I like alignment

[hamishspence]

You are arguing for your interpretation of the rules, not what they actually say. It is entirely reasonable to have a character who is Good yet who normally treats people as if they are disposable. In fact, it is a very common trope: the jerk with a heart of gold.

Actually, I'm arguing for what the rules actually say- in Champions of Ruin, BoED, etc. Even the DMG says "Actions matter, not statements of intent by players"

"Treating people as disposable" isn't really compatible with "respect for life". The "jerk with a heart of gold" may be rude, obnoxious, slightly ruthless- but he still "respects life".

"Heroic Sociopath" is the kind of person that treats people as disposable- Belkar, for example.

[Amphetryon]

Actually, I'm arguing for what the rules actually say- in Champions of Ruin, BoED, etc. Even the DMG says "Actions matter, not statements of intent by players"

"Treating people as disposable" isn't really compatible with "respect for life". The "jerk with a heart of gold" may be rude, obnoxious, slightly ruthless- but he still "respects life".

"Heroic Sociopath" is the kind of person that treats people as disposable- Belkar, for example.

One of (the multitude of) the issues with alignment in D&D is that self-awareness and language aren't presumed to be the exclusive province of any particular species. "Treating people as disposable" sounds like a reasonable benchmark, until your character is hired to clear out the goblin warrens at 1st level so that the [insert "traditional" PC race here] can sleep easier at night and have an area to expand into. The moment your character and the rest of that character's party evict or exterminate those sentient, sapient goblins from their homes, simply because they're paid to or because they value the humans/elves/dwarves/etc.s' right to be there more than the goblins that are already there, it becomes more problematic to view their actions as "good". On the other hand, refusing the assignment from the duly-appointed town representative makes it harder to justify the "lawful" moniker, and defending the goblins against the townsfolk could well earn you the label of "evil" in the game's universe.

[Callista]

"Treating people as disposable" sounds like a reasonable benchmark, until your character is hired to clear out the goblin warrens at 1st level so that the [insert "traditional" PC race here] can sleep easier at night and have an area to expand into. The moment your character and the rest of that character's party evict or exterminate those sentient, sapient goblins from their homes, simply because they're paid to or because they value the humans/elves/dwarves/etc.s' right to be there more than the goblins that are already there, it becomes more problematic to view their actions as "good". On the other hand, refusing the assignment from the duly-appointed town representative makes it harder to justify the "lawful" moniker, and defending the goblins against the townsfolk could well earn you the label of "evil" in the game's universe.

Here's what differentiates CRPGs and war games from role-playing games. If you are playing a game where the point is to kill the enemy and gain XP, you may be having a lot of fun, but you're playing a hack-and-slash game that probably includes only light role-playing. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't take full advantage of the storytelling options you'd have available in a more fully fleshed-out world.

If you're applying the alignment system properly, and you've built Good-aligned characters, then they would indeed wonder why they should simply clear out the goblins. They would think about the possibility of peace. They would investigate whether the goblins had been raiding and killing, or whether they were minding their own business and just squatting in some caves the humans wanted for themselves. They might try to broker a peace agreement, depose a vicious goblin leader in favor of a more rational one, force the goblins to move elsewhere, or even try to forge bonds between both communities. Sure, goblins are more likely to be evil than humans are, but (depending on your DM), half or even more aren't evil, and some of the evil ones may be jerks but still don't deserve death. If it came down to it, Good-aligned characters might still exterminate the goblins--but only if those goblins turned out to be a bunch of killers intent on taking out the innocent humans.

What the humans in the town label you may or may not be congruent with what the universe labels you. Many a true hero has been called a coward, a traitor, or an evildoer. When you're Lawful, that can be a source of a good deal of shame--who hasn't read a story about an honorable knight forced to choose between serving his king, and doing the right thing? He never gets through it without agonizing over his choices.

