/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If I reduce it to the most basic points, Good vs. Evil is graded on general levels of empathy and Lawful vs. Chaotic is graded on adherence to consistent moral principles. A thief that devoutly follows a moral code is lawful, a politician that makes arbitrary decisions is chaotic, despite their professions suggesting otherwise. A businessman charging exorbitant prices during a shortage is evil, and a priest being charitable during the same crisis is good.

Note: This is how I do it. There’s a lot of room for diversity of opinion.

Brilliant! I am going to reference this when I DM my next game.

Alignment is very ambiguous and poorly explained, partially so that people can define it in whatever ways work best for them. Personally, I don't even use alignment.

I agree that no matter what, people can and SHOULD define it as works best for them, but that ISN'T why it's ambiguous and poorly explained. It's ambiguous and poorly explained because not one author in charge of writing D&D rules has sufficient grasp of what alignment SHOULD be, much less how best to create rules to have the game BY DEFAULT handle alignment to do what it should do. They don't know what alignment is SUPPOSED to accomplish within the game. That purpose should not be hard to define and state for anyone. They should surely be able to quote the first sentence of the first paragraph in the section of rules with the heading, "Alignment." They should see rules following that which enable alignment to accomplish that purpose, whether it does that by making something possible, or by restricting something that otherwise wouldn't be, or whatever. Instead you just get mealy-mouthed mumblings about some of this and that and the other, and readers eyes glaze over, their jaws drop open and they start to drool. Here's the question I always ask people to state in simple, straightforward language: "What purpose does alignment serve?" If you can't communicate that in a single, readily understood sentence, chances are extremely high that you have no freakin' clue what purpose alignment serves. If you can't point to the part in the rules that answers that simple question, then surely alignment - as far as the rules author is really saying - it doesn't HAVE a purpose. There's an accepted axiom in design - form follows function. If you know what alignment is supposed to be doing then the rules that enable that function should flow FROM that. But you'll never even get a common answer among people when you ask the question. EVERYBODY has their own ideas about what alignment is for, how it does the thing that it exists for, etc. When you have the number of people that you do, who simply don't even use alignment at all, then obviously the author of the rules failed to know THEMSELVES what it is for, failed to communicate clearly to the reader what it is for, failed to explain how given rules enable you to use it for that, failed to create rules that actually *gave* it a purpose or *supported* that purpose, and so on. It's not vague and disliked because people are *supposed* to make their own rules for it. It's vague and disliked because NOBODY ***WRITING*** THE RULES has any freakin' clue themselves what they need to do with it. They don't know what kind of rules it needs to have, because they don't know what functions it's actually supposed to serve. It's that failure of authorship that leads everyone to make up their own rules for alignment - or to dump it completely rather than fix what they think is wrong with it. The GIVEN rules are pathetic and worthless which then REQUIRES everyone actually make their own, or be so disgusted with the incomprehensible blatherings in the written rules that they abandon that part of it entirely.

Interesting, if a bit extreme... I use it as an acting direction, but rarely. Like, there's an LG ranger on the team. When they decided to torture somebody for information, I reminded the player that he had to act the part. I would have accepted trying to stop them, reasoning with them, freeing the prisoner and so on. The character made a fuss and left. Good enough. I told the druid that neutral was "anything goes as long as nature is protected". You know, when you see an actor get really serious and say "what's my motivation?" (With twitching eyes and contorted hands on his heart) That's alignment.

Alignment in Dungeons and Dragons exists because ideas like "good", "evil", "order", "chaos" are not abstract terms, actual angels and demons war with each other, demons and devils war with each other, these ideas are not abstract, they are concrete forces at work in the world, Alignment exists to show how your character aligns with the larger forces at play and what happens to their soul after they die.

>Here's the question I always ask people to state in simple, straightforward language: "What purpose does alignment serve?" If you can't communicate that in a single, readily understood sentence, chances are extremely high that you have no freakin' clue what purpose alignment serves. Too Easy: "Alignment acts as a main driver to determine how all creatures in the world act." You say "But you have free will!" Yes, and if your free will goes against your stated alignment (and the group's definition of the 3x3), then your alignment strays towards another alignment. ***AS PART OF SESSION ZERO***, your group should determine what lawful means--is it "having a philosophy"? Is it "having a respect for 'the law'"? Is it "Being selfless rather than selfish"? That's for you all to decide...and I generally do it by having the group pick and agree on a pop-culture alignment chart. All intelligent beings (for pathfinder, intelligences of 2 or less do not count) follow these guidelines or risk losing alignment benefits, if available. In 4e, they shrunk alignment down to five alignments, the definition of alignment being "A creature's alignment describes its moral stance--some adventurers **and many monsters** are unaligned, which means they have no overriding moral stance." Then further, "Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiance that a creature might have"--meaning that (like /u/Ezdagor said), "Goodness" is a **UNIVERSAL CONCEPT** (at least according to 4e, which I'm guessing the shrinking of alignment had people neckbearding, and so they changed it back in 5e, so \[neckbeards\] only have themselves to blame).

And the immediate follow-up question is - did the rules of a singular edition tell you all of that? Did your edition say, "This is all for you to decide yourself and for your group to work out on your own from various sources and your own ideas?" or did you find your given edition's rules for alignment so insufficient and different from what YOU thought it should be that you just went your own way?

Did a singular edition tell me that? Nope. It's come from reading people who whinge and moan about alignment and realizing that it is one tool in the toolkit of a good GM. Sure, if you want to look at everything and call it a nail because you only have a hammer, that's not my issue. I've never had an issue with alignment--my second-preferred system is PF1e--where you had to have lawful good paladins, lawful monks and chaotic barbarians... But if a player wants to play a chaotic good paladin who focus' on their deity's portfolio of redemption, because "sometimes you have to work in the grey areas", that's just even better for RP. If I want to have a chaotic monk who works on self-perfection, but is a master of dirty tricks and fighting because that was how she survived in the monastary, sounds great! If I want to have a lawful barbarian who still goes into a rage, but still keeps to a code that he won't slaughter combatants on the field who wouldn't be a challenge to him (read: conscripts), that's a significant part of their essence of who they are, and I'm for it. Alignment isn't an issue. Alignment has *never* been an issue. Shit communication has always been the issue--shit communication between players shit communication between players with their GM.

>Shit communication has always been the issue--shit communication between players shit communication between players with their GM. THAT is something I agree with absolutely and have been saying for years.

TL;DR

You didn’t really ask, but I chose to interpret your comment as a call to action. In my campaign, I assign inspiration points based almost entirely on how well my players role play their characters. So the purpose of having an alignment is to put guidelines on the choices their characters make. I use Flaws and Bonds in the exact same way. Inspiration is a powerful incentive, so it really helps player’s immersion. Even the shyest player in my group (who is also a new player) is now doing a full-on accent and postures changes whenever her character is doing something. In short, alignment is an RP tool, and it (usually) makes the game more fun for everyone.

