Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!

D&D Beyond has provided yet another of it's data dumps of 12 million characters -- this time telling us character alignments are most popular in D&D. Chaotic Good wins, followed by my least favourite as a DM, Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Evil is the least popular.

​

The developer does say that this does not count the percentage of characters with no alignment selected. You can see the original video here.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Name one thing that at the root, isn't motivated by what the doer wants or how it makes the doer feel. This isn't some nebulous philosophical question.

The problem is that this philosophical belief believes exactly that. It believes it knows the root of what everyone is motivated by. A desire to be happy, a desire not to feel pain, so on and so forth. The problem is you can't know that. You can't know if Joe did a Good Thing because Good Things make Joe happy, or for some other reason. If Joe did the Good Thing for altruistic reasons then your entire philosophy implodes. Because your philosophy is arguing that altruism doesn't exist. And that, my friend is the kind of claim that philosophies make. You can't prove it to be true because you can't collect sufficient data on the subject because you are at best relying on self-selection responses. "Why did you do a Good Thing?" And that is something there is proof that humans rarely answer honestly, which is why self-selection surveys are generally considered poor statistical data gathering methods.

So, you may not like that your philosophy is indeed a philosophy, but it is. And I'm not going to debate that point further. /done

 

[Beleriphon]

Sauron's motivation to turn to serve Melkor in Tolkien's Legendarium comes primarily from an excessive love of order and keen results that Melkor seemed to accomplish.

Sauron uses the well worn trope of "Only I know what is good for the world" in addition to "Following in the Bosses Footsteps".

For alignment I like comic book characters as examples, they tend to be fairly black and white in that regard. Some are hard to peg for a variety or reasons, but you can always find one solid example of an alignment in comic books. I'll use Marvel because I can think of more characters there that I can explain. DC is way easier with the bad guys (seriously Joker is Chaotic Evil).

LG: Captain America - He's Good, don't argue. Lawful, he thinks the rules and constitution of the United States are it, they define the best way to deal with the world and societies. He'll fight the US government if they're wrong, but he always stands up for The People.
NG: Spider-Man - He's Good, don't argue (or bring up weird one issue examples where Peter's a jerk). Spidey doesn't have any particular attachment to following rules or thinking a particular way of living life is best. He just does what he can to do Good no the cost to himself.
CG: Star-Lord - He's good, don't argue with me. Quill rankles at being told what to do, even if its actually helpful. Rules, order, they get in they way of living freely the way he wants. But he's also prone to letting his feeling take over even when they are going to get in the way. He might have self imposed rules, but they're... flexibile.
LN: Nick Fury - He's all about order - making sure the world keep spinning no matter what the cost. He wont outright kill somebody as more expedient option, but he's not above less than "Good" methods to accomplish his goals.
N: The Watcher - his whole job is to not interfere and just watch (doesn't always work, but on the balance I'd say Neutral)
CN: Domino - She's not a bad guy per se, but also not a good person. As morally flexible mercenary I'm going with Neutral, she has limits and wont go out of her way to hurt people, but also isn't above murder as a way of life. Chaotic is coming from the fact that the whole point is that she just goes and relies on her mutant powers to bend the world the way she needs it to, doesn't do plans as such, doesn't believe in rules, and thinks freedom for all is the way to go.
LE: Doctor Doom - For real, like really. Doom is lawful, he wants order, absolute iron fisted order that he's at the top of, because only he sees what is wrong with the world and only he can fix the world, damn the costs.
NE: Bullseye - he likes killing people. No particular attachment order, rules, or anything that creatures structure, he's willing to work with structure but he's really on interested in payback on Daredevil or getting paid so he can work find without structure and order as well.
CE: Carnage - literally incapable of functioning in any organized way - only goal is murder.

 

[Celebrim]

So, you may not like that your philosophy is indeed a philosophy, but it is. And I'm not going to debate that point further. /done

I'm not going to debate it. I'm not even going to quibble with what you've revealed about your own view of the real world.