There's nothing particularly wrong with hack-and-slash, old-style D&D games where the goblins are little chunks of XP, and where the biggest problems you have involve whether the rogue is going to make that Disable Device check. But, if you're going to role-play more fully than that, the alignment system does have to be applied universally, and goblins count as sentient creatures whose lives are as significant as your own. You're no longer running around in a world that's your personal playground; you're a citizen of a bigger place where other people have their own personalities, beliefs, and ideas. The more real the world becomes, the less you can take advantage of your PC status. And, personally, I like it that way. The more real the world becomes, the more interesting the story gets.

[Kish]

One of (the multitude of) the issues with alignment in D&D is that self-awareness and language aren't presumed to be the exclusive province of any particular species. "Treating people as disposable" sounds like a reasonable benchmark, until your character is hired to clear out the goblin warrens at 1st level so that the [insert "traditional" PC race here] can sleep easier at night and have an area to expand into. The moment your character and the rest of that character's party evict or exterminate those sentient, sapient goblins from their homes, simply because they're paid to or because they value the humans/elves/dwarves/etc.s' right to be there more than the goblins that are already there, it becomes more problematic to view their actions as "good".

True...

On the other hand, refusing the assignment from the duly-appointed town representative makes it harder to justify the "lawful" moniker,

...might be a problem if the character is Lawful Neutral or "more-lawful-than-good"...

and defending the goblins against the townsfolk could well earn you the label of "evil" in the game's universe.

False.

Awfully commonly believed on the Internet for some reason, but quite false. If there's a syllable in any D&D book that states anything that would logically translate to "it is evil to refuse to slaughter members of a Usually Evil race when members of a No Alignment Tendencies race want you to, in the absence of knowledge of the specific individuals concerned," I don't know where and it's certainly not one of the core books, Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, or any book I know. If the DM wants you to kill the goblins and doesn't want it to be more complicated than that, it's very simple to say, "This band of raiders has been attacking the village! Please wipe them out before they come back and slaughter us all this time!" Note: I didn't say anything about the race of the band of raiders. They could be goblins, orcs, elves, dwarves, humans, illithids--it simply doesn't matter to their narrative role, which is that of mooks to be slaughtered if the speaker is being completely truthful. If, on the other hand, the DM wants to say, "We want to hire you to wipe out these nearby goblins who haven't done anything yet because they're goblins," well, by the book that's a textbook Lawful Evil job offer, and it's as simple as that.

[Amphetryon]

I've nothing to say about the 1st or 4th paragraphs, so I'm snipping them simply for space.

If you're applying the alignment system properly, and you've built Good-aligned characters, then they would indeed wonder why they should simply clear out the goblins. They would think about the possibility of peace. They would investigate whether the goblins had been raiding and killing, or whether they were minding their own business and just squatting in some caves the humans wanted for themselves. They might try to broker a peace agreement, depose a vicious goblin leader in favor of a more rational one, force the goblins to move elsewhere, or even try to forge bonds between both communities. Sure, goblins are more likely to be evil than humans are, but (depending on your DM), half or even more aren't evil, and some of the evil ones may be jerks but still don't deserve death. If it came down to it, Good-aligned characters might still exterminate the goblins--but only if those goblins turned out to be a bunch of killers intent on taking out the innocent humans.

What the humans in the town label you may or may not be congruent with what the universe labels you. Many a true hero has been called a coward, a traitor, or an evildoer. When you're Lawful, that can be a source of a good deal of shame--who hasn't read a story about an honorable knight forced to choose between serving his king, and doing the right thing? He never gets through it without agonizing over his choices.

Your definition of "apply the alignment system properly" is almost certainly not one that applies universally at all tables. Why should the PCs question the word of the duly appointed town representative who wants to hire them when he says the goblins are a menace? What happens when the PCs investigate and find that the goblins were looting/killing - because someone made it appear so?

