|
I think someone earlier in the thread really nailed the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axes of the graph: Good vs Evil is a measure of how you treat those beneath you in the social hierarchy, while Law vs Chaos is how you feel about those above you on the social hierarchy. How benevolent or cruel you are toward those who are weaker, and how obedient or rebellious you are toward those who are stronger. Through this lens, Devils are Lawful Evil in that their society stresses that you respect your betters. Asmodeus is in charge, everyone who tries to usurp him has the fundamental nature of the Nine Hells working against them, everyone is supposed to do what they're told. poo poo rolls downhill, where you get abused by whoever your Master is, and you sit there and take it and vent your frustrations on whoever is beneath you in the pecking order, all the way down to the lemures and souls of the damned. If you can bind a Devil in some sort of agreement that acknowledges that you are its master, they will obey, which makes them reliable infernal servants, but by God they will take their toll if they ever have you at a disadvantage. Demons are Chaotic Evil in that they actively fight against anyone being above them. There is no permanent long term singular "King of the Abyss," there's just various powerful warlords like Demogorgan and Orcus and such who have carved out domains for themselves because nothing has come along yet that's strong enough to kill them. They can bully and browbeat lesser Demons into obeying them, but only when the underlings calculate that rebellion will result in instant certain death at that moment. Every Demon dreams of tearing down whoever is above them and claiming their place, it's one big game of King of the Mountain. Anyone claiming to be an "Archdemon" has to contend with the fact that the Abyss is infinite, there is a never-ending stream of malcontents and usurpers to worry about, and one day something will crawl out of the bottomless pit that's strong or smart or just lucky enough to steal their throne. In this paradigm, what is a Yugoloth? Well, it would be someone whose mean and lovely to whoever serves them, but as a servant themselves? They're neither obedient nor rebellious. What does that look like? Is it merely transactional? I guess they would kinda fit what someone else upthread said where they're basically mercenaries, they listen to orders when it suits them and the price is right and betray when it's optimal. If Devils are good little office drones and Demons are Tyler Durden anarchists, then Yugoloths would be, I guess, contract workers. e: to perhaps summarize this as succintly as possible, Devils are Top-Down Evil, Demons are Bottom-Up Evil, and Yugoloths are Middle-Out Evil. Asterite34 fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 19, 2024 |
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
As I see it, if we must use these alignments (see my previous posts), I'd use them descriptively for these kinds of people: Chaotic evil people are unpredictable assholes, so much so that they don't even have friends - they're intolerable to be around even if they like you because they have no impulse control and their impulses are generally violent or twisted or revolting in some way. They may act out of understandable emotions - rage at injustices real or imagined, desire for power or influence, profound grief or loss - but they have no coherent plans that they can follow or stick to. They just do what is in front of them to do based on their feeling at the time, and their feeling at the time is frequently violent or destructive or gross. They are aware of consequences but lack the impulse control to curb their actions based on those consequences - in this respect, chaotic evil people often hurl themselves headlong into destruction. When chaotic evil people get together they establish a pecking order by frequent application of violence, and only can only temporarily coordinate themselves towards common goals, usually because someone stronger is forcing them to. IMO chaotic evil societies are often headed by a figure that is not chaotic evil themselves. When they are, the leadership figure is often inspirational - chaotic evil people can still be inspired and motivated by the spectacular example and behavior of another, especially one whose attributes they feel drawn to and want to emulate. Chaotic evil leaders lose control as soon as they stop being awesome enough to get other chaotic evil people to admire them. Neutral evil people are assholes, but they're capable of restraining themselves and fitting into structured society, especially it if seems to serve their goals. They do awful poo poo when nobody is looking, or when they think you'll be impressed, or they don't care what you think of seeing it - but they can have friends, and they are cognizant enough of their friends' judgement that they may hide their bad behavior to avoid harming those relationships. Ultimately though, they are still self-serving people who have few or no compunctions about hurting the innocent as long as they don't have some specific love or care for those innocent people. Neutral evil people are often liars, including pathological liars who seem to believe their own lies as soon as they're told. Neutral evil people often justify their actions through faulty reasoning or self-delusion: whataboutism, fatalism, disproportionate punishment, and revenge are all frequent motivations. When neutral evil people get together they gradually drop the facade and can cooperate, especially when they have mutual interests and goals. Such groups often have delusions of superiority