• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Alignments...

everchanging02

First Post
Okay, this has probably been discussed to death, but I was thinking about it and became curious, so I decided I'd give a post. If it is a repeat, please feel free to point me to the thread and I'll have my time in reading it. I apologize in advance for my being unaware.

The main idea of this is, what are your takes on alignments?
What are the default tendancies of an alignment? What, to you, describes an alignment? How do you tend to portray alignments?
I'm not asking to be pointed to the D&D PHB or WotC's site, I'm just curious as to how players and DMs use alignments.

For example: You're a Paladin. Do you play the Lawful Stupid Paladin, the Stupid Good Paladin, the just plain Stupid Paladin, or the truely Lawful Good Paladin? And, for that matter, what do you define as Lawful Good?

To start the ball rolling, I'll give my idea of the Lawful Good Paladin:
(S)he does not go out and <i>Detect Evil</i> everything (s)he meets, slaying anything that even remotely pings as evil (for, IMO, this is more a Chaotic tendancy). But rather (s)he notes what beings should be watched and only attacks them if they break his/her tennates/beliefs in indesputably evil actions.
This is more a DragonStar Paladin (in my understanding) and probably rolls over from the one I was able to play (though that's a completely different story and I don't want to babble any further).

Again, sorry if this has already been posted/discussed, and please point me to the thread, if it has and if you could.
Thanks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zappo

Explorer
IMO:

There isn't a single personality for each alignment. This is fairly obvious. So I never go and say "the lawful good character does this, this, this and this". In my campaigns, alignment doesn't describe anything about the character's personality. Instead, alignment is determined BY it, so that a player tells me what his character thinks and does and we choose one of the nine alignments for him accordingly.

The only purpose of the chosen alignment is to determine the effects of spells such as detect evil, chaos hammer, or items such as a holy sword or a book of vile darkness, or as a requisite for a class. It has no influence whatsoever over what the character should or would do; however if the character consistently acts opposed to his alignment he may have to change it, which may cause loss of paladin status or whatever.
 

kengar

First Post
re: alignments (a bit long)

The following is something I wrote as an RP aid for my players. It isn't "Canon" in the sense that it follows the rules exactly, but it's how I try to run things IMC:

"Your character doesn't know their Alignment."

One of the things that causes a bit of head-shaking/scratching in D&D is "Alignment." The idea that a person or creature is definitively in a particular moral camp. This elf is Good, that orc is Evil, etc. What's more, there are even *kinds* of Good & Evil; "Chaotic" Good, "Neutral" Evil, etc. This can present problems in the realism department. It strains credibility sometimes that creatures and people are walking around with these "labels" hanging on the souls or auras or whatever; classifying them one way or the other.

Sometimes, as with Outsiders -demons, etc.- it makes sense that they fall into a particular category. It is a supernatural creature that is metaphysically aligned by definition one way or the other. People and sentient "natural" creatures, are a different issue.

A paladin is Lawful Good. Everyone knows that. If they don't act Lawful Good, they aren't paladins anymore and their horse won't talk to them, etc. Here's the thing; a paladin doesn't *know* he's "Lawful Good"; he knows he's RIGHT. He behaves according to the tenets of his faith and in harmony with the wishes of the divine forces that favor him. If he steps too far out of line, he loses that favor. The concept of "Lawful Good" is a player aid for understanding how to *roleplay* the character.

Likewise, a Neutral Evil assassin doesn't necessarily think of himself as "Evil." He obviously doesn't hold sentient life in high regard (other than perhaps his own), but he doesn't prance about humming Michael Jackson's "I'm Bad." Evil is about the ends, Good is about the means. Your typical assassin wants power and/or money. He's good at killing people and uses that skill towards his ends. That people have to die to further his goals doesn't bother him much. Better him than me, he thinks. He doesn't know he's Evil, he knows he's ahead of the game and that the other guy is cooling meat. Except in cases of the mentally ill, almost no one labels themselves "E-V-I-L." If an assassin started caring too much about the people he was killing, or feeling a great deal of remorse, he might well become an ineffective assassin and -in alignment terms- non-Evil.

"Good/Evil is as Good/Evil does"

Kobolds. You hate 'em, right? Hey, who doesn't? They're sneaky little scaly ugly critters that skulk around in the dark, steal whatever isn't nailed down, attack from ambush but run from a fair fight.They set up traps to skewer, crush, poison or otherwise mutilate you. They kill, they torture, they loot. They are B-A-D; horns to tails, scales to bones. Alignment in MM: Lawful Evil, right?