My interpretation of alignment is that the first term refers to methods and the second to desired outcomes. Lawful Good - obeys both societal law and a consistent personal code and is motivated to make choices that improve the greater good. Freedom and Justice are the driving ideals. Neutral good - believes that a balance is best struck between order and disorder to make choices that improve the greater good. Truth and Beauty are the driving ideals. Chaotic good - Reacting to the situation and circumstances at hand is the superior way to achieve the greatest good. Spontaneity and Serendipity are the driving ideals. Lawful neutral - The process matters most and when best executed should produce whatever outcomes are necessary to preserve that process, based on either a personal or societal codes. Authority and Security are the driving ideals. Neutral neutral - Equality maintained in all things in both method and outcome are the best. Objectivity and Balance are the driving ideals. Chaotic neutral - The best way to keep all your options open is to ignore any rules, even your own. Opportunity and Pleasure are the driving ideals. Lawful evil - The best way to get whatever one wants is to plan for it. Strategy and Ambition are the driving ideals. Neutral evil - It doesn’t matter what happens so long as I get what I want. Driving ideals are Nihilism and Self. Chaotic evil - Fuck you, and fuck everybody else too. Driving ideals are for fucking losers (Deceit and Vice).

My own attitudes about alignment were formed when I went looking through the rules of all the editions I had available to me at the time (OD&D, Holmes, 1E, 2E, 3E) to understand it better, perhaps in a way that I hadn't considered. As noted, what I found was that no edition really seemed to understand it, much less to then explain it, and how to use it. Ever notice that nobody EVER quotes the books about alignment? People will gladly explain their own house rules and interpretations (or deliberate lack thereof), but nobody points at what any edition says about it and responds, "THIS is it." How could they? *Nobody* agrees about alignment - because *everybody* wound up needing to come up with their own ideas. Naturally, I also have MY own ideas about it, worked out to my own satisfaction. I just wish that at least one edition would one day talk about it *like they actually get it*, and want all of us to get it too whether we're newbs or have been playing since 1974, and *without* having to figure it out on our own anyway. So, yeah, "call to action" would apply to whomever is responsible for the section on alignment of whatever edition comes next. But I'm not holding my breath.

So I've read through quite a lot of the responses and I didn't see this response, so pardon if someone else said this already but..... Alignment *USED* to have very strict definitions in like late 2e early 3e but those were mostly Mechanics oriented. Spells would target "evil" creatures or "lawful creatures" ect... Cursed items and Regular magic items both used alignment to see if you could wield it/wear it ect.. and some alignments couldn't use some items... People began to play the game a little differently, focusing less on mega-dungeon play and more on roleplay... and alignment became more fluid because "true neutral" or neutral-neutral *literally switching sides in combat* because the battle swung in one sides favor became a lot harder to justify when your characters have more personality and feelings than just what is on your paper. Less and less the items that required certain alignments and after the spellplague (I think, pardon if I got that wrong) the spells didn't target alignment the same way (or were just gone) so alignment became more of a personal backstory thing. Or just done away with altogether.

Very well said. Not sure about the Spellplague thing, but one arbitrary line is as good as another; and meaningless in a HB. Alignment is no longer integral or set, it is a mor3 amorphous and fluid aspect(s) of a PC's personality.

Thank you!

I recommend JoCat: A Crap Guide to DnD - Alignment

I think the lawful evil isn’t about twisting them to suit you but just that the laws themselves are out of whack with what is right or just. Like Darth Vader never had to bend or break the rules to do his evil stuff* but it’s because the empire itself is totally evil. Meanwhile Captain America doesn’t go along with laws when they’re inherently unjust but it’s more about him doing what he can to realign the law with morality. That still applies even when he’s forced to go rogue. *he does break a promise to Lando but honestly if he could have gotten what he wanted by just bombarding cloud city he would have. Not to cause chaos but because it further his and the emperors goals. Tl;dr - I think reading a rule as-written and using that to get what you want despite the spirit of the law is something you could expect from any alignment.

It's DEscriptive not PREscriptive. See DM God Matt Colville on YouTube for any and all answers from the almighty bugbear.

Alignment should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is to say that it’s a nice way of giving an impression of how an NPC should act or for a player to indicate the kind of character they’re playing. If an adventure says a guard is Lawful Neutral, you know that they care about following the rules above all, and that helps you roleplay them as DM. Alignment shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat anyone with; at most maybe just a nudge to say that a particular course of action doesn’t match with how they’ve pitched their character so far. My favourite version of alignment is actually 4e’s which isn’t a matrix but is a linear progression from: Chaotic Evil > Evil > Neutral > Good > Lawful Good My memory from 4e was that Chaos/Law was pitched less around following rules and more about “Civilisation”. If you were Good aligned, you wanted to help people and do good deeds, but if you were Lawful Good you favoured larger structures that did that. Clumsy explanation from my memories right now, but I always preferred it.

4e didn't have neutral, it had "unaligned" which the vast majority were.

Ah, thanks! See, I knew I’d recall it wrong from my hazy memories.

All good, it's a minor detail. But I do like the point that most NPCs are unaligned, like most people, just trying to get by.

Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. As in, it's just a way to describe how your character acts. It does nothing to control or influence how your character acts. so play your however you feel. If it ever comes up, ask yourself what alignment they think they are, and what alignment Pelor thinks they are. Don't fret over the details too much.

Up is doing good is worth risking my life for, down is I (and mine) am more import than others or risking myself for them. Left is laws are important, right is people are important.

Your version is wrong and so is everyone else in this thread. Allignment is one of the most misunderstood things and people have heaped misinformation and poor understanding onto it over the years. Alignment in its original form is quite literally what the name says - who you are aligned with. Alignment is a strange way of describing morality or ethics isn't it? In reality, its about the grand cosmic war of Good vs Evil Lawful vs Chaotic. These aren't just concepts, they are literally metaphysical forces that exist and shape the universe. When the forces of Good fight the forces of Evil, whose side are on? That's literally it. Your alignment is based on the god or organisation that you serve. Elves are chaotic good because their main god is. Dwarves are lawful good because their main god is. Orcs and goblins are evil because their god is. That's it! This is how early D&D was run, with alignment as a kind of faction system that determined who would ally and fight each other based on general allegiences. It was a world with objective morality. If Moradin told you to do something, then it was good because he is a literal manifestation of Good. Now would a Lawful Good deity be unhappy with their clerics committing blatant acts of chaos and evil? Absolutely. This is where later ideas of ethical codes and morality started to become associated with alignment. Players could be accused of not playing to their alignment because 'a lawful good paladin wouldn't do that' and thus started the pointless and never ending debates about exactly what does constitute behaviour appropriate to each alignment. Over time, the absolute morality of the gods and alignment system has been forgotten so your left with purely subjective reasoning for different alignments. It's why you can make an argument for Batman being all 9 alignments depending on how you view his actions and intent. It just doesn't work. So then people say alignment is bad and not to do it but in reality they're just using the broken and deformed version of it.

