[Alignment+] So, what would THIS alignment do for ME?

[Aus_Snow]

Pitch an alignment to me - well, to a character, or character-to-be. Sell him or her on it, if you will. Or do this for any number (extra points for all 9!)

What does each alignment get one? What are its advantages, its best aspects? Why would a character (PC or NPC) want to be of that alignment?


edit: Hm, I think the title I chose misled me somewhat. Certainly, it's more, "What can better/best be achieved, in general, with a given alignment?" - or, that as well. Or pick one. Or whatever you think is best. Essentially, "What is great about alignment X/Y?"

 

[Celebrim]

LG - Everyone's actions are reviewable, and everyone recieves not merely their just reward, but a reward which is given by someone who delights in them and wants to care for them. Whenever you fall short, you will be judged, but you will be judged by someone who has every desire to give every mercy available to you. Everyone shares in struggles and triumphs a like. The society is equitable and as fair as life allows.
LN - Everyone has a place and a purpose and no one doesn't know who they are. No one suffers alienation or lonliness or drifts aimlessly. Everyones needs are cared for, and no one is made to suffer unless it is absolutely essential.
LE - Power is its own reward. Everyone is part of some endeavor greater than themselves. Everyone has justfiable pride in the accomplishments of the group, and everyone is assured that there actions will bring about the continued survival and security of the whole. Everyone can see that those deserving punishment recieve it swiftly, and those the merit great station are placed into it. Corruption is rooted out, weakness is elimenated, and the eventual triumph of the group will be unimaginably glorious.
NE - Let's face it, the world is a vile place filled with endless pain, injustice, and suffering. Who would want to live in such a place? The only sane response to a such a vile thing is to elimenate it. In a universe where there is nothing that is truly good and uncorrupt, the only honest response is burn the world and hope that something better can come from the ashes.
CE - Everything is a lie. The only truth is that you have to fight for what you can get while you can get it. Nothing is real except that the strong oppress the weak, and ultimately the only thing you can trust is yourself. 'Good' and 'Society' and 'Justice' and all the rest of those abstract words that refer to things you can't touch are merely artificial constructs created by the weak and fearful to justify banding together and oppressing you. Well, you don't have to take it anymore.
CN - Harm no one, do as you will. This is the only principle that defines goodness and everything else is a form of oppression. Judge not, for who are you to judge anyone else and all judgement is but another form of oppression. Each person is responsible only for their own sovereignty and for ensuring the continuity over every other sovereign selves freedom. The world is rich and interesting and filled with many things to enjoy within this framework.
CG - The only real goodness in the world is the bonds of love and friendship. Everything else is an artificial construct. Do unto others then as you would have them do unto you. Love and cherish everyone else in the way that you love and cherish yourself. No great laws are required other than this, and all such laws only exist to provide loopholes for the powerful to exploit the weak. The only good laws are those which constrain the powerful and protect the weak, for all correct authority derives from a mandate as the whole and no authority is legitimate if it deprives the people of their natural rights.
NG - The only reality of the world is goodness and weal. All other things are distractions and excuses people provide themselves for not doing what they ought to do. All evil is nothing more than the mockery of and denial of good, and because it is a mere shadow and falsehood it cannot suppress the light. The most goodness is self-evidently achieved if we all work toward it. Let each work to the benefit of everyone else in their own way, whether by codes of honor and laws or by the bonds of love. Let us therefore recognize that despite or differences, we are all brethern and commit ourselves to loving even those who would be our enemies.

 

[steeldragons]

Cool idea. Fun challenge.

So, let's see...let's tart with everyone's favorite and go from there...

"The Good Guys"

LAWFUL GOOD (LG): "The Knight in Shining Armor" and/or "the Eternal Innocent" Lawful Good is the alignment of ideals and a sincere and humble desire to attaining them for the betterment of all...even though, realistically, it is nearly impossible for a mortal to do so...It is believing and living the dream of how things "should be", rising above how things "are".

Doesn't cheat or lie. Does not inflict harm on an adversary who yields/surrenders or torture captives. Doesn't disobey the law, so long as it does not oppress or cause harm to the innocent. If he goes along with a plan involving these things, he probably feels guilty and will do some kind of self-imposed penance. Kind and helpful in any ways he can be...within the strict ethics and moral code through which he lives and views the world.

Sticking to the ideal of "Order" is very important. Most likely in the view that Order leads to Peace. "Justice" is an ideal which he also clings to, automatically associating it with "doing good" and "maintaining order"...which man-made justice is not always in line with. Possessed of a very disciplined mind and the attitude that living a disciplined lifestyle improves oneself and leads one closer to the ultimate good they seek to emulate. He has a strict ethical and moral code that he seeks/attempts to hold as a constant of his behavior in the face of a very inconsistent world.

