Alignment Examples

Mercenaries would be amoral. Anything for a price. NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it. But nothing else.

I think CG was described like that. Merchants can travel quicker if unburdened.

LE is conniving. Befriends you then stabs you in the back. NE is practical. They wait in the shadows to stab you.

>games don't perfectly match reality

And?

Not even trying to match reality. Alignment was a Moorcock reference.
Law and Chaos were both meant to be alien, cosmic forces.
Most players were assumed to be Neutral (unaligned).

Lawful Good: Can I will that everyone help people in need when it isn't entirely inconvenient? Yes. So I'll help them.

Neutral Good: It's the virtuous thing to help people, so I'll help them.

Chaotic Good: There are a whole lot of people in this trade caravan, and it would help to bring happiness to a whole lot of people if I helped them. I'll help them.

Lawful Neutral: The law says we should lend a hand to friends of the empire, and these are friends of the empire, so I will help them.

True Neutral: (I realized Humean passions fit CN better, so I don't have anything for this.) Eh, I'll help them.

Chaotic Neutral: I really don't have a strong passion to help them, but then again, there seems to be this quiet passion to do good things, so I guess I will.

Lawful Evil: I can leverage this situation to my advantage, I will help them.

Neutral Evil: I might be benefited by helping the caravan, so I'll help them. (Egoism)

Chaotic Evil: It'll bring me loads of pleasure if I bang some of the caravan girls, so sure, I'll help them. (Crude Hedonism)

>unique and rich psyches that no one but the player will know about
>exact same outcomes for everyone else playing

>NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it

Again, not really a Good character. The general understanding of Good is these characters have a certain degree of selflessness. Taking a reward or prize for doing good is totally in character, but refusing to help someone unless they reward you is Neutral. Not Good.

>Merchants can travel quicker if unburdened.

Again, this is not Good. It's literal-minded dickishness. A character can *say* they're CG, and probably believe it too. But hurling someone's shit in the river because "now you'll go faster" is not helping them or making their lives easier unless the monsters are literally right behind them and they have to high tail it.

Pretty low opinion on chaotic huh OP?

Normal Human Being Tier:
LG, NG, N

Douchebag Tier:
CG, LN, CN, LE, NE

Edgelord Tier:
CE

Close user. NE is the selfish and egocentric alignment, but it's more "if they pay me or it's not going out of my way" the NE character likely has a cutoff point for how suggested a reward is before doing something for a stranger

>NG will go out of their way to do good.. if they can get something out of it. But nothing else.

That's True Neutral, not Good.

Neutral Good will do the right thing even at personal cost, because it is the Right Thing to do.

Citizen

...

I remember that thread

That image is pretty redundant.

The people that aren't good aren't good people.

...

True Neutral people are still little-G good. Mostly.

Outliers and OCD Druids notwithstanding.

LG: Can I help you?
NG: Do you need help?
CG: If I help you, you'll never learn.
LN: There is help available.
TN: I can help if you help me.
CN: Can I HELP you?!
LE: Sign here and I'll help you.
NE: Give me your wallet.
CG: NIGGERS

I would really like to hear more situations like this, I'm new to Veeky Forums and I have a poor grasp on the alignment system.

I started my first campaign with some friends. 5e, going as Life Cleric. I'm not quite Lawful Good, but something close to it. Could someone contrast NG and LN for me?

That's obviously meant to be CE at the end.

Neutral Good: holds Goodness above all, basically a saint
Lawful Neutral: holds Order above all, hopeless bureaucrat who may or may not have fantasies of being Judge Dredd

>CG: If he hassles you again, contact me
FTFY.

Saints in practice are more Chaotic Good, though.

I was thinking along the lines of a passerby has a problem, unrelated to any third party.

>CG: If I help you, you'll never learn.

That kind of Social Darwinist cynicism is more in line with Lawful Evil than anything else.

I was thinking that, but LE has nothing to gain from such an attitude and in my mind evil alignments are about personal gain.

>Neutral Good won't help unless there's something in it for them
>Chaotic Good will throw a stranger's shit into the river and aside from that act just like TN
>Lawful Neutral expects a broken down vehicle to move
>True Neutral definitely won't help even if it's not an inconvenience
>Chaotic Neutral will definitely throw a stranger in the river for no reason

The two-axis alignment system has its flaws but you don't even understand it.

