Questions about Alignment in the World of D& D
DKnight
Member Posts: 307
I always liked one thing about dungeons and dragons and that was alignment system. I cant find another gaming world that has done a more good job with alignment than D&Dragons.
The only thing is what differentiates between the evils and the goods.
What is lawful evil and neutral evils difference?
I overheard from a friend that lawful evil is the worst because if the law says this is good, then they do exact opposite thing.
And also what would be a good example of alignments in actual people-
Charles Manson-evil?
James Bond-good?
Indiana Jones-good?
George Washington-good?
Teddy Roosevelt-Good?
That's another thing is how does neutral follow with.
I really wish there were more alignment systems like dungeons dragons.
The only thing is what differentiates between the evils and the goods.
What is lawful evil and neutral evils difference?
I overheard from a friend that lawful evil is the worst because if the law says this is good, then they do exact opposite thing.
And also what would be a good example of alignments in actual people-
Charles Manson-evil?
James Bond-good?
Indiana Jones-good?
George Washington-good?
Teddy Roosevelt-Good?
That's another thing is how does neutral follow with.
I really wish there were more alignment systems like dungeons dragons.
0
Comments
Manson - CE
Bond - LN
Jones - CG
Washington - LN
Roosevelt - NG
Examples of people and alignments though?
Lawful Evil - cigarette and energy executives who knew they were causing global warming and lung cancer respectively twenty years ago but hid their research from the public and then quietly lobbied to manipulate the laws to protect their profits. No concern for the damage they do to other people in pursuit of greater wealth and profits and using that wealth to amass greater wealth legally but with totally amorality. They subverted the law but never broke it
Neutral Evil - Fox News executives. They knowingly lie to the public and call it "news" which every objective fact checker disproves and the company clearly violated laws on thing like wire tapping cell phones when they think they can get away with it all to create profit, again without concern for the harm they cause but much more willing than the lawful evil companies to take legal risks.
Chaotic Evil - Stephan Moffat. If you've seen the mess he has made of Dr. Who as show runner you know I'm right.
True Neutral - Julian Assange. So dedicated to the facts and making them public he doesn't care who gets hurt or helped. His passion for what he perceives as the "truth" he is blind to good, evil, law or chaos
Neutral Evil, on the other hand, has no such constraints. If the laws and order benefits them, then they will utilize the law, but if at any time it doesn't they will break it, work outside it, subvert it etc...
When Lawful Evil gives their word or pledge you can warily, believe them.
The pledge or word from a neutral Evil is worthless and meaningless. They will always act to their own advantage.
So I guess now is the real question-who is the worst of them all?
Chaotic evil if I am correct would be someone like mass shooters who just attack random groups for no reason? While someone like hitler would be lawful evil?
I still have that weird thing where neutral evil and lawful evil are very similar. Its kind of cool to think about this stuff while most of the time I physically cant play evil characters in video games. I just usually play good characters or neutral. I have a tough time playing bad guys because in my mind someone able to do really bad things like in jade empire and those games while it is a game-its still too upsetting. Maybe im too weak with that stuff
I actually consider NE to be the "worst", rather than CE. CE characters are onesided, evil maniacs. They seek destruction and mayhem just for the fun of it, but that also makes them predictable. You can always know what course of action they will take, since they will follow the path of chaos. A NE character is much more devious, she/he is more unpredictable and will do whatever he/she want to reach her/his goals, no matter what companions, agreements, laws or other things stands in his/her way. A CE character can be failry trusted to be led by you, as long a you are the alpha and they are scared of you, whilst a NE character could backstab you at any moment. You can, and should, never trust a NE char.
FYI: Alignments are tricky and the above is my own interpretation of it.
While its tempting to associate such an alignment with mentally disturbed lone wolves, chaotic evil can also be supported by an intelligence and purpose that transcends mere personal gain and involves the more widescale destruction of social order, morality, government, basic protections and security. Chaotic evil characters can act with a sinister and implacable intelligence, since their goals may require extensive planning and preparation.
A need for 'breathing space' to act out their own plans unhindered is a common reason for striking out at the very fabric of society and causing uncontrolled chaos, collapse and the inevitable cascade of destruction that follows. Furthermore, the destruction may itself be their form of communicating with the wider world. Or perhaps they seek the destruction of order so that the pieces can be re-manufactured into something in accordance with their own personal vision.
