My explanation of alignments to my players

[Jon_Dahl]

Originally these were meant to be a translation for the convenience of my players, but I noticed that they became a bit more expansive than the original SRD text. These are already accepted by my players so there's no turning back, but I just wanted to share these with you. Comments are more than welcomed. Please notice that alignments are always a touchy subject so take a deep breath before posting

LAWFULNESS

Lawful characters are always serious when they undertake an endevour. Lawful characters set goals for themselves. Lawful characters do things systematically. Lawful characters may have personal goal which they follow.

Lawful characters always defend rules that appeal to their sense of justice and fight against those that don't. Right people must create the right rules in the right way. Lawful characters have the tendency to change rules within the system and not outside.

Things are black and white to lawful character. If you don't do something, you never do it. If you do something, you always do it - unless you have a real reason to stop.

Lawful characters always see themselves as a part of a larger body of people, which is organised hierarchically. Everyone has their own duties within that system.

Lawful types usually fall into two categories:
Followers are loyal to some cause, code, organization, deity or a person. Their loyalty know no bounds.
Supporters of order like generally all things that promote order, as long as it doesn't violate against their morality in good/evil axis.

Additional note: Lawful characters are allowed to lie, but if they lie to someone, they will always lie. If they tell the truth to someone, they will always tell the truth to him or her. Everything is black and white and lawfuls persist to the end.

CHAOS

Chaotic characters do as they see best. Opinions of other do not concern chaotic characters. It's irrelevant to them if you agree them or not, they will do things in their own way.

Commitments do not concern chaotic characters. They may do few or many commitments, but they hold little value. Other things such as love or friendship may hold value, but chaos does not directly deal with these things.

However, chaotic characters do appreciate that things are done smartly. Thus, they work with others in order to accomplish important things like family unity and functioning society, but that's all. They do not carry responsibility, even though they may make decisions.

Chaotic characters do not actively oppose rules, because they hold no value. If rules restrict (their) freedom, they may do something about.

Chaotic character do not like routines, unless they bring obvious benefits. They promote change in order to achieve perfection. Perfection might suite a chaotic character, but it's still very uncertain.

Additional note: Chaotic characters do not lie just for the sake of lying. They may lie occasionally if they feel like it and sometimes tell the truth. Everything depends on the situation. Chaotic characters have no particular inhibitions against lying, because they don't care what someone else thinks about it.

NEUTRAL

Neutral characters are just like normal people in regards of law and chaos. They are not particularly determined, systematic, committed, independent or unpredictable. They listen and obey others normally.

GOOD

Good characters are willing to make sacrifices for others’ well-being. Good characters recognize that there are forces in the world that wish to harm the innocent. Good characters either want to destroy the evil or give a chance for redemption, if genuine remorse is shown. Good characters are allowed to be practical and sly, and they don’t need to take lots of risks and go through too much trouble in their mission against evil and for good.
Good characters do not sacrifice their own lives, because their life is just as important as anyone else’s. In the same way, they do not sacrifice others, not even for good reason.

EVIL

Evil characters do not possess normal and healthy inhibitions against harming others, no matter who are they dealing with. They may have some positive feelings towards some, such as their offspring, but in general evil is a terrible and destructive force. Evil characters usually enjoy harming others and inflicting pain.
Evil characters see evil in others and they are suspicious. Servants of evil cannot genuinely trust each other, and normal cooperation is impossible without a clear common cause or threat.
By default, the greatest enemy of evil is evil.
Evil types usually fall into two categories:
The remorseless inflict pain and suffering when given an opportunity.
Those who are devoted to evil spread it for the sake of evil.

NEUTRAL

Neutral characters are just like normal people in regards of good and evil. They are not willing to make any sacrifices for others and they don’t enjoy harming others. Neutral characters have inhibitions against killing, threatening or harming the innocent, just any mentally healthy person in our contemporary world.

 

[Ragmon]

If your gonna use these rules to determine the characters actions then, rephrase some of the text, make it a bit shorter in the process. Otherwise I prefer the old text for D&D since its open ended, and leaves it up for the players to move around within the alignment.

