how to play alignment convincingly

The only way to play your alignment correctly is not to.

That is, don't play your alignment. Play your character. Worry about your alignment only if it's in danger of shifting to a different one... Then look at your alignment and ask, "Do I want it to change? Is this really more my character?".

Actions define alignment, not vis versa. A paladin is Lawful Good because he is an honorable, good person. A paladin is not an honerable, good person because he is lawful good.

Now, how does this apply to the rest of the thread?

Many people are chaotic neutral. To be perfectly honest: Most of the people I know do essentialy what they want, when they want to, if they can. They may have limits... they wont kill (That I know of! I hope not!), for example, or a few other things, but basicly the only thing guiding what they do is them and them alone.

The rest of the world is composed of two large groups and of course the scattered other people.

True Neutral. A lot of people aren't particularly chaotic or self centered, but neither are they particularly lawful nor civic minded. Neither do they have any PARTICULAR inclination one way or the other as far as what is right and wrong.

Neutral Good. A lot of people are basicly good people, but these are the same people who will cheerfully do 50 in a 35 zone "because no cops ever go down this road", or burn a copy of a friends CD without thinking twice about it.

True lawful alignments, I would contend, are rare in our society.

In other news, I predict this thread will devolve into a flamewar inside of 60 posts, if it goes that long.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Tsyr says,

That is, don't play your alignment. Play your character.

Now that is good advice. All kinds of things will shape your character's conduct and consciousness far more than alignment will. I would suggest that, in D&D, alignment is neither descriptive nor prosciptive. It is simply a mechanic needed to make certain kinds of spells work. Dragonblade is right on the money there about it varying from campaign to campaign and being an inherently problematic and contradictory system.

The fact is that, in our world, evil almost never sees itself as evil. In D&D, in order to function, evil must be conscious of its own evilness. This is only one of a host of problems in using the alignment system to describe anything.

My recommendation for playing one's alignment well is to figure out which god your character worships, adopt that god's alignment and then follow the teachings of the god. If one is fortunate enough to play a Druid, Cleric, Wizard or Paladin, chances are that you will also be a member of some other organization, in addition to your religion, that will also have various dictates about how to conduct yourself and how to perceive your own and others' conduct.

Sure, alignment can occasionally be of utility in deciding how rigorously to stick to an agreement or set of laws or the importance your character places on protecting or helping strangers but, if you're playing your character properly, all sorts of things will precede alignment in determining how to act. Dictates of one's religion, dictates of one's guild, the opinions of one's character's friends and lessons learned from past experience are all more important than alignment in determining how to act.

In response to Tsyr's comments about being lawful, I would contend that, in fact, we live in a lawful society. It's just that the "laws" people follow are always going to be the unwritten laws of social convention, not the laws on the lawbooks. People speed in a 30 zone because society doesn't disapprove; on the other hand, people don't pick their noses in public, despite the absence of any laws on the books.
 
Last edited:

I agree with Tsyr 100%. Most excellent advice for any campaign.

But to respond to the previous post. LG as respecting institutions of law I have no problem with and totally agree with, but some law put forth by some evil king or dictator to oppress their people, the paladin is going to follow?

No they won't.

-------
Evil Overlord: "I decree that you must renounce your god and fall on your sword, paladin! And my word is law in my realm!"

Paladin: Fall on sword and dies.

Evil Overlord: "Fool! I win!"

OR

Evil Overlord: "I decree that you must renounce your god and fall on your sword, paladin! And my word is law in my realm!"

Paladin: "I am not subject to your foul laws!"

Paladin's deity: "Paladin! You are no longer LG and lose all your powers!"

Paladin: "Nooooo!!"

Evil Overlord: "Hahahaha! I win!"

-----------

These are the ridiculous dilemmas that occur. Some DM's even believe that this nonsense is good role-playing.

One tenet to keep in mind for a realistic paladin code is St. Augustine's famous statement: "An unjust law is no law."

An unjust law or the unjust application of a law is no law. And it is no crime to violate that which is no law.
 

Dragonblade said:
One tenet to keep in mind for a realistic paladin code is St. Augustine's famous statement: "An unjust law is no law."

An unjust law or the unjust application of a law is no law. And it is no crime to violate that which is no law.
Damn straight.

The Paladin believes in law, but only if the law is just and benefits the people at large. But if that law becomes corrupt and twisted to serve those in power at the expense of the people at large, the Paladin is under no obligation to bow down to their rule.

In fact, I can see the Paladin telling the Evil Overlord in that example -- in no uncertain terms -- to go straight to hell.

He'd lay down each and every grievance of the people against the Overlord, calling him to account for everyone who's been hurt and everyone whose lives have been ruined as a result of those unjust laws. Then the Paladin would demand that he step down in favor of someone with more consideration of the people's welfare, or face his blade.

Really, if Robin Hood wasn't so much of a thief (stealing from the rich to give to the poor), he'd be an excellent example of this kind of character.
 

rbingham2000 said:
Damn straight.

