Our gm has a way of changing our alignment from session to session based on our actions. Say a paladin does an evil act, no penalties until too many evil actions then they could fall from grace until they earn their deity's favor again.
@@johnjustjohn5866 his spells were reduced x slots/lv and took a heavy reduction to output as well until he cleared shiz up with his deity. That would be in the case of a cleric. As far as paladin goes if his allognment fell too far he wouldnt even be able to turn undead till he clearedthings up.
@Web DM for the paladin "cannot adventure with evil" thing my old DM actually allowed the paladins to try to convince their gods to allow them to do so and that caused the best quote from a paladin player to be made it was so good the DM had it made and framed it on his wall, the paladin rolled a nat 20 on persuasion and said "yes I know that a member of my party is evil but my god, *an evil unchecked will freely cause chaos, an evil in check becomes the lesser of them, an evil controlled and used for the destruction of evil is simply for the greater good*" and that is how our paladin ascended greatly in the eyes of his god for his words were so profound to the DM and therefore his god that now this paladin is always at the side of his god now that he died
I see True Neutral as being willing to take Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic actions pragmatically, if it means achieving your goals and being true to your values. But being True Neutral means you still _have_ goals and values. A True Neutral PC joined the adventuring party for reasons; those reasons could just be idiosyncratic to themselves, or be things that don't neatly fall into either side of each axis. A character who has no interests aside from their immediate needs would, as Franz Luggin said, be classified as Unaligned. It's for this reason that most animals are Unaligned by default, because their survival (and maybe the survival of their breed partner, children, or pack/herd mates) is their only concern.
True Neutral is not just being lazy; it could mean excessive cynicism about the motives behind every alignment, or it could mean a spiritual or moral imperative to "Walk the Center Path" as in Buddhism.
"Creating skeletons and zombies is just recycling." And thus, *obviously*, this makes the Necromance a pinnacle of Virtue. He cares for the Dead in the same way that a good Druid cares for the Plants and Nature. Of course, Undead are much better at following instructions to the letter, so again *obviously* the Necromancer is a bastion of Law. . Ergo, Necromancer is Lawful Good. . And that Paladin that keeps on insisting on destroying the skeletons is not only destroying the agents of this Lawful Good, he is also making an awful mess, scattering those bone chips all over that place! That's pretty chaotic behaviour, isn't it, dirtying the place up at every opportunity? So obviously the Paladin is Chaotic Evil.
You see a child steal bread from a merchant. You give him a coin because: LG: You want him to pay for the bread, and apologise. NG: If he has money, he'll stop stealing. CG: the kid needs help, he's doing what he needed to do, so don't judge him. LN: Such is the local law. Weird, but there you go. TN: You got in a bar fight with someone last night, and feel you should donate money to balance things. CN: You flipped it. It landed heads. Lucky kid. LE: This could be a useful tool in the future. Getting the kid to owe you would be a good idea. NE: You wish to fund greater crimes in his future. CE: The child has harmed the shopkeeper, for their own desires. This should be rewarded. Alignment is more about reason and intention than the act. Also, its about consistency. Maybe you give the kid a coin just... 'cause you wanted to in that moment. Then you get back to doing what you Usually do. And unaligned doesn't exist, to me. It's like if I said I Don't have a weight because I don't own a pair of scales. Just because I'm not paying attention to it doesn't mean I don't have one.
Unaligned is a stupid way of saying "True Neutral". But yeah, I once played a lawful evil character that had everyone- even a paladin- convinced they were good. They gave food to the hungry, built infrastructure with some of the treasure they looted, and would risk their life to save strangers. They were a power hungry sadist though, in the end all that was to build a reputation and to ensure people would feel indebted toward them, and if not at least hesitate to stand against them. Ended up interrogating a goblin. When the fingernails kept coming off even after the goblin told them what they wanted to know the Paladin finally used detect evil on her. It was a fun conversation that followed.
Alignment is not a restriction of your thoughts or behaviors. It is a DESCRIPTION of how your character views and acts in the cosmos. Paladins are Lawful Good because they have a lawful approach to good. Not because they are forced to obey good laws. Alignment should never be a straight jacket or a set of criteria used against you when you don't "act a certain way." Your thoughts and actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. The idea is to pick an alignment for your character that you feel would represent his view of the cosmos.
Andrew Smith That’s kinda true but a lot of players and DMs don’t seem to understand that or come from an earlier Edition where acting out of alignment was a punishable offense, no matter how in character that action was.
That's the perspective that causes so many arguments about it though. Alignment isn't a restriction OR a description... it's an OBSERVATION made about the characters actions. You are under no obligation to have your character act like the letters written down if after a few hours of play they don't feel right... so your alignment should simply be changed once the character has been observed by the DM and the group to be of that other alignment.
You don’t seem to realize that if a character is preset to be a certain way it doesn’t matter that he does certain things because he’s that way it still is a limitation on the player. A description of a limit still describes a limit.
I'd say it's closer to just being how they act, If you break your alignment just out of left and go full anakin then that's bad role playing, its just guidelines. But If it was a reflection of his views on the cosmos, then no one would follow it, I've never met someone who's 100% consistent with their views, well, except for 1 dimensional characters that are flat as all hell
In 5e, it became: For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated. The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt so no longer a spell you can just use on randos
A thought (regarding the Rick & Morty discussion specifically, but it applies generally): I don't think evil characters are incapable of love. I don't think evil characters are incapable of "selfless" actions (though they may be much less likely). The difference, as I see it, is that evil characters do not believe that life has intrinsic value; they only see it having instrumental value. They're more likely to kill for the benefit of their lovers, for instance, but that doesn't mean their love is insincere.
If I may pull Critical Role into this, it reminds me a lot of the Briarwoods. They were deeply and truly in love with each other, so much so that they sought out dark and forbidden magics to keep each other alive and close. They were undoubtedly evil, and undoubtedly in love.
I remember this character Fabius Bile had the goal to guarantee the survive of humanity. He even said if his plans come to fruition he wont survive. He loved his father and his leader but his methods are abhorrent. living experiments, torture, out right murderer just to get information and raw materials for his experiments. He is evil but he is also somewhat selfless.
Evil is not selfish, neutral is selfish. Evil is a narrative alignment, it is for people fighting for evil, not for people just fighting for themselves. It might not make much sense, but it is what it is. And Rick is Chaotic Neutral. There is not an evil streak in him.
I have to disagree. I have for a long time seen the good-evil range to be altruism-selfish range. Good characters have a lot of empathy and that is what leads them on. Evil characters dont have the empathy and wouldnt care if others were hurt for his or his groups benefit. This is also why I think evil characters work well enough in dnd groups. You just have to make them think of the group as their group. They love care and stand by their group but are mistrusting and maybe even hostile to others. But it is subjective. I just dont see that you have to be proactively evil to be evil aligned.
I like to interpret the alignment system as intent based. If someone harms another for the sake of harming them id consider it evil. If they harned another for some intended good then it's good. People interpret actions in different ways, how players and npcs interpret these actions is another thing
I suggest a 3rd dimension to Alignment: Active --- passive There's a difference between the chaotic evil mountain troll that goes looking for towns to raid every week or so and the one that just eats whatever falls into its canyon
@@mitchryan257 Yeah, and I think it makes sense. Not every lawful good priest goes adventuring as a cleric, saving lives and righting wrongs, Combating the forces of evil directly. A lot of them just praise their God, live according to their religion, and occasionally advise when asked or deliver sermons, like your average small-town pastor, or other religious leader. Even if they have deific gifts, like faith healing, that doesn't mean they'll actively go out in search of diseased or injured people to heal.
@@justsomejerseydevilwithint4606 Which is exactly why this is a bad idea, as literally every adventurer ever has to be Active, so it doesn't add any variety at all.
Yes! Haha a 27 point alignment system. That also describes the difference between the TN character who constantly requires the other PCs to come up with a convincing reason to make them come along and do literally anything, and the TN character who is more contemplative and considers the consequences of actions.
@@RansomMemoryAccess Like absolutely everyone on Earth was at his time, and for your information he was amongst the tamest ones Stop judging the past with current standards, that is the worst thing to do to History.
Alignment is a tool to be used by the DM to encourage rp. "Oh, so your LG Ranger wants to burn down the orphanage? Why is that? " Now your players get to muse on their character's morals and goals, and decide how they respond to such an outrageous act.
I'd label him more Neutral Good. He cares about Law and Order being upheld but he knows that to uphold it he must act outside of it. Therefore he's not in line with Law and Order but he's not exactly in line with Chaos, either.
Id argue his neutral trying to be good but afraid hes evil. Like how he wont kill the Joker because hes afraid its a slippery slope to him becoming a serial killer.
fieldy409 I say he's lawful good. He had code of conduct he follows even though breaks the law as a vigilante if he refuses to cross certain lines I'd say lawful
coolroxas go lookup on youtube here 'Batmans plan to kill the justice league' he formulated ruthless plans to defeat everyone of his friends. He regularly puts villains in the hospital with broken bones because he channels an immense but controlled rage in his fights. To me he seems willing to do anything to protect people no matter how distasteful just short of killing humans. Thats why he seems Lawful neutral to me. Although it definitly depends which Batman. Im thinking broody Frank Miller style Batman...
I feel like lawful alignments all boil down to various flavors of "I'm not nice, I'm RIGHT" they aren't here to make friends. Good alignments seem to be focused more on "removing bad" instead of "doing good" for the most part. Chaotic allows for individual discretion on what good, evil, or neutral even IS. Evil feels like an excuse to kill and steal and like it. What I've always seen it as is someone who is willing to do literally anything to get what they are after. Neutral just means you're a pragmatist. If you gotta bend the rules, or humor a lich or whatever; then you do it. You might not feel totally ok with it, but you're not gonna break your back to avoid it.
Having played since AD&D, what I've ended up having issues with are "aligned parties". The tendencies I've seen are as follows: Good: As you said, they want to kill the percieved baddies. They get all pouty if you ever make them feel "not great" about wanting to kill anything in the first place, such as if you show them that a percieved race or faction is just doing what their nature tells them to do and are actually victims of humanoids imposing their world views and moral frame onto them. Lawful: Pretty much as you said. Irrational, inflexible assholes that are actually backed by some religion or the law of some kingdom. Show them a place in which such laws or precepts make no sense and are actually making the population miserable: guaranteed yihad/purge/civil war. Chaotic: They will do whatever they want except in those situations in which not doing so would piss someone else off... Then they'll act against their own interest out of sheer pettiness "because chaotic". Evil: Murderhobos with the long term goal of being the last PC alive in their own lair/castle/palace. They'll eventually realise they're nothing on their own, so they'll settle down toghether in a shared lair, at which point they'll kill each other. Neutral: You can actually play a campaign with this one, but it will have to be centered around them and nothing else. Forget about having a world in which shit's going on: they're neutral, so they don't give a shit. Benevolent king's being ousted by a malign court cabal? Don't give a crap. The new government turns the realm into literal hell? They'll just move elsewhere and you'll be lucky if they give enough of a crap to pick up their respective loved ones in the process. World's about to end because all hell has broken loose on Earth? By this point they can just (you guessed it) move elsewhere. Seriously, back when Pathfinder had just come out, a routine phrase in my "session 0 speech" would be "alignments don't exist. They're there just to help ME improv NPC reactions to your interactions. If you want your character to align with some sort of moral or ethical code, said code will have to either come straight from a book or be authorised by me". I used to say that shit with such a serious expression, nobody ever adressed the issue save from the occasional "I want to be a knight of X order, is that cool?".