Not constrained by a desire for order (LE), and with desires grander than mere personal advancement (NE), chaotic evil characters distance themselves from the human community entirely and may see themselves as above it. They will attack the most basic foundations of a peaceful and gainful order--and undermine the basic assumptions that a prosperous society relies on to function--to achieve a purpose that may be well beyond the understanding of the average person.
Sarevok would be an excellent example, as revealed in the plot for BG1.
In real life, Pol Pot would probably be a good example as well, despite his role as a leader of government and his organized methods. The result of his actions was purposeful chaos and the widespread destruction of Cambodian society. At the very least, he might show that people can be various amounts of lawful, neutral and chaotic evil at the same time. Chaos was an extensive part of his methods, in that fear, distrust, secrecy, betrayal and suspicion were integral tools for how he organized and disposed of underlings and/or parts of the population. His reign used attacks on the very structure of the society out of which it sprung, so that said society could be atomized, reduced to rubble and then reshaped to fit another purpose. 'To keep you is no benefit, to lose you is no harm' broadcast nightly by the government over the radio would certainly constitute an attack on the basic human psyche, replacing the assumed security we all need to conduct our lives with a pervasive uncertainty, fear and doubt about whether we may still be alive the next morning, or whether we may ever see our loved ones again. Instilling personal chaos helped him to enforce an new vision of order.
In fiction, the Big Brother figurehead from 1984, I'd argue, could also be chaotic evil. Yes, there was certainly an established totalitarian order in Oceania, but that order was subject to change and in actuality was not so much the implementation of a consistent legal system as it was the non-negotiable whim of a ruling entity. Although I don't remember any actual proof in 1984 that Big Brother did indeed exist or was a single person, the rulers behind such a figurehead (if he was not in fact real) used the destruction of basic human relationships, reduction of 'thought-space' and widespread culling to wittle the population down to only their preferred elements. Unfocused violence and the omnipresence of the big-brother figurehead enforced power by instilling chaos and terror in individuals. While there were rules in such a society, the order of things was by no means fixed; what was real one day would be unreal the next, and what was true one day could tomorrow become a lie. That history, language and truth itself could change in a single day seems chaotic to me, in spite of the extensive organization required to use such chaos as a means of establishing almost absolute control.
On the other hand, I'd classify Scorpio (from the Simpsons episode "You Only Move Twice") as neutral evil, despite his caring nature towards henchmen/employees, upbeat attitude of encouragement, good humour, sound family advice, 3 weeks paid vacation per year, and love of free German beer in the cafeteria on Fridays (all among many other traits classically of 'good alignment). While an evil genius, he was not out to destroy the whole world, just ransom it for a tonne of cash.
That said some might find a particular sort of evil most abhorrent. I despise lawful evil, I feel it's cowardly and manipulative. Then I consider myself chaotic good, which would be polar opposite.
It doesn't mean you have to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but you are likely to join a riot or disobey an authority in order to help a friend.
Therefore, to roleplay a Blackguard does one just have to think: "It will be 'good' to please my God".
In your example the paladin will presumably be killing goblins because they're evil creatures causing more harm than good in the world. It wouldn't be goblin genocide for kicks.
@FinneousPJ
I consider myself more chaotic than neutral or lawful because I feel man made laws do more harm than good on the whole and I've no compulsion to act lawfully for the sake of it.
Of course, people do not necessarily know what alignment they have and it's perfectly possible for an Evil man to think that he is doing good, and it's also possible for the actions of a Good or Neutral person to be perceived as evil by others. But what people think of themselves or what is others think of them is more or less irrelevant to what alignment they have.
And yes, that means that depending on what edition you are using, some creatures can be considered "always Chaotic Evil", from the day they was born, regardless of their own actions and life stories. That is the reason later editions have opened up the phrasing more and more (3.5, for example, just says "often Chaotic Evil"), as there not being exceptions to this alignment generalization was just too preposterous to keep for the vast majority of races.
Goblins and Drow would leave their comrade behind in most cases, as saving that other soldier would only doom themselves. A neutral character would do what he wanted to see in return. A good character though would do their best to ensure their companion escaped.