The Paladin believes in law, but only if the law is just and benefits the people at large. But if that law becomes corrupt and twisted to serve those in power at the expense of the people at large, the Paladin is under no obligation to bow down to their rule.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

While a paladin would not necessarily feel obliged to obey the laws of an enemy state while working against it, I think he'd have to try every legal alternative before disobeying the laws of his own nation. For instance, Sir Blush (our paladin) lives in the Duchy of Urnst. The new Duke (the rightful heir after his father dies of a stroke) is somewhat cruel and raises the peasants' taxes, plus requires all weapon-bearing men of age to serve six weeks in his army per year. Then he starts arresting political opponents, confiscates a bunch of church land, and finally starts exterminating the local halflings.

At what point does the paladin turn on his rightful liege?

This is one of the ways that paladins end up at war with each other. If the paladin emphasizes Good over Law, he prolly turns when the halfling death camps are set up. If he emphasizes Law over Good, he might stick with his rightful liege even then. The point is, unless the offenses are highly egregious, the paladin will remain bound by the laws of his land. That's the Lawful part of LG. Rebelling against his master might cost him his paladinhood if he's not careful- but so might staying with him. The best choice might be to martyr himself or get arrested or something, to set an example and perhaps change things without breaking his oath of loyalty.
 

A good view of alignments, even the neutral one (although it does focus on the law/chaos axis) can be found, IMO, in the novels by Mickey Zucker Reichert (Renshai trilogy, After Ragnarok trilogy). The fact that they are good books helps too. :)

Of course, in those books the whole world starts off with a strong lawful tangent, but as you read on, chaos comes, and with it, balance.
 

I agree with Tsyr's take on alignment, although it is at odds with how many people view alignment in the game.

By the book, alignment is an almost tangible force in the world of D&D. You can actually cast a 1st level spell to determine whether someone is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic. Alignment is not merely an abstract moral compass, it's a real thing apart from the individual.

That's one of the main weaknesses of the alignment system as written and why I don't use it that way. When I run D&D, detect evil doesn't work on a normal person who happens to be NE. It only registers supernatural evil like undead, demons or the cleric of an evil god.

I wrote a rant about alignment once for my players. (searches hard drive). Ah-ha! Here we go:

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. 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.

End of ramble.
 

Tsyr and others after him have some good points.

Tsyr said:
The only way to play your alignment correctly is not to.

Quite right. Alignment is the result of behavior, not the other way around.

Tsyr said:
Many people are chaotic neutral. To be perfectly honest: Most of the people I know do essentialy what they want, when they want to, if they can.

Eh. Many people like to feel they are Chaotic. It's trendy to pretend like you've got no rules, or as few as you can get away with. But IME most of these are folks who are as bound by the rules and social conventions as anybody else. A real chaotic doesn't just do what they want when nobody who might control them is looking. They go out of their way to break the rules, shake up the status quo, and support the right of everyone to do similarly.

These days Neutral is pretty broad. Folks generally prefer goodness, and many people are basically nice folks, especially to their close friends and relations. They still qualify as neutral because they aren't dedicated to Goodness as a larger goal, beyond their own immediate environs. Being Good requires some dedication to a larger behavior pattern. Same for Chaos.

YMMV, of course. But I think part of the problem with alignment is that folks apply it casually. If someone is a little bit chaotic, they get labelled with Chaotic (with the capital "C"). In my mind, a real Chaotic would have issues in the modern world, as he'd chafe so much at having to keep a regular job, etc.

fusangite said:
I would suggest that, in D&D, alignment is neither descriptive nor prosciptive.

It is certainly not supposed to be proscriptive. It is, however, descriptive. It doesn't describe how you will act, but it does describe how the character has behaved in the past. A character's alignment is the long-term average of past behavior.

In general, as for paladins - even LG is a fairly broad term. There is no one singular way in which all paladins will or should act in a given situation. There are many patterns of behavior with respect to the common good and laws of the land that are stil consistent with the definition of LG.
 

I will tack back to where the first post was going... which I think is discussing normal peoples alignment.

I think most people are LE going LN.

For good or bad most of us are pretty much law abiding. At best a drinking problem or a driving too fast. Thou these are pretty minor. Most pay their taxes and behave in what can only be lawful manner, they are "team" players up to a point and have a support base of friends, family and allies.

Evil ? Yes. I see evil not so much as disrespect for life... but selfishness. We are rarely exposed to violence... so the issue of respecting life isnt as strong as our motivations which are usually selfish. We want better jobs, more money, more sex and more status. LE is a competitive rules bound society. Anyone disagree ? America seems very lawful and competitive. South Americans would tend to a NE or TN. Europeans are very lawful to... but going LN. Middle east and Asia are different cultures. Asians might overall be LN... with their leaders LE or NE. Most "polticians" are "evil".

Now as regards the people close to us... we do tend to be more Good than Evil... but thats our Lawful part speaking louder. We want a social group and support.
 

Rashak Mani said:
Anyone disagree ?

I disagree. If you're thinking that America as a whole has a "greed is good" mentality, I can see you drawing your conclusion. However, that mentality wasn't even really prevalent in the greedy 1980's, much less today. An evil person has to be more than just selfish. To be Evil you've gotta take action on that selfishness, and that action's gotta hurt somebody. If our society were Evil on the whole, there'd be a lot more major hurts getting passed around.

There are some greedy, selfish folks out there, sure. But there are also lots fo rather nice folks. Thus, on the average, folks are pretty neutral.
 

Remove ads

Top