User:Spazalicious Chaos/Alignments- How to Not Be a Drinker of the Lawful Good Kool-Aid

It is a well known fact that the write up of the alignments is unusable bullshit. Once you throw in PC and NPC characters used as examples, it gets even worse and even more unclear as to what it means to be any particular alignment.

But unlike many before me, I have taken a look and found the alignments to be consistent in one regard - monsters. Devils are highly organized and honor bound, tied into a strict hierarchy with specific means of advancement, and are dedicated to the subjugation of beings with similar agendas to theirs, and the corruption of others' agendas to match their own, their own being ownership and enslavement of the world. Fitting, as they are also the embodiment of Lawful Evil. Thus, using monster entries as my basis, here is my rewrite of the alignments of D&D.

Disclaimers
All the below entries are my observations based on how I have seen monsters and characters used in a variety of campaigns, especially my own and those of my friends/family. I do not claim to know the meaning of pure evil, good, chaos or law, and have many preconcieved notions about what it means to be a (insert good, evil, chaotic, or lawful here) person. I also operate under the assumption that actions and intentions work together to create an individual's morality, and thus all my statements will be in that context.

Finally, I do not condone the D&D alignment system nor any rules mechanics that force it to be mandatory, either core or homebrew/3rd party. Any contributers to said systems have my personal permission to go die in a fire while being raped.

Thank you.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good vs Evil
The least debated but most unclear of the alignment segment, what differenciates good and evil in fantasy role playing? Entire game systems, like World of Darkness, are based on this question alone: what is the difference between me and a monster?

The way D&D is run in some groups makes it nearly indistinguishable. The orcs are evil because they came into your village, killed some people, and stole your stuff, but you are good because you later went into their village, killed some people, and stole your stuff back. While a very ancient and primal justification for why they are evil and you are good, it does not make a good definition. Here are my observations.

Starting in the middle, you have decent and bad people, both of which I call neutral. A decent individual will take personal risks to aid people they know and trust. These are neighbors that will dig you out of the snow storm, fellow gang members or soldiers that will provide cover fire, etc. A bad individual is willing to harm others to satisfy a need. These are starving homeless men who will mug you, desperate survivors of wars willing to kill occupying soldiers to prevent their discovery, etc.

A good individual is will to take risks and put their life on the line to help others, regardless of the others in question. There is a huge divide between "good" and "decent" in this model. You are decent if you rescue your neighbor's puppy from a fire. You are good if you come across a fire in a strange town and leap in to offer help. You are decent if you are willing to get knifed to stop a friend's suicide, but that immediately jumps to good if you are willing to get knifed to stop a convict from doing the same thing in his jail cell. To be good is to be willing to save anyone, regardless of whether they deserve it.

I would like all readers to note the difference between decent and good in terms of being nice. Decent people are nice people, and will do nice things. But good people are willing to do things nice people never will. Any decent person will fight to save their village from invaders, but only good people will pursue the invaders to rescue the people they have taken, or will continue to fight while being occupied by the enemy.

An evil individual is willing to harm others if doing so is easier and convenient. Bad people in this context are desperate. I have no food, so I'll take yours. I have no money, so I'll take yours. Evil people are malicious. Evil people do not do anything unless it serves them and it is convenient to do so. If there is a chance that people will get between him and his coffee otherwise, he will pay for his coffee. But he will not if it is 2 in the morning at a convenience store in the middle of nowhere, because he doesn't have to. They aren't random or arbitrary, they are thinking of themselves because other people simply don't matter.

Law vs Chaos
I have seen presented more than once that the net sum of law and chaos is zero conflict, that they have no meaning. True if the PHB is taken in a vacuum, but not so true is one simply takes that time to reference monster descriptions with their alignments.

A lawful individual is organized, stable, and traditional. Of the lawful things I've seen, all of them have these traits in common - they live in established heiarchies with positions of varying importance, means of advancement is well defined or else not possible, they work to create a more stable and sustainable environment, and will default to predetermined plans and rituals if confronted with an unknown.

A chaotic individual is anarchic, changeable, and an improviser. The flip side of the coin, chaotic creatures tend to break down structures and systems around them, either taking the leftovers for themselves or spreading the power to those around them, seek out new ideas and innovations rather than sticking to what they know, and treat unknowns on a case by case basis as if it were an isolated incident.

On this axis, a neutral is an idividual who is just passive. He doesn't rebel or fight the law, but he only regards the ones that apply to him. He fears change and fights to keep himself and his life as it was, up until his neighbor gets something that looks awesome, at which point he must have it. When he runs across something he can't understand, he gets someone else to fix it, or just some friends he is close with.

The Nine Alignments
In tradition with D&D's mix'n'match morality system, here are the nine combinations. I have also given each entry a title that fits the general idea of the alignment, though alignment should never, ever be a straight jacket.

Lawful Good - Chivalrous Defender
The lawful good character is one who believes in risking his life for the prtection and well being of others, but doing so by a codified set of laws to prevent mistakes. He looks at whether he will cause more trouble for the individual he saves, or if the individual might not be better off escorted to those who are more qualified to give aid. He obeys local laws and traditions, as doing otherwise would only cause more strife for those he helps, but is often well-researched and organized enough to be able to use the law to the advantage of others.

Neutral Good - Generous Stranger
The neutral good character is just an all around stand-up guy. He only knows what he knows and will be glad to use it to help you, but also recognizes when skills other than his own are needed. He will stick with you and see his action to the end, and will not give up. Granted, if his help is causing problems, he will sit back, and he has the sense to bow out when the more qualified authorities come calling, but in general he is there to help, even beyond just what you ask of him.