OR

Remove alignment in a lite fashion: Its easy, let them choose an alignment but let the players play their characters withing their personality, background, class, religion and so on. But you would still use the alignment for system and rule stuff.
This system saves the trouble with arguing how a character should act in regard to his alignment.

 

[haakon1]

I think the Law and Chaos are pretty well-written and clear, but I'd remove the lying parts.

Evil, I don't really agree on. Evil isn't necessarily just sadistic intent to harm people . . . it's also ruthless ambition that just doesn't CARE about the trail of bodies left in its way.

Your Evil drives to down the highway intentionally ramming people until caught by the cops.

My Evil drives with ruthless and unnecessary aggression, cutting people off in traffic and perhaps cackling with glee if it angers another driver or causes other drivers to crash into each other, but is not intentionally setting out just to ram people -- he's setting out with the intent of getting from Point A to Point B with not a figment of care for anyone else.

My evil is more likely to survive to the end of the trip and live to do evil another day, without getting caught.

Also, my neutral is actually are sometimes willing to make sacrifices, as I think normal everyday people are. For example, a neutral town guard will not just run at the first sign of trouble, he'll try to do his duty first (unless he's a coward, but that's not an alignment issue). The difference between the good, neutral, and evil town guards won't be obvious to a casual observer, until some issue comes up that shows it.

 

[delericho]

I prefer the following:

Lawful: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Chaotic: "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

That is, the lawful character will see himself and others as part of a larger community, and believe that by ordering that community everyone prospers. The chaotic character, on the other hand, insists that there's no such thing as society, and that it's merely an aggregate of many individuals. He will therefore seek to break down any laws and social conventions, as he believes that such things necessarily limit freedom.

Good: "The needs of others outweigh my needs."

Evil: "My needs outweigh the needs of others."

That is, the good character will work for the good of others, even to the point of sacrificing his own good. The evil character, conversely, will work for his own benefit and, at best, won't care how this affects others.

Under this model, there are two versions of Neutral. A 'weak' neutral simply doesn't care about one of the two axes (this would be Unaligned in 4e), while a 'strong' neutral actively works for a balance between the two extremes.

Naturally, none of these definitions is entirely satisfying. Given that we've been debating ethics and morality for thousands of years without clear resolution, it's hardly surprising that we don't have comprehensive answers in our games.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] and haakon1, both of you have good points. Unless I already had agreed that these are the alignment rules for my game, I would certainly adjust them. Delericho's extremely concise and accurate descriptions are brilliant.

 

[pemerton]

The chaotic character, on the other hand, insists that there's no such thing as society, and that it's merely an aggregate of many individuals. He will therefore seek to break down any laws and social conventions, as he believes that such things necessarily limit freedom.

One of my problems with this is that it makes real-world libertarians like Hayek and the Cato Institute impossible to classify. They do not believe in society. But they are very firm advocates of the rule of law, and tend also to stress the importance of social conventions and "social capital".

 

[pemerton]

Lawful: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

<snip>

Evil: "My needs outweigh the needs of others."

On this account isn't Lawful Evil incoherent (on the assumption that I am just one).

 

[delericho]

One of my problems with this is that it makes real-world libertarians like Hayek and the Cato Institute impossible to classify. They do not believe in society. But they are very firm advocates of the rule of law, and tend also to stress the importance of social conventions and "social capital".

On this account isn't Lawful Evil incoherent (on the assumption that I am just one).

Yes, on both counts. That's one of the problems with boiling down very complex concepts to single sentence soundbites.

Regarding Lawful Evil specifically, I would tend to note that many (most?) Evil people don't consider themselves to be evil. As such, they may well order a society for the most 'good' for the most people... and yet it invariably just happens that they end up on top in that society. Or they determine that it's acceptable to structure society such that it's great for the 95% (of which they happen to be a member), while utterly destroying the small minority that makes up the remaining 5%.

(But also, in general, I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing that Evil is incoherent when you really get down to it. )

 

[parinho7]

Ignore the post! Sorry.

 

[Bagpuss]

Or they determine that it's acceptable to structure society such that it's great for the 95% (of which they happen to be a member), while utterly destroying the small minority that makes up the remaining 5%.

I think a lawful evil character would be fine in a society that is set up to support the top 5% at the expense of the other 95% to be fair, so long as it was stable and they were in the top 5%.