All About Alignment

[Ernil Menegil]

Following your code doesn't give you carte blanche against all chaotic acts though. Enough chaotic acts, and your alignment risks shifting to neutral good, at which point no amount of atonement will help you until you rectify that, and that can be entirely Chaotic Good actions that cause that change.

Correct. However, the protection the code offers against itself (Committing the Chaotic act is the Most Lawful thing you can do) should be more than enough to have it get through most "To be Lawful or To Be Good" decisions through consistently going "Good".

When given the choice between having to Act against Your Alignment (Choose a Chaotic Good act) versus Acting Against your Alignment, Breaking your Code Through Commiting an Evil Act, and Acting Against your Alignment by Breaking your Code Through Commiting and Evil Act (By committing the Lawful MildlyEvil act required instead), the choice between which course of action is demanded by the code becomes VERY clear. A true Paladin can generally understand what the best course of action is.

I go to bed and people conjure reason from under their hats.

I salute you, folks. I pretty much agree with everything said in this quoting series.

 

[irani_che]

i never really considered normative ethics to be evil, maybe a i have not played much DnD.
I saw the Evil-Good allignment more along the path Good would be selfless and help others while Evil are in ti for themselves. This Means a tyrant can be Lawful Good if he keeps his people interests above his personal own, while Lawful evil is a sadistics kleptocrat.

As for Nietzche, he is chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil being as Anarchist like heath ledgers Joker or a final fantasy omnicidal maniac like kefka

 

[Scow2]

i never really considered normative ethics to be evil, maybe a i have not played much DnD.
I saw the Evil-Good allignment more along the path Good would be selfless and help others while Evil are in ti for themselves. This Means a tyrant can be Lawful Good if he keeps his people interests above his personal own, while Lawful evil is a sadistics kleptocrat.

As for Nietzche, he is chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil being as Anarchist like heath ledgers Joker or a final fantasy omnicidal maniac like kefka

A tyrant, by definition, makes his people suffer needlessly under his rule. Therefore, he's not putting the people's interest first. The best he can be is Lawful Neutral, but still pretty dark. Not all evil people put themselves first, yet still fit on the Expanding Circle of Morality under the "Evil" category, they just have a slightly displaced peak, or a Sinister-looking volcano-shaped

And Chaotic =/= Crazy. It means "Ends Justify the means".

Personally, I do find the Chaotic Alignment to be mostly incompatible with Good (As 4e discovered) in the sense of being a paragon of both, because by eliminating Evil actions from the list of acceptable means to achieve a goal decreases how Chaotic/Consequentialist a character is (he starts taking character into account, a Neutral/Aretological trait. Of course, it could be argued he can still be chaotic as well as fully Good because he considers the ramifications of an evil act as unwanted, but that's because the strengths of the forces of Good and Evil (due to having acts that are always Good or Evil associated with them) are bound by Deontological/Lawful guidelines. (Commiting one of the innumerable Evil act WILL shift the balance toward Evil, and Commiting one of the few expressely Good Acts WILL shift the balance toward Good). Evil takes better to Chaos easier than Law because most Deontologically-governed tasks require putting Society or the followed Codex above the self, while the vast number of Evil acts come easily to a Consequentialist.

Also, as a general rule, I think another Pratchett quote is in order:

Vimes had heard that good and evil were just two ways of looking at the same thing - or, at least, so said people traditionally considered under the category of "evil".

 

[tetron]

Man as much as I love the Planescape campaign setting, my opinion has always been the same - the alignment system should be dragged to the back of the shed and shot in the head. It brings almost nothing of value to a game aside from wasting hours on arguments about what's Lawful Good and what isn't.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is broken... The axis are sliding scales, but Good and Evil are often clearly defined, and no amount of justification would make Genocide against a sapiant, material-planed creature a Good act.

The main thing I think people need to remember about alignment is that
...
3:There can be an actual and a perceived alignment. This refers to an evil deed for good ends, such as torture to save a town. Your character is doing something with good intent so whether it's evil or not it's still a good action, but others will perceive it as an evil action. So someone could be lawful good and because of the things they do people could consider them lawful evil.

Actually, torture is an Evil act, but it might be "Percieved" as good. As outlined in the Book of Exalted Deeds, to give into the temptation of commiting an "Evil" act has repercussions throughout the cosmos as the Power of Evil gains an advantage from the corruption of a Good character. (Good and Evil are discernable forces in their own right).