that they enforce via grotesque acts of violence done under cover of darkness to avoid punishment and consequences, but they do not tend to form strict or permanent hierarchies and, having seized power, they may fall apart or turn to internal infighting as the goal that united them is no longer dominant. Lawful evil people are assholes, but they're master manipulators. They don't necessarily have real friends, but they create the illusion of friendships in order to get what they want, which may include adoration, praise, appreciation, gifts, favors, etc. They may be delusional and believe that they're actually good, creating rationalizations and justifications for doing the terrible things they do based on some ideology or overarching imperative, perhaps one that only they can conceive. Lawful evil people are often extremely intelligent, but apply deep knowledge in one domain inappropriately to all other domains, reaching conclusions that actual experts find bizarre (and horrifying). Lawful evil people are often concerned with legacy, seeking to cement themselves in history as the one visionary that brought about the change that everyone needed but was too afraid or short-sighted to admit or realize. When lawful evil people get together, they often but not always form well-organized groups with a lot of hierarchy and even bureaucracy. They tend to experience feature creep or drifting priorities, as subgroups add additional projects that ultimately serve individuals within that group but are disguised or shoehorned into the agenda set by the leadership. Lawful evil groups have the most longevity, capable of lasting for generations as strong traditions and effective recruiting practices become entrenched and passed on by training regimens. Because of this longevity, while lawful evil groups may inflict far less carnage in the short term compared to chaotic evil groups and may have less grandiose or monstrous immediate goals than neutral evil organizations, they can actually do the most harm overall, creating systems of oppression and control that dominate societies, nations, even continents for possibly centuries. There is overlap at the edges and some of these ideas aren't strictly chaotic/lawful but I think it more or less fits and I can think of real-world historical and modern people and organizations that fit into each description. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
I think the Lawful Evil description could use a little more about ideals/ethics; its not always about manipulation I think, or how it appears to others, but their ego/pride might be something that can be modified according to some sort of inner code of honour or external beliefs. A warlord who seeks worthy opponents by slaughtering entire regions until a hero arises that can challenge them for example; they're committing unimaginable evil and suffering just for their own selfish whims; but there's a rational, a code to it. For example they always go after whoever is strongest, and will overlook the weak who don't provide a challenge or already looted and depraved areas because anything else would be pointless and not serve their goals. Or put another way, an Evil Empire is a good example of Lawful Evil, because of the need for organization, and heirarchy, and the evil is more of a result of systems of oppression, but individuals who uphold and reinforce those systems might do acts of kindness or charity in individual relations if it doesn't interfere with their career. But I think a good clear example is an Evil Emperor of an Evil Empire who conquers because they think Order At All Costs is better and don't care how many eggs they bash against the concrete of their ambitions. I think in these situations you can have characters who are polite, legitimately friendly, and can even be generous/kind/merciful on an individual level, in a way where it isn't about manipulating people for their goal, but the evil is in the suffering they're inflicting. e to add: to go back to a DBZ adjacent example and to flesh out a little more the warlord example: a lawful evil monk could be someone who goes around causing chaos and havoc to find a worthy opponent and is willing to agree to depart never to return again if they find someone who can defeat them (or at least prove their worth).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
It is easy for me to imagine working with someone evil despite me being good; I live in america
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
yeah I think one of my big complaints about how people play alignment is when they play their character as if they're completely unable to recognize how other people see them or respond to the judgement of others like if you're chaotic that means you're lolrandom and you don't even register when your best friends tell you to settle down and follow the local rules or we're all gonna get in trouble, you're literally blind to the existence of consequences and somehow managed to reach adulthood habitually setting fire to things and being a jerk without anyone beating the poo poo out of you for it that makes no sense, you can have a tendency to not make plans and just wing it and that's "chaotic" without you literally having zero impulse control
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
That also seems like a problem of excess as well - thinking that chaotic means you must always break rules and shake things up, and Lawful means you must follow every rule always. You can have characters who are generally lawful or generally chaotic but understand that there are points where that won't be appropriate or - as you say - you'd have a character who's backstory is that they've been driven out of literally every single place they have ever lived and has somehow not internalised why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
