Have you ever created a character by starting with their alignment? Thanks so much to Dscryb for sponsoring this video! Visit dscryb.com/supergeek and use the code SUPERGEEK at checkout to get 10% off of your first subscription payment. dscryb.com/supergeek
I've created several of my characters starting with the alignment, now that I think about it; including me most recent character, which was Lawful Good. I wanted to play a character that fit the paragon trope. LG and CE are my favorite alignments to play, so there's been a few times that I start with the question of which of those two alignments do I want to play.
to me chaotic neutral seams like when wolverine was living in the woods in the begining of the wolverine movie, the one with the giant samurai robot LOL
I feel like the more nuanced version of the Good V Evil spectrum is Good is trying to help the most people possible and trying to limit the pain to most, Neutral is trying to help your direct people, whether the party, the family or the community, so letting a different town be attacked to save your family, and Evil is putting your needs before all else. Still not perfect, but I feel like it helps fill out the Neutral line a bit more.
That makes sense. I've personally viewed the Neutral alignments as more "apathetic". I'm playing a True Neutral character right now who's helping out the party and generally doing good, the reason I see him as Neutral is all he wants is to live a quite, mundane life. He doesn't care about the bigger picture or any greater ideals unless they directly impact him or the people he's close to.
I kinda disagree, because I think that an important part of Good vs. Evil is that while Selflessness vs Selfishness is part of it, it cannot be the entirety of it. A soldier who fights on the side of the aggressor in a brutal war of conquest because they believe that the glory of their cause and their duty to their homeland is more important than their own life or happiness is selfless, but they're certainly not Good. (That kind of character would be Lawful Neutral) An evil character can still have people they care about and whose benefit they will work for, but the only thing that motivates them to help those people is that those are people _they_ care about (and so seeing them harmed would harm them too, by making them feel bad). If they have to harm people they don't know to