My viewpoint of the alignments

[PnPgamer]

So I have seen many alignment interpretations through my years of DnD, and to say the least that none is wrong and none is the ultimate correct one, everybody has their own viewpoint of things in games, life, movies or anything really.

What I have seen to be the most prevalent is that the moral (evil-neutral-good) is sort of a end of the path and ethical (law-neutral-chaos) being the path itself, or a roundabout of it. This makes it so that there are practically 9 different paths to begin with. This also makes it so that they are attached to each other without any distinction. According to this interpretation, a chaotic evil person is just evil for evil's sake, a lawful neutral is the guard, the judge dredd, or lawful good is the superman, the paladin etc. and such makes the law-chaos axis just to be an enhancement to the moral's. A defining aspect, if you will.
This however bugs me. For some reason, I've seen that each of these are set in stone. if you are a lawful good fighter, you have to be a paladinlike. If you are chaotic good rogue, you are the incarnation of Robin Hood. I call this "combined", "compound" or "the sum" type.

What I wanted to share to everyone, is one different kind of viewpoint. My view. Maybe it will make you look alignment differently, maybe not. I used to enforce the compound view, but nowadays I have a different approach
I prefer to separate the good-evil and law-chaos into their basic principles. Good-evil is a given and has its correct stature in the DnD community, and should be a given. You do good or you do evil. You either aim for either one. When it comes to law or chaos, however I tend to differ from everyone. Law is the enforcing the setting around you, while chaos is about opposing it. They keywords here are enforce and oppose (these do apply to good-evil axis but I digress slightly).

bringing the chaotic evil example here. To me a character like that is not evil for evil's sake, he/she does want to oppose the law and good. He might be evil for chaos's sake, just so he can widen his methods and not be limited to certain things. Or he could be chaotic for evil's sake, just wanting to be evil and trample some expectations and traditions on the way. I tend to think that Joker from DC comics is chaotic evil of course, but he seems to prefer's the chaos over the evil. Just to see the world burn.

another very controversial one, Chaotic neutral. everybody thinks that he is the "get out of jail free" alignment, he can do what he wants. I do not think so. He/she has to actively seek to oppose a law, promises or expectations. he might be a street thug, mainly wanting to cause ruckus, but is not too keen on either hurting anyone badly or being a charitable guy. he might be anti-hero. To be honest this is one of the most difficult alignments to play as you have to try to break promises and the law, but not seem too evil in the process.

Lawful good/neutral is the final example that I give here. He enforces the law and good. He actively seeks to do so that others obey the law, and at the same time, seeks that everyone can get along well without violence, for example. The difference here if we compare it to a neutral good/true neutral alignment, is that neutral one only obeys the laws for goodness sake. He doesn't shove the ethic to people. a neutral good witnessing a pickpocket might only catch the thief to demand the loot back and give it to its rightful owner in a way "hey mister you dropped this", and not apprehend the thief as he/she realises that the thief might have done it for survival. Lawful good would probably do that and honestly say that victim was pickpocketed, but also arrest the thief in order to enforce the law.

But I am not here to stomp anyone's opinion. And I sure hope you do not stomp mine. I just wanted to share this and hope that you catched on what I mean, so you could maybe invent new ways to play a character of certain alignment.

 

[delericho]

Sounds good, and it's pretty close to what I used to use.

I say "used to", because these days I've removed alignments entirely (5e makes that easy), and even if I were to use alignment again it would be a strict "team shirt" alignment, where LG = Team America. (Link not Grandma-friendly due to the lyrics of the song - you know the one.)

 

[Celebrim]

I think by and large you are working toward a functional definition and you've realized most of the traps you can run into if you misunderstand what alignment is about.

First, alignment is not personality. At all. Probably the biggest misunderstanding you'll run into is that alignment is personality. Thus the idea that all LG people look like Galahad, and all CG people look like Robin Hood, that lawful people are 'neat freaks' and chaotic people 'messy' and so forth. If anything, alignment is that conviction you have that in the crux, drives you to act against your natural personality. Alignment is what makes you forgo eating, even if you really enjoy eating, or makes you turn down that proposition from the sexy girl even though you've always had a crush on her, and so forth. Alignment is how you behave or at least believe you ought to behave, when the chips are on the table. In this sense, people's real alignment can be surprising - even to themselves.

Secondly, you are right - a chaotic evil person is not just evil for evil's sake. A neutral evil person is evil for evil's sake, and to them 'evil is their good'. A chaotic evil person is evil for their own sake. CE is the belief that the only way to get ahead is on the backs of others. It's the belief that the world is a zero sum game, and they only way to have something yourself is to take it from others. It's the belief that because the world is unjust, that The Just just get screwed. As to the Joker's alignment, it depends on which Joker you are talking about. The Silver Age 'Clown Prince of Crime' was very much Chaotic Evil. Remember, personality is not alignment so all the wild antics don't prove anything regarding his alignment. The silver age Joker was an eccentric thief, but very much motivated by a desire for power and wealth. The old Joker laughed because he believed he was better than everyone else. The modern Joker by contrast is usually presented as Neutral Evil - he just wants to watch the world burn and he's relatively or completely unconcerned about his own interests, even arranging plots where he's willing to die if it would prove the world is inherently evil. The modern Joker laughs because he believes the fact that he is funny proves everyone is deep down, as evil as he is.