Middle-Earth's mythology deliberately parallels the Judeo-Christian creation myth - there's Eru, the equivalent of Yahweh, and Melkor, the equivalent of Lucifer/Satan. Orcs were created by Melkor. However, he couldn't create life from nothing (a power possessed only by Eru himself), so his solution was to capture, torture and ultimately twist and corrupt Eru's creation (in this case, Elves) using foul magic. They're utterly and irredeemably evil, not as much a legitimate species as a blight upon the (naturally Good) world.
So you see, Tolkien's mythology is supposed to be manichaeistic, which has seeped into D&D's alignment system. I believe that most discussions on the nature of alignments come from a failure to understand (or maybe a refusal to accept) that.
As others pointed out, Good and Evil in D&D are absolute concepts. One's personal set of morals dictates which end of the spectrum one tends to, compassion and selflessness representing Good, and cruelty and selfishness representing Evil.
There's no room for moral relativism. It can be a bit hard to wrap one's head around that (specially if you're a secular person) because it requires a type of suspension of disbelief that's way more subtle than "so dragons are real, eh?".
The side effect of all that is that Neutrality, as the third absolute concept, ends up being a bit complex. Or, as I like to call it, completely bonkers. It can be a middle of the road approach (as in, you have neither the virtues of a Good person nor the malice that makes one Evil), but then there's True Neutral, which is more like an alignment-denial stance. It's not staying in the middle of the road as much as refusing to be on the road altogether.
It is the alignment of most animals because they act based on instinct and thus have no morals. Druids share this stance because they are agents of nature and nature works in cycles to which Good and Evil, being abstract forces, are irrelevant. Conscious efforts that affect nature are seen as meddling with the natural order regardless of being destructive or protective.
Of course, when you remove this concept from the "natural order is paramount" worldview you may get a character which makes a point of recognizing Good and Evil and never wants one to triumph over the other for whatever reason. Which to me sounds completely crazy, by the way. It's probably more like seeing conflict as the motor of existence (the whole "yin and yang, the light needs the darkness" philosophy), which makes picking a side ultimately irrelevant.
By the way, this whole "Good and Evil as absolutes" approach is the reason why (I believe) applying the alignment system anywhere outside of the D&D mythos almost never works. Alignment charts using Game of Thrones characters usually miss the mark to the point of being cringeworthy.
Confucius: Lawful Neutral. He advocated a peaceful, harmonious society, with no social mobility (your dad's a farmer, therefore you're a farmer), where the balance of both society and nature as well was maintained by precise ritual and a strict code of conduct. His influence is responsible for the very high value that Chinese and other East Asian peoples even today place on law, order, stability, merit-based leadership, education, respect for authority, and respect for the old, the venerable, and the traditional.
One could say Mao was more Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil, or Confucius was more Lawful Good, but that really doesn't capture the emphasis they placed on law and chaos.
Confucius said to respect teachers; Mao said to decry them. Confucius said to preserve the past; Mao said to erase it. Confucius said to practice the old arts; Mao said to destroy them. Confucius said to maintain the order; Mao said to disrupt it. Confucius said to live in harmony with the natural world; Mao said to control it. Confucius said rulers/fathers/older brothers must provide for their subjects/sons/younger brothers, and the latter must obey the former; Mao said rulers exploited their subjects and must be slain.
Alaignment always leads to interesting discussions, and if you haven't seen any other ones yet, @DKnight i would encourage you to search around.
Everyone has different views, though there seem largely to be to camps when it comes to law/chaos(which causes most of the problems.) you either think lawful means you follow a internal moral code, and chaotic is just wild, random behavior, or you think lawful means you follow external rules imposed by your order, government, etc. and chaotic means you don't really care about external laws of society/nation. I am of the latter camp, though most people seem to think otherwise. It's always an engaging discussion.
After a few years of this sort of think now(yikes. years) I've resolved that the alignment system is inherently flawed. Sometimes it's a nice shorthand, and in my brief(and yes, somewhat tragic) experience with tabletop, it seemed to make new players think about who their character was a little more than they would have otherwise. However it often causes arguments and confusion, and locking characters in boxes rarely works. As an abstract concept, it's interesting, but It's supposed to function as a rule, and people need to be able to agree on rules. And no one can agree on alignment.
Case in point:
What is Batman's alignment?
See?
*Scriver misses the point completely*