"What the humans in town label you" is often relevant to your alignment simply because of how they react to you. They call you a no-good, evil, goblin-kisser and start attacking you on sight? Now you've got to defend yourself, where the use of force could land you in jail, regardless of the lethality of that force or even the rightness of your self-defense. Is a person who is convicted of a crime in a duly appointed court of law still eligible to call himself "Lawful"? Is a person who kills an untrained commoner who attacks him still eligible to call himself "Good"? What if, instead of defending themselves, the party vacates? Well, now they're in breach of contract (unlawful), and labelled as cowards and goblin-sympathizers. Good? Lawful? I'll wager there's not a consensus on how those actions would be viewed.

[Amphetryon]

False.

Awfully commonly believed on the Internet for some reason, but quite false. If there's a syllable in any D&D book that states anything that would logically translate to "it is evil to refuse to slaughter members of a Usually Evil race when members of a No Alignment Tendencies race want you to, in the absence of knowledge of the specific individuals concerned," I don't know where and it's certainly not one of the core books, Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, or any book I know. If the DM wants you to kill the goblins and doesn't want it to be more complicated than that, it's very simple to say, "This band of raiders has been attacking the village! Please wipe them out before they come back and slaughter us all this time!" Note: I didn't say anything about the race of the band of raiders. They could be goblins, orcs, elves, dwarves, humans, illithids--it simply doesn't matter to their narrative role, which is that of mooks to be slaughtered if the speaker is being completely truthful. If, on the other hand, the DM wants to say, "We want to hire you to wipe out these nearby goblins who haven't done anything yet because they're goblins," well, by the book that's a textbook Lawful Evil job offer, and it's as simple as that.

If there's a syllable in any of the core books that says "using lethal force to defend a 'usually evil' group of a race against a 'no alignment listed' group never qualifies as Evil", I'd appreciate a quotation and source. Otherwise, it's less "false" than "not necessarily true", which was already acknowledged by use of the word "could" in my comment.

[Kish]

If there's a syllable in any of the core books that says "using lethal force to defend a 'usually evil' group of a race against a 'no alignment listed' group never qualifies as Evil", I'd appreciate a quotation and source. Otherwise, it's less "false" than "not necessarily true", which was already acknowledged by use of the word "could" in my comment.

You described a particular scenario. So your last clause was just a non-sequitur that had nothing to do with the rest of your post?

In the scenario you described, where the townsfolk have said, "There are goblins nearby! They're goblins! They were here first! Kill them so we can expand into their space!" and nothing more, saying "No" is not only not evil but required to not do something evil. This is quite unambiguous from the Player's Handbook descriptions of alignments; for extra irony, it is established very simply by "treating people as disposable=evil."

Moreover, any scenario where it would be evil to side with goblins against humans is also one where, were the positions reversed, it would be evil to side with humans against goblins. Because--again--the races aren't the morally significant factor here; "Group A wants Group B wiped out so Group A can expand into Group B's territory," or, "Group A wants Group B's regular attacks on Group A stopped," is. Treating people as disposable is evil. There is no problem with this axiom. Your effort to establish a problem with it consisted of describing a situation where slaughtering goblins would, in fact, be evil, and proceeding as though this meaning the axiom broke down was self-evident.

Is a person who is convicted of a crime in a duly appointed court of law still eligible to call himself "Lawful"?

You tell me. As a DM. Suppose that a group including a paladin enters a swamp to kill the evil orc chief who rules it. Suppose that the orc chief is, in fact, guilty of myriad crimes by the standards of most of the world, and is unambiguously evil and a danger to every settlement anywhere near the swamp.

Suppose that the orc chief, whose rule over the swamp is uncontested, had declared that Killing Him Is Illegal, for some obscure reason.

Does the paladin have to choose between turning himself in to the orc chief for attempted assassination of the swamp's political leader, or losing his Lawful alignment? Does this only become necessary if the orc chief points a finger at him and shouts, "You criminal!"? Only if the orc chief rounds up 14 other orcs to act as jury and prosecuting and defense attorneys and declares that he wants to put the paladin on trial (he will, of course, be acting as the judge, which luckily is completely legal by the rules which he just made up for the swamp)? Or does a "duly appointed court of law" have to be human?

