D&D 5E The alignments defined

[Helldritch]

In any game where [morally good] = [engage in genocide/ torture] you can count me out.

Genocide here should be read as eradicating the beach head of an invading horde of enemies down to the last member.

As for torture, you might refer to the Chaotic Good. This would be a last resort to get the information needed (Where is the bomb? Where did you imprisoned the young girl? Quick before she dies or you will die too. That kind of stuff.)

 

[Flamestrike]

You are perfectly right. I would not offer this list to an experienced player/DM. For a novice it is quite appreciated. On the other hand, I feel that most people know what a good person do but are not sure what it won't do.



That is why I usually ask new players what kind of character they want to play morally. This way, I can give some advice and give only the alignment that really interest the player.

I do the exact same thing, but [good] = compassion, mercy, altruism, kindness and self sacrifice. [Evil] = harming, killing and oppressing others.

The only time a good person takes a life is in self defence or the defence of others, using proportionate force, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

Evil people take lives out of convenience, for a greater purpose than themselves, profit or indifference to the suffering of others.

How we all understand 'evil' and 'good' when we use those terms.

Genocide is evil. Rape is evil. Murder is evil. Slavery is evil. Torture is evil.

It's not hard.

 

[Flamestrike]

Genocide here should be read as eradicating the beach head of an invading horde of enemies down to the last member.

No, that's fighting a war of defence against an invading force. Warfare is not Genocide.

That said, if you take a 'take no prisoners' approach to warfare, and keep killing once there is no longer any need (the Orcs in the beach head surrender), then you're evil.

If you accept that surrender, and treat those prisoners with kindness, mercy and compassion, you're good.

As for torture, you might refer to the Chaotic Good. This would be a last resort to get the information needed (Where is the bomb? Where did you imprisoned the young girl? Quick before she dies or you will die too. That kind of stuff.)

No, that's not Chaotic good.

Chaotic good people (Anakin Skywalker, Ashoka Tano, Robin Hood etc) dont engage in torture. Torture is evil. Your perspective on family, honor and tradition (your Law-Chaos spectrum) dont enter into whether you're evil or not. The Chaotic element of your alignment doesnt give you a green light to engage in evil, or override the good element of your alignment.

Anakin may have force choked a few prisoners on his way to becoming (CE) Darth Vader but you tended to hear the imperial march playing in the background when he did so signifying his descent into evil.

 

[Helldritch]

I do the exact same thing, but [good] = compassion, mercy, altruism, kindness and self sacrifice. [Evil] = harming, killing and oppressing others.

The only time a good person takes a life is in self defence or the defence of others, using proportionate force, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

Evil people take lives out of convenience, for a greater purpose than themselves, profit or indifference to the suffering of others.

How we all understand 'evil' and 'good' when we use those terms.

Genocide is evil. Rape is evil. Murder is evil. Slavery is evil. Torture is evil.

It's not hard.

By today's standard you are absolutely right. By medieval standard you are a fool.

We live, I hope, in an enlightened society where all these horrible thing are reprehensible. But in medieval times, it was not so. How many innocent women were killed for witch craft? How many people were enslaved because of the color of their skin or simply could not pay a debt? How many were tortured for their seditious ideas? How many atrocities were committed in various wars? And yet, many of these acts were done in the name of good.

Again, do not apply our modern vision of morality. It is simply too advanced and enlightened.

 

[Flamestrike]

By today's standard you are absolutely right. By medieval standard you are a fool.

Is what an evil and the occasional neutral person would say.

If you want to play in a game where genocide, rape and murder are accepted and commonplace, then a lot of people are evil, if not pretty much everyone.

Like if you were running a campaign in Menzoberanzan for example.

 

[Li Shenron]

I do not think people wants to play saints. And with all these shades of gray we have in our society, people prefer morally ambiguous character. Good, but ready to do what is necessary.

Well first of all I would certainly not want my players to see alignment as a cage. So if they choose Good, I certainly wouldn't tell them "you can't do that" or "you must do this instead" the first time they do something less than virtuous. I think alignment is supposed to provide an AID for playing your PC but in general first comes the PC and then the alignment as a result of her behaviour.

So a "saint" as someone who never strays from perfection is obviously not something I would ever expect or even necessarily like, but I would say that at least the Good characters should WISH they were able to always do the right thing, and feel at least a bit guilty when they don't.

There is nothing wrong wanting to roleplay a morally ambiguous character, just don't call it Good in my games.

Also "what's necessary" is kind of the crux of the alignment matter. It sounds a bit too much like "the ends justify the means" which is the major dealbreaker in at least some of the most widespread moral/religious systems (which we are not supposed to talk about in this forum). I think the choice of "means" is something that can be used pretty much to highlight the difference between G and E on the alignment spectrum.

 

[Flamestrike]

But I do not think people wants to play saints. And with all these shades of gray we have in our society, people prefer morally ambiguous character. Good, but ready to do what is necessary.

And they can play those characters. Just with the evil alignment they deserve.

'MY PC fights for the greater good; he's a oving family man, but on the orders of his king, he will engage in torture, murder and worse for the greater good.

He's evil.

 

[Helldritch]

No, that's fighting a war of defence against an invading force. Warfare is not Genocide.

That said, if you take a 'take no prisoners' approach to warfare, and keep killing once there is no longer any need (the Orcs in the beach head surrender), then you're evil.

Some people have comited genocide against whole villages. Warfare can be genocide. So says the UN if you insist on putting modern morality in a medieval setting.

If you accept that surrender, and treat those prisoners with kindness, mercy and compassion, you're good.

Fully agree. Read the alignment, the good characters will do it.

No, that's not Chaotic good.

Chaotic good people (Anakin Skywalker, Ashoka Tano, Robin Hood etc) dont engage in torture. Torture is evil. Your perspective on family, honor and tradition (your Law-Chaos spectrum) dont enter into whether you're evil or not. The Chaotic element of your alignment doesnt give you a green light to engage in evil, or override the good element of your alignment.

Anakin may have force choked a few prisoners on his way to becoming (CE) Darth Vader but you tended to hear the imperial march playing in the background when he did so signifying his descent into evil.

Yep it is. Again, read. A last resort. If my daughter were the one about to die and I wanted info on where she is from the kidnapper I would do it in a pinch. Sometimes a person will act out of character for dire reasons. Living with the consequences is an other matter entirely.

 

[Helldritch]

And they can play those characters. Just with the evil alignment they deserve.

'MY PC fights for the greater good; he's a oving family man, but on the orders of his king, he will engage in torture, murder and worse for the greater good.

He's evil.

Sure. Lawful Neutral. Or Lawful Evil. Not Lawful Good.

 

[Flamestrike]

Some people have comited genocide against whole villages. Warfare can be genocide. So says the UN if you insist on putting modern morality in a medieval setting.

Well yeah; if people ride into a village and slaughter everyone in there, they're evil.

That's why Drow and Orcs are evil. They torture, murder, rape and engage in genocide.

Yep it is.

No, it isnt.

If I was reading a story where Ashoka Tahno or Robin hood or Jessica Jones or Han Solo or some other unconventional jaded rascal [with a heart of gold] started cutting off a prisoners fingers for information, id think 'naughty word; THAT was out of character'. It would be a huge disconnect to say the least.

Torture is not a morally good thing to do. A good person doesnt torture, and finds another way to get the information.

If you're playing a CG PC and you resort to torture, you're just being too lazy to find the information elsewhere and a naughty word roleplayer.