All About Alignment

[znix]

From wikipedia, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). OMG, someone who agrees with me.
Alignment is only a tool for guiding gameplay, not an immutable declaration of how a character must act, and is used only as a guideline. Still, characters in a party should have compatible alignments - Lawful Good characters are compatible with Lawful Evil characters if they have a common goal, but the addition of a Chaotic Evil character may tear the party apart. Characters may even have some influence on the alignment of their companions - a Lawful Good leader may influence their companions to act in a more noble fashion. The authors of Dungeon Master For Dummies have found that a party of good or neutral characters works better: the impetus for adventures is easier, group dynamics are smoother, and it allows the "heroic aspects of D&D [to] shine through".[5]

 

[hamster mk 4]

I perfer Lawful Evil characters as it allows me to act totaly selfish when I can get away with it, and yet still have a reason to act in the best interests of the Party and NPC's.

 

[aldowyn]

Well, that was enlightening. Pretty much what I thought of it, just clarified and written down.

*WARNING, multiple 1950's Sci-fi references coming*

First: Singer didn't come up with that circles of morality concept, unless he did it before he was 13. Robert Heinlein said pretty much the EXACT same thing in Starship Troopers (yes, the book talks about comparative morality. Who knew! Awesome book...), in 1959. I can look it up if you want, got the book right here (checked the publishing date) He may have written it down, but it was definitely there before it.

Also, the Lawful Good/Chaotic good reminds me of Asimov's Zeroth/First law. "A robot shall not harm humanity, by action or inaction" and "A robot shall not harm a human, by action or inaction, unless it conflicts with the Zeroth Law" The Zeroth is like Chaotic Good, where you can harm the one to save the many, but the First Law is Lawful Good, simply not hurting anyone.

 

[Altorin]

Altorin, I concur with your assessment of the 4th edition alignment system by and large. Based on the 4E descriptions, I would actually place 3.5E Neutral Evil into 4E Chaotic Evil, as it seems clear that 4E Evil characters are organized and honor contract obligations and so on, i.e. more like 3.5E Lawful Evil.

I think the only alignment that is genuinely absent from 4E is Lawful Neutral. The new system gives you now way to create a character like Javert or Serenity's Operative (or, in real life, Thomas Hobbes) who prioritizes "law and order" over justice and mercy. You can't represent this as Unaligned because they are clearly aligned with law, nor with Lawful Good because they lack benevolence, nor with Evil because they lack malice.

Yeah, you're probably right aboute Neutral Evil, and I completely agree with Lawful Neutral not being appropriately represented (A small aside, Lawful Neutral is actually my favorite alignment - I love Lawful Neutral outsiders, St. Cuthbert is my mack daddy, and if I make a Monk, you know it's going to be Neutral).. I intentionally left it out of my large digression because it's the hardest one to grasp in the new system.

I think characters in general, make their own alignments, and the universe puts them into categories. That's why evil characters, even if they think they're good, are evil, because there is actually a cosmic thermometer of Morality. So Lawful Neutral characters would just act Lawful Neutral (or what you would consider Lawful Neutral), and your own Universe would set them as Lawful Neutral, and the 4e universe would either put them as Lawful Good (if they aren't generally malicious), or Unaligned if they are truly neutral in terms of morality. It's muddy, and it's imperfect, but there it is.

It's a whole other ballgame for Lawful Nuetral Outsiders, and honestly, I don't really have an answer to that. The best I could postulate is that Justice, even Blind Justice, is a cosmically "good" thing, so Lawful Neutral outsiders from older D&D would be Lawful Good in 4e.. Or, again, if the Neutrality is more important (Justice being truly blind), then Unaligned would work. Look at Deities like the Raven Queen - Goddess of Death, but not Evil rather Unaligned, Death comes for the good, the bad, and the undecided, Death is Blind, Justice is Blind, So Unaligned, But again, I'm not positive.

