly evil that they never performed an evil act? You don't just say you're evil and then proceed to 'act' good for an entire campaign. There's bluffing your party members into believing that you're solely interested in helping them, and there's pretending to not be evil. What's the party paladin going to do upon discovering an evil member of the party that hasn't done anything evil? Beat them up for restraining themselves so well?

if they were a paladin of tyranny or slaughter, they'd lose some class features

This is ignoring of course that Tyranny and Slaughter fall within the good alignment's sphere of activity.

As well Paladins can "fall" without EVER changing alignment. That is because they are held up to a higher example of their alignment then other classes (I should recheck to see if that still applies)

The Paladin of Tyranny and Paladin of Slaughter are very obviously different from the classic Paladin of Honor. Paladins of Honor uphold the law and commit good acts. Paladins of Tyranny uphold the reigns of those they deem worthy of ruling over the weak. Paladins of Slaughter will only bow to those who have personally proven their superiority over the Paladin, and otherwise exist to wreak havoc upon other warriors.

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

You made up what Chaotic Evil was. Which your interpretation was blind destruction... Which is True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.

Please sir, remove your words from my mouth. I stated that example as merely that. There are other types of chaotic evil to go along with the Paladins of Slaughter and the like. They're not all about blind destruction and I never said they were.

or in rare cases even good-aligned, assuming they thought they were doing what they were for the right reasons

No, the way alignment seems to be implied suggests that "interpretation of the character" is rather narrow. The Formians believe what they are doing is good and they are Neutral. Samurai do what is good and they are neutral as well. Including some evil creatures also believe they are good but are evil.

It isn't hard to imagine a chaotic good psychopath. They have no respect for authority, but focus their efforts on helping people who've done them a good turn. If the character does good acts, it can be good aligned. Samurai are only restricted in that they have to be lawful, so that's not really an issue. The Formians balance their good intentions (altruism) with their evil acts, which makes them neutral. They want to help others, but others don't see it the same way.

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

Or just kill the thief if he doesn't surrender... Chop off his hands or his feet. All perfectly within good. Heck threaten to chop off the feet of anyone who doesn't tell you where the theif is (ENTIRELY within Lawful Good believe it or not. You are dispensing fair justice according to the laws of the land and exercising mercy if they assist in the upkeeping of justice)

Yes you would be surprised how wide Lawful Good is. Execution exists within lawful good societies.

No. A lawful good character would never mutilate an enemy unnecessarily. A lawful good character would not extort/torture innocents to gain information. That is not 'fair justice' by any stretch of the imagination. It is at best lawful, at worst chaotically ignoring the law to get what you want, depending on the laws of the land in question. Execution is done by people with the authority to perform it - after a trial, where the accused has a chance to defend him/herself. Lawful good characters respect authority, they don't go vigilante. That's what chaotic good people do. (And even they wouldn't threaten some suspected criminal's children with dismemberment.)

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

No dismemberment? Hmm. Isn't really helping anyone but herself, and obviously harming others. Sure, she doesn't want the guilty to go unpunished, but that desire probably falls a little short of condoning violent interrogation and murder. (After all, there must be proof that the thief was guilty.)

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Huh, he hates it when people try to intimidate others. He does make his own way, and he does ignore laws, but he's benevolent so there probably won't be too much torture here. Let's try another.

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Oh hey, that one fits nicely! Out to serve her own interests, doesn't mind killing for convenience, doesn't always agree with laws, and unbound by altruism. Seems like the type of character to hunt down a suspected thief by threatening their family, chasing them around, gutting them on the scene, and ignoring the criminal justice system just to get back a trinket or two.

You were being paid in plot and character development, experience from fighting, the thrill of adventure, you name it

Intangible and metagaming of course. So no nothing. It is like saying the Plumber was being paid in having something to do.

Not really going anywhere, and unrelated to alignment so I'll drop this one. (Though I will add that experience is very much tangible, with item creation feats.)

[Neonivek]

No. A lawful good character would never mutilate an enemy unnecessarily

You are forgetting good sir that the character is Lawful. Thievery was punishable by mutilation.

A lawful good character would not extort/torture innocents to gain information.

Extorting people on the punishments of their crimes is perfectly within lawfulness.

That is not 'fair justice' by any stretch of the imagination. It is at best lawful, at worst chaotically ignoring the law to get what you want, depending on the laws of the land in question

.

It is fair justice by every stretch of the imagination. You exerted your right to execute justice.

Execution is done by people with the authority to perform it - after a trial, where the accused has a chance to defend him/herself.

No, that is how you have come to understand how your epitome of law functions. A Magisterial system would also be lawful as well.

Lawful good characters respect authority, they don't go vigilante.

On the contrary. A Lawful character respects authority. In no way does that mean they cannot enact justice within their rights

That's what chaotic good people do. (And even they wouldn't threaten some suspected criminal's children with dismemberment.)

On the contrary. Chaotic Good characters can threaten people with death and they are well within their sphere of action to so. Once again "Robin Hood".

