The trouble with RPG alignments is that they are terribly written and players tend to put their own thoughts and definitions instead of trying to separate their ideas about alignment between the game world and the real world.

To make the issue manageable, the players need to agree on definitions for the alignments that are only for the game and not for the real world.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 139):

This post is the best post in any forum on any topic I've ever seen in my entire life, and maybe some past lives if there was a point from ARPAnet on where I existed, or another universe in which I previously existed that had the equivalent of an internet.

For me.

good, Does it help others? Does it help society?

Evil, Does it hurt others? Does it hurt society?

Lawful, does it maintain order? Does it promote establishment?

Chaotic, Does it dismantle order? Does it mess with establishment?

Neutral, does it concern you and your ideals? Does it even matter?

yes or no, its usually pretty obvious for me and my players.

Yep. that's why for me, Harmful 'goods' are at best, neutral. I realize you didn't say that to further my cause and probably think I'm a bit extreme in it. Still, that's my basis.

Most things are shades of grey and not black and white.  Both good and evil based on the above.

Example: A drug often helps some people but others have side effects worse than the problem the drug is supposed to cure.

Example: Wars are often fought with both sides feeling that a wrong needs to be righted, that winning will make society better.

If the drug improves the quality of life beyond that which it would without, then it is good. If it takes away from it, it is bad. It can be black and white, you have to take the emotional feelings out of it and use just pure logic and judgement.

The same with pulling the plug or inducing morphine overdose on a dying patient, yes your killing them, but if living was torture and you had there express permission then it was a good thing.

War is the result of conflicted ideas or opinions, the inability to cooperate. It is never a necessity until the day comes when there are to many people and not enough planet and the loss of human life is a necessity.

He who casts the 1st stone was being selfish and/or ignorant or hateful all qualities of evil, no matter the self righteous excuse used to justify it, violence isnt the answer. The only time violence is justified by any means of reason is when peaceful resolution is no longer an option and destruction is imminent unless you respond with force to save yourself or those you care about.

This puts you in a unique situation, if you neutralize the offender, you have the opportunity to extend mercy to them, even nurse them back to health to show your humanity, That is a good thing, definitively good.

In reply to Andrew Wilson (msg # 142):

I really hate how you define "lawful" don't why, it just makes me very angry. Particularly when I am trying to play a monk.

The books don't require a belief in law or establishment, and the monk requirement of being lawful is because monks need to be highly disciplined, monks do not need to have a belief in law or establishment, so it irritates me even more when GMs say that I can't be a skilled and disciplined character without believing in, and supporting the local laws. I don't play serious characters in games with such GMs. I don't argue about it, it is their game world, but I do hate it very strongly, for some reason that is unknown to me.

Interesting really, how it can evoke such strong emotions, particularly in someone like me.

does your monk go out of his way to cause mischief and chaos?

if not lol then hes within appropriation

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 143):

Your scale still doesn't have any such thing as an act of good, only acts between EVIL and not evil.


As I said before, the alignments in D&D and the tone of D&D has everything more in common with fairy tales and heroic myths than reality. 21st century opinions of morality don't apply.

It isn't my fault you didn't notice where I posted acts of good.

I saw them. I dispute most of them. You seem to define good as "minimally evil".

No if you think that, you didn't see all of them.

As I understand the DnD definition of "Lawful", it doesn't have to mean obeying actual laws as laid down by an authority figure or whatever - it can mean a personal code of honour or similar possessed only by the individual in question - they have their own rules which they abide by and strictly hold to in all their actions. It doesn't matter what the local king dictates you must do - if your own personal code of conduct says otherwise, then that's what you'll go by.
This message was last edited by the user at 15:18, Sat 26 July 2014.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 152):

You mean I'm not the only one to have read that part? I was thinking my copy of the books must have been special, cause I literally mean it when I say my first group are the only people I have ever heard that recognized that, until you.

Every single other player/GM either ignored it or used the "lawful means following authority" definition.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 153):

I've always knew that as well.

I don't like that definition of lawful, because a character could say, "I will always seek to puzzle, confound, and follow laws and rules and suggestions only if it will benefit me in some way", be absolutely true to that ethos, and apparently be completely chaotic.