 

[Altorin]

From wikipedia, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). OMG, someone who agrees with me.
Alignment is only a tool for guiding gameplay, not an immutable declaration of how a character must act, and is used only as a guideline. Still, characters in a party should have compatible alignments - Lawful Good characters are compatible with Lawful Evil characters if they have a common goal, but the addition of a Chaotic Evil character may tear the party apart. Characters may even have some influence on the alignment of their companions - a Lawful Good leader may influence their companions to act in a more noble fashion. The authors of Dungeon Master For Dummies have found that a party of good or neutral characters works better: the impetus for adventures is easier, group dynamics are smoother, and it allows the "heroic aspects of D&D [to] shine through".[5]

I agree with you. However, you're acting like a bit of a tosser. See my mention in my last post regarding lawful Neutral characters, and it points to a "yard-stick" like view of alignment.

HOWEVER, like I also said, "Alignment as a yard-stick" only applies to free-willed creatures, such as player characters and most native creatures (material plane).

Outsiders can be entirely different beasts, as alignment to them is how they act. They can't act against it. For angels or demons, there is no "cosmic thermometer" or "yardstick" as you put it. The universe doesn't look at their actions and place them in the appropriate alignment - they are predisposed and compelled to act only within the bounds of that alignment.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Nice article

Personally I love the idea of the Neutral Evil druid. Cold, manipulative poison in the veins of society moreso then the big 'Level 15 Control Winds-that-will-wreck-your-shit' spellcasting druid whenever she encounters a town she doesn't like.

Moreso the spread of disease, and feral hunting of loggers and trophy hunters ... making all those in the town slowly suffer as you wilt their crops and reduce their access to essential mineral supplies and lumber through systematic hunting of the locales ...

Confounding local authorities by stealthily spreading horrible contagious diseases throughout the public ... whilst keeping your subversive activitie secret from the local constabulary and government bodies in the area.

Eventually stirring the public into slow moral and social decay as the full force of nature's horrible wrath has found delivery through you as the great messenger of Death and Decay.

That level 15 control winds maybe easier, but far less fun and calculating.... not to mention more dangerous as people attempt to seek you out after your public display of hatred for 'civilization'.

 

[Altorin]

Nice article

Personally I love the idea of the Neutral Evil druid. Cold, manipulative poison in the veins of society moreso then the big 'Level 15 Control Winds-that-will-wreck-your-shit' spellcasting druid whenever she encounters a town she doesn't like.

Moreso the spread of disease, and feral hunting of loggers and trophy hunters ... making all those in the town slowly suffer as you wilt their crops and reduce their access to essential mineral supplies and lumber through systematic hunting of the locales ...

Confounding local authorities by stealthily spreading horrible contagious diseases throughout the public ... whilst keeping your subversive activitie secret from the local constabulary and government bodies in the area.

Eventually stirring the public into slow moral and social decay as the full force of nature's horrible wrath has found delivery through you as the great messenger of Death and Decay.

That level 15 control winds maybe easier, but far less fun and calculating.... not to mention more dangerous as people attempt to seek you out after your public display of hatred for 'civilization'.

showcasing here why "evil" is usually best left to the villains ladies and gentlemen (who am I kidding? Gentlemen and Gentlemen)

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Nice article

Personally I love the idea of the Neutral Evil druid. Cold, manipulative poison in the veins of society moreso then the big 'Level 15 Control Winds-that-will-wreck-your-shit' spellcasting druid whenever she encounters a town she doesn't like.

Moreso the spread of disease, and feral hunting of loggers and trophy hunters ... making all those in the town slowly suffer as you wilt their crops and reduce their access to essential mineral supplies and lumber through systematic hunting of the locales ...

Confounding local authorities by stealthily spreading horrible contagious diseases throughout the public ... whilst keeping your subversive activitie secret from the local constabulary and government bodies in the area.