Wrong.

It says "Usually Lawful Evil." Same thing, right? Nope. It means that these little buggers are sentient creatures. Just like humans, elves, dwarves and so on. Typical Kobold culture/society is set up on a Lawful Evil model; i.e. the Strong rule the Weak. Order is essential for survival/success. No mercy to enemies, etc. etc. Not a nice place to live by our standards, but think about this:

Biggers. I hate 'em, don't you? 'Course you do! Huge, vicious loud giant spongy-looking brutes that come stomping into our nice quiet caves with their air-stealing, blinding fires. They'll try to pin you up against a wall and slaughter you where ya stand. We try to protect the nest, we dig deep, we post guards. The foolish biggers hardly even notice the "surprises" we leave for them until they've stepped in them. So Stupid! Sure we take from them what we can! But are we not the spawn of the great dragons? Does the noble blood of wyrms not flow in our veins? We are cunning, we are wise. We fight with our minds, not just our muscles. They come to foul and destroy the nest, to take the hoard! We fight for the glory of the nest, to protect the eggs and protect the hoard! Humans? Elves? Bah! The biggers are rotten to the core. Take it from me, they are BAD!

Now, that's a pretty simple profile of Kobold thinking. Not that most of them are mental giants or anything. However, in any situation where you're dealing with a group of individual minds, there are bound to be some that don't think like everyone else. I mean let's face it, adventurers have some pretty abnormal ideas about how to live/act/dress/behave by most folks' standards. Just as you can have a Chaotic Good drow and an Lawful Evil gnome, you might run across a Lawful Neutral or even Neutral Good Kobold . I mean, why not? They are smart enough to have tools, languages and spells for crying out loud, why not different morals?

Now, the life of a Good Kobold in an Evil Kobold tribe/nest would not be an easy one. The truth is, survival rates for such individuals would be low. But a Neutral or Lawful Neutral one could maybe get by. He might see the value of protecting the group and why it could be unwise to be soft on enemies, but he may also believe in a time for mercy, or kindness. He may feel that sometimes, just sometimes, it's better to save a life than to take it or let it end.

So, how do you know whether the kobold you're looking at is evil?

Well, if you are in the middle of a melee with the bugger, I doubt anyone will fault you for walloping it into paste. Even if combat hasn't started yet, having a little lizard-guy point a crossbow at you is justification for defending yourself with lethal force. So, in those cases, alignment is a secondary issue at best. Even a paladin would be on safe moral ground cutting a Good-aligned being in half if they attacked him in earnest (especially if the Paladin didn't know it was Good). So what about non-combat situations?

Well, as a DM, I work under the idea that "Evil is as Evil does." What this means is that the way to know if something or someone is "Evil" is by its actions. To assume alignment by species when dealing with sentient non-Outsiders, while statistically a fairly safe bet, is morally no different than racism. For instance, Gnomes and Goblinoids feelings about each other are a lot like the Palestinians and the Israelis; they've got a lot of history of bloodying each other up and when it comes to the feud between them, none of the hats are white to all eyes. I'm not saying that a Good character would necessarily be "breaking alignment " by killing a kobold just because it was a kobold , but consistently acting in that way might eventually cause an alignment shift that reflects the character's obviously limited regard for the value of life. This is, of course, the point of this rambling:

Your alignment is a guide for roleplaying, not something the character itself is aware of. Therefore it changes to fit the character if the character doesn't fit it.

IMHO, YMMV, etc. :)
 

WattsHumphrey

First Post
Hey there, good to see you got an account :)

As far as I'm concerned, alignment is merely a crutch of the rules system, and I have no problems with this.

It's cool to say "Evil things can't pass my barrier," but how do you define who is evil without a cheesy rules mechanic?

I personally have people pick alignments that are relatively close (in the book sense) to what they think they will play. I try to avoid TN, as I feel that it's powergamy AND unrealistic. Beyond that as there is no penalty for switching alignments (short of some of the class-restrictions) I tend to just let them change with the character.
 

FreeTheSlaves

Adventurer
In the D&D world of devils, angels and certain afterlife, I think there exists a strong reason to have alignments.

Somewhat like hitpoints, alignment is an abstract mechanism for certain (usually spell) effects.

Additionally it is a rough guide to character compatibility, intention of play, morality and loyalties. If we didn't have alignments you would need to pay closer attention to each others characters and the campaign to see if your character is going to fit in. Not to say you wouldn't do this anyway.