First, LG, NG, and CG all would probably actively help the person. Second, LN, TN, and CN all MIGHT actively help the person, if it's not too big of an inconvenience or they personally have a soft spot for trade caravans or something. Third, being chaotic doesn't mean you have to fuck strangers over for the hell of it.

>in my mind evil alignments are about personal gain.

Yes and no. There are other alignments which are interested in personal gain, like CN. Whether or not you want something is not really what makes you a good or bad person. It's your overall dickishness. I've also generally interpreted the LE mindset as someone who can be interested in helping certain groups of people (which of course includes himself) at the extreme expense of innocents.

>LE has nothing to gain from such an attitude

He gets to be right. He gets to not waste his time on someone who's weak. Remember evil doesn't always have clear cut logic behind it. Sometimes it's just about pettiness.

That's a 5 star post

I think Stirner's egoism is CN. It's an absolute rejection of law and duty to things outside oneself. Which means it rejects the idea that one OUGHT be kind, but likewise, it rejects the idea that one ought NOT be kind. In fact, it rejects the idea of "ought" entirely and says that such talk is all an effort to manipulate people and has no underlying truth to it.

It doesn't say that caring about others is wrong or even a mistake; it just points out that if you do so because someone else says you should, you are, in some sense, being subjugated.

It's the ultimate in CN philosophies.

No, Chaotic Good holds goodness above all else and refuses to allow its benevolent actions to be restricted by any law or regulation. Any manner of restriction just limits the maximum amount of goodness and facilitates evil.
Neutral Good places great value on goodness but at the same time believes that disruption of the established order can hinder goodness and that law should only be disregarded when they facilitate evil.
Lawful Good believes that regulations are required in order to promote and support goodness. Without law, there is no system to promote benevolence. To go against the existing order is to hinder goodness and facilitates evil.

There's exceptions to this but this is generally the rule of thumb.

>conflating mortal little-L law with capital-o Order

Opinion discarded.

The former tends to bolster the latter. So yes, lawful characters tend to be more respectful of systems and laws than neutral characters and opposed to chaotic characters, that tend to be against any form of restriction or bondage.

That's usually the source of conflict between lawful and chaotic characters. I'm not saying this is set-in-stone truth, just that this is usually the case. It's rare that you'll find situations where a chaotic character is mad at a lawful one for breaking rules, but it can happen.

Going by what the PHB (for 5e) says Chaotic is more the selfish alignment as it's driven by its whims whereas evil does 'what it can get away with, without compassion or qualms."

If you want a reasonably good description of Chaotic Good, all of Cyrano's dying speech at the end of the play is basically that.

If your behavior is barely distinguishable from that of an opera villain, you're evil, neutral at best.

Lawful Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked, I will make a note of that and make it a point to alert the local militia to the problem. I'll be on the lookout for contraband, and if I find any I will confront the caravan owner, threatening to turn him over to the authorities if he doesn't rid of them. I will then offer to help fix their cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture. The caravan owner will probably get an earful from me about being more careful and prepared next time, but I'll also share my knowledge on how to spot ambushes or cart repair to make sure he knows how to take care of himself the next time.

Neutral Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked; I will try to handle the bandits myself unless the task is too dangerous, then I will opt to alert the local militia. If I happen to find any contraband I will confront the caravan owner, and tell him that while it's none of my business what he does, he will find himself in a great deal of trouble when he gets to the city and should just rid himself of the stuff. I'll offer to help fix their cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture.

Chaotic Good: I approach the broken down trade caravan and ask what happened. If they were attacked, I will see about solving the matter myself, the local militia can't be trusted to handle the issue. If I find any contraband I'll let the caravan owner know that while I don't personally care about what goods get regulated between kingdoms or if people use drugs, he might find himself in hot water with the local authorities. He's probably just down on his luck and this is the best way he knows how to make some money. I'll offer to help fix the cart, and will refuse any reward - though I appreciate the gesture.

cont.

Is there a more boring alignment than Neutral Evil?
It's just "always be selfish" without any subtlety or flavor

Lawful Neutral: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked, I will make a note of that and make it a point to alert the local militia to the problem. I'll be on the lookout for contraband, and if I find any I will confront the caravan owner, threatening to turn him over to the authorities if he doesn't rid of them. I will offer to help fix their cart, and will accept a reward.

