Jump to content

Okay, D&D people, I have found it!


Duke Bushido

Recommended Posts

I don’t know where it was but I once saw the D&D alignments explained as Super Heroes.

Lawful Good......Captain America / Superman

Chaotic Good....Spider-Man / Batman

Chaotic Evil........ Carnage / Joker

Chaotic Neutral..Deadpool / Ambush Bug

etc.   Does anybody want to take a whack at finishing these up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutral Evil - Lex Luthor

 

In one of the versions, I read an essay or article about how "evil" in D&D meant that you were in it for yourself and that you saw everything through the lens of personal gain.

 

So I'm playing a Neutral Evil character and the DM complains that I'm not being "evil". I'm not backstabbing or robbing my fellow party members. I'm not slaying NPC's at random....

 

 

I ask the DM how that killing or robbing the person who guards me while I'm asleep is going to get me ahead in the world. There's a million people out in the world who I can take advantage of but only a limited number of people who are willing to make sure I stay okay.

 

So to me, I can't accomplish being evil if I'm not taking care of my teammates to the point that they're happy that I'm around. 

 

Because dead people don't get to be evil, in most circumstances.

 

My thinking on "evil" in D&D spiraled out of that event. And I think neutral evil is the natural bent for most of my fantasy characters. Because I can give money to the poor and take care of orphans when it'll give me some advantage that'll get me ahead in the world.

 

And by acknowledging that, it puts me a step ahead of the paladin player because at least I'm being honest with myself (as both player and PC). :D 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaotic has different connotations depending on the second part.

 

Chaotic good:  nothing wrong with following rules/orders, but NOT blindly or woodenly.  Can't follow a bad order no matter who issues it.  A bad rule is the same...break it.  Batman's not a bad example, but for me the best one was Jack Bauer, from the first season of 24.  It does not matter what you do to the bad guys when they're threatening to detonate a freakin' NUKE in a city.

 

Chaotic evil:  whatever the heck I feel like doing at the time.  Consequences be damned.  The only issue is my own self-interest.  

 

Between them...chaotic neutral is a WEIRD alignment to define, IMO.  First thing that's coming to mind:

-- I follow my personal values/beliefs regardless of social norms

-- I believe my  my values are superior

-- Imposing/enforcing my values may...probably will...come with costs but they are worth it because my values are Right and Proper.

-- I am NOT doing this for myself but for the greater good as I see it (otherwise, it's probably CE)

 

The border between CN and CE, at least here, is pretty narrow.

 

My definition of Evil is a general disregard for consequences.  So, the common LE example is the tyrant.  It's law without remorse...first offense for a theif, cut off a finger.  Second offense, cut off a hand.  NE might also be called "selfish but smart."  Out for yourself but always recognize that someone you screw over is probably gonna stab you in the back when they get the chance.  It's just fine to beat down someone;  just make sure they can't retaliate, directly or indirectly.  ("My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.")

 

A key factor to me is that these frame but don't universally control actions.  CE doesn't always slaughter anyone who disagrees with them.  It isn't a straitjacket.  In any given situation, too, the 'common' responses available form sets...and there is often overlap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The challenge with alignment is the varying views on what it means.  It's a lot like arguing about a Code vs Killing.  You have an absolute conviction against taking a life, but against a new and unknown antagonist, you blast out your full 15d6 FireBlast?

 

I like the Pathfinder discussions of alignment.

 

 

Quote

 

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Law Versus Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Neutral Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

 

 

So, to me at least, Jack Bauer's actions are not "Good".  They may be a compromise of Good in extreme circumstances.  The safety of innocent people justifies horrific acts against those endangering them, if it can protect those innocent lives.  Or they may indicate a more Neutral bent, a lack of respect for some life.

 

Law without remorse...first offense for a theif, cut off a finger.  Second offense, cut off a hand?  A definite non-Good trait. "The Law is the Law" would epitomize Lawful Neutral, to me.  Lawful Evil will twist that law to its own  selfish ends.  Lawful Neutral views the law itself as the end, not the means.

One tough definition is how the population is divided.  Is it 1/3 Good, Neutral, Evil, or is it 90% Neutral - lacking the commitment to make personal sacrifices needed for Good, but still having moral compunctions (but "what could I do?  They probably would have just killed me too!).  If we accept that only about 5% of the population is really Good, and a similar 5% so selfish as to descend into Evil, we can have much more strict requirements for both.