[Callista]

Your definition of "apply the alignment system properly" is almost certainly not one that applies universally at all tables.

Well, 'course not. Everybody plays the game differently. Nothing wrong with that. House rules are more common than not. Who actually applies the Massive Damage rule or insists on multiclassing XP penalty? Lots of people house-rule alignment, too. If you want a hack-and-slash game where you go out to kill goblins because the mayor said to do it, more power to you and have fun.

Why should the PCs question the word of the duly appointed town representative who wants to hire them when he says the goblins are a menace? What happens when the PCs investigate and find that the goblins were looting/killing - because someone made it appear so?

They should question the town's duly-appointed representative if they are the kind of people who would question that person: that is, Chaotic enough to mistrust authority, or Good enough to make absolutely sure that the goblins they were killing actually deserved it. Only a party with an LE bent would go out and slaughter goblins without question when given that order.

"What the humans in town label you" is often relevant to your alignment simply because of how they react to you. They call you a no-good, evil, goblin-kisser and start attacking you on sight? Now you've got to defend yourself, where the use of force could land you in jail, regardless of the lethality of that force or even the rightness of your self-defense.

But that's a good thing! Now you have a Good-aligned party who are morally and culturally ahead of their time, trapped in between their own "civilized" but prejudiced race and the problem of how to deal with goblins who truly can be dangerous and truly are often evil--all without becoming murderers. The story becomes more complex this way. The humans can no longer be considered the "good guys" simply because they're humans, and the world becomes more complex as the heroes try to live in a world where their respect for life has branded them as traitors.

Is a person who is convicted of a crime in a duly appointed court of law still eligible to call himself "Lawful"? Is a person who kills an untrained commoner who attacks him still eligible to call himself "Good"?

Yes, and yes. It all depends on why you did it. But these are PCs here, remember? They get to take control of the story. The Lawful guy in court can use his testimony to give a moving oratory on why goblins are people, too; and the Good guy faced with an untrained commoner can knock the guy out instead of killing.

What if, instead of defending themselves, the party vacates? Well, now they're in breach of contract (unlawful), and labelled as cowards and goblin-sympathizers. Good? Lawful? I'll wager there's not a consensus on how those actions would be viewed.

Not by the in-world people, of course; and that's what makes it so interesting. "Good" doesn't mean "You're a hero; everybody loves you; everything you do is praised." It just means "You truly care about the welfare of other sentient beings." Sometimes, people who do that get themselves killed because of it. You can be universally reviled and still be Good-aligned. While it's a good idea not to overdo it on the angst when that happens, it's still a nice element in the story.

[Amphetryon]

Well, 'course not. Everybody plays the game differently. Nothing wrong with that. House rules are more common than not. Who actually applies the Massive Damage rule or insists on multiclassing XP penalty? Lots of people house-rule alignment, too. If you want a hack-and-slash game where you go out to kill goblins because the mayor said to do it, more power to you and have fun.
They should question the town's duly-appointed representative if they are the kind of people who would question that person: that is, Chaotic enough to mistrust authority, or Good enough to make absolutely sure that the goblins they were killing actually deserved it. Only a party with an LE bent would go out and slaughter goblins without question when given that order.
But that's a good thing! Now you have a Good-aligned party who are morally and culturally ahead of their time, trapped in between their own "civilized" but prejudiced race and the problem of how to deal with goblins who truly can be dangerous and truly are often evil--all without becoming murderers. The story becomes more complex this way. The humans can no longer be considered the "good guys" simply because they're humans, and the world becomes more complex as the heroes try to live in a world where their respect for life has branded them as traitors.

Yes, and yes. It all depends on why you did it. But these are PCs here, remember? They get to take control of the story. The Lawful guy in court can use his testimony to give a moving oratory on why goblins are people, too; and the Good guy faced with an untrained commoner can knock the guy out instead of killing.