two fish posted:Something I often notice with my characters is that I go with the corners of the alignment chart. Lawful good, chaotic evil, etc. These alignments are pretty easy for me to understand and have very clear representation in literature and media. I enjoy the weird, hybrid alignments. I think they offer a lot more flavor and dynamic to a PC: Chaotic good - there stereotypical California surfer. “Yah bruh, shits crazy and life is unpredictable so let’s share a bowl and grok on it.” Neutral evil- everything is hosed all the time so I’m going to get mine and I’ll gently caress over anyone who gets in my way Lawful- I like the lawful because then you get to play with things like honor, code, societal norms. Lawful Evil- I’m a nice guy. I can be Reliable, dependable, trustworthy. But gently caress with me and I’ll Lawful Neutral - the caravan guard. I don’t care who you are or what you are about. But you aren’t going to mess with these wagons. Cities are also lawful neutral- people packed close together need a set of rules to live by or else they’d be at each other’s throats all the time. The city doesn’t care who you are or what you are about, only that you behave. Agrikk fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Please make sure everyone at the table is okay with you Jilling the NPCs, that's really the sort of thing that should be worked out in a session zero.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 01:14
|
|
|
It’s certainly less risqué than Jacking them
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 01:19
|
|
|
I just finished DMing a campaign with a Lawful Evil PC (as mentioned I don’t care much about alignment for PCs but they can use them if they want), and he was one of my absolute favourite characters I’ve ever seen from a player. He was friendly, affable, outgoing, showed (usually fake) concern for others and very conscious of his own image to keep the party solidly onside, but anyone who slighted him, even slightly, even clearly unintentionally, was earmarked for some kind of revenge. And he was stone cold about it too, he didn’t need to be there to see it happen, he didn’t even need them to realise they’d made a mistake. Pretty much all the lives he ruined or ended never even knew who their enemy was, some wouldn’t even be able to tell they hadn’t just suffered some unfortunate accident. None of the other PCs were ever able to confirm their own suspicions about him (the other players knew everything, of course, and were playing along), so while they knew he was a bit of an amoral bastard, he was a reliable ally. He finished up the campaign by interrupting my ending monologue to fake his own death in suicidal combat against one of my NPCs. I cannot loving wait to make that guy the main villain of my next campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 04:29
|
|
|
Different take on devlis/yugoloths/demons and their alignments: LE= Microsoft. Genuinely interested in constructing and producing something that functions, and might be seen as genuinely benefiting the world, but these concerns are subordinated to profit and achieving as close to a monopoly as possible. Someone working for Microsoft might see their efforts as genuinely improving the world. NE= Venture capitalists. After they buy your company, they don’t necessarily hate that it continues to function, but they also don’t especially care, and once they get whatever they wanted out of it they don’t care if it gets sold off to someone else or becomes a discarded husk. Their interests and profit motives are disjoined from any kind of production and their employees are unlikely to believe that their efforts improve a drat thing. CE= Ransomware hacking groups. They don’t participate in the economy of buying and selling and they make money by disrupting businesses and systems so badly that they will get paid to go do the same thing somewhere else. Aside from “sticking it to the Man” nobody is going to defend what they do as a positive except for the benefits to the members of the group themselves. But they may target hospitals as happily as governments or monopolistic businesses. They probably don’t have any opinion about venture capitalists, but they despise Microsoft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
Chaotic evil = lumpenproletariat, got it
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Chaotic stupid are crypto bros?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
There has simply not been a real or hypothetical example on any of these last few pages of a "lawful" person/creature/organization which could not be equally convincingly cast as "chaotic", or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Nazis were Chaotic Evil because their emphasis on strength only coming from struggle led to them doing stupid poo poo like if a government agency wasn't doing well enough the government would just form another agency with the exact same job and have them compete with all the inefficiency and backstabbing that comes with that. Also the Fuhrer would almost never give any direct orders. Aside from organized military campaigns everyone was just doing whatever they wanted but asking themselves WWHD first. The actual administration or occupied Poland was in praxis more like a patchwork of semi-aligned fiefdoms ruled by whatever military commander was in charge doing whatever they wanted. Which leads to silly poo poo like Hess, who had barely seen a parachute in his life, parachuting into Scotland because he thought that making peace with the British to focus on the eastern front is what Hitler would want. The postwar image of Fascism as efficient and united are basically just based on propaganda. In real life it was a huge mess. Franz Von Papen on the other hand was Lawful Evil. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Real world politics is complicated and I don't think maps well onto the alignment grid; an extreme but arguable position is All societies are Lawful Evil because Capitalism etc. The "chaotic" nature of things that happened in Nazi Germany are things that can fit within the mold of lawful evil, a Archdevil sending a rival devil to "assist" another devil would be an equivalent of that. And generally both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had an ideological emphasis on proper hierarchies (i.e the individual to the state/leader) but also Confucian China also believed in heirarchies and isn't equivalently "evil" just "evil" in the same way all societies are evil etc; but for a fantasy setting its probably pretty easy to make a Fantasy Ersatz China based off of Confucian values as "Lawful Good" society with a Fantasy Prussia as like a Lawful Neutral society while Mordor is "Lawful Evil" society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There has simply not been a real or hypothetical example on any of these last few pages of a "lawful" person/creature/organization which could not be equally convincingly cast as "chaotic", or vice versa. Yeah, alignment is easy to spin. For example, Enver Gortash is clearly neutral evil because he's just out for himself, Ketheric Thorn is chaotic evil because he'll happily switch patron deities at the drop of a hat, and Orin the Red is lawful evil because she really cares about following rituals and rites. And they are, of course, the chosen of lawful evil Bane, neutral evil Myrkul, and chaotic evil Bhaal respectively. E: or Enver is CE because he wants to plunge Baldur's Gate into anarchy so he can take over, Ketheric is LE because he wants to maintain the status quo in the Shadow Cursed Lands, and Orin is NE because she really doesn't care about anything but her own personal satisfaction. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There has simply not been a real or hypothetical example on any of these last few pages of a "lawful" person/creature/organization which could not be equally convincingly cast as "chaotic", or vice versa. The IRS is a Lawful organization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
Zurreco posted:The IRS is a Lawful organization. Unfortunately, it is also a Neutral and a Chaotic organization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
It seems like folks not only struggle to define chaos v law, but also good v evil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
defining neutral evil against law and chaos is easy. finding any daylight between it and chaotic neutral, on the other hand,
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
The best way to deal with the Yugoloths in lore is to pretend they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
chaotic figures are guided by their base instinct, while lawful figures heed the artifice of society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Looking for suggestions: I’m playing as a level 10 Tiefling bardlock (8 levels in lore bard and 2 in hexblade warlock) and, based on the way this campaign has gone, I’ll likely be leveling up in the next couple of sessions. I’m trying to figure out which way to go, whether to take another bard or warlock level. Moving to a D8 for Song of Rest isn’t really that appealing, because the way our campaign has gone we rarely ever short rest, plus we have a a couple of other healers in the party on top of me. I’m leaning towards Pact of the Tome and being able to take some the 3 additional cantrips, but I’m curious if I’ll get more utility out of that plus a third level warlock slot than a fifth level bard slot (though being able to upcast some of my current spells is appealing).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
Honestly, if you already have Eldritch Blast plus bard cantrips, I don't see any utility from three additional cantrips, and a second-level warlock spell slot is even less appealing if you rarely ever short rest anyway. I'd be going bard 100% here for the fifth-level spell and slot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The best way to deal with the Yugoloths in lore is to pretend they don't exist. No way! I'll never ignore my motley crew of bug soldiers, flying shreks, dog wizards, and their martian bosses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It seems like folks not only struggle to define chaos v law, but also good v evil. Law/chaos and good/evil are really, really simple if you don't do that. And you don't have to do that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
In the early edition, wasn't it just the law/chaos divide? And good/evil was introduced later?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
Gygax just liked Zelazny, and who can blame him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
Yeah the '74 D&D had three alignments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:18
|
|
|
there's a weird hiccup in red box Basic where orcs are described as being Lawful because they're organized, even though they're very evil
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
Empty Sandwich posted:there's a weird hiccup in red box Basic where orcs are described as being Lawful because they're organized, even though they're very evil Elves were also chaotic on account of fey whimsy rather than wickedness