However, going back to the fantasy world, one way to define each of the alignments point of view in a rational way is that the adherents to that philosophy do not believe that the other philosophies represent something that is actually real. And, if they are correct in their assessment, then we would have good reason to believe that they are also correct in their philosophy.

For example, good aligned people tend to believe that evil is just the absence of good. And, if good is correct, that evil is simply just unnecessary destructiveness, then Good really is the correct thing to believe in.

Chaotic people tend to believe that order doesn't really exist and doesn't really reflect the nature of the universe, lawful people tend to believe that chaos is simply a flaw in the natural order, and so forth.

Evil for its part naturally believes that Good is not a real thing, that no one is actually good, that all morality is an artificial construct, that people who promote goodness are in some way scamming the credulous, or are in fact not brave enough to face reality, or that they are simply weak people relying on deceitfulness to create a herd mentality to protect from the strong and successful. This is how you rationally justify evil, because if you are right and there really is no good in the universe, then evil is not only justifiable but inevitable.

This framework is a part of how I've started looking at alignment in my own game universe. I don't want to have characters in my game universe that are snarling puppy chewing villains simply because the plot and game mechanics require something for the PC's to kill. I prefer that any reasonably intelligent character have some sort of defensible philosophical viewpoint to say why, of the different tangible forces of the universe why they would choose between them, and that if the PC tries to get in a philosophical debate with them, they'd be able to say why they choose what they choose. If you really believe that Evil most reflects the overall nature of the universe and that Evil is not only going to win in the end, but perhaps should win in the end, then then it's rational - albeit tragic - to believe in Evil.

 

[Celebrim]

This is all very useful IRL, but one huge difference between RL and fantasy is that, at least in many (but not all) fantasy games, there are supernatural forces of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc., and, indeed, many characters are servants of these very powers.

This is in fact the intellectual justification for fantasy. In real life, because real evil and real good is often something ordinary and hard to discern and stories about it are often mundane, we can take those ordinary concerns and view them in a more extraordinary framework, and if we do it well then the extraordinary will teach us something about the ordinary, so that we ordinary people encounter ordinary problems we can heroically act like the figures in extraordinary stories.

It's often difficult to talk about good and evil in the real world, but in fantasy we can reify these concepts and make them easier to talk about by embodying them - much as they are embodied in the video game you talk about.

To reference some other arguments going on at EnWorld, humanity and its near human peers represents nothing more than humanity, with its capacity for both good and evil and its capability of reflecting both angles and demons. The other things in a fantasy setting represent reified concepts of evil or violence or justice or compassion or whatever, that must be dealt with externally in the same fashion that humanity must deal with these forces internally. So to face off against an orc externally doesn't necessarily represent some sort of tribal conflict, but resisting our own internal orcish impulses. The fight itself is rarely important. If we take Tolkien as an example, he repeatedly reinforces that the really heroic part is the mental preparation for the fight - the decision to fight - and then how the character deals with the consequence. This is the great moment in the Hobbit where Bilbo has to descend into the dragon's den, that Tolkien treats as somehow more important than the fight with the dragon itself. This is why the violence in Tolkien story always tends to go off stage or become a flashback, because Tolkien's story is ultimately about externalized and reified internal conflicts. The Théoden slays orcs is less important than the fact that he chose to resist, because in doing so he was actually resisting the baser elements of his nature. Denethor in contrast, doesn't choose to resist and is always forever giving up and fleeing.

So, yes, in a fantasy world there are going to be things like orcs, demons, and celestial beings, there are things that are going to be actually physical embodiments of things that are intangible in ordinary life. They are going to be far simpler in their morality than any real world being, and they will have representatives in the mortal population that are perhaps unrealistically pure - or at least closer in nature to some people in this world we'd find uncommonly good or evil. But that is I think OK. It's OK to have a Galahad or a Snidely Whiplash in your fantasy story. That doesn't preclude having more complex characters.

 

[Celebrim]

For instance, a Lawful Good society can have the leader go bonkers, much as the Kingpriest of Istar did in Dragonlance.