Khelthrai Hellbane I usually play as Lawful Evil, so I don’t murder, I manipulate and use whatever and whoever happens to be around. Bandits ambush my group on their way to assassinate a corrupt baron? I convince them it would be better to attack our target instead, and divide the rewards between us- except the bounty. I don’t use evil to be reckless and murderous, instead I use it to do what I need to and go through it without the restrictions of law and society, and I use lawful not to be a ridged dick (both literally and metaphorically), but to keep myself in check and focus on the objective.
@@theawkwardskeleton6608 That sounds exactly like "Neutral Evil with extra steps". I used to play with a girl who followed that exact strategy. Once the DM's curse fell on me, all my baddies had to ALWAYS use proxies and several layers of middle-men so this bitch wouldn't just get someone else to kill them for her. The freaking headaches, man! I'd spend several sessions setting up the "diplomatic standoff" scenes (party is in the same room as the head conspirator but they can't touch him/her), only for this girl to come out of them knowing who to extort/coerce/replace in order to get the villain killed without first getting "actual dirt" on them. I ended up finding a counter to that strategy, which was to convince the rest of the party to stay in town to help with it's recovery. If this player's plan of "taking the shortcut and then skipping town" wasn't an option because the consequent struggle to fill the power vacuum was a threat to the populace, the rest of the PCs would have a reason to actually WANT to get somewhat railroaded and systematically unravel the political mess I had planned for them. Challenging, yet very fun times, dude.
Khelthrai Hellbane oh no, that would be boring. No, I mean I used the bandits to create a spy network, so we could get intel without risking dangerous stealth missions, and focus our time on the villains officers and underlings
Khelthrai Hellbane plus we had TWO Lawful Good players in our group who wanted to go all out and bring everyone to jail, even though the baron ruled the town and everyone they sent to jail just got released, while I was able to find out which officers were releasing them, got them to either work for me or die, which then keep the baddies in jail.
As long as the DM has given you a understanding of what he considers the different alignments to be in the game hes running I don't have a issue. Session Zero really helps.
We played campaignes where alignment was just a roleplaying hook and then there was a campaigne where I as the DM stated: ok, alignments matter and the players agreed to that. For new players the alignment helped them figure out how their character whould react and how to roleplay it. And though the alignment of a character affected him mechanically, the play was not bound to play his character in a certain way. Maybe he had to make tough decisions which were against his alignement but for the greater good and maybe he had to atone for that. My players liked to roleplay that. If a player acted against his alignment, what was written on the sheet could change over time. But important is, that players (and the DM) agree to how they want to play. We had fun that way.
Unless you have a really dumb dm that says you are not acting according to your alignment and gets mad. Specifically, in my case, I was playing a chaotic good paladin of freedom in one game and my character was given a chest and the key to it and was told that it had to be taken to these sages at a library, and he was warned that they had no idea what evils might be hidden inside the chest. Once I received the chest and the key, the rest of the party waned to open the chest and see what was inside it. According to the DM, a Paladin of Freedom believes in free will and the individuals rights to make their own mistakes, which I don't disagree with, but I disagree that this situation was as simple as he seemed to think. While a paladin of freedom would not necessarily prevent another from making a stupid or immoral decision, I do not believe he would allow himself to be party to such a decision. Since the chest and the key were entrusted to him, he could not just hand over the two objects knowing that they had a cryptic warning that something evil might be inside. I felt like I was accurately playing my class and alignment, and I still believe that was an accurate portrayal of a paladin of freedom in that situation. If the party is supposed to open the dumb box, then you shouldn't entrust it to a paladin or paladin of freedom with that warning. It isn't my fault that the DM failed to foresee that the paladin was a bad choice to give the evil box that must be opened for story reasons too.
Unless you have a really dumb dm that says you are not acting according to your alignment and gets mad. Specifically, in my case, I was playing a chaotic good paladin of freedom in one game and my character was given a chest and the key to it and was told that it had to be taken to these sages at a library, and he was warned that they had no idea what evils might be hidden inside the chest. Once I received the chest and the key, the rest of the party waned to open the chest and see what was inside it. According to the DM, a Paladin of Freedom believes in free will and the individuals rights to make their own mistakes, which I don't disagree with, but I disagree that this situation was as simple as he seemed to think. While a paladin of freedom would not necessarily prevent another from making a stupid or immoral decision, I do not believe he would allow himself to be party to such a decision. Since the chest and the key were entrusted to him, he could not just hand over the two objects knowing that they had a cryptic warning that something evil might be inside. I felt like I was accurately playing my class and alignment, and I still believe that was an accurate portrayal of a paladin of freedom in that situation. If the party is supposed to open the dumb box, then you shouldn't entrust it to a paladin or paladin of freedom with that warning. It isn't my fault that the DM failed to foresee that the paladin was a bad choice to give the evil box that must be opened for story reasons too.
I am currently playing a CN rogue, which due to circumstances outside of his control, he is forced to be that way. If his survival didn’t depend on it, he would definitely be CG. I like to think CN as being self-serving, but not to the point where you intentionally harm others.
Megan Crum As long as not harming them causes you no problems. If beating\threatening\killing up a family of witnesses to your crimes will keep you off the hook a CN character usually will do it, otherwise you're a variation of N.
CN is that you don't think that rules apply to you. It's the definition of the Nietzschean übermensch which gives no regard to the wellbeing of the slave mortality but will act in a manner best for themselves. I contrast it with Neutral Evil insofar as NE thinks that rules do still apply, but just not to them when it's beneficial to themselves.
In regards to reanimating the dead. I just listened to a story where the party were all chaotic neutral and they were up against a land of undead and necromancers. They killed everything without question. Turns out there was a massive plague and a wizard, determined to bring an end to it, realized there weren't enough people alive to survive. So he turned to necromancy to bring back the dead. The dead could till soil. The dead could bring in the crops. The dead could do all these things to make a difference. Well the wizard had no time to search for a cure, so a few others asked him to share his necromatic arts with them so he could focus more on finding a cure to the plague. Unfortunately the wizard got sick and though he wanted to die, his people needed him. He told them there was a way to keep him alive but it was too much. It required the sacrifice of a pure hearted child, his grand daughter. She volunteered. It just about broke him but she reassured him if she went it meant he could save so many more. She smiled even as her soul left her body... Now... Is necromancy truly evil, or is it our own actions and decisions that dictate if something is good or bad?
@@alicianieto2822 I walk a lonely road The only one that I have ever known. I use necromancy To help the dying society But now I know I don't walk alone.
@@randomalienfrommars0567 No idea. But if you type in D&D stories, you'll eventually find it and hear some good stuff on your way there, so its not a complete loss.
@To Release is To Resolve When you state something like it's a fact without providing any evidence or argument that might sway anyone's opinion or perspective, it doesn't mean you're right, it means you're immediately disregarded and seen as a one-sided jackass who everyone knows now your word means nothing because you made it so matter of fact, everyone sees you as having an unfair bias and no longer cares what you have to say. I'm only telling you this so in the future you might choose your words a bit more carefully. But do keep in mind, this is just a discussion and not anything majorly important. I'm not actively trying to insult you or discourage you from being part of the conversation, just show you that perspective is something to consider and explaining one's views and opinions in a calm fashion, is a great way to practice effective communication. Now if you'll excuse me, my robes just got out of the dryer and I'm late for my summoning ritual. Lol jk. That's on Thursdays. Today is virgin sacrifice day. Sure it gets messy, but Trump really doesn't like using glue to keep that fuzz demon on his head, so we gotta keep sacrificing virgins to satiate the beast to keep it's compliance...
In regards to the whole necromancy thing, when I was playing a necromancer character in a game my DM and I had a discussion about it where we came to what seemed to be a reasonable conclusion: Basically, animating corpses in and of itself wasn't all that different from animating a golem or something, it just uses a different sort of energy to power their magics (even if using body parts instead of stone or metal or whatnot is questionable). However, when one starts getting into the binding or manipulation of *souls* as part of necromancy, *that's* when things definitively cross the line into Evil territory.
I kinda see playing with sould kind of like being a taxi driver. If you offer your car and knowledge of what is where to help people get where they need or offer people to keep them alive even if in a low mental functioning state then that's okay but taking unwilling people off the streets to places where they don't want to be is bad.
I'm new to dnd so discovering that alignment used to affect gameplay and spells is really bizarre to me. Its just characterization and helps keep your decision making in character imo
But what if you pick up a Chaotic Good sword? You (or your DM at least) would really like to know your own alignment. Or what if you enter a chamber sealed with a Protection from Evil? Alignment is not just for keeping in-character. Also, you can always change your own alignment, at least over time. It's not a fixed thing. The setting that sums this up the best is DragonLance, where alignment is tracked all the time.
Would a lawful good character kill a village of innocent people to save a larger populous? Is this evil? These are the kinds of subjective thoughts that can make alignment problematic. Instead of thinking how your character would act in accordance to their alignment, think instead of how your character would act in accordance to their personality despite their written alignment.
It still can given the setting of the Campaign. Alignment IS a physical cosmic force in the D&D multiverse, at least in the baseline Great Wheel Cosmology, and game mechanics are meant to simulate such things. Now, it should only really matter if you’re Planes hopping, but still.
@@christopherclubb9167 probably not...but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it anyway and have that event be an alignment shifting event. Seriously, how/why did noobs get it in their head that alignment is prescriptive instead of descriptive and that somehow alignment is permanent and can never change???
Hello, I just wanted to say this is a wonderful channel. I literally just subscribed about an hour ago because my friends and I are starting to plan a campaign where I am going to be a DM and this channel is very helpful. Thank you.
I also recommend checking out Matt Colville’s channel and the Geek and Sundry “gm tips” playlist! Good luck with your game and remember the most important thing is to have fun!
I use a model of Law Chaos and Good Evil as a series of 9 bubbles. 3 in Law, 3 Neutral, 3 Chaos and 3 Good, 3 Neutral, 3 Evil. You set your alignment at the beginning and then as play progresses, as the DM, I watch for action tendencies and slowly adjust one bubble at a time toward which way the character is acting. How you start is not how you end, because the best part of any story is how your character progresses and grows. Alignment is a guideline, not a something to adhere to strictly.
Yeah fr. NG is the most good as well. Chaotic Evil people make stupid mistakes for the sake of evil that gets them killed and Lawful Evil follows the rules too much to be truly evil (like allowing the protagonist a sword in the fight)
I dont need to because it is by definition. You can easily replace the neutral in the table by pure (or true) and still always be right (except for true neutral where you can only replace one of the neutrals by true)
3:10 Druids can be necromancers too. Druids of the Circle of Spores find beauty in decay. They see within mold and other fungi the ability to transform lifeless material into abundant, albeit somewhat strange, life. These druids believe that life and death are portions of a grand cycle, with one leading to the other and then back again. Death is not the end of life, but instead a change of state that sees life shift into a new form. Druids of this circle have a complex relationship with the undead. Unlike most other druids, they see nothing inherently wrong with undeath, which they consider to be a companion to life and death. However, these druids believe that the natural cycle is healthiest when each segment of it is vibrant and changing. Undead that seek to replace all life with undeath, or avoid passing to a final rest, violate the cycle and must be thwarted. So judging by this logic, the nature of undeath depends on its intentions and is not inherently evil, merely a different form of life. However, Circle of Twilight sees all undead as unnatural and an affront against life, so it depends on your character's perspective. A good necromancer is entirely possible though I've always played alignment like how willing they are to help people. Good is they do it often if not as often as possible. Neutral is they are selfish and only care for sustaining themselves, and evil is that they intentionally fuck people over. I think their personality is something separate that could determine their alignment but isn't the entirety of it. Like you could have a guy who acts like an asshole but is still good, or someone who is selfish but is still kind. I don't see them as contrasting traits. I don't think characters should be cut-outs that rely on alignment as their whole motivation, it should just be a part of themselves that leads to conflicting situations that a normal person would get into. Like some of the options in KOTOR are like this. Your character can literally just be a stereotypical "Blood and screams of the innocent" or "The Jedi council could never be wrong", when they could also be much more from balancing and learning from every interaction from their party members. Like you can be honest and friendly with your comrades while still being dark side, or someone who doesn't necessarily agree with the Jedi ways while still being light side. You can have inner character conflicts while adhering to alignment, like any normal person
I think that rasing the dead isn't necessarily good or evil it depends on what in your game game raising the dead is e.g if it's ripping the soul of the dead being from the afterlife that is inherently evil however if you just use their boby as a shell then your actions with it determines if it's good or evil.