A character choosing to be LG would do so because they want to be that hero...or simply are THAT innocent/naive. They want to further the causes of good and order and justice, most likely as espoused by their church/deity of good and order, kindness and peace. I find it unrealistic that any characters other than Paladins, Clerics of LG gods or Monks (needing to be lawful) would choose to be this alignment.

NEUTRAL GOOD (NG): "The Good Person/Nice Guy" and/or "Doing the Right Thing." This character has little or no interest in what is "Lawful" or "Chaotic". If the law is harmful to the good of the land or the people then it is "wrong." If chaos and disorder is tearing apart a community and/or harming innocents, then it is equally "wrong."

This is a character with a strong moral barometer that is not easily swayed by arguments of law or temptations of chaos nor desire to engage in any "extremism" of either. Their ethics are malleable to whatever ends will serve the moral "good."

She is concerned with what will lead to the betterment or a "greater good" for all concerned. If that means following the edicts of the well-beloved (but technically "Lawful Evil") king of a peaceful realm who is brutal and sadistic to his enemies and criminals, so be it. This character is concerned with what they can do and achieve with a clear conscience before what leads to more "rules" or more "freedom."

She recognizes that what is the way to achieve "Good" for one person (say, LG) may not be the same for another (say, CG) and she is ok with both approaches, so long as the end result is one in which evil does not prevail.

A character choosing NG would be looking to better themselves and the world around them insofar as they feel they can in the day-to-day. She maintainins those qualities we think of a "nice person." Generally, kind, honest, compassionate, gentle...but in the face of stopping/defeating "evil", none of those qualities need apply. If they do, great. But she won't feel guilty of they don't.

I think in the average day-to-day MOST people in the world at large (whatever fantasy world you play on), would be (or desire to be) this kind of person.

CHAOTIC GOOD (CG): "The Noble Loner" and/or "The Freedom Fighter" The Chaotic Good adventurer is interested in making sure that no creature/person threatens the side of "goodness." Their ethical code is "whatever it takes." If they need to cheat, lie, steal...kill to further their personal cause of good, then it is done with little to no remorse. He will seek to further the betterment of communities and people through letting them exercise their freedoms...encourage their individual strengths.

Their moral code is the same as every other "good" alignment. It is wrong to harm an innocent. It is wrong to oppress the weak. It is wrong to aid or promote evil acts. However, how he personally defines "innocent" and "weak" and "evil act" may differ greatly from the LG's definitions...and like their ethics, nothing is set in stone.

i.e. A LG character will [or should] refuse to slay non-combatants. Goblin females, elderly and young, let's say, for this scenario. The CG will refuse to let them live, siting that they will continue to create/grow up to become/or seek to avenge the murdering marauders you came to these caves to wipe out in the first place. After some more arguing, the Chaotic Good character might just say "Fine. Leave them. But anything they do is on your head."

The concept of Justice might mean a great deal to a CG character. The word of the "authority" and the "laws" that govern a land mean nothing if they do not work towards the good or betterment of its people. In such a case, a CG character would have NO qualms about fighting against the INjustice he perceives in any way possible. In short, the Chaotic Good character really has no problem with "breaking the rules" for the furthering of a "good" cause.

A character would choose to be Chaotic Good if, say, they come from a tragic or very difficult circumstances (i.e. they are fighting to ensure others don't have to live through their hardship) or they come from a society which prizes the ideal of "personal choice" and "freedom" over the letter of "order" and "law."

EXAMPLES:
LG: King Arthur, Guinivere, Captain America, Superman, Sturm Brightblade
NG: Merlin (did what he needed to do to bring order to a completely chaotic realm, reintroduce some "balance" to the world), Lancelot (the ideals of chivalric love outweigh the Law of the land), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Wonder Woman, Gandalf
CG: Wolverine, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Spartacus, Sinbad, Xena the Warrior Princess, Batman (though he won't kill, so maybe a case could be made for him in NG?)

 

[steeldragons]

Moving on...

"The Bad Guys"

CHAOTIC EVIL (CE): "The Anarchist" and/or "The Mindless Savage" A Chaotic Evil character has, very simply, a one track mind- "Bring about the downfall of anything you can." Kill it. Smash it. Destroy it. Corrupt it. Enslave it. So long as you are stronger, smarter, more powerful than it is, then you can do whatever you want.

Ethics mean nothing. Morals mean nothing. Hurting others to get what you want means nothing. The CE character is out for nothing but making themselves "better" (read as "more powerful") than others and cares for no one but themselves.

