Alignment | Running the Game
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Episode 14: What does your character believe?
Become a Patron and get a 5E magazine every month! / mcdm
Buy Strongholds & Followers, or Kingdoms & Warfare now! - shop.mcdmprodu...
Follow me on Twitter - / mattcolville
Follow MCDM on Twitter - / hellomcdm
Join the conversation on our Discord - mcdm.gg/discord
Someone asked about my maps. A lot of them are just edited versions of the HARN maps, which you can buy here: www.drivethrurp...
#RunningTheGame #MattColville #MCDM
"If you kill a killer there is still the same number of killers in the world."
"So kill two."
Kamikaze is the future!
Actually, if you've already killed someone, there's one less killer.
Good one.
Somebody has to wipe a dirty floor even if you leave your own footprints doing so :}
As a child you think Batman is really cool. As an adult you realize the Punisher makes a lot more sense
A warning sign one player gave me at the start of a game was "I think my character is Neutral Good with a proclivity towards war crimes."
It got me thinking, what alignment would Hitler describe himself with?
Maxim Gwiazda. Hitler probably would be lawful evil. Controling laws and manipulating the masses. He definatly liked structure and rules for everyone, he himself just wanted to be the authority of that law. Evil goes without saying.
SkyNinja459 he asked "what alignment would Hitler describe HIMSELF as", not what you would call Hitler.
Argonnosi , i think the benefit of alignment comes from the use it has in determining a characters outlook on specific scenarios at a glance. a DM can parse that information and use it to help predict what a character is most likely to do. it is NOT 100% reliable, and it is shamelessly broad, however it has its perks. you can rely on the "Good" character to be at least a little compassionate. you can trust a lawful to follow some sort of code or tradition. if they dont follow some very loose guidelines, then they probably fit in somewhere else, in GENERAL. by no means is alignment the end all descriptor of characters, and i hope that people take some time to try and answer moral questions through their characters eyes, and not through the eyes of alignment.
as dnd is considered a social game, alignment is not a bad idea. if you run an isolation game, that is all well and good, and outside of the few mechanics that alignment is used for, you can get away without using it.
Zavisti Well, I suppose... but, here's the thing. I've yet to have an entire group shut down a game over a moral discussion when running WFRP 2e, Cyberpunk, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or BESM, but in DnD and White Wolf games, that was pretty much a standard (especially with the more authoritarian GMs who wanted the morality system to be rendered as an absolute scale). Meanwhile, I've also never had a problem in these games with players being able to recognize whether or not their behaviors should be seen as good and evil. So, to me, the benefits of slapping a morality tag on your characters significantly outweigh the drawbacks. Especially for philosophically minded people who ask, "Would it be good to kill an innocent to save thousands?" Not, "would you kill an innocent," but, "is it good?" Is it bad to let thousands die because you wouldn't kill an innocent? Is that a selfish action? Is it evil?
Though, since 3rd edition morality mechanics have been less of a bludgeon than simply defining which spells will effect which players. But, detect evil, as a spell, implies the existence of an absolute definition of evil. Or, is it just evil from the perspective of the character? At which point... well, that becomes an interesting question, doesn't it. Except I still don't need that bogging down play. If we want a game that really delves into questions of morality, that's our decision, but I don't need to be asking why giving someone repeated concussions to keep them from escaping is okay, but using a sedative is "evil" according to the Paladin (poisons are evil, sedatives are effective poisons). Or, why torture is wrong, but using Charm to force someone to your way of thinking is cool.
I remember one time when the party rouge had a chance to save a former PC from certain death, but instead stole his stuff and lied to the other characters saying that he was already dead. Afterward the DM said "chance your alignment from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil" and the rouge threw a fit "I never would have done that if I knew it would make me evil" was his main defense.
I still laugh about it years later, he just so completely missed the point...
See? Nobody thinks they're Evil! Everyone thinks whatever they do is justified.
Thats very worrisome that a person would do that and NOT think that was an evil thing to do
@@foreverdm7000 - Which is perhaps exactly what makes them evil in the first place!
@@foreverdm7000 I can see those potentially being considered evil acts, sure. But are they really enough to define the character as evil? Note that in the story the rogue didn't actually kill the former PC. All they did was steal the character's property and lie about what happened. If a single instance of theft and a single instance of lying can define someone as evil, then I'd argue that just about everyone must be evil, because it's nearly impossible to go through life without lying several times at an absolute minimum.
One might argue that leaving the former PC to die was evil, but was it really? If inaction is evil, then any time someone failed to take action when someone was in need is evil. Didn't stop to help a stranded motorist because you had to get to work? Evil. Didn't intervene to protect someone in a fight because you were afraid of getting hurt? Evil. Didn't run back into the burning building after saving three people to rescue a fourth person because the fire was getting too hot to withstand? Evil. What if the rogue sincerely believed that they could not save the former PC in time, decided to salvage the character's belongings, and ashamed of their cowardice pretended that they were too late? Is that really identical in morality to someone who didn't like the former PC, wanted to see them die, took their equipment to deliberately sabotage them, and then lied to cover their tracks?
Context really matters. After all, in isolation burning and burying people alive sounds pretty evil, right? It's something a character of mine once did to a group of people, so he must be pretty despicable, right? But what if you're fighting an enemy that can return to life mere seconds after being cut down? A party I was in experienced this once. A group of cultists trying to cause mass killings and civil unrest were granted immortality by the power of a magic altar. The altar was a large, stone object that was difficult to destroy. In addition to the cultists, the altar was protected by clusters of crystal that could summon spirits to defend the altar. The crystals were difficult to destroy and could also regenerate. While trying to find the altar, the cultists became aware of our presence and attacked en masse. We were cornered, outnumbered, and the cultists could not be permanently killed. I created a Moonbeam, and as we cut down cultists we tossed them in the Moonbeam to try to counter their regeneration. It was working, but the Moonbeam was just barely doing enough damage to counter the regeneration. Once we defeated the cultists, we had a few minutes at most before I ran out of spell slots for Moonbeam. We didn't have any way of restraining so many cultists in the few rounds it would take them to become a threat again, So we quickly broke a hole in the floor and I used Mold Earth to rapidly excavate a hole. We threw the cultists in, and I buried them. Their regeneration kept them alive for the hour or so it took us to find and destroy the altar, at which point they suffocated to death in their mass grave. It was a pretty brutal way to defeat the cultists, but if we had tried for more humane methods the cultists would likely have overwhelmed us. We didn't have restraints available, and there was the risk that the cultists could escape from any hastily implemented bindings via magic, skill, or simple brute force, and flank us as we attempted to destroy the altar. We knew they weren't the only cultists in the city, so there was also the risk they could somehow call for reinforcements. Just one cultist casting a Sending spell or simply fleeing to seek help could have undone our entire effort, putting the city at grave risk. I certainly wouldn't characterize burning, then burying a helpless (in the moment) person alive as a good act, but does that make my character evil for doing so in that particular circumstance, given the lack of any other viable options? We haven't resorted to such extreme tactics before or since, as they haven't been necessary. My group doesn't use the alignment system, so I guess I'll never know if that makes my character evil in the game. If that does make my character evil, I'll happily accept being branded as such, knowing how many innocents those actions saved.
We don't know what the rogue did prior to the acts that rendered them evil, but it's interesting that they hadn't done enough to qualify as evil prior to this point. How did one instance of theft and deceit push the character over the edge? Even if we assume the worst possible motivations for the rogue's actions in that situation, if it's not typical behavior for the rogue, should those actions in particular offset all the good that character has ever done? If so, why do evil acts mean so much more than good acts? If one good act cannot undo a lifetime of evil, why should the opposite be true?
Rather than bother with alignment math, I prefer to describe my character as being ruthless, even brutal in battle, but quick to prioritize protecting/rescuing innocents in mortal danger--even in the middle of combat and at significant personal risk. He also believes in avoiding unnecessary fighting, and will happily lure threats away to keep his companions safe from harm. He believes in law and order, but is perfectly willing to work outside of the law if others are manipulating it for nefarious purposes. I think that says a lot more about my character than an alignment label ever could.
@@klasodeth -- Choosing to leave a former associate to certain death, stealing their equipment, and lying to other associates about the nature of their fate is not a pilfer and a fib.
I love this. The message is not “let’s not argue guys” it’s “come on guys, there’s a WAY better argument you could be having!”
That was the most convincing "My dog ate my homework" excuse I've ever heard
"You realize you get disadvantage in sunlight right?"
"It's called dungeons and dragons not daylight and dragons" 10/10 vicious mockery lvl 20 max damage
So 16 points lmao
critical strike
@@malcolmpul4409 Hey that'll kill a 5e commoner (4 or 1d8 hit points) at least twice over.
I think it would aid alignment understanding to avoid the word "law" and instead use something like "order."
I've seen way too many people get caught up on "lawful" meaning "following the law," when that has nothing to do with it.
I believe the difference can be illustrated with two groups: a *chaotic* evil group of bandits that comes upon a village might simply begin burning and pillaging. A *lawful* evil group of bandits coming by that same village might instead demand regular payments of money/supplies/etc. from it on the condition of not kneecapping them like mobsters. The chaotic group _dismantles_ what order is already there, while the lawful group _adds_ a rigid, structured, reliable order.