In my group we have two alignment categories: How you act, and how the people you interact with see you. One is determined by the DM and your actions, while the other is kind of your goal for the character. It's lessened so many arguments in our group, while letting us run with what we want.
Hi! I'm a new dungeons and dragons player and I'm only about 4 sessions in at this point, and I just wanted to say how absolutely helpful you guys are with helping n00bs like me figure out the game. I'm so grateful you guys are posting these videos, and I hope you keep up the good work!
I really love that you use terms like "opt in" and the like. Someone who has been interested in roleplay theory for the longest, it makes me happy to hear that those sort of terms are catching on!
captian bert I don't hate it only because I've never been on a situation that harshly railroaded players. To me the alignment system has always been a "soft-hard" system. In that your "set" alignment didn't mean you couldn't do things that other alignments do but that generally your motives, goals and overall outlook on life were more along that side of things. And by not behaving as such most of the time it led to internal strife within that character. So a naive LG paladin could wipe out an innocent village if she felt that doing so was in the service of the greater good but it would mark the character's moral. That one would hurt, but by the 20th either random civilian lives doesn't concern her as much or she's found a way to compartmentalize it which is more of a psychotic break. A NE wizard may start an experiment that creates some kind of life and eventually learns to love it. So to that homunculis he may be a loving husband but to anyone else he's a selfish tyrant taking what he pleases when he pleases unless it involves love, a feeling he has only recently discovered. For me the system was never meant to lock a player out of an experience but meant to enhance it by having their character face their own morality and how that may or may not change them.
My morally ambiguous, but definitely Lawful Paladin was one of my favourite experiences with Alignment. Playing her showed me that Alignment changing based on the circumstances a character finds themselves in is a really fun way to run things. The character that would, and did literally dive into hell for the sake of those she cherished, and ended up walking back out bound into multiple pacts with devils, for the sake of gaining power. That facet fit firmly into the LE part. It was an ostensibly selfish act bound by word. When she then used that devilish power to defend those that they swore to protect, it was inherently Lawful Good. She eventually saw herself as a grand protector, but also saw everyone else as unfit to fill the same role. Is it a deluded mindset? Yes, absolutely. And her being proven utterly wrong by the end of the campaign when the rest of the party pulled her ass out of the fire was great to experience. For her, with that particular group and DM, Alignment was a reflection on how the character thinks as opposed to the character's thoughts being a reflection of the Alignment.
I often play chaotic good Tend to want to help people and not hurt people. But also having semi-crazy ideas and quite impulsive. A house with a locked door? Let me climb up on the roof!
I think of alignment as a roleplay tool. Really its to give an archetype for how to deal with evil. People want to philosophize how to be batman vs superman, so I guess alignment really describes where you came from plus your creed.
That intro was hilarious. My alignment system is just “what is your primary alignment” so if your chaotic evil you can still do things that are lawful good, but you should focus on chaos and evil, if you do good to much them you will change to neutral then to good. It’s easier to end up being chaotic evil than it is to be good or lawful.
A fun way I like to use alignments is to start characters with no alignment (or a base alignment based on their background) and adjust it based on their actions throughout a campaign. It proves (to me) a more accurate and fun use of the alignment system, given all players involved are in agreement.
The alignment chart is more for personality and reasoning, not the actions themselves, so anything can fall under any alignment. Let’s use necromancy as an example: LG: “Raising people from the dead will give those who died unfairly another chance at life” NG: “People would want to stay useful after death, we’re doing them a favor” CG: “All these corpses can be my friends! Nobody else is using them” LN: “Letting the undead fight in a war instead of soldiers will lower casualties” TN: “Raising the dead is just another talent to be proficient in” CN: “The undead are useful. Who cares if they used to be alive?” LE: “It’s so satisfying to see your enemies quiver in fear as their fallen friends are forced to attack them. NE: “I’ve found people are more useful dead. They’ll actually get things done right” CE: “Get on my bad side and I’ll make sure you’re late getting to the afterlife”
let’s say a character of each alignment is given the power of necromancy: Lawful good would reanimate soldiers and policemen killed in battle Nuetral good would reanimate the parents of kids in orphanages Chaotic good would just reanimate whoever someone asks them to and has a good reason Lawful nuetral would become a “royal necromancer” with a high salary True Nuetral would keep it for emergencies Chaotic Nuetral would just mess around Lawful evil would make an undead kingdom Nuetral evil would try to kill people they don’t like Chaotic evil would just kill everyone
I generally tell my players that we're tossing alignment out the window in favor of a loose karma system. Do whatever you want but but keep in mind that I'm watching and will toss something really unpleasant at them if things get too out of hand.
I look at Law vs. Chaos as whether they follow a strict code of conduct. For instance there is, lets say, two bandit groups. Both will raid and pillage, however one has rules like he won't kill or hurt children or elderly under any circumstances, while the other will kill and maim indescriminately. Both are definitely evil, however one is lawful and the other is chaotic. Good vs. Evil is more about intent. Can't think of a clear enough scenario for this, mostly because good and evil are more subjective concepts.
"If you bring evil into this world, aren't you an orchestrator of evil?" What if you use your zombie horde to take down a vampiric overlord? What if you animate zombies and use them as "training dummies" to teach new adventurers how to fight the undead? What if you only raise zombies, because you're devoted to fully understanding the limits of all forms of necromancy? On a personal, moral level, alignment is almost entirely reliant on motivation. An LG Paladin and a CE Barbarian can do the same exact thing, for entirely opposite reasons.
Then your actions as a whole may be good but the act to raise the dead to achieve that aim is still an evil one. This wont make you an evil person, just a probably neutral one that does not scare away from using extreme methods.
@@derfzgrld It depends on the setting, of course, but I'd argue that it's morally good, because it is being used for a good purpose. There is nothing less moral about using a horde of zombies to kill evil bandits than there is in using a fireball to achieve the same thing. Or to look at it another way, a person who starts a forest fire deliberately is an arson. A firefighter who goes in and starts a forest fire deliberately to burn out an area and control a bigger blaze otoh isn't an arson, and might be a hero depending on how dangerous the situation is. Same with our necromancer.
@@CatacombD I think desecrating the dead AND creating evil creatures would be considered evil acts by most people. Once again I never questioned the moral of the combined act. That is totally fine I think although there would certainly be some (although not all by far) good persons prefering to sacrifice all of existance rather than raising the dead. Mainly the very religious ones I would think.
@@derfzgrld But that's not necessarily the case. Moral decisions are not decided in a vacuum. For example, "Killing a person" isn't innately evil, it is judged based on circumstance and intent. The "Why?" matters. Ymmv based on setting of course. I know there are some settings with black-and-white, "this is always bad, this is always good," morality. For an example of what I'd call neutral good use of undead, I was a necromancer in one of our campaigns. Our group came across an elven conclave that had been assaulted by demonic cultists. Corpses everywhere. They wanted us to hunt down the cultists for them. My necromancer asked the elves if he could raise the bodies of their fallen, so that they could avenge themselves. The elves agreed, with the provision that I return whatever corpses/undead that survived the fight, so that they could perform their last rites. The elves didn't see it as a desecration, and the corpses were willingly offered by their surviving family. They were used to stop an immediate threat to other people, and then laid to rest.
@@CatacombD i see, we are on different standpoints there. I am actually of the oppinion that good and evil actions are decided in a vacuum. However they are all just parts of what defines the moral of the greater goal which allows a good character do do an evil choice in a finally good action. The example with the voluntary zombies is an entirely different thing in my oppinion since raising unvoluntary zombies is an entirely different (but the usual) action. Anyway I dont think we will get a common ground due to the first thing I mentioned here. Keep in mind, however, that I totally understand your point while contiously deciding not to agree. No offense ment even against your point whatshowever :)
One part of the endless debates is "lawful" Gods law Mans law Orcs law Societal law My law? Is follow law of one town different then law of another town. So open to criticism, and even those who wrong usually aren't aware of it, same may be for those who are evil, to them may may feel their just the character may think their lawfully good, but may actually be chaotic evil in practice. ..... Its more heated conversation then politics!
I allow my players to be "lawful" if they can write down a code of conduct they will follow as their law. Of course that excludes things that are, at their base, chaotic.
you know I think that's a really interesting part of the debate, when it comes to the "law" in lawful is it literally the law of the land, the commandments of your faith, or the morals you choose to believe? all can be completely different depending on the land, deities, or people. for example, in one land when people cant settle a property dispute, they might have a method of determining who should have the land a different way than another, each may see the other as "unlawful" one may have judicial duels, others might have courts, one may have spiritual rituals, others might determine it with luck. the "law" is always different depending on the context.
I use alignments as a sum up of the choices that you make. For example, if you mainly make decisions that can be described as one alignment then you are that alignment, or something close
I think neutral is unaligned. Rarely some could be militantly neutral...but over all, it's not overtly any direction. Also lawful doesn't mean following the law solely but to follow a greater law that even society can fall short of.
You could play as having Divine Sense and other divine alignment testing spells basically sense the good and evil from the perspective of the Paladin’s deity. So two paladins could possibly sense the same person as different levels of good/evil based off of their deity. Like a LG deity may see a CG character as less good than a LG character even if the LG character sometimes puts their moral code above generous acts, but the deity may see the CG character as dishonorable and labels the LG character as more good.
I love the Mick reference and the Batman discussion. The Animated Series handled Batman so...maturely? I much prefer a Bruce Wayne who is confident and sure and committed to the borderline psychotic Batmen of recent years. And Legends has really gotten good - apart of my love for it being it is so D&D-esque, with a large interesting party of people with various talents, and none of them overly dominate the stage, like a good campaign.
I would put Batman in NG and closer to CG than LG. Yes, he follows a code strictly, but it is his own code; in that sense, he is no different than the Joker. Calling him lawful would be like calling a thief with a code lawful. He is a vigilante, an unlawful hero by definition. That being said, I do agree that it largely depends on what sources you think of when you think Batman. The mass murdering Batman of the Dark Knight movies is clearly chaotic; so much so that Alfred has to act as his moral compass. On the flip side, Silver Age Batman is clearly lawful as he fights crime within the law *and* his self imposed moral code.