4: Being in service to a deity can change how alignment works. Once upon a time I played a divine seeker, basically a rogue who works for a deity. My character was lawful good but a good number of people saw me as chaotic evil. I bore no symbols of my deity, went to none of his temples, and only once did my character ever pray to the deity. I lied, cheated, stole, sabotaged, tricked, and murdered in the service of my lawful good deity. I once entered a cult, and had to do all the rituals that came with it.
I sacrificed one of the fellow patrons of my deity just so I could enter the upper ranks of this cult, and then kill every last one of them from the top down. Was it evil of me to kill a fellow patron of my deity ? No, why ? Because I didn't actually murder them, they died in service to our deity. The person I killed could have wielded a sword and tried killing all of the cult members, and they would have failed. Thousands of good pious lives could have been lost to this cult, but instead only one was. In taking down that cult I performed actions to easily make me chaotic evil, but through it all I was lawful good.

Umm... this is wrong on so many levels. Sorry, your character is straight-up Chaotic Evil (His Circle of Morality extends to his God alone and no Mortals, and he follows the chaotic creed of "The Ends Justify the Means"

"I didn't Murder him! He died in service to my diety" ... And several thousand Jews died in service to improving the Human Race. [Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but in a debate of Good Vs. Evil, he makes a VERY effective baseline to define evil]. And a high-enough leveled character (Or competant player) could hack his way through that sort of cult and destroy it or shut it down without performing a single evil deed, unlike what your character did. Also, murder and malicious deception are evil acts no matter who you are (It says so multiple times!). It's why an Avenger in 4e is allowed to be Unaligned even if they serve an LG Diety.

5:Neutral can come in different flavors. While some people may think neutral is "meh" neutral, such as is talked about in this article. Neutral can mean much more than that. An alignment few people are familiar with is true neutral(aggressive). Wherein the character acts not for himself but for the good of everyone, and in doing so opposes both good and evil. Characters like these usually see good and evil as two sides of the same coin, and reason that all conflict is borne of these two sides being unable to coexist. The solution ? The end of both good and evil. In other words a neutral character who believes that neutral is the way to go. There can also be passive neutral characters, ones who don't recognize good or evil, such as healers who treat both sides. There can be characters who are neutral because they perform as many good deeds as they do evil, such as someone who kills people for a living but uses the money to improve the wellbeing of everyone he encounters.

Actually, someone who acts for "The Good of Everyone" is Good. What you describe is someone who doesn't understand anything... Good doesn't destroy, it protects. Note in D&D the planes where true peace and harmony exist (Hello Elysium!). By DEFINITION Nothing Good can be Evil, and Nothing Evil can be Good. The reason Good opposes Evil is because Evil seeks to spread misery and destroy life. Those who don't believe in the justice and Virtue of Good, and seek to actively oppose it (even if they nominally oppose Evil as well) are Evil themselves. It's why in Star Wars, those that use their hatred of the Dark Side and see the Light Side as weak fall to it themselves. Evil is NOT monolithic. Nor is good, though it's more united than evil.

Good is something people have to strive to become. Evil is easy to default. Fortunately for the forces of Good, Evil is also pretty much abhorrent to everyone to some degree (Even Gnolls have some standards, as Evil as they are), so most will strive for at least a modicum of good, at least in their initial area.

Anyone who puts an intangible cause above the physical, tangible lives of everyone else is Not Good. Paladins are somewhat exempt with their pursuit of Good above all else (even if some lives must suffer in the process) due to a more complex understanding of the nature of Good and how evil taints all.

I, as a DM, can punish a paladin player for allowing a petty, sadistic bandit to live, because the paladin knew that the same bandit murdered an entire family that provided him with a shelter for the night. I can also punish him for murdering the helpless bandit in the first place. I can even introduce a new story line involving that same bandit who escaped the hand of law, and punish the poor Lawful Retard later. That example returns us to determinism, or in the case of a DM in a bad mood it gets even worse; such actions are fatalistic, and no moral philosophy can save the poor player from the wrath of Kelemvor and eternal servitude in his gray city.

Actually, he can do either and still keep to his code (though his code prefers sparing the bandit). Vengeance and Punishment are Lawful acts, not Good. Mercy (Sparing the Bandit) is a Good act, and by being good, in Lawful through acting in accordance of the code. On the other hand, killing the Bandit to prevent him from harming others is also a Good act, and Lawful for execution of Justice and Vengeance. Yet, because killing a helpless person is an Evil act, he has to be careful on how to proceed, since Committing and Evil act is against his Code, and therefore Not Lawful. If the bandit requests mercy or asylum from the Paladin, he must give it.

