|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Posted for your approval, Bob’s Guide to Making Alignment Work...
Preface
What follows represents my own understanding of the Gygaxian Alignment system. Your own could well vary, but reading this should at least provide a little insight into this wonderful tool we have inherited.
Twin Axes, centered on Neutral
The primary element driving the Alignment system is that of the Cartesian coordinate system. Many of us may remember these mathematical expressions derived from lines labeled ‘x’ and ‘y’ from our education. It is that design upon which everything related to Alignment rests. The first coordinate, usually ‘x’, is in our case ‘ethical’, also known as ‘law/chaos’. The second, ‘y’, represents ‘moral’ alignment, from ‘good’ to ‘evil’. At the ‘0’ position on both lines is ‘neutral’. With this structure in place it becomes possible to plot virtually any behavior on this grid conclusively. This is what gives the system its power, and what has allowed it to survive reasonably well throughout all these intervening years.
|
|
Ethical Axis
Note that while many philosophers, scholars, and theologians might debate the differences (or lack of difference) between morals and ethics, this Alignment system does not. One’s ‘ethical alignment’ is reflected by an attitude towards structure, which is indeed one of mankind’s core struggles as we seek to become more civilized. History reflects many conflicts over differing points of view on this topic that have led to full-scale wars. So many, in fact, that I will not beleaguer the reader with examples now.
Law
Law, in the ethical alignment axis, represents a strict adherence to structure. Lawful behavior venerates coded standards and judges all others based upon their compliance. Lawful society makes ample use of agreements, oaths, and pacts; binding one-another. Fairness is crucial to lawful behavior.
Synonyms for Lawful: honorable, rigid, disciplined, bureaucratic, authoritarian, ritualistic
Chaos
Chaos is very much the simple antonym of Law. Chaotics reject structure outright and actively. Frequently this expresses in the desire for freedom and the expression of this will greatly hinge on a person’s moral alignment. Chaotic behavior is spontaneous, variable, and shows a great zeal for change. The concept of a chaotic society itself rejects such labeling, as these individuals would hardly submit to such authority. However, it would probably be detectable by huge amounts of latitude from person to person and utmost unpredictability.
Synonyms for Chaotic: unorthodox, disorderly, heretical, aberrant, eccentric, unconventional
Ethically Neutral
Ethical neutrality can be represented by a number of ways, but each results in effectively the same position of center ground on this axis. A neutral might be of two minds on the matter, adhering to structure when it works well and favoring spontaneity when it does not. One who simply has no preference and is willing to ‘go with the flow’ fits the neutral label. Finally, neutral can describe inertness, typically in favor of the other axis. In this use case, the word ‘true’ replaces neutral, as in ‘true neutral’. More on this later…
Synonyms for Ethically Neutral: nonchalant, indifferent, undemanding, serene, equable, temperate
|
|
Moral Axis
One’s position along the moral axis typically denotes the concept of self, the value or burden of kindness, and the degree to which others play a role in our behavior. And again, while ethics will play a role in the end result, the moral axis exists as an abstraction of all of these concepts combined. It is important to note that this axis is NOT relative to society, situation, or circumstance. Social norms have no effect on the measurement, and each act, when taken in a vacuum, plots cleanly along this axis. Just as one can plot Law from Chaos, so can Good from Evil be mapped. Relativism, typically speaking, presents within this system as neutrality.
A simple vocabulary trick is also required, when English, when dealing with the term ‘good’. The colloquial phrases ‘good boy’, ‘good job’, or ‘good behavior’ reflect approval and not alignment. For example, evil behavior in goblin society is quite ‘good’, from their point of view, as it meshes well within their society. This sort of relativism can cloud the issue of alignment to the point where many reject it outright. This is a trap. Again, try to focus on the behavior itself through a lens of one axis at a time, and weigh each action independently. Once the alignment of such is determined, then go back and apply the society’s expectations against it. This will result in a clean adjudication of the rules as well as a functioning, logical world.
Good
Morally good behavior demonstrates compassion, selflessness, and greatest benefit to all. Altruism and concern for others are crucial. While good does not mean stupid, neither does it mean shrewd. Those plotted as good along the axis would be familiar with the phrase ‘give until it hurts’, and find service to others as a path towards happiness.
Synonyms for Good: benevolent, helpful, considerate, humane, philanthropic, sympathetic
Evil
Along the moral axis, evil represents the willingness to do harm, profit at another’s expense, or otherwise debit from society towards one’s own ends. This type of behavior might represent deep dislike of others or it might be as simple as passing spite. Evil revels in the suffering of others, and utilizes unsavory tools such as torture with glee. Evil is also prone to revenge and cares little for the preservation of life – occasionally preferring to kill as many as possible.
