What is your approximate Character Alignment, and why?

[Flickerdart]

So that's sort of how I think of Evil. Lockpicking isn't Evil, but stoking fear and envy in people who certainly didn't do anything to deserve it because it might benefit me? That might be.

It benefitted you, but it benefitted them too. Neutral.

Now, if you were just another student, who spread paranoia and anxiety in his cohort so that they would all fail their projects and you would get that A? That would be Evil.

[Jormengand]

It's cool, we can have cookies after.

So long as they're not evil cookies. Or even neutral cookies, really.

I don't mind them being lawful cookies, though; I'd be worried if they weren't.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think True Neutral is a tricky alignment in my opinion. It can go either way to shift a different alignment.

[DataNinja]

I don't mind them being lawful cookies, though; I'd be worried if they weren't.

As long as the L in Lawful isn't forgotten.

[2D8HP]

.....if you were just another student, who spread paranoia and anxiety in his cohort so that they would all fail their projects and you would get that A? That would be Evil.

Unless you define paranoia, anxiety, and failure as "character building", then "It's all good".
(Also gives a taste of being an employee).

[Liquor Box]

Most people are True Neutral, for one simple reason - we lack conviction. How many of you would kill for Good? Practice sacrifice and self-denial for Chaos? Commit to Evil always, not just when personally convenient? Follow rigid Law regardless of consequences? If you really think about it, none.

If faced with the trolley problem, we'd all be too busy checking our phones to even think about flipping the switch.

I agree with Trekkin, I think you have set the bar for any non-neutral alignment in a manner that is no justified by the rules of DnD or by common-sense.

Under your thresholds, almost nobody would ever be evil. People do evil acts not because they are committed to the cause of evil, but because doing evil acts benefit them in someway (whether their desire for revenge, their perverted high from doing an evil act, or from more material benefits). Even Hitler, probably the most cited example of evil in real life history, carried out those acts usually considered to be evil because it benefited him and his cause to do so, not because of his over-riding commitment to evil.

I don't think a person needs to make some great sacrifice to be good. If someone stumbles, and you reach out to steady them, that is a good act (albeit a small one). Accumulate enough small goods relative the he number of small evils and you may be considered Good, in my opinion.

[Red Fel]

Neutral neutral?

You monster.

I mean, there's not even an "N" in my name...

I would agree; lockpicking isn't evil. I think my teaching style became so, though, back before I was able to go pure research.

*SNIP*

So that's sort of how I think of Evil. Lockpicking isn't Evil, but stoking fear and envy in people who certainly didn't do anything to deserve it because it might benefit me? That might be.

It benefitted you, but it benefitted them too. Neutral.

Now, if you were just another student, who spread paranoia and anxiety in his cohort so that they would all fail their projects and you would get that A? That would be Evil.

This. Allow me to offer a counter-argument.

There are many programs which grade on a curve which promote cut-throat tactics between students. A number of law school programs are infamous for this, for example. Let me show you an illustration: The professor gives a research project that requires students to spend hours in the library. Let's say it's on contracts law. Here is how three groups of students would handle it.

• Good: This student finds an obscure but very helpful text in the back shelves of the library. After getting what he needs from it, he puts it back. Depending on the instructor's policy on sharing work, he might put a little sticky note marked K, the shorthand for "contract," on the shelf, just in case one of his classmates stumbles by. He might also mention it to his friends more directly.
• Neutral: This student finds the same text, gets the resources he needs, and puts it back, telling nobody, because the class is graded on a curve and he plays to win.
• Evil: This student checks the book out until the end of the semester.

You might or might not be surprised just how many programs have a reputation for the third type of student.

That's an example of being Evil. You not only help nobody, you actively harm them. Your illustration, Trekkin, helped the students in the long run. Yes, it was deliciously cruel and I love it, but you were hurting them for their own benefit - a benefit they actually realized. The fact that it also benefited you was a bonus.

Was it cruel and selfish? Sure. But was it Evil? Eeeeeh... I dunno about that.

So long as they're not evil cookies. Or even neutral cookies, really.

I don't mind them being lawful cookies, though; I'd be worried if they weren't.