Neither group in that example is behaving "legally" as decided by the village legislature or whatever nearby societies say. What matters is whether they're _removing_ or _imposing_ reliable, clockwork order. I might boil it down to predictability:
Ordered: "Whenever you do X, we're responding with Y."
Chaotic: "We're doing Y; deal with it. Might be Z tomorrow. There's no telling."
A+ Profile pic and name.
Also excellent point, exactly my stance on law. Another thing about Chaos is that you're shoehorned into *not* following laws, it's just that you hold no value for them. Chaotic also tends more toward individualism, rather than groupthink like Lawful does.
Actually I think the bigger problem on that alignment axis is chaotic. Which many/some new players see as an excuse to play a character ranging from "lulz so random" to completely psychotic.
"Why did you turn our party member into a squirrel and then proceed to kill the shopkeeper and burn down his shop?"
-"Because I'm chaotic, duh!"
In his other alignment video Matthew uses the example of the Joker for Chaotic Evil, and iirc Robin Hood for Chaotic Good. And while the Joker literally calls himself "an agent of chaos", there's a rhyme to his reason. He has a plan, he has goals and motivations. He has (tentative and temporary) alliances. Some semblance of self-preservation.
So yeah, while some might mistake "lawful" to mean "abiding by the law"; I think many many more mistake "chaotic" as being "random"/without reason.
More or less in terms of character alignment I view chaos as doing what you will, regardless of the law. If the law happens to land in my favor, then I'll use it. If not, oh well. I completely agree with Matt concerning your alignment following your character's actions rather than the other way around. For example, I'm currently playing a Neutral Good Cleric of the Raven Queen. I ended up having a serious argument with a group of Lawful NPCs due to them wanting to kill a Neutral Good giant that my party had befriended. Because he views good as the ultimate goal, it baffled him that they would slaughter all giants they came into contact with based upon their orders. As that would be evil in his opinion, and would be considered genocide, a fight ensued.
Ahegao I play russian version of pathfinder, and its actually quite funny because in translation "lawful" slightly changed meaning into "principled". So i was thinking about "law" more as if it was "principles" (or "order") all the way.
In my opinion, the chaotic-lawful axis is by far the smallest problem in the alignment system.
The Good - Evil axis is by far harder to justify and much less objective.
"Almost 10 thousand subscribers"
I chuckle as I watch some old videos in prep to run Curse of Strahd and see the counter at near 350k subscribers.
I know right. 408k now...
@@TnTyson81 409 ... 😂😂
@@DrDangleberry 410 …
433k, seems like the growth slowed lately
809k rn
18:56 In Mark's defense: his character did cause a lot of conflict. Meta Lawful Evil.
The whole video, I was brewing up a lawful evil foil to this paladin
The paladin KNOWS he's evil, and he would know that a paladin would know he's evil
So he'd be extra good
Go out of his way to help others
Call out the paladin for slaughtering goblins
Certainly not be the first to step out of line, because then the paladin would have the excuse he's been waiting for to slay him
Pointed comments about how "you won't kill me. Good people don't kill innocents, and, since no one else can sense evil, you're the only one who knows. You gonna betray the laws WE BOTH follow to do what is necessary to oust evil? Even I, the deplorable filth that I be, am not a beast. I've put up with your transgressions this whole time, yet you long for me to falter just once before condemning me to your blade? How am I more capable of granting forgiveness than thou?"
Also, 69th like!
@@fenixmeaney6170 This would be a good challenge to a player who doesn't really know what good and evil is. They could be easily swayed by the argument from the evil character. But if they don't rise to the bait and instead cite their teachings and examples of good, then they can probably provide a strong counter point to the argument.
Yet, there is a risk, from a gameplay example, that the paladin player or other players don't want to spend game time debating good motives. They may rather want to get on with the scenario and focus on that, so this could be a painful distraction.
@@02JAN1970 oh, I wasn't saying that we ONLY talk about morality
This paladin was stated to be waiting for the lawful evil PC to do something lawful evil
So, over the entire campaign, this evil character will do selfless (as in for no personal gain) good, because seeing the paladin squirm is selfserving enough
How I simplify my alignment system is this:
Good values life as a whole, Evil values their lives above others. Lawful values order, Chaos values freedom.
A good character need not protect others, merely value others and respect others. An evil character need not murder, merely protect their own existence.
This allows good and evil to co-exist without constant clashing, and allows for a better personification of a variety of ideals.
This is the closest I've been able to come to with for an ""objective"" answer for good vs evil IN the context of DnD (*heavy* quotes on 'objective' there too)
Essentially, how does the value of your own desires compare to the value of other people?
@LifeEnemy My players really seem to like it. They've actively worked with evil characters, even knowing they're evil. The evil characters they have worked with generally express that their ideals just don't happen to include a value for everyone but do include the players.
I wouldn't call it objective either, but I would say it's more real.
Lawful Evil is my favorite alignment. I rarely play clerics and I rarely play Lawful characters but one of my favorite characters of all time is Gorick the Lawful Evil Assassin/Cleric of Dondar, the god of death (2E)
Gorick is absolutely somebody you want to have in your party. He is loyal to a fault. One time, a big bulky fighter in the party touched a mirror that actually turned out to be a portal. He immediately disappeared. The rest of the party sat back and wanted to analyze the situation. Gorick cursed them for their cowardly lack of loyalty and stuck his hand in the mirror. The fighter and Gorick were dimension doored to another part of the dungeon where they were dropped in deep water. Gorick, was able to swim, thanks to his light assassin's armor and he quickly helped the fighter remove his armor and swim to shore. Eventually they made their way back to the party.
The way Gorick sees it, he has entered into a contract with the party. He agrees to work with them and they with him. In return, they will go places and offer as many souls as they can to his god. Sure, he could have betrayed the fighter and sent him to Dondar. But he is all about the long game. With the fighter on his side, he can send so many more souls to his god. Besides, Gorick never betrays his party. He knows that in the end, they will all go to Dondar. But in the mean time they are excellent tools to help him accomplish his goals.
Gorick is a ruthless killer. If there is a way to negotiate their way out of a fight, he will argue against it. He particularly enjoyed when a group of bandits ambushed the party. They had attacked the party and deserved their fate. Those bandits received a much better burial than they could have hoped for otherwise. Nothing pleases Dondar more than an offering of souls who really deserve to die.
He is happy to use his spells to help his party including healing them. If they did not die in this fight, then that is a sign that Dondar did not want to take them just yet. He's content to play the long game. All souls go to his god in the end. In the mean time, he will work with this party, as long as they keep providing fresh souls. And they do.
Lawful Evil really is a fun concept because it's the most understandable evil alignment. I have a character I'm very sad I haven't had a chance to play much because he's in a game that has been paused for a long time. Burghed Haerwell, the Half-Orc Monk. He's a Lawful Evil mass murderer who has looked at the world and determined that it is filled with far too many weak people, which puts everyone else's lives at risk. So, he set out to slaughter as many weak people as he possibly could. In that game he was given a chance at redemption by this incredibly powerful entity (above gods level stuff) so he probably managed to kill a lot of people.
Before that though, in the time he was out slaughtering he learned nuances to the idea of weakness and strength. He started caring only about physical power, but after killing wizards, he learned the strength of the mind. He learned the strength of leadership and charisma from politicians and generals, and so on. So, when the time came when he was presented with the choice to repent, he accepted it, because despite the fact that he still believes that weakness must be purged, he has made enough mistakes about what weakness truly is that he needs to undo the damage he has done. He has killed the strong, people who are still useful to the world, and he must fix those wrongs. Even an evil person can repent for not being the right kind of evil.
I love that kind of complexity, it's just interesting to get into the heads of characters like that. It's also so much better than the blind, simple-minded "I do what benefits me the most at this very moment" mentality that some people use for evil characters. That can work, especially if the character is meant to be flawed and stupid, but looking ahead like your character did makes far more sense.
TheGreatYukon that's a very cool character concept. It also shows that your character sees himself as a hero, or at least someone who does the dirty job that needs to be done anyway. It also shows how alignment isn't static perse.
My friend is in the works of a modern campaign and I'm the only one who knows about it. See it only came up because I've been creating my own world for a campaign I want to run, realistically it probably won't be ready to play for a few weeks at the very least. But me being me, I have already created a character with a back story.
See I normally like playing Chaotic Good characters because I view myself as a person as Chaotic Good. The way I see it Chaotic Good people, they mean well, and they have good intentions, but they don't like playing by the rules. They are willing to go to certain extremes in the name of the greater good that a Lawful Good or even and Neutraul Good person could not. Which is the reason I love playing them so much.
But the character I created, I wanted to push the boundaries a little bit. I want to challenge myself while also staying working a certain level of familiarity.
So I created a Chaotic Neutral character. This reflects heavily on her backstory and uprising and I felt it made a sense.
Her name is Grey Fox (There is a backstory for this as well because I'm that person) from a young age she had a resent me of her parents for various reasons (that I didn't bother to think of) but that was all thrown out the window when one fateful night, someone broke into their house and killed her parents. She awoke to a scream, of what was presumably her mother and peaked through her door to see what was going on. She makes out a man standing in front of her father asking for money. Her father then proceeds to go on about how they don't have the money and without hesitation the man shoots her father three times in the chest. His body falls to the floor away enough to slam the door.
