D&D 5E Conflicting Alignment and Ideals

[Andor]

IMO, they didn't just do that, though, Unaligned was an important step in the evolution of Neutral. In previous editions it was often defined in truly ridiculous ways, particularly as a sort of bizarre "balance-keeper" alignment, or actively avoiding G/E, rather than just y'know, not actively pursuing any alignment-related goals.

On a historical note, the "Active Neutral" outlook was drawn from the sort of Moorcockian literature where Law and Chaos are warring supernatural forces who will destroy the world if they win. Law freezing it into eternally unchanging cystalline stasis and Chaos reducing it to formlessness. Likewise a victory for the active and extra-planar forces of Good or Evil will have concequences which at best include removing free will from the world. Remember Good and Evil are not merely synonyms for nice and mean, not in D&D.

Guys like Mordenkainen were balance-seeking neutral to keep the mortal world from falling to extra-planar forces.

On topic I actually think the very fact that this character came from the soldier background explains all. Her instincts are towards chaotic good, but grim years as a soldier have taught her that discipline saves lives and that the good guys don't always win.

 

[Dausuul]

On a historical note, the "Active Neutral" outlook was drawn from the sort of Moorcockian literature where Law and Chaos are warring supernatural forces who will destroy the world if they win. Law freezing it into eternally unchanging cystalline stasis and Chaos reducing it to formlessness. Likewise a victory for the active and extra-planar forces of Good or Evil will have concequences which at best include removing free will from the world. Remember Good and Evil are not merely synonyms for nice and mean, not in D&D.

Unfortunately, once you split out the Good/Evil axis from the Law/Chaos axis, it's a lot harder to justify "active neutrality." Eliminating free will is a Lawful thing, not a Good/Evil thing. Can you imagine the triumph of Chaotic Good leading to the elimination of free will?

IMO, bringing Good and Evil into the alignment system in the first place was a mistake.

 

[The Hitcher]

I think the fact that half a dozen people have come up with separate and plausible character stories based on this specific confluence of alignment and BIFTs (yes, we're calling them that) shows that the system works, and actually that it is far more interesting when these things conflict. Which makes perfect sense, of course - characters (especially protagonists) who are not conflicted are undramatic, and why would we want to take part in stories about boring people? They don't even really count as stories.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

On a historical note, the "Active Neutral" outlook was drawn from the sort of Moorcockian literature where Law and Chaos are warring supernatural forces who will destroy the world if they win. Law freezing it into eternally unchanging cystalline stasis and Chaos reducing it to formlessness. Likewise a victory for the active and extra-planar forces of Good or Evil will have concequences which at best include removing free will from the world. Remember Good and Evil are not merely synonyms for nice and mean, not in D&D.

Guys like Mordenkainen were balance-seeking neutral to keep the mortal world from falling to extra-planar forces.

On topic I actually think the very fact that this character came from the soldier background explains all. Her instincts are towards chaotic good, but grim years as a soldier have taught her that discipline saves lives and that the good guys don't always win.

I'm well aware of the origins! I just think it's really completely nuts once G/E get involved, and note that Moorcock didn't touch that sort of thing with a 10' pole, portraying both Law and Chaos as rather morally bankrupt.

The idea that we should "not want Good to win" is, frankly, so questionable that it calls the very meaning of the word/concept "Good" into question. It also makes Neutral into something far more than mere neutrality - "Survival" or "Freedom" or something. So means that NN bears far too much weight, covering both the average person, non-sentient beings, and crusaders fighting to "preserve the balance".

(Total tangent, but if anyone has read The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe, they sort of discuss this towards the end, that they need to essentially keep the world in a state that is neither good/merciful/fair/just nor chaotic/vengeful/evil/unjust, because neither is sustainable until the New Sun comes - then it seems to be presumed that good/justice and particularly mercy (a far too forgotten concept in this age of glorified vengeance and "taking no chances") will prevail - but it's human nature that's the flaw here, not some supernatural deal, well, other than in that the New Sun will enable a victory over this)

Luckily 5E has moved away from this, with a separate "unaligned" for non-sentients, and seemingly none of this "You don't REALLY want Good to win!" business. Indeed it's new cosmology appears to directly contradict what you're suggesting - Good gods are cited as specifically being the ones who created free will (I kind of question this but I think it's sensible at the same time), with Evil gods creating creatures who don't possess full free will.

(Agree with your assessment of the soldier's CG alignment, though, if we take it like that)

Or, perhaps most importantly, G/E it is about what people *do*. People can think all sorts of things - but if they never act upon the thought, they aren't particularly good or evil (or lawful or chaotic, either).

The guy who thinks some ugly things, and occasionally says some nasty things, may be a big old jerk. It isn't until he *does* an ugly thing that he risks being actually Evil. Similarly, the guy who thinks that people should stand up for each other, but when push comes to shove can't summon the courage to put himself at risk for another, talks a great game, but isn't really Good.

Hmmmmmm. I can kind of see this both ways.

Personally I think it depends on whether takes a "God's Eye" view or not. If you don't, then yeah, the proof can only be in the pudding, in external activities.

If you do, then you can tell the difference between these two characters:

1) A guy who thinks nasty/evil thoughts a lot, occasionally says scary things, but who doesn't act solely because he is afraid of the personal consequences for himself.

and

2) A guy who thinks nasty/evil thoughts a lot, occasionally says scary things, but who, ultimately, wouldn't act on this because his conscience/humanity(elfmanity/orcmanity?) would kick in if he actually given the chance.

Guy 1, the moment he has no fear of consequences, will be as Evil as can be. If he was suddenly empowered or whatever, he'd be the monster he always has been. Guy 2, if he's empowered, if personal consequences go away, he's still going to choke (thank goodness!) because he still, somewhere, has his humanity/conscience.

With a God's Eye view, I'd label the former Evil and the latter Neutral. Again though, take out the God's Eye element and I agree, they both appear neutral!

(This reminds me of a bizarre incident in a game decades ago where the players became certain a basically harmless but rather rude NPC was totally Evil, and stalked the hell out of him trying to prove it. It was hysterical, in a demented way.)

 

[KarinsDad]

Or, perhaps most importantly, G/E it is about what people *do*. People can think all sorts of things - but if they never act upon the thought, they aren't particularly good or evil (or lawful or chaotic, either).

The guy who thinks some ugly things, and occasionally says some nasty things, may be a big old jerk. It isn't until he *does* an ugly thing that he risks being actually Evil. Similarly, the guy who thinks that people should stand up for each other, but when push comes to shove can't summon the courage to put himself at risk for another, talks a great game, but isn't really Good.

This.


I do find alignment interesting in D&D. Although some players strive to play their alignments, a lot of D&D boils down to "break in" (i.e. breaking and entering), "kill the bad guys" (i.e. murder), and "take their stuff" (i.e. theft).

Sure, one can make a medieval "outlaw" argument that some NPCs and monsters are "outside the law, and hence, fair game", but a goodly portion of D&D has the most righteous of PCs sometimes doing outrageously terrible deeds that most of us would never seriously contemplate in real life.

And as a general rule, even some official modules such as the Starter Set have a few quests in them where one person or group of people ask the PCs to help them take out another group of people. So is Sally Farmer asking you to take out the NE bandits, or is she asking you to take out the CG merchants who hide in a cave a small portion of their wares from the local tax collector?

In either case, if the DM does not give an insight roll or if the PCs do not make it, then the PCs march off to kill those nasty bandits (or are they?), all on the word of one woman Sally Farmer.

Ironic in some ways.