Synonyms for Evil: brutal, depraved, sadistic, malevolent, sinister, wicked
Morally Neutral
As with the ethical axis, a morally neutral being is simply taking the center road. This could be due to deep apathy, passiveness, or mere selfishness. Again it could reflect an individual who is prone to both good and evil acts depending on the circumstances, as it sees fit. So long as the behavior reflects no strong trends towards either end of the axis, the term neutral applies.
Synonyms for Morally Neutral: uncaring, detached, temperate , balanced, sensible, intermediate
|
|
Plots Along the Grid
For the rest of this reference, I will use coordinates to help describe my meaning in accordance with the alignment grid. Because I intend to dive into a bit more detail in the next section, we will use the coordinate ‘3’ to represent the maximum value on each line, ‘-3’ will be the minimum, and ‘0’ will be the center. Therefore, Lawful Good plots as ‘3,3’, True Neutral as ‘0,0’ and Chaotic Evil as ‘-3,-3’. As you can see, there is a rather wide variety of options in between the extremes. I will touch on all the major ones first.
Lawful Good: 3,3
Someone both adherent to Law and reverent of Good follows a benevolent code. It is not merely advantageous to be kind to others; it is required. Such a person would find fulfillment in both ‘doing the right thing’ and in mentoring others to do likewise.
Lawful Neutral: 3,0
The Lawful Neutral outlook requires the strictest adherence to the code, without any regard for the outcome. Such an individual would enjoy the beneficial results and simultaneously savor the pain that the code sometimes requires. Their code, above all else, is king.
Lawful Evil: 3,-3
A devil offering a lopsided pact makes for a fine example of Lawful Evil. This personality uses their code to the greatest possible benefit, particularly in ways that harm others. Whether this is due to enjoyment factors or simple expedience is not necessarily important. So long as the behaviors can be described as rigidly pursuing unfavorable ends along a set of rules, this descriptor is accurate.
Neutral Good: 0,3
Also known as ‘true good’, this point of view prefers a beneficial result without regard to the rules. This sort of person is a rebel from the oppressor’s point of view, but might seem merely sensible to the oppressed. Someone of this alignment would not use rules as a crutch, nor would they seek to undermine order unless it was necessary for benevolence.
Neutral Neutral: 0,0
This viewpoint is relatively rare, as most cultures will advocate some sort of behavior as being the best way to achieve one’s goals. However, such a person would not espouse any particular tendencies towards good, evil, law or chaos. They would strive to be non-interfering and to leave little imprint upon the world, and some might occasionally act in order to maintain their perception of cosmic balance.
Neutral Evil: 0,-3
Neutral Evil could also be ‘despicably selfish’. This sort of person follows no specific creed other than electing to harm others whenever it might aid them in some way. The wiser representatives of this viewpoint will reign in their opportunism in order to further their lifespans, but when presented with few consequences, they will always take the evil option.
Chaotic Good: -3,3
One who is both Chaotic and Good sees freedom as the maximum benefit any can obtain, and would seek to spread that freedom everywhere, if possible. They are the quintessential ‘free spirits’ who also care deeply for others.
Chaotic Neutral: -3,0
The Chaotic Neutral personality is a slave to variety and observes little else. They abhor unnecessary structure for themselves, but are not at all likely to act towards freeing others from such tyranny. Instead, such a person is likely to flit along to the next matter at hand, never staying in any one place too long.
Chaotic Evil: -3,-3
Often depicted as villains in popular fiction, the Chaotic Evil personality seeks destruction of order and authority and stops at nothing to do so. Whether they view their own whims as the only acceptable rule or they simply wish to see everything burn, this type is dangerous in the extreme. Societies made up of Chaotic Evil types are difficult to control and their leaders typically rule through extreme power, fear, or some other precocious mechanism.
|
|
Shades of Gray
In all derivatives of the world’s oldest role-playing game system, the above nine examples are the ‘Rules as Written’, and are the only possible options. In reality, we know that people are more complex than this. The good news is, that is irrelevant. All human behavior can plot within this grid, allowing for some slight flexibility in the interpretation of the definitions. Mathematically this represents as each of these major alignment points being the center of a radius. Or, alternatively, one might merely round each coordinate digit to the nearer of 3 or 0. What follows are some rough examples of how this works.
Rather Lawful, Not very Good: 2,1
This combination would describe someone who doesn’t always follow their code, and likes to be nice but doesn’t make a habit out of it.
From a roleplaying point of view, you have a much more ‘human’, believable personality. As determined by the game rules, this character would be Lawful Neutral. Why? Because 2 rounds up to 3 and 1 rounds down to 0. So long as you clear it with your Game Master first, the description above is indeed playable within this alignment choice.
Slightly Chaotic, Occasionally Evil: -1,-1
This plot reflects a mild affinity towards both Chaos and Evil. This would round to Neutral, ‘0,0’, and could play as such without much effort. If this result is undesirable, consider modifying the round to lean towards either Chaos or Evil a bit more strongly, and round accordingly. ‘-2,-1’ becomes Chaotic Neutral and ‘-1,-2’ becomes Neutral Evil. Further play can adapt this alignment plot even further in one direction or another, as desired by the player and as depicted in her behavior.
