Alignments - Get over it!

[Brenil]

So can I be black? I hear it gets the chicks.

I'm not a fan of alignments either, but it at least paints a general picture of how someone's views coordinate with the mortality code.

What Hlaine did to Sylloven was without a doubt evil and he deserved to become the social pariah he now is. As for Josephine, I have to agree, she has done nothing to deserve an alignment shift, yet being associated with the Red Wizards does have a stigma attached to it that is quickly being realized given all our activities in the valley lately.

[Machiavelli]

Neutral = accepting the status quo, no matter what it is.

Good and Evil are acting, Neutral is not-acting. Neutral can still believe in morals, or still have evil thoughts, but unless it acts upon those thoughts, it is neutral, leaning one way or the other at best but still neutral

Neutral can be like this, but the assumption here is that morality is bound up with good/evil and not neccesarily with law/chaos, and as a consequence Neutral charcters are amoral and don't do anything. I reckon this goes into the black and white interpretation as well, there's no reason that Neutral can't be activist... it doesn't really mean what the word implies in d&d. The neutral alignments are the "purer" elements of the alignment components, at least in the case of NE, NG, LN, CN, and can imply strong stances and not neccesarily being inactive (in fact these alignments might well force activity of all kinds if they're to be adhered to). The first two are either good or evil, unconstrained by any particular beliefs about order (not to say the character doesn't have them, but they may be fluid, ill defined, flexible, or simply absent), which may include all types of people (but you probably didn't mean NG & NE anyways) .

LN characters can be alot of different things, LN can vary from dry statist bureaucrats, to a godless monk with a deep belief that unless he lays out his fishing rod and tackle in the correct sequence every morning then the fabric of the planes will collapse, to a policeman devoted to hunting down organised crime (a devotion to some sort of order taking precedence is the key here.... consider the ultimate LN hardass- Judge Dredd!). They'll tend to be more attached to ideas of order than good or evil, and might avoid both in the achievement of their goals, or oscillate between the two. But they will still have goals that they work toward, and might take exception to and oppose "good" or "evil" in the right circumstances.

Again, CN can be many things also, the central element is either disliking or ignoring forms of order imposed externally, and possibly even trying actively break down such things when encountered (this might just be something the character wants for themselves or a more generalised belief). The key thing is the attitude toward order, people who are CN might choose to oppose/ally with good/evil or commit good/evil acts for a whole variety of reasons.

I've probably gone on a bit there. All I meant to say was that Neutral alignments may have all sorts of strong moral stances attached to them which lead a character to act in varying ways without making them either 'good' or 'evil'.

Alignment's one of those things that should be picked post-facto after a charcter is designed, fit as well as possible, and be ignored when it doesn't reflect what your charcter is really like (maybe that leads to your alignment being shifted around by DMs, but that's all good too... Malaclypse has had points of alignment shift in a few directions and I'm cool with that). I've blabbed on about alignments here like a moron, I don't really like the system that much (I've never seen an alignment system that I did, and I usually have a tough time picking one for characters and I'm never sure I've made the "right" choice), just make the best pick from what's available and RP like you want to. Like Janus said, a character's the sum of all sorts of things, nobody fits right into some narrow category.

[Blue_Wyrm]

My personnal way of playing Neutral Evil is not being a ruthless vilain but a far more insidious, hypocratical guy who gets what he wants through using others and using lies. He will join a group of heroes in a holy quest if it will get him what he wants in the end. He will associate without a second thought to the worst slice of society if it gets him to his goals faster. He won't growl at people who talk to him around a campfire, because evil doesn't automatically mean antisocial or having an aura of fear and despair around you (except you blackguards :P ). In the way I feel like playing it, evil simply means selfishness. Neutral coupled with it means I'll either join an organisation or betray it to fulfill my goals, without bias or remorse for one or another.

P.S.: Nobody knows Roger's a frickin' pirate, unless you are a Shadow Thief of Amn after him to collect the bounty! Don't be surprised if he reacts unfavorably towards you if you call him such. I know our little team is very much modeled after stereotypes, but besides making a guess you still couldn't pick us apart physically when put aside all the other sailors in Port Avanthyr! (We all stink of cheap spirits lol)

[Dark presence]

Personally I don't like black and white style alignments. And this comes out in character as my character will argue with those people who do see it like that. Of course it stays in character too. Its bad form to bring an alignment discussion OOC unless its with a DM. My character could be completely wrong, but so what? Thats what my character believes. IC knowledge should not be any more black and white than alignment.

But the real key thing everyone should remember is rule zero. DM's word is law. We can argue IC and OOC with each other about alignment till 4th edition comes around, quote the source books until we are blue in the face, but none of that is ever really relevant, because it is always a DM call and never anything else. If a DM says the world is black and white, then thats what it is. If not, then thats how it is too.