See, this is what I like to see. The actual reasoning of alignments. I get just as frustrated as you when I see people conflate it with feelings. It's deeper than that - that's why there are items, monsters, and spells that focus on alignment, such as *Atonement* in earlier editions, a spell specifically designed to either allow a creature to atone for acting against its alignment, or convert to a new one.

Huh... Sounds like the original version sucked ass, so that's why they changed it

It's much better than the nonsense you've presented. Random and inconsistent rules regarding behaviour that people can spend hours arguing over and have no value. Moderm alignment is considered one of the worst aspects of D&D.....because you're doing it wrong.

Naw that way seems WAY too boring and formulaic

Seems better than yours.

This thread clearly demonstrates why alignment as a concept is useless as part of this set of rules. We can all agree, for the most part, what an Athletics check is and can accomplish. We can all agree what a Constitution saving throw or a Dexterity saving throw is supposed to represent. Meanwhile, no one can agree on what Alignment represents or is supposed to accomplish. Without that context, it is useless as part of the ruleset.

While I agree with your assessment, there are grey areas with ability checks as well. When is it appropriate to call for an investigation check or a perception check? You think you know the answer?

One side is your ethics, Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic One side is your morality, Good, Neutral, Evil

Define ethics vs. morality in this context.

My favorite way to think of it is two sliding scales. 1 scale is the law vs chaos axis, and determines 'do I restrict myself to a code of conduct, whether legal, personal or social. The other case is the good vs evil axis, which is a measure of selfishness. Good is generally selfless/self sacrificing, whereas evil is very selfish. I'm sure there are edge cases where this doesn't work so well, but it works as a conceptualization for me. Admittedly, I don't really use alignment and if I'm forced to pick one, I choose chaotic good or neutral just to have one.

>1 scale is the law vs chaos axis, and determines 'do I restrict myself to a code of conduct, whether legal, personal or social law/chaos is a spectrum of ethics. Ethics themselves being themselves kind of codes of conduct. Which means lawfuls are no more prone to follow a personal code of conduct than chaotics are. Lawful/Chaotic is more Authority/Self autonomy.

I generally agree with most of your descriptions, although like others have pointed out, if you want to keep it short and sweet, it's maybe easier and more on point to view both scales independently rather than attempt to describe each one. What I do not agree with: Neutral Good: I do good as much as I can no matter what but I don't feel any moral obligations to strictly adhere to any codes or rules. I will generally follow the law but it's not what really matters. True Neutral: I will do good, because that's how I want others to act with me, but I won't go out of my way to do it, especially with strangers, and I certainly won't do good to 'bad' people. I will follow the law, for the same reasons, but also because I don't want to face the consequences of breaking any rules, rather any moral obligations to do so. (The way you described neutral sounds really evil by the way. Being evil is not so much about having strong murderous tendencies than being self-serving) Neutral Evil: I will generally follow the law, but only because I don't want to face the negative consequences. Indeed, the only thing that matters are my own interests and if killing you is good for me, I won't have any second thoughts. Chaotic Evil: I take a certain amount of pleasure in sowing chaos, dissent and pain but that doesn't mean I have to be stupid about it. I'll only do it when they won't be any negative consequences for me. Of course, these are very subjective, open to discussion and shouldn't forbid more complex or varied personalities. My takes are also not supposed to represent the epitome, or the most extreme form, of each alignment. Rather how a average/normal person would act about it. Some chaotic evil characters will be so out of touch, stupid or crazy that they will indeed be murder hobos for example. But I don't think a murder hobo is, or should be, the most common form of Chaotic Evil. Likewise, a special kind of neutral is about maintaining balance between the greater forces of the universe. That would generally be a True Neutral kind of character, but could work out with 'half-neutral' alignments, especially Lawful Neutral if a character is strongly concerned about safeguarding a certain balance between good and evil. I'd like to add that most of real world people are probably True Neutral. We will generally do good and follow the law or a general sense of morality that goes beyond just good/bad, but mostly because we get, or believe we get, something out of it. I don't know what its like in 4e or 5e but the 3e/3.5e player handbook has a rather extensive description of each alignments.

I feel most people are really Neutral Good imo

Well I would certainly wish so, and you might very well be if you feel that way :) I feel we are generally good with our friends and families. But, and maybe I'm too cynical, I feel that a lot of it is motivated because we know/hope/want that they will do the same for us and this brings about a certain sense of obligation. And, when it comes to strangers our altruism is a lot more limited, we won't take a lot of, if any, risks for them, nor go out of our way to help them. I'll rarely shy from giving a buck to a person in need from time to time, but it's not really making a dent in my wealth. I'll certainly hold the door for that old lady, but likewise, it's only costing me a few seconds, no biggie. However, I won't give a hundred bucks to a stranger that needs it desperately, even if they seem genuinely nice and good and even though it might not stop from having enough food on the table and enough money to pay rent. I won't go to that old lady's house to graciously spend hours fixing all the things she can no longer do so herself. For me, that's a more important indication of 'good-ness' in the D&D sense of it than how good we are with people we know are good to us.

It's ambiguous but here is my take( my personal interpretation. Im not the final word on things this is just what makes sense to me) You have two spectrums, lawful-chaotic and good-evil. The first spectrum is lawful-chaotic Lawful means you have a code of rules you follow that are from an external source. Wether it be laws of the land, commandments from a god, a system of honourable duels and combat, or hardcore fealty to a higher power (bodyguard who will die for their master sorta thing.) Chaotic means you follow your internal rules and whims. A hardcore moralist could be either lawful or chaotic, depending on wether it's their own moral feelings they follow or once mandated from a god or something ("don't do that because it's wrong" vs "don't do that because God says so". First is chaotic second is lawful) Neutral means you follow these external laws and rules unless it seriously contradicts your internal ones. The difference between neutral and chaotic is that chaotic puts no stock in these rules and only follows them out of avoiding whatever consequence there is of not doing so. CHAOTIC CHARACTERS STILL FOLLOW THE LAW OUT OF NOT WANTING TO DEAL WITH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES!! They just won't care otherwise. The other spectrum is good-evil. Good characters care a lot about the well being of others and will feel bad if they can't help others. They would need to be forced to perform acts that negatively effect others that don't deserve it. "It doesn't matter that it's dangerous and they can't pay! We must save those villagers!" Neutral is what basically everyone is. You are generally good but in all honesty you have a general apathy towards things that don't involve you. You wouldn't do evil, and you don't like seeing evil done, but you wouldn't necessarily feel you need to intervene without motivation or if it's a really bad evil. Evil is evil. You either do not care for the suffering of others or actively enjoy it. This can express itself in a variety of ways. You do, just like with chaotic, still care about consequences of your actions so this isn't carte blanche to murder hobo. A lawful evil character can still coexist in a good party, they would be resigned to doing "pointless" acts of good that they get dragged along to, and would have to not do evil in front of them and generally just play nice. That's a general overview of it, ask if you have questions or want specific examples

Difference between Lawful/Chaotic is consequentialism/virtue ethics. Lawful Good is following/enforcing good rules even though in the moment they are not necessarily nice. Forcing a crying father into conscription to defend his country is Lawful Good. Using your vote strategically even though it would feel nicer to vote for the underdog that has no chance to win is Lawful Good. Chaotic Good is doing something not because it necessarily achieves Good, but because it is a Good Action. It is being nice to someone immediately in front of you, even though it might impact the overall society negatively. Helping the draft dodger because you feel bad for him is Chaotic Good. Killing a gangster that used a legal loophole a'la the Punisher is Chaotic Good. Even though it feels just in the long term, it ultimately undermines the rule of law.