There's nothing Neutral about chocolate chips.

Nothing Evil, either, but I can forgive a lack of Evil when it comes to chocolate.

[Liquor Box]

You monster.

This. Allow me to offer a counter-argument.

There are many programs which grade on a curve which promote cut-throat tactics between students. A number of law school programs are infamous for this, for example. Let me show you an illustration: The professor gives a research project that requires students to spend hours in the library. Let's say it's on contracts law. Here is how three groups of students would handle it.

• Good: This student finds an obscure but very helpful text in the back shelves of the library. After getting what he needs from it, he puts it back. Depending on the instructor's policy on sharing work, he might put a little sticky note marked K, the shorthand for "contract," on the shelf, just in case one of his classmates stumbles by. He might also mention it to his friends more directly.
• Neutral: This student finds the same text, gets the resources he needs, and puts it back, telling nobody, because the class is graded on a curve and he plays to win.
• Evil: This student checks the book out until the end of the semester.

You might or might not be surprised just how many programs have a reputation for the third type of student.

That's an example of being Evil. You not only help nobody, you actively harm them.

Several papers at my law school worked just like that. A certain percentage (20%) got an A, and so on until a certain percentage would fail. All that mattered was how you went relative to other students.

My group of friends shared ideas with each other, but not with the wider class, although we didn't do things like hiding books. Neutral in my view.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Lawful Neutral: We're the ones who put the pegs, no matter what they are, through the holes - without the use of other tools. No making the hole bigger, or sanding edges off. That's cheating. Looking at you, Chaos. I see you over there with that saw, trying to get that square peg in that round hole!

See, I'm just sitting here feeling vaguely uncomfortable about why the pegs have to be in the holes in the first place... Don't the pegs have a say? Or the holes, for that matter? I think we should look for a solution that works for everyone.

[Flickerdart]

I agree with Trekkin, I think you have set the bar for any non-neutral alignment in a manner that is no justified by the rules of DnD or by common-sense.

Under your thresholds, almost nobody would ever be evil. People do evil acts not because they are committed to the cause of evil, but because doing evil acts benefit them in someway (whether their desire for revenge, their perverted high from doing an evil act, or from more material benefits). Even Hitler, probably the most cited example of evil in real life history, carried out those acts usually considered to be evil because it benefited him and his cause to do so, not because of his over-riding commitment to evil.

I don't think a person needs to make some great sacrifice to be good. If someone stumbles, and you reach out to steady them, that is a good act (albeit a small one). Accumulate enough small goods relative the he number of small evils and you may be considered Good, in my opinion.

You don't need to be committed "to the cause of evil." You just need to do evil things when non-evil things would have sufficed. Murder is evil, did you murder anyone recently? Deface holy sites or relics? Cause harm or agony for the pleasure of it? Perform an act of betrayal or treachery - blame failure at work on a colleague, or better yet frame him for it?

Good is similar. Yeah, maybe you helped someone who tripped. That's sort of a Good act. But if you imagine that doing that once or twice makes you a Good person, you're deluding yourself.

[DataNinja]

See, I'm just sitting here feeling vaguely uncomfortable about why the pegs have to be in the holes in the first place... Don't the pegs have a say? Or the holes, for that matter? I think we should look for a solution that works for everyone.

All I've been told is that these pegs need to be in these holes, and each peg can only go in its specific hole. Simple as that. Those are the rules, and as long as they're followed, everything goes smoothly. Also, I am required by regulations to inform you that the pegs cannot, in fact, speak, nor will they ever threaten to stab you.

And even if they could, their purpose is to be put in the holes. If you can show me the regulations have changed, though, well, then that's a different kettle of fish altogether. I suggest perhaps a petition? Or make your way to being the Official of Pegs and Holes. Show some dedication, and you'll make it there, eventually.

[Liquor Box]

You don't need to be committed "to the cause of evil." You just need to do evil things when non-evil things would have sufficed. Murder is evil, did you murder anyone recently? Deface holy sites or relics? Cause harm or agony for the pleasure of it? Perform an act of betrayal or treachery - blame failure at work on a colleague, or better yet frame him for it?