Just because they can be true to it, doesn't make it a lawful ethos.

I would call the above a chaotic ethos because it is centered on subjective self benefit.

I would only a personal ethos that is either mostly objective, or is like a personal set of rules even if they don't match the written laws.

A good rule of thumb is whether they could take a common action and argue in either direction for whether it is in keeping with the ethos or not. An acceptable ethos should 95% of the time be absolutely clear as to when it is being violated.

I may allow a slightly more flexible ethos if they have several parts to though.

The ones left alive to teach people they are good

Chaotic good will bring a building down to take out the bad guy, lawful good will try to minimize losses.

chaotic good will justify actions that they saved more by ending the bad guy now, then pursing him in a safer fashion.

Lawful good will appologies for his carelessness, feel guilt, weigh the past consequences in his sleep for life long.

Moral of the story, chaotic often does whatever seems more appropriate at the moment to accomplish its goals, regardless of law. It doesnt actively seek to break the law, it just doesnt prioritize it.

Lawful is the tree in the hurricane that will not bend, nor will it break. Upright is what it was taught what it believes, so upright it shall remain untill it is pulled up by the roots and cast into the storm.

Now this is a interesting question. If you look at it from a evil standpoint. They would consider themselves good. Or at least all the ones I've seen. They are not heroic but they would view themselves differently than others would.

But true good would of course be obvious. But let's take say a king who in his own country is beloved. But in other realms despise and see for the type of person they truly are. A good diplomat for instance might be able to fool the masses.

The best example I could give on this is The Emperor from Star Wars. When he was but a Senator he had them fooled. No one saw him for the Sith Lord he truly was.

In reply to PyraBlack (msg # 159):

However, the Emperor in Star Wars always knew he was evil. He wanted to crush freedom and goodness.

Of more relevance would be a real world dictator such as has been seen in countries like Iraq and North Korea. Their leaders often see themselves as the good guys, fighting the evil forces outside their doors who seek to destroy the values they hold dear. We the outsiders (generalised as 'The West') regard those leaders as oppressive and evil dictators crushing their downtrodden people under their jackboot.

Is it just perspective or are there universal constants that can be applied?

The Emperor in Star Wars didn't see himself as evil, but rather he was unconcerned over such things as morality. He believed it was his right as a Sith Lord to rule, and he did whatever it took to achieve what he believed was rightfully his. To him, the Jedi and rebels were people trying to take away what should be his.

This is why he was telling the truth when he told Anakin the from his perspective the Jedi were evil. The Emperor was using a definition of evil that it is evil to take things from others that is is rightfully theirs. That is also why even after becoming emperor he went through decades of process to finally finish off the senate, even though he could have just dissolved it if he wanted.

This question has been discussed to death. The simple answer? Perspective. When you do something, you do it because from your perspective it's the right thing to do. It's movie and book logic to be intentionally "evil". Even people who are evil in most people's eyes; people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy come to mind. I don't know anyone who would say these people weren't evil incarnate. Though if you listen to how they speak, they always talk as if it's the victim's fault. They aren't the bad guys in their mind, they're not evil in their head, their perspective is warped to be the good guy. If your perspective isn't warped into thinking the victim WANTS or DESERVES to be brutally attacked, then you'll see them as evil.

Warped implies that it's somehow wrong, but I'd like to say this. I used the term warped because it's not the normal perspective. No normal person thinks what they did is OK. But if you're not normal, if you think what they did is OK, then you would think everyone who saw this as wrong was the warped one. This term just helps explain my position from a perspective I assume we all start out at.

The only universal constant that can be applied is that suffering will happen. Either suffering will come from conflict between entities, or suffering will come from the stagnation that occurs when there is no conflict, which either starts more conflict (the only time it doesn't make conflict is when everyone lays down and dies).

That's why I liked Worm: http://parahumans.wordpress.com/ Just because someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons, they don't automatically get a free pass from guilt.  Bringing down a building, whether it ends the bad guy or not, should bring guilt.  If it doesn't, the character is a total sociopath, chaotic outlook or not.