Since then she has lived on the streets, taking up thieving and sticking to the shadows to survive. Of course she didn't want to live like that anymore.
She stole a simple pistol off a someone and taught herself how to use it, eventually becoming proficient in it. At that point she steal another and begins going after people who she believes know about who killed her father.
Of course she doesn't actually miss her father, far from it. She just wants to kill the bastard who ruined her life and essentially forced her to become the person she became.
The reason I view her as a Chaotic Neutral type is that she operates off her own moral compass. She has done both good and bad things and I feel like because of that she is conflicted. She doesn't know who she is outside of what she became and she is trying to discover that. One major flaw she has in part of this is that she has a hard time getting close to people, not because she is a cynic, far from it. She is afraid of losing the people she cares about. She is afraid that by becoming attached she will put them in harm's way and because of that she pushes people away. She runs off on her own and gets herself into trouble, nothing she can't handle, but still, it's trouble.
So the party dynamic is going to be fun because of her cold and sometimes hostile personality.
@@YukonHexsun from where I'm sitting your character seam more lawful nuetral to me, since while he is doing evil it's for a long term good. Starting out lawful seems reasonable but his arc seems to go from evil, killing the physically weak, to nuetral, killing those with weaknesses including physical and other, then good, repenting for some of his murders but still killing those that fit his revised form of weakness. In general he seems lawful nuetral, but that's my opinion
You could argue this character is chaotic good.
He kills evil people so long as his god is satisfied with the result and he helps his party in order to help the long term goal of sending more souls to his god.
This is something your character personally wants to do, he appeases this god because it suits his personality. chaotic
And he helps keep your party alive even if it means risking his own life. good.
I'm not seeing the evil here. Unless this guy kills innocent peasants and sends their souls to dondar when no one is looking. That would be evil.
My favourite story about alignment comes from something my dad told me about when he used to play D&D as a teenager in the late 70s. So a member of their party was a chaotic character and whenever they would try to capture a goblin or something to interrogate it he would kill it before they could ask it anything because he liked to kill things, so the rest of the party ganged up on him and performed an alignment change spell on him to make him lawful, and the next time they captured a goblin as a prisoner to interrogate this guy's reaction was "I kill it, because its evil". you can easily justify the same action from multiple alignments.
Others:
"DUDE, Why did you kill me and the rest of the party?"
"Because it's what my character would do, I'm evil"
You guys:
"DAMMIT MARK, STAB ME ALREADY!"
"Why would I do that, then we couldn't pla-"
"BECAUSE YOUR CHARACTER WOULD DO SO, YOU'RE EVIL. Now shut up and kill me, please."
"the we couldn't"? I think you mean "then we couldn't". (2nd-last line). I just want to give this great comment some editing so people enjoy it better.
Effyis Biblos thx mate
@@lucasriddle3431
Thank you for your service. There are too few editors in the world.
How much gold did you get for returning the dog?
Not Enough
He got XP
He got his alignment shifted to good.
@@Jake007123 the dogs alignment is lawful good boy by default
@@direbear1454 That's a good one!
I love the idea of that conflict with the captured Paladin, the whole 'I'd rather you'd have let me die than become what you are now.' Delicious.
It is clear to me sir, that you are a bard. For how else could you provide me with such inspiration?
What is this a quote from? It sounds ticklingly familiar...
When I was still new to D&D, I rolled a Lawful Evil character for the same reason mentioned. It was neat thing to write. So I have my LE Changeling Rogue, but aside from the mechanical function of using poisons, I could have gotten away with being Neutral.
Later on I'd start doing thing like horde treasure away from the rest of the party if I found it without them, sell items they'd forgotten about so I didn't have to share the gold, as well as some other things that would cause some drama with our LG Dwarf Cleric, which was always fun. We'd built up this (in character) tension in the party, to the point where the cleric wouldnt heal me sometimes, threatened me but generally fell onto the reasoning of 'the greater good' for keeping me around {I was more a con and a thief, so there were worse things to deal with}, plus he keep the idea that he could somehow convert my rogue to the ways of the Silver Flame. Then one session, my character died in a fight. And true to character, he refused to resurrect me. I was an Evil character, and there was no way he could in good faith to the Silver Flame, bring an Evil character back. And I'm so happy it went that way! His character played to his ideals, which in turn set his alignment, as opposed to me pretty much reverse engineering what I thought LE should be.
Thank you for this video, it was incredibly insightful. Next time I roll a character, I'll definitely come at it from the right direction.
Cool of you to respect his RP decision
"Hind-sight is 50/50..."
"Wha? Hind... sight.. is 20 --"
"Don't stop him, he's on a roll."
I hate how he can say something like that, which is traditionally the wrong phrase, but then he's absolutely right. Hindsight is 50/50 because you can't actually know how things would have gone in the past, it's just as speculative.
20/20 vision just means you can see, from 20ft what most people can see from 20ft. So 20/20 vision is the same thing as 50/50 vision.
@@drw23 That’s not the point. The tests measure a comparison at 20’. I was teasing because he committed the *cardinal sin* of mixing metaphor.
@@jklappenbach The tests just as often measure a comparison at 6ft. I'm visually impaired and my vision is 6/48. There's nothing special about the 20ft thing. I also don't think he made a mistake. He meant to say hindsight is 50/50, as he explains, coincidentally, in his latest running the game video on oracles and visions
It's 6/6 in countries with a logical measurement system.
"Belgarath tells Garion that he dislikes talking about good and evil, and prefers to just say 'us and them'" One of the best moments of why sometimes disreputable people do good things or are heroes
.
I always loved the Good-Evil spectrum explained as "A neutral character won't go out of their way to do good, but they will go out of their way to NOT do evil". It really gets at the heart of typical social expectations around good and evil action. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice everything for another, like a good individual might, but they're also not sociopaths that willingly parade about murdering people, like an evil individual might.
A lot of people I have gamed with have a real problem with understanding Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic. I refer to this as the "Ethic". In other words, "how" you do what you do. Good/Neutral Evil is the "Moral". This defines the "what" you do.
Too many players who play "Chaotic Good" think they can lie, cheat, steal, and basically abuse their fellow man. That's not the "how". That's a "what". Too many "Chaotic Neutrals" use that alignment to basically be douchebags to the other players and hide behind "that's what my character would do", without actually knowing what CN means.
In my opinion, this is how alignments play out:
Lawfuls will follow the rules, traditions, disciplines, religion, contract of a nation, order or belief. Things happen for a reason. Everything has it's place. Rules are there for a reason. The group over-rules the individual.
Chaotics value freedom. They do what their moral center tells them without question. To them, personal judgement is more important than social convention. Rules get in the way. the person is valued over the group.
Neutral ethic means that you see the value of some laws and some freedoms, but cannot commit to either as best. In your opinion, both have value, but neither is dominant. To them, the moral is the focus, and now how you accomplish it.
Goods will help before hurting. Goods believe that the benefit of others is more important than anything. They always try to act to another's benefit, if possible. They tend to be optimistic, and try to give the benefit of the doubt, again, if possible.
Evils could care less. Power, wealth, carnage - whatever a person wants, trumps all else. How that affects others is irrelevant. If it harms another - who cares. They tend to be pessimistic, thinking that others will always act as they do.
Neutral morals disregard the harm or help aspect of a decision, and focus on the ethical variant. To them, this is the defining characteristic. Sometimes whether you harm or help another is less important than how you accomplish it.
That's how I see it.
Great explanation, the only issue I see in it is the alignment of True Neutral.
Because right now you explain Neutral on the Ethic axis as, "you care more about Moral, not the how."
And Neutral on the Moral as, "you care more about the how, not the Moral."
Basically you're saying the non-Neutral axis is all that matters, but than what happens when both axes are Neutral?
Quite true. True Neutral is an alignment that deserves it's own discussion. I see True Neutral as non-committal, taking each and every situation as it comes and judges them individually. They are driven by goals outside the moral or ethical compass and do not feel that such "outside influences" have any more or less value than the other. True Neutrals are hard to gauge by others because they tend to keep their thoughts and motivations close to the chest, and tend to be more philosophical in their approach than religious. True Neutrals borrow or ignore aspects from all other ethical or moral arguments depending on their overall view at the time. I accept Matt's DS9 as a great example, but I think Bronn from Game of Thrones also applies. He can be loyal or treacherous, noble and scandalous, all depending on the situation. He chooses his companions based on one thing: survival. That may mean money, influence, safe passage or what have you. True Neutrals, I feel, are survivors.
Does that help?
Oh, I was just asking the question in general, more as an academic exercise.
I understand what TN is, but your framework didn't have an explanation for it yet.
Which was a shame because the rest were so clear. :)
Actually I just realised that maybe you didn't lack an explanation, it just requires some out-of-the-box thinking, literally. If being Neutral on one axis means you only care about the other axis, being True Neutral means you don't really care about any axis, you reject the entire system.
Being True Neutral says: "I don't belong on this graph at all".
True Neutral: "Your alignment isn't on my map, baby." ;)
Perfect! :')
ugh, i want this guy to be my DM
Mike234 ..... cmon man
Mike234 gotcha, just giving him compliment, and your comment originally sounded arrogant was all
I wish I could play as a player... It's not that I don't like being a DM but I haven't ever been in the shoes of a player mostly because my friends can't and don't want to devote that much time into learning how to DM.