I wanted to break this out and deal with it separately, because that is not actually what the story claims.

Bizarrely, in the story - and I don't know if Margaret Weiss or Tracy Hickman is responsible for this line - the author has the embodiment of Good in the story claim that Good does not exist and that ultimately Good and Evil are identical. The Chronicles of the Dragonlance doesn't claim that the Kingpriest of Istar went bonkers, which would be reasonable, or that the Kingpriest fell in an act of Hubris, which would also be reasonable.

Instead we have Paladine asserting that the Kingpriest became too good, and that in becoming too good - by becoming too much of an extremist about good - that he become indistinguishable from evil.

This goes back to what I was saying in a post not long before this one about you can tell accurately what a person believes by what they claim is not real. And when you see a writer claim that ultimately extreme good isn't any different than extreme evil, what you are really claiming is that Balance and Moderation ought to always be the order of the day.

So ironically what we have in that scene at the end of Chronicles is an author insertion where the author projects their own beliefs about the universe on to Paladine, because Paladine is the wise mentoring father figure. But ironically the philosophy projects on to Paladine the embodiment of Good is in D&D terms True Neutrality. Paladine doesn't claim that the Priestking was inflicted with self-righteous and hubris, but instead actually defends that moment as Good.... and then goes on essentially to warn against Goodness.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I'm not going to debate it. I'm not even going to quibble with what you've revealed about your own view of the real world.

However, going back to the fantasy world, one way to define each of the alignments point of view in a rational way is that the adherents to that philosophy do not believe that the other philosophies represent something that is actually real. And, if they are correct in their assessment, then we would have good reason to believe that they are also correct in their philosophy.

For example, good aligned people tend to believe that evil is just the absence of good. And, if good is correct, that evil is simply just unnecessary destructiveness, then Good really is the correct thing to believe in.

Chaotic people tend to believe that order doesn't really exist and doesn't really reflect the nature of the universe, lawful people tend to believe that chaos is simply a flaw in the natural order, and so forth.

Evil for its part naturally believes that Good is not a real thing, that no one is actually good, that all morality is an artificial construct, that people who promote goodness are in some way scamming the credulous, or are in fact not brave enough to face reality, or that they are simply weak people relying on deceitfulness to create a herd mentality to protect from the strong and successful. This is how you rationally justify evil, because if you are right and there really is no good in the universe, then evil is not only justifiable but inevitable.

This framework is a part of how I've started looking at alignment in my own game universe. I don't want to have characters in my game universe that are snarling puppy chewing villains simply because the plot and game mechanics require something for the PC's to kill. I prefer that any reasonably intelligent character have some sort of defensible philosophical viewpoint to say why, of the different tangible forces of the universe why they would choose between them, and that if the PC tries to get in a philosophical debate with them, they'd be able to say why they choose what they choose. If you really believe that Evil most reflects the overall nature of the universe and that Evil is not only going to win in the end, but perhaps should win in the end, then then it's rational - albeit tragic - to believe in Evil.

When I run my "godless" settings, this is generally how I handle alignment, it's a matter of perception. Good people do evil and claim it as good, evil people do good in order to further evil causes, they all think their position is the most reasonable and rational one and everyone else is crazy for not seeing the righteousness of their perspective.

But I don't particularly find this works well in a "alignment is real". Good and evil, chaotic and lawful are all defined by the very reality they exist in. People may still act outside those things and claim they were doing it with greater purpose and attempt to justify themselves, but justified evil is still not good.

Which is one reason I always enjoy playing LE over LG.

 

[Celebrim]

When I run my "godless" settings, this is generally how I handle alignment, it's a matter of perception. Good people do evil and claim it as good, evil people do good in order to further evil causes, they all think their position is the most reasonable and rational one and everyone else is crazy for not seeing the righteousness of their perspective.

Wait? What? That's not at all what I said. I didn't in the slightest outline a sort of moral relativism. Each position is one of moral absolutism. All I did was outline a framework under which a rational person might believe that their moral absolutism was correct.