Threatening people with enacting the justice of the land unless they help you is perfectly within Lawful Good.

but that desire probably falls a little short of condoning violent interrogation and murder

On the contrary it actually falls within it. It is horrific because you are using Modern glasses upon it.

You have to remember that Dungeons and dragons tends to be a medieval look.

Oh hey, that one fits nicely! Out to serve her own interests, doesn't mind killing for convenience, doesn't always agree with laws, and unbound by altruism. Seems like the type of character to hunt down a suspected thief by threatening their family, chasing them around, gutting them on the scene, and ignoring the criminal justice system just to get back a trinket or two.

On the contrary. Good characters are not opposed to killing.

Neutral Evil is a terrible alignment for a person who acts out the appropriate justice in the land and does so for altruistic reasons.

ignoring the criminal justice system

Lets focus on that. What criminal justice system are they ignoring exactly? If they are a Paladin then they usually are the law and thus have the ability to enact judgement on the spot.

Are they outside the city and thus the law no longer applies and they are within their rights to enact appropriate justice?

You would be surprised to hear how malicious and cruel even Lawful Good can be with a strong understanding of the justice systems at the time and how dungeons and dragons applies those justice systems. Afterall remember. Good and Evil are intangible outside the fonts of good and evil (and heck outside the detect spells).

Thus is one of the tenants of good is the eradication of evil (one of the reasons why a Paladin can exterminate evil creatures with absolutely no problem) then in what way is the eradication of ones who willingly do evil any different if not more so because they chose to?

The Crusader is as much of the Exemplar of Lawful Good as the Saint. The Stains upon their blade being the sacrifice for their virtue. So long as they direct that blade to those who deserve it.

Which believe it or not the game outright supports depending on the setting, and sometimes they outright support your viewpoint as well where a Lawful Good society would often have unnaturally benevolent laws. Or where Lawful Good has very strict and often malicious laws... Which they can because good is good and not nice or pacifistic. In fact Lawful Good is often the most warlike and aggressive of all the alignments and often have the highest kill counts.

Ohh what lovely colors of good. These are either examples where the alignment system simply breaks down or where the system shows it has more depth within the alignments then clouds and fluffy bunnies.

---

Also I am ignoring your posting of the alignments. They are a great way to get inaccurate results.

[Darvi]

Seriously, most problems with the alignment system lie with the people using it, that is, the players and certainly the DM. Most notably the thing about good characters immediately becoming neutral or something when they commit an evil act. Especially if they have a reason to.

[scriver]

I'd say that even if thievery is punishable with mutilation, doing so would be a Lawful Neutral act. As I see it, a Lawful Good character would prefer to find another punishment for the thief and only mutilate him if there was no other choice (and feel bad about it afterwards).

In my mind, Alignments should symbolize a character's general moral guidelines, but not force him to act within the confines of his Alignment. To build upon a previous example, consider a character in dire need of food. A Chaotic Good character, thinking that because he is starving and will soon die he has a right to food, might not have any qualms about stealing from the rich, but would feel bad about stealing from the poor - not because he is stealing from them, but because they also need the food, just not as badly as he does - and he would probably try to make it up to them in some way (perhaps by "borrowing" the food, that is meaning to return later and pay for it), or at least feel better if he did. A Lawful Good would feel bad about stealing from both rich and poor, as it means taking goods without any right to them, but he would still prefer to steal from the rich over the poor (since with the poor he is both taking food without right and they also need the food). He would try to return to both the rich and the poor, but have much worse conscience over taking the poor's food, but nothing would stop him from taking it if he was desperate enough.

Perhaps a good way to solve the Alignment dilemma would be if DnD would take a cue from other games and add a "Mental Health/Stability"/"Conscience" value, and if a character does something which goes against his conscience he get some sort of malus until he makes up for it in some fitting way. That would, at the very least, make clear that it is completely within realistic characterisation to go against your Alignment.

[Heron TSG]

Also I am ignoring your posting of the alignments. They are a great way to get inaccurate results.

Then your problem here isn't with the D&D alignments, its with your DM that's using them or with your own ideas about what they are. You're confusing law with good, and taking everything to extremes. I'm out of this thread then, with only a recommendation to speak directly to your DM instead of lashing out in a thread on (presumably) another forum.

[Willfor]

I try to avoid all the alignment debates I find on GitP forums, and I wasn't expecting to have to do the same here. I, personally, try to ignore alignment wherever I find it. This system is broke, down with the system. It's fun to play with if every agrees to the same standards -- in my opinion, quoting the rules-as-written means you've already lost the argument entirely -- but debates about it often resemble religious debates in my opinion.

[Neonivek]

Also I am ignoring your posting of the alignments. They are a great way to get inaccurate results.

Then your problem here isn't with the D&D alignments, its with your DM that's using them or with your own ideas about what they are. You're confusing law with good, and taking everything to extremes. I'm out of this thread then, with only a recommendation to speak directly to your DM instead of lashing out in a thread on (presumably) another forum.

You would be surprised actually. Given that this didn't come up. This is part of my knowledge of Dungeons and Dragons alignment that few people know about so I don't actually apply it.