Peace is a dream for the weak...and the weak, by definition, deserve to be enslaved or destroyed. The only truth is the strong survive. The only things that matter are those that make you stronger/more powerful...Those people, places and things that don't, or get in your way, "Kill it. Smash it. Destroy it. Corrupt it. Enslave it." Society/the world is brutal and you have to be too if you want to get anywhere. Cruelty is a trait to be respected if not admired.

A character would, I think, not so much choose to be this alignment as be indoctrinated into it...through cruel circumstances/upbringing/brainwashing or is simply, psychotic, deranged, indescribably selfish and, well, evil. CE enjoys the savagery of the world and promoting/contributing to it.

NEUTRAL EVIL: "The Villain" and/or "The REAL Bad Guy" The Neutral Evil character has the ethical ambiguity of the Neutral Good. Lying, cheating, telling the truth, playing by the rules...order, freedom, law and chaos have very little interest or concern for him. So long as he gets what he wants, his ends are met.

The morals of NE are the quintessential villain. He is out for his own gains, the means to those ends are of no consequence. This is not the "promote evil because evil is all there is" of the CE nor the "organized evil to increase one's power" of the LE. This is pure and simple selfishness without concern or compunction for any other person, cause or society. If it does not concern (or preferably further) MY neck, MY pockets, MY whims, MY desires, then it does not matter to me whether I slay that golden haired child for stepping in your path or overthrow the tyrant in the duchy next door.

Cruelty, oppression, destruction, all of these things can be entertaining or even "fun"...or not, but they happen and if necessary to his goals, so be it.

A character who wants to be NE is, just that, selfish. Maybe cruel. Maybe dethhhhhspicible. Maybe psychotic. Maybe a craven coward looking to achieve his goals through service to some greater power/figure/organization. But selfish to the point where the concerns of others are not, nor ever outweigh, his own. I tend to think most assassins and evilly-aligned thieves are/would be NE.

LAWFUL EVIL: "The Megalomaniac" and/or "The Enforcer." Power is the absolute. Power is the key to getting what you want. Exercising that power and increasing it is the most noble endeavor. The enforcement of your power in the cause of Order and Law is completely justified.

There is an "honor" about the LE. They are usually willing to "make a deal." She will keep her word...to the letter. Follow the chain of command...unless that chain shows a weakness that can be exploited or needs to be removed. Maintaining Order is the key to keeping and/or increasing her power. One's ethics matter.

One's morals, however, do not. Another creature's worth is solely based on their power and what their power can do for the character. Weakness is repugnant. Betrayal possibly worse. Punishment is swift, potentially cruel and most likely final. "Mercy" is a whine of the weak and the weak, by definition, need to be structured and controlled to serve the greater glory and power that is the ultimate cause of the LE character.

A character would be LE because they wish to "rule the world!" or they simply seek to gain power for their own glory and/or that of whatever master or organization they serve. Lawful Evil characters are akin to the Lawful Good, in my view: Anti-Paladins (which I just usually call "Paladins...who happen to be Lawful Evil"), Clerics of Lawful Evil gods (and/or Devils), and Monks (who have most likely gone rogue from their temple to seek out their own personal power but maintain the discipline - the order of "law" -they've been taught to keep up their fantastic martial prowess)...you can throw in there any rulers, politicians and nobles of any-sized realm looking to increase their personal influence and power.

EXAMPLES:
CE: Sauron, The Joker, Darth Vader, Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (originally)
NE: Saruman, Morgan Le Fey (as told in the original text), The Penguin, Catwoman
LE: Magneto, Lex Luthor, Victor from the Underworld movies, Victor Von Doom for that matter, the Imperial Emperor.

 

[hamishspence]

Darth Vader as Chaotic Evil and Emperor Palpatine as Lawful Evil?

Are you sure it's not the other way round? Maybe it's just me, but Vader always seemed a little more Lawful than The Emperor.

"Power! Unlimited power!"
vs
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy"

 

[Celebrim]

Darth Vader as Chaotic Evil and Emperor Palpatine as Lawful Evil?

Are you sure it's not the other way round? Maybe it's just me, but Vader always seemed a little more Lawful than The Emperor.

I agree. Palpatine always seemed to me to be self-serving, whereas Vader always seemed to me more like a misguided idealist.

 

[hamishspence]

A big early step in Anakin's fall in the movies, was his vengeful slaughter of the Sandpeople (including innocent children) for the torture and murder of his mother.