The BEST course of action for a Paladin is to take the bandit as a prisoner and hand him over to local authorities to be tried and punished by law if the Bandit does not seek redemption. If the bandit does end up executed for his crimes, the Paladin is not at fault because he acted honorably, and the verdict and sentence were carried out through Just means, with the bandit's threat to the well-being of other people being properly assessed and handled. If the Bandit pleads for redemption, the Paladin should offer him the chance (His DETECT EVIL ability keeps the bandit from "Faking" being redeemed), and if the Bandit attempts to betray him during the period of redemption, the Paladin can lawfully and morally kill him in self-defense.

However, in most cases, time doesn't permit it, and the Paladin can safely choose either to kill him because he's a threat to society (as long as the bandit isn't already helpless or promised asylum by the Paladin) OR spare him out of mercy in accordance with his code, and give the bandit a lawful trial with his code and other party members being the Jury, himself being the Judge (The code determines his guilt, his discretion gives the sentence), and powers or other resources (party members, items) being the Executioner. It's tough work, but I find that, as a general rule, a well-played Paladin can be assumed to be wise enough that, except in extreme cases, his deliberate actions (meaning he's delibrated and considered them carefully) are justfied within the code. Generally, I treat the Paladin Code presented in the book as the tl;dr version, with the actual sworn code being much more in-depth and robust, with the circumstances, exceptions, and appropriate actions being spelled out clearly enough to be expanded to cover almost any situation. Since I find Paladins awesome, if the character takes time to delibrate on his actions and his code, I tell them if a considered course of action is in line with it or not (or if it's in line, but there is a better option).

A quote I like is from Terry Pratchett:

"...And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.]
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin. for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
--from Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett.

Hope that helps

There's another quote (I can't remember the source) where it explains that while there are shades of grey in Alignment issues, it doesn't really concern a Paladin-type. Their job is to hunt down and destroy those who are so dark you can't see lightness "no matter how hard you squint", which there apparently is plenty of.

It's apparent that you're looking at all of these from the perspective of "good is right, evil is wrong". When that just isn't true. Evil merely has its own way of doing things. From the perspective of good evil is wrong but from the perspective of evil it isn't. The person in your quote who says there is no grays, what would you consider his alignment to be ?

 

[Explorator Vimes]

It's apparent that you're looking at all of these from the perspective of "good is right, evil is wrong". When that just isn't true. Evil merely has its own way of doing things. From the perspective of good evil is wrong but from the perspective of evil it isn't. The person in your quote who says there is no grays, what would you consider his alignment to be ?

Granny Weatherwax is pretty much Lawful Neutral. She does stuff that is both good and evil to uphold the larger laws intrinsic to the universe. She's lawful in the same way that Paladins are lawful. They have greater truths to uphold even if on occasion she tells a king where he can stick his taxes.

Edit: It should be noted that she would probably view herself more Lawful Me because she's pretty much the most hard headed egotist in the entire series, and that's what makes her who she it, but it isn't really prudent to try and shoehorn someone like her into an alignment, I was just giving the best answer I could.

 

[Scow2]

It's apparent that you're looking at all of these from the perspective of "good is right, evil is wrong". When that just isn't true. Evil merely has its own way of doing things. From the perspective of good evil is wrong but from the perspective of evil it isn't. The person in your quote who says there is no grays, what would you consider his alignment to be ?

That's because, by definition, Good is Right, and Evil is Wrong. Those who say otherwise are usually looking for an excuse to justify their actions. And if you believe that, well...

"Then you really are lost"

She is good, but doesn't want to be. She'd rather be evil, but she was forced to be good and look out for others instead of herself when her sister (Who was supposed to be the good one) got up and left. Being good is right, but sucks. She'd rather be evil because it's cooler and more fun. So, yeah. Granny Weatherwax is placed good, with a small hole (Or at least dent) in the very center of her flat Circle of Morality.

 

[Falseprophet]

Even though I see alignment as a yardstick, I did like this article. But the good-evil axis raises questions. I'm reading it as "Evil characters care only about themselves and maybe a few others close to them, Neutral characters care about their tribe or nation or city, Good characters try to care about everybody." But under that definition, most perpetrators of real-world war crimes would be considered Neutral. They are ostensibly working in the interests of their nation or ethnicity.

