What is, objectively, the best alignment?

[Xuldarinar]

Chaotic Evil:

You can worship an Elder Evil for bonus feats.
Your motivation can be what ever you wish it to be, from the "greater good" to divine command to what ever pleases you in the moment. More often than not, there are no rules to hold you back.
More classes are restricted from good alignments than are from evil alignments.
Classes that are banned from being chaotic have some variant to them that can be.
Vile feats tend to be more powerful and varied than their good aligned counterparts.
Typically in combat you seek to kill your foe, something that evil provides more tools for (especially when we get into Incarnum).
Evil tends to hold some of the biggest power houses, such as the Ur-priest.
The most numerous alignment is CE. In 3.5 terms, between the far realm and the abyss, you are not running out of potential allies any time soon.

In pathfinder, the only outsider you can become without dying first is a demon, meaning chaotic evil holds the option of never having to die to become a prominent outsider.

[heavyfuel]

Seems like Evil has the majority so far. Can anyone make a case for Good that doesn't involve the existence of Pazuzu (since he doesn't exist in all settings)?

On a similar note, do Elder Evils exist in all settings as a general rule? Because if they don't, Evil seems to have lost its edge.



And what's with people ITT incorrectly pointing flaws in my grammar?

Okay, you know that 'objective' means 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts', and 'best' means 'of the most excellent or desirable type or quality', and 'desirable' is ENTIRELY subjective? This statement is nonsensical.

Or did you mean to say 'subjective', and confuse it for its antonym? They're fairly similar words.

In which case the answer is 'it depends on what you're trying to do'. If we're talking sheer reality-smacking power, then LG wins just because Pun-Pun uses that LG nature to bribe Pazuzu.

"Of the most excellent or desirable type or quality" is only one of the definitions of "Best". For example, dictionary.com also defines it as "most advantageous", which isn't subjective.

Wait? TN can't fall in love? Since when?
Smote.

LG. It's the alignment that that Pun Pun starts as, and no one can be objectively better than Pun Pun.
Unless you go based off the alignment that Pun Pun ends up, which I think is LE.

"You can't be smitten" uses the same conjugation as "A book can be written". You wouldn't say "A book can be wrote", so you can't say "You can't be smote"

Also, the argument of both you assumes Pazuzu exists in whichever campaign you're playing, which, AFAIK, is only true for the Forgotten Realms setting.

You know, I have a pet peeve for people who try to correct other people, but are actually wrong themselves. I smite, right now this instant, but yesterday I smote, and in the past I have smitten, meaning that right now, someone is being smitten by me, yesterday, someone was smitten by me, and last but not least, people have been smitten by me. However, none of them could have been true neutral, because true neutral people cannot be smitten by people, regardless of whether or not they can be smitten with people.

I'm fairly certain that what he really meant was "what is the game mechanically most powerful alignment".

Thanks!

[Chronos]

One argument in favor of good is your allies: A character of any good alignment has natural allies among other alignments, but a character of evil alignment does not. With evil, you have to worry about the Blood War in addition to the Morality War. For that matter, as an evil character, you likely can't even trust those of your own alignment.

Plus, what allies you do have are likely to be more powerful for good: A solar is more powerful than a pit fiend or balor, a gold dragon is more powerful than a red dragon, and so on.

[Sagetim]

Are we operating under the assumption that beings of the same alignment band together as some kind of club against other alignments? Because I generally assume that alignments represent (for mortals and those without alignment subtypes) how they choose to act most regularly. For beings with alignment subtypes, they have a literally inborn tendency towards something. They are wired to act certain ways, and only gm fiat can allow them the freedom to deviate from that.

In any case, if we're not operating under the assumption that each alignment is acting like some kind of giant club that everyone in the same alignment is banding together...then to say that chaotic evil beings have the largest pool of potential allies is inaccurate, or wishful thinking. Chaotic beings don't feel burdened by rules, which includes ideas like respect, honor, and making deals that you keep to. Evil beings are out for themselves. So when you combine these two things, you're going to have a really hard time trying to have reliable allies in chaotic evil beings. They might choose to be a loyal ally out of a whim, or when they see an advantage for themselves in doing so...but if they see a bigger advantage in betraying you, then their track record (alignment) indicates that they are more likely to do so.

This is why I vote for neutral good. They're flexible (being neither chaotic nor lawful), generally aren't looking to screw people over for their own benefit (good), and if you make a deal with them you can probably rely on them to uphold their end of (not chaotic). Oh, and they can't be Paladins. Which is actually super helpful because paladins seem to suffer the most from people misunderstanding alignments.