His no killing rule is ambiguous as to whether it's because he believes it's wrong under any circumstances, or because it's illegal under any circumstances, or both. But in 99% of stories he never breaks that rule, and when he does it's always a massive event. So either way, definitely lawful, and whether it's because he believes it's wrong, or because it's illegal, would place him either at lawful good or lawful neutral. Either way I'd hardly call him chaotic. Chaotic would be if one day he decides fuck having a moral code, the Joker just blew up an orphanage and he needs to die before it can happen again.
I want to play again! Been learning 5th edition for you two and just miss that unique narrative that makes players feel the juice. Thank you for rekindling the fire!
I think you guys should do a series on each alignment. It’d be cool to see different ways of playing each alignment, rather than the same old schtick we’re used to.
Chaotic Neutral is my favorite Character Alignment, since anti-heroes are known to pursue their own personal freedom without interference from others, but for me it's an awesome trait.
I just showed a new player the thumbnail, and he instantly understood alignment. I had given him a small explanation earlier, which he did not understand, but once I showed him the thumbnail, it clicked.
While I'd drunk and ranting about how awesome The Good The Bad and The Ugly is, I'm thinking Tuco is a perfect example of a chaotic neutral character. :D
Lawful - protect or dedication towards something Neutral - desire change Chaos - Desire freedom Good - Selfless, want the people around you to have a good and prosperous life. Neutral - Satisfied and am willing to accept your place in society. Evil - Selfish, want to fulfill your desires over the well being of others. As for true neutral this means that you desire to live within a system of change, like nature, economic, or political systems. You play the game of life.
I believe alignment would inform you as the DM of what to plan for the characters that may become a problem... a foresight into the narrative. Allowing a story that can be contained in a sense. Idk just a thought and idea.
I made a Chaotic Evil bard who wasn't an embodiment of destruction, he was actually a lot like Rick, he doesn't care about much, he's reckless, but he just wanted to be noticed, he was smart and crafty, and by the end he slowly started to show his good side, this was my first ever character and I love him dear to my heart, and I loved playing Chaotic Evil and am thankful my DM let me.
What you said about alignment being strained by environment is a great idea. Which is probably why it's been done. It's an option when exploring mechanus.
I like the alignment system, but I'm quite fluid about it as a dm, the more actions you take that differ from your alignment the more it will shift to match your actions
I remember a great example of alignment having a deeper meaning. In Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer. Those who also played the game, specifically the aforementioned add-on, know what I mean. The last battle in the very core of your characters soul where the area looks different depending entirely upon your alignment.
i disagree, having a lawful good Paladin who always stop you when you want to have some not so innocent fun is pretty mean. and on the other claw ,having a Raid on an innocent Farm village is pretty nice every now and then. xD
Batman is arguably lawful good and he is not nice, i however cannot imagine a way to be chaotic evil without being mean, chaotic evil implies you will harm innocent people if it advantages you.
Gage Frankel If it’s your setting then you’re free to do whatever you want, you can make Demons Lawful Good and Angels Chaotic Evil assuming you roleplay them properly.
He's a little misconstrued about Gnosticism and Atheism. Being agnostic isn't "I'm neutral, either or could be right" It is literally "i dont know". Atheism isnt necessarily "i know this one position is true" It is "i do not believe" Gnosticism is about knowledge of a god Theism is about belief. You can be both an agnostic atheist, Gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist.
Just to clarify: Gnosticism isn't the same as agnostic. In fact, they're opposites (hence the "a-" prefix). And capital "G" Gnostics were an actual group with a pretty firm set of doctrines.
DrRakdos if you are a theist you believe in a god, if you are agnostic you don’t know if you are atheist you know there is not one. These are mutually exclusive
8:37 You can check the manual of the planes, planar traits, for the mechanics. Planes have alignment traits that can hinder charisma, intelligence and wisdom checks of creatures with different alignments from the plane
"You are evil for creating evil creatures that did no exist before." That sounds really hand wavy, for example raising the dead of evil creatures to fight against other evil creatures to protect innocent would be FAR more good then anything else. I also hate people saying you have to play one way with any alignment, I think you can play each one in different ways and even in ways that could be between each block because the idea that one alignment is a hard set belief/personality is idiotic because that isn't how people work.
If necromancy is like some necromancy spells in TES... You're controling the soul of someone who's already dead forcing them to "live" again in a rotten body and fight for you. This is AT MOST a neutral action
@@rikardosilva1754 The funny thing is that I think a lot of people assume that's how it works, which is why they probably automatically say Necromancy is evil, but the Spells in D&D do go into detail on how certain types of Necromancy work, including the spell Animate Undead which is the one spell you get for most of your game as a Necromancer to raise the undead with. However the spell itself has absolutely ZERO connect to the bodies soul what so ever, you are simply animating a lifeless body the same you would do to say a Golem made of Clay. Funnily enough, Necromancy in D&D ( Specifically Player Character Necromancy ) has no actual way to force another persons soul into a body for the purposes of Necromancy, the only ones that even can do something like that... Are Clerics and Paladins weirdly enough! I don't mean 'Evil' ones ether, though you can be one of those, I mean just like any Cleric can force a soul to do as they say using Divine magic so if that's the problem with Necromancy then the other side of the coin has zero ground to stand on for why they aren't also naturally evil. The only time Necromancy is dangerous is if the undead is left unattended for 24 hours since you casted your control over it, in which case it does become an evil creature that you do not control, but the easy solution to this if you expect your zombie minions to be left alone for so long, is to issue them an order that if you don't return by the next Sun rise that they are to kill themselves which they WILL follow to the letter because they are brainless minions that do not value their own life. If that some how doesn't work, your DM is just being an ass hole. This is a topic that I think is so hard wired into peoples heads as "That's evil" that no one has a good excuse for why it actually is in D&D beyond that specific bias, Lich's are always evil so there for Necromancy is too, zombies are a common evil monster to fight so making them can't ever be good even if you're smart, that sort of thing. Well, that and probably horror stories of Edge Lord players that were actually playing Evil stupid characters trying to build undead armies by robbing the graves of the local towns folk or killing and raising undead any chance they got.
I agree with this. My pirate fighter I’m running right now is chaotic good, cos he believes in personal freedom to do what one wants, but is good hearted in nature. But I’ll still break a poor alchemist’s leg to get the information I want.
I've had alot of problems with the basic allignmemt. So I created a different, to me more useful chart which uses "selfless"egocentric instead of goodevil and kantianutilitaristic instead of lawfulchaotic. Although it has some downsides, it is way easier to understand because these words have a defined meaning.
![Gortash All Cutscenes [Baldur's Gate 3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NDuTtFlpubc/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! Want more Web DM in your life? Get our podcast here: www.patreon.com/webdm
Our gm has a way of changing our alignment from session to session based on our actions.
Say a paladin does an evil act, no penalties until too many evil actions then they could fall from grace until they earn their deity's favor again.
@@valentinayalalopez1682 so he becomes an oath breaker or is it like 4th/3rd edition where they couldn't cast their spells until their forgiven?
@@johnjustjohn5866 his spells were reduced x slots/lv and took a heavy reduction to output as well until he cleared shiz up with his deity. That would be in the case of a cleric. As far as paladin goes if his allognment fell too far he wouldnt even be able to turn undead till he clearedthings up.
Why are ALL of your videos just you talking to each other
@Web DM for the paladin "cannot adventure with evil" thing my old DM actually allowed the paladins to try to convince their gods to allow them to do so and that caused the best quote from a paladin player to be made it was so good the DM had it made and framed it on his wall, the paladin rolled a nat 20 on persuasion and said "yes I know that a member of my party is evil but my god, *an evil unchecked will freely cause chaos, an evil in check becomes the lesser of them, an evil controlled and used for the destruction of evil is simply for the greater good*" and that is how our paladin ascended greatly in the eyes of his god for his words were so profound to the DM and therefore his god that now this paladin is always at the side of his god now that he died
Neutral Neutral: convince me to get off this couch and do more than my base needs
That's more unaligned: You _really_ can't seem to be bothered.
More like, Neutral Neutral: Spend 2 and a half hours debating the merits and consequence of "soup or salad"
I see True Neutral as being willing to take Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic actions pragmatically, if it means achieving your goals and being true to your values. But being True Neutral means you still _have_ goals and values. A True Neutral PC joined the adventuring party for reasons; those reasons could just be idiosyncratic to themselves, or be things that don't neatly fall into either side of each axis.
A character who has no interests aside from their immediate needs would, as Franz Luggin said, be classified as Unaligned. It's for this reason that most animals are Unaligned by default, because their survival (and maybe the survival of their breed partner, children, or pack/herd mates) is their only concern.
With money, you can get more tacos. Come kill a dragon :)
True Neutral is not just being lazy; it could mean excessive cynicism about the motives behind every alignment, or it could mean a spiritual or moral imperative to "Walk the Center Path" as in Buddhism.
Creating skeletons and zombies is just recycling.
Alexander Nielsen Underrated comment
Reduce, Reuse, Revivify?
True
"Creating skeletons and zombies is just recycling."
And thus, *obviously*, this makes the Necromance a pinnacle of Virtue. He cares for the Dead in the same way that a good Druid cares for the Plants and Nature.
Of course, Undead are much better at following instructions to the letter, so again *obviously* the Necromancer is a bastion of Law.
.
Ergo, Necromancer is Lawful Good.
.
And that Paladin that keeps on insisting on destroying the skeletons is not only destroying the agents of this Lawful Good, he is also making an awful mess, scattering those bone chips all over that place! That's pretty chaotic behaviour, isn't it, dirtying the place up at every opportunity? So obviously the Paladin is Chaotic Evil.
Does that mean that recycling is evil?!
“If you bring evil into this world aren’t you an orchestrator of evil.”
And Orcus-strator if you will.
I see you enjoy goblin up all the humor in the world with puns. I like you.
Your sense of humor is daemonted
Pfffft, troll.
That humor is devilishly good
Too far
William Frenzel I'm DROWning in your puns.
You see a child steal bread from a merchant. You give him a coin because:
LG: You want him to pay for the bread, and apologise.
NG: If he has money, he'll stop stealing.
CG: the kid needs help, he's doing what he needed to do, so don't judge him.
LN: Such is the local law. Weird, but there you go.
TN: You got in a bar fight with someone last night, and feel you should donate money to balance things.
CN: You flipped it. It landed heads. Lucky kid.
LE: This could be a useful tool in the future. Getting the kid to owe you would be a good idea.
NE: You wish to fund greater crimes in his future.
CE: The child has harmed the shopkeeper, for their own desires. This should be rewarded.
Alignment is more about reason and intention than the act.
Also, its about consistency. Maybe you give the kid a coin just... 'cause you wanted to in that moment. Then you get back to doing what you Usually do.
And unaligned doesn't exist, to me. It's like if I said I Don't have a weight because I don't own a pair of scales. Just because I'm not paying attention to it doesn't mean I don't have one.
I am both chaotic good and lawful evil.
It’s not the madness itself it’s the method behind the madness.
Wow it's almost like giving the coin to the kid was all those reasons. Every act has all that potential.. how to know why you truly did it..
Another example for LE:
Be quiet hostage! Oh! My son drew a good drawing in school today :D
Unaligned is a stupid way of saying "True Neutral".
But yeah, I once played a lawful evil character that had everyone- even a paladin- convinced they were good. They gave food to the hungry, built infrastructure with some of the treasure they looted, and would risk their life to save strangers.
They were a power hungry sadist though, in the end all that was to build a reputation and to ensure people would feel indebted toward them, and if not at least hesitate to stand against them.
Ended up interrogating a goblin. When the fingernails kept coming off even after the goblin told them what they wanted to know the Paladin finally used detect evil on her. It was a fun conversation that followed.