True Neutral: If I'm not in a hurry to get somewhere, I'll offer to help fix their cart, and will accept a reward. I'll ask what happened, and be sure to tread carefully through this area if they were attacked. If I find any contraband, I'll try to avoid them.

Chaotic Neutral: I ask what happened, and if it was something that grabs my interest, I'll peruse the matter further. I'm not very interested in helping them fix their cart - but I might do it if they make it worth my while. If I find any contraband, I might confront the caravan owner and threaten to sell them out if I think I can get away with it. Unless I happen to like the caravan owner after talking with them; If that's the case I might share my secrets as to how to best avoid the local militia.

Lawful Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan and inquire as to what happened. If they were attacked by something I think I can handle, I'll see about capturing them - there is probably a reward for their heads from the local militia. I'll search the cart for contraband, and if I find any I'll attack the caravan owner outright - taking their goods as treasure. If I feel like I won't be able to take on the caravan, I'll alert the local authorities if they have a reward for selling out smugglers and drug peddlers. Otherwise, I leave them to their own devices unless they make it worth my while.

Neutral Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan, and ask what happened. If they were attacked by something, I'll be sure to watch myself around these parts from now on. I'll offer to help fix their cart as an implied gesture of good will, but after finishing I will demand payment for my services if I think I can get away with it. If I find any contraband I'll threaten the caravan unless they pay up, but I'll find out where they are going and sell them out to the local militia if I can for a reward regardless.

Chaotic Evil: I approach the broken down trade caravan and see if I can take them on. If I can, I attack the caravan and take whatever is useful. If I can't, I walk away.

Are you calling cyrano a villain?

Best post in this thread right here boy.

I'm saying Cyrano is the ultimate CG.

I'm saying OP's CG is basically an opera villain therefore not CG.

Mk. That makes more sense, sorry.

Good posts, have art

That's sweet, here's another.

Why people think that chaotic means "selfish and greedy"? Or cause random anarchy?
Chaotic is about defying things:
Person: "wow that warrior is unbeatable"
Chaotic Character: We will see about that! (regardless if the warrior fights for good or bad)

>CG: NIGGERS

Show me a more accurate alignment chart.

Am I doing it right?

Lawful: I challenge you to a duel!
Neutral: *Sneak attacks*
Chaotic: YOU FUCK! AAGH! *charges*

Roz is a good person though.

Never knew I was more of a chaotic type than a lawful type, but it seems like it is like that

So everyone except Neutral Good is an asshole?

A little bit

Chaotic Good isn't less good than Lawful Good. They just don't give a shit about rules, formalities and silly concepts of honor. And as far as helping people for a price, that's more of a neutral thing. Good helps, Neutral helps for a price (or maybe doesn't help at all, depending), Evil takes advantage.

I don't see why True Neutral is any more good than, say, Lawful Neutral.

Yes Lawful good asshole are the holier than thou, chaotic good asshole are the "I wanted to play Chaotic neutral but the DM didn't let me do it" and neutral asshole are the one who thinks giving money to charity compensate for killing an innocent and so make you neutral.

This is wrong
Would you say a partisan, or Robin Hood are dishonorable?

"Dishonorable" can encompass a number of different things. It's playing by the rules, which society clearly values, so it's often portrayed as being synonymous with being good. But since "good" is covered by the selfishness axis, you need to take a definition that is divorced from that. A dishonorable person, therefore, isn't bound by society standards of stand-up-edness. They're okay with breaking the rules* and fighting dirty. Robin Hood is clearly breaking the rules. He's ambushing folks and stealing from them. That's dishonorable. A gentleman of honor wouldn't do such things.

*Laws may vary radically from country to country, but codes of honor and polite behavior tend to be more consistent.

Nope
Pic related is considered a gentleman thief, even though he's CN or even CE by some

Alignment is a shit system that doesn't add anything to the game except stupid arguments.

I've not really watched any Lupin, but I will say that just because somebody acts with gentlemanly mannerisms, that doesn't make him a gentleman. But again, we're seeing a word that can be interpreted in multiple different ways.

Then what about Zorro?
He's a criminal, but he's definitely beloved and fits CG perfectly

>I've not really watched any Lupin
Fix that

This
I think the only way the system makes sense is for monsters and stock characters so the DM knows how to play them
For PCs it's useless

Or you can learn that it's a statistic that represents the universe's opinion of you.