I want to have the creativity to DM well
this is the main thing I've gotten out of watching the campaign diaries
The "do whatever I want alignment" problem was once a recurring problem in my campaigns. I could assume at least one player would pick Chaotic Neutral and eventually I gave up on trying to push those players away from what they believed was a free pass. I instead turned to one of my regulars, a fantasy writer, and told him to craft strong backstories for his characters. After his shy, pacifist cleric became the main character of a storyline ending in betrayal where the party turned on itself and, entirely in character, he could not attack his comrades, he survived. That character returned as an older, bitter cleric NPC who saved the party from the other survivor of his previous party. The writer friend was playing a thief this time who was struck by the selflessness of the cleric (who died buying time for the party) and found religion.
My players don't want to pick Chaotic Neutral any more. They've seen what having a defined character can do to build upon a campaign. They've joked about the religious thief being the "main character" and they want to play main characters too. Being unpredictable had been fun, but watching somebody else's character grow and the campaign bending around those changes was too enticing to pass on.
The best way I have found to do “evil” yet still be loved by the party is to be the voice of “group selfishness” basically “hey, I like you guys. Yeah we don’t agree all the time but we don’t back stab each other. That no back staby does NOT extend to rando people on the road or quest givers.” If my evil character sees a way to boost their power or wealth, they justify it as benefiting the party. There is little that my evil will not do for the mission, for the group and to be the innate selfishness that’ll keep them alive regardless of their “heroic” and silly choices. It’s an unspoken or spoken contract: we are friends f*** the rest of the world. Even if other players are more heart felt I don’t stomp on their fun, but I can’t promise this evil character’s hands won’t be sticky or maybe make a underhanded deal.
Also my character’s deals and lying is often a good reason for the DM to have plentiful ammo for time filling quests or one shot asides for the character’s while the main quest is needing some TLC or we wrecked something. If I had a copper for every time my character’s lying and double dealing for double the profit got the party in trouble, my character would have enough for at least his latest... incursion with the law and to settle things without uncouth things like “jail” or “returning property to its ‘rightful’ owner”
I don't think this really works for most parties, unless they also don't care about the NPCs being murdered. Or unless the DM is content to let the evil PC always get away from those murders unseen and with no consequences. I would think a lawful character would very much dislike it if the party suddenly becomes implicated in a slew of murders/robberies that always happen when the party rolls into town. And I think a good character would be horrified and angry to learn that one of their own, someone they trusted, turned out to be a wanton murderer behind their back, ESCPECIALLY if the evil character was killing innocent people and people the party had just helped. The stakes of the campaign would probably have to be very high for the evil character to not just be cut loose from the party at best, or if the good/lawful character(s) are the minority, for them not to just leave the party.
When I was starting up a DnD campaign, I was playing with some new players, and one person used a random character generator. I rolled with it, and the alignment he ended up with was true nuetral. I didn't really understand alignments at the time, so I explained it poorly, and he was the most chaotic evil character I've ever seen
In Ravenloft, our party's paladin had a proclivity for long walks to pray to Lathander while the rest of the party had prisoners at our mercy from whom we needed information. His (somewhat overly loud) prayers (often long distances away) yielded many positive results as on his return the less-than-noble party members (aka the rest of us) often had the information we wanted from our prisoner... who sometimes had died... from the acute stress of combat and becoming a prisoner you understand.
Gold.
I hope it provided some confilict.
Cute. Nobody could Charm them into giving out the info?
Wait, so torture is bad, but we're cool with mind rape?
thisIsBait.jpg
The more I watch Matt's videos, the more I find my eyes drawn to his hair. Look how soft it is. LOOK AT HIS TEMPLES. Soft soft soft.
I thought I was the only one :P
Somewhere I read that Gygax really didn't like the concept of alignment, that it was something his partner at the time put in. And fans of the game liked the concept of alignment, so it stayed in the game.
I don't know if he liked it, but it wasn't his idea. It was something one of the other guys invented to prevent characters stealing from each other. The invention of two "sides" the hero side and the bad-guy side.
"You're no different than they are." That is a perfect storytelling moment.
It's not really true, though.
"I dunno if you've seen that movie but those are not good people" Love it.
"Thuslywise" is really a wonderful word...
When I have a player that 'wants to be evil' I ask, "What do you *do* that makes you evil? Give me verbs."
Also, your analysis of many players that want to be C/N is spot on. Not all players, but too often CN becomes, "Well you wouldn't let me be evil so I am Neutral!" And that means they regularly choose to murder, threaten and just basically be evil... Ugh...
There's a very simple reason why discussions of alignment lends itself to so many arguments.
Consider the example you brought up: The player character who cut off a bad guy's finger because said bad guy cut off his brother's finger. There are vastly different ways to interpret this action depending on what your moral beliefs are.
If, for example, you are thinking in a sort of comic book morality, then obviously attacking a helpless person is wrong, even if that helpless person is evil. Even if that helpless person will one day not be helpless and will go on to kill innocent people, because that's what comic book morality is. Not everyone might want to agree with or be held by that specific moral code. That's fine because there are a number of religions that actually have vastly different moral codes.
In Old Testament Moses's Law, the act of cutting off the villain's finger would not only have ben permissible, but it would be required by law. It's not a right. It's an obligation. Criminals need to be punished in accordance to what they've done and there's no way around that if you want to maintain a healthy society. It's Good, and Lawful to boot. This example is especially amusing because it actually puts you in the position of Satan saying "your evil is my good", or more precisely "your good is my evil".
Going by the New Testament, Jesus's teachings specifically, the act of cutting off the villain's finger would be to show a lack of forgiveness, and the PC would be judged by the same standard he judges others by. Specifically, the character would be judged by whether or not he goes around mutilating innocent people. It could be Neutral or Evil depending on how much of a hypocrite he is.
Meanwhile going by Buddhist teachings, holding onto anger and vengeance and other unhealthy emotional attachments is bad karma, and it's the kind of thing that keeps you from reaching Nirvana. Maybe not 'evil' in the exact same way that we think about it, but it's certainly discouraged by this philosophy. Arguably I would still put the "Evil" label on it if I were to judge according to a Buddhist mindset.
Going by the Jedi Code it's the kind of action that leads to the Dark Side, especially if he does it out of rage and spite. Not only is it Evil but it actively forces you to be MORE evil later because that's how the Dark Side works once you give into it.
And that right there is the basic problem. Every time you talk about alignment, you are indirectly talking about religion. Even if you don't think you are, even if you hide the religious discussion behind innocuous concepts such as game mechanics, you are still talking about religion.
And we all know how religious arguments go.
You are talking about philosophy. Religions have a philosophy, but you are not necessarily talking about religion. Jordan Peterson (philosopher) often makes this mistake. He redefines "religion" as "a value system" at which point "all people are religious" is a tautology. But that is not what religion means and it's not what people mean when they say they are(n't) religious. They are talking about the existence of sky wizards. All Kobe is Wagyu, but not all Wagyu is Kobe.
@@AnimeReference amen. But also, religious institutions are pretty major exporters of moral philosophy, so OP's comparisons aren't that crazy. A professor, on the other hand, should know better.
Like you said, all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.
Actually mosaik law talks about monetary recompense not revenger in kind. The eye for an eye thing is taken out of context. It means an eye for the price of an eye, as in you blind me and then you pay me as much as an eye was thought to be worth
I think it's worth remembering that Gary Gygax was a very religious man, and he took a large amount of inspiration for early D&D from his views (such as paladins being religious warriors). I imagine that the alignment system is an artefact of this, and likely was originally designed from a christian (partly Jehovah's witness) point of view. I don't think that this is necessarily the way that it should be used (Or even that alignment systems are all that useful) but that's likely the original context behind them.
@@Ninjat126 it's okay, JP also thinks governmenr assigned girlfriends should be a thing, he's a whackjob
When you described chaotic as essentially anarchist that made it make so much more sense to me. Lawful people believe in rules, order, tradition, laws, and chaotic people believe that they impede people's abilities to be themselves and choose their own path.
"oh man this is going to be so cool when he betrays me in the caverns!"
"Why would i do that?"
"because you said you were evil. EITHER DO SOMETHING EVIL OR CHANGE IT!"
LuL
I think it was a mistake, and one laid deep in the very foundation of D&D, to call it _law_ vs. chaos, because even more than the other three alignment words, "law" has connotations, implies things about the alignment that aren't necessarily true. Better for it to've been _order_ vs. chaos, I think.
The simplified description of alignment I give to new players is Stability vs. Freedom, Others vs Self. Phrasing it like that, and avoiding words like GOOD and JUSTICE and EVIL and SELFISHNESS, divorces it from a lot of the baggage players tend to bring with things like "Chaotic Evil". I know that it's a lot more complicated than that (and, given that I just watched you talk about it for half an hour, you obviously do too), but it's a good way to get the core idea across.
Anyway, I just watched 15 of your videos in a row, so, subscribed now.
So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear,
Farewell remorse; all good to me is lost.
Evil, be thou my good.
Lines 108-110.
