D&D Game Alignments

Remove all ads!

Wasn't quite sure where to place this topic, so I decided to place it here, the game that inspired me to ponder.

I was thinking about the alignment system, and I read a few other peoples views on the topic and came to my own conclusion.

The alignments in D&D are clearly 'character' only ideals as opposed to 'universal' ideals. The first thing that made me think this is that Trias the Betrayer (From Planescape Torment) Is Lawful Good, however his actions, to other people at least (Especially the people in Curst) can't be considered 'Good' in the slightest, but that's his personal view on things. That's his own Lawful Good.

Regardless of the description of True Neutral, Jaheira doesn't expect the party to side with Gnoll's after destroying their makeshift camp to 'preserve the balance' she sees that Good is a tool used to keeping the balance. Thats her own personal views on the subject, there as another druid (Such as the shadow druids) may see civilisation as an affront to the balance and seek to destroy it.

Carrying on from that, I did some more thinking. That means very, very few characters in the Baldur's Gate world or indeed D&D world are evil. Except for rabid animals arn't most people just following in their ideals? Even Irenicus could be seen at Chaotic Neutral at the most.

Just wondered what your guys thoughts were.

Cheers :]

 

You can look at it more as Good being more focused on the welfare of others while Evil is intrinsically selfish, along with Lawful being for the force for protecting the most and Chaotic about individual beliefs and causes.

Just because someone doesn't believe they are evil doesn't mean they aren't.

Also Jaheira is a poor example of a True Neutral character. Only reason she is is because of AD&D limitations on Druid alignment. If it was 3rd edition she would most likely be NG.

In fact in general BG2 is geared towards a good party, the 'neutral' members complain more if you are evil than if you are good and in general have a more good vibe than most neutrals. There are Good NPCs, Neutral/Good NPCs and then usually just the Evil ones, very few filling the gap inbetween and they aren't Party NPCs

Irenicus was willing to kill his home city and destroy most of his people for immortality. I don't see that as neutral behaviour at all

 

Aye, that is true about Jaheira. Also an intresting point about evil people not believing they are evil. Which still brings me to Trias, also Irenicus' actions are fundemntally evil but are they anymore than actions of a madman? Which surely puts him in the Chaotic Neutral alignment. His quest for immortality and his obsession with the Bhalspawn smacks more of madness than self preservation.

If someone is mad yet bent on evil are they truly evil? Like I said before isn't alignment more of a choice than a stamp?

Lawful Evil is quite easy to define in a nutshell. A corupt politician who uses his power to fuel his own gains (Alot like the politicians in Britain at the moment, but thats a sperate matter)

But the other evils?

Great hearing other people's opinions

 

Xzar was quite mad, but still evil

Madmen are only an example of those who are CN, You can still me insane and good at heart, just as you can be wicked at heart. True it alters your perceptions and therefore choices, but doesn't neccessarily eliminate them depending on the degree of insanity. Irenicus is a megalomaniac bent on personal gain and power - instead of accepting his punishment he instead turned it into resentment of his people, he nearly killed the woman he loved simply for personal power.

As to Trias, he believed the upper planes needed to get involved in the blood war, but for what end? The blood war kept most of the demons and devils in the lower planes with their own petty squabbling - involving other planes would lead to the battle spilling into the prime material and other planes leading to substantially more bloodshed. His arrogance and pride led him to believe that by commiting evil acts (betraying innocent civilised settlements, dealing with devils, betraying innocent celestials, lying to get his own desires met) he could completely cleanse the lower plains. Perhaps a vision of a noble goal - but ultimately led by hubris. He feels mortals are lesser beings that should be sacrificed for the greater good which is HIS vision of a utopia, he believed might makes right which is the view of a tyrant more then a benevolent man.

Witnessing evil does not excuse one from repeating the acts against those you percieve deserve it simply because you are strong enough to do what you will.