Not by the in-world people, of course; and that's what makes it so interesting. "Good" doesn't mean "You're a hero; everybody loves you; everything you do is praised." It just means "You truly care about the welfare of other sentient beings." Sometimes, people who do that get themselves killed because of it. You can be universally reviled and still be Good-aligned. While it's a good idea not to overdo it on the angst when that happens, it's still a nice element in the story.

I've played at more than one table where every one of your "yes" answers was considered incorrect, from an Alignment perspective, by DM decree and player majority.

And that's the problem with Alignment. If I've decided to make a Paladin to play at a table where I'm not personally familiar with how the DM and other players view everything, I'm still reasonably sure I'll know the mechanics of how Smite works, how Lay on Hands works, how Divine Grace works, and how my spells and steed will function. I'll have almost no clue on whether the actions that I perceive as Paladin-level LG will match that DM and party's notions of Paladin-level LG. I've seen tables (and arguments on the internet) that believe that "Detect Evil/Register Evil/Smite!" is the appropriate response for a Paladin, and I've seen tables (and arguments on the internet) that believe that same paradigm will lead inexorably to the Paladin falling. Paladin stops to rescue orphans? Whoops, sorry, that's delaying their duly appointed tasks, violating their Lawful nature (this was ruled so at more than one table I've attended). Paladin agonizes over whether his choices were correct or incorrect? Whoops, sorry, a Paladin is always sure of what's Good and Lawful by dint of his 'always-on' Detect Evil and moral fiber, so you're jeopardizing your status as more than a Fighter-sans-bonus feats (again, ruled so at more than one DIFFERENT table I've attended). What actions can a Paladin take to ensure that he doesn't fall? All but entirely up to the DM and that table's take on Alignment.

[hamishspence]

But that's a good thing! Now you have a Good-aligned party who are morally and culturally ahead of their time, trapped in between their own "civilized" but prejudiced race and the problem of how to deal with goblins who truly can be dangerous and truly are often evil--all without becoming murderers. The story becomes more complex this way. The humans can no longer be considered the "good guys" simply because they're humans, and the world becomes more complex as the heroes try to live in a world where their respect for life has branded them as traitors.

Yup. BoED's paragraph that most closely corresponds to this was:

page 11

Being Ahead of Your Time
Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and society. the standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.

It is certainly possible that your campaign world might be a more enlightened place than medieval Europe - a place where men and women are considered equal, slavery is not practiced in any form, torture and capital punishment are shunned, and the various human and humanoid races live together in harmony. In such a case, an exalted character can live in relative peace with her culture, and focus her attention on saying evil creatures in ruins and dungeons or rival, evil nations.

On the other hand, your campaign world might more closely resemble the realities of life in Earth's Dark or Middle Ages. Perhaps women are not viewed as men's equals or even sentient beings in their own right, slavery is widespread, testimony from serfs is only acceptable if extracted through torture, and humans of a certain skin tone (let alone nonhumans) are viewed ad demonic creatures.

It is vitally important to remember one thing: these factors don't change anything else said in this chapter (or in the Book of Vile Darkness) about what constitutes a good or evil deed. Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means an exalted character has an even harder road to follow. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil in her own society.

In all likelihood, most human (and halfling) societies fall somewhere between the two extremes described above. In game terms, humans tend to be neutral, neither good nor evil. Human societies might tolerate a variety of evil practices, even if some humans find them distasteful. In such a circumstance, an exalted character is still at odds with the norms of her society and may occasionally find herself in conflict with it, but she can devote her time and attention to dealing with evil acts, either inside or outside her society, rather than trying to reform an entire nation or culture.

In situations where a society's practices put good characters at odds with it, a good character's alignment is the strongest indicator of how she will deal with that conflict.

[Duke of URL]

To avoid re-inventing the wheel, I'll just link to my own thoughts on the subject. Summary relevant to the OP: alignment can be a very useful tool for character development, especially if we throw in the question of how strongly is the character's commitment and the reasons behind that, remembering that the character's actions and beliefs determine the alignment, not the other way around.