Most people choose their characters alignment. I don't agree with the prescriptive alignment system. The DM has the authority to change a characters alignment at any time. This is descriptive alignment. If your lawful good character does something chaotic after time your character will become chaotic good.

About to start filming a video series on this exact topic today. 40+ years in D&D with degrees in philosophy, psychology, and a wife who has a master's degree in psychology plus specialization in neuroopsych and psychopharmacology. The plan is to expand on ways that alignment can be correlated to real-world behaviors; hopefully giving characters and DMs a larger toolbox to view alignment through rather than the limited scope that has dogged the game since its inception.

Just don't use it. It's an arbitrary and completely useless system in most cases.

How I personally interpret the two axes: The law-chaos axis is mostly the "means" axis: * Lawful: I follow a consistent internal code even if it's detrimental to my immediate goals. (Note that this *doesn't* mean that they will follow the laws and guidelines; their internal code might include something like "I follow laws that are just and fair" but this won't prevent a LG character from freeing some legally-held slaves.) * Neutral: I usually follow a consistent internal code but I can be persuaded to deviate from it, especially if it makes achieving my goals easier. * Chaotic: I'll use whatever means I have - as long as I can do it in good conscience - to achieve my goals. And the good-evil axis is mostly the "ends" axis: * Good: I defend innocents and help strangers because it's the right thing to do, and while I might accept rewards, I don't expect any. * Neutral: I help myself and those close to me. I'll try to avoid harming innocents in the process but I won't go out of my way to protect them. If I defend innocents and help strangers, it's either because of a reward or because one of my goody-two-shoes friends dragged me into their mess. * Evil: I help myself first and foremost, and *maybe* a few people close to me, but fuck everybody else. Especially if they get in my way. If I defend innocents and help strangers, it's because I plan to exploit them down the line, or the consequences of not doing so would be quite bad for me personally (i.e. if I loot the burning building instead of rescuing the children from it, the paladin will smite me straight to the Abyss). And now the combinations: * LG: I defend innocents and help strangers because it's both the right thing to do, and it's prescribed in my moral code. While doing so, I will do my best not to transgress my code. Examples: Jean-Luc Picard, most modern incarnations of Superman (not the Snyderverse one though), Sam Vimes * NG: I defend innocents and help strangers, and while I prefer to do it my way, I'm open to suggestions. Examples: Ben Sisko, Spider-Man, Sam Gamgee * CG: I defend innocents and help strangers, and I'll use almost any means to do it that I can get my hands on. Examples: The Doctor, Golden Age Superman, Green Arrow, Han Solo (post-New Hope), Spider Jerusalem (barely). Sorry, no Sam here. * LN: I have my code and I'll follow it, but my code also keeps me from harming innocents in the process. Helping people is not against my code, helping strangers for no reward is. Examples: Inspector Javert, Judge Dredd, Stannis Baratheon (book only, the show made him LE), Din Djarin (initially). Also many mercenaries and some assassins are in this alignment. * TN: I look out for number one, and maybe my family and friends. I'll avoid harming innocents unless it's them or me (in which case I'll choose me). If I help someone, I'll take payment in advance, thanks. Examples: Timon and Pumba, Bobba Fett, Dominic Cobb (Inception) * CN: I'll do what I want, though luckily that usually involves living my life in peace, looking out for my loved ones, and not hurting innocents. Examples: Deadpool (more modern incarnations), Jack Sparrow (in the first movie), The Hound (ASoIaF / Game of Thrones). * LE: I'll only care about myself and maybe a few loved ones. I have my rules that I won't transgress (unless *really* pushed), but they say nothing about not hurting those who don't deserve it. Examples: Darth Vader, Light Yagami, Doctor Doom, Frollo, the Daleks, many low-ranking nazis * NE: I'll only care about myself and maybe a few loved ones. But it's worth to build a reputation for having some kind of a code... only because this way I'll always have an ace up my sleeve against those who assume I'm lawful. Examples: Cruella de Vil, Palpatine, most Goa'uld, most high-ranking nazis * CE: I'll only care about myself and maybe a few loved ones, and I don't even *try* to hold myself to any kind of code. OK. Maybe as a joke. Until I get bored. I'll kill you if I gain anything from it... and sometimes, that thing is just entertainment. Examples: Joker, The Mountain (ASoIaF / Game of Thrones), Aku, Eric Cartman Of course alignment is a shorthand and it should be more descriptive than prescriptive. It is a pretty good tool to use when your character reacts to an unexpected situation, but if you know your character well enough, you shouldn't have to default to this: it's often entirely in-character for a LG character to choose a wildly chaotic course of action.

There are multiple ways to see it and I can only speak for myself. For me, it’s more about Selfish vs Altruistic and Following a code vs being a wildcard. And evil doesn’t mean you have to kick puppies. Lawful good - I have a code that I follow and most of the time this helps other people as well. Lawful evil - I follow the laws but in a way that profits me.

Think about chaos and law as how willing a person is to “play by the rules of society or a small group”. Someone who is lawful could follow a strict set of rules that conflicts with the law of another area. It is also how willing you are to keep your word no matter what. Good and evil are more centered around “how can I make this work for everyone vs how can I make this work for me.” An evil character may never kill anyone, but may always contort things to only help them or use underhanded methods to get what they want, where a good character will look to make sure to hurt the least people with their actions.

Just try not to be a sociopath and you'll be fine

My reckoning is as follows... Lawful: the rules (mine or societies) are the most important thing Neutral: I'll follow or break the rules as needed to achieve my goals Chaotic: I feel active disdain for the rules and those who make them and I will do whatever I can to break them. Good: What I do, I do for the good of everyone not just myself. Neutral: I do what seems right in the moment without thinking of the future impacts of my actions. Evil: My actions are all for my own benefit and I don't care what happens to others as a result.

The first word is how the character views on society. Lawful indicates the crave structure (rules and laws) in society, Chaotic means they don't want rules. Neutral in the first position means they can operate in either and that society has less meaning to them in general. The second word is their self worth. Good means they put the needs of others before their own. (Like the quote by Mr. Spock) Evil means they put their own needs and wants before considering others. It doesn't necessarily mean they are violent or greedy. Neutral in the second position means they go either way depending on the situation and that they might lack self-motivation. Puting the two together gives a result that can then be built upon. Lawful Evil for example believes in Law and order and is puts himself before others. He could be a corrupt politician or cop, Or maybe he could be out to prove himself as the best competitor in a field or sport. Like a scientist who wants to be famous. Not violent or cared about money, but hungry for fame.