 

Insanity affects every alignment. Just because a person is insane does not mean they are chaotic in alignment.

From an old post of mine about neutral:

 

I'd go along with that on the good and evil natures. Evil is about being selfish and doing what is right for you, it is not about being a psychopath. A typical 'evil' person in real life would be the person who stabs you in the back to get ahead in work.

I think you might be trying a bit hard to fit prescribed alignments onto people that don't fit them. The simplest explanation to an odd alignment is that the developers messed up. Jaheira had to be TN to be a druid but was blatantly a good character. I thought the point of Trias was that he

Spoiler

was supposed to be good but wasn't and he didn't realise this. If you redeem him it is done by getting him to acknowledge he was wrong

. Also, alignment is how a character behaves most of the time, not all the time.

I disagree with 8 on lawful/chaos. To me it is a matter of how rigidly one sticks to rules. You know, a law that makes sense usually might be silly in one particular case. Do you let the person off for breaking it or punish them? To a chaotic person if the law is silly in this case of course you should let them off. A lawful person will probably be thinking more about the wider effects on the system. If you start making excpetions, does everybody get one? Will the law just end up being ignored? If a law that usually works is better than no law shouldn't you make sure it stays in place? Tinker with it if you can but don't throw it out.

 

Deise: Law/Chaos I think is more complex. A LG character will oppose an unjust law; while knowing full well they may be punished for it (and even expect punishment). A paladin will actively oppose a LE regime (to the point of violating laws and becoming a freedom fighter).

The first part of the alignment question is incomplete without concidering the good/evil bend of the character. Bribery is perfectly acceptable to LE, less acceptable to LN (unless it is a legal form of fee payment), but unacceptable to LG. A LE character is perfectly willing to ignore laws that do not benefit them personally, but will obey them without question if they believe the law will be enforced (hence LE thieves). Many players seem to attribute LN tendancies to paladins and other LG characters -- it's an easy trap to fall in to (breaking the law is sometimes the right thing to do).

On the chaotic side, a CG character is a champion of the people. He or she will do anything necessary to ensure peoples rights are not violated. The CN will oppose oppression and rules they believe restrict individual freedoms. CE will disregard laws for personal gain or enjoyment.

 

Probably, I was just separating the law/chaos axis as a single entity. I'd consider most of your examples to be cases of the good/evil axis taking precedence.

 

I think one of the things a player does is decide which part of the alignment takes prominence (even if just for a day). A LG paladin may resemble a LN person at times depending on which part he or she chooses is more important.

Someone who is Chaotic Good may embrace laws he or she eagerly avoids at those times when putting the law into practice helps others.

The alignment is the basic foundation for someone's views. Many people seem hypocritical at times, many times they truly are but sometimes they feel they have found a qualifying exception.

Imagine you don't believe in the death penalty but you know even if someone is never released from prison that person will end up killing others through craftier means. In general you would still be against the death penalty and would be calling for its general end. However you may have it as a last resort in the back of your mind. I'm not saying that people against it do, but I am saying some people have found their general beliefs so challenged by a situation they believe doing other than their normal course of actions is necessary.

About paladins and so on. I think the D&D game has tried to address that in some of the background writing-that is some orders being known for being more lawful (and punishing) than others which are more good (and helpful). In general the former would still help an injured passerby while the latter would still hunt down a bandit or monster. But they each have a focus within their alignments that is decided by the player.

I think the system may well be made just for the sake of sticking a label on something but the label may also generally work. Some people are much more concerned about what the legal system says than others and this is why the lawful to chaotic range is a reasonable thing to have around (as is the good to evil range span).

I think it is arguable that a good person (though certainly not always or even most of the time) can look out for him or her self. However, this person will not try to do so at the expense of others and will generally act at some point to help others in need of aid. A person can also look out for him or her self first in most situations, but will not actively harm others to do so-this may be the difference between neutral and evil characters.