Am I reading that wrong? Or for the purposes of D&D alignment, a dwarven general who perpetrates genocide against the hobgoblins who've plagued his people for decades could be considered Lawful Neutral? I suppose that's not drastically out of step with how some campaign settings are described, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about that. Or if I've completely missed a point somewhere, I welcome enlightenment.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

Even though I see alignment as a yardstick, I did like this article. But the good-evil axis raises questions. I'm reading it as "Evil characters care only about themselves and maybe a few others close to them, Neutral characters care about their tribe or nation or city, Good characters try to care about everybody." But under that definition, most perpetrators of real-world war crimes would be considered Neutral. They are ostensibly working in the interests of their nation or ethnicity.

Am I reading that wrong? Or for the purposes of D&D alignment, a dwarven general who perpetrates genocide against the hobgoblins who've plagued his people for decades could be considered Lawful Neutral? I suppose that's not drastically out of step with how some campaign settings are described, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about that. Or if I've completely missed a point somewhere, I welcome enlightenment.

I think the main issue is trying to take a real world moral/ethical philosophy turn it into a D&D alignment and then take it back out into the real world. The first issue is that our starting point for good and evil has, hopefully, evolved from the general medieval fantasy setting that exists. State sponsored genocide is/was a more morally acceptable practice back in that age then it is considered now. So yes, that same Dwarf General can be Lawful Neutral in the D&D world, but be Lawful Evil in ours because of how our societies work and where we place said yardstick. But really, that's just my two cents, I'm not 100% on the article either and I studied all these guys in my political theory classes, heh.

 

[tetron]

It's apparent that you're looking at all of these from the perspective of "good is right, evil is wrong". When that just isn't true. Evil merely has its own way of doing things. From the perspective of good evil is wrong but from the perspective of evil it isn't. The person in your quote who says there is no grays, what would you consider his alignment to be ?

That's because, by definition, Good is Right, and Evil is Wrong. Those who say otherwise are usually looking for an excuse to justify their actions. And if you believe that, well...

"Then you really are lost"

She is good, but doesn't want to be. She'd rather be evil, but she was forced to be good and look out for others instead of herself when her sister (Who was supposed to be the good one) got up and left. Being good is right, but sucks. She'd rather be evil because it's cooler and more fun. So, yeah. Granny Weatherwax is placed good, with a small hole (Or at least dent) in the very center of her flat Circle of Morality.

You're quoting obi-wan ? The guy who all but pushed his student to the dark side and then tried to kill him for it ? And even then obi-wan was wrong, Anakin wasn't lost. Obi-wan, much like you, failed to see that people aren't just good or evil. Evil can be a means of achieving good, and vice versa. Because honestly, what makes evil wrong ?

 

[Explorator Vimes]

What makes evil wrong is the fact that all the definitions describe it as such? Also, I'll stick with the original Sir Samuel Vimes quote from earlier as a better one than anything from Star Wars.

If you are unfamiliar with him as a character, he's the current head of the once corrupt and useless Watch of the largest city in the series called Discworld. He's pretty much unbribeable, unswerveable, and doesn't take well to being told that there isn't a right and a wrong in the world that's universal for everyone to follow. He's the kind of person who wouldn't care who someone was or why they did something, if it was evil or wrong or illegal he's going to arrest them because he knows that to allow one slip allows for hundreds of others and that way madness lies.

That's where I come at with saying the Evil is Wrong and Good is Right, you can tout your end results until the cows come home, but you've tainted all you've accomplished because you took the easy way out by being evil. (Note you here is the vague you, not you the person specifically.)

 

[irani_che]

When i said Tyrant i basically meant any sort of government where there is one guy who is in charge and no one else gets a word in. Even Aragon after he was crowned could be considered a tyrant under this description.

Also Chaotic evil == Crazy

lawful characters accept the laws of the land and follow them and enforce them. (paladins, sherrifs etc)
neutral characters follow the laws the best they can (normal ppl, medics etc)
Chaotic characters will rail against them, (freedom fighters, theives anarchists)

 

[irani_che]

your definition of the allignments depends on what you yourself are,

 

[Scow2]

What makes evil wrong is the fact that all the definitions describe it as such? Also, I'll stick with the original Sir Samuel Vimes quote from earlier as a better one than anything from Star Wars.