I suggest you talk to your DM and stop lashing out on the thread or forum.

with your own ideas about what they are

Well the funny thing is that I am not making them up. I am actually pulling them straight from THE BOOKS! I am actually not making a single thing up here.

I'd say that even if thievery is punishable with mutilation, doing so would be a Lawful Neutral act.

Then it is perfectly in line with Lawful Good to do anyway.

I am reminded of the Lawful Good Diva who was willing to enact a punishment worse then death on three innocent people JUST to bind a demon of no concequence because that was the law.

The difference between a Good society and a Neutral society is that the punishment fits the crime... Not the absense of harsh or painful punishments.

A Chaotic Good character, thinking that because he is starving and will soon die he has a right to food, might not have any qualms about stealing from the rich, but would feel bad about stealing from the poor

Actually so long as the Chaotic Good character is doing something good with the money. They can steal from the rich all they want. Robin Hood Remember.

This system is broke

Yes... yes it is. As I said before even Wizards of the Coast doesn't follow their own rules... Or they just follow a seperate set of rules.

For fun I am actually trying to show people the extra dimensions of the rules Wizards of the Coast uses. I know that no one is going to accept it (for multiple reasons. One is that we are a modern society) but I'll see what points I can get across. Since figuring out how alignment works with the series of seeming contradictions can be fun.

So far the results are: "You are obviously stupid and insane" and a "Kinda"

[Neonivek]

Also I would like to thank everyone who came to this topic. I feel better now.

It was just one of those things you had to get out.

I'd also would like to say sorry to the person I annoyed.

[Sensei]

People here, like I said, seem to be doing a good job hammering out what the alignments are, but I might add that some of the alignment-based realms outlined in the Dungeon Master's Guide also provide an interesting frame of reference. And they're in a book, so, can help convince people. And of course, alignments are always a rule of thumb and do not bar someone from acting against their own values under appropriate circumstances (See: "Is it okay to kill always-chaotic-evil orc babies" debate).

[Lectorog]

This thread has reminded me:
My friend played as a paladin, lawful good. He viewed it as his responsibility to kill every goblin and kobold we came across, because they were chaotic and/or evil. Even the unarmed ones begging for mercy. Even the two kobold children hiding in a corner under a blanket after he stabbed their father and threw him off a cliff.

This lawful good alignment also sabotaged any attempts at deception. If his rogue friend tried to steal something, he would make him return it. If anyone tried to lie about something to get past guards, he would correct them with the truth. This usually led to killing people to get through, where they didn't need to be killed, but he viewed it as the only way to his great goal, so they were standing in the way of good.

[Darvi]

That's not LG under any definition. More like Lawful Anal.

[Itnetlolor]

LG character, LE player?

[Neonivek]

This thread has reminded me:
My friend played as a paladin, lawful good. He viewed it as his responsibility to kill every goblin and kobold we came across, because they were chaotic and/or evil. Even the unarmed ones begging for mercy. Even the two kobold children hiding in a corner under a blanket after he stabbed their father and threw him off a cliff.

This lawful good alignment also sabotaged any attempts at deception. If his rogue friend tried to steal something, he would make him return it. If anyone tried to lie about something to get past guards, he would correct them with the truth. This usually led to killing people to get through, where they didn't need to be killed, but he viewed it as the only way to his great goal, so they were standing in the way of good.

That is the thing about Good that is odd to us but makes sense within the setting. They can be absolutely murderous to what is commonly percieved as evil all they want and still be perfectly within their alignment.

As for the second part. You just have to deal with Lawful Good (at least some forms of it and depending on the GM and players once again). You don't steal infront of the Lawful Good character.

"That's not LG under any definition. More like Lawful Anal"

It makes sense on some levels. Afterall if his character is one made with the intent that he is against thievery and lies then why wouldn't he stop people around him from doing so?

It isn't the only way to play Lawful Good (depending on the GM once again. I've had ones who would have instantly made you Neutral if you willingly partied with a thief) but it is acceptible.

As well Paladins are held up to a higher degree then Lawful Good. Think of them as Lawful Good+. The rules of conduct used to be so strict for Paladins they were often unplayable unless they were obsessively deluded by the other party members (no really... If you got drunk the Paladin fell... even if it wasn't the paladin who drank). I am not exactly aware of what their status is right now though.

[Heron TSG]

I usually hear it called Lawful Stupid. A paladin doesn't favor killing to lying, he just doesn't like to lie. If he had been a Knight instead, it would almost make sense. They just have to be lawful, and they specifically can't lie. (Though they just lose one usage of their class abilities for the day, not their class features as a whole.) I find them much more flexible, and usually play those instead of paladin. No special mount, but they work a whole lot better in a party.

My friend played as a paladin, lawful good. He viewed it as his responsibility to kill every goblin and kobold we came across, because they were chaotic and/or evil. Even the unarmed ones begging for mercy. Even the two kobold children hiding in a corner under a blanket after he stabbed their father and threw him off a cliff.

Also they specifically can't slay unarmed opponents or surrendering opponents, so that stops this BS. And before you ask, monks' unarmed strikes count for them being armed. (Else you get Knights that can't possibly fight an entire class.  ))