Alignment is not a restriction of your thoughts or behaviors. It is a DESCRIPTION of how your character views and acts in the cosmos. Paladins are Lawful Good because they have a lawful approach to good. Not because they are forced to obey good laws. Alignment should never be a straight jacket or a set of criteria used against you when you don't "act a certain way." Your thoughts and actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. The idea is to pick an alignment for your character that you feel would represent his view of the cosmos.
Andrew Smith That’s kinda true but a lot of players and DMs don’t seem to understand that or come from an earlier Edition where acting out of alignment was a punishable offense, no matter how in character that action was.
Imagine a chaotic good paladin
That's the perspective that causes so many arguments about it though. Alignment isn't a restriction OR a description... it's an OBSERVATION made about the characters actions. You are under no obligation to have your character act like the letters written down if after a few hours of play they don't feel right... so your alignment should simply be changed once the character has been observed by the DM and the group to be of that other alignment.
You don’t seem to realize that if a character is preset to be a certain way it doesn’t matter that he does certain things because he’s that way it still is a limitation on the player. A description of a limit still describes a limit.
I'd say it's closer to just being how they act, If you break your alignment just out of left and go full anakin then that's bad role playing, its just guidelines. But If it was a reflection of his views on the cosmos, then no one would follow it, I've never met someone who's 100% consistent with their views, well, except for 1 dimensional characters that are flat as all hell
I think that the detect alignment spell would be better if it is a "detect intention" or "detect motivation" spell.
I thought that was a skill. Sense Motive
I agree Mr. Caesar
@@ianhall3795 pathfinder has the Sense Motive skill but 5e and some others don't have it.
Detect good and evil only works on now celestials (like, actual angel and devil intervention or things like that), if I recall correctly
In 5e, it became:
For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.
The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt
so no longer a spell you can just use on randos
A thought (regarding the Rick & Morty discussion specifically, but it applies generally):
I don't think evil characters are incapable of love. I don't think evil characters are incapable of "selfless" actions (though they may be much less likely). The difference, as I see it, is that evil characters do not believe that life has intrinsic value; they only see it having instrumental value. They're more likely to kill for the benefit of their lovers, for instance, but that doesn't mean their love is insincere.
If I may pull Critical Role into this, it reminds me a lot of the Briarwoods. They were deeply and truly in love with each other, so much so that they sought out dark and forbidden magics to keep each other alive and close. They were undoubtedly evil, and undoubtedly in love.
I remember this character Fabius Bile had the goal to guarantee the survive of humanity. He even said if his plans come to fruition he wont survive. He loved his father and his leader but his methods are abhorrent. living experiments, torture, out right murderer just to get information and raw materials for his experiments. He is evil but he is also somewhat selfless.
Evil is not selfish, neutral is selfish. Evil is a narrative alignment, it is for people fighting for evil, not for people just fighting for themselves. It might not make much sense, but it is what it is. And Rick is Chaotic Neutral. There is not an evil streak in him.
I have to disagree. I have for a long time seen the good-evil range to be altruism-selfish range. Good characters have a lot of empathy and that is what leads them on. Evil characters dont have the empathy and wouldnt care if others were hurt for his or his groups benefit. This is also why I think evil characters work well enough in dnd groups. You just have to make them think of the group as their group. They love care and stand by their group but are mistrusting and maybe even hostile to others. But it is subjective. I just dont see that you have to be proactively evil to be evil aligned.
I like to interpret the alignment system as intent based. If someone harms another for the sake of harming them id consider it evil. If they harned another for some intended good then it's good. People interpret actions in different ways, how players and npcs interpret these actions is another thing
I suggest a 3rd dimension to Alignment: Active --- passive
There's a difference between the chaotic evil mountain troll that goes looking for towns to raid every week or so and the one that just eats whatever falls into its canyon
Luke Keyser very interesting idea.
@@mitchryan257 Yeah, and I think it makes sense. Not every lawful good priest goes adventuring as a cleric, saving lives and righting wrongs, Combating the forces of evil directly. A lot of them just praise their God, live according to their religion, and occasionally advise when asked or deliver sermons, like your average small-town pastor, or other religious leader. Even if they have deific gifts, like faith healing, that doesn't mean they'll actively go out in search of diseased or injured people to heal.
@@justsomejerseydevilwithint4606 Which is exactly why this is a bad idea, as literally every adventurer ever has to be Active, so it doesn't add any variety at all.
@@taelim6599 perhaps, but I think it adds to npc's and monsters.
Yes! Haha a 27 point alignment system. That also describes the difference between the TN character who constantly requires the other PCs to come up with a convincing reason to make them come along and do literally anything, and the TN character who is more contemplative and considers the consequences of actions.
"Cleric: I cast "detect evil
DM: u detect nothing
Cleric: what?! There is a orc in front of me!
DM: u detect that u are racist evil man
Did you know that orcs dispite being only 20% of the population commit over 80% of all homicides
Al Malone I would say, the pareto-law is active. („20% of the work create 80% of the outcome“)
@@almalone3282 They don't make more murder attempts, they just got a higher success rate at killing whoever annoyed them.
Tolkien was highly racist and problematic! ^^
@@RansomMemoryAccess Like absolutely everyone on Earth was at his time, and for your information he was amongst the tamest ones
Stop judging the past with current standards, that is the worst thing to do to History.
Alignment is a tool to be used by the DM to encourage rp. "Oh, so your LG Ranger wants to burn down the orphanage? Why is that? " Now your players get to muse on their character's morals and goals, and decide how they respond to such an outrageous act.
These intros are getting crazier and crazier by the day.
*I L O V E I T*
DamascoGamer we do try to have fun.
At the end of the day, we're all chaotic awful
Batman is Chaotic Good trying to be Lawful Good
I'd label him more Neutral Good. He cares about Law and Order being upheld but he knows that to uphold it he must act outside of it. Therefore he's not in line with Law and Order but he's not exactly in line with Chaos, either.
Id argue his neutral trying to be good but afraid hes evil.
Like how he wont kill the Joker because hes afraid its a slippery slope to him becoming a serial killer.
fieldy409 I say he's lawful good. He had code of conduct he follows even though breaks the law as a vigilante if he refuses to cross certain lines I'd say lawful
Batman is definitely Neutral Good.
Contrast that with Superman, who's classic Lawful Good.
coolroxas go lookup on youtube here 'Batmans plan to kill the justice league' he formulated ruthless plans to defeat everyone of his friends. He regularly puts villains in the hospital with broken bones because he channels an immense but controlled rage in his fights. To me he seems willing to do anything to protect people no matter how distasteful just short of killing humans.
Thats why he seems Lawful neutral to me. Although it definitly depends which Batman. Im thinking broody Frank Miller style Batman...
I feel like lawful alignments all boil down to various flavors of "I'm not nice, I'm RIGHT" they aren't here to make friends.
Good alignments seem to be focused more on "removing bad" instead of "doing good" for the most part.
Chaotic allows for individual discretion on what good, evil, or neutral even IS.
Evil feels like an excuse to kill and steal and like it. What I've always seen it as is someone who is willing to do literally anything to get what they are after.
Neutral just means you're a pragmatist. If you gotta bend the rules, or humor a lich or whatever; then you do it. You might not feel totally ok with it, but you're not gonna break your back to avoid it.
Having played since AD&D, what I've ended up having issues with are "aligned parties". The tendencies I've seen are as follows:
Good: As you said, they want to kill the percieved baddies. They get all pouty if you ever make them feel "not great" about wanting to kill anything in the first place, such as if you show them that a percieved race or faction is just doing what their nature tells them to do and are actually victims of humanoids imposing their world views and moral frame onto them.
Lawful: Pretty much as you said. Irrational, inflexible assholes that are actually backed by some religion or the law of some kingdom. Show them a place in which such laws or precepts make no sense and are actually making the population miserable: guaranteed yihad/purge/civil war.
Chaotic: They will do whatever they want except in those situations in which not doing so would piss someone else off... Then they'll act against their own interest out of sheer pettiness "because chaotic".
Evil: Murderhobos with the long term goal of being the last PC alive in their own lair/castle/palace. They'll eventually realise they're nothing on their own, so they'll settle down toghether in a shared lair, at which point they'll kill each other.
Neutral: You can actually play a campaign with this one, but it will have to be centered around them and nothing else. Forget about having a world in which shit's going on: they're neutral, so they don't give a shit. Benevolent king's being ousted by a malign court cabal? Don't give a crap. The new government turns the realm into literal hell? They'll just move elsewhere and you'll be lucky if they give enough of a crap to pick up their respective loved ones in the process. World's about to end because all hell has broken loose on Earth? By this point they can just (you guessed it) move elsewhere.
Seriously, back when Pathfinder had just come out, a routine phrase in my "session 0 speech" would be "alignments don't exist. They're there just to help ME improv NPC reactions to your interactions. If you want your character to align with some sort of moral or ethical code, said code will have to either come straight from a book or be authorised by me". I used to say that shit with such a serious expression, nobody ever adressed the issue save from the occasional "I want to be a knight of X order, is that cool?".
Khelthrai Hellbane I usually play as Lawful Evil, so I don’t murder, I manipulate and use whatever and whoever happens to be around. Bandits ambush my group on their way to assassinate a corrupt baron? I convince them it would be better to attack our target instead, and divide the rewards between us- except the bounty. I don’t use evil to be reckless and murderous, instead I use it to do what I need to and go through it without the restrictions of law and society, and I use lawful not to be a ridged dick (both literally and metaphorically), but to keep myself in check and focus on the objective.
@@theawkwardskeleton6608 That sounds exactly like "Neutral Evil with extra steps". I used to play with a girl who followed that exact strategy. Once the DM's curse fell on me, all my baddies had to ALWAYS use proxies and several layers of middle-men so this bitch wouldn't just get someone else to kill them for her.
The freaking headaches, man! I'd spend several sessions setting up the "diplomatic standoff" scenes (party is in the same room as the head conspirator but they can't touch him/her), only for this girl to come out of them knowing who to extort/coerce/replace in order to get the villain killed without first getting "actual dirt" on them.
I ended up finding a counter to that strategy, which was to convince the rest of the party to stay in town to help with it's recovery. If this player's plan of "taking the shortcut and then skipping town" wasn't an option because the consequent struggle to fill the power vacuum was a threat to the populace, the rest of the PCs would have a reason to actually WANT to get somewhat railroaded and systematically unravel the political mess I had planned for them. Challenging, yet very fun times, dude.
Khelthrai Hellbane oh no, that would be boring. No, I mean I used the bandits to create a spy network, so we could get intel without risking dangerous stealth missions, and focus our time on the villains officers and underlings
Khelthrai Hellbane plus we had TWO Lawful Good players in our group who wanted to go all out and bring everyone to jail, even though the baron ruled the town and everyone they sent to jail just got released, while I was able to find out which officers were releasing them, got them to either work for me or die, which then keep the baddies in jail.
When u forget this isnt a philosophy 101 and rember they are talking about dnd
As long as the DM has given you a understanding of what he considers the different alignments to be in the game hes running I don't have a issue. Session Zero really helps.
We played campaignes where alignment was just a roleplaying hook and then there was a campaigne where I as the DM stated: ok, alignments matter and the players agreed to that.
For new players the alignment helped them figure out how their character whould react and how to roleplay it. And though the alignment of a character affected him mechanically, the play was not bound to play his character in a certain way. Maybe he had to make tough decisions which were against his alignement but for the greater good and maybe he had to atone for that. My players liked to roleplay that.