Even if you're in a game that doesn't use the alignment system, it can still be worthwhile to go through the steps of determining the character's alignment and strength of commitment as part of the process in developing the character's history and personality. It helps develop a picture of how the character is likely to behave, and why.

[Starbuck_II]

Yup. BoED's paragraph that most closely corresponds to this was:

page 11

And it notes that it means Exalted good not just good if you read it carefully. So unless you plan on being exalted, it doesn't matter.

[hamishspence]

The first part:

the standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.

and the last part says "good" not only "exalted". So, it's applicable, if not quite as strongly, to Good characters as well as exalted ones.

"Good implies ... respect for life" in the PHB, after all.

so- if you're intending to be Good, some of it is at least applicable:

"The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated"
"The use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good"
"There are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe"
"Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness"

Plenty of statements that use "good" rather than "exalted"

[Amphetryon]

The first part:

the standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.

and the last part says "good" not only "exalted". So, it's applicable, if not quite as strongly, to Good characters as well as exalted ones.

"Good implies ... respect for life" in the PHB, after all.

so- if you're intending to be Good, some of it is at least applicable:

"The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated"
"The use of torture or other practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good"
"There are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe"
"Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness"

Plenty of statements that use "good" rather than "exalted"

Where is "undue suffering" defined in D&D terms, please?

Does the last one mean that any character who kills an enemy without pausing to offer to accept surrender is behaving in a way D&D calls Evil? If so, how many folks here can say that none of their Good characters have committed the Evil act of simply continuing to fight until the enemy is dead? How about for enemies who didn't speak a language, or didn't share one in common with any in the party?

[Water_Bear]

And it notes that it means Exalted good not just good if you read it carefully. So unless you plan on being exalted, it doesn't matter.

Well, Exalted characters are still Good; in fact they are the paragons of good. Looking to them as an example of how Good characters ought to behave is natural. And it is important to note what caused someone to stop being Exalted; willingly committing an Evil act.

As others have said, D&D's alignment system is more clear then people make it out; BoED and other books are packed with insights into what each alignment means. Even the corner cases aren't usually that hairy, as Action tends to trump Intent in D&D Morality.

Alignment isn't something that can be adjudicated purely by mechanical interactions, which is its greatest strength; it relies on the Players and DM to decide what alignment means to them and adds complexity to their interactions with each other and the game world.

[hamishspence]

Where is "undue suffering" defined in D&D terms, please?

It's not- pretty much falls into DMs discretion.

Does the last one mean that any character who kills an enemy without pausing to offer to accept surrender is behaving in a way D&D calls Evil? If so, how many folks here can say that none of their Good characters have committed the Evil act of simply continuing to fight until the enemy is dead? How about for enemies who didn't speak a language, or didn't share one in common with any in the party?

This one may be context-sensitive- if you know the enemy can't speak your language, and it doesn't respond to attempts at miming a surrender offer (not sure how that would work though) then self-defence is likely to come into play.

It may be impractical to break off a fight to make a surrender offer sometimes.

[Fatebreaker]

Alignment isn't something that can be adjudicated purely by mechanical interactions

...well, that's a problem, since a number of mechanical interactions are adjudicated differently based on alignment.

[Hiro Protagonest]

From what you described, this character is evil. I see no moral ambiguity here, even.


He looks clearly neutral to me. Some Good traits, some Evil traits. Thus, Neutral.

I don't understand. Both had good intentions. One killed much more than the other, as well as tortured and destroyed. But you call the guy who only kills the necessary amount of people to get to his goal evil, while the one that caused a lot of collateral damage (both on property and people) neutral.

[hamishspence]

it might be that the "hidden weapon" guy isn't in the description described as doing Good things a lot of the time- making personal sacrifices to help others, and so forth.