If you are unfamiliar with him as a character, he's the current head of the once corrupt and useless Watch of the largest city in the series called Discworld. He's pretty much unbribeable, unswerveable, and doesn't take well to being told that there isn't a right and a wrong in the world that's universal for everyone to follow. He's the kind of person who wouldn't care who someone was or why they did something, if it was evil or wrong or illegal he's going to arrest them because he knows that to allow one slip allows for hundreds of others and that way madness lies.

That's where I come at with saying the Evil is Wrong and Good is Right, you can tout your end results until the cows come home, but you've tainted all you've accomplished because you took the easy way out by being evil. (Note you here is the vague you, not you the person specifically.)

I use multiple quotes from multiple sources. Personally, I don't think Star Wars is as bad as people treat it as when you step back and think about it, and fill in the gaps with actual thought.

You're quoting obi-wan ? The guy who all but pushed his student to the dark side and then tried to kill him for it ? And even then obi-wan was wrong, Anakin wasn't lost. Obi-wan, much like you, failed to see that people aren't just good or evil. Evil can be a means of achieving good, and vice versa. Because honestly, what makes evil wrong ?

Umm... what Obi-wan are you talking about? The one I saw gave nothing short of his full faith and support to his student, and taught him to be a wise and compassionate Jedi. Unfortunately, Anakin didn't return the trust, and WAS lost because of it. And Obi-Wan would not accept Anakin as evil, and was mostly correct in his world view.
And continuing this... Anakin thought he could accomplish Good through Evil. In High Fantasy, Gandalf said he'd want to use the ring for Good. Yet, we all saw how Anakin's "Evil can be used for Good" experiment worked out, and Sauruman was like what Gandalf would have turned into had he tried to use the ring, and would eventually turn into Sauron Mk. II, or be betrayed by the ring as it reunites with Sauron.

And why is Evil wrong? Seriously? It is the antithesis of Life, and on Earth, it is the enemy within of Humanity. Evil is wrong because it tears down creation, sows discord throughout the harmonious function of society and nature, ruins and ends lives, belittles and destroys the value of all life, and corrupts and works its way into healthy societies and ecosystems through pleasant lies, false promises, and niggling suggestions to begin the process all over again. Even those who profess and support evil are destroyed by it, in pursuit of "There can be only one", until that last life, after its hollow triumph, dies as well, or lives in nothing. "There can be only None".

When i said Tyrant i basically meant any sort of government where there is one guy who is in charge and no one else gets a word in. Even Aragon after he was crowned could be considered a tyrant under this description.

Also Chaotic evil == Crazy

lawful characters accept the laws of the land and follow them and enforce them. (paladins, sherrifs etc)
neutral characters follow the laws the best they can (normal ppl, medics etc)
Chaotic characters will rail against them, (freedom fighters, theives anarchists)

Did you even read the article?
Lawful characters follow an inflexible, clearly defined set of rules to accomplish their goals, and will not violate them except in extreme circumstances [Ie. Mathematicians]. Neutral characters use rules as a guideline for behavior, yet their ultimate behavior is on a case-by-case basis depending on their motivations more than rigid guidelines [America's Idealized Justice System, Dispute Arbitrators]. Chaotic characters believe "the Ends Justify the Means", and will do anything to accomplish his goals Though he IS mindful of the consequences, usually.[Parkour Practitioners, most Players]

Chaotic Evil does not equal crazy.

A Chaotic Evil person will achieve his selfish goals through whatever means available. Some devote themselves to actively spreading Evil, misery, and destruction as well as tearing down the deontological rules governing behavior.

Characters devoted to Law believe everyone must follow rigid rules, disciplines, and behaviors. Characters actively devoted to chaos seek to tear down the rules because they limit the options people have to achieve their goals.

Law and Chaos is the alignment axis that needs to be balanced (Both extremes veer into Evil, due to Law's stifling of life by removing free will, and Chaos spreading destruction and evil as people pursue their own agendas without any way to curtail the Destructively Selfish).

Even though I see alignment as a yardstick, I did like this article. But the good-evil axis raises questions. I'm reading it as "Evil characters care only about themselves and maybe a few others close to them, Neutral characters care about their tribe or nation or city, Good characters try to care about everybody." But under that definition, most perpetrators of real-world war crimes would be considered Neutral. They are ostensibly working in the interests of their nation or ethnicity.