Imagine an alternate Star Wars, where Anakin instead of doing so, captured some of the ones who did it or ordered it, said (to himself) "they needn't fear for their children. Unlike them, I don't harm the innocent" and then proceeded to inflict enough suffering on each individual, in the space of a few hours, as Shimi had suffered in a month of capture by them.

Nothing explicit- just cuts between the moon moving across the sky, and his face (plus the sound of screaming) but as it goes on, an expression of fiendish delight grows and grows.

Would you call that less of a step toward The Dark Side, than what actually happened was?

 

[steeldragons]

"Everyone's Friends...kinda. The Neutrals."

TRUE NEUTRAL (N): "The Arbitrator" or "The Apathetic" A truly Neutral character is rather enigmatic. In the arguments for Order versus Freedom, Law versus Chaos, and even Good versus Evil the True Neutral character has no argument.

This can be born from a lack of interest or concern. The N simply doesn't care who's right or wrong. It doesn't matter to the character whether Law or Chaos is dominant. Nor are they overly concerned with "good" or "evil" rule the day, but suffering is pretty much bad in anyone's book. They care how things will effect "#1" and act accordingly. It has selfishness, in a general way, while lacking the cruelty and uncaring for others the NE.

Example 1: If the orcs kill his comrades, he might be killed himself so better help these guys.
Example 2: If elves put him in a holding cell, (because maybe he did help himself to some "sacred" fruit...it was sitting right there!) he's going to try to escape.

He doesn't care if the orcs are evil or the elves are in accordance with their "sacred" (good) law. These things are bad for him.

The other option for a character who would not argue along the Law/Good v. Chaos/Evil axses is the belief in a "universal/cosmic balance."

The character might refrain from interfering in a clash of morals or ethics figuring that the universe will take care of itself...balance everything out...that things are and go about "as they should be."

The other way one might treat the balance is to fight FOR it. In other words, when forces of Chaos begin to spread too much or destroy a force of good, the True Neutral might go fight the Chaos back...in a personal attempt to help maintain the balance.

Flip the script, a large city is seeking to expand the "Goodness" of its "Law" and "Order" and to the surrounding farms and wildlands. The True Neutral character might fight this incursion of Law into an area that was already balanced...making the character appear to the city dwellers to be chaotic or evil.

This, seems to me, has always been the attitude for the Druid class to maintain and the reason they originally could only be True Neutral. Protectors of "the Balance of Nature". They get involved when things are "out of whack"...which, for Druids, includes eradicating the "unnatural" such as aberrations and undead.

There is no reason a non-druid N character couldn't maintain the same philosophy.

So, in chosing this alignment a character is willing to either A) ignore the concepts/conflicts of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil entirely; B) ignore the concepts/conflicts insofar as they don't effect you. If they do, then you react. Or C) fight purposely to maintain a balance among the concepts for the overall security and stability of the cosmos.

to be continued...

 

[steeldragons]

Darth Vader as Chaotic Evil and Emperor Palpatine as Lawful Evil?

Are you sure it's not the other way round? Maybe it's just me, but Vader always seemed a little more Lawful than The Emperor.

"Power! Unlimited power!"
vs
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy"

This was a tough call...and I orignally had both Vader and the Emperor as LE.

My final decision was based on the fact that Anakin 1) slaughtered not just the Sand People village (which I'd forgoten about), but the young Jedi in the temple. Plus his later knack for choking his subordinates...not because they were weak or incompetent, but simply because he felt like exerting his power over them. Anakin definitely WAS Lawful...but through the actions of his "turning to the Dark Side" engaged in acts that were both Evil and served to promote Chaos...the downfall of the former Order and "peace" which was the Senate and the Jedi Council.

The Emperor was most definitely LE, by my definitions, because he was always and solely concerned with the increasing of his power and the order he wished to create (and created) for his own gain, from Senator to Chancellor to Emperor. He engineered and schemed and plotted, not to turn Anakin evil for Evil's sake, but for the increased power an Evil Anakin (Darth Vader) would give to him. Palpatine didn't want Chaos to reign...HE wanted to reign in absolute power.

I guess that's why/how I explain those options. But if anyone wants to view Darth Vader as LE, then go for it.

 

[hamishspence]

Easydamus does a lot of character listing, and goes with NE for the Emperor and LE for Vader:

http://easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html
http://easydamus.com/neutralevil.html

Maybe the Emperor's scheming (and putting the whole galaxy into a massive chaotic war, purely to further his schemes) might fit closer to NE than LE.

NE might want power for it's own sake.
LE might want power so as to create and maintain order.

And if you don't like Easydamus, there is TVTropes:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

which is entertaining if a little addictive- and has the same answer- NE page has Emperor, LE page has Vader.