Eventually stirring the public into slow moral and social decay as the full force of nature's horrible wrath has found delivery through you as the great messenger of Death and Decay.

That level 15 control winds maybe easier, but far less fun and calculating.... not to mention more dangerous as people attempt to seek you out after your public display of hatred for 'civilization'.

showcasing here why "evil" is usually best left to the villains ladies and gentlemen (who am I kidding? Gentlemen and Gentlemen)

I don't get what you're trying to say ;.; .... I like playing neutral evil druids of Malar (FR/Planescape campaigns only of course <.<).

You have to balance the beastial with the slow and cunning hunter that hides in the shadows of society whilst making it rot from within and without. Surely you're not suggesting there no place for a PC like that are you? ;D

 

[Archon]

"cosmic thermometer" or "yardstick"

Altorin - Your concept of the "cosmic thermometer" exactly mirrors my own sentiment. Free-willed beings act as they will and call it good or evil, honorable or dishonorable, or what other terms they choose. The "cosmic thermometer" says what they really are. It's actually easy to think of it in terms of a videogame paradigm. You can say your character is good or evil, but based on what you do in Fable III, it will assign you Good or Evil, and the game's gauge has real, binding effects.

Znix - Altorin's response already covered what I was trying to say. My point is that while (lower-case) good and evil may be mere yardsticks, Good and Evil are gauged in D&D by a cosmic thermometer that has real effects, as real as the effects of alignment are in Fable III or KOTOR etc. You are right that D&D For Dummies, OD&D, and so on are confusing on these points, but that confusion is what prompted me to write this article. If the rules had done a good job explaining alignment, I'd not have bothered!

 

[Rubashov]

Pretty good article, but I have a problem with its attempt to lump virtue ethics and rule-utilitarianism together. They might both be "neutral" insofar as neither is strictly deontological or strictly consequentialist in the conventional sense, but they are also very different from each other--and the description in the article fits Aristotelian virtue ethics much more closely than it fits rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism holds that there are principles that individuals are morally obligated to follow, and the reason individuals must follow those those principles is because having everyone be obligated to follow some general rule will (according to the rule-utilitarian) leads to better overall results than having everyone try to figure out for themselves which course of action would best maximize utility. It has nothing to do with the character traits motivating the actions.

 

[permacrete]

In the end, Alignment is a complex system which most people, I've found, will defecate on. I personally love it, but when I look at the paladin tropes instituted ("Shoot first, ascertain innocence later"), I notice that a truly well-roleplayed paladin is rarer than dodos.

To properly role-play a Paladin requires cooperation and trust between the player and the DM. The essence of the traditional Paladin is sacrifice. With the exception of the tools of the Paladin's trade (sword, shield, armor, warhorse) he or she should be willing to give up everything else in the service of the deity. The player needs to be able to count on the DM providing opportunities to provide for a character's needs in a way that keeps the game fun.

 

[zHellas]

I always thought Chaotic Neutral was a cop-out for most people. I've seen very few people pull it off.

Because then you get that tool who does whatever he likes to screw up the campaign and justifies it with "BUT I'M A CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!!" Unfun.

I view Chaotic Neutral as being the Self-Centered Douche.

Lawful Evil as being a Asshole King.

Chaotic Good as I'm-Doin'-Whatever-Good-Acts-I-Fuckin'-Want! type, even if the acts break the law.


I chose those, 'cause honestly those are the ones I'd be choosing between the best.

Oh! And a True Neutral where the Character in question wants a balance between Good & Evil and helps the side that is at a disadvantage.

 

[Altorin]

Surely you're not suggesting there no place for a PC like that are you? ;D

I'm mostly saying that Evil tends to be solitary. That concept of a druid only works with other characters that follow that same creed, and would be wholly disruptive to a group that does not. As a DM it would certainly make me roll my eyes if my players were designing villains rather then heroes, because it makes my job a LOT harder.