Ditto "lawful" and "chaotic" - how extreme need one be?  Chaotic Good will value others' freedom as much, perhaps more than, their own. Chaotic Neutral - when your freedom imposes on mine, yours probably has to go.  Chaotic Evil?  "I had to kill him, Your Honour - his tuba practice interrupted my afternoon nap".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The challenge with alignment is the varying views on what it means.  It's a lot like arguing about a Code vs Killing.  You have an absolute conviction against taking a life, but against a new and unknown antagonist, you blast out your full 15d6 FireBlast?

 

I like the Pathfinder discussions of alignment.

 

 

 

So, to me at least, Jack Bauer's actions are not "Good".  They may be a compromise of Good in extreme circumstances.  The safety of innocent people justifies horrific acts against those endangering them, if it can protect those innocent lives.  Or they may indicate a more Neutral bent, a lack of respect for some life.

 

Law without remorse...first offense for a theif, cut off a finger.  Second offense, cut off a hand?  A definite non-Good trait. "The Law is the Law" would epitomize Lawful Neutral, to me.  Lawful Evil will twist that law to its own  selfish ends.  Lawful Neutral views the law itself as the end, not the means.

One tough definition is how the population is divided.  Is it 1/3 Good, Neutral, Evil, or is it 90% Neutral - lacking the commitment to make personal sacrifices needed for Good, but still having moral compunctions (but "what could I do?  They probably would have just killed me too!).  If we accept that only about 5% of the population is really Good, and a similar 5% so selfish as to descend into Evil, we can have much more strict requirements for both.

Ditto "lawful" and "chaotic" - how extreme need one be?  Chaotic Good will value others' freedom as much, perhaps more than, their own. Chaotic Neutral - when your freedom imposes on mine, yours probably has to go.  Chaotic Evil?  "I had to kill him, Your Honour - his tuba practice interrupted my afternoon nap".


    I basically agree with everything but the very last.  Your Chaotic Evil example had a reason....a nutty one but a reason none the less.   My definition is more like “Why did you kill that family in their sleep?”   “Why not?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tjack said:


    I basically agree with everything but the very last.  Your Chaotic Evil example had a reason....a nutty one but a reason none the less.   My definition is more like “Why did you kill that family in their sleep?”   “Why not?”

 

 

I am,so sorry for starting all this.  I just thought that was funny.

 

For what its worth, I find the "killing without a good reason" part of your example to be more chaotic rhan lawful.

 

I like mist of,what Hugh said, but- full disclosure-  I always thought the whole alignment system,was Lawful Stupid anyway; I classed it up there with "racial evil" in terms of its value to the game: it detracted more rhan it helped.  Sure, a lot of the distraction was because of the inability for any group of more than two people to agree on what they meant and how they should be represented. ;) , but like anything else problematic to the enjoyment of the game, I threw it out.

 

Using Hugh' examples, I think the bulk of the human race falls into Chaotic Neutral anyway.   :lol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

For what its worth, I find the "killing without a good reason" part of your example to be more chaotic rhan lawful.

 

To me, killing is on the good/evil axis, which is why I like the focus on "respect for life" more recent editions have brought.  A Chaotic Good person respects everyone's right to freedom,  not just their own, and will not be cavalier about taking lives either.

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I like mist of,what Hugh said, but- full disclosure-  I always thought the whole alignment system,was Lawful Stupid anyway; I classed it up there with "racial evil" in terms of its value to the game: it detracted more rhan it helped.  Sure, a lot of the distraction was because of the inability for any group of more than two people to agree on what they meant and how they should be represented. ;) , but like anything else problematic to the enjoyment of the game, I threw it out.

 

Using Hugh' examples, I think the bulk of the human race falls into Chaotic Neutral anyway.   :lol:

 

 

 

 

D&D alignment started with only Law/Neutral/Chaos.  A White Dwarf article suggested that D&D then evolved as "Law = Good" and "Chaos = Evil", and cited Dr. Who and the Daleks as an example of a Good Chaotic hero and an Evil Lawful creature.  "Racial evil" differs, to me.  If all Orcs are the same alignment, and can never change, that's Racial Evil, but an Orcish society which is largely evil, with some exceptions, is not Racial Evil. Epic Fantasy calls for Good and Evil in some form.

 

The same disagreements happen with Hero psychological limitations all the time, as does the same "just treat them as occasional flavour bits". 

 

The "most humans" question falls to that "how extreme need one be?"  I like the idea that the vast majority of the population is N.  They have some compunctions about causing suffering, but not the willingness for personal sacrifice, so neith G nor E.  They like order to some extent, but not when they are constrained, so not fully L or C.  The heroes and their adversaries are the extremes - truly Good or despicably Evil; Law over all, or Freedom even unto Anarchy.