Edit:Do note that I'm not saying that evil can't work together ever, just that chaotic evil is going to have the hardest time of it and while there might be the largest numerical pool of potential allies...it's not a pool of reliable potential allies. If you want evil to work together, neutral or lawful evil would give you better generic results.

[eggynack]

Seems like Evil has the majority so far. Can anyone make a case for Good that doesn't involve the existence of Pazuzu (since he doesn't exist in all settings)?

Sanctified spells are a pretty big one, as they're much better than corrupt spells. Clerics gain perhaps the biggest advantage from this, as they have the ability to spontaneously cast off of the whole list, and druids have a good advantage as well, as the list fills some gaps in their casting (with animate with the spirit being a big bonus). With the marginal value from feats reducing as you gain more and more of them, it's very possible that this diverse list of spells is sufficient incentive to go not-evil. That's in addition to good spells like SNA IV for unicorns on a druid, which is neat. Of course, from there you only need to show advantages of good over neutral, and that's an easier task. Casting luminous armor on yourself is a huge deal, and that can act as sufficient justification in and of itself. Not on a cleric, perhaps, for whom the broader variety of aligned spells makes neutral the likely best option, but druids don't lose much by picking good, and luminous armor overcomes a lot of those losses. That's in addition to exalted feats like exalted wild shape and companion. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the case for good is mostly druids.

Edit: Also, champion of gwynharwyf is very good, especially if you're taking the strict RAW reading that denies access to runescarred berserker.

[Jay R]

If this question had a clear, unambiguous answer, then all optimizers would long since have gone to that alignment only.

That hasn't happened, so I conclude that it is situation-dependent.

[eggynack]

If this question had a clear, unambiguous answer, then all optimizers would long since have gone to that alignment only.

That hasn't happened, so I conclude that it is situation-dependent.

I don't think I agree with your premise, that an answer means an answer that everyone uses. After all, not every optimized build descends into pun-pun, and by the same token, not every person wants their character to devote themselves to an elder evil for bonus feats. Oftentimes, optimization takes the form of optimizing a particular concept, or optimizing within certain restrictions, where those restrictions can be either explicit or implicit. I do agree with your conclusion, however. Alignment has a bunch of things attached to it, and those things are usually completely attached to certain classes or systems. Unlike race, where you're usually talking about a set of static advantages that various classes capitalize on to various degrees (though substitution levels do change that), an advantage that exists to one alignment on one class might just be completely non-existent with another class.

[Curmudgeon]

Your quote is missing context. The following line says, "These spells require a great sacrifice from the caster in exchange for powerful results." This strongly implies that, for sanctified spells, utterly devoting yourself to good means making this sacrifice, and making the sacrifice is built into the spells themselves.

Both of the statements are correct. The sacrifice is required, and utterly devoting yourself to good is also required.

[eggynack]

Both of the statements are correct. The sacrifice is required, and utterly devoting yourself to good is also required.

But my assertion is that the sacrifice is how you utterly devote yourself to good. That's what devotion looks like for sanctified spells. Besides that, as Jormengand notes, there is no requirement of utter devotion to good. By a strict reading of the rules, while sanctified spells are said to exist if you utterly devote yourself to good, that doesn't necessarily imply that sanctified spells do not exist if you don't utterly devote yourself to good.

[Curmudgeon]

But my assertion is that the sacrifice is how you utterly devote yourself to good.

That's not utterly devoting yourself; it's only an additional specific requirement.

[Nifft]

My current alignment is objectively the best.

It's what brought me and my Cohort together, after all, and we're both very happy together.

[eggynack]

That's not utterly devoting yourself; it's only an additional specific requirement.

I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment. Tomorrow, you may utterly devote yourself to evil, but the critical thing is what you're doing at the exact moment you cast the spell. Whether you are or aren't good doesn't matter. All that matters is what you devote to good, and that is defined by the sacrifice you're willing to make to the cause.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment.

"Utterly" is defined as "without exception". If you're lacking the matching alignment, that's an exception.

[Extra Anchovies]

The BoVD sacrifice rules are one of the easiest ways to get an early-game Wish (and using it for an early-game wish is pretty much the sacrifice rules working as intended), so my vote's for Evil. Most other things balance out, because there are a lot of Good-only and anti-Good options, a lot of Evil-only and anti-Evil options, very few Neutral-only and anti-Neutral options. I think there's more stuff that's Lawful-only than there is that's Chaotic-only, so probably NE or LE is mechanically strongest.

Edit: Also, champion of gwynharwyf is very good, especially if you're taking the strict RAW reading that denies access to runescarred berserker.