 

[DojiStar]

I find it amusing that the author pegged Nietzsche as Chaotic Evil when the whole point of nihilism is that it is a meta ethical position that holds that there are no objective ethics. Using an objective ethical system to classify someone who doesn't believe it exists is ironic.

For the record, a basic set of four meta-ethical positions are, if I remember:
Realism: there are objective ethical rules (this is probably most people in most D&D worlds)
Relativism: every (either culture or person) has their own set of rules, which are objective to them
Nihilism: there are no real rules of right or wrong
Skepticism: who knows if there is right or wrong

The D&D matrix doesn't deal very cleanly with the last three (are they all neutrals of some sort or is it dependent on their behavior? A Skeptic might be a generous and caring person but vehemently refuse to believe in any defined moral code), but, then, neither do most real ethical systems.

I'm also not sure that utilitarians are chaotic. I like the idea but rigidly following Benthamite utilitarian calculus when it violates common sense (the old philosophy class example about the utilitarian vehemently defending firebombing Dresden in WW2 for no reason except it made more Allies happy than Germans unhappy comes to mind) doesn't strike me as chaotic. I think following any defined ethical code rigidly is lawful, even if it is consequentialist rather than deontological.

EDIT: Also, this totally brings to mind the hilarious "Dungeons and Discourses" strips from the Dresden Codak webcomic.

 

[Amnestic]

In the end, Alignment is a complex system which most people, I've found, will defecate on. I personally love it, but when I look at the paladin tropes instituted ("Shoot first, ascertain innocence later"), I notice that a truly well-roleplayed paladin is rarer than dodos.

To properly role-play a Paladin requires cooperation and trust between the player and the DM. The essence of the traditional Paladin is sacrifice. With the exception of the tools of the Paladin's trade (sword, shield, armor, warhorse) he or she should be willing to give up everything else in the service of the deity. The player needs to be able to count on the DM providing opportunities to provide for a character's needs in a way that keeps the game fun.

This is true, but a Paladin isn't going to be suicidal and he does his deity no favours by blindly sacrificing himself on the claws of a Red Dragon he has no business trying to fight because he's level 3 and it's got a claw three times the size of his entire body. Sacrifice, yes, but needless sacrifice is pointless and a Paladin should know the difference.

 

[permacrete]

This is true, but a Paladin isn't going to be suicidal and he does his deity no favours by blindly sacrificing himself on the claws of a Red Dragon he has no business trying to fight because he's level 3 and it's got a claw three times the size of his entire body. Sacrifice, yes, but needless sacrifice is pointless and a Paladin should know the difference.

Certainly. Just as the Paladin won't casually sacrifice his tools of the trade, he should remember that he is himself the tool of his deity. A Paladin would only make "the ultimate sacrifice" in the context of something epic. My point though was that if a Paladin sacrifices his supplies so that refugees don't starve to death, the DM needs to send a divine rabbit for dinner.

If the Paladin wastes his resources instead of sacrificing, then the DM should feel free to poop all over him.

 

[GothmogII]

In the end, Alignment is a complex system which most people, I've found, will defecate on. I personally love it, but when I look at the paladin tropes instituted ("Shoot first, ascertain innocence later"), I notice that a truly well-roleplayed paladin is rarer than dodos.

To properly role-play a Paladin requires cooperation and trust between the player and the DM. The essence of the traditional Paladin is sacrifice. With the exception of the tools of the Paladin's trade (sword, shield, armor, warhorse) he or she should be willing to give up everything else in the service of the deity. The player needs to be able to count on the DM providing opportunities to provide for a character's needs in a way that keeps the game fun.

This is true, but a Paladin isn't going to be suicidal and he does his deity no favours by blindly sacrificing himself on the claws of a Red Dragon he has no business trying to fight because he's level 3 and it's got a claw three times the size of his entire body. Sacrifice, yes, but needless sacrifice is pointless and a Paladin should know the difference.