That's why they're not getting the "Some Good traits, some Evil, thus Neutral" defence.

[Man on Fire]

I like the alignment, the axis of law vs chaos an good vs evil is interesting and it's fun to wonder who fits where or who can fit entire chart by himself.

What I on't like is how deeply rooten into the game it is. Infamous Always Chaotic Evil bullmanure makes me wanna go and beat somebody. Entire species and they're all evil - BULL@#$%! Or usually chaotic evil - same thing, nonsense incarnate. If a species is inteligent, then they have right to be every alignment they wish, Orcs have the same right to be good or evil and coblins can be lawful neutral or neutral good. An if species isn't sentient the way humans are, then it doesn't have alignment. I can get beings that were created by certain forces like devils, demons or devas, they were tailor made to represent some sort of place on the axis. But Saying that all Orcs are chaotic evil is just plain stupidity. Alignment can be fun but cannot be enforced strictly, they're only guidelines at best.

[Water_Bear]

What I on't like is how deeply rooten into the game it is. Infamous Always Chaotic Evil bullmanure makes me wanna go and beat somebody. Entire species and they're all evil - BULL@#$%! Or usually chaotic evil - same thing, nonsense incarnate. If a species is inteligent, then they have right to be every alignment they wish, Orcs have the same right to be good or evil and coblins can be lawful neutral or neutral good. An if species isn't sentient the way humans are, then it doesn't have alignment. I can get beings that were created by certain forces like devils, demons or devas, they were tailor made to represent some sort of place on the axis. But Saying that all Orcs are chaotic evil is just plain stupidity

Yeah, it's always a little headscratching why a Humanoid race is Usually X or Always X, that always seemed like something better suited for outsiders. I guess its my Human Usually Neutral prejudices...

But it should make you feel better that "Always X" explicitly means ~95% of the population; there will always be Orc Paladins, they're just fairly rare.
Still, I agree that Humanoids should default to Neutral and have less lazy explanations for Evil Orc Raiders that "well, you know how Orcs are amirite?"

[hamishspence]

But it should make you feel better that "Always X" explicitly means ~95% of the population;

What book's that in? MM doesn't give a figure for the lower limit of "Always X alignment".
Though I suppose if "Usually X" is given as 50% to 95% somewhere, a case could be made that 95+% qualifies as "always X"

Still, I agree that Humanoids should default to Neutral and have less lazy explanations for Evil Orc Raiders that "well, you know how Orcs are amirite?"

"Alignment- Any" sounds about right.

[Callista]

Hardly any species is "always" any alignment. There are alignment tendencies, "often" or "usually", but that is a cultural or racial bent and you cannot conclude that any individual must have that alignment.

Real world example: Men are taller than women, right? Yep. On average, men are "usually tall" and women are "usually short". But there are tall women and short men. It's like that: A blink dog is "usually lawful good" and a Worg is "usually neutral evil"--only you measure it with Detect spells instead of yardsticks.

The "Always" alignments where exceptions are one-in-a-hundred to one-in-a-million, are usually:
1. Undead. Fueled by negative energy, their minds have been affected to the point that they naturally desire to kill living creatures, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.
2. Celestial, infernal, anarchic, or axiomatic creatures, which are usually outsiders closely related to aligned planes. They come into being as full adults and are composed of the basic substance of their home plane: A Succubus is quite literally made of evil.
3. Dragons. The only "Always" group which has a childhood, dragons receive the racial knowledge (and culture) of their species in the egg, and are born with an alignment. Notably, their alignment is also the easiest "Always" alignment to change; it's possible with Handle Animal and/or Diplomacy checks by a PC fostering a dragon hatchling.
4. Animals and other INT 0-2 creatures, which are driven by the instinct to survive without either altruism or malevolence, and are by default always True Neutral.