I'm not familiar with this. Care to explain?

[eggynack]

"Utterly" is defined as "without exception". If you're lacking the matching alignment, that's an exception.

"Devote" is defined as, "To give up or appropriate to or concentrate on a particular pursuit..." which means that what you are is irrelevant. All that matters is what you're giving up, and what you're giving up is defined through sacrifice costs. If you give up less, meaning devoting less "utterly", then you receive less "great power". That's all that that line means, and it really doesn't mean much. You're arguing from a surprisingly un-RAW place, I gotta say. I would expect you to go by the stricter rules reading.

Edit:

I'm not familiar with this. Care to explain?

I don't recall the exact specifics of it, but I think it has something to do with the way regional feats and skills changed with the transition to 3.5.

[Sagetim]

I think the most important thing here is that that line is, from a logical perspective, irrelevant. However, on the specific issue of utter devotion, sacrificing of yourself to good seems to represent a total devotion, at least in the moment. Tomorrow, you may utterly devote yourself to evil, but the critical thing is what you're doing at the exact moment you cast the spell. Whether you are or aren't good doesn't matter. All that matters is what you devote to good, and that is defined by the sacrifice you're willing to make to the cause.

No, that's not what utterly devoted means. If you have utterly devoted yourself to good then it means your character does good things, always does good things, even when they are bad for the character. They cannot remain neutral and be utterly devoted to good, and if making sacrifices of yourself counts, then it also counts for an alignment shift to good. However, before you can even cast a sanctified spell, you need to be utterly devoted to good, evidence of which would come in the form of already being good aligned and most likely include having exalted feats that you have never lost access to. Like needing to meet the prerequisites of a prestige class before you can gain levels of it, sanctified spells have a pre-requisite of being utterly devoted to good (and there are things on your character sheet that indicate this, while just saying it does not).

Utter devotion is not something that has to be necessarily logical. That's okay. Because Sanctified Spells are Magic, they don't have to be logical either. But while we're talking logic, it's unreasonable to assume that a character who does not meet the pre-requisites of a prestige class can take levels of it. By that same logic, it's unreasonable to assume that you can cast spells you don't meet the prerequisites for. Just now, while writing this up, I looked through the book of exalted deeds at other material within it. The Exalted Arcanist is a perfect example of the requirements to cast a sanctified spell, because their entire thing is getting access to them as a spontaneous arcanist.

So, from that prestige class' requirements we can see that it requires Any Good alignment. Neutral cannot apply. That ends the argument right there. It does not require exalted feats to enter, but it does grant exalted bonus feats. Further, it requires access to feats that allow you to metamagic spells into being good aligned or consecrated. The implication being that you need to reflect on your character sheet that your character is devoted to good beyond just being good aligned, to cast sanctified spells. And while that particular implication may just be me reading too far into things, the class requires you to be of good alignment to take any levels of it. That's not an implication, that's not an interpretation, that's a straight out requirement.

[eggynack]

No, that's not what utterly devoted means. If you have utterly devoted yourself to good then it means your character does good things, always does good things, even when they are bad for the character. They cannot remain neutral and be utterly devoted to good, and if making sacrifices of yourself counts, then it also counts for an alignment shift to good. However, before you can even cast a sanctified spell, you need to be utterly devoted to good, evidence of which would come in the form of already being good aligned and most likely include having exalted feats that you have never lost access to. Like needing to meet the prerequisites of a prestige class before you can gain levels of it, sanctified spells have a pre-requisite of being utterly devoted to good (and there are things on your character sheet that indicate this, while just saying it does not).

Two things. First, I disagree on your definition of "utterly devote." Devoting depends less on what you specifically are, and more on what you sacrifice specifically. You can be neutral and still give up of yourself to good. Such is the nature of devotion. Second, and far more important, that line is in no way a prerequisite. There is no implication from that line that you must utterly devote yourself to good for the power from sanctified spells to be yours. The line only means that said devotion does give you that power. You are reading a lot into the text that is not there at all.

Utter devotion is not something that has to be necessarily logical. That's okay. Because Sanctified Spells are Magic, they don't have to be logical either. But while we're talking logic, it's unreasonable to assume that a character who does not meet the pre-requisites of a prestige class can take levels of it. By that same logic, it's unreasonable to assume that you can cast spells you don't meet the prerequisites for. Just now, while writing this up, I looked through the book of exalted deeds at other material within it. The Exalted Arcanist is a perfect example of the requirements to cast a sanctified spell, because their entire thing is getting access to them as a spontaneous arcanist.