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
What would be some ways to add interesting habits, rituals, codes, etc to a paladin from Maztica, while both drawing inspiration from and being respectful of the culture(s) that region draws from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
My players have found themselves pretty rich at this point in the campaign and decided to commission a turtle ship after finding and repairing a mangled spelljammer helm. After months of IRL time it’s finally ready, but we only just discovered that you canonically enter through the butt hole according to WotC’s official diagrams
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 06:12
|
|
|
I've got some fun news for you about reptile anatomy lol it's not just a butthole haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I've got some fun news for you about reptile anatomy lol "For some birds, such as ostriches, cassowaries, kiwi, geese, and some species of swans and ducks, the males do not use the cloaca for reproduction, but have a phallus.[9]" Huh, cassowaries have dicks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I mean I think it's one of those things that is obvious to most people, it's just that when Gygax wrote it back in 1st edition he probably didn't anticipate the game ending up with a fanbase in the millions who love to pick over the specific possible meanings of each and every word so they can pull some bullshit they know goes against the spirit. Law/Chaos works for the Fantasy Western which was oD&D where Law represents the Folks Back East in the Big Cities, and Chaos represents the Native Orcs we have a Manifest Destiny to Farmstead/Settle while Neutrality is trying not to "go native" and not be overwhelmed by the lawmen and accountants from the Big City. (Yes, ugh - but not something Gygax had a problem with). Good/Evil works for Saturday Morning Cartoons like Dragonlance (headcannon is that Paladine is actually neutral and has joined the side of Good because they need the help) or even Lord of the Rings. The problem happens when you try and mix LotR morality with Fantasy Western morality because they are very different. Alignment should be setting specific - and the only two settings I can think of to have done nine point alignment well are Eberron (which generally subverts everything and is actually shades of grey with the Lawful Good queen being the most likely to restart the Last War while the evil vampire king wanting no war) and PoLand/Nentir Vale which has multiple lawful/chaotic clashes (where e.g. Asmodeus is allied with the Lawful Gods to keep out the demons from eating reality) and multiple good/evil clashes - but always at different scales. And the PCs only get 3+2 alignment anyway (G/N/E with Lawful Good = Don Quixote, and Chaotic Evil Just Wants To Watch the World Burn)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Law/Chaos works for the Fantasy Western which was oD&D where Law represents the Folks Back East in the Big Cities, and Chaos represents the Native Orcs we have a Manifest Destiny to Farmstead/Settle while Neutrality is trying not to "go native" and not be overwhelmed by the lawmen and accountants from the Big City. (Yes, ugh - but not something Gygax had a problem with). Eeeeeeh Dragonlance is full from the very beginning with morally grey and nuanced characters & situations, Raistlin is right there from the get go and Kang's Regiment (Doom Brigade) is fairly early in the series mythos which turns the Draconians from Evil Mooks to be Killed to Actually People. Baked into the DNA of the setting is the idea that Good doesn't automatically mean Just, or all sorts of things; the coalition of the different "Good" nations falls apart easily due to ego, politics and backstabbing. There's whole alternate timeline where "Good" wins and turns into a 1984 totalitarian genocidal nightmare world. Heck the "Evil" gods aren't even all that bad when Takhisis isn't around to be the absolute Worst influence on the lot of them. I'm sure there's interesting themes about bad parental figures and how Paladine/Takhsis as the perennial divine bickering Mom & Dad of the setting and how they ultimately Chose what their legacy was (Paladine deciding to step down from being a god and Takhisis demanding her half of the metaphorical and literal baby and facing the consequences of that decision; a pretty clear analogy to the parental figure trying to make amends for their mistakes and the figure whose too narcissistic and manipulative to ever let go, ultimately pushing their children away). Really Dragonlance deserves a decent amount of credit in being a pretty nuanced exploration of the pitfalls and limitations but also of possibility for the alignment system if you scratch beneath the surface, there's been a lot of talented writers over the years. I'd summarize it as ultimately being about free will and choice, the choices you make are informed by your "alignment" but not defined by it, you always have a choice, whether to escape its limitations or to die defined by it, for good or ill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
I have never seriously used alignment in 15 years of playing d&d
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
an iksar marauder posted:I have never seriously used alignment in 15 years of playing d&d I've had players claim alignments but they rarely live up to them all that consistently and I don't bother with it much as a DM Whole lot of "(L/N/C) good" characters end up being real callous and bloodthirsty with not a lot to counterbalance that
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 00:10
|
|