Am I reading that wrong? Or for the purposes of D&D alignment, a dwarven general who perpetrates genocide against the hobgoblins who've plagued his people for decades could be considered Lawful Neutral? I suppose that's not drastically out of step with how some campaign settings are described, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about that. Or if I've completely missed a point somewhere, I welcome enlightenment.

I think the main issue is trying to take a real world moral/ethical philosophy turn it into a D&D alignment and then take it back out into the real world. The first issue is that our starting point for good and evil has, hopefully, evolved from the general medieval fantasy setting that exists. State sponsored genocide is/was a more morally acceptable practice back in that age then it is considered now. So yes, that same Dwarf General can be Lawful Neutral in the D&D world, but be Lawful Evil in ours because of how our societies work and where we place said yardstick. But really, that's just my two cents, I'm not 100% on the article either and I studied all these guys in my political theory classes, heh.

racial issues are difficult to handle because there are distinct differences between the races. While the genocide would be an undoubtably Evil act, it sounds like one committed in Ignorance. There's no way he'd be good, but a Smite Evil would likely only work on him if he doesn't back down on the Genocide even after being made fully aware of the depth of the Evil of the act. And in some campaigns, complete obliteration of "evil" races through warfare is not an inherently evil act, if every destroyed member of the race is a threat to Good and Society. This usually isn't the same as genocide, because it lacks the malicious intent.

How much "evil" Moral Myopia allows a character to commit before turning Evil himself is something that needs to be discussed with the GM. For those not running campaigns focused on what is good and evil, it's generally perfectly acceptable to have a policy of "In this world, the Only Good Orc is a Dead Orc, except when otherwise noted". We're here to swing swords, kick ass, and take names, not worry about the philisophical rightness or wrongness of our acts.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"Nietzsche's book, Beyond Good and Evil"
Is the computergame Beyond Good and Evil (slightly) based on this book?

 

[Explorator Vimes]

What makes evil wrong is the fact that all the definitions describe it as such? Also, I'll stick with the original Sir Samuel Vimes quote from earlier as a better one than anything from Star Wars.

If you are unfamiliar with him as a character, he's the current head of the once corrupt and useless Watch of the largest city in the series called Discworld. He's pretty much unbribeable, unswerveable, and doesn't take well to being told that there isn't a right and a wrong in the world that's universal for everyone to follow. He's the kind of person who wouldn't care who someone was or why they did something, if it was evil or wrong or illegal he's going to arrest them because he knows that to allow one slip allows for hundreds of others and that way madness lies.

That's where I come at with saying the Evil is Wrong and Good is Right, you can tout your end results until the cows come home, but you've tainted all you've accomplished because you took the easy way out by being evil. (Note you here is the vague you, not you the person specifically.)

I use multiple quotes from multiple sources. Personally, I don't think Star Wars is as bad as people treat it as when you step back and think about it, and fill in the gaps with actual thought.

Sorry, I should've quoted that was really more directed at tetron. I wasn't directly saying that you shouldn't use Star Wars, I actually know very little about it all because whenever I have watched it I find myself not liking it all that much, so I was just preferring to use Vimes because, well, if my Forum name didn't tip off the world, I think highly of the character, and love Pratchett's work in general. I still pretty much agree with everything you've come out with though, so huzzah for cohesion on the internet.

 

[ZephrC]

Maybe we should try to come up with less loaded terms to cover these alignment axes. Like maybe instead of good and evil you could just have selfless and selfish. I'm kinda having a harder time coming up with a pair of opposites for Law and Chaos that don't paint one or the other in an extremely unflattering light, which seems kinda odd. Mostly I'm actually coming up with stuff like freedom or practicality for chaos though, so maybe that has more to do with my viewpoint than with the available vocabulary.

 

[Scow2]

Maybe we should try to come up with less loaded terms to cover these alignment axes. Like maybe instead of good and evil you could just have selfless and selfish. I'm kinda having a harder time coming up with a pair of opposites for Law and Chaos that don't paint one or the other in an extremely unflattering light, which seems kinda odd. Mostly I'm actually coming up with stuff like freedom or practicality for chaos though, so maybe that has more to do with my viewpoint than with the available vocabulary.

Good and evil are perfectly fine in D&D.
I like to liken the Good/Evil axis to a mountain over the most magnificent landscape ever, with Evil at the bottomless base, and Good at the top.