 

14 hours ago, Tjack said:


    I basically agree with everything but the very last.  Your Chaotic Evil example had a reason....a nutty one but a reason none the less.   My definition is more like “Why did you kill that family in their sleep?”   “Why not?”

 

I don't think Chaos means "utterly random with no goals or objectives".  But an Evil person places no real value on life. "Because the Dad honked his horn when I cut him off in traffic."  "Because they might wake up and take umbrage at me looting their possessions."  "Because I like the feeling of power it gives me to kill people in their sleep."  As I consider on it, someone so truly insane that they cannot fathom any form of moral judgement is probably N, much like an animal, having no capacity for reason and therefore acting solely on instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Ever decide, just for grins, to use a Myers-Briggs test to help flesh out a character personality?  Quite a few of em out there and for role playing they're really not bad at all, but that ESTJ is nicely structured outline, nothing more.  I also prefer doing something like this because good and evil are even more nebulous, as Hugh's disagreement about Jack Bauer points out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Good" and "Evil" are very nebulous.  If the game is to use them as absolute concepts, it needs to provide absolute definitions.  We might disagree with whether "Game Defined Good" is actually "philosophical good", but if we have an in-game definition, unmodified by house rules, such as "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." then that is the definition.   My character may believe Good is about prioritizing innocent lives over every other choice, or the "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" (no hesitation sacrificing one innocent person to save five, or killing Hitler as a baby, or all those trope moral dilemmas), or perhaps "my country" or "my religion" above all else, but his good is a compromise, or even a refutation, of Alignment Good.

 

The potential for disagreement is a reason to discuss and firm up Psych's in Hero as well, and evaluate the frequency and severity based on the player and GM conceptions. That may mean "I see Code vs Killing, Absolute Commitment" meaning that your character would only use lethal force (more than 6 DCs) against a known adversary who can reliably emerge uninjured; would be a vegetarian; would actively impede a teammate risking lives (including blasting an unknown enemy at full force); would save the villain from a death he has brought on himself, even at the risk of his own life - is your character that extreme, or did you want to downgrade that complication to be less severe?

 

That's obviously a very extreme view of C v K, but so is "What? Your Paladin killed the Orc prisoner who slaughtered villages of helpless peasants? He loses all his powers and changes alignment.", and similar issues which have caused such anti-alignment vitriol by many D&D players over the years.  If the GM and/or players view alignment, or psychological complications, or any other element of the game as role playing straightjackets that suck fun out of the game rather than providing opportunities for challenges and role playing that enhance enjoyment of the game, Duke's response - remove it from the game - is the right one.  Unfortunately, not everyone finds the same things fun.  If Charlie likes his character's morals and ethics to be challenged by a grey, dark world, and Pat does not enjoy playing out ethical dilemmas, and wants to be a True Blue Hero with right and wrong color-coded and hard-wired, either one of them has to compromise, or one of them needs to find a different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

I'm not,even,sure breathatarianism would work: veggies are living things, as are the microbes we murder in our lungs, sinuses, and digestive systems.

 

 


    But think of of all the microbes you’ll feed once you drop dead of starvation.   🎼 The circle of life! 🎶

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, we're talking D&D.  From the beginning, good and evil weren't philosophical/moral/ethical concepts, they were Forces.  Protection from Evil goes back at least to AD&D 1st Edition;  IIRC, so does Holy Word.  Not entirely sure about Protection from Good and Unholy Word but they go back quite a ways as well.  And heck, there's Detect Evil...also, pretty sure, a 1E spell.  

 

I also remember debates about what could, or could not, be recognized with Detect Evil.  OK, the 7th level evil priest, sure, but is every worshipper?  And this got to be pretty spirited in 3E, and there was a fair bit of pushback when the Books of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness made the notion blatant.

 

Altho, hey, good and evil as forces could be sensible with a better definition, whereby the individual's extra-natural abilities are evil-linked.  What I never could *stand* was Vow of Poverty.  Never saw ANY connection between "oh, I'll live a simple life and forsake wealth in all forms" and the *insane* bonuses you got.  Others always argued, well, you could do a LOT better with items...but that was never my issue.  

 

OK, decades-old rant over.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, starblaze said:

Demolition Man characters:

 

John Spartan: Chaotic Good, doing the right thing and saving innocents are more important than the rules.

 

Simon Phoenix: Chaotic Evil, just crazy bastard.

 

Dr. Raymond Cocteau: Lawful Evil, willing to unleash a criminal psycho just so he can gain even more control over society through fear.  Actually wants to eliminate a bunch of homeless vagrants because they mess with the ordered society he created.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...