Board 8 > Has there ever been a good definition for alignments in d&d

(+) Yeah! (+)

What each alignment means kinda deal
---

no

Obviously yes.
---

There are so many memes with good definitions.
---

nobody agrees on what lawful/chaotic means

not even the source material itself can seem to define it

it means whatever a person wants it to mean

good vs evil is dumb

Paratroopa1 posted...

nobody agrees on what lawful/chaotic means

not even the source material itself can seem to define it

it means whatever a person wants it to mean

good vs evil is dumb

pretty much this. also the idea of 'lawful good' is inherently stupid because at some point you have to choose between obeying the law or doing what is right. you literally can't be both.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

nobody agrees on what lawful/chaotic means

not even the source material itself can seem to define it

it means whatever a person wants it to mean

good vs evil is dumb

pretty much this. also the idea of 'lawful good' is inherently stupid because at some point you have to choose between obeying the law or doing what is right. you literally can't be both.

Wouldn't go that far, you can both obey the law and do the right thing and sometimes find yourself torn between doing one or the other but that one choice doesn't necessarily define you

---

Drakeryn posted...

Why is using the clip that came with the bag not true neutral?
---

I've seen the lawful chaotic axis as caring about rules vs. caring about individuals and good/evil as others/self.
---

I like http://easydamus.com/alignment.html but it's wordy - which tbf the system needs.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

also the idea of 'lawful good' is inherently stupid because at some point you have to choose between obeying the law or doing what is right. you literally can't be both.

Also the fact the trolley problem exists doesn't mean someone can't want to save both paths. It just means it's not possible.
---

-hotdogturtle-- posted...

Why is using the clip that came with the bag not true neutral?

excuse me what

I like to rename lawful to "order". Makes a lot more sense when you consider it on the evil side of the axis... lawful evil operates within a set order, a code, etc... the is order to the world and they will achieve their desires within the existing order. They also do evil to establish that order - if someone wants to become an evil king, they're lawful.

Chaotic evil acts in opposition to order and expectation. They do evil, almost with the purpose of taking down existing structures.

Most Disney villains are lawful evil.
---

I didn't realize I was chaotic neutral when it came to bread.
---

Lawful is about having a personal code and adhering to it more than "obeying the laws of society"

For example an assassin can be lawful evil if they're very strict about how they kill targets

Just as a lawful good Paladin can disobey the laws if they're unjust and harm the innocent or whatever

It's not really complicated people just think "the law" when they see lawful which isn't correct
---

Lopen posted...

Lawful is about having a personal code and adhering to it more than "obeying the laws of society"

No see, the books say this but this is where the lawful/chaotic spectrum completely falls apart. Literally nobody is lacking in a personal code

I think that's a narrow minded view of the world or an extremely broad view of what defines "a code." I certainly wouldn't say I have any sort of code. There are some limited things I would tend to do most of the time but nothing I'd stick to no matter the situation.
---

Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrites in the world
---

Oh plenty of people don't THINK they have a code, but they have a code

It's not even about not being a hypocrite, though yeah there are a lot of those too, as much as like, defining how you get around in the world by said code. It needs to dictate how you interact with everything. Most people I would say aren't lawful aren't necessarily hypocrites as much as they just haven't really thought it out much.

Like if your code almost never inconveniences you it's probably not one. It's just something you will tend to do because it suits your purposes and discard under extenuating circumstances.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Oh plenty of people don't THINK they have a code, but they have a code

I get what you're saying, and you're not wrong, but that's too broad a definition of "code" in this context.
---

If you don't think you have a code you don't have one. You may have a standard of conduct resembling a code forced upon you by societal norms and self interest but a code by definition needs to be something you're mindful of
---

I think pretty much everyone has personal standards that they uphold without really thinking about it and they don't always necessarily exactly line up with society's standards, although frequently they do (but that's true of people who really specifically uphold a code too)

I really just don't think it's something that divides people

I think the best way to divide lawful and chaotic is people who uphold and reinforce existing power structures vs people who subvert existing power structures, but this isn't really an inherent quality to a person, it's dependent on outside influences

Good spectrum is a little different... in those lines, I treat it more of where those people operate, since all good people tend towards a basic sense of order. A lawful good person operates within society and existing structures - they're more likely to be member to established organizations, allow justice to occur through the "proper" channels, stick to their word.

Chaotic good people stick to smaller groups, are more free-spirited, and tend to be more selfish. Chaotic good is usually the alignment of most adventuring groups, though an argument can be made for neutral good and chaotic neutral.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think pretty much everyone has personal standards that they uphold without really thinking about it and they don't always necessarily exactly line up with society's standards, although frequently they do (but that's true of people who really specifically uphold a code too)

I think you'd be wrong. I think people like to think they have personal standards, but they're guided by other things like self-preservation, and can almost always be broken in the right situations. And breaking them doesn't make that person a hypocrite because context is king. It just means they don't have a code to begin with.