The two word short cut of alignments just makes character creation a little easier so you can dive into play. For those who want a bit more depth, alignments are broad enough to allow heaps of complexity.

I think alignments bad rap is due to:
- Previous editions brow-beating approach to change,
- Dms that have a narrow view of a particular alignment,
- Players that have no intention to play as they declared originally.
 

Jenale

First Post
Very good question.

Another point that makes alignment difficult to pin down: sometimes DMs and players don't have the same behavior connected to the same short-cut alignment label.

From the beginning, I think that there needs to be a clear understanding as to what alignment the DM believes a behavior falls under, with input from the players before there's a conflict about whether a behavior is ok for the LG paladin or not--or others, but paladins are the ones who are mostly likely to come up against consequences if the DM doesn't agree that the behavior is truly LG.

I really like kengar's essay there. (May I quote it?)

I think the bottom line is that the characters, no matter what alignment, believe that whatever they are doing is the right (or best) thing to do given the circumstances they are in. Alignment is a tool for the player to put him-/herself into the character's mindset, and for the DM to check PC action against stated ideals, and think of ways to challenge the PC's faithfulness to those stated ideals.
 

Volaran

First Post
Hmmm, one of the things I've always thought gets misplayed is the Chaos/Law axis. Specifically law.

I see a lot of discussion revolving around lawful characters obeying the laws of the land out of habit, ect. To me, the Law in lawful represents universal law, or to put it another way, Order.

Thus, I see the lawful alignments being very ordered of though, often very disciplined. Not relying so much on intuition. Then again, I don't consider alignments bringing arbitrary personality traits.

To my mind, a character's actions and motives determine where they are on the big alignment board, rather than personality stemming from alignment.
 

ced1106

Explorer
I prefer the "When in doubt" guidelines: When in doubt, NG! :)

Most **players** prefer a harmonious group and to play at the same time. PCs who "go on their own" are typically chaotic, and this peeves **other players** to no end.

Most PCs are good or neutral. Evil PCs are... obvious. Also, good is a **reactive** alignment ("stop the evil bad guy's plan") and most adventures are of the "stop the evil bad guy's plan" variety. Evil requires work! If a player devised a plot to do something nasty, then I might consider him evil.

Neutrals just want the dough. :)

Lawful PCs can be a pain. **Players** don't like PCs who put the good of something else above the PCs! Sometimes, Lawful types will do irritating stuff like "obey the law" when some other player wants to break it. :)

And if you're nitpicking an argument about a particular PC's alignment, odds are that that's exactly what you're doing: Nitpicking. Alignment is overall, obvious behavior. Just pick up a copy of "1000 Faces: Villains and Scoundrels" to **really** know what CE behavior is like!



Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
 

GuardianLurker

Adventurer
This is OGC content from Malhavoc Press's BoHM:

This alternate system seeks to ... (make) each factor of one's alignment a spectrum rather than an absolute.
<snip>
Good
1___Doesn't like to see bad things happen to others.
2___Helps others occasionally, particularly friends
3___Willing to help strangers on occasion
4
5___Gives of himself to help others, whether it be time, money, possessions, or something else.
6
7___Takes concepts like liberty, purity, and innocence very seriously
8___Would sacrifice anything, even his life, for others in a heartbeat
9___Refuses to harm anything or anyone, even if it brings misfortune on himself.

Monte does similar treatments for Law, Chaos, and Evil. But I've got to leave you some reason to buy the book.
 

everchanging02

First Post
I like all the input I'm getting. Glad I started the thread. :)

I, too, share the idea of 'the character concept determines alignment, not viceversa' (sp?).
Also, I share the idea that alignments aren't a 'generalized group that take these kinds of actions' but rather a set of beliefs and ideas that one tends to follow.

I remember a Lawful Evil character I had (though not in an official game (long story, there, but anyhow))...
His main vice was slavery, and he believed in it thuroughly (but, rather than calling them slaves, deemed them 'servants'). He was always nice and polite to others he met, and even was an advisor for the community. But he'd never pass up an opportunity to make things better for himself, especially if it could be deemed to be within the laws of the community.

I guess what I am trying to say (not quite being able to generalize the thought, but not meaning it to only apply to my example) is that if a character is evil, (s)he needn't be the epitome of evil, just to have tendancies of evil.
IOW, I suppose, characters should be dynamic, which, as I have read on the boards, many characters are (so I'm just saying what people already know, I suppose).
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top