And here I was, watching the introductory bit, waiting all the time for you to go "long story short, I now got a dog!" and hold that little adorable floofball into the camera :D
Wonderful rundown on alignment, will definitely forward this to my players.
+Mr. Pilgrim Nice ^^
+Matthew Colville thanks for inspiring our Dungeonmaster :)
Can I just make a point in saying I really appreciate how much time and effort Matt puts into these videos? I mean, I don’t know if the subtitles were his doing as well, but if they were, that’s a lot of work!
We played the ORIGINAL D&D in the mid 70's and played AD&D through the 80's. Now we have kids of our own who are asking about this game. When I first looked at 5th Ed. I barely recognized it! Now, thanks to you, we are going to start with "The Blacksmith's Daughter" to teach the kids how to play and then roll it into a campaign! You remind me so much of so many aspects of being a Game/Dungeon Master that I had forgotten that I enjoyed. I really hope I can pull it off like I used to! (easier 5e rules will certainly help!) ****Anyway, I just ordered a paperback copy of your book, Priest and I can't wait to read it!
Note: Wangrods always play CN, which has tarnished the alignment in a lot of GM's eyes. Which is a shame; I love CN.
28:24 Sounds awfully like the inspiration for some of the dialogue from Anakin in Epsiode III "FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE JEDI ARE EVIL!", which is certainly not very defensible (unless you go into how the jedi are all about emotional suppression, taking kids away from their parents and being passive rather than proactive) but it's wonderfully dramatic.
+Jon Watson "Only the Sith deal in absolutes!" That whole dialogue makes no sense.
Yora Yeah. It's terrible but it's also great.
the difference is that Anakin doesn't really believe that what he is doing is good. he's too desperate and too confused to have that much conviction. meanwhile Satan from Paradise Lost is not confused -- he knows what he wants and he deeply believes that he is doing what is right. his good really is God's evil. if Anakin actually had any conviction, he wouldn't have been such a pansy character.
Elizabeth Reece Yeah. He was pretty unstable and drunk on power after that Faustian bargain to go postal to the extent he caused the circumstances he sought to avoid. Not a model of moral and ethical discourse.
+Jon Watson "unless you go into how the jedi are all about emotional suppression, taking kids away from their parents and being passive rather than proactive"
But that's what's so great! Lucas has gone on record as stating that he never intended this, but any reasonable look at the Star Wars films would note that it's *very* clear that the Jedi Order during the prequels is corrupt. They're highly bureaucratic, they enforce an insanely strict dogma, and their leaders are hypocritical. There's a _lot_ wrong with the Jedi Order that needed to be put right (or "brought into balance", as it were).
To Anakin specifically, he was repeatedly turned down for promotion despite being well qualified and exceeding in all areas of his training, largely because the Order was afraid of him and did not want to give him power. Ironic that it was this lack of trust that played a large part in his conversion to the Dark Side, but there you have it. From Anakin's point of view, the Jedi really _were_ evil. We shouldn't have been told as much through such bland stilted dialogue ("show, don't tell" is the mantra of filmmakers everywhere, after all!), but the intent behind the line was fantastic.
hahaha "hindsight's 50/50" 31:01
wow, you really do read all the comments. props!
It seems I cannot escape the problem of people confusing a description with a prescription no matter where I go! Such a valuable distinction to point out.
I think that these are good questions not only to ask of our characters, but of ourselves. "What do I believe? Do my actions reflect those beliefs?" Happiness comes when we can answer "yes" to the second question. Guilt stays when we answer "no" and do nothing. Change happens when we answer "no" and alter ether our actions or our beliefs. Pain results when the answer is "no" and we do not ask.
One thing I love is when evil characters don't consider themselves evil. Think about the cast of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". Mac, Charlie, Dennis, Dee, and Frank could easily be considered evil, but they do not think of themselves that way at all.
Frank, Dee, Dennis: Neutral Evil. In it entirely for themselves, will break rules or uphold them as benefits themselves.
Mac: Lawful evil. Has a strong moral code but is extremely hypocritical. Usually tries to impose his rules on others, but will ignore them with excuses.
Charlie: Chaotic evil. Absolutely no ability to fit into social norms and no real code of his own. Acts largely on manic whims. Somehow also probably the LEAST evil of the gang.
One little note about pre-Tolkien vs Tolkien fantasy there: Tolkien also contextualized his world with ours. Arda is indeed also a prehistoric version of earth.
Indeed, though unlike his predecessors he merely hinted at that in his books, never stating it outright. I guess that in combination with the incredible depth of texture and verisimilitude he put into his work is what inspired later authors to just sever the connection altogether.
@@vde1846 True. It's a little tidbit that is very easily missable, and your point about later authors just taking it one step further (whether knowingly or unknowingly - I want to give writers the benefit of the doubt there, but people are fallible after all) is very interesting. Never really considered it, but it makes a lot of sense.
"You can't make that up!"
"Yes I can, I'm the DM!"
I'm laughing SO hard right now XD
This was a good essay. I remember the B/X alignment discussion we had and eventually we just went on without it for characters but used it to guide monster and NPC reactions and actions. In later editions, when there were much more words padded in about alignment we just waved it on. We concerned ourselves more with the societal and tribal ties than vague ideas about universal affiliations. In truth, we ignored the outer planes too. Except the Elemental Plane of Fire. That was fun. Our games were very much, "Saw this really cool TV/Movie. Let's play it!".
From “Last Action Hero” : “Where is it written that I am a Bad guy?”
So, the regular schedule slipped up, because of taking care of that (OH MY GOD WHAT A CUTIE) dog who needed help...
...So does this mean you fall under chaotic good?
alignment is a tendency, not a single action.
With the "I like drama, let bad stuff happen and good stories come out" combined with "Why would I help you? Because I want to make others happy." I really do think Matthew Colville has the tendency to be Chaotic Good and I like it!
I will now and forever use the term "thuslywise", as often as possible. Thank you for that.
If you endeavor to make your own campaign setting understand you are undertaking a 5+ year endeavor. You will be spending tons of time changing things. I find running games in an unfinished world, with a group who understands their actions CAN help shape the world but the world is still semi-rigid can help.
A campaign setting can be a town and the few days' travel around it.
Matthew Colville That is true, I should have noted that. The correct term for what I was talking about was a "World Setting" I believe.
I've only been DMing for 2 years and playing for 7 at this point so I have tons to learn. Thanks for the tip-vids Matt.
I've been at this for about 10 years. In my experience, it is a waste ofmy time to write encyclopedic knowledge about my worlds. One of the most fun ways I've ever had was printing out a map, I put it on the table, gave people pens, and said "tell me what's in this world".
2 hours later we had an origin story, factions, wars, history, ancient towers and more.
Let your players help you.
Yes, yes, yes! When I started my world setting campaign I told players to send me their character backstories with as much detail or as little as they liked. I just let them know, hey, whatever you send back can shape how this world looks or acts. What I ended up getting back was a lot of information from all my players, even ones Colville calls "audience players." It was surprising, but then the "burden" of creation wasn't all on my shoulders anymore. The fact they entered the setting with knowledge of certain areas already and had a hand in their creation made them excited to play. It allowed them to feel driven and needed in their own ways.
This is the first time I hear someone recommend Poul Anderson's book in a video. A criminally underappreciated writer, please check out his work!
Had to hit the "like" button within the first two minutes. My hero @Matt Colville for rescuing the dog. :) You are my hero for D&D as well as being a friend to lost pets. Well done, good sir!
Four weeks until I transition from player to DM. Grateful for Matthew's videos!
same
Me as well. Player for 4 years.
Merrick Johnston & dallazkatt - Are you feeling the fear/anxiety yet? I know I am! :D
+Jessica Lane ABSOULTLY AND I LOVE IT!!!!!!!
+Jessica Lane Good luck! I've been DM'ing for 2 years now and I love it! Matt really hits the nail on the head for his perspectives on having fun with it all.
Thank you so much for these videos! This series has taken me from moderate interest in d&d to having a blast creating my own world and campaign. Your insights are encouraging and invaluable. Much appreciation from a new DM and his players!
I assume it's because I'm a gamer, but I've always seen alignment in the Fable, Mass Effect, and general Bioware sense.
Everyone is Neutral and their actions shift them to Good or Evil. Someone who is capable of both is Neutral. If the majority of someone's actions are Evil, then yes they would be. Or if there are some sort of extreme situations in which they perform the most Heinous act then yes they are Evil. But, since I believe that all people are capable of Good and Evil I don't normally force anyone into an archetype of one or the other, I just tell them that the alignment is shifting.
I track the major actions of a character and slowly push that alignment over. It might seem a bit much but I score actions of alignment based on my understanding of their actions, then when they have scored an amount they get shifted. I don't tell them exactly what scores what, but it does give them the idea that if their character is good, they have to keep a good persona in general. They are allowed to make mistakes and fall off the wagon, but in general they have an obligation to be good in circumstances if they want to earn that alignment. It also allows for a lot of interactions from characters who want to make amends for something they've done wrong before.
When I played a CE character, I made sure the campaign was one where we'd all have a common goal. I was essentially playing a fantasy Dr. Frankenstein who wasn't full of malice, but was absolutely willing to do evil to reach his goal (building the monster). I did actually turn on the party, but it was a wonderfully dramatic moment and it was well enough into the campaign that we all cared about each others characters and so understood where we were all coming from. Play an evil character, its really fun and dramatic, just make sure it'll be fun for the table, too!