Optionally, Just Use the Grid
Again, if your GM allows it and everyone at the table agrees, you could just note your alignment along this grid and play it as such. It would also allow for a GM to adjudicate alignment ‘sliding’ due to incompatible behavior. In game terms, however, and in order to maintain compatibility, just use the rounding concept to arrive at the nearest in-game alignment. For all other purposes, maintain the concept as plotted and have fun using the alignment system to maximize your play.
How does this differ from alignment stated in the core book?
Very interesting and thoughtful post you've just submitted. I forwarded this to my gaming group to read, and I think it will help us to re-examine our assumptions about how alignment works. Nice job!
|
|
I like your 'Rather Lawful, Not very Good' reasoning, that is the way I was thinking of playing my LN Magus. He comes from a small kingdom where the main military forces are Magi/Eldritch Knights, and is on a personal mission to distinguish himself before officially joining them. He hold his home laws very seriously, but is willing to bend when it comes to other law codes. Morally, the only thing keeping him him from being Good is his extreme disdain of common folk and the ignorant.
I am not sufficiently Grognardy to tell you definitively, but I believe your statement that the 9-alignment system is "Gygaxian" may be in error. I know 0e had some alignments, but I think it was fewer than 9. Grognards lurking: how'd that work in the day?
I am not sufficiently Grognardy to tell you definitively, but I believe your statement that the 9-alignment system is "Gygaxian" may be in error. I know 0e had some alignments, but I think it was fewer than 9. Grognards lurking: how'd that work in the day?
Alignments were split into Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. It was essentially how they were socially, and most of the races that would be deemed as good such as elves, dwarfs, etc were Lawful, while creatures like Dark Elves (drow), Orcs, and Goblins were Chaotic.
To my knowledge I believe it was based on their overall society structure and how well they worked and related with each other and such. Morality - AFAIK anyway - had nothing to do with it. They added good and evil sometime later, and it's been hell ever since.
|
|
They added good and evil sometime later, and it's been hell ever since.
I spoke to this above, but I only think it's 'hell' when you try and apply relativistic notions to it. Under the lens of 'altruistic or not' it really isn't that hard to work with, is it? Besides, if it's the moral axis that gives you fits, then only select alignments ending in 'N' - problem solved! :)
They added good and evil sometime later, and it's been hell ever since.I spoke to this above, but I only think it's 'hell' when you try and apply relativistic notions to it. Under the lens of 'altruistic or not' it really isn't that hard to work with, is it? Besides, if it's the moral axis that gives you fits, then only select alignments ending in 'N' - problem solved! :)
I agree for the most part. I tend to see good as altruistic as well. In fact, that is pretty much all that the good alignment is defined as, only in more words. Evil is pretty much the opposite from my perspective as well.
I eventually dropped the alignment system from my games to a point. Basically I just told people to roleplay their characters and forget about what their alignment was unless they were playing a class that was keyed to that alignment (such as Paladin). Everyone is treated as Neutral unless you have a subtype (Paladins and clerics can get subtypes as part of their class) which treats them as X for whatever is based on Alignment.
It's added a lot to our RP. However, I like your alignment breakdown.
|
This is a wonderful and even-handed breakdown of alignment. I am strongly considering handing this out to players before they create a character.
I've thought of alignment as less of a role-playing tool, and more an indicator of what outer plane your soul is most closely aligned to (given that most games take place in a universe where one's soul ends up in an afterlife of similarly aligned spiritual matter). Any thoughts on the nature of outsiders and other such matters on alignment?
|
|
I've thought of alignment as less of a role-playing tool, and more an indicator of what outer plane your soul is most closely aligned to (given that most games take place in a universe where one's soul ends up in an afterlife of similarly aligned spiritual matter). Any thoughts on the nature of outsiders and other such matters on alignment?
I've always considered deities and planes as manifested by their faithful. As in, the more people adhere to a certain alignment, the more powerful a certain plane is.
Other than that, no, I don't usually do much to connect them in my own games.
|
Thank you this is very useful. I was trying last saturday just before a PFS game, to try and explain to a new player what alignment was. I fell back on movie characters.
Luke SKywalker LG, Han Solo CG, Tommy Le Jone's Marshal in the Fugative LN, Darth Vader LE, Gollum CE, Connan CN.
I know the analogies aren't perfect, but I was trying for general touch stones.
I think i may copy this and print it up....
Oh when thinking of True Neutral, i have sometimes thought of the "Bhuddist" who is seeking to separate himself from all attachments and is seekng enlightenment, or the "Hindu" who realaizes a soul journeys through lifetimes, sometimes leading an life of evil, of good, of law, of Chaos, but by following ones Darma and accumulating Karma, one's soul eventually rises in the caste system.