For instance, most people would say they're morally against killing. But if you need to kill an intruder who is about to kill your family, and have the immediate means to, most of those people would kill the intruder instead of trying to talk them down. You can say "well, the code wasn't actually to never kill it was to never kill someone who didn't threaten you first" but that fits more into self preservation at that point.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think the best way to divide lawful and chaotic is people who uphold and reinforce existing power structures vs people who subvert existing power structures, but this isn't really an inherent quality to a person, it's dependent on outside influences

That's your definition and why it's not D&D's. Your definition is bad because it's not really a character trait. Your character will flip from lawful to chaotic based on what plane they're on, and in a world setting where dimensional travel is a thing, well yeah, that's going to come up.
---

"Follows a code" vs "doesn't follow a code" isn't really a character trait either. The closest thing you could probably get is sort of like the J/P distrinction in a Myers-Briggs test

I'm arguing that there isn't really any definition of lawful vs chaotic that is purely internal, which is why it doesn't work

Lawful is basically an extreme version of judging on the J/P distinction yeah.

Outside influences can guide how a lawful character will act, but the specifics of it will ultimately be based on how that influence interacts with the flowchart in their head or organization which determines whether it's suitable to act.

Lawful is honestly the easiest one to distinguish. Neutral vs Chaotic is where it gets trickier to me. Best I can determine is neutral is primarily driven by self interest or by an active desire to achieve neutrality and will act lawfully or chaotically from situation to situation depending on its interaction with the world as a whole. Chaotic is actively whimsical and will do whatever catches their fancy at the time. I feel like those two tend to have the most overlap, though I would say chaotic good is more likely to do "stupid heroic things" than neutral good.
---

Lopen posted...

Lawful is honestly the easiest one to distinguish. Neutral vs Chaotic is where it gets trickier to me. Best I can determine is neutral is primarily driven by self interest or by an active desire to achieve neutrality and will act lawfully or chaotically from situation to situation depending on its interaction with the world as a whole. Chaotic is actively whimsical and will do whatever catches their fancy at the time. I feel like those two tend to have the most overlap, though I would say chaotic good is more likely to do "stupid heroic things" than neutral good.

chaotic people are supposed to be actively opposed to lawful people. for example I'd consider myself chaotic since I don't think 'lawful good' can actually exist. I think anyone who calls themself 'lawful good' is probably lawful evil, or maybe lawful neutral at best.

obviously I'm not neutral because I have feelings directly opposed to lawful ways of thinking.
---

This is true yeah. I guess "is opposed to the idea of having a code" vs "doesn't have a code" would be the easiest distinction to make there. In the end their actions are going to align pretty often though. More often than lawful + neutral imo. But maybe as a fellow chaosmonger that's just the way I feel due to thinking lawful mindset is inherently a burden so neutral of course will end up veering towards chaos more often.
---

Chaotic people definitely aren't opposed to having a code. Like the "good" part of "chaotic good" already implies a code to do good, so you might as well throw them in the lawful camp?

Definitely think it makes more sense to define law/chaos as closer to "respect for authority and existing power structures" vs. "animosity to authority and existing power structures" (with neutral being more like "authority is okay unless it's bad, then it isn't").
---

Chaotic vs Lawful is about the process

Good vs Evil is about the result
---

Robin hood is the most obvious version of chaotic good you can find, and he operates on a code.

Lopen posted...

Chaotic vs Lawful is about the process

Good vs Evil is about the result

This is also not a good dichotomy.

Scar's goal in Lion King is to rule. He wants power in an established order - evil is his method to achieve.

Frollo in Hunchback fits your statement more - operates within an established order to achieve evil means.
---

Scar's goal in Lion King is selfish power. Evil.

Scar's method is subterfuge and murder because it works. Neutral.
---

Scar's 'result' is gaining power for himself which is on the evil axis

Scar's 'process' is exploiting the existing power structure and lines of succession to do that.

I actually think Scar is neutral evil though. I think you were implying he's Lawful Evil because he wants to rule the power structure but I would disagree with that. He's not really using said establishment to achieve anything nor following any of its rules (he brings Hyenas in after all). He just wants to be the man.

Oh NFUN said it in the 7 minutes I had the post message open while I was handling a call. Well I agree with NFUN!
---

"Selfish power" is not inherently evil. If he was evil because he just cant wait to be king, then... welp.

Scar is evil because he would kill his family to achieve his goals. His goal isn't to kill his family, though.

His goals don't extend beyond becoming king, which is why he's a bad king. Doesn't make him less lawful.

Thanos is another character I'd say fits lawful evil whose goal is not evil, but the process is.
---

NFUN posted...

Scar's goal in Lion King is selfish power. Evil.

Scar's method is subterfuge and murder because it works. Neutral.

awesome.

we need more of NFUN analyzing disney villains. better than anything wizards of the coast has come up with regarding alignments.
---

Well we don't know Simba just can't wait to be king for power. Given the rest of his character it's more likely he just wants to help his kingdom thrive and is excited to do so. There are a lot of reasons to want to be a King.

Also while I can't speak for him in comics, in the vacuum of the MCU Thanos is pretty much the definition of True Neutral imo. I could honestly see an argument for Chaotic Neutral even. Definitely not Lawful.
---

Lopen posted...

Well we don't know Simba just can't wait to be king for power.