I think the difference is motivation. Lupin's motivations are ultimately greed, though he at least doesn't harm people and in fact goes out of his way to ensure that he doesn't (hence why he's well away from "Evil", which wouldn't care if people are harmed). El Zorro, meanwhile, is a criminal because he he is trying to protect the people of Mexico from its lackluster at best to outright villainous at worst rulers. He's basically Robin Hood.

Agreed.

But without detect evil, what would people do?

You honestly believe that they would actually think for themselves for once? ;^)

Yo don't need to be good to nt be an asshole.
Sometimes non being a dumbass and having enough inscentive to benefit from "doing good" is enough even if you're evl as all fuck.

They are dishonorable because honor is bullshit to serve the mighty.

"Why won't they fight us with honor, we who are stronger than them?" That's when you show that you beat them on your own terms.

And they are mighty
Just because they don't have the law on their side doesn't make them dishonorable

Why does the paladin always assume every person they meet is a citizen? They could just be a resident.

Neutral would consequentialism as they would choose an outcome that would yield the best results for them.

Much better system to use

It serves cosmology and plot devices like "only one of pure heart may wield the sword".
I still think shit like detect evil shouldn't be available to normal adventurers.

Utilitarianism is lawful as fuck

Isn't Robin Hood's ultimate agenda the destruction of a tyrannical userper and the restoration of the rightful king?

I feel this would make him more Lawful Good than anything else. Remember "Lawful" does not mean "enforces the status quo".

If you were adventuring in a hell realm, you'd be the odd one out. A Paladin would be Lawful Evil then.

In feudalism you were either claimed by a king or killed off so no other king could claim you.

You were a citizen whether you liked it or not.

I don't understand Chaotic Good, otherwise spot on.

Alignment is a useful crutch for the people who can't roleplay.
That's its sole function.

What about lolidom

Scenario: the player passes by a mill. He sees the miller is beating his wife in the yard. He is cursing her and hitting her with a stick and she is weeping.

Lawful Good: My moral code tells me to defend the weak against the strong. I'll try to deescalate the situation but I won't back down if things get ugly.
Neutral Good: I feel bad for her. Men shouldn't abuse their wives. I'm putting a stop to this one way or another.
Chaotic Good: This is very upsetting. I'm going to beat that guy with my walking stick and see how he likes it.

Lawful Neutral: The natural order of things is that the husband is the master of the wife, but this is just offensive and grotesque. Maybe I should go over there and try to stop this.
True Neutral: This is sickening, but if I intervene he'll just beat her even harder when I'm gone. This is really awful though, maybe I should do something.
Chaotic Neutral 1: I feel bad for her, but it's not my problem.
Chaotic Neutral 2: This reminds me of how my father beat me and my sisters. I'm going to beat him within an inch of his life.

Lawful Evil: He's her husband and he's completely within his rights to beat her. I see no problem here.
Neutral Evil: She probably did something cunty to deserve that. Let's keep moving.
Chaotic Evil: Haha, oh man he's really kicking her ass.

To be sure, user, Robin Hood is the archetypal Chaotic Good set down by the person who created the alignments you are arguing about, mostly because despite his good goal, he still flouted even just and fair laws to do so.

>That's its sole function.
No, it's actual function was prescriptive; it was where your pc fit in the cosmic balance.
Your character behaves in XYZ was, so his soul aligns with B power.
I honestly do not know how so many people get alignments wrong when every single book explains them in increasingly simple ways. Do that many DMs not read the DMG?

But a utilitarian is willing to break good laws to do good things (well, an act utilitarian at least; maybe not a rule utilitarian), where a deontologist would rarely, if ever, break a good law to do a good thing.

The CG character is not necessarily opposed to laws, but will break those laws when needed. Likewise, the (act) utilitarian is not opposed to laws, but will break them when needed.

I think you're too hung up on laws specifically.
I find it much easier to see a lawful good character being willing to do underhanded things for a greater good than a chaotic good one, who probably won't give a shit about a great perspective and probably just try to help whoever is in front of him.

PERFECT
E
R
F
E
C
T

do they give out medals for being right on the internet?

It's the opposite
A chaotic good guy is a freedom fighter, typically fighting against a lawful evil tyrant
A lawful good guy is just good to whoever he meets and fights the chaotic evil psycho

Oh how I love (not) the anal GM's who think there's one holy universal explanation to all the gaming terms across all systems and settings.