I know terrible over simplifications, and I am probably mixing things and getting them wrong, My apologies to the Bhuddists and Hindus.
Thank you this is very useful. I was trying last saturday just before a PFS game, to try and explain to a new player what alignment was. I fell back on movie characters.
Luke SKywalker LG, Han Solo CG, Tommy Le Jone's Marshal in the Fugative LN, Darth Vader LE, Gollum CE, Connan CN.
I know the analogies aren't perfect, but I was trying for general touch stones.
I think i may copy this and print it up....
Oh when thinking of True Neutral, i have sometimes thought of the "Bhuddist" who is seeking to separate himself from all attachments and is seekng enlightenment, or the "Hindu" who realaizes a soul journeys through lifetimes, sometimes leading an life of evil, of good, of law, of Chaos, but by following ones Darma and accumulating Karma, one's soul eventually rises in the caste system.
I know terrible over simplifications, and I am probably mixing things and getting them wrong, My apologies to the Bhuddists and Hindus.
Kudos for not using Batman in your descriptions!
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Thank you this is very useful. I was trying last saturday just before a PFS game, to try and explain to a new player what alignment was. I fell back on movie characters.
Luke SKywalker LG, Han Solo CG, Tommy Le Jone's Marshal in the Fugative LN, Darth Vader LE, Gollum CE, Connan CN.
I know the analogies aren't perfect, but I was trying for general touch stones.
I think i may copy this and print it up....
Oh when thinking of True Neutral, i have sometimes thought of the "Bhuddist" who is seeking to separate himself from all attachments and is seekng enlightenment, or the "Hindu" who realaizes a soul journeys through lifetimes, sometimes leading an life of evil, of good, of law, of Chaos, but by following ones Darma and accumulating Karma, one's soul eventually rises in the caste system.
I know terrible over simplifications, and I am probably mixing things and getting them wrong, My apologies to the Bhuddists and Hindus.
I've always used Captain America as an example of how to be LG to paladin standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though the Law/Chaos dichotomy is older than the two-axis/9 alignment system, the latter is from the AD&D Player's Handbook (1978) and is as Gygaxian as it can be, though perhaps not as grognardy by those who think some significant threshold was crossed between 1974 and 1978.
|
|
Big John 42, The "Detective" must have been stealthily lurking in the background hiding behind some boxes, as he often does, while I failed my perception check.
Batman, is a complex character who doesn't fit nicely into the alignment system, I think this character has elements of more then one alignment in him. But Batman's alignment is surely a discussion for another thread.
Ryric, thank you that wasn't a comparison i had thought of....captain america certainly dose fit into the paladin code nicely. But i do think just about everyone knows who luke skywalker is, not everyone knows who captain america is.
But again to the OP, thanks for laying the Alignment system out.
Yes i do seem to remember sometime in the distant path, there was only lawful, neutral and chaotic for alignments.
Big John 42, The "Detective" must have been stealthily lurking in the background hiding behind some boxes, as he often does, while I failed my perception check.
Batman, is a complex character who doesn't fit nicely into the alignment system, I think this character has elements of more then one alignment in him. But Batman's alignment is surely a discussion for another thread.
Ryric, thank you that wasn't a comparison i had thought of....captain america certainly dose fit into the paladin code nicely. But i do think just about everyone knows who luke skywalker is, not everyone knows who captain america is.
But again to the OP, thanks for laying the Alignment system out.
Yes i do seem to remember sometime in the distant path, there was only lawful, neutral and chaotic for alignments.
Batman's alignment has been the topic of WAY too many threads, which is the reason for my kudos.
For fun, here's Batman's Alignment
Big John 42, The "Detective" must have been stealthily lurking in the background hiding behind some boxes, as he often does, while I failed my perception check.
Batman, is a complex character who doesn't fit nicely into the alignment system, I think this character has elements of more then one alignment in him. But Batman's alignment is surely a discussion for another thread.
Ryric, thank you that wasn't a comparison i had thought of....captain america certainly dose fit into the paladin code nicely. But i do think just about everyone knows who luke skywalker is, not everyone knows who captain america is.
But again to the OP, thanks for laying the Alignment system out.
Yes i do seem to remember sometime in the distant path, there was only lawful, neutral and chaotic for alignments.
Batman's alignment has been the topic of WAY too many threads, which is the reason for my kudos.
For fun, here's Batman's Alignment
Ack, dont you know mentioning batman in an alignment thread is a terrible idea? It can only lead in disaster and tears. Tears I say!
But seriously, interesting post OP. I still dont like the alignment system as a whole (partly due to the above mentioned caped crusader) but I found the whole thing to be very insightful.