I still think the evil side of the equation is problematic on your approach.

Possibly, if Hitler had done non-evil things instead of his evil things, he would have come as close or closer to reaching his goals. But I think it is fair to assume that most (if not all) evil acts he committed or sanctioned were done because he thought that they were the most expedient way to accomplish his goals. It would be hard to identify any occasion of him choosing the evil path except where that evil path might have been motivated by practical considerations.

My point is that to be evil, you don't have to do evil things for evil's sake. An act that benefits yourself while causing disproportionate harm to others is evil (may be oversimplifying this, happy to hear counter-examples) even if it is motivated by practical self-interest, and not done simply for the sake of being evil.

Good is similar. Yeah, maybe you helped someone who tripped. That's sort of a Good act. But if you imagine that doing that once or twice makes you a Good person, you're deluding yourself.

I agree that it is not sufficient to make me a good person. that would be a ridiculously low threshold, but no more ridiculous than your high threshold of having to die or kill in the cause of good.

Exactly where the line is, I don't know - for the purpose of convenient classification, it would be best if it were somewhere which would mean that about an equal number of people were good to the number that are neutral. But I think it is fair to say that most people would see the line as somewhere far from the extremes of helping a person who tripped, and needing to kill or die for the cause.

[Blue Ghost]

No one does evil for evil's sake. People do evil things because they think they're doing good, or because it benefits them in some way, or simply because they enjoy it. But no one ever goes out of their way to do something evil that doesn't benefit them in any way, just "because it's evil."

[Trekkin]

That's an example of being Evil. You not only help nobody, you actively harm them.

I have to wonder if we aren't overemphasizing motivation, though. Let's say, hypothetically, that someone were to abduct a representative sampling of humanity and deposit them into apparently lethal traps from which the only possible escape requires telekinetic abilities, just in case they do exist but nobody with them volunteers for studies. Does this suddenly become non-Evil just because they subsequently publish the results for peer review? Society (including the survivors and negative control group) benefits, the piranha benefit from the positive controls, and it's all in service to some larger purpose, but I can't help but think it's still Evil.

[Flickerdart]

Society (including the survivors and negative control group) benefits, the piranha benefit from the positive controls, and it's all in service to some larger purpose, but I can't help but think it's still Evil.

Society doesn't benefit proportionally to the suffering you've caused. Scientists do not doubt that telekinesis doesn't exist. You've murdered a bunch of people for a personal curiosity, and that's all.

[Red Fel]

I have to wonder if we aren't overemphasizing motivation, though. Let's say, hypothetically, that someone were to abduct a representative sampling of humanity and deposit them into apparently lethal traps from which the only possible escape requires telekinetic abilities, just in case they do exist but nobody with them volunteers for studies. Does this suddenly become non-Evil just because they subsequently publish the results for peer review? Society (including the survivors and negative control group) benefits, the piranha benefit from the positive controls, and it's all in service to some larger purpose, but I can't help but think it's still Evil.

The point I've made, and will likely continue to make, on this one is simple. Both actions and motivations matter. However, the emphasis between them differs.

A Good character emphasizes actions. Why? Because there are Lines You Must Not Cross. There are things that one must never do, regardless of motivation. That's why concepts like "the Greater Good" can be taken to horrifying extremes. So while Good cares about motivations, it cares more about not doing Bad Acts.

By contrast, an Evil character emphasizes motivations. Why? Because you can help grannies cross the street and still be a monster. You can run a charity that genuinely helps people, and use it as a front for your illicit dealings. Obviously, if you do nothing but Good things, you can't really claim to be the villain, but if you do a mix of Good and Evil, and all of your Good acts are for the right (read: wrong) reasons, you keep your Evil credentials. So while Evil cares about acts, it cares more about why you do them.

In the illustration you give, a person captured, tortured, and killed people. Irrespective of motivation, that's a pretty horrific thing to do. So clearly, that person cannot be Good, irrespective of motivation, because a Good person would never have performed those actions. The question, then, is the character's motivation. If they were genuinely motivated by altruistic goals, perhaps they might not be full-on Evil. This depends on scale, of course; a genocide is Evil no matter what, but a few deaths "for the Greater Good" might wash to Neutral. On the other hand, if they just really wanted to torture and kill people, no amount of peer review will validate their actions - that's just straight-up Evil.