So, from that prestige class' requirements we can see that it requires Any Good alignment. Neutral cannot apply. That ends the argument right there. It does not require exalted feats to enter, but it does grant exalted bonus feats. Further, it requires access to feats that allow you to metamagic spells into being good aligned or consecrated. The implication being that you need to reflect on your character sheet that your character is devoted to good beyond just being good aligned, to cast sanctified spells. And while that particular implication may just be me reading too far into things, the class requires you to be of good alignment to take any levels of it. That's not an implication, that's not an interpretation, that's a straight out requirement.

This is all meaningless for sanctified spells. If sanctified spells said, "Prerequisite: Any good alignment," then that'd mean that you need to be good, but it does not say that. In fact, the specifically defined prerequisite is that you just need to not be evil. Good means you get access to that prestige class, which I guess is an advantage of being good, but it means nothing here.

[Curmudgeon]

If sanctified spells said, "Prerequisite: Any good alignment," then that'd mean that you need to be good, but it does not say that.

The text does say that, in exactly the line you're claiming doesn't really mean what it states ("utterly devote themselves to good"). There is no mention of that requirement in the individual spells any more than there's a mention of the similar requirement in each Exalted feat; both requirements are stated once as general rules for the category.

[eggynack]

The text does say that, in exactly the line you're claiming doesn't really mean what it states ("utterly devote themselves to good"). There is no mention of that requirement in the individual spells any more than there's a mention of the similar requirement in each Exalted feat; both requirements are stated once as general rules for the category.

But... it doesn't. That line doesn't imply that characters that do not devote themselves to good can not access this power. You're just reading that into the line because it seems like it should be logically implied by said line. You're hinging your argument on reasoning that is straight up fallacious in the most direct way possible, claiming that, because p implies q, therefore not p implies not q. The prerequisite could have been written into the general rules for sanctified spells, as is the case for the rule against evil characters using sanctified spells, but the line you're pointing to does not operate in any sense as a prerequisite.

[Cruiser1]

For those willing to utterly devote themselves to good, great power awaits in the form of sanctified magic. These spells require a great sacrifice from the caster in exchange for powerful results.

Page 83 of Book of Exalted Deeds begs to differ.
Looks like more than "nothing" there. You can't utterly devote yourself to Good with a non-Good alignment.

All that statement says is that IF you devote yourself to good, THEN you have access to Sanctified spells. It does NOT say that if you aren't devoted to good, then you do NOT have access to Sanctified spells. This is equivalent to saying IF you are a cat, THEN you are an animal (which does not say that all animals cats). In other words, this whole statement is fluff, and makes no restrictions on who can cast Sanctified spells.

Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.

This is the true crunch statement concerning restrictions on Sanctified spells: Evil characters can NOT cast them. It may not "seem right", but by RAW neutral as well as good characters can cast Sanctified spells.

[Taveena]

Chaotic Evil:
Typically in combat you seek to kill your foe, something that evil provides more tools for (especially when we get into Incarnum).

Relevant to that... Lawful Evil as an alignment for Incarnum is better than Chaotic Evil. Incarnate Avatar (Law) Double Chakra'd with Incarnate Avatar (Evil) - or, as another reading would have it, Incarnate Avatar (Law and Evil) - clearly provides a more focused build than Incarnate Avatar (Chaos and Evil). LE gives bonus to melee attack and damage. CE gives bonus to RANGED attacks and MELEE damage.

Necrocarnate has no alignment prerequisites besides 'evil', so for Incarnum, at least, barring some switch-hitter build that has high damage but low accuracy at range, and high accuracy but low damage in melee...

... Well. Lawful Evil is the best alignment for Soulborns, and a CE or LE Incarnate loses all their powers, so Neutral Evil has to be the strongest choice. As for Totemist, Any Evil is fine if you want Lamia Belt, and Any Good is ideal for Lammasu Mantle. Though it's worth noting it's VERY easy to get Lamia Belt's Competence bonus to Hide checks, so you're presumably after the extra two claw attacks or spring attack if you're binding it. (Or you want to face as a Totemist, I guess?) Which I guess isn't a TERRIBLE choice for omnimauling, due to the 6 natural attacks granted by Girallon Arms/Lamia Belt combob, but... I guess I'm not entirely certain that that one extra natural attack is strong enough to be unilaterally the 'best'.

[Hrugner]

Whatever it may be, true neutral will happily emulate it with a UMD check.

[Chronos]

If you're only concerned about it for purposes of using an item.

[Taveena]

Weird thought, but... arguably Good, because from there, you can fall easily. It's much, much harder to rise from Evil. Regardless of the number of unlocks any given alignment gets, a Good character can immediately go "bored now" and explore new options. An Evil character cannot.