I always thought of the alignments this way: If your character is good, neutral, or evil, that is what your character is. Being chaotic, lawful or neutral is the method your character follows through with their alignment. Also I think that in specific circumstances your alignment can temporarily change. I had a Viking character who was homicidal towards Drow, he collected their ears and vowed to kill all of them, so much so that it reached the point where he was known as "Drow's Bane". However he was one of only three survivors from their viking clan after a Drow attack that slaughtered everyone he ever knew apart from the two others. I play him as solid neutral, he is driven solely by vengeance but he has a code and loyalty to his fellow warriors in his warband. However, when facing Drow he is willing to do anything to kill them, even leaving allies to die. So I think that in situations where there are Drow he temporarily switches to Neutral Evil.
"There is not really a way to run DnD for 10,000 people" - Challenge accepted.
Just replace all NPCs with players and let them do as they wish. You'd need a fairly large team of DMs though, not just one.
and......?
Sounds like you want to play a war game with real people.
@@danacoleman4007 Haven't gotten around to it yet. Still in the planning phase.
I actually made the alignment system CANON in my world of Andomhan. Long ago, in the grand university city of Midlocke, a female Dwarven planar scholar named Gori Galgax (my own little gender bender tribute) wrote the now universally celebrated book 'the Planes and their Nature'. Within she details the planar alignment system, which she uses to describe the nature of the planes (the Nine Hells LE, the Abyss CE, etc.). She also went so far as to use examples of people to explain the alignments. So in my world, GALGAXIAN THINKING is a term used to describe the mindset of categorising people and putting their beliefs into a specific alignment.
While it's generally accepted that the planar alignment system definitely works when describing the outer planes, Galgaxian thinking has come under criticism for being too simple for the Material Plane, which is thought to be either a mixture of all four qualities, or serves as the True Neutral Plane.
A man named Vaun Modette wrote a now equally famous (or rather infamous) book named 'The 3 Problems of Ludd'. The character of Ludd was essentially a mob boss based in the Capital of Clearpoint attempting to spread his organisation to a city now run by the Draconic Empire. He has a desire to help free the people there and maybe get his organisation some extra profits and influence in the process.
Each of the three problems is a demonstration of the contradictions and difficulties that the alignment system comes up against when faced with real people.
THE FIRST PROBLEM explores how Ludd's criminal organisation is, by Galgaxian standards, lawful in its nature, both requiring the state and supporting the state in its very unique way.
THE SECOND PROBLEM discusses the idea that individuals with a loyalty to a god or society might not share an alignment with that god or society. Ludd interacts with many good or chaotic members of his Lawful Evil organisation and also interacts with the many LG and LN Dragonborn members of the Lawful Evil Draconic Empire.
THE THIRD PROBLEM sees Ludd's plans for expansion and rebellion go completely south. In this section we see him, in his desperation, personally carry out acts of great cruelty. He abandons several of his most loyal partners and kills people who we would have considered good. He demonstrates very thoroughly that he is not just a man in a difficult situation or a pragmatist, but rather he is genuinely full on GALGAXIAN EVIL. However we also see in his desperation his attempts to save his wife (who doesn't love him) and his son (who is never going to follow in his father's footsteps). In particular, Ludd's final action is to sacrifice himself to save the life of his brother, a man who devoutly believes in Galgaxian principles and has done nothing but hinder Ludd's progress at every turn. Ludd does this purely out of brotherly love. thus we demonstrate that the Lawful Evil mob boss is capable of acts of good.
I created all this because I wanted to demonstrate to my players that the Alignment system is descriptive, and few characters they every make will neatly fall under one alignment ALL THE TIME. Plus it made for some really cool worldbuilding. I invented the in world concept of Galgaxian heroes and Luddic heroes, which are terms I have my flamboyant Bard NPC throw around all the time now.
So yeah, my solution was to actually make the alignment system, and thus the argument, canon. If anyone who read the whole thing ever wants to use that, or adapt it to suit their own campaign, by all means go ahead. I would be flattered.
+thebobsterjones Just to clarify, I'm not saying Ludd is by any means a 'Hero', just that he is a very unheroic person who was capable of heroics when the right people were at stake. Similarly, I have an outcast Paladin NPC in my world who is a VERY good person who was driven to do a VERY unheroic thing in the past.
I rather like this idea. One of the things that irks me when I read anything in the forgotten realms setting is the fact the creators did not fully embrace their alignment system. They assigned alignements to all the gods and create several spells dependent on them which sort solidifies the importance of alignement in their world. But at the same moment no one in their world (that I've read) actually ever mentions the alignment system by name, nor does it seem to be important in the theology or philosophy or the world like one would imagine. If they hadn't been so timid in intergrating the alignement system into the mindset of the people of their world I think I wouldn't mind it. Instead I have a character who gets aligment thrust upon him after the character creation process and then have it mentioned only when certain spells are used which makes the whole system rather arbitrary and pointless.
Edward Nigma I think you misunderstood. The alignment system is for the players to get an understanding of things, but not necessarily how the world works to a tee. Things are more complicated. No (good) bad guy call themself evil and not all heroes shout from the mountains that they're good. They just are.
TONYSTARK557 In my personal experience it's the veterans that get hung up on cartoonishly following the morality system, not new players. It only confused new players or turn them off. And I'd hardly say the morality system is solely there as an aid since everything is labeled with a morality, whether mortal or god, and as far as I'm aware it's the only system/world that bothers with writting a morality system. But then again our experiences may be different.
Dude, I LOVED the knowledge I just gained watching this. I got some reading to do!!!
I'm watching this playlist from the beginning and as a new DM who's just finished my 3rd session, your experience is invaluable! Thank you
One of my favorite quotes that goes with the good and evil conversation is, "Everybody thinks their the good guy." If you look though other people's eyes you often see that to them what they were doing was good. It has a lot to do with how good and evil is defined within each society.
In this episode, Matt quotes King Voltan, John Milton, and uses the word "triptych." He also encourages us that it's possible to gain 279,000 subscribers in two years. Thanks, Matt, for all you do.
Best way to deal with murderhobos: sick revenants on them!!!
Lets celibrate with a mug of ol' chaotic neutral
In all my years playing D&D this is the best explanation of how alignment should work I've ever heard. Thank you!
Man, it would be awesome if you wrote a book, or even a blog post, about this subject. Alignment has always been vague notion in my mind (and has always been explained to me in vague terms) and you cleared it up in one fell stroke. For now I'll just refer back to this video, and take extensive notes. Thank for the amazing YT channel; keep the awesomeness rolling
I reenacted your doggo story the other day with a very good boy I found on my work route, but I got lucky and didn't have to spend a lot of money
I played a Drow LN assassin during a game years ago (yes, I know, ironically against the rules. LOL). I think this was about 9th level (AD&D) and was developed to be the bodyguard of my LN Mage / Claric. He was "hired" to kill a party, and so he joined the party and ran with them the entire short campaign (probably 8 or 10 gaming sessions). I tried the entire game to find reasons to NOT kill the party and try to figure out a way around my contract, but the entire party treated my character horribly throughout the whole game. At the very end, I "allowed" (read: manuevered) all the other characters to be in a position so they would die during the final battle, all except for one, who happened to be my brother's Ranger. His character had run off and abandoned the rest of the party, which is what allowed me to arrange for their demise since he was the heavy hitter of the group. During the absolute final battle, where the Ranger was fighting the "main" bad guy, I assassinated him right after he won the battle.
I did this in a manner such that not a single _player_ knew what I had done. My brother complained for WEEKS that the DM was unfair during that game and that there is no reason he should have died from the wounds that he had suffered. About 3 weeks later, we were driving someplace and he started a new complaint session, and feeling sorry that Joel was taking the blame, finally fessed up that it was _ME_ that killed the party. He was shocked at first, but then realized that I was right, that his character _had_ treated mine like crap (which he grudgingly admitted that it was exactly what his character would have done, so it was actually _his_ fault for building a character that was bigoted against Drow).
He finally forgave the DM and we never had a falling out over it (which is great because it was his favorite character of all time).
I kind of consider it my crowning achievement as a player. ~evil grin~
Would Judge Dredd be a good example of Lawful Neutral? He seems like a perfect character for that alignment.
He isn't interested in 'Good' or 'Bad' so much as that order is maintained. He has always been my lawful neutral go to example, and although I agree with you I thought your choice of Samurai was a little left field.
Totally, but there’s another discussion of, how lawful is he, which would get a giant handful of people frothing at the mouth to go on the internet and insult people with different views.
@@horserage How lawful he is? He's Dredd. He IS the law!
So I had a look at Magic The Gathering recently,
And I reworked the 5 bases alignments (Good, evil, neutral, chaotic and lawful)
To incorporate the 5 colours in MTG.
Which resulted in 5 alignment catagories,
That combined into 25 alignments.
However I felt like the system much like in 5e was still too basic,
So I cross referenced them into a 3d table of 5x4x5 entries.
(The 4 means I took a shortcut that made it 20% more compact,
Mainly because I'm lazy and already had 1 layer of redundancy.)