There are a few others that don't fit into those categories if you page through the monster manuals, but in pretty much every case there is a good reason why those creatures are always, always one alignment or another. When PCs meet an "Always" creature and have no reason to believe that it may be the one-in-a-million who isn't that alignment, they can make assumptions. In all the other cases, the sentient creatures of the D&D world are capable of change. In a non-hack-and-slash world, PCs will need to recognize that the exceptions exist when they make their decisions.

[Taelas]

Actually, I'm arguing for what the rules actually say- in Champions of Ruin, BoED, etc. Even the DMG says "Actions matter, not statements of intent by players"

"Treating people as disposable" isn't really compatible with "respect for life". The "jerk with a heart of gold" may be rude, obnoxious, slightly ruthless- but he still "respects life".

"Heroic Sociopath" is the kind of person that treats people as disposable- Belkar, for example.

The elf I mentioned before has respect for life--simply not human life.

I said you were arguing your own interpretation because you said someone who is "consistently doing evil" is Evil, and you implied that it didn't matter how rare that consistent evil behavior was. I very much disagree. No one is completely consistent; and in my opinion, someone who consistently does good 95% of the time, but then consistently commits evil the remaining 5%, is perfectly in line with that philosophy, and qualifies for a Good alignment.

Imagine a tragic character that hates orcs due to a traumatic event in their past. They will torture orcs, have no qualms killing them even when they surrender, and in fact seem to take delight in it. They will even acknowledge that their actions are evil; they simply don't care.

This evil aspect is focused solely towards orcs. The character will argue for sparing goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and all other kinds of evil creatures out of respect for life, and is in every other aspect a clear example of a Good character.

In my opinion, despite their treatment of orcs, the character is still of a Good alignment.

[Callista]

...wut? Seriously? Since when was somebody who restricted their torture, killing, and general mayhem to a specific group of people considered "good"?

[Taelas]

...wut? Seriously? Since when was somebody who restricted their torture, killing, and general mayhem to a specific group of people considered "good"?

It is everything else that makes them Good.

[Amphetryon]

...wut? Seriously? Since when was somebody who restricted their torture, killing, and general mayhem to a specific group of people considered "good"?

Board rules prohibit giving specific examples from human history, but they exist, from the POV of those doing the general mayhem.

[hamishspence]

Savage Species page 102:

An evil character can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way; this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups, brutalising those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

.

In this case "those they consider beneath them" is humans, and "their peers and loved ones" is all elves.

Thus, they qualify. In Champions of Ruin "repeated, deliberate use of many of these (evil acts) is the mark of an evil character" Doesn't say that they can't commit good deeds as well, or even that their evil deeds must be more common than their good ones.

The Eldeth Veluuthra racist elven organisation is described as "an evil group than thinks their every action is in the service of good".

[Necroticplague]

I, personally, mostly ignore alignment because I can make arguments for any character with a bit of depth in any way. As a result, I see alignment as relatively detached from a character's actions. Good,Evil,Law, and Chaos are physically present forces that exist, and your alignment simply indicates which you are closestly astrally connected to. I see it this way because this is the same game where the elements are "sound", "force", "negative energy", "positive energy", "fire", "cold", and "acid".

[Taelas]

Savage Species page 102:

.

In this case "those they consider beneath them" is humans, and "their peers and loved ones" is all elves.

Thus, they qualify. In Champions of Ruin "repeated, deliberate use of many of these (evil acts) is the mark of an evil character" Doesn't say that they can't commit good deeds as well, or even that their evil deeds must be more common than their good ones.

The Eldeth Veluuthra racist elven organisation is described as "an evil group than thinks their every action is in the service of good".

The Eldreth Veluuthra actively attempts to eradicate humans; it is their primary purpose. That is not the kind of character I am suggesting. If the orc-hating character I suggested actively starts to hunt orcs and makes it their primary purpose, they wouldn't commit enough Good acts to weigh out their Evil deeds. At the very least, they would rapidly become Neutral, if not outright Evil, depending on how focused they are.

Just as an Evil character can do Good deeds and remain Evil, a Good character can do Evil deeds and remain Good.