Chaotic Good - Freedom Fighter
The chaotic good character has one rule - help others. Things like "proper" and "civility" have little meaning when he sees someone in danger. He will chase problems wherever they go, even if he is being pursued by authorities all the while. And as much as bravado and flair flow from him naturally, in the end it is all about helping others. Yes, he will offer his help unbidden and seemingly at random, but he will never try to conjole or force his help onto others. All it means is that he will wait for "implied consent" situations.

Lawful Neutral - Lawyer-Architect
The lawful neutral person is all about the rules. They trust in the system absolutely and feel confident that it will naturally solve any problems it comes across. Of course, even the most oblivious will recognize when the system doesn't work, but all will made well with new laws and new strictures. All that matters is that the law is stable. A LN person cannot function in an unstable environment, and will try to force stability into such situations if pressed.

Neutral - Average Joe
The neutral person is stuck in a routine. Working the same job or the same situation day after day, coming back to the same home with the same problems. And he only has those problems because no one fixed them yet. He can't because he has work to do. And after work he has a life to live. Why don't you? The neutral is very much the passive force in the middle that just goes along with what their friends are doing. If Dave the Human is going to raid the kobolds on Thursday, so will Jake the Neutral. If Dave gets kobold herpes from the raid, Jake will do what he can (and maybe loot Dave's fridge), but unless he is the party healer, someone needs to get on that quick. Jake's too busy right now.

Chaotic Neutral - Unplanned Anarchist
The chaotic neutral person is all about one slogan - fuck the rules. He does what he wants and refuses to accept the consquences unless the consequences are awesome. Promises only last as long as he remembers them and still likes who he made them to, and it will always be about what he says needs doing. He recognizes no authority other than his own and always has an eye out for the next newest thing, thus will continue doing as he wishes long past where it stops being sustainable.

Lawful Evil - Supreme Overlord
The lawful evil being has accepted the authority of his local system and has a new goal - become its master. He will use the system to bend and control others, advance his own position, and remove those who threaten his own status. And that is what he cares about - status. Those beneath his status are beneath his notice, while those above him fall into either pawns or threats, and will act accordingly and with the full backing of his society's rules.

Neutral Evil - Standard Criminal
The neutral evil being cares primarily for himself. Others are of no concern as long as he is fed, sheltered, and happy. He pays no attention to any rules other than those that help him out and keep him alive, no concern for others unless they are useful or a threat to him, and no sense of property other than what is his and what should be his. In essence, he is the world and the only thing that matters.

Chaotic Evil - Maximum Terorist
The chaotic evil being is not random unless being random works, not destructive unless being destructive works, not arbitrary unless being arbitrary works. What is he working toward? That is what defines the individual chaotic evil being. All have a goal, and all have a no-holds-barred policy in getting what they want. Law, humanity, the suffering of others, sustainability, none of these mean anything to him, only the goal and what he desires.

Cross-Alignment Parties
As a final note in closing, I would like to point out that even with the alignments as presented, multi-aligned parties should not just be allowed, but encouraged. Could you imagine what would happen to your party if they were all Neutral? Lawful Neutral? Chaotic Neutral? All Chaotic, period? You need some balancing points, and if you have a good group together you can totally play a group with Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil characters working together. Reasons why will be different, prehaps even drastically, but different players bringing different abilities and mindsets to the table is what RPGs are about anyway, so stop being afraid of it.

The Final Paradox
Only after re-examining this article and viewing some comments on one of my variant rules has it brought to my attention one popular but horribly wrong misperception.

"... your DM could realize that alignment is a reflection of outlook and not a means of control. Instead it is a description no more controlling than writing 'red hair' on your character sheet."

Everyone is the hero of their own story. Hitler honestly believed that every action he took was the right and best thing to do. In his own mind, he might have described himself as Lawful Good. But many use his behavior as the standard for Lawful Evil behavior. Talking with hardened criminals reveals that all but the most deranged and broken of minds will do astounding mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are either a hero or a victim. In the realms of fiction, the best example of this we have is Gias Baltar from the newer Battlestar: Galactica. He sold out his race, twice, refused to take the consequences or responsibility for his actions, and on top of all that, spent his time worrying about how all the death and mayhem would afflict him. Clearly Neutral Evil behavior from the descriptors above, but we see that Baltar percieved himself as the ultimate victim, the supreme Neutral to which all these bad things have happened that have made him seem like a bad guy.
 * As I think this is a section that may cause confusion, let me make this clear - both Baltar and Hiltler were evil pieces of shit. This section is not an article in their defense, but rather an illustration of their delusions. Alignment should not be a function of personal outlook, as then only a few hundred evil people would exist, when that is clearly not the case. Rather, I theorize that the path to evil is paved with good intentions that were not closely examined. Your paladin can rant and rave about how the orcish hordes, if destroyed, will purge the world of senseless raiding and war and remove one of the more powerful evil gods. In the end, it is still genocide, one of only a few crimes that are considered evil by everyone.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, alignment should be a reflection of actions and intent. Actions, how you go about achieving your goals, is the major symptom of an alignment. Intent comes in as what your goal actually is. So you want to make the world a better place. Good, but what can make the world better? If making the world better is to end disease or teach peace by example, you are probably a good guy. If making the world better means kill all the drow, have fun with that mien feuhr, you evil son of a bitch.

So, the next time you are waging war on an BBEG who is trying to raise an undead army to take over the world, bear in mind that there is a good 95% chance that he is commiting these atrocities out of some sense of trying to make the world better somehow. With zombies. And dead babies. So really, if you slaughter an orc village, cutting down "all who stand taller than the axel of a wagon" as Genghis Khan ordered his men to do, in the name of making the world a better place, is your paladin still Lawful Good?