If a player acted against his alignment, what was written on the sheet could change over time.
But important is, that players (and the DM) agree to how they want to play. We had fun that way.
My DM said I had to be Chaotic Evil once I Murdered a guy and stole a Fairy
Unless you have a really dumb dm that says you are not acting according to your alignment and gets mad. Specifically, in my case, I was playing a chaotic good paladin of freedom in one game and my character was given a chest and the key to it and was told that it had to be taken to these sages at a library, and he was warned that they had no idea what evils might be hidden inside the chest.
Once I received the chest and the key, the rest of the party waned to open the chest and see what was inside it. According to the DM, a Paladin of Freedom believes in free will and the individuals rights to make their own mistakes, which I don't disagree with, but I disagree that this situation was as simple as he seemed to think.
While a paladin of freedom would not necessarily prevent another from making a stupid or immoral decision, I do not believe he would allow himself to be party to such a decision. Since the chest and the key were entrusted to him, he could not just hand over the two objects knowing that they had a cryptic warning that something evil might be inside.
I felt like I was accurately playing my class and alignment, and I still believe that was an accurate portrayal of a paladin of freedom in that situation. If the party is supposed to open the dumb box, then you shouldn't entrust it to a paladin or paladin of freedom with that warning.
It isn't my fault that the DM failed to foresee that the paladin was a bad choice to give the evil box that must be opened for story reasons too.
Unless you have a really dumb dm that says you are not acting according to your alignment and gets mad. Specifically, in my case, I was playing a chaotic good paladin of freedom in one game and my character was given a chest and the key to it and was told that it had to be taken to these sages at a library, and he was warned that they had no idea what evils might be hidden inside the chest.
Once I received the chest and the key, the rest of the party waned to open the chest and see what was inside it. According to the DM, a Paladin of Freedom believes in free will and the individuals rights to make their own mistakes, which I don't disagree with, but I disagree that this situation was as simple as he seemed to think.
While a paladin of freedom would not necessarily prevent another from making a stupid or immoral decision, I do not believe he would allow himself to be party to such a decision. Since the chest and the key were entrusted to him, he could not just hand over the two objects knowing that they had a cryptic warning that something evil might be inside.
I felt like I was accurately playing my class and alignment, and I still believe that was an accurate portrayal of a paladin of freedom in that situation. If the party is supposed to open the dumb box, then you shouldn't entrust it to a paladin or paladin of freedom with that warning.
It isn't my fault that the DM failed to foresee that the paladin was a bad choice to give the evil box that must be opened for story reasons too.
Or her.i plan to become a dm when I'm more experienced. I'm making a story right now.
:3
I’m chaotic edgy
Reuben Fromow neutral edgy
lawful edgy
Pure edgy
Might as well be chaotic evil
@@SnoozeTheRecluse: Chaotic Edgy is better.
I am currently playing a CN rogue, which due to circumstances outside of his control, he is forced to be that way. If his survival didn’t depend on it, he would definitely be CG.
I like to think CN as being self-serving, but not to the point where you intentionally harm others.
Megan Crum As long as not harming them causes you no problems. If beating\threatening\killing up a family of witnesses to your crimes will keep you off the hook a CN character usually will do it, otherwise you're a variation of N.
I have always taken it as "I do what I want but not trying to hurt anyone just trying to win by myself if someone gets hurt sorry but not my problem"
CN is that you don't think that rules apply to you. It's the definition of the Nietzschean übermensch which gives no regard to the wellbeing of the slave mortality but will act in a manner best for themselves.
I contrast it with Neutral Evil insofar as NE thinks that rules do still apply, but just not to them when it's beneficial to themselves.
Definitely possible for a rogue to be good. It's basically like Robin Hood.
capterson4 True, but my character doesn’t want to cause harm intentionally. It more like he MIGHT accidentally cause harm.
In regards to reanimating the dead. I just listened to a story where the party were all chaotic neutral and they were up against a land of undead and necromancers. They killed everything without question. Turns out there was a massive plague and a wizard, determined to bring an end to it, realized there weren't enough people alive to survive. So he turned to necromancy to bring back the dead. The dead could till soil. The dead could bring in the crops. The dead could do all these things to make a difference. Well the wizard had no time to search for a cure, so a few others asked him to share his necromatic arts with them so he could focus more on finding a cure to the plague. Unfortunately the wizard got sick and though he wanted to die, his people needed him. He told them there was a way to keep him alive but it was too much. It required the sacrifice of a pure hearted child, his grand daughter. She volunteered. It just about broke him but she reassured him if she went it meant he could save so many more. She smiled even as her soul left her body...
Now... Is necromancy truly evil, or is it our own actions and decisions that dictate if something is good or bad?
Listened to the exact same story two days ago, and the recomendations landed me here XD It seems like we are walkign the same youtube road.
@@alicianieto2822
I walk a lonely road
The only one that I have ever known.
I use necromancy
To help the dying society
But now I know I don't walk alone.
what's the name of he story?
@@randomalienfrommars0567
No idea. But if you type in D&D stories, you'll eventually find it and hear some good stuff on your way there, so its not a complete loss.
@To Release is To Resolve
When you state something like it's a fact without providing any evidence or argument that might sway anyone's opinion or perspective, it doesn't mean you're right, it means you're immediately disregarded and seen as a one-sided jackass who everyone knows now your word means nothing because you made it so matter of fact, everyone sees you as having an unfair bias and no longer cares what you have to say.
I'm only telling you this so in the future you might choose your words a bit more carefully. But do keep in mind, this is just a discussion and not anything majorly important. I'm not actively trying to insult you or discourage you from being part of the conversation, just show you that perspective is something to consider and explaining one's views and opinions in a calm fashion, is a great way to practice effective communication.
Now if you'll excuse me, my robes just got out of the dryer and I'm late for my summoning ritual. Lol jk. That's on Thursdays. Today is virgin sacrifice day. Sure it gets messy, but Trump really doesn't like using glue to keep that fuzz demon on his head, so we gotta keep sacrificing virgins to satiate the beast to keep it's compliance...
Unaligned: "I don't know, but my gut says 'Maybe.'"
The thumbnail for chaotic neutral should have been Pruitt facing the wrong way.
+Dustin Kershner lol
26:46 lvl 2 monk crits a fly
bitch ~hits again~ Bitch ~gets closer~ BITCH
I do not react well to my personal space being invaded.
JPruInc looked like you reacted just perfectly!
Oglettuce By monk I think you mean Mr. Miyagi.
That had me laughing way to hard XD
In regards to the whole necromancy thing, when I was playing a necromancer character in a game my DM and I had a discussion about it where we came to what seemed to be a reasonable conclusion:
Basically, animating corpses in and of itself wasn't all that different from animating a golem or something, it just uses a different sort of energy to power their magics (even if using body parts instead of stone or metal or whatnot is questionable).
However, when one starts getting into the binding or manipulation of *souls* as part of necromancy, *that's* when things definitively cross the line into Evil territory.
I kinda see playing with sould kind of like being a taxi driver. If you offer your car and knowledge of what is where to help people get where they need or offer people to keep them alive even if in a low mental functioning state then that's okay but taking unwilling people off the streets to places where they don't want to be is bad.
Rogues be like..."Alignments are more like guidelines than actual rules..."
Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion
I'm new to dnd so discovering that alignment used to affect gameplay and spells is really bizarre to me. Its just characterization and helps keep your decision making in character imo
But what if you pick up a Chaotic Good sword? You (or your DM at least) would really like to know your own alignment.
Or what if you enter a chamber sealed with a Protection from Evil?
Alignment is not just for keeping in-character. Also, you can always change your own alignment, at least over time. It's not a fixed thing. The setting that sums this up the best is DragonLance, where alignment is tracked all the time.
Would a lawful good character kill a village of innocent people to save a larger populous? Is this evil? These are the kinds of subjective thoughts that can make alignment problematic. Instead of thinking how your character would act in accordance to their alignment, think instead of how your character would act in accordance to their personality despite their written alignment.
It still can given the setting of the Campaign. Alignment IS a physical cosmic force in the D&D multiverse, at least in the baseline Great Wheel Cosmology, and game mechanics are meant to simulate such things. Now, it should only really matter if you’re Planes hopping, but still.
@@christopherclubb9167 probably not...but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it anyway and have that event be an alignment shifting event. Seriously, how/why did noobs get it in their head that alignment is prescriptive instead of descriptive and that somehow alignment is permanent and can never change???
@@LB-yg2br you clearly didnt read my whole comment.
Hello, I just wanted to say this is a wonderful channel. I literally just subscribed about an hour ago because my friends and I are starting to plan a campaign where I am going to be a DM and this channel is very helpful. Thank you.
Thought I should add that it is my first time DMing and their first time playing. :)
Glad you found us! We've got some New Player and New DM videos to check out!
I started the same way man. It’s a great journey with the right friends. I hope you have a great time and enjoy the work you put into it.
I also recommend checking out Matt Colville’s channel and the Geek and Sundry “gm tips” playlist! Good luck with your game and remember the most important thing is to have fun!
ua-cam.com/video/Mx4d3_76scg/v-deo.html
Instead of trying to make all the oceans of the world into the dead sea, can we appreciate Pruitt's next level pun?
Gotta say, that break was time well spent! This looks really good on my monitor, appreciate the hard work Travis
kolby Campbell Thanks! It was a great shoot.
I use a model of Law Chaos and Good Evil as a series of 9 bubbles. 3 in Law, 3 Neutral, 3 Chaos and 3 Good, 3 Neutral, 3 Evil. You set your alignment at the beginning and then as play progresses, as the DM, I watch for action tendencies and slowly adjust one bubble at a time toward which way the character is acting. How you start is not how you end, because the best part of any story is how your character progresses and grows.
Alignment is a guideline, not a something to adhere to strictly.
Neutral Evil is the most evil alignment.
Change my mind.
Yeah fr. NG is the most good as well. Chaotic Evil people make stupid mistakes for the sake of evil that gets them killed and Lawful Evil follows the rules too much to be truly evil (like allowing the protagonist a sword in the fight)
@@settratheimperishable4093 what bit chaotic good they go out of there way to help out others including breaking the law in minor here and there
Build a WALL chaotic good is my favourite to play, I feel like I can do more good when I ignore stupid laws
I dont need to because it is by definition. You can easily replace the neutral in the table by pure (or true) and still always be right (except for true neutral where you can only replace one of the neutrals by true)
Make me, B*tch!...............wait is that Choatic Neutral? and is this entire comment including this question thus Neutral Evil?
3:10 Druids can be necromancers too.
Druids of the Circle of Spores find beauty in decay. They see within mold and other fungi the ability to transform lifeless material into abundant, albeit somewhat strange, life.
These druids believe that life and death are portions of a grand cycle, with one leading to the other and then back again. Death is not the end of life, but instead a change of state that sees life shift into a new form.
Druids of this circle have a complex relationship with the undead. Unlike most other druids, they see nothing inherently wrong with undeath, which they consider to be a companion to life and death. However, these druids believe that the natural cycle is healthiest when each segment of it is vibrant and changing. Undead that seek to replace all life with undeath, or avoid passing to a final rest, violate the cycle and must be thwarted.