Thirdly, you correctly identify chaotic neutral as not the alignment that lets you do anything you want, but you fail to identify what it does believe in - particularly with respect to good/evil. Keep in mind that with respect to good/evil, CN is on the same moral plane as LN or N. Some specific examples may clarify. CG believes that you should treat everyone better than they deserve - in other words, in a quality of mercy. CN believes that everyone should get what they deserve. CG good believes that they are compelled to do the good to others that they would want to have done to them. CN believes that they should refrain from doing harm to others that they wouldn't have done to them. In other words, neutrality on the good/evil axis tends to be passive with respect to good and evil. CG would say that if you see a stranger treated cruelly, you should try to stop it. CN would say it's not any of your business, and only that they themselves wouldn't act that way. CG would say that you should be generous. CN would say that is pointless and even harmful, and you should only try to be fair. CG would say that you should be forgiving. CN would say that would only encourage more harm, and that you should only avoid being vindictive. CG would say you shouldn't engage in self-harm. CN would say its my body and I can do with it what I please, and likewise it's their body and even if it wasn't my choice to weigh 500lb it's not my place to condemn or judge that. In short, CN and LN are broadly in agreement regarding the moral plane of human behavior, but vastly disagree over where authority is vested, what an ideal society looks like, and who gets to judge and whether you can judge. CN thinks good's benevolence and evil's malevolence are equally offenses against dignity, freedom, and excuses for harm tyrannical behavior (moral busybodies one hand, sadist bullies on the other) - though it would consider CG and CE equally to be just 'barely wrong' so long as they respected a chaotic idea to a large extent.

 

[PnPgamer]

I think by and large you are working toward a functional definition and you've realized most of the traps you can run into if you misunderstand what alignment is about.

First, alignment is not personality. At all. Probably the biggest misunderstanding you'll run into is that alignment is personality. Thus the idea that all LG people look like Galahad, and all CG people look like Robin Hood, that lawful people are 'neat freaks' and chaotic people 'messy' and so forth. If anything, alignment is that conviction you have that in the crux, drives you to act against your natural personality. Alignment is what makes you forgo eating, even if you really enjoy eating, or makes you turn down that proposition from the sexy girl even though you've always had a crush on her, and so forth. Alignment is how you behave or at least believe you ought to behave, when the chips are on the table. In this sense, people's real alignment can be surprising - even to themselves.

Secondly, you are right - a chaotic evil person is not just evil for evil's sake. A neutral evil person is evil for evil's sake, and to them 'evil is their good'. A chaotic evil person is evil for their own sake. CE is the belief that the only way to get ahead is on the backs of others. It's the belief that the world is a zero sum game, and they only way to have something yourself is to take it from others. It's the belief that because the world is unjust, that The Just just get screwed. As to the Joker's alignment, it depends on which Joker you are talking about. The Silver Age 'Clown Prince of Crime' was very much Chaotic Evil. Remember, personality is not alignment so all the wild antics don't prove anything regarding his alignment. The silver age Joker was an eccentric thief, but very much motivated by a desire for power and wealth. The old Joker laughed because he believed he was better than everyone else. The modern Joker by contrast is usually presented as Neutral Evil - he just wants to watch the world burn and he's relatively or completely unconcerned about his own interests, even arranging plots where he's willing to die if it would prove the world is inherently evil. The modern Joker laughs because he believes the fact that he is funny proves everyone is deep down, as evil as he is.

Thirdly, you correctly identify chaotic neutral as not the alignment that lets you do anything you want, but you fail to identify what it does believe in - particularly with respect to good/evil. Keep in mind that with respect to good/evil, CN is on the same moral plane as LN or N. Some specific examples may clarify. CG believes that you should treat everyone better than they deserve - in other words, in a quality of mercy. CN believes that everyone should get what they deserve. CG good believes that they are compelled to do the good to others that they would want to have done to them. CN believes that they should refrain from doing harm to others that they wouldn't have done to them. In other words, neutrality on the good/evil axis tends to be passive with respect to good and evil. CG would say that if you see a stranger treated cruelly, you should try to stop it. CN would say it's not any of your business, and only that they themselves wouldn't act that way. CG would say that you should be generous. CN would say that is pointless and even harmful, and you should only try to be fair. CG would say that you should be forgiving. CN would say that would only encourage more harm, and that you should only avoid being vindictive. CG would say you shouldn't engage in self-harm. CN would say its my body and I can do with it what I please, and likewise it's their body and even if it wasn't my choice to weigh 500lb it's not my place to condemn or judge that. In short, CN and LN are broadly in agreement regarding the moral plane of human behavior, but vastly disagree over where authority is vested, what an ideal society looks like, and who gets to judge and whether you can judge. CN thinks good's benevolence and evil's malevolence are equally offenses against dignity, freedom, and excuses for harm tyrannical behavior (moral busybodies one hand, sadist bullies on the other) - though it would consider CG and CE equally to be just 'barely wrong' so long as they respected a chaotic idea to a large extent.

I was really reluctant to give out the examples of the alignments, but as I am no word wizard, I had to do it. I was sure that I was going to blow someone's fuse because of them, and I am sorry if I ruined your day.