Power is no one saying "stop that" or "see here"
---

Like to elaborate a bit (Marvel 4 spoilers I guess)

Thanos's goal is to grab the infinity stones to snap and systematically remove half the life in the universe with it. It doesn't really have anything to do with gaining power or benefiting himself in particular. It's about making the universe as a whole in a better spot. At the same time he has no qualms with killing a bunch of people to do it because it's for a good cause, so he's clearly not good because he's doing "bad" things to get it done.

He achieves that manner in the most efficient way possible, which is generally the way a neutral person acts. He would be Lawful if for some reason it had to be arbitrarily chosen ala the way of the infinity gauntlet and it had nothing to do with the end he's trying to achieve, but as I understand it he's only choosing that method because it's the most effective way to do it. He would be evil if he wanted to use the gauntlet to rule the universe or had some sort of benefit to reap personally due to snapping (for example, if he wanted resources to boom so he could then plunder those resources, or if he needed to take half the population to rule the universe more efficiently for some reason-- but the dude honestly just seems to want the universe as a whole to boom).

Now, granted, Neutral Evil makes the most sense if you take Thanos's character as a whole because you have to wonder how he got in his position to even make a play at the infinity stones and the company he keeps and the flashbacks, and I doubt he had this goal in mind his entire life, but in the vacuum of the MCU he comes off pretty True Neutral to me.
---

pjbasis posted...

Power is no one saying "stop that" or "see here"

True.

I guess you could argue Simba as a child shares some evil traits. Really though his alignment is just Kid Kid at that point. All kids are brats.

And then again while he's with Timon and Pumbaa he's got some chaotic traits while observing Hakuna Matata which is totally a chaotic phrase, but I'm thinking getting bored of it means he's lost that edge to him and he ends up more of a Neutral Good. But who knows, he could be a Chaotic Good king too we'll never know.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. LION KING VERY DEEP.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

NFUN posted...

Scar's goal in Lion King is selfish power. Evil.

Scar's method is subterfuge and murder because it works. Neutral.

awesome.

we need more of NFUN analyzing disney villains. better than anything wizards of the coast has come up with regarding alignments.

i havent seen the lion king in like 12 years if youre making fun of me
---

---

Thanos is only Neutral if you believe that he truly cares about the universe's wellbeing first and foremost and isn't choosing his methods to prove himself right. I think the subtext points pretty heavily toward him being driven by his ego. So that makes him Lawful Evil - his methods are horrendous and he's choosing to deliberately impose them on the universe against its will.
---

I think the discussion with Thanos is Neutral Evil vs Neutral Neutral if you don't believe he's being honest. Really not getting where you or Han are getting Lawful from him at all as he seems to be going path of least resistance the entire way-- is it just because he has henchmen or rules... whatever he rules? Neutral people can do these things. So can chaotic people.

But then half the people in this topic are just rewriting intent to something that isn't even a character traith because they don't understand the original intent when it comes to Lawful vs Chaotic anyway so who knows.
---

Thanos cannot be above evil. Blatant disregard for the lives of others. He kills, and he doesnt care who, to accomplish his goals.
This is why I'm saying to examine his goals on the lawful-chaotic axis - it's limiting chaos and desolation, keeping the universe in order as it has been.

Although his final method being truly indiscriminate, is very chaotic, where I can see the argument for neutral evil

But still, that would be using chaos as the means to achieve order.
---

Lopen posted...

I think the discussion with Thanos is Neutral Evil vs Neutral Neutral if you don't believe he's being honest. Really not getting where you or Han are getting Lawful from him at all as he seems to be going path of least resistance the entire way-- is it just because he has henchmen or rules... whatever he rules? Neutral people can do these things. So can chaotic people.

But then half the people in this topic are just rewriting intent to something that isn't even a character traith because they don't understand the original intent when it comes to Lawful vs Chaotic anyway so who knows.

I said that in my post. It isnt about his desire to rule. His entire thing is imposing a specific order on the universe. That's Lawful.
---

I don't think there's anything that says that Thanos wants "order." I'm pretty sure he just wants the universe to thrive by whatever means is most effective, not by limiting chaos or whatever.

I also think Thanos would not be against using non-violent methods to achieve his goals if it was possible, and that he honestly believes there will be a net positive to quality of living and whatever by doing what he's doing. So it's a shades of grey kinda thing as far as morality goes, closest to neutral though. Killing things doesn't make you evil by default it's about what you're killing them for. Self interest would make it evil, but trying to achieve some positive goal would make it good. Why there's no argument for good is because he's doing it against the will of the ones being "helped" and with so much bloodshed that it taints the whole thing as is.

That being said I can definitely see the argument for neutral evil. Also can see lawful evil if I've misunderstood the character and it is his belief it absolutely must be done by arbitrarily removing half rather than that just being the most efficient way to achieve what he wants
---

I endorse Lopen in this topic
---

We already know "half" is arbitrary. Why not just remove one third? Or, if youre expecting to have to do it again, 3/4ths?

The key part of this equation is that Thanos is indiscriminately killing. He can't not be evil. Basic morality concerning the value of life and innocence determines that.

Killing can be done for good purposes, but context is incredibly important.
---