But I don't particularly find this works well in a "alignment is real".

Again, I did not outline a framework where alignment isn't real.

Good and evil, chaotic and lawful are all defined by the very reality they exist in. People may still act outside those things and claim they were doing it with greater purpose and attempt to justify themselves, but justified evil is still not good.

Well, it will probably come as no surprise that I don't believe justified evil is good in the real world either. But I do believe that morality is defined by reality.

Which is one reason I always enjoy playing LE over LG.

I won't comment.

 

[RobertBrus]

No alignment. Which is to say, let the alignment grow organically out of the character's personality (who they are before stats, die rolls, etc.). This will allow for a character with a main theme and nuanced variations. More like you and I. In short, more improv, role-playing, and storytelling.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Wait? What? That's not at all what I said. I didn't in the slightest outline a sort of moral relativism. Each position is one of moral absolutism. All I did was outline a framework under which a rational person might believe that their moral absolutism was correct.

Then I misunderstood.

Perhaps it was word choice. If fantasy reality defines good and evil, then "belief" isn't necessary. None of what you said would exist at all in an existence where "good" and "evil" are definitive concepts. Whether they think their alignment is the correct one is immaterial. None of them could claim any of the things you outlined, because again, the very fabric of reality outlines what is or isn't good or evil. There's no "evil is just a lack of good" perspective, because there's a literal list, written into reality of what comprises evil.

Also, the best way to not comment is to, ya know, not comment. Just a little FYI I've learned from this very forum.

 

[Celebrim]

Then I misunderstood.

Perhaps it was word choice. If fantasy reality defines good and evil, then "belief" isn't necessary. None of what you said would exist at all in an existence where "good" and "evil" are definitive concepts. Whether they think their alignment is the correct one is immaterial. None of them could claim any of the things you outlined, because again, the very fabric of reality outlines what is or isn't good or evil. There's no "evil is just a lack of good" perspective, because there's a literal list, written into reality of what comprises evil.

This assumes omniscience on the part of the participants. Just because the world is or isn't something, doesn't mean that everyone observing it will agree on what it is or isn't.

Everyone in the fantasy setting can agree that there are forces and powers corresponding to the labels Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law. But describing accurately what those forces are and represent is still a considerable challenge. It's not even one that you can resolve by interviewing the forces and powers, because they themselves are obviously going to have biased perspectives and at least some of them are certainly going to lie, or tell half-truths, or perhaps decide that there are things mortals aren't meant to know.

If there is considerable evidence of the reality of forces and powers corresponding to Good or Evil or what have you, belief doesn't become less important. Belief is never only or even mainly about deciding what is real. Belief is about deciding on the basis of the evidence you have what you are going to do about it. And even in an animist world of tangible spirits you can commune with, you still are going to have a ton of questions.

Moreover, if you were to interview agents of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos and ask them to describe the world, they would each describe something very different. So yes, asked to describe Good, agents of Good would give a very different answer than agents of Evil, and agents of Good could still define evil as an absence of Good. Whereas, agents of Chaotic Evil are very likely to tell you that there is no such thing as Good, and that the agents of Good are at best morally equivalent to themselves but in fact less honest. They would say that everything comes down to a contest of power, and that the forces that call themselves "Good" in fact are simply trying to manipulate the weak into acting against their own interests to further their own at their followers expense.

There is a really good treatment of this in part of the Paizo Adventure Path 'Rise of the Runelords', where the writer takes the Seven Deadly Sins and inverts them and invents a culture that says, "No, these aren't vices, but virtues: self-confidence, ambition, abundance, pleasure, leisure, outrage, sexuality." So, then the question becomes, is it 'good' for something to be decadent? Just because you can agree something is real doesn't mean you can agree whether it is right.

The point is that even in a Planar Wheel cosmology everyone can still differ on what one ought to do. It isn't obvious to everyone that Good is the correct way to behave or has the correct description of the universe.