Chaos
Chaos is very much the simple antonym of Law. Chaotics reject structure outright and actively. Frequently this expresses in the desire for freedom and the expression of this will greatly hinge on a person’s moral alignment. Chaotic behavior is spontaneous, variable, and shows a great zeal for change. The concept of a chaotic society itself rejects such labeling, as these individuals would hardly submit to such authority. However, it would probably be detectable by huge amounts of latitude from person to person and utmost unpredictability.
Synonyms for Chaotic: unorthodox, disorderly, heretical, aberrant, eccentric, unconventional
Actually, Chaotic societies would fall under despotism: Whoever dominates or controls, rules. Chaotic beings cannot be ruled by laws or oaths or the status quo, but they can be ruled by fear, or by desire.
If someone stronger, or better at bribing, shows up, they usurp the throne of Chaotic society. As such, in places like the Abyss, demon lords would rule for 2 reasons:
1 - The demon lords (and their minions) are so uber that anyone who dares defy them is too scared to do so.
2 - The demon lords tempt, manipulate and bribe better than anyone, and have the best offers for those who obey.
The notion of demon lords ruling for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years is a testament to how menacing and wealthy/manipulative they are.
Note that one way to rule CE or CN society is by hoarding all the resources, and being strong enough to keep it. For example, if you alone have the means to feed people in a desert, they become dependent on you, and you can control them.
######
Chaotic Good societies... the best way to think of that is stereotyped hippies. A collection of well-intentioned, and unrestricted people, being raised and taught on the principles of sharing everything, and respecting the freedoms of others. Without these two principles, CG society inevitably degrades into CE society, as someone powerful shows up and crushes/bribes everyone into submission (personally or by proxy). Of course, a CG society could still maintain itself against a despot, simply by everyone wanting to gang up against the despot. Mob mentality is very much a phenomenon that works with Chaotic ethics.
CG societies would exist, simply because they are like-minded people who want to be with kindred spirits. Again, I can't help but think of the stereotyped 1960s/1970s hippies, living without structure or borders, living on the principles of helping each other, sharing resources, and celebrating freedom. They form a society because they want to live with others, and share with them, and help them, freely.
Good guide! Only thing I disagree on is the frequency of the True Neutral alignment. In my experience this is the MOST common alignment. For starters it encompasses all animals, but also your average person.
Think about the people you know. Most of them are probably decent people who go to work, buy groceries, love their kids, and watch tv. All they really want to do is get buy, take care of the people they care about, avoid pain, and maybe go to the Bahamas once they have enough money. They're not gonna screw over their neighbor's for their own benefit (though they may be tempted), but they're not gonna jump into a burning building to save them. They'll die for their children, but when a tv commercial about starving children in Africa comes on, they change the channel uncomfortably.
Most people are True Neutral because A) they're not motivated enough to be anything else and B) because its the easiest alignment to be.
|
|
Most people are True Neutral because A) they're not motivated enough to be anything else and B) because its the easiest alignment to be.
I disagree. Many of the people I know are NG, many are LN, and a few are NE. Everyone seems to have some sort of guiding path towards being successful/happy. True Neutral strikes me as, well, confused. Flippant and adaptable. I don't honestly know anyone that inconsistent.
I disagree. Many of the people I know are NG, many are LN, and a few are NE. Everyone seems to have some sort of guiding path towards being successful/happy. True Neutral strikes me as, well, confused. Flippant and adaptable. I don't honestly know anyone that inconsistent.
Which all comes down to alignment subjectivity. There are several factions in Golarion that are described as True Neutral.
One example are the Pathfinders themselves. They're an organization that dedicates itself to exploration and the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of the past. To them, this is paramount to all other things. The methods and ideologies of the group don't care much or at all for Laws, personal freedoms, good, or evil, just so long as the job gets done.
Absalom is a neutral city-state that is highly cosmopolitan and open to mostly anything so long as commerce is not openly affected. Indeed, the enforcement of its own laws fall under the fairly fickle perception of economics.
And there's plenty more. Now, people are probably going to say, "But so and so example is actually so and so alignment." To which my response will be exactly my point. As it stands alignment is so exceptionally vague and self referential that its mechanical ties result in griefing and confusion.
Interesting.
For me alignment is not something every sentient being has. So in my game most people are true neutral, which I rather see as "having no alignment" instead of "being a mixture of all alignments".
In order to have an alignment at all, someone must display a certain willingness to take a stand in the face of opposition, and that is what most people choose not to do most of the time.
This avoids the problem that most people are really of many alignments depending on the circumstances and only a few are really leaning heavily in one direction.
|
|
I disagree. Many of the people I know are NG, many are LN, and a few are NE. Everyone seems to have some sort of guiding path towards being successful/happy. True Neutral strikes me as, well, confused. Flippant and adaptable. I don't honestly know anyone that inconsistent.
Which all comes down to alignment subjectivity. There are several factions in Golarion that are described as True Neutral.