You hip to my jive?

[Giggling Ghast]

I like to think of myself as Lawful Good, but I likely end up as Neutral.

[Aedilred]

Everything everyone has said denouncing alignment as pretty rubbish and inapplicable to real life I agree with.

With that said, I would consider myself Neutral, with a slight leaning towards Good and towards Lawfulness. If one were to map Law - Chaos on a left-right scale and then plot my views and activities I daresay there would be spatter marks all over the place, but averaging out west of centre. With Good vs Evil I would say I perform some Good acts and do my best to avoid performing Evil ones, but I could put more effort into performing, and pursue more opportunities to perform, Good acts than I currently do.

And with a few rare exceptions I imagine the above broadly holds true for the majority of people: they don't tend to do Evil, don't do as much Good as they could, and lean slightly one way or the other on the Law/Chaos axis without making a strong commitment to either. Alignment ends up being a vague expression of preference rather than anything particularly meaningful.

Whether you count that as True Neutral, or whether you give them the benefit of the doubt based on a slight tilt one way or the other and put them in one of the other eight categories depends pretty much entirely on how you calibrate the scales.

In terms of characters I like to play and find easiest to get into character for, they tend to be Lawful and non-Evil, but there's no particular consistency.

[Lemmy]

I can't find this "America" on my map of Faerun. Did you mean the old Elvish nation Arvandaar?

I don't see how the existence or inexistence of a certian country in Faerun has anything to do with this discussion.

Anyway, while clearly linked by blood to Elves and Orcs (chaotic good, and chaotic evil), most human societies seem to resemble either Halfling villages and caravans (Lawful good), or Hobgoblin Empires and warbands (Lawful Evil).

Are humans as innately Chaotic as their close relatives? If so how do their largely Lawful societies arise?

Gnomish researchers have long for a little while until something shiny comes along pondered this question.

Societies tend to have rules, but "having rules" is not the same as "being Lawful".

I don't know if those halfling villages are indeed LG or if hobgoblins empires and warbands are indeed LE... Nor do I know if most human societies do indeed resemble them, but like I said, there's a difference between living in a lawful/chaotic/whatever society and actually being lawful/chaotic/whatever. Obeying societies rules because you're afraid of breaking them or simply doesn't care enough to do it doesn't make you the same alignment as the society in question. It's perfectly possible for a nation with a Lawful government/set of laws to have a mostly non-lawful population. Humans are far more concerned about their own well-being and prosperity than about the trappings of what's good/evil/lawful/chaotic/whatever.

[Strigon]

Are humans as innately Chaotic as their close relatives? If so how do their largely Lawful societies arise?

Because the Lawful are better at establishing and holding power.

[Trekkin]

You hip to my jive?

I think so; the point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that to state that being Evil requires Evil actions motivated by Evil reasons to the exclusion of other considerations (as I may have misinterpreted Flickerdart to imply above) is to exclude people who do terrible things for reasons they would call good ones, as in my example, as well as people who do good works in service to an ultimately detrimental plan, and I feel that to do so is to reduce the utility of the alignment system, bearing in mind that it's not a good fit for reality anyway.

[2D8HP]

Because the Lawful are better at establishing and holding power.

Then how do Elvish/Orcish societies stay Chaotic? Shouldn't they have fallen to Lawful ones?

[Liquor Box]

Then how do Elvish/Orcish societies stay Chaotic? Shouldn't they have fallen to Lawful ones?

Aren't elven and orcish societies generally portrayed as being less complex than human ones.

Orcs are usually portrayed as largely tribal, only few settings (as far as I am aware) actually have orcish nations.

As for elves, they are often portrayed as being tribal (although of a more noble nature) as well. Sometimes they are portrayed as having their own nation or empire, but that is usually less populated and less complex than the human nations, and there may be only one or two elven nations to numerous human nations.

[Donnadogsoth]

The word “alignment” here suggests allegiance or configuration. One is aligning oneself with something. Aligning oneself with what? What is there to align with?