That sounds like the dilemma laid out in the pre-story to the Icewind Dale game:

Everard the local cleric of Tempus is a grizzled sort, whose temple is built over the 'Stone of Jerrod'. Jerrod being a shaman of the Uthgart, who in an heroic sacrifice, dies attempting to close a big ole' demon portal. Anyway, point of contention on Everad's part is that Jerrod's sacrifice was utterly worthless. Jerrod, having seen what he took to be an omen from his god, Tempus took that as a sign that he should plunge into the portal. (Thus sealing it.)

Everard's thinking though, was that the omen was a sign that the battle was turning in the barbarian's favour and -not- that Jerrod should sacrifice himself. That in doing so, Jerrod dishonoured himself by not continuing the fight, either falling in batter or emerging victorious. Course, Everard's views in the matter come into play in the endgame, however it's an interesting dilemma.

If your alignment dictates you follow a certain course, does that make it illogical to follow another when such presents itself? Even if such would normally be against that alignment. If I'm a primarily Lawful Evil overlord, does it not make sense if I were captured by the forces of good to somehow placate them and not, you know, antagonise them? (Though, thinking on it, why would a Lawful Evil personage be in such a position, since ideally they'd conduct themselves in such a way as not to invite such retaliation or at least, as long as it were deemed necessary to do so.)

Bah, I'm waffling. Good article though.

 

[Amnestic]

If your alignment dictates you follow a certain course, does that make it illogical to follow another when such presents itself? Even if such would normally be against that alignment.

Consistently? Yes. At that point your DM might ask you to adjust your alignment to better reflect your playstyle. That's not a huge problem, since people are not static and their views change over time, or a dramatic/traumatic event can drastically change your views.

If you just made one decision not keeping in line with your alignment, I don't think that would be seen as "illogical" so much as "human". We all have times when we might consider breaking our moral codes for one cause or another, doing something we would normally consider absolutely reprehensible for the sake of a cause or someone we care about. A one off event probably wouldn't be that big a deal. Hell, in certain situations it might be encouraged. Emotional stress can play hell on a person's judgements.

I actually did a presentation for my Abnormal Psych class recently, in which I noted that there is some evidence that there is an intuition/emotional moral permissibility check before a more rational "pro vs. con" analysis takes place. In a stressful situation, it is entirely expected that a person's moral judgements could be compromised and differ from their alignment.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

In case you were wondering, Kant was lawful good and Nietzsche was chaotic evil.

Sorry, while I enjoy the article, I can't agree with some of your conclusions.

"I am altering the deal..." [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Im4hDlslk]. That's Darth Vader you're talking about. Mr. Lawful Evil. Not Chaotic in the slightest. Neutral Evil at worst.

Immanuel Kant? The Critique of Pure Reason marked him as lawful neutral. He'd be quite insulted by the term good, as it posits that he was working towards goal other than reason.

And Nietzsche? Chaotic maybe, Evil? No more so than Machiavelli, and he wrote The Prince as a work of satire. Perhaps Nietzsche's anti-semitic sister for taking his works, but again he would be insulted by anything other than Neutral.

I think it's a Batman problem again. Alignments are so very difficult to judge.

Further to this: There's quite a big gap between Trans-Atlantic play. American D&D enthusiasts tend to be sticklers for boxed text, while Brits run fast and dirty. But the Hand of Vecna can know exactly how CE you are, even if you try and posit a pacifistic ideology.

 

[Altorin]

If your alignment dictates you follow a certain course, does that make it illogical to follow another when such presents itself? Even if such would normally be against that alignment.

Consistently? Yes. At that point your DM might ask you to adjust your alignment to better reflect your playstyle. That's not a huge problem, since people are not static and their views change over time, or a dramatic/traumatic event can drastically change your views.

Before 3rd edition, changing your alignment was a traumatic experience, almost as devastating as being brought back to life.