[Nifft]

Weird thought, but... arguably Good, because from there, you can fall easily. It's much, much harder to rise from Evil. Regardless of the number of unlocks any given alignment gets, a Good character can immediately go "bored now" and explore new options. An Evil character cannot.

Great point.

However, there's a counter-point:

Evil is better because changing alignment from Evil to Good demands a ton of spotlight-time. if you want lots of plot-attention, be Evil.

[Taveena]

Great point.

However, there's a counter-point:

Evil is better because changing alignment from Evil to Good demands a ton of spotlight-time. if you want lots of plot-attention, be Evil.

I'll be honest, my aim at this point is to give as many contradictory answers as possible.

Adding to the pile: Chaotic Evil is the best alignment, because it means you can be a Tibbit with no strength penalty in cat form.

[mostholycerebus]

Virtually all long term campaigns have a Lawful component, some government or group running things. Very, very few controlling bodies make 'being evil' illegal or directly punishable, they punish observed actions. Yet, characters that are evil have more fluidity in taking actions that benefit themselves. An evil character can take good actions for selfish purposes and still be evil. But Good characters rarely get away with performing evil actions for a greater good.

Therefore, a Lawful Evil character maximizes their personal gain, minimizes duties to keep their alignment, and operate within campaigns with the least friction.

[Sagetim]

Virtually all long term campaigns have a Lawful component, some government or group running things. Very, very few controlling bodies make 'being evil' illegal or directly punishable, they punish observed actions. Yet, characters that are evil have more fluidity in taking actions that benefit themselves. An evil character can take good actions for selfish purposes and still be evil. But Good characters rarely get away with performing evil actions for a greater good.

Therefore, a Lawful Evil character maximizes their personal gain, minimizes duties to keep their alignment, and operate within campaigns with the least friction.

I disagree...but it may just be that I have DM's who don't punish players for being a little selfish here or there. As a neutral good character I have:

Assisted in the capture of an enemy bandit then turned a blind eye to the cleric turning it into a drider as part of an attack on a bandit camp, simply not told some of the other players what stuff I've identified is and kept it for myself (hello lucky roll staff of power). Dropped fire and more fire on bandits while they were sleeping from carpet back while poorly disguised as a dwarf (thus deflecting the blame for the midnight carpet bombing). Killed a party member by raining fire down on him to keep him from being killed by the monster of the week (wait, is that evil, or just a hard choice?). Set fire to buildings under attack by undead that may have had people in them (they had undead in them). Set fire to suspicious grass because it was suspicious (it happened to have undead in it too). Killed a king because he was a jerk, then placed his not a jerk brother on the throne. Put a beret on a balor before the party used a stone to flesh scroll to restore it from petrified state.

As Lawful Good I have: Punched an old man to death during interrogation (he was the leader of a plot against the king) then delivered his corpse to the castle's mage to cast Speak with Dead on him for proper information extraction. Threatened an old man with reincarnation as a means of giving him a new lifespan...with a lifetime prison sentence to match.

[Hecuba]

All that statement says is that IF you devote yourself to good, THEN you have access to Sanctified spells. It does NOT say that if you aren't devoted to good, then you do NOT have access to Sanctified spells. This is equivalent to saying IF you are a cat, THEN you are an animal (which does not say that all animals cats). In other words, this whole statement is fluff, and makes no restrictions on who can cast Sanctified spells.

This is the true crunch statement concerning restrictions on Sanctified spells: Evil characters can NOT cast them. It may not "seem right", but by RAW neutral as well as good characters can cast Sanctified spells.

There's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball...

You're trying to use the Air Bud defense in a RAW discussion?

While I will concede that you would be correct under strict formal inference (largely as a result of poor wording on the scope), I'll also point out that you're so far out in the weeds that there are people healing by drowning all around you.

[eggynack]

There's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball...

You're trying to use the Air Bud defense in a RAW discussion?

While I will concede that you would be correct under strict formal inference (largely as a result of poor wording on the scope), I'll also point out that you're so far out in the weeds that there are people healing by drowning all around you.

That's not what's happening here at all. The rules directly state that those with prepared casting, as long as they're not evil, have the capacity to do this. That sets the broad structure for the rules of sanctified spells. From that point, the onus is on the rules to set specific limitations on sanctified spells, or else said limitations don't exist.

In other words, I'm not saying that there's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball. I'm saying that there's no rule that says a good wizard can't cast fireball. You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming that good wizards can't cast fireball, even with no such rule in place. Calling upon the, "The rules don't say you can't," fallacy has its limits, and this is one of them.