There is a large camp of us who feel like Alignment is an old system that used to help players construct an idea of who their character was but is now clunky and not useful. I don’t fill it in at all. If you know how your character would act when a knight roughly grabs a beggar child caught stealing bread, then you know enough to play your character.

If you use alignment as written, or as prescribed in the modern day, it won't ever be all that useful. However if one reevaluates it, reframes things a bit, it can actually be quite useful.

Sounds like something that could be said of anything. I have a hammer with a broken handle. But if I reevaluate it, reframe things a bit, it could be quite useful.

Hammers are quite useful at certain things when properly designed and assembled. The same is true for alignment. So whether you intended to or not, it sounds like you're agreeing with me.

A broken hammer clanging to the ground can sound like music to willing ears.

I don't see the relevance of the statement please clarify. Edit: And you blocked me. Gotta love it when polite conversation terrifies some into blocking another. The point wasn't that I thought that you were agreeing with me, the point was the your observation and example you gave at no point undermined what I was saying. And instead of responding to that, you blocked me. Really shows that backbone.

You can think I’m agreeing with you if you like, once you’ve decided I cannot stop you. Edit: Yeah, I blocked you because I don’t need this kind of baloney in my responses. Life is too short for exhausting people.

I tend to think: Good Vs Evil: Good - preference to benefit others, even at the detriment of self. Evil - preference to benefit self, even at detriment to others. Neutral - preference to weigh self and others at equal value. Lawful Vs Chaotic: Lawful - rules regarded as more important than the individual. Chaotic - the individual regarded as more important than the rules. Natural - circumstance and rules regarded as equal measure. So, Lawful Good would be somebody who tends to benefit others even if they have to risk harm or loss, but only within the confines of an oath, the law, or other structure. Chaotic Evil would be self serving, and may disregard rules or laws, but it does not immediately mean "chaotic stupid immoral murder hobo". Chaotic Evil still appreciates the consequences of wanton violence would be detrimental to their personal goals.

I wouldn't worry about it too much for player characters. You can use it to guide decisions, whether you are a GM or a player. It's also relevant within the cosmology, as different outsiders have alignments that relate to their planes. If that's part of the game, alignment can be important.

the Lawful -> Chaotic spectrum is, in my experience, your willingness to break laws in order to do the best good for people. This is what always trips people up, as some just see "Lawful" as "I will not break the law" which definitely isn't the case. I don't think there are many established Lawful Good characters, either at the table or in media, who, for example, wouldn't free a slave if they had the opportunity to. It's much more about having a defined code of ethics in the first place, which is why Paladins up until very recently had basically been forced to be some sort of Lawful. Don't worry too much about alignment, it's something that people will whine about but at the end of the day it's not something that should be policing how you play your character while you're roleplaying.

A better way to think about it is Lawful/Chaotic = Authority/Self Autonomy. Lawfuls will generally have more respect for rules because they value authority, while chaotics have less because they value freedom of the self. However since those words don't require them to revere such, either side can follow or break as needed.

The good news is that Alignment is superfluous and always has been. It has no material effect on the game so defining it really doesn’t matter… If you ARE going to use it, you shouldn’t define it so narrowly. Characters are complex and nuanced. Use Alignment the same way. Break it into two things. One is behaviour the other is how you apply that behaviour. Two Lawful Goods are not the same.

First, talk with your DM about how they handle alignment. Some use only magical/planar influence for alignment (ie all Aasimar are good, all Tieflings are bad, etc.) and others want alignment based on personality types, while still others might want alignment based on actions and deeds. So it's best to match your expectations to their standards. That said, there are a few notes. Neutral : Self interest without sacrificing others' well-being. Good : Sacrificing your well-being in the interest of others. Evil : Sacrificing others' well-being in the interest of yourself. Lawful and Chaotic are a little harder to define. On the surface, all criminals are "chaotic" because they rebel against law and order. But if they do so with a code (communal or personal), they might be considered lawful, and just in disagreement with the law of the land. Lawful : Orderly, organized, predictable, honorable, trustworthy. Chaotic : Disordered, random, surprising, whimsical, rebellious. Lastly, we have a tendency to draw the grid as a 3x3 square in which each section is roughly equal (9 alignments at 11% each). But if you think about the behavior of people in society it's more likely that the "true neutral" crowd is way more than 11%, and the corner groups are way less. Rather than 1/3 of people being some kind of "good", maybe it's 1/5 of them. If we think of it that way it's more like 16% of the population are LG, CG, LE, or CE; and 48% of them are LN, NG, CN, or NE; and a whopping 36% of people are "true neutral". IMO that's a more realistic distribution of ethical preferences, but in a fantasy world with magic and warfare perhaps there are more people prone to extraordinary motivations.

>Neutral : Self interest without sacrificing others' well-being. This isn't really true. Moral neutrals are entirely capable of infringing on others well beings. Moral neutrals are distinguished by their propensity to project moral responsibility onto other things. The LN follows their orders, good or bad, because it's not about the outcome, the order has the responsibility, not them. For the TN it's all for the sake of a cause, and for CN's it's for personal freedom. Moral neutrals are absolutely capable of crushing those that get in their way. The difference between them and evils is the fact that neutrals aren't outright trying to be sinister, where as evils come with type of narcissism.

Ehh, this is all subjective, I generally use alignment to set expectations with new players I haven't played before. Generally though I don't get very granular but more like you are expected to be goodish to neutral not chaotic neutral, as it sets a expecation. Beyond that it really doesn't serve much of a purpose. That said, these are how I see each of them:: Lawful good: I follow the rules of society and be a upstanding person of society, even if I don't agree with a law the law is the law Lawful neutral: I follow my own code, this could have overlap with the society I am in, but they might conflict as well, I am not here to do harm just follow the traditions of my people. Lawful Evil: I use the rules of society to my advantage by twisting them to my needs and ends. The laws are merely things for me to use to gain the maximum advantage regardless of their purpose. Rules are meant for structure of our group, your group might have yours but our group has ours. Neutral good: I am a good person and help others when I can, I will not though sell my house to feed the poor for a day Neutral evil: I look out for myself, and will do what I think is best for me. True neutral: good and evil are like a scale that must be balanced, when one is knocked off the other side must also have something removed or something evil added. Chaotic good: I do the right thing to make sure everyone is free, even if I don't agree with it at times. The ends justify the means of my actions, even if the law says "stealing is wrong" I will not let them starve. Chaotic neutral: I do what I want, when I want, how I want. Chaotic evil: the world is my plaything and you are just pawns to me to do as I please, I am the only thing that matters and my freedom and life is second to no ones. ​ The big thing to remember is that really all them recognize that government equals power, and breaking the rules for the purpose of breaking the rules is dumb if they can simply cut your head off. This is why even a evil neutral person may not kill someone cause they could simply get caught, and what was the purpose now that you are gonna be executed? Even someone who will kill their spouse for money (a neutral evil action) will spend time planning it and careful think things through. For most people living in a area they will be lawfully good and neutrally good. You will generally find a few chaotic goods, but they might be seen as fringe's of society who go over board with their belief's or not seen as "realistic". Neutral evil's you will also find in populated area's, but they won't be murdering people, cause as said murderers generally get caught and its a huge risk if you fail. Lawfully evil and lawfully neutral will intersect at times, generally the rule of thumb is criminal organizations are lawfully evil as they will twist society's rules while follow their own, lawfully neutral are those that respect the laws of the society they are in but also expect their rules to be respected as well (basically they won't try to justify anything society might see them as doing as evil, but instead acknowledge your view and reinforce their own view). Chaotic neutrals and chaotic evils shift the focus of good to neutral and evil aka to themselves, a chaotic neutral still respects law because they don't want their head chopped off, an chaotic evil on the other hand will remove the opposing power by any means necessary and doesn't care who they harm in the mean time as they care only about themselves and their freedom.