CN aren't madmen so much as undependable and unpredictable. They can be insane but I would argue that is too easy and narrow a label to whip out when trying to define CN characters as a whole.

 

One problem I have with that pplr is the paladin lives for good deeds -- good trumps everything for a paladin (at least that's the way they were originally designed in AD&D and any changes to that are simply being done by writers that are clueless about the paladins origins). I guess I'm old fashioned and believe the paladin is "good" to the extreme, but may have varying degrees of "law" -- the paladin always makes a choice for furthering the 'greater good.' To decide law is more important than good risks becoming fallen for a paladin.

CN is not unpredictable. If you are running a CN character and using dice to determine the character's choices then you are playing an insane character. CN simply believes laws should not interfere with personal happiness and will willfully break any law they believe is contrary to their beliefs (note that not all laws will be contrary).

 

Not neccessarily on the paladin front, you can have paladins who's reverence for adherence to codified means structure which is their ideal for developing a more ordered and happy society. Using lawful means towards ultimately good ends - good still being the goal and trumping evil, yet still the manner and nature of their dedication is still a more lawful bent.

CN can very easily be unpredictable, as can any C character, or even N in some instances, being unpredictable and unreliable does not mean using a dice to make decisions though! Deciding to act on a whim does not mean removing all roleplaying aspects and allowing a lump of plastic to chose your personality.

Remember there are more than just criminal laws, there are social laws, familial rules, rules of engagement in combat, social structure etc. Depending on how chaotic a character is (I am a great believer that Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are sliding scales, not boxes) depends on which sets of laws he violates most and to which degree depending on what he wishes to do or achieve.

 

Very interesting discussion. I find the differences and similarities between varying alignments fascinating. And even, two characters with same alignment can be wholly different too!

There was a cool example of alignments conflicting in the DM Guide book of 2nd edition IIRC. A group of adventurers consisting of all 9 alignments, (an unlikely event, but useful for demonstration) they have decided to share the loot before an adventure, but two characters are dead now and some people have spent extra gold for necessary supplies to survive. They were now arguing how to share the loot gold.

LG:Suggests everybody gets equal share as agreed previously, and dead member's share is sent to their families. If a few people have spent too much gold for supplies, if they have been used for the good of the party, they should be compensated equally. If the dead members can be raised from the dead, everybody should give in equal share of loot to do so.

NG:Everybody gets equal share as agreed, but if a person has spent too much on supplies, that is their problem. Raising the dead members is a good thing to do, so if everybody agrees, people can give from their share to do so.

CG:Now the terms are different, the first contact is null and void. People should get equal shares, BUT only for those who earned it through hard work and personal danger. For example, CE character who stood in the back should not get any. As for the dead members, well it is personal preference, CG character did not like them at all and won't miss them much...

LN:Strictly calculates the loot and divides equally as agreed, looking at his notes. He will not allow any sort of cheat, or personal feelings to cloud his judgement.

TN: Doesn't vouch his opinion, but if one person seems to get more or less share, he will interfere to restore balance.

CN:is dead, (charging a gorgon on a whim) but he would like to be raised AND get a good share to satisfy him, we are a party afterall, it could happen to anyone! (whimsical)

LE:The first contact does not have any rules about dead characters, so he is not going to let them have their share sent to their families, nor he will willingly give from his share to raise them from dead. (cruel!)

NE:is dead too, and ofcourse would like to be raised, maybe the goodie do shoes can pay for his raise dead spell, well they should, he died for them! He only hopes they don't discover the valuable gem he has hidden in his boot before his demise. (selfish!)

CE: who defends himself that he was defending the party's rear, demands that he gets a good share, and even the share of the dead party members, or possibly their equipmen too, since they can't use them. (hungry and destructive!)

This gives good example of general thinking style of alignments, but I agree that two characters sharing the same alignment can be very different too. Alignments are not supposed to be sterotypes, but only ideas.