Let's say there is reality and there is fantasy. Aligning with reality would be one thing, aligning with fantasy would be another.

If we use our reality as the model, then we have an inaccessible Truth reflected into the shards of accessible but limited truths we call principles. Discovery of these principles, through scientific or artistic-moral processes, allows us to reorganise our society to attain to higher levels of power over the Universe (which is trying to kill us). If we align with Truth, we gain power over the Universe. So human progress is a process of adjustment of alignment towards Truth.

The opposite of this would be aligning against Truth, towards some kind of falsehood, typically decked out as true but immersed in fantasy of some kind. This fantasy would act as a kind of heat that would melt the ice castles of principle that any given society has discovered and implemented, to the degree of influence the fantasy aligners had. The Universe will ruthlessly and inexorably destroy societies that do not conform to Truth.

So, there is the

REALITY <----> FANTASY axis that should, if we value humanity, be termed

GOOD/LAWFUL <----MORALLY WEAK----> EVIL/CHAOS

In this axis the Universal Law and Good are being accepted or rejected together. The second axis describes the vector of the individual:

BETTER <----MORAL STASIS----> WORSE

A “neutral” middle would indicate moral weakness and moral stasis respectively.

Most people are MORALLY WEAK-STASIS in this absolute sense--this is the most exacting morality system dealing with mankind on a cosmic scale--such people tend to be go-along-to-get-along, though they may be very nice and make good dinner company or would even help you when you are in need.

[Geodude6]

I feel like 90% of real people are true neutral. I most likely fall in this category.

[Lemmy]

I feel like 90% of real people are true neutral. I most likely fall in this category.

See? This guy knows what he's talking about!

[ThinkMinty]

The word “alignment” here suggests allegiance or configuration. One is aligning oneself with something. Aligning oneself with what? What is there to align with?

Let's say there is reality and there is fantasy. Aligning with reality would be one thing, aligning with fantasy would be another.

If we use our reality as the model, then we have an inaccessible Truth reflected into the shards of accessible but limited truths we call principles. Discovery of these principles, through scientific or artistic-moral processes, allows us to reorganise our society to attain to higher levels of power over the Universe (which is trying to kill us). If we align with Truth, we gain power over the Universe. So human progress is a process of adjustment of alignment towards Truth.

The opposite of this would be aligning against Truth, towards some kind of falsehood, typically decked out as true but immersed in fantasy of some kind. This fantasy would act as a kind of heat that would melt the ice castles of principle that any given society has discovered and implemented, to the degree of influence the fantasy aligners had. The Universe will ruthlessly and inexorably destroy societies that do not conform to Truth.

So, there is the

REALITY <----> FANTASY axis that should, if we value humanity, be termed

GOOD/LAWFUL <----MORALLY WEAK----> EVIL/CHAOS

In this axis the Universal Law and Good are being accepted or rejected together. The second axis describes the vector of the individual:

BETTER <----MORAL STASIS----> WORSE

A “neutral” middle would indicate moral weakness and moral stasis respectively.

Most people are MORALLY WEAK-STASIS in this absolute sense--this is the most exacting morality system dealing with mankind on a cosmic scale--such people tend to be go-along-to-get-along, though they may be very nice and make good dinner company or would even help you when you are in need.

That was a whole lot of word salad just to call my alignment bull****, dude. Stop conflating Chaos with Evil, because they're not the same thing.

Law pairs much more comfortably with Evil than Chaos does.

[ThinkMinty]

No one does evil for evil's sake. People do evil things because they think they're doing good, or because it benefits them in some way, or simply because they enjoy it. But no one ever goes out of their way to do something evil that doesn't benefit them in any way, just "because it's evil."

Blue, buddy, there are people who are evil for the sake of it. It sucks, but in the way that there are Goods like us who are on the righteous path for its own sake, there are those who happily revel in wickedness because it's wicked. They might not necessarily call it evil, but there are a lot of eagerly evil people. Plenty of Evil people are just amused by stirring **** and then acting all smug when people react.

You know how doing something good makes you feel all fluffy and nice inside? Evil people get that feeling when they kick puppies or starve your grandma.