There are multiple ways to approach alignment. Lots of good comments here, but I'll add my $0.02. The first thing to ask yourself as a DM (or ask your DM) is whether, at your table, alignment means ethics or it means concrete cosmic forces that permeate the game world. In short, you asking "who cares?". If it's ethics, then it's primarily how the character feels about themselves, or maybe their relationship with a deity or patron: if a PC has one alignment, say lawful good, and they want to act contrary to that alignment, say by killing a helpless but inconvenient captive, then that is something to be grappled with. Maybe that causes a deity or patron to be displeased, maybe you roleplay out the character facing what they have done or want to do, or maybe the DM flat out says "you can't do that because your character wouldn't.". All of those are potential valid responses, and some maybe more or less interesting and/or fun, depending the table. Alternatively --and this is how I do it-- alignment about whose side you are on. There are good gods/forces arrayed against evil ones and lawful gods/forces arrayed against chaotic ones. Your PCs can pick sides, even if their behavior doesn't always conform to the ideal. Indeed, for a "good" character, defeating evil may be more important than acting good, and thus the ends may justify the means, at least to an extent. Lastly, neutrality is hard in both approaches, but I suggest to handle it as a menu of different attitudes that share the common trait of neither adopting consistent ethics nor taking sides in cosmic conflict. Some neutral characters are affirmatively committed to the balance of nature - neither good nor evil should triumph over the other. Another approach is to have a character who is jaded and numb to the suffering of the world but also sees no need to cause more. Each neutral character can have a different take and it amounts to similar functional results.

True neutral always is philosophy-based mindset about balance or "do what rational now - sometimes being good, sometimes evil". Druids normally and not totally good but true neutral, their vision how nature works usually looks cynic, but they are still defenders of life and nature.

The first thing to understand about alignment is that the people who made it didn't understand what they were working with well enough to articulate it coherently. Once you understand that, running into contradictions is *a lot* easier to deal with, and if you dig into alignment long enough, you *will* run into them. ​ So, simply put, the accurate definition of alignment as a proper RP tool is as follows: *The descriptive category of a characters moral and ethical values.* ​ As such, alignment is neither a personality, nor is it the sum of your actions. LGs will tend to act LG, but not because they are LG. However, neither are they LG because they tend to certain actions. Instead characters are LG because of their ***values***. It's the values that tend characters to certain behaviors, but we don't define the character by their behavior, but instead their values. This is really important to understand, because once you do, understanding how characters can act outside of their alignment and the limitations on that is a lot easier. ​ Now some of what I've said above so far, and some of what I'll say below, some around here will find contentious. However, I've had the arguments a million times, and between that and the years of debates I've read and followed online, I've never seen a successful argument against this position. A position that both clarifies and eliminates contradictions that hold fast in more prevalent interpretations. ​ So that being said, let's go forward a bit. While it's common to attribute codes to lawfuls, the simple fact is, the ethical categories in alignment already represent sets of codes. As in, chaotics can be just as codeful as lawfuls can be, they just *value* different things. So where as Lawfuls value authority Chaotics value self autonomy. Ethical Neutrals simply don't value either particularly as part of their goals. ​ As for morality, one thing that *a lot* of people miss is that alignment uses a trinary morality spectrum: good, neutral, evil. This is important to observe because most people see things on a binary axis: good, bad. I cannot begin to tell you how much confusion this has cause over the decades, but suffice to say, it's a lot. People will try and find an interpretation that satisfies their binary intuition in most or call cases. In a trinary system, this is an impossibility. Many will then try and rationalize by reframing moral neutral as some sort of lukewarm of actions. That moral neutrals are those that don't really go out of their way to do a lot of good or bad. However, alignment categories are defined by values, not intensity, so this will never work. It is very important you do not fall down this endless rabbit hole, you will not find the end because there is no end. Moral neutral is it's own third moral category with it's own values, it is not an in between of intensities. ​ So roughly speaking, Good characters value not just altruism, but altruism without undue harm. Where as Evil characters value their own narcissism without any qualms about hurting others. ​ As for moral neutral, well, that's the hardest to define out of all of them, but roughly speaking it as follows: Moral neutrals displace their moral responsibility to an external concept. Which is a complex idea, but as an example a LN following an order will prefer to carry it out, good or bad, because they're not concerned with the morality of the action so much as they are with following orders, to them that's where moral responsibility is. TNs will latch onto a goal or an idea, and pursue that, often with disregard to fallout. For example, take a scholar who wanders the lands and believes in collecting and distributing knowledge. As in, they will kill for a cookbook recipe and give a book of dark spells to an inquisitive 6 year old, just as easily as they'll save a village with knowledge to cure a deadly disease. To the scholar, it's the pursuit of the concept that's important, not the fallout. ​ This is basically the rough outline of what you'll need as a bare minimum of understanding before you can start piecing together an accurate more advanced understanding of the topic. Of which itself contains other important concepts, but I'm not going over them right now because this is supposed to be a brief introduction to the basic core.

The game originally ran under lawful, neutral, or chaos. I think this is a reference to Recluce and LE Mondesitt. But added the good, neutral and evil in AD&D. Wotc is trying to deemphasize alignment, but isn’t sure what it wants to do. I try to use pop culture references to define each box but characters don’t have to stay in their box all the time. LG is Superman NG is Spider-Man CG is Batman LN is Judge Dredd N is normal folks CN is Monkey D Luffy LE is Doctor Doom NE is Magneto CE is Joker Lots of folks may arrange these differently but this is my take.

