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.
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.
Last edited: