I like alignment

[Scowling Dragon]

>.>
<.<

....Yes. I like the alignment system. The poor stupid alignment system (Ducks from the ton of books logged at my direction).

Personally I believed that allot of good can come from it, but simply its horribly misused and there are of course some problems with it.

Yes, some of the worst supplements ever where based on the alighnment.

But lots of good things come out of it as well:

1. It allows for simple character framework (And if done properly will avoid "Can't do this, your LG"
2. Whilst I do believe that commoners SHOULD have an alighnment, it just shouldn't register with spells. Detect evil should not be an excuse to kill
3. UNLESS the person is just SO pure or so evil that thier souls begin to register. A genocidal warlord with the blood of thousands almost literaly on his hands, with a strong sadistic streak is such a hateful and vile creature that his soul begins to become demonic even BEFORE he enters hell. He becomes a demon in a mortal shell
4. Its great for the strongest forrces of good/evil. Just I think some spells go overboard.
5. Every spell can be used in a great way. Depends on the presentation. OOTs showed the WORST way it could be abused "I detect your evil then DIE!" but its also possible to use it in cool ways: "I opened my eyes and I could detect a demonic presence. Something was not right with that object it radiated such a force of hate and vile- Even as inanimate as it was.

[Larkas]

I like the alignment system too. I just think it is much better used in a more subtle way than the game tries to push us to do. But to do away with the system entirely (along the lines of 4E, which, frankly, did) is not a great choice in my eyes. The alignment system is an integral part of D&D itself, and has to be played to its strengths, not its weaknesses.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think people don't like the alignment system because they misuse it by trying to apply it to modern ideas of morality when it was actually an ingenious way to get players to think like medieval people, who saw the world in stark terms of good and evil, often based on religious lines.

Nobody in the Song of Roland asked if Baligant donates a lot of money to a kitten orphanage, or how much joy Roland derived from killing people. Baligant was capital-E Evil because he was a Saracen and Roland was capital-G Good because he was a Christian, and that was that.

[Othesemo]

The problem is that the alignment system never allows for anything (roleplaying wise) that couldn't be accomplished without it - a paladin can follow his code without LG written on his character sheet, just as a blackguard can kick a puppy without being labelled as CE. All of the perks of the system that you mentioned can be achieved without using it, provided that you've got a competent DM. Meanwhile, the system practically invites itself to be misused, and has led to several unsavory additions to the game that would not exist without it (as you admit).

[Scowling Dragon]

Uh how? If the system wasn't built that way, then spells like detect evil wouldn't exist.

It makes it nice and simple. As long as you don't overdo on any of the stuff it works out fine.

[Dienekes]

The problem is that the alignment system never allows for anything (roleplaying wise) that couldn't be accomplished without it - a paladin can follow his code without LG written on his character sheet, just as a blackguard can kick a puppy without being labelled as CE. All of the perks of the system that you mentioned can be achieved without using it, provided that you've got a competent DM. Meanwhile, the system practically invites itself to be misused, and has led to several unsavory additions to the game that would not exist without it (as you admit).

Ehh, I've always just seen it as a tool to help get in the mindset of playing someone other than themselves for new players. And for that it's helpful. Good/Evil, Law/Chaos are fairly generic terms that have a base ideology that is easy enough to recognize. If a guy is prone to obeying orders and following codes of law they're lawful. If they don't care for the law then they're chaotic simple as can be.

It's when you actually sit down and try to think about the system and the restrictions placed upon the players that it starts to break down. While it seems almost fundamentally obvious that the raging barbarian would spit on the laws of civilization, it ignores that barbaric tribes often had their own very strict laws and codes of conduct. So if I want to make a barbarian who is strictly following these codes wouldn't he be lawful? And would that mean he can't get angry enough to smash things? Why not? Bard is even weirder since a court musician would probably obey the laws of the court they're in and who are their patrons.

And this doesn't even get into the huge arguments of what makes evil, evil and good good that everyone has their own opinion with. And that's really it's major weakness. Philosophers, religious leaders, and cultures have all tried to define good and evil and generally someone somewhere disagrees with their assessment. It's just impractical to mandate down what is good and what is evil except for the most basic actions.

Now this could be avoided if they were just describing what one culture views as good and evil that the game is set in. But since homebrew worlds and even within a campaign setting numerous opposing cultures exist and interact it doesn't work as it is currently presented. But personally, I would argue it was never meant to be put under the level of scrutiny it has on it. But then I think that's true with quite a lot of the rules in the game, which is why we have broken powers and loops and tricks that were never meant to be used and no one on the development team had even remotely thought of.

[Larpus]

The main problem I have with the alignment system...actually, D&D in general is that everything is very binary in nature.

Things either are or aren't. You either succeeded or failed. Stuff like that.

Don't wanna dwell in rant, so I'll keep to the matter at hand.

I'm not saying that the division of Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil is my problem, but rather that fact that if you're evil, you're evil, the end.

The Paladin will see you glow red and be entitled to murder you in front of your family and children, because you're evil, even thought you're just slightly evil.

I'm most probably making myself confusing, but what I mean is that there is a dissociation between the way things work and the way things are expected to work.

When you make a character who is Evil, it means that he's inclined to make evil decisions, be merciless and all that. He's not neutral, because he doesn't pursue a balance, he's clearly evil...but how evil is that?

Is he an absolute monster who will bring end to the world as we know it? No.

Is he anything like a devil or a demon? No.

Is he even "evil" as in a villain? Hell no.

So why is it that he's pushed the same burden and alignment as the campaign big bad? It makes no sense!

And that is the problem, there are no shades of "how evil" you are or aren't, the Paladin will see you glowing red all the same and smite you all the same, because it's binary, there are no buts or ifs.

This gets specially bad when we get to chaos and law. Great frameworks, but way too often I hear people (on my table even) call on me for making a chaotic Wizard because "studying is too lawful for a chaotic" or even the typical RAW of a Barbarian or Bard having to be chaotic.

Why is that? I get that the core of the class is freedom and all that and that, by theme, the alignment doesn't prohibit you from following a code or abiding to laws. But that only raises further questions and problems.

If you can be a chaotic being with a deep and extensive personal code...why does you tic the exact same as a demon who lives for mindless destruction in the eyes of someone using Detect Chaos or similar?

And if a chaotic being is allowed to have a personal code and a lawful one is allowed to break some rules to get things done, why is it that a good character is odd-eyed when he makes a clearly evil decision or an evil one makes a good one, sometimes even ensuing an alignment shift?

So...bottom line and tl;dr, the problem is that the system is enforced as a set of specific rules meant to limit us when instead it should be just a framework to start building your character's persona.

[Larkas]

It's when you actually sit down and try to think about the system and the restrictions placed upon the players that it starts to break down. While it seems almost fundamentally obvious that the raging barbarian would spit on the laws of civilization, it ignores that barbaric tribes often had their own very strict laws and codes of conduct. So if I want to make a barbarian who is strictly following these codes wouldn't he be lawful? And would that mean he can't get angry enough to smash things? Why not? Bard is even weirder since a court musician would probably obey the laws of the court they're in and who are their patrons.

Actually, if you think deep down, to be a bard you have to be carefree, and to be a barbarian you have to let fury take hold of your senses. Besides, both can be neutral, and neutral... Well, have a fairly neutral view on laws Most of the problems people see in the alignment system stems from the fact that people simply forget that Neutral is there

And this doesn't even get into the huge arguments of what makes evil, evil and good good that everyone has their own opinion with. And that's really it's major weakness. Philosophers, religious leaders, and cultures have all tried to define good and evil and generally someone somewhere disagrees with their assessment. It's just impractical to mandate down what is good and what is evil except for the most basic actions.

That's why I think that trying to categorize every action is a fool's errand. And that's why I think we have to play into the alignment system more subtly. Neutral does wonders for gray areas

Now this could be avoided if they were just describing what one culture views as good and evil that the game is set in. But since homebrew worlds and even within a campaign setting numerous opposing cultures exist and interact it doesn't work as it is currently presented. But personally, I would argue it was never meant to be put under the level of scrutiny it has on it. But then I think that's true with quite a lot of the rules in the game, which is why we have broken powers and loops and tricks that were never meant to be used and no one on the development team had even remotely thought of.

Like you, I think that alignments are just guidelines, not a straitjacket. The Paladin is the greatest example of the system taken too far by the players and DMs alike, maybe with a little push from the rules: you can easily break a minor rule or turn a blind eye to some... "Non-righteous evil guy spanking" without both breaking the code and acting outside of LG. But pushing this too far is to be reprimanded. As is killing someone in cold-blood, even if he is evil. Heck, even if he is the BBEG.

[Scowling Dragon]

I actually like playing Dirty paladins. Their only LG in the sense that they will do anything to help the needy and weak. Everything else is fair game. Backstabs, ambushes ect.

[Larkas]

I actually like playing Dirty paladins. Their only LG in the sense that they will do anything to help the needy and weak. Everything else is fair game. Backstabs, ambushes ect.

You can do that kind of stuff and still be LG. You probably CAN'T do that kind of stuff and still follow the Paladin code (I mean, you can ambush to capture someone, but to kill while they're unarmed? I don't think so.). But that's a totally different question and the reason I play CG Paladins

[Hiro Protagonest]

What's alighnment?

Anyway, if you do use alignment, the color wheel tends to be better. Black is not Evil, White is not Good, and you can pin down Batman with it. Lord_Gareth's interpretation isn't very good (you only have five colors. How do you get two or three colors for yourself, two allied colors, and two enemy colors?), but just get Primary/Secondary/Tertiary colors (only Primary is required) and you're good. You can put Batman in any alignment except NE/CE, but with color wheel, he's White/Blue for lighter interpretations, and White/Black or White/Black/Blue or White/Blue/Black for darker ones.

But alignment causes problems. It's another one of those things that causes conflicts and people getting kicked out.

[Kish]

I think people don't like the alignment system because they misuse it by trying to apply it to modern ideas of morality when it was actually an ingenious way to get players to think like medieval people, who saw the world in stark terms of good and evil, often based on religious lines.

Nobody in the Song of Roland asked if Baligant donates a lot of money to a kitten orphanage, or how much joy Roland derived from killing people. Baligant was capital-E Evil because he was a Saracen and Roland was capital-G Good because he was a Christian, and that was that.

So the people who "misuse" it include everyone who ever writes a description of what it means in a D&D book?

[Scowling Dragon]

You can do that kind of stuff and still be LG. You probably CAN'T do that kind of stuff and still follow the Paladin code (I mean, you can ambush to capture someone, but to kill while they're unarmed? I don't think so.). But that's a totally different question and the reason I play CG Paladins

Killing unarmed people? Thats wrong. Capturing is the word. A paladin can still be unwavering in his pursuit of law and justice and kindness. Just the methodology is weird.

[Dienekes]

Actually, if you think deep down, to be a bard you have to be carefree, and to be a barbarian you have to let fury take hold of your senses. Besides, both can be neutral, and neutral... Well, have a fairly neutral view on laws Most of the problems people see in the alignment system stems from the fact that people simply forget that Neutral is there

I'd definitely argue that. The generic bard with the fluff presented is carefree sure (when did carefree mean chaotic?), but if I wanted to make an army drummer who is strict with discipline or the toady court bard who fawns over the evil overlord and obeys every rule possible to rise up the chain of command can definitely be lawful and would best be represented in the game by being the bard class. But why can't he learn how to play mystic music better if he's lawful? That's ridiculous.

The barbarian again, berserkir were real warriors who got themselves into a rage before a battle. And the Norse definitely had rules, codes, and views of honor. Now was every berserkr lawful? Of course not, we have a fair few stories of them being rude, disrespectful jackasses. But was there at least one who strictly followed the codes and rules of Norse and yet on the battlefield went into a rage? I would place a rather large sum of money that there was. Yet by DnD rules he could not exist.

[Larkas]

Killing unarmed people? Thats wrong. Capturing is the word. A paladin can still be unwavering in his pursuit of law and justice and kindness. Just the methodology is weird.

Of course. I'd go even further: the Paladin follows an abstract idea of justice, not a concrete one.

Say you are a Paladin that has been contacted by the lord of the land to capture a so-said great criminal that hides in the woods. You go there, capture the guy and brings him to the lord. You're being lawful right there, and following the Code. The guy gets arrested and his execution is set to happen in three days. No trial at all, let alone a fair one. You decide this isn't righteous at all, and you break the guy from jail. Your conduct can certainly be categorized as chaotic, but are you breaking the Code? I don't think so. You strive for heavenly justice, not a human one.

As long as you don't strive to destabilize the government, I don't think you're being chaotic enough to shift alignments and fall from grace. Ditto for bringing an evil lord to justice, this time a heavenly one.

Like I said, the system has to be played to its strengths, not its weaknesses

[Scowling Dragon]

Eh. There are people like us who think its a nice tool and others that think it limits them.

Yup.

[Water_Bear]

It seems like a lot of people really over-think alignment.

Good is about altruism and mercy while Evil is about selfishness and malice.
Law means having a strict code of ethics while Chaos means freedom.
If you're conflicted or just don't care, that's Neutrality* on either axis.

Your alignment is how you can be relied upon to act in general; a Good person can be a bigot while an Evil person can love their family. It isn't an exact science pinning someone down to an alignment, but luckily D&D is a system designed for and by Humans so we can play it by ear.


*Some Neutral people, like the prototypical Druid, are into balance. Most, at least in the established fluff, are not. Renaming it Unaligned is one of the few things I think 4e did right, although still not worth losing LE and CG.

[Scowling Dragon]

Personally Neutrality also works if your looking for a goal:

A wizard looking for power is neutral. Not good or bad. Just looking for a goal.

[Larkas]

I'd definitely argue that. The generic bard with the fluff presented is carefree sure (when did carefree mean chaotic?), but if I wanted to make an army drummer who is strict with discipline or the toady court bard who fawns over the evil overlord and obeys every rule possible to rise up the chain of command can definitely be lawful and would best be represented in the game by being the bard class. But why can't he learn how to play mystic music better if he's lawful? That's ridiculous.

That's why you have the Virtuoso Don't forget that Bards don't lose any class feature for becoming lawful, they just can't gain any more levels, and Virtuoso embodies the spirit of the musician who tried very hard to get where they are. And you don't even have to be a Bard to qualify for it! For me, that kind of court bard wouldn't be a Bard at all, but rather an Expert with lots of ranks in Perform and no creativity. Get a level of Sorcerer and BAM, Virtuoso

The barbarian again, berserkir were real warriors who got themselves into a rage before a battle. And the Norse definitely had rules, codes, and views of honor. Now was every berserkr lawful? Of course not, we have a fair few stories of them being rude, disrespectful jackasses. But was there at least one who strictly followed the codes and rules of Norse and yet on the battlefield went into a rage? I would place a rather large sum of money that there was. Yet by DnD rules he could not exist.

Again, I stand by my opinion that most people forget about Neutral. If you are a rager on the battlefield but a follower of tradition, you're Neutral, simple as that. I think that most berserkers (those guys that got in a bloodlust and fought almost naked, right?) were just plain chaotic, but a "regular" Barbarian can be Neutral/Unaligned and follow rules, no problem.

@Water Bear: My thoughts EXACTLY, though I still don't like the renaming, since there ARE people "aligned to neutrality", like the druids you mention.

[PersonMan]

Again, I stand by my opinion that most people forget about Neutral. If you are a rager on the battlefield but a follower of tradition, you're Neutral, simple as that. I think that most berserkers (those guys that got in a bloodlust and fought almost naked, right?) were just plain chaotic, but a "regular" Barbarian can be Neutral/Unaligned and follow rules, no problem.

Problems, however, arise when someone says 'well, my [barbarian] guy is basically exactly what's described under LG. Why am I NG?' Do surges of strength and endurance during battle make one inherently incapable of pinging a certain way under Detect Law?

[Scowling Dragon]

Depending on how its played (Once again)

I usually don't ping anybody unless their exceptional. But, you could play it that whilst you act like your lawful internaly you just have SUCH A BARELY CONTAINED RAGE! that your soul detects as non-lawful.

[Larkas]

Depending on how its played (Once again)

I usually don't ping anybody unless their exceptional. But, you could play it that whilst you act like your lawful internaly you just have SUCH A BARELY CONTAINED RAGE! that your soul detects as non-lawful.

This. The "problem" with the system is that people try too hard to conform to any morality concept while they could conform to another with no problem at all. That is to say, the "problem" lies with how objectively people want to use a rule, and maybe even with how the rules are written themselves, but not with the system itself. Use it more subjectively, with more subtlety, and you shouldn't have any trouble at all And remember:

There is no shame in being Neutral.®

[Water_Bear]

Call me crazy, but the Monk Barbarian and Bard requirements have always made perfect sense to me.

A Barbarian is, regardless of fluff, someone who flies into mindless rages. Hence the fact that you cannot use Charisma/Dexterity/Intelligence based skills at all, or even activate an item by a Command Word. Hell, Calm Emotions will knock you right out of a Rage by RAW. Like it or not, Barbarians will always tend towards Chaos even ignoring the fluff.

Bardic Knowledge is a literal expression of the Bard having traveled and picked up tons of miscellaneous knowledge and stories by their free-spirited wanderings. They want to settle down and become Lawful, fine, but they can't advance any more because that kind of wanderlust is all about freedom.

Monks are the toughest case, because the idea of them being meditative and disciplined is only heavily implied rather than stated outright in the rules text. It might have been better if they were written as a more generic Martial Artist class, but it makes more sense for them to be Lawful when you look at the portrayal of Martial Arts in Western media.

Again, people over-think alignment. A Chaotic Barbarian can still be loyal, they just won't be predictable. A Bard can be an excellent politician, but they are less likely to get locked into codes of honor. A Monk can be rude, but they are defined by their discipline.

[Dienekes]

That's why you have the Virtuoso Don't forget that Bards don't lose any class feature for becoming lawful, they just can't gain any more levels, and Virtuoso embodies the spirit of the musician who tried very hard to get where they are. And you don't even have to be a Bard to qualify for it! For me, that kind of court bard wouldn't be a Bard at all, but rather an Expert with lots of ranks in Perform and no creativity. Get a level of Sorcerer and BAM, Virtuoso

Lawful does not mean they cannot be creative. And frankly, being an expert to get into virtuoso sucks.

It also means to reach the type of character I want to play I have to wait until level 8 because the game just told me I have to, when there is a class that does everything I want to do that has a weird requirement to meet their predetermined fluff. That is a dumb reason.

What about being a bard requires being chaotic? Learning to play music? No, it most definitely doesn't. Being creative with your music? Of course not, talk to Brahms whose life was set in a rigid pattern. Learning magic? The wizard would like to disagree.

The only thing that requires the bard to be non-lawful is because the rather generic and in my honest opinion boring fluff attached to it is restrictive in that regard.

Again, I stand by my opinion that most people forget about Neutral. If you are a rager on the battlefield but a follower of tradition, you're Neutral, simple as that. I think that most berserkers (those guys that got in a bloodlust and fought almost naked, right?) were just plain chaotic, but a "regular" Barbarian can be Neutral/Unaligned and follow rules, no problem.

No the Berserkirs weren't naked, they wore animal skins over their armor. But that's beside the point. Why does getting angry when you fight automatically mean you can't follow laws, have your own code of conduct, tell the truth, and all that jazz?

[Sutremaine]

A Barbarian is, regardless of fluff, someone who flies into mindless rages.

Lawful characters can't fly into mindless rages?

[moritheil]

I agree with the OP. The point of the alignment system is simplicity. It is an abstraction for quick and dirty (if vague) behavioral guidelines and team roster composition. The main problem people have with it is when they try to use it in other situations, like legitimate philosophical explorations of the meaning of evil, in a real-world context. It was not designed to do that. Getting mad when it can't do that is sort of like getting mad that your abacus can't spit out enough digits of pi.

I see this kind of complaint about the alignment system commonly:

The main problem I have with the alignment system...actually, D&D in general is that everything is very binary in nature.

Things either are or aren't. You either succeeded or failed. Stuff like that.

Don't wanna dwell in rant, so I'll keep to the matter at hand.

I'm not saying that the division of Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil is my problem, but rather that fact that if you're evil, you're evil, the end.

Yes, "things are or are not evil" is simplistic. But I'm not sure that Keith Baker's solution - that people can be both good and evil, and detect as such - is any better.