So basically I have 98 ideals, bonds and flaws,
Manually plotted into a table, which offers:
5 set of 4 or 5 entries for all 5 pure alignments,
4 sets of 4 or 5 entries for all 20 'standard' alignments
4 sets of 4 to 6 entries for all 60 'tripple' alignments
However most of all, it allows for customisability and neutrality,
You can pick any of these entries and combine them into an interesting character,
But none of the options are classified as good or evil.
The pre-generated sets are just suggestions for when you don't know how to read the table properly,
Once you get a feel for it you can freestyle a bit more.
Law: By default I favor order at the expense of personal freedom.
Chaos: By default I favor personal freedom at the expense of order.
Good: By default I like helping others even if it is at my own expense.
Evil: By default I like helping myself even if it is at someone else's expense.
Ethically Neutral: I do not default to either. It is interchangeable so long as I adhere to my morals.
Morally Neutral: I do not default to either. It is interchangeable so long as I adhere to my ethics.
True Neutral: [has no comprehension of morals or ethics]
Whenever the topic of alignment language comes up, it instantly makes me think it's something on the lines of "other people with the same alignment can easily identify you're on their side"
30:01 "But of course, hindsight is 50-50" haha not sure if this is a mistake of 'hindsight is 20-20' or a comment on hindsight not being so great, but I think I'm going to start using it. Great video as always!
No way to run for 10,000 people? That sounds like quitter talk.
I've always charted alignment as a sort of quick guide to character personality, with the Evil Good being a scale of Selfish Selfless, and Law Chaos being both a representative of the chaos and order struggle, as well as generally being a chart of Logic Emotion in terms of character personality.
This was the first Colville movie I watched many years ago. Since I have watched all of the running the games many times :)
Matt, have you ever considered narrating your own audiobooks? I largely got into your videos because your way of speaking is so engaging. If you did your own audiobooks I'd gobble that up in a heartbeat.
+rmovens OMG too funny, I just started reading his 1st book and my brain reads it in his voice anyway. Great suggestion. XD
is the matt you walk about the marvelous mr Mercer?
+Chill3h In that instance...yes. :D
...Tolkien claimed that his story took place in the past of our earth. He even alludes to it in Fellowship with Frodo's song in Bree.
Yeah, those decades where fantasy fiction transitioned from mainly pulpy short stories to airport paperback trilogies (roughly the mid-60s to the late-70s) went back and forth between the older forms like Ancient Earth (Tolkien's Middle Earth), Far Future Earth (Vance's Dying Earth, Wolfe's New Sun, Terry Brooke's Shannara), Portal Fantasy to Secondary World (Lord Foul's Bane), Secondary World that's historical fantasy with serial numbers filed off (Katherine Kurtz's Deryni), and straight up Secondary World (Andre Norton's Witch World). Even the 80s D&D cartoon was a portal fantasy! I don't think it's until the Eddings' Belgariad and the Dragonlance books and the mainstreaming of D&D/video game RPGs that Secondary World comes to dominate commercial fantasy fiction.
Yay! Harn and Harnmaster. Very good medieval accurate maps, economies and people. They do have new stuff coming out and an updated high-realism rule set. I've ran D&D5e in Harn towns/castles.
Came for the history of alignment in DnD, left with a better sense of how to build characters and a Dr Who recommendation
Not a fan of the "GOOD = We're in this together, EVIL = Every man for himself" idea. I don't see how someone who wants to go it alone is evil, and there are plenty of evil people who help each other out. The selfish/selfless concept is flawed in that there is almost nothing that is truly selfless, and almost everyone acts in selfish ways constantly (you didn't sell your car to buy a cheaper one and give the rest to charity? Evil!).
The real definition of GOOD/EVIL to me is does it cause HARM to others? Does your action, or inaction, allow harm to come to someone else? The only exception being if those actions are in defense of that harm coming to someone (including yourself).
I think in your zeal you are missing the point. You're taking it out of the context of interaction. It's about "We're in this together, so we are kind and patient and helpful", vs. "Every many for himself, so eff you if it means I can get what I want".
that’s just confusing good with lawful and chaotic with evil though
I think the Selfless vs Selfish alignment is more about altruism vs. self-interest. Do you go out of your way to help people, even if it means you stand to lose something and gain nothing? (Good) Do you only help people if you stand to gain something greater from them? (Evil) Or will you still down until you can negotiate a fair exchange of goods and/or services? (Neutral)
@@Keyce0013 You can love your friends to pieces, even while being a horrifying monster to everyone you give no fucks about. Even chaotic evil can be sweet to the people they care about.
I agree, I think the altruism vs, Self-interest dichotomy does not describe Good and Evil very well. Good and Evil is more Compassion Vs. Ruthlessness. As people can still be evil and possess altruistic motives, and a Good aligned character can be motivated primarily by self-interest and still find them selves helping random strangers out of the kindness of their heart, or choosing not to commit and evil deed even if it means not getting what they want in the end. It's mostly about boundaries and what your willing to do to achieve your ends? Are you willing to steal, kill, torture, ect? Or are un willing to harm others in pursuit of your goals, or even more extreamly are you willing to put your own goals aside for the greater good.
If it weren't for the fact that I feel, Civilization vs. Independence were a better description of Law Vs. Chaos I'd almost argue that Altruism and Self interest where better descriptors of that. THough I do think someone motivated almost purely by Altruism does describe Lawful Good pretty well, with someone almost purely motivated by self-interest without any regard for others is the perfect definition fo Chaotic Evil. (Except their are some exceptions to that as you can see The Joker's crusade of converting others into his own nihilistic worldview as a twisted sort of altruism, even if personally I see it as stemming from an egotistical delusion.)
Raistlin is prob my favorite fantasy character of all time👌🏻
You sound eloquent and thoughtful, the perfect person I would love to play D&D with. How do I find people like you to play RPGs with?
Stumbled across your videos while trying to find ways to better my DM skills. Thank you for all of the excellent information and ideas!
Thank you so much for this perspective! My group and I are all new players, and I can already feel one player leaning murderhobo, just as I can also feel their reluctance towards evil alignment. While nothing's set in stone right now, I get so much confidence from knowing that an alignment change mid-game is totally possible should the situation call for it.
Raistlin wasn't Evil, least not at the start of the original trilogy. And if you read outside of that, it becomes a lot harder to tell. There are some epic debates on that... man, I miss the Dragonlance Underground... Anyone remember Lord Soth being a potted Plant, or Raistlin being a woman?
I want to do a game where the traditional alignments are replaced with mtg colors. You can be monocolored or any combination.
I'm so gonna run that game
Doit
My friends and I are currently running a game this way, using MTG colors, it's a lot easier imho.
How do you play with alignments as colors? I understand that certain colors and combinations can be described with alignments (White is Neutral or Lawful good, Blue-White is often Lawful Neutral), but I feel like the colors have more to do with strategy than with alignment.
Anya Bolden I feel like this five-color alignment idea is more a philosophy of Strengths and Weaknesses than morality and honour. Like a Red-Green character would be better doing things spontaneously rather than planning out every action and having contingency plans for when poop hits the fan.
I haven't started the video yet, but i want to say. I think alignments are the worst thing you could possibly think of when making a role playing game. Alignment ties your character to a certain behaviour, and forces an artificial and unatural personality into it. Why do you need alignment? People aren't 100% evil or 100% good, it desn't work like that. You should roleplay your character and his personality without any compromise, and from that you would see what kind of person the character is.
in the realms of DnD people can absolutely be 100% evil or good. unlike the world we live in, the world of DnD is much more black and white.
I viewed alignments very similarly my first ~5 years of D20 -- the following 15+ years (life & gaming D20, D10, GURPS, Fate, etc.) exposed me to a more experienced interpretation of alignment. I asked myself, why am I applying a binary interpretation to the alignment concepts when I rarely do to anything else? I reread the game's definitions and extrapolated a completely different, very gray, definition of the alignment system and how to apply it.
I now interpret alignment as a representative (designation, reminder, tool, etc.) as to how the character, not the player, would ideally (majority of the time / ~60%+) interact with their environment -- not how they always will. Good people are sometimes selfish and Evil people are sometimes selfless. This is where ‘intent of action’ can broaden one’s perspective on alignment. Taking a sentient life is generally unacceptable. Viewed as Evil when done so for personal gain but not-evil when executed out of self-defense or to save a victim -- when it is viewed as tragic (neutral) or even heroic (good) circumstance. Semantics...
Example (start)
Assassin, protected by powerful concealment & disguise magics/techniques, attempts an assassination upon a ranking noble of the kingdom, but is thwarted and cornered. Assassin makes an effort to not be taken alive so attempts death by murder-hobos.
Adventurers relish the fight and are justified in their actions being self-defense -- the most strict applications of alignment are free to kill. The assassin is captured at great risk and party resources. Upon interrogation, it is revealed that the assassin has been magically dominated/perverted, worse yet, the ‘assassin’ is the most trusted friend/family member of the intended target. The assassin was an innocent pawn and used due to their association and proximity to the target. Now the PCs are motivated to find a way to break the domination effect upon the victim/assassin.
