My explanation of alignments to my players

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

Fine so far, but the part about "defend rules that appeal to their sense of justice" should probably be modified. It certainly doesn't suit lawful evil characters.

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.

That part about lying has already drawn a critique in the thread, and for good reason. I think lying should be left out of alignment rules. Pretty much any sentence someone speaks could have a lie in it, and someone who has to carefully regulate whether every sentence is truthful or untruthful is going to find this very hard.

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.

I'm a bit leery of this last sentence; it implies that anyone who is evil is also insane.

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.

And I'd be a bit leery of this one too. Sometimes they just don't care. Suppose there's a siege and people are starving. An evil thief breaks into the food repository, which was supposed to be carefully rationed out, and steals a big chunk of it. They're either feeding themselves or they're selling it (and then probably leaving to enjoy life in a place where food isn't horribly expensive). Either way, they're not (necessarily) doing this because they want to see people starve, but because they don't care about the fate of other people.

Of course, some people might suggest those thieves are neutral; that's the stuff of alignment debates, right?

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.

This only encourages backstabbing behavior. Admittedly not always a problem with PCs, but I'm picturing a typical drow encounter involving a bunch of rogues about to ambush the PCs, but they end up stealthily killing each other instead. The survivor, unable to defeat the PCs on his or her own, simply slinks away. (With high enough Stealth checks, the PCs might have no idea what just happened.)

Neutral characters have inhibitions against killing, threatening or harming the innocent, just any mentally healthy person in our contemporary world.

Same issue as before.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Funny, I would just use this...

https://www.google.com/search?q=ali...9AdLF4APrhoGICQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=722

 

[am181d]

In general, I think any description of alignments of the sort "a person who is X always does Y" is misguided. There are more than 9 ways to respond to any given situation.

For example, a character who is obsessed with personal honor and a character who is obsessed with following the minutiae of the written law might both be Lawful Neutral, but they would live very different lives and make very different choices.

It's better to start with a character's personality and then decide which alignment best matches up. For instance, a thief whose prime motivations are greed and self-preservation, but isn't eager to see other people hurt along the way is probably Chaotic Neutral. An assassin who will kill anyone for the right price but who is loathe to reneg on a contract is probably Lawful Evil.

Now a good story for the thief is to give him something to care about more than his own skin. And a good storyline for the assassin is to give him a contract he doesn't want to honor. And generally the good, dramatic choice is for the character to make the choice that's counter to their alignment. That doesn't mean they suddenly have the opposite values. It just means they made a dramatic exception. Of course, enough dramatic exceptions in a row and the character MIGHT start to re-evaluate everything. And that is what we like to call "a character arc."

 

[pemerton]

Now a good story for the thief is to give him something to care about more than his own skin. And a good storyline for the assassin is to give him a contract he doesn't want to honor. And generally the good, dramatic choice is for the character to make the choice that's counter to their alignment. That doesn't mean they suddenly have the opposite values. It just means they made a dramatic exception. Of course, enough dramatic exceptions in a row and the character MIGHT start to re-evaluate everything. And that is what we like to call "a character arc."

This is good stuff, but I don't see how the alignment rules are doing anything to help it.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

It seems that people here don't like the example about lying which is mentioned in Lawful and Chaotic bits.
Let me try to explain: It doesn't matter if it's about lying, buying socks or writing haikus. My primary goal was to point out that lawfuls should do things consistently or not do them at all, while chaotics don't care if someone doesn't like lying - Their personal opion always comes first. Lying was simply taken as an example because many think that lawfuls can't lie, and chaotics (especially CNs) should be pathological liars. I'm sure that at least one of you has some experiences about either of these.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My primary goal was to point out that lawfuls should do things consistently or not do them at all

Unfortunately, in a game, doing things consistently can get you killed, and an alignment should not be hostile to adventuring. Lying was a bad example. Lots of people have bad experiences with paladins that can't lie, can't tolerate lying, will not lie to bad guys, and so forth.

 

[Hussar]

And, on the point of consistency, we have to be careful not to go too far. A lawful can certainly lie. She won't like it and would likely much rather tell the truth, but, there's nothing preventing her from lying if she judges the situation requires it. Now, if the PC is lying all the time, then fine, that's likely not a Lawfully aligned PC. But, alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. Bluffing your way past the guards to rescue the princess is lying, but, I certainly wouldn't call a character Chaotic based on a single example.

A paladin? Well, that's a bit of a different story since Paladin's have mechanical ties to alignment. But, that's more an issue with paladins than with alignment itself.

 

[pemerton]

Unfortunately, in a game, doing things consistently can get you killed, and an alignment should not be hostile to adventuring. Lying was a bad example. Lots of people have bad experiences with paladins that can't lie, can't tolerate lying, will not lie to bad guys, and so forth.

Bluffing your way past the guards to rescue the princess is lying, but, I certainly wouldn't call a character Chaotic based on a single example.

A paladin? Well, that's a bit of a different story since Paladin's have mechanical ties to alignment. But, that's more an issue with paladins than with alignment itself.

If I was playing a paladin or similar character - which I have done from time to time - and the GM framed situations in which, if I didn't lie to or Bluff the guards then I couldn't make progress in the game, I'd be a bit irritated.

The notion of "making progress" is of course fairly expansive. Obviously being committed to truth-telling should be a noticeable feature of my PC, and close down options. But I think it is on the GM, knowing there is such a PC in the game, to accomodate it. And if other players don't want to engage with such a PC for whatever reason, that should be worked out at the pre-PC gen "social contract" stage.

I've certainly GMed for players whose PCs don't lie. It's not a dealbreaker either at the ingame or metagame level, in my view at least.

 

[Starfox]

In the Golden Fleece (translated and prosified by Robert Graves), there is an instance where their herald is honor-bound not to lie, yet mannages to completely deceive a pursuing enemy. In times before written contracts, lying was usually abhorred. Not even chaotic people would lie - but they may well deceive you by other means.