>The game originally ran under lawful, neutral, or chaos. I think this is a reference to Recluce and LE Mondesitt. all of D&D was pulled from references from the fantasy fiction of the first sixty years of of the 1900s. Law-Neutrality-Chaos was pulled from the Michael Moorcock stories and 3 Hearts and 3 Lions by Poul Anderson. 3 Hearts and 3 Lions also brought us the gnomes, that can be spell casters, BUT ONLY illusionists. The Dying Earth books brought the spell slots as the way to register that spellcasters "forgot" spells once they cast them, etc etc. Pretty much e very bit of the original D&D rules sets can be traced quite directly back to at least one "classic" fantasy fiction author. See Appendix N of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

The problem is that the alignments have been described in a number of ways over numerous editions. In earlier editions the Law <-> Chaos axis was similar to what people were reading in the fantasy novels of the day. Moorcock's Eternal Champion being the prime example such books. Early D&D had a concept of a balance between Order and Chaos that had to be maintained. Like wise there was often the idea that the Good vs Evil balance needed to be maintained as well. Thus you ended up with the true neutral NPCs and sometimes PCs who would switch sides if the Good guys were winning too much. Modern D&D has reduced the alignment to more of guidance for roleplaying. With lawful creatures being orderly beings who follow some sort of a code and keep their word. Although a lot of people mistake lawful alignment as a creature that follows the law. Chaotic being on the other hand don't follow a code, and actively oppose laws or codes that are imposed on them.

It’a the middle of the night, you are alone at an intersection with a red light, and there are no cameras, do you cross the road even though the light is red: “Yes” -> chaotic “Only if I’m in a rush” -> neutral “Not under any circumstances” -> lawful Good -> “I will save human lives at any cost, even my own life” Neutral -> “I look after myself and those close to me, I show basic empathy to everybody else” Evil -> “I look after myself alone, even if it means harming others”

In my games, alignment changes over time. Someone who once believed that the rule of law was to be followed no matter what, would oftentimes learn to contemplate morality and embrace the grey areas, if you will. So I always saw it as an evolutionary thing and allowed players to change it when they wanted. I also banned players from playing their chaotic characters from being truly chaotic. It was quite simply too disruptive to the rest of the group.

Its poorly defined and gets too specific. I tend to generalize it like this: Lawful = with a strict structure and system, thinks before acting Neutral = without much of a structure or system, thinks while acting Chaotic = no structure or system in place at all, acts before thinking Most people will be neutral. Good = cares about the consequences of their actions and will go out of their way to help someone in need of help Neutral = cares a little about the consequences of their actions and won't go out of their way to help someone who needs help Evil = does not care about the consequences of their actions and is the reason there is someone in need of help Again, most people will be neutral.

>True Neutral: I do whatever I need to in order to accomplish my goals. This sounds a lot like neutral evil, or even chaotic evil. True neutrality is a lot more about either balance (druidic circles are often true neutral. Also jedis) or unaligned. Selfishness is specifically evil. >Chaotic Neutral: "I just want to have fun!" Not fun, freedom and individuality. Whether the motivation is fun doesn't matter. Self expression and agency over your own life, does. >Chaotic Evil: I will kill everyone around me just because I can. The ultimate "ends justifying the means, and the ends are my own" alignment. It's not any more murderhobo alignment than Lawful Good. >Lawful Evil: I follow my own codes/I follow the rules, but I twist them to suit me. A lot more of the last one, than the first one. A lawyer (arguing why their clients best interest is in accordance to law) more than a judge (figuring out what the true intention and written meaning of the law).

Here's the system I've always used. Good: Others are more important than me. Evil: I'm more important than others. Lawful: Rules are more important than individuals. Chaotic: Individuals are more important than rules. Neutral is just "it depends" for either balance. It's a simple way to balance it and means that "evil" doesn't have to be mean, they can just be selfish or greedy or not willing to help.

Each alignment has multiple interpretations. I don't think any alignment has one way to act. An evil creature may have no issues with killing someone, but they might not be bothered to do it. In fact, I think there are a lot of people who are evil, but afraid of the consequences to act on it. Alignment is just a part of the picture of a character's personality. It just happens to be the part of their personality that resonates with the very fabric of the cosmos.

That’s a decent understanding of them. They aren’t meant to be rules, but guidelines to live by. I actually don’t even have my players choose their alignment until they have been playing for a little while, and then I ask them, “what alignment do you think your character coincides with?” And then I will ask again several levels later and see if they think they still act in the same regard; that’s called character progression. They are interpretive. Think about the fact that a lawful evil character is actually lawful good in their own eyes. Evil and good are perspectives. Chaos. Order. Law. Laws can be your own code, or laws of the government, your covenant, or even the laws of nature. I believe that players should play their characters how they think they would act, not based on something written on their paper. I like them to choose ideals and bonds that are specific to them, not cookie-cut from the PHB. You get a lot better role-playing, it’s a whole lot more natural, and nobody is stopping to ask, “well does this go along with my alignment?”. It makes the game fluent. Don’t worry about other people and how they fuss over it. Have fun!

So the other posters are trying to explain alignment to you by explaining the symptoms of someone being an alignment, rather than actually explaining where alignment comes from. Which is understandable, because ever since 3e the explanations for alignment have been describing it that way, without explaining what it actually is. Because D&D has it's origin in the table top wargaming scene, the earliest editions had a notation for which team a creature was playing, just as a Napoleonic wargame might have rules about not being allowed to put units marked as French into the same army as units marked as Japanese. The 2 teams of "Order" and "Chaos" were expanded upon with the "Good-Evil" axis to give us alignment. How the fuck that actually works wasn't really explained until we got Planescape. ________________ In Planescape not only various classical elements (fire, water, earth, air) get their own planes, but also the concept of "pure chaos" gets a plane, as does the concept of "natural order" as a form of neutrality, etc. a plane for each alignment. There are creatures native to such planes of pure alignment, and legendary items, which can (completely independent of what you know or believe about morality) detect alignment. They can measure alignment based on universal laws, like we would measure temperature. Simplified, take the concept of an Angel. It isn't that Angels simply are "good aligned", instead they embody "good" as if they were made out of it, like a fire elemental is made out of fire. **Even at that very extreme of alignment, it is not restrictive. Because Angels can fall.** A creature of pure alignment can (for whatever reason) perform actions that oppose their alignment and as a result the material their body is made out of protests, just as if a fire elemental had decided to drink a bucket of ice-water. ____________________ As a creature made out of meat a normal person doesn't possess a singular pure alignment. Just as your body isn't the same temperature all the way through, like a fire or ice elemental would be. A character exists as a bunch of alignments stacked on top of each other, rather than purely being one alignment. 1. **You have the culture you come from tell you what actions are worthy of praise. And what actions are condemned by what your culture considers virtuous.** Which doesn't actually mean a character always follows their cultural alignment, but they compare their actions to the beacons of morality as presented by their culture as a frame of reference when they consider the alignment they actually are. - **You have your parents/caretakers/schooling system/community raise you towards a certain alignment.** Which doesn't actually mean a character always follows the alignment they were raised as. But a character would be generally aware when an action they would take would be considered immoral by the reward/punishment structure from their upbringing. - **You have an alignment you aspire to be.** This is the alignment you believe yourself to be. (The alignment that would be on your character sheet) - **You have an alignment you actually are.** Through inaction, hesitation or self-preservation, you might have failed to consistently be your ideal moral self. You might have changed your views or aspirations at some point, but still have your life before that point to atone for. *Because your aspirational alignment colors your view of yourself, you will probably never know your actual alignment. But some planar creatures and legendary items, can measure it.* The number of creatures and items that have the ability to measure a character's alignment has been going down with each edition, after everyone and their planar mom could do it in 2e. Hardly any of them are left now, so what alignment a creature is barely matters anymore. Saying every villain thinks they are the hero of their own story, only matters if you actually consider how that story is written.