The PCs now know they could have killed a high ranking innocent of the royal family who is currently a prisoner within themselves. While in the heat of the moment the PCs were righteous in their actions -- more information has served a very scary moral dilemma. When is the right time to kill? Do they allow this knowledge to freeze them into inaction and allow the nation’s enemies uncontested reign in fear of hurting innocents or do they press on accepting collateral damage justifying their actions for the greater good?
Example (end)
But, this is also predicated upon the type of game and the agreed upon definition of alignment between the DM and the players. I like running balanced games with (mature players) combat, politics, social, intrigue, etc. so I have need of a very flexible alignment system definition -- so I do so. The games I run for my less-mature players are more binary -- less intrigue and more straightforward npcs that wear their emotions on their shirt-sleeves. As they gain more game-system familiarity and maturity, I slowly introduce more developed npcs that create mild moral dilemmas so they hopefully grow to see the world in less of a binary filter. In the end, I try to learn my players and curtail my games to their likes/wishes.
This is my opinion and you may not agree -- which I respect.
I absolutely agree with you. It's one of the major issues I have with DnD. It's just way too black and white (like all drows have to be evil... really...)
This is like, exactly what the video talks about.
In the time of a great darkness over the land, 4 years after the time of these prolific actions, I am observing and enjoying these pronouncements from on high. So much so, I bought your first book. Thanks!
I'm a young person with an old soul... I played a LG paladin in 2nd edition when I first played D&D...in 3.5, in 5e, and now in pathfinder. In all instances, I've absolutely adored extoling the virtues of someone who is not foolhardy or zealous, but GENUINELY just a super good person that strives to be the best they can possibly be for themselves and those around them... like a Samwise Gamgee or an Aragorn type of character. It's so insanely rewarding to play, but it massively depends on who you are playing with and who your DM is. I have the luxury of being a *very* active player compared to most in my party, but even being lawful good gives me an in character excuse to let other people shine and motivate them to be better people no matter who they are.
If it's not obvious, I always have played a Tormite or now paladin of Iomidae in Pathfinder - but the consensus is the same. When you get to have a scene like Samwise Gamgee saying to frodo, "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!" or Aragorn giving a speech to the men of Gondor & Rohan at the Black Gate...it's INSANELY Rewarding in those moments. I love a variety of alignments and always try to be inclusive, but nothing in all of literature moves me personally more than someone nobly sacrificing something in service to something greater than themselves. . That there's some good in this world.. and it's worth fightin' for.
"Do something evil or change your alignment!" So I guess it still is a little PREscriptive then? Since you still expect people to do what they wrote down on the sheet? I get the overall point you make and I agree, but it's still kind of conflicting with the rest.
I think there's an "or" in that advice somewhere. In the middle, maybe?
They could just be playing the long con, or maybe they torture people in their spare time. You only know what they do around you, not what they're planning or what they do in secret.
It could even be a plot hook - the paladin knows this person is tripping their Detect Evil, but they have to investigate to find out why.
I don't think so. I believe what he meant by that, is that Alignment should not be meaningless in regards with the actions your character takes, were it upstream or downstream of the decision making process. In other words, you can do "whatever you want"with your character, but thrive to find the alignement that suits him or her the most. If you want you write down Chaotic Evil on your Drow character sheet because "Drows are typically chaotic evil", but act in accordance with the legal and ethical expectations of society, well... you can! Your Drow could have an original backstory or unique mindset that justifies this. But, you should than change your alignment on your character sheet in order to reflect this mindset. I consider the relationship between players and characters as very similar to new relationships between people: I think a player can discover his character's traits with as much surprise as he would a completely new person! And, just as we can see our first impressions of people be proven wrong, or slightly incorrect, so can our first conception of our own character, therefore justifiying a change on our "official" character sheet.
There's a lot of problems with exactly where you draw the line for the consequences to your actions.
Stealing from some wealthy bank could be considered unlawful and evil in it's own right.
But if you use that money to pay toward some good cause then it could be considered good, if somewhat chaotic.
Then if you find out the bank was actually siphoning money from it's consumers to pay for a war with mercenaries in a foreign country. So would stealing from them still count as unlawful?
It's an unlawful action, but the outcome results in a net increase in lawful behaviour in future.
It's an evil action but the outcome results in a net increase in good behaviour.
Where do you draw the line and say "okay this is where I write on your character sheet that your alignment has changed?
And as a lawful good Paladin would you have your alignment changed when the plan is made and you go along with it or do you just make a fuss about not hurting anyone while stealing?
Is it when someone gets hurt directly or indirectly by your actions?
There's so many holes in the alignment system. And simply using some somantic trickery about prescriptive or descriptive doesn't mean anything.
I would personally resolve it like this;
The paladin would raise a complaint about stealing from the bank but still tag along with the party if they wished (if only to make sure they don't hurt employees). their alignment would not change.
Once the heist is complete and the party donates some money to a charity the paladin would perhaps demand it is all donated to a charity. -their alignment does not change. Although if some employees were hurt then the paladin might take pity on them and follow them up to make sure they are treated fairly.
Once you find out the bank was funding the war abroad the paladin would perhaps take further action to shut down the bank entirely or even inform some official or greater power that this was going on. -their alignment does not change.
At any point during this you could quite reasonably argue the paladin should have their alignment change from lawful to chaotic and good to evil, then it switches back to good and perhaps neutral.
Maybe upon their successful nurturing of any harmed innocents and informing a powerful good group their alignment would finally shift back to lawful.
Thing is though, isn't that a ballache? Constantly punishing the paladin for going along with this plan and keeping them on the straight and narrow just to keep them in line with their god, judging them for every action they make?
It's a tiresome way to play. And do you remove their gifts while they do evil actions or after they've done the actions. is there a wait peroid where their actions are judged by the god after 24 hours?
It's so convoluted, no wonder people argue about alignment.
And I don't see a simple solution other than to ignore it, so long as it doesn't radically alter how that character behaves. Maybe the paladin does all of this under protest but otherwise nothing changes...idk i'm not an authority on this it's clearly up to how the DM dealing with this would judge it.
If one person can even judge this kind of thing without upsetting someone.
"Hindsight's 50/50" -Matt Colville, 2016
Would be interesting to play as a paladin whose oath is just “eat the rich”
Robin Hood men with smites!
My favourite character ever (in pathfinder) was a witch that I envisioned as chaotic good. She was an elf that ran away from home at a young age and survived in the wilds and countryside by herself for a very long time, which meant she wasn't very good socially, but she wanted to do what was right for the people around her, and would do whatever was needed to get to her goal and save people.
As I roleplayed her however, she became a very different character than I ever envisioned her. She became the heart of good in a mostly neutral party, urging and pushing the rest of them to do what was right, and she turned out to be a very lawful kind of person. That organic character growth in her was one of my best roleplay experiences so far.
Also fun fact, not entirely related, was that randomly during a scene in a crowded bar I figured she'd have claustrophobia, having spent almost her entire life outside, and since the start of the campaign was all set in a single city, that put her on the edge a lot.
How I'll be breaking down alignment for my latest game(3.5 if that matters, not familiar with newer eds):
Here is my interpretation and how I will use it. First, good, evil, lawful, chaotic, whatever, at core, no sentient being is purely these things. So, detect evil and the like will not allow you or others to know your alignment. It should be apparent in your actions, usually.
Detect evil is for detecting powerful evil magic, such as artifacts or planar beings like demons and gods.
In regard to what they mean;
Lawful-Chaotic is, in a sense, the political or social alignment.
Good-Evil is the moral alignment.
A lawful character typically believes in social order, hierarchy, and authority, specifically of a political sort. They believe in the governing bodies and institutions and will, generally, defer to them and their laws. When in Rome, within reason. So if a guard gives you a command, you'll likely obey it, not necessarily blindly, and not necessarily if you suspect they are abusing their authority, but generally speaking, you will abide by the governing institutions' political and social authority.
In a sense, a lawful good character may well obey a guard from a lawful evil realm simply because he is lawful. He will try to use the system to establish good rather than resist and rebel.
A chaotic character, however, will be inclined to reject this 'fiat' authority. If a guard gave him a command, he's likely to question or even reject it. Especially if it opposes his moral alignment. He will want reason beyond authority to abide by the law. But, that doesn't mean he will outright resist, but perhaps protest so far as he can without risking his head or freedom.
A good character is inclined to do the 'right' thing in terms of classic morality. Murder, theft, etc, these are bad. Charity, selflessness, these are good.
Evil is the inverse. Deceit is a perfectly acceptable tool, murder may just be seen as practical or efficient. In a way, good is principles and evil is pragmatic. But there is also a drive to act a certain way, a set of values. An evil society may see murdering your rival in cold blood as admirable, while, obviously, a good society would find it detestable.
Finally, neutral simply means you have no strong pull to either side, politically/socially or morally. You simply do as you do to accomplish what you will. You might prefer to act more good than evil, but if in an evil land, you aren't unwilling to act how you may need to make it easier. You are apolitical and/or amoral. You have no strong inclination to any of it. Though you may lean one way or another and simply tolerate that which you don't quite lean toward. You may be more good but not loathe those who commit evil. You may prefer chaos(anti-authority) but tolerate institutional authority.
And you are not just simply neutral.
You have a leaning on one of these. You either are neutral politically but have a strong moral code, good or evil, or you are politically inclined and defer to your political philosophy to direct your actions and motivations while largely ignoring morality.