There's reasons we oppose Evil, Blue. It's because they're jerks, and because Evil is bad. We'e the Goodies, we gotta stop the baddies, Blue. If we don't, they'll mess everything up and eat all the unicorns. There's a lot more to it than that, but part of big-G Goodness is an opposition to Evil.

The whole "Good and Evil both have flaws so I'm above them!" thing is never said by anyone with good intentions, either.

See? This guy knows what he's talking about!

I'd probably peg you as either Neutral Evil or True Neutral (Evil), Lemmy. You just...come across like a "Lookin' out for #1" type of guy.

Because the Lawful are better at establishing and holding power.

Lawfuls are better at making up rules and imposing abstractions and refusing to even let us Chaotics have any damn input in our own societies. And then y'all wonder why we rebel.

The universe is deterministic. All the information is there, it's just not all available to us. It's pegs and holes (or turtles, if you prefer) all the way down.

No, it ain't. **** that "destiny" bull****, there's more to life than that nonsense. Everything changes, **** happens. Have fun with it.

See, I'm just sitting here feeling vaguely uncomfortable about why the pegs have to be in the holes in the first place... Don't the pegs have a say? Or the holes, for that matter? I think we should look for a solution that works for everyone.

See, Ninja_Prawn, babycakes, this is how Chaotic Good do. The peg/whole thing is a heteronormative, thought-terminating paradigm designed to trick people into never questioning their role or their society.

[DataNinja]

Lawfuls are better at making up rules and imposing abstractions and refusing to even let us Chaotics have any damn input in our own societies. And then y'all wonder why we rebel.

Oh, your problem is just not having input? Well, that's easily solved. All you need to do is fill out this Request for Input form, take it to the Office of Input, and schedule a meeting in 4-6 weeks with an Input Attendant, where your concerns will be noted, and brought up and discussed at the next Ministry of Input meeting. Simple. You can even follow along every step.

See, Ninja_Prawn, babycakes, this is how Chaotic Good do. The peg/whole thing is a heteronormative, thought-terminating paradigm designed to trick people into never questioning their role or their society.

Look, I'm quite happy having a job I don't need to think about anything in. Monotony at work is great. It leaves my mind free to think about whatever I want. And, I know that's not for everyone, but, could you at least take your increased entropy and go elsewhere? Rebel all you want, go topple some tyranny, I don't care, as long as it's not interfering with my peg-sorting.

[Amidus Drexel]

Lawfuls are better at making up rules and imposing abstractions and refusing to even let us Chaotics have any damn input in our own societies. And then y'all wonder why we rebel.

No, it ain't. **** that "destiny" bull****, there's more to life than that nonsense. Everything changes, **** happens. Have fun with it.

See, Ninja_Prawn, babycakes, this is how Chaotic Good do. The peg/whole thing is a heteronormative, thought-terminating paradigm designed to trick people into never questioning their role or their society.

Weeeeeeell, you have exactly as much input as everyone else! It's just that there's a lot of "everyone else" and a significant fraction of them disagree with you. We try to keep things civil "up here" - because so very many people would prefer things are civil "down there", so to speak. If all of you chaotic types would prefer that wasn't the case, that can be arranged. I daresay you may have experienced that before, even.

From a purely literal perspective, yes, it is. On an individual level, though, no, it doesn't matter. I suppose your opinion here really depends on your perspective of the world.

Your role is to do as well for yourself as you can - working hard and following the rules is a safe bet that puts you ahead more often than not. If you'd rather gamble on greatness, be my guest - but don't take away my comfort at only aiming for better-than-average.

Oh, your problem is just not having input? Well, that's easily solved. All you need to do is fill out this Request for Input form, take it to the Office of Input, and schedule a meeting in 4-6 weeks with an Input Attendant, where your concerns will be noted, and brought up and discussed at the next Ministry of Input meeting. Simple. You can even follow along every step.

Excessive bureaucracy is neither necessary nor even helpful to the execution of law - if anything, it makes the whole thing worse. Bureaucracy is only acceptable when dealing with the ensuing chaotic mess of information is definitely better than not having the information in the first place.