Please don't confuse my statement. I'm not saying that I've never heard of any true neutrals. In fact, I'd expect perhaps Buddhist monks may fall into that. I also didn't say that there weren't any in Golarion or anything remotely of that sort.
I simply said that I've never met any in real life.
As the dog acts on instincts, it's neutral. It took food from the animal it recognizes as the alpha and hides because of this, not because it knows that what it does is wrong. One cannot fall into the trap of equating animal instinct into sentience and the knowledge of right and wrong. It's why an apex predator like an owlbear is still a neutral creature in spite of it's aggressive, and potentially destructive, nature.
|
|
This is what I wrote for my players back in 3.5:
Catherine’s Treatise on Alignment in D&D
Alignment in D&D is not just a game rule, it’s a role-playing aid. It is a simplified expression of your character’s world view--not your mood of the moment, or the character’s demeanor when the character is not being challenged.
While the Player’s Handbook gives you contrasting examples of how characters with different alignments act under a given circumstance, it doesn’t really give you an idea of how to pick your alignment to match your character’s specific motives and outlook. I’ve come up with some philosophies to help players find the alignment that best suits the character, not necessarily the class, which they want to play. I view alignment along two axis, and pigeon-hole some of the “in between” behavior. The first axis is labeled Good-Evil and the second Law-Chaos.
The Good-Evil axis is an expression of how well your character empathizes, or shares emotion, with others. No character or person wakes up in the morning and says to himself, “I’m going to be more evil today.” Being Evil happens when characters with no empathy for others do whatever is expedient or guaranteed to get them closer to their goals, and it happens to hurt someone. Characters who share and understand the emotions of people around them do what they can to make the people they meet feel better. Those mutual feelings of happiness and well-being feel nice for both parties. Cooperative, empathetic characters are perceived as Good. Looking at your character’s basic emotional ability-- how well and often you connect emotionally with your party members and with the NPC characters that you meet--will give you an idea of how Good or Evil your character is. If you intend to role-play a character who is interested in bettering the well-being of the other characters in your party and actively seek out NPCs with the intention of improving your lot by improving their lot in life, then you should label your character Good. If your character is interested in getting along with the party, and having decent relations with the NPCs you meet, you should label your character Neutral. If your character has powerful motives or intense emotional problems that completely over-ride your character’s ability to care about how even your companions feel about your actions, you should label your character as Evil.
Consider a character’s connectivity to others on a 5 point scale: “1” being a character who tries to listen with all his heart to everyone he meets, “3” being emotionally linked to the party and reoccurring helpful NPCs, and “5” being psychologically linked to no one at all—caring exclusively about himself. Most players will find their characters in the middle range of 2-4. Solid “3s” should choose Neutral while “2s” and “4s” should take a look at the rest of the party and upgrade themselves to be in line with the majority. Keeping in line with the majority of the party is meant to reflect that most characters to go along with the party. If you are nearly always inclined to disagree, move yourself the other direction.
For the Law-Chaos axis, consider your character’s belief in how society operates and how he operates within that society. Lawful characters believe in societal values and structure; further, they believe that those structures need to be upheld and that those who do not conform to the values need to be penalized. Chaotic characters believe that society is incidental; individuals meet to get what they need from one another—be it companionship or to satisfy base needs. Neutrals generally understand the values of their society and follow them for simplicity and security, but only single out individuals for punishment when their society’s most prized values are violated. Once again, you can create a mental five point scale, and then move your stated alignment towards that of the party.
The above philosophies will make it more likely that you choose an alignment that suits your character—unless you have a “special” personality. There are two “special” alignments: True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.
Let’s handle the True Neutral first. You can’t try to be Neutral. Doing a rotten thing to a PC or NPC because you participated in saving the world last week is not Neutral. It’s mean and contrary and apt to make the other players at your table dislike your (the player’s) behavior, not your character’s behavior. Characters that are True Neutral are rare. In fact, if you asked the character, he would probably say that he’s a Good person, but Neutral on that whole society issue. That’s because player characters are passionate. Characters who are True Neutral are simply passionate about something outside society. Nature, scripture, literature, and magic are common subjects about which the True Neutral may be passionate--so passionate that people outside their immediate surroundings or circle of friends are not considered. In order to keep this focus, these individuals tend to isolate themselves and immerse themselves in their passion. Druids, cloistered monks, and sages are the professions we often associate being Neutral in their own environments. However, if you can get their attention away from their passion, you are likely to find that they are Good at heart!
The Chaotic Neutral is the most hated and loved alignment by players and DMs alike. Once again, I must state: You can’t try to be Neutral. Doing a rotten thing to a PC or NPC because you participated in saving the world last week is not Neutral. It’s mean and contrary and apt to make the other players at your table dislike your behavior, not your character’s behavior. Chaos does not justify anarchy. You like anarchy? Great. Write Chaotic Evil on your character sheet now and be honest. Your DM won’t let you play Chaotic Evil? Find another personality to play or another game to play and save everyone, including yourself, the frustration.