So judging by this logic, the nature of undeath depends on its intentions and is not inherently evil, merely a different form of life. However, Circle of Twilight sees all undead as unnatural and an affront against life, so it depends on your character's perspective. A good necromancer is entirely possible though
I've always played alignment like how willing they are to help people. Good is they do it often if not as often as possible. Neutral is they are selfish and only care for sustaining themselves, and evil is that they intentionally fuck people over. I think their personality is something separate that could determine their alignment but isn't the entirety of it. Like you could have a guy who acts like an asshole but is still good, or someone who is selfish but is still kind. I don't see them as contrasting traits. I don't think characters should be cut-outs that rely on alignment as their whole motivation, it should just be a part of themselves that leads to conflicting situations that a normal person would get into.
Like some of the options in KOTOR are like this. Your character can literally just be a stereotypical "Blood and screams of the innocent" or "The Jedi council could never be wrong", when they could also be much more from balancing and learning from every interaction from their party members. Like you can be honest and friendly with your comrades while still being dark side, or someone who doesn't necessarily agree with the Jedi ways while still being light side. You can have inner character conflicts while adhering to alignment, like any normal person
The paladin rogue dynamic summed up in one character Vax
Lol
Ralsei - Neutral Good.
Kris - True Neutral.
Chaos King - Lawful Evil.
Susie - Chaotic Neutral.
Lancer - Chaotic Good.
Jevil - *_CHAOTIC CHAOS_*
Yeet
Jevil is THE definition of chaotic chaos
Jevil isn’t the definition of chaos.
Jevil IS chaos
You guys could do an episode on each alignment and I would be more than okay with that.
I think that rasing the dead isn't necessarily good or evil it depends on what in your game game raising the dead is e.g if it's ripping the soul of the dead being from the afterlife that is inherently evil however if you just use their boby as a shell then your actions with it determines if it's good or evil.
Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!! Someone help Pruitt! He's been replaced by a Stepford robot!!!!!!!
It's a Saturday Night Live skit from the 90s.
Stepford Husband Pruitt!
It's a riff on Stewart Smalley skit from SNL.
Yeah Cody! Get caught up on 90’s SNL! I’m paying homage to a Senator!
JPruInc holy shit! I completely forgot that was Al Franken!
"You don't want people upholding the law to be able to break it, that's a terrifying thing." Jim Davis spitting hot 2020 truth 3 years early.
That appendix pun from Pruitt was pure gold lol
In my group we have two alignment categories: How you act, and how the people you interact with see you. One is determined by the DM and your actions, while the other is kind of your goal for the character. It's lessened so many arguments in our group, while letting us run with what we want.
I’m not going to lie, you guys are great. This is rapidly becoming one of my favorite shows. Keep up the amazing work!
I don't think I've ever been more proud of Pruitt than when he nailed that fuckin fly.
Smacking a fly with your bare hands makes you feel so ninja, doesn't it? So satisfying.
That intro was fantastic
"Does it even matter in 5e?" - Sums up alignment in 5e in 1 second.
That's why i put a rule, "any insight and persuasion roll made against people of the same alignment gives you a +1 on the roll"
Hi! I'm a new dungeons and dragons player and I'm only about 4 sessions in at this point, and I just wanted to say how absolutely helpful you guys are with helping n00bs like me figure out the game. I'm so grateful you guys are posting these videos, and I hope you keep up the good work!
I want to cast a fireball....
DM: but your sheet says you are a fighter
YOU ARE HAMPERING MY ROLEPLAYING!!!!
I really love that you use terms like "opt in" and the like. Someone who has been interested in roleplay theory for the longest, it makes me happy to hear that those sort of terms are catching on!
There are people on the internet that don't hate alignment? Where am I?
captian bert I'm with you bro
captian bert I don't hate it only because I've never been on a situation that harshly railroaded players. To me the alignment system has always been a "soft-hard" system. In that your "set" alignment didn't mean you couldn't do things that other alignments do but that generally your motives, goals and overall outlook on life were more along that side of things. And by not behaving as such most of the time it led to internal strife within that character. So a naive LG paladin could wipe out an innocent village if she felt that doing so was in the service of the greater good but it would mark the character's moral. That one would hurt, but by the 20th either random civilian lives doesn't concern her as much or she's found a way to compartmentalize it which is more of a psychotic break. A NE wizard may start an experiment that creates some kind of life and eventually learns to love it. So to that homunculis he may be a loving husband but to anyone else he's a selfish tyrant taking what he pleases when he pleases unless it involves love, a feeling he has only recently discovered.
For me the system was never meant to lock a player out of an experience but meant to enhance it by having their character face their own morality and how that may or may not change them.
All are welcome!
What is the alignment of abortion?
+Xicarah I also have never encountered the "You're Alignment X, so you can't do that," in a game. That's more a symptom of a bad DM than a bad system.
My morally ambiguous, but definitely Lawful Paladin was one of my favourite experiences with Alignment. Playing her showed me that Alignment changing based on the circumstances a character finds themselves in is a really fun way to run things. The character that would, and did literally dive into hell for the sake of those she cherished, and ended up walking back out bound into multiple pacts with devils, for the sake of gaining power. That facet fit firmly into the LE part. It was an ostensibly selfish act bound by word. When she then used that devilish power to defend those that they swore to protect, it was inherently Lawful Good. She eventually saw herself as a grand protector, but also saw everyone else as unfit to fill the same role. Is it a deluded mindset? Yes, absolutely. And her being proven utterly wrong by the end of the campaign when the rest of the party pulled her ass out of the fire was great to experience. For her, with that particular group and DM, Alignment was a reflection on how the character thinks as opposed to the character's thoughts being a reflection of the Alignment.
I often play chaotic good
Tend to want to help people and not hurt people. But also having semi-crazy ideas and quite impulsive. A house with a locked door? Let me climb up on the roof!
I think of alignment as a roleplay tool. Really its to give an archetype for how to deal with evil. People want to philosophize how to be batman vs superman, so I guess alignment really describes where you came from plus your creed.
That intro was hilarious.
My alignment system is just “what is your primary alignment” so if your chaotic evil you can still do things that are lawful good, but you should focus on chaos and evil, if you do good to much them you will change to neutral then to good.
It’s easier to end up being chaotic evil than it is to be good or lawful.
A fun way I like to use alignments is to start characters with no alignment (or a base alignment based on their background) and adjust it based on their actions throughout a campaign. It proves (to me) a more accurate and fun use of the alignment system, given all players involved are in agreement.
The alignment chart is more for personality and reasoning, not the actions themselves, so anything can fall under any alignment. Let’s use necromancy as an example:
LG: “Raising people from the dead will give those who died unfairly another chance at life”
NG: “People would want to stay useful after death, we’re doing them a favor”
CG: “All these corpses can be my friends! Nobody else is using them”
LN: “Letting the undead fight in a war instead of soldiers will lower casualties”
TN: “Raising the dead is just another talent to be proficient in”
CN: “The undead are useful. Who cares if they used to be alive?”
LE: “It’s so satisfying to see your enemies quiver in fear as their fallen friends are forced to attack them.
NE: “I’ve found people are more useful dead. They’ll actually get things done right”
CE: “Get on my bad side and I’ll make sure you’re late getting to the afterlife”
I don’t care if it has been five years. The intro was hilarious, so I trust these guys.
That Stuart Smalley opening.... bellisimo
The Curl
Thanks! It’s the intro I was most proud of from this last shoot.
let’s say a character of each alignment is given the power of necromancy:
Lawful good would reanimate soldiers and policemen killed in battle
Nuetral good would reanimate the parents of kids in orphanages
Chaotic good would just reanimate whoever someone asks them to and has a good reason
Lawful nuetral would become a “royal necromancer” with a high salary
True Nuetral would keep it for emergencies
Chaotic Nuetral would just mess around
Lawful evil would make an undead kingdom
Nuetral evil would try to kill people they don’t like
Chaotic evil would just kill everyone
You described lawful wrong.
NE and CE would create an undead kingdom, or try to benefit from it in some way.
I generally tell my players that we're tossing alignment out the window in favor of a loose karma system. Do whatever you want but but keep in mind that I'm watching and will toss something really unpleasant at them if things get too out of hand.
I look at Law vs. Chaos as whether they follow a strict code of conduct. For instance there is, lets say, two bandit groups. Both will raid and pillage, however one has rules like he won't kill or hurt children or elderly under any circumstances, while the other will kill and maim indescriminately. Both are definitely evil, however one is lawful and the other is chaotic.
Good vs. Evil is more about intent. Can't think of a clear enough scenario for this, mostly because good and evil are more subjective concepts.
As a DM and my players love the Alignment system but it is not to be a browbeating. But it helps the narrative of your PC.
When I saw the thumbnail I was so excited since I thought it was gonna be an acapella episode ... I stayed excited since it was Web Dm
Weird flex, but okay.
"If you bring evil into this world, aren't you an orchestrator of evil?"
What if you use your zombie horde to take down a vampiric overlord? What if you animate zombies and use them as "training dummies" to teach new adventurers how to fight the undead? What if you only raise zombies, because you're devoted to fully understanding the limits of all forms of necromancy?
On a personal, moral level, alignment is almost entirely reliant on motivation. An LG Paladin and a CE Barbarian can do the same exact thing, for entirely opposite reasons.
Then your actions as a whole may be good but the act to raise the dead to achieve that aim is still an evil one. This wont make you an evil person, just a probably neutral one that does not scare away from using extreme methods.
@@derfzgrld It depends on the setting, of course, but I'd argue that it's morally good, because it is being used for a good purpose. There is nothing less moral about using a horde of zombies to kill evil bandits than there is in using a fireball to achieve the same thing.
Or to look at it another way, a person who starts a forest fire deliberately is an arson. A firefighter who goes in and starts a forest fire deliberately to burn out an area and control a bigger blaze otoh isn't an arson, and might be a hero depending on how dangerous the situation is. Same with our necromancer.
@@CatacombD I think desecrating the dead AND creating evil creatures would be considered evil acts by most people. Once again I never questioned the moral of the combined act. That is totally fine I think although there would certainly be some (although not all by far) good persons prefering to sacrifice all of existance rather than raising the dead. Mainly the very religious ones I would think.
@@derfzgrld But that's not necessarily the case. Moral decisions are not decided in a vacuum. For example, "Killing a person" isn't innately evil, it is judged based on circumstance and intent. The "Why?" matters. Ymmv based on setting of course. I know there are some settings with black-and-white, "this is always bad, this is always good," morality.
For an example of what I'd call neutral good use of undead, I was a necromancer in one of our campaigns. Our group came across an elven conclave that had been assaulted by demonic cultists. Corpses everywhere. They wanted us to hunt down the cultists for them. My necromancer asked the elves if he could raise the bodies of their fallen, so that they could avenge themselves. The elves agreed, with the provision that I return whatever corpses/undead that survived the fight, so that they could perform their last rites.
The elves didn't see it as a desecration, and the corpses were willingly offered by their surviving family. They were used to stop an immediate threat to other people, and then laid to rest.
@@CatacombD i see, we are on different standpoints there.
I am actually of the oppinion that good and evil actions are decided in a vacuum. However they are all just parts of what defines the moral of the greater goal which allows a good character do do an evil choice in a finally good action.
The example with the voluntary zombies is an entirely different thing in my oppinion since raising unvoluntary zombies is an entirely different (but the usual) action.
Anyway I dont think we will get a common ground due to the first thing I mentioned here. Keep in mind, however, that I totally understand your point while contiously deciding not to agree. No offense ment even against your point whatshowever :)
One part of the endless debates is "lawful"
Gods law
Mans law
Orcs law
Societal law
My law?
Is follow law of one town different then law of another town.