And as GBX says, alignment isn't black and white here. I think thats easiest to understand if you can see how alignment does not define a person in the least. Those descriptions of alignment in the PHB aren't a checklist before you are that alignment, or a requirement to be that alignment, just a few things that you MIGHT find in a person in that alignment. Theres no reason an evil person HAS to be a murderer or whatever. You can still be thoroughly evil and never kill anyone in cold blood or even break any laws (and people always forget about law v. chaos, so if G v. E is black and white, I would expect paladins to hunt down chaotic bards and barbarians just as fast).

And again, they aren't supposed to be personality defining traits for people. It seems fine to me if you look at a devil and say he is totally lawful evil, and little more. But for people, alignment is definitely not supposed to be set in stone, and definitely is not supposed to define who they are. Alignment is not a personality.

Personally I'd rather see good people trying to help evil people see the error of their ways, not shunning them completely and damning them. Because remember, evil people go to evil places when they die. Good people go to good places. Save the heathens, don't force them down their path of doom, because if you go killing evil people you are sending them straight to hell, in general, and thats completely aside from what alignment implications it might have for you. And of course that goes both ways. Evil is a "superior ideology", so maybe evil should put more effort into helping good people see the benefits of evilness. That doesn't apply to all characters, but its something to consider, I think.

[GodBeastX]

And to add to the mix, remember, there are varying levels of an alignment between the 0 - 100 value as well. For example, a player who is scanned by a paladin can be a faint evil aura all the way to overwhelming. Treat it that way too. If they are faint, it means "Hmm, there's a little naughtiness in there." Santa might still bring them presents. However, alot of people treat this as "YO THIS MOFO IS CORRUPTED BEYOND REDEMPTION!" because they don't look at it in the varying levels. If you get Overwhelming then you probably should GTFO IMO.

[Echelon13]

If you get Overwhelming then you probably should GTFO IMO.

Or, if they're considerably higher level than you, become physically and violently ill. Way to fight evil there, pally-deen.

[sparkeh]

people always forget about law v. chaos, so if G v. E is black and white, I would expect paladins to hunt down chaotic bards and barbarians just as fast

This is a really good point. It seems that the G/N/E scale has become far more dominant than the L/N/C scale. I don't just mean on this server as I think this generally applies wherever you play. I guess that there are reasons for this as we are probably more comfortable RPing out the whole Good vs Evil thing than Law vs Chaos. In our personal experience, we are generally taught that breaking the law is bad and following it is good. Therefore people are banding together under the banner of Good or Evil, perhaps under unrealistic terms.

Contrived example 1: Bob (LG) swears his allegiance to a seemingly good land baron who slowly uses the laws of the nation to wring out more cash out of his charges and generally turns out to be a tyrant (LE). Along comes Jim (CG) char who starts a rebellion. Who does Bob go along with? Tricky. I think most people would instantly jump in with Jim and overthrow the Baron. But (as GBX threw into the mix) Bob's balance of Law and Good might mean that actually his oath to the Baron is more important and he aids him in quashing the rebellion. I don't think we would often see that result though.

I think that Neutrality is an interesting one and can be difficult to play. Its probably good to have a real idea of why your char is neutral to begin with. Is is a philosophical standpoint (You need a balance of good and evil to define each other), a political point (unrestrained law is restrictive of liberties so you need to balance with chaos) etc. Then you can react accordingly.

I guess the thrust of this is that we should (myself included as I am as guilty as anyone) remember that there is the Law vs Chaos aspect to consider when your character chooses a course of action.

Cheers.

[Machiavelli]

I guess the thrust of this is that we should (myself included as I am as guilty as anyone) remember that there is the Law vs Chaos aspect to consider when your character chooses a course of action.

Cheers.

I thoroughly agree! I was kind of saying this in an inefficient roundabout way above

[Machiavelli]

Commited to/ Ambivalent to

To add to the law/chaos/good/evil debate, I'd just like to add a kinda obvious summary of how I think about it, just to see if people kinda agree. I think this leaves a fair bit of flexibility within any given alignment, it's just a list of what I'd see particular alignments as commited/ambivalent to (purely in terms of good/evil law/chaos). It's not meant to be exhaustive or tell anyone how they should play their alignment, there'll always be things outside any scheme, but what the hey.

LG
Commited to: Some notion of order giving rise to goodliness.
Ambivalent to: Neither

CG
Commited to: Goodliness, but opposed to the imposition of order
Ambivalent to: Neither

NG
Commited to: Goodliness
Ambivalent to: Notions of order, but not neccesarily the actions and products arising from these notions.