Many players will write Chaotic Neutral on their characters when what they really want is to be Chaotic Evil. They want to play a character that is out for himself and gleefully willing to trash the world and the other characters to do it. Hey! I can’t give these guys too much grief over wanting that. I want it too, sometimes. But here’s the deal— those characters are not appropriate for most campaigns. Most campaigns consist of multiple players and DMs playing out a story of struggle and triumph in effort to reach a certain goal. In general, this is constructive play. Characters that are destructive in nature frustrate the other players and the DM as it prevents play and creates hostility between players— something that few people find relaxing. Most DMs that outlaw Evil characters are really trying to tell you that they, and many of the other players, are actively playing out a constructed story that is likely to change in unexpected ways, but is still working toward a climax that includes all the main characters. Please respect this unstated, but important, point of view and take the anarchy to another table!
With that said— there is one special character type that should be labeled Chaotic Neutral; the character with the really short attention span. This type covers a number of character concepts, everything from the consistently impatient character to the character who is just plain loopy crazy. Most of these characters would be Good, but well, extreme impulsiveness often leads to less than the desired outcome. This is not the impulsiveness that kills half the party because the player forced his character forget or miss-read the obvious facts of the games and the situation; that’s anarchy, see the rant above. Also, don’t artificially dumb these characters down— think of this more as sudden genius that hasn’t really been thought through completely. This is the impulsiveness that tries to save the day or gain glory by leaping on unknown artifact, or over the chasm, or at the too-tempting jewels, or headlong down the alleyway. . . . These characters are fun to play, because they bring out the unexpected and the heroic. Better than half the time, these Chaotic Neutrals will get themselves killed without even disturbing the rest of the party. This isn’t personal, it’s just part of living in a dangerous world. Now, there are a fair number of DMs that don’t want to see this Chaotic Neutral, either. They are the most anal of the plot constructors, but should still be respected, if for no other reason than they’re the DM and that’s the nature of that game. If you find yourself dealing with one, try a new character concept or a different game.
Using the ideas that I outlined above, using the two axis of alignment or picking one of the two special Neutrals, you have probably picked an alignment that suits the character concept that you’re going to play. Most people think that alignment is a done deal at this point, and in some campaigns it is. However, in most campaigns there are two other things that influence and are influenced by alignment: your character’s class and the actual play of the character.
First, if you’ve defined, or at least outlined, a personality for your character, and it is not one that your character’s class allows, take a hard look at the character. You probably need to make some adjustments, either by changing your character’s class to reflect the role he’ll actually be playing or by changing the character concept to one more appropriate to the class you want to play. Players in this situation— with a character personality concept that, with honest alignment labels, is not allowed to have the class the player wants to (ab)use— are often tempted to pick the alignment nearest to the one they’re going to play that’s allowed by class instead of reworking the character. This is a poor choice.
The reason to create a personality whose alignment is in tune with the character class is pretty simple, but sometimes overlooked. Most classes with an alignment stricture are meant to simulate some of the things that, with practice, follow naturally for the character as he develops. The practice is assumed to come with some basic behavior patterns that translate into particular alignments. The paladin is a good example; if he is outgoing, connects well with others, and is concerned that the community involved flourishes then he’s likely a good leader and representative of his faith; good leaders of men in faith are rewarded by their deities with the power to protect himself and others as he undergoes dangerous missions to protect the weak and innocent faithful of the deity. Clearly, using the axis defined above, this well connected and community oriented person is Lawful Good. Anything else doesn’t fulfill the deity’s need for a champion, and therefore doesn’t get the powerful benefits of the class— even if the character is personally passionate or inclined for danger! Likewise, druids get their amazing abilities to interact with nature because they are so focused. They’re not just pet lovers or animal trainers with performing bears— they are passionately focused aficionados of nature and all of it’s complex glories, passionately soaking it up, to the exclusion of nearly everything else, until they are so infused with it that they can transform themselves.
The second thing that may change your character’s alignment is game play. Like any plan, your character’s intended personality will change as soon as there is contact with the other players and the game. Many times the changes are small, but sometimes they can be quite significant. After the third regular game session, look at the character sheet and consider how you’ve really been playing the character. Sometimes, a character intended to be conservative turns out to be rather more ego-centric and impulsive than first envisioned. Conversely, a character intended to be solitary in nature ends up the clear leader of the party and its main liaison between the group and the NPCs. If you’re having fun with the character as you’ve been playing him, ask your DM if you can revise your alignment “for free”. If you have to change your character’s class as part of the alignment change, you may find that it’s not that difficult— most of the classes that are restricted in alignment are much like another class. Special benefits, powers, or feats that may be part of your character’s goal can be added with either a second class or, better yet, a prestige class. In the long run, you’ll find that you can tailor the classes to your well defined character just as well as some classes seem to dictate alignments. This concept of using a combination of classes to nearly mimic, but with a greater flexibility, a restricted class is also one to keep in mind when you are setting up a character but run into an alignment conflict.