So open to criticism, and even those who wrong usually aren't aware of it, same may be for those who are evil, to them may may feel their just the character may think their lawfully good, but may actually be chaotic evil in practice.
..... Its more heated conversation then politics!
I allow my players to be "lawful" if they can write down a code of conduct they will follow as their law. Of course that excludes things that are, at their base, chaotic.
you know I think that's a really interesting part of the debate, when it comes to the "law" in lawful is it literally the law of the land, the commandments of your faith, or the morals you choose to believe? all can be completely different depending on the land, deities, or people. for example, in one land when people cant settle a property dispute, they might have a method of determining who should have the land a different way than another, each may see the other as "unlawful" one may have judicial duels, others might have courts, one may have spiritual rituals, others might determine it with luck. the "law" is always different depending on the context.
I use alignments as a sum up of the choices that you make. For example, if you mainly make decisions that can be described as one alignment then you are that alignment, or something close
I think neutral is unaligned. Rarely some could be militantly neutral...but over all, it's not overtly any direction.
Also lawful doesn't mean following the law solely but to follow a greater law that even society can fall short of.
I think the argument for CN Rick is that he's amoral not immoral.
Though, perhaps he falls into CE on both sides of that line.
You could play as having Divine Sense and other divine alignment testing spells basically sense the good and evil from the perspective of the Paladin’s deity. So two paladins could possibly sense the same person as different levels of good/evil based off of their deity. Like a LG deity may see a CG character as less good than a LG character even if the LG character sometimes puts their moral code above generous acts, but the deity may see the CG character as dishonorable and labels the LG character as more good.
I love the Mick reference and the Batman discussion. The Animated Series handled Batman so...maturely? I much prefer a Bruce Wayne who is confident and sure and committed to the borderline psychotic Batmen of recent years. And Legends has really gotten good - apart of my love for it being it is so D&D-esque, with a large interesting party of people with various talents, and none of them overly dominate the stage, like a good campaign.
I'm ok with him being a LITTLE unstable (which even animated series batman was) but hate when they go full frank miller with him >_>
I would put Batman in NG and closer to CG than LG. Yes, he follows a code strictly, but it is his own code; in that sense, he is no different than the Joker. Calling him lawful would be like calling a thief with a code lawful. He is a vigilante, an unlawful hero by definition.
That being said, I do agree that it largely depends on what sources you think of when you think Batman. The mass murdering Batman of the Dark Knight movies is clearly chaotic; so much so that Alfred has to act as his moral compass. On the flip side, Silver Age Batman is clearly lawful as he fights crime within the law *and* his self imposed moral code.
His no killing rule is ambiguous as to whether it's because he believes it's wrong under any circumstances, or because it's illegal under any circumstances, or both. But in 99% of stories he never breaks that rule, and when he does it's always a massive event. So either way, definitely lawful, and whether it's because he believes it's wrong, or because it's illegal, would place him either at lawful good or lawful neutral. Either way I'd hardly call him chaotic. Chaotic would be if one day he decides fuck having a moral code, the Joker just blew up an orphanage and he needs to die before it can happen again.
I want to play again! Been learning 5th edition for you two and just miss that unique narrative that makes players feel the juice. Thank you for rekindling the fire!
*from you two, & whom ever is behind the camera. You mention his name a lot but I can never remember his name.
I think you guys should do a series on each alignment. It’d be cool to see different ways of playing each alignment, rather than the same old schtick we’re used to.
Played my first paladin the other day. At lvl 10 I did 71 damage in a turn, class is beastly for like 4 rounds lol
Chaotic Neutral is my favorite Character Alignment, since anti-heroes are known to pursue their own personal freedom without interference from others, but for me it's an awesome trait.
Ah. The favorite alignment of murder hobos everywhere.
@@Oddball-dc2qt That would the Chaotic Evil alignment.
I love you two and your intros
I just showed a new player the thumbnail, and he instantly understood alignment. I had given him a small explanation earlier, which he did not understand, but once I showed him the thumbnail, it clicked.
While I'd drunk and ranting about how awesome The Good The Bad and The Ugly is, I'm thinking Tuco is a perfect example of a chaotic neutral character. :D
So what about Blondie? Chaotic or neutral good?
Lawful - protect or dedication towards something
Neutral - desire change
Chaos - Desire freedom
Good - Selfless, want the people around you to have a good and prosperous life.
Neutral - Satisfied and am willing to accept your place in society.
Evil - Selfish, want to fulfill your desires over the well being of others.
As for true neutral this means that you desire to live within a system of change, like nature, economic, or political systems. You play the game of life.
Pruitt has never been creepier.
Is eating the corpses of dead enemies evil? Because as far as i know they aren't using them no more.
I'd say True Neutral (at least if you have no other food easily available)
Einar Meijer
*Lizardfolk Intensifies*
I believe alignment would inform you as the DM of what to plan for the characters that may become a problem... a foresight into the narrative. Allowing a story that can be contained in a sense.
Idk just a thought and idea.
I made a Chaotic Evil bard who wasn't an embodiment of destruction, he was actually a lot like Rick, he doesn't care about much, he's reckless, but he just wanted to be noticed, he was smart and crafty, and by the end he slowly started to show his good side, this was my first ever character and I love him dear to my heart, and I loved playing Chaotic Evil and am thankful my DM let me.
Sounds more like Chaotic Neutral if he hasn't actually done any intentional evil and such
A test hero, Slay this unalinned Fly
Sheogorath "It's against my alignment!"
*kills it not for you but because it's bei g annoying in my space*
Broke: 9 Alignment System
Woke: 25 Alignment System.
Assessed: 2 Alignment System.
A-line-meant for a cheap laugh....
Ben Pressly
That made me laugh and I hate you for that.
You're welcome.
1337w0n Don't hate the player, hate the game
@@benpressly200 How about hating both?
A line meant for an even cheaper laugh
What you said about alignment being strained by environment is a great idea. Which is probably why it's been done. It's an option when exploring mechanus.
I liked this episode on the power of lines delivered during the intro.
Definitely the best Batman.
I see alignments as the following:
Evil-attacking the innocent
Good-protecting the innocent
Chaotic-unpredictable
Law-predicable
The door cracked open in the background is freaking me out, man!
LaurelHill we're always watching
I like the alignment system, but I'm quite fluid about it as a dm, the more actions you take that differ from your alignment the more it will shift to match your actions
I remember a great example of alignment having a deeper meaning. In Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer.
Those who also played the game, specifically the aforementioned add-on, know what I mean. The last battle in the very core of your characters soul where the area looks different depending entirely upon your alignment.
As some have said already, I don’t think Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil necessarily mean nice or mean.
i disagree, having a lawful good Paladin who always stop you when you want to have some not so innocent fun is pretty mean.
and on the other claw ,having a Raid on an innocent Farm village is pretty nice every now and then. xD
Batman is arguably lawful good and he is not nice, i however cannot imagine a way to be chaotic evil without being mean, chaotic evil implies you will harm innocent people if it advantages you.
I mean i guess you could be chaotic evil and be really formal and well spoken, but killing innocents still isn't nice.
My Evil PC are always gental men.
In my setting, I prefer to run undead as neutral. On a similar level to constructs. Is that sacrilegious?
Definitely neutral for the mindless ones like Skeletons, or Zombies.
Gage Frankel If it’s your setting then you’re free to do whatever you want, you can make Demons Lawful Good and Angels Chaotic Evil assuming you roleplay them properly.
He's a little misconstrued about Gnosticism and Atheism.
Being agnostic isn't "I'm neutral, either or could be right"
It is literally "i dont know".
Atheism isnt necessarily "i know this one position is true"
It is "i do not believe"
Gnosticism is about knowledge of a god
Theism is about belief.
You can be both an agnostic atheist, Gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist.
Just to clarify: Gnosticism isn't the same as agnostic. In fact, they're opposites (hence the "a-" prefix). And capital "G" Gnostics were an actual group with a pretty firm set of doctrines.
MalinDeMunich Gnostic is the opposite of Agnostic, it means that, SOMEHOW, you KNOW that something is either true or false without doubt.
Yup. That's what I said. "In fact, they're opposites (hence the "a-" prefix)."
DrRakdos if you are a theist you believe in a god, if you are agnostic you don’t know if you are atheist you know there is not one. These are mutually exclusive
Colobrinus With a side of cube yeah... That isn't how it works, by definitions. If it was that the word gnostic wouldn't even exist.
8:37 You can check the manual of the planes, planar traits, for the mechanics. Planes have alignment traits that can hinder charisma, intelligence and wisdom checks of creatures with different alignments from the plane
Guys, that intro...was just perfect. Thank you for that :) and for this entire video too of course!
"You are evil for creating evil creatures that did no exist before."
That sounds really hand wavy, for example raising the dead of evil creatures to fight against other evil creatures to protect innocent would be FAR more good then anything else.
I also hate people saying you have to play one way with any alignment, I think you can play each one in different ways and even in ways that could be between each block because the idea that one alignment is a hard set belief/personality is idiotic because that isn't how people work.
If necromancy is like some necromancy spells in TES... You're controling the soul of someone who's already dead forcing them to "live" again in a rotten body and fight for you. This is AT MOST a neutral action
@@rikardosilva1754 The funny thing is that I think a lot of people assume that's how it works, which is why they probably automatically say Necromancy is evil, but the Spells in D&D do go into detail on how certain types of Necromancy work, including the spell Animate Undead which is the one spell you get for most of your game as a Necromancer to raise the undead with.
However the spell itself has absolutely ZERO connect to the bodies soul what so ever, you are simply animating a lifeless body the same you would do to say a Golem made of Clay. Funnily enough, Necromancy in D&D ( Specifically Player Character Necromancy ) has no actual way to force another persons soul into a body for the purposes of Necromancy, the only ones that even can do something like that... Are Clerics and Paladins weirdly enough! I don't mean 'Evil' ones ether, though you can be one of those, I mean just like any Cleric can force a soul to do as they say using Divine magic so if that's the problem with Necromancy then the other side of the coin has zero ground to stand on for why they aren't also naturally evil.
The only time Necromancy is dangerous is if the undead is left unattended for 24 hours since you casted your control over it, in which case it does become an evil creature that you do not control, but the easy solution to this if you expect your zombie minions to be left alone for so long, is to issue them an order that if you don't return by the next Sun rise that they are to kill themselves which they WILL follow to the letter because they are brainless minions that do not value their own life. If that some how doesn't work, your DM is just being an ass hole.
This is a topic that I think is so hard wired into peoples heads as "That's evil" that no one has a good excuse for why it actually is in D&D beyond that specific bias, Lich's are always evil so there for Necromancy is too, zombies are a common evil monster to fight so making them can't ever be good even if you're smart, that sort of thing. Well, that and probably horror stories of Edge Lord players that were actually playing Evil stupid characters trying to build undead armies by robbing the graves of the local towns folk or killing and raising undead any chance they got.
Yeah people can change, like Anakin Skywalker or the Grinch are the first two examples I can think of
I agree with this. My pirate fighter I’m running right now is chaotic good, cos he believes in personal freedom to do what one wants, but is good hearted in nature. But I’ll still break a poor alchemist’s leg to get the information I want.
Welcome to my lair said the spider to the fly (Got'em)
The beginnings of you guys' videos are always so weird! I approve! Lol
I've had alot of problems with the basic allignmemt. So I created a different, to me more useful chart which uses "selfless"egocentric instead of goodevil and kantianutilitaristic instead of lawfulchaotic. Although it has some downsides, it is way easier to understand because these words have a defined meaning.