TN
Commited to: Either wishing to avoid involvement in such things (morally neutral), or wishing to see balance between law/chaos, good/evil (philosophically neutral)
Ambivalent to: Everything (morally neutral) or nothing (philosophically neutral).

LN
Commited to: Some notion of order. Personal order (morally LN) or a more generalised order (Philosophicaly CN).
Ambivalent to: Notions of Good/Evil, but not neccesarily the actions and products of good/evil. In the case of morally neutral TN it will be whether these actions impinge on/ support their personal code, and in the case of Phillosophically neutral TN it will be whether these actions threaten to undermine/support the wider order they support.

CN
Commited to: Avoiding the imposition of order on themselves (morally neutral CN), or more generally commited to resisting or working to undermine order (philosophically CN)
Ambivalent to: Notions of Good/Evil, but not neccesarily the actions and products of good/evil. In the case of morally neutral CN it will be whether these actions impinge upon/increase their personal freedom, and in the case of Phillosophically neutral CN it will be whether these actions create/threaten new orders or prop up/threaten existing ones.

NE
Commited to: Personal power and the domination of others.
Ambivalent to: Notions of order in acheiving and maintaining this (will use them if conveient or helpful, but has no attachment to them).

LE
Commited to: Some notion of order giving rise to the opportunity to exercise personal power and/or the domination of others.
Ambivalent to: Neither.

CE
Commited to: Personal power and/or the domination of others, but not through the use of some fixed order.
Ambivalent to: Neither.

Anyway, this is intended as just a few thoughts, I'm in no way meaning to tell anyone how their alignment should play out or anything like that. I'm interested in any comments people have on this.

Peace y'all!

[ThePaganKing]

I agree that there are shades or degrees in each alignment and they should also coincide with the God you worship, if you worship a God. My character Elric worships Tempus and is Chaotic Neutral. He is CN because of the God he worships and that God's tenants, but also because he was a studying mage, albeit a big one, who got caught up in Neverwinter's wars. He was conscripted, taught to fight, and sent into battle.

Therefore, he tends to avoid or sometimes openly oppose anything that impinges on his personal freedom and his pursuit of his ultimate goal, which is to be able to pursue his interupted studies in magic.

He also does not judge people by alignment or talk, but in deads, as a follower of Tempus would do. Honorable battle is paramount and if someone, whether they are evil or good, stand shoulder to shoulder with him and fight honorably, then he doesn't care what alignment they are.

And I also agree that people tend to get crazy about alignments......you are evil so die! At least RP it to find out if the person really is evil and why they are, or better yet, try to turn them to your side. Try and save their soul, instead of send it to the abyss!

[Xiloscient]

The biggest thing that I dislike about alignments, is that there are sooo soo many differnt ways of defining law, chaos, good, and evil. The character I've always played hase been CN. And to the general population that defines who he is. I thoroughly disagree with that. He doesn't care with "thats for the good of people" "thats a bad thing to do" so the good/evil is less then questionable... Its the law/chaos scale that I mostly disaprove of. And the one that I think is least understood in general.

In the same way that as previously stated a LG pally would be just as zealous towards a chaotic barbarian or bard, but because everything is simplified into good/evil the pally wouldn't care unless they were also "evil".

Such an example. The character I've always played, CN, does stereotypical "evil" and "good" things depending on the situation and the circumstances... which is why I've always tried labeling him as "chaotic". But at the same time... he is extreamly discaplined. The type of discapline that is reguired for any such wizard or "monk". (I play a wizard btw) For the same reason a monk has to be "lawful" is because of that discapline. A monk doesn't have to be a "follower of laws". Thats just one more example of what I dislike about the alignment system. Theres way to many "rules" that people interpret too literally.

For that reason when I can make my toon (12 ish months from now) he will be TN. Which sadly opens a whole new can of worms... I totally hate the definition of TN. "Avoid Involvement" or "Strives for Balance" Both of which couldn't be more wrong. The definition of TN that *I* play as is more along the lines of... "Both Good and Evil and both both Lawful and Chaotic based on the situation"

Every character that is RP'd out should have certian morals or events in his history that dictates what he does and how he makes dicisions. "Dynamic" characters if I may.

It's just... ehh... god I think I've yabbered on enough.... you guys got the point. The situation should dictate action. Not your "alignment"

[Wolfecub]

well that's definitely something i won't be bringing up.. i was hoping to get my alignment changed from lawful good to lawful neutral.. so i won't even go into that topic

[Janus]

What Hlaine did to Sylloven was without a doubt evil and he deserved to become the social pariah he now is.

I wasn't under the impression that this was common knowledge