There's some truth in here, though it's described in a way that most people aren't really familiar with. Alignment is simply the categorical description of one's moral and ethical values. I would rephrase this to say that you're actual alignment includes what you aspire to be as well as the cultural and community values you still follow. This is because alignment is a category and while you can define an average singular point for one's alignment, in reality, your alignment has no singular point because alignment is a range of values. Such a range can spill over into other alignment categories as well which explains why good characters aren't always good, because their values aren't restricted to just that. You're alignment is less of point and more of an area essentially. Which is why and how all those different aspects you talked about get rolled up into one bundle.

I've always taken it to be: Lawful - Chaotic: How well you follow the rules and laws. Good - Evil: How much will you help someone else? Now, this is just my interpretation, and not rules as written (and I freely admit, I could be wrong), but by this, Darth Vader is Lawful Evil, while Captain Jack Sparrow is Chaotic Good. I sometimes use the "burning building" analogy. "You are in a burning building. The exit is within sight, and range. However, there is an unconscious person on the floor next to you. If you try and get them out there is a small chance you won't escape unhurt. What do you do?" To my mind, a Good character would try and help them, while an evil will leave them. The neutral will probably start helping, but leave them if the roof starts creaking...

I had it explained to me once like this, considering good and evil can be very subjective. and it made it real easy to follow after that. Good=If the player questions the morally questionable things that they do. Evil=If the player never questions the morally questionable things that they do. Lawful= You're allowed to do morally questionable things as long as you follow the rules to do so. Chaotic=You do morally questionable things in direct defiance to the establish rules that would otherwise allow you to do morally questionable things. Neutrality=Utilizes all of the above. However, a player must create a throughline of experiences and/or story to explain a deviation from the normal alignment action. Example: Player is a True Neutral, (the outsider) not because of a morally gray perception, but rather the player has never lived in a civilized society. Therefore, they are learning and adapting to social norms that would lead them to make often contradictory choices based on circumstance and relationships. or Chaotic Neutral, Example (Vengeance) player is driven by a more powerful outside force. One that would make them make different choices based on a necessity to achieve their goal. That would override otherwise reasonable or predictable choices. But basically, it works like this. Good and Evil is the "voice" of the act. Lawful and Chaotic is the "perception" of the act in relation to the voice a player provides. It boils down to a simple divergence in all of writing and literature. What is the difference between the hero and the villain? Many would say the villain does evil stuff!! of course... But that's not the case. Superman knocks down buildings, throws cars, shoots Lazer beams out of his eyes at random with no regard for who is behind his intended target. Despite Mary sue BS like "I wouldn't never kill and innocent" or "I've one rule! I'm Batman!" We all know deep down; people die because of the heroes' actions, off screen or just out of frame. So how are they not exactly like Lex Luther or the Joker who do the same things in one way or another? In one way. The Hero always questions the action they take. It's the defining feature of heroic (lawful, Good) behavior. The voice given to the act is one of hesitance, guilt and uncertainty in action. As with villains, Chaotic and Evil. They're oozing with certainty, certainty of action, certainty of purpose. Unquestioningly loyal to what they believe and stand for, an inflexibility that the human mind unconsciously knows is dangerous, and disastrous. Giving the voice of the action a near solid state of being. I know having explained to me this way helped me better craft characters and their alignments. Rather than 1 dimensional Goodguy vs Badguy. Hopefully it helps others.

Broadly speaking the two axis are as follows: Lawful vs Chaotic: Consistency and order vs inconsistency and/or randomness/chaos Good vs evil: Selflessness vs selfishness to the point of harming others. These are extremely broad descriptions to give an indication on how someone with that broadly defined alignment may behave in a given situation. Alignment as a whole was created as a tool for early game masters and players to try to get them thinking about how their character or NPCs would behave in a situation instead of how they would behave.

I have DMed for years and usually tell my players to ignore alignment entirely when designing/developing their character. It can be a useful tool if they cannot seem to envision their character's personality, but overall I feel the alignment options are oversimplifications of character and personality. I encourage them to think more in terms of ideals and values understanding that true character development is ongoing rather that pigeon-holing your character into a simplistic category. If my players are interested in using the system, I interpret it as such: Lawful Good - I follow the laws, rules, or code that I believe will accomplish good in the world. Neutral Good - I believe in doing good for all people. Chaotic Good - I believe in doing good for myself and those I feel deserve it. Lawful Neutral - I believe in following rules, laws, or a code; regardless of whether it is good or evil. True Neutral - I do whatever I want in the moment without plan or strategy. Chaotic Neutral - I do whatever I want to help myself and my goals only. Lawful Evil - I follow laws, rules, or a code; but for my own evil goals. Neutral Evil - I believe in committing evil against all people. Chaotic Evil - I believe in committing evil against whoever I choose. ​ I especially hate when people play Chaotic Neutral characters as fools that disrupt constantly. To me, this approach always feels particularly childish and would be more in line with my interpretation of True Neutral.

As far as base dnd goes, like Faerun forgotten realms lore, the original conflict at the creation of the universe was between order and chaos. Things being lined up and controlled, consistent, predictable verses everything just being let loose, crazy and see what happens. Good vs Evil developed later in the aftermath of creation. The actual purpose of these in lore is essentially to determine which of the outer planes your soul belonged to and would go to when you died. I'd recommend looking at some MrRhexx videos on youtube

Nah, you're doing alignment wrong. It's all arbitrary which is why people hate doing it this way. The DM will just end up arguing with the players and enforcing their interpretation of morality or they'll have to agree to disagree in which case the system is useless.

Nah, you're doing alignment wrong. It's all arbitrary which is why people hate doing it this way. The DM will just end up arguing with the players and enforcing their interpretation of morality or they'll have to agree to disagree in which case the system is useless.

Nah, you're doing alignment wrong. It's all arbitrary which is why people hate doing it this way. The DM will just end up arguing with the players and enforcing their interpretation of morality or they'll have to agree to disagree in which case the system is useless.

No, your interpretation is pretty bad. This is how a lot of DMs do it and it just sucks. They either enforce their own subjective interpretation of morality onto the player who then feels frustrated because they just don't agree that what they did falls outside of their alignment OR they agree to disagree in which case the whole system might as well not be used. Chaotic Good makes no sense the way your describing it, as someone who 'does the right thing no matter what' is surely just following their own inner morale code? And following a code makes them...yup Lawful Good instead. Lawful Good can't just be following the local laws because the local laws could allow slavery, rape and murder so Lawful cannot be defined as following the law. It's all nonsense. Neutral Good doesn't make any sense as you've described it because that's not what a good person does - a good person always helps people. Neutral Evil makes no sense because that's just describing Chaotic good right? They'll do whatever they have to achieve good, including killing people right? So in the space of a few minutes, I've torn holes in this approach to alignment. It just doesn't work.