In most campaigns the advice given above will yield accurate alignments. Play with accurate alignments will give both the DM and other players in your game a tool in judging the likely behavior of your character. Hopefully, this measure of behavior will help everyone to build character that others can find a way to work with (or around).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made a simple guide for me and my friends a while back. It's somewhat similar to what KT said, but doesn't see law necessarily as society's law. Also, it's much friendlier, allowing CE characters to join the party with less conflict.
The Good and Evil axis represents how much you put others before you. Good being more selfless, while evil being more selfish. It doesn't mean you'll willingly do harm if you're evil. It just means you care less about others and more about yourself. Neutral in this axis means you balance the importance of others and yourself. You think about others, but you're not a doormat.
The Law and Chaos axis represents how strict you are with yourself. Lawful characters usually live by a certain code, whether that be a personal code, or local law. Chaotic characters see themselves better off doing what they feel like doing. It doesn't mean you break every law just because. It means you do everything just because. You're not following the law. The law just happens to agree with what you want to do. Neutral in this axis means you have a code, but you sometimes wish to disobey it.
-In this sense, killing someone out of fun is a chaotic act, not an evil one. Killing someone out of vengeance for one's self is and evil act, and depending on the case may either be lawful or chaotic.
-Theft is evil. Either neutral or chaotic.
-Breaking the law is not necessarily chaotic. You could have done this because it breaks your own code.
-Twisting the law or stating loopholes is chaotic evil. You're just using law as a vessel.
-Most people in real life are True Neutrals or at least never within the extremes. It is true though that this is the hardest to roleplay. Also note this alignment does not mean emotionless and apathetic. It means you'd rather think of the situation before acting upon it, balancing vanity with charity, instinct with self-control.
On another note, one (not entirely foolproof) way to look at it is from the angle of "Motivation" and "Means".
The Good/Evil/Neutral section seems to relate to WHY something is done. Is it for personal satisfaction, for the benefit of others, for basic survival or balance?
The Lawful/Chaotic/Neutral section seems to be HOW something is done. Do you prefer to do things in well-ordered systems? Do you prefer to do them without anyone telling you what to do? Do you find a happy medium between the two?
For example, a Lawful Evil character is evil. He relishes suffering, sorrow, and having what others do not. He is lawful because he prefers ordered systems, either because they be, as mentioned, more efficient, easier to exploit, or what not.
A Lawful Good character is good. Se is benevolent and wishes to spread happiness and believes. She believes that ordered systems are the best way to keep a just, fair, and generous society.
So on and so forth.
I disagree. Many of the people I know are NG, many are LN, and a few are NE. Everyone seems to have some sort of guiding path towards being successful/happy. True Neutral strikes me as, well, confused. Flippant and adaptable. I don't honestly know anyone that inconsistent.
Which all comes down to alignment subjectivity. There are several factions in Golarion that are described as True Neutral.
Please don't confuse my statement. I'm not saying that I've never heard of any true neutrals. In fact, I'd expect perhaps Buddhist monks may fall into that. I also didn't say that there weren't any in Golarion or anything remotely of that sort.
I simply said that I've never met any in real life.
You probably have, actually. True Neutral is likely the most common in the world. All animals are, after all. Anyone solely interested in self preservation is True Neutral. These would be many homeless people (whose neurosises haven't made them chaotic), folks who just want to get on with their day to feed their kids, people working most minimum wage jobs.
Oh when thinking of True Neutral, i have sometimes thought of the "Bhuddist" who is seeking to separate himself from all attachments and is seekng enlightenment, or the "Hindu" who realaizes a soul journeys through lifetimes, sometimes leading an life of evil, of good, of law, of Chaos, but by following ones Darma and accumulating Karma, one's soul eventually rises in the caste system.I know terrible over simplifications, and I am probably mixing things and getting them wrong, My apologies to the Bhuddists and Hindus.
Being a long time Zen praticioner, I can understand your point and both agree and disagree with it. In the begining a person on the path of Buddhism is very self centered, working to free themselves from suffering. After sometime, your focus turns outward and the question becomes one of how can I be of service to others. The more advanced students become less attached with stuff, both physical and emotional, but become more engaged in helping others. There is nothing better at reducing one's ego then working for the betterment of others with no expectation of personal gain.
In the beginning we start from every alignment but in the end buddhists move towards NG. At least that has been my observation.
Dotting for reading and digesting later.
I know that the original post was written some time ago, but Order and Chaos have nothing to do with the term "ethics".
Work Ethic, perhaps, but even that is too limited in scope to define it. It's just a poor choice of words, especially since the very definition of "ethic" includes morality.
@mcbobbo, have you considered taking your guide here and making a Google Doc of it?