Its difficult to climb to the top of Good Mountain, but the reward is worth the effort, and while it's easy to Fall to the bottom into Evil, it really, really sucks once you get there (The Elevator at the base is Out of Order, contrary to the signs), and even the demons want out, or at least to pull others down with them (Misery loves company). How high any specific creature comes depends on the weight of their evil tendencies and sin, and (in)ability to work with each other to climb to Good. Good acts lighten a character's burden, allowing them to climb higher on their own (And from there, they usually help others climb as well. A brief sacrifice in altitude grants them an even lighter burden for their generosity and compassion, as well as a partner to help them climb the rest of the way.) Most Good people know Everyone should be at the top, and therefore are willing to help them.

Some people are selfish, but not malicious. They can get pretty high on the mountain (especially if they do Good deeds to lighten the burden), but generally won't reach the top alone. It's easy to fall to the bottom alone, though. On the other hand, it's possible for someone to pull those above him down to or below his own level. Not all social people are Good, and not all selfish people are Evil.

Because the mountain's over the most scenic landscape ever, you are still rewarded with a better sight at every point along the climb, to prevent people from giving up in discouragement. The taper does not affect how many people can be at any point, but does give a wider angle of the view.

In some real-world mythologies, the weight-reduction of Good Deeds are Lighter-than-Air balloons that will only get you so high before they stop lifting, requiring other's aid to get higher, and some say there's a guy at the top willing to take the burdens of Evil deeds off you, if you let him.


...But more on topic, it's best for a Campaign to use the moral and ethical compass the players agree on. The Agency Theory of Fun would ensure Good characters are fun to play because you actually feel like a Good character (and not just some arbitrary designation by an incomprehensible Karma Meter), since virtue really is it's own reward (Do I have to link to TvTropes to illustrate? Good Feels Good). But, it is still fun to play certain evil characters as well, thanks to the Agency Theory of Fun and character disconnect. You actually can do evil things you've always wanted to try, but in a way nobody gets hurt or suffers.

 

[anaphysik]

Honestly, I prefer to think in terms of Magic's White/Blue/Black/Red/Green system, which tends to be motivation-based and perception-based rather than action-based (i.e. it's not about whether a given action is of a certain alignment, rather it's about the justification for doing that action, and how you view the world).

Another great thing about it is that there are no axially opposed elements of the system: Red isn't the opposite of Blue (part of Red is the opposite of part of Blue), and Red/Blue has it's own meaning, usw.

 

[Namewithheld]

I've always liked how Planescape Torment dealt with this. You start out as neutral, and you grow into an alignment via dialog choices. You could play psychotic, you could play as a litigious but selfish person, you could play as someone who actively embraces evil as a abstract philosophy...hell, you could even play someone who believes in True Neutrality: Moving beyond the middle path is destructive and must be avoided.

For my games, for any system, I ask the players what the alignment meants to THEIR character.

Example!

A friend of mine was playing a Chaotic Good character. I asked them what Chaotic Good meant to them. They responded that they were someone who believed that only free agency could ensure happiness and prosperity, and that law is always corrupt and evil. An anarchist, to be specific.

I said, that's great, that's how we'll treat your character.

Another friend said that they were also going to play Chaotic Good. I said, okay, and what does Chaotic Good mean for them? And they said that they followed regulations when they worked, but when they didn't, they broke them without a second thought. "Damn the rules, I'm going in." That kinda thing.

I said great! Though I suggested neutral good might be better, and we agreed that we'd see how it shook out. If they ended up following/not following an equal number of times, we'd shift to neutral good.

A non-DnD example would be in Exalted. A friend of mine made an Alchemical who had a compassion of 1. I asked why, and they said it was because they found it very hard to connect with humans, and they were doing this because Alchemicals NEED a high Clarity (machine-like ness,basically) to cast the really powerful spells. So I said, "great! Compassion 1 it is."

While another Alchemical had a compassion of 1 and he did that because his Alchemical was a Sovan Ministry of Love operative, with a 1 foot spike that he jammed into people's spines to re-write their brains to make them love Big Brother.

So, I think that DM/Player communication is really the most important part of this bizniz.

Course, that's true of pretty much every aspect of RPing...

 

[mr_rubino]

Hm... what kinda alignment wants to bring everyone freedom and sunshine and kill the dark lord, but will still steal all your crap and takes any reward you offer (though he would never ask for one first)? Is that like a True Neutral By Counterbalance?