In D&D alignment is ontological, meaning something just is evil or good. Another apt term to use would be Manichean; in D&D pure evil and pure good actually exist, and are fundamentally irreconcilable. Frankly, I suspect the issue is that the labels "good" and "evil" are really there for flavor. You would be better off replacing the terms in your mind with "Team Blue" and "Team Red." That way people won't be repeatedly tempted to use real world morality to have existential crises over whether you're really justified in reducing the "hit points" stat of amalgamation of statistics to 0.

Of course, if you want to run D&D as a morality play, one in which every Outsider actually has enough free will to choose which team to play for, and so on, that can work too, but then I'm guessing you won't be complaining about things like paladins* being entitled to kill baby dragons; you'll be rejoicing because it provides the opportunity to ask questions like, "What is morality, really?"


*Side rant: Also, people keep acting out this conceit that paladins are supposed to be excessively merciful, and act shocked when they kill evil creatures incapable of defending themselves. They're divinely appointed avengers and killers. They aren't limited to reasonable use of force; they aren't even required to accept surrender. Remember that only a few hundred years ago, in the real world, rape was considered naturally a part of the plunder of war. We who live in the modern world don't align with that mindset, and neither should we be surprised if we don't align with the mindset of people handed a divine mission to kill everyone who falls into a certain category.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

The only thing I can think of is that people get confused with the real-life paladins, the palatial servants were supposed to be the epitome of knighthood and protectors of the weak. The code does mention helping non-chaotic, non-evil innocents . . . but those are pretty notable exceptions, and in any remotely realistic society large numbers of the downtrodden are going to be excluded because of them. That peasant who couldn't render his proper taxes to his lord last year? Out. The bum who steals bread to live? Out. That squatter who lives in a condemned building because he can't afford real housing? Out. Those are all acts in defiance of the law, and the people are persisting in those conditions. The paladin isn't required to help them, and by the rules maybe shouldn't help them, unless she can ensure they don't return to that state of conflict with the law.

A reasonable law would maybe contain exceptions for such cases, but given that modern laws are often unreasonable, and medieval ones are widely thought to have been much worse... yeah. I don't see paladins as bringers of mercy.

[Water_Bear]

Lawful characters can't fly into mindless rages?

Not really?

Look at Mechanus. Law is about discipline, calculation, and careful examination of yourself and your goals. Strict codes of honor and procedure. A Lawful warrior should ideally fight with precision and intelligence, or at least use rote techniques drilled into them during training.

Barbarians are the perfect example of Chaos in action. They jump in, axe swinging, in a frothing incoherent rage. This is, again, held up by the mechanics even without fluff support.

What about being a bard requires being chaotic? Learning to play music? No, it most definitely doesn't. Being creative with your music? Of course not, talk to Brahms whose life was set in a rigid pattern. Learning magic? The wizard would like to disagree.

Bards don't have to be chaotic. They can be neutral.

But seriously, the Bard's requirement is based on the traditional perception of artists as free spirits. I think a lot of DMs would be willing to give you an exception on the requirement if you want to play a lawful bard, but it misses the point of the class in my view.

Just have them be a Neutral Bard who became Lawful after they had to pay more attention to theory as a Virtuoso or Sublime Chord. It's less of a headache and keeps the flavor intact.

[Yuukale]

How do you view for example, an elf that would sacrifice himself for a fellow elf in need but wouldn't have the slightest compunction about razing human cities to ashes in order to further some elven scheme (retaking lands to stablish a new or rebuild an old empire?)

[moritheil]

How do you view for example, an elf that would sacrifice himself for a fellow elf in need but wouldn't have the slightest compunction about razing human cities to ashes in order to further some elven scheme (retaking lands to stablish a new or rebuild an old empire?)

I can see an argument for CG.

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Remember, the system is an abstraction with a specific purpose. We by our modern standards of morality would have real problems saying a guy who razes cities full of people is "good." But that is not what D&D alignment is.

[Yuukale]

this character I played as CN (since he saves and takes lives with no great moral dilemmas).

But there's an implied question behind this one: are the alignments applicable on cross-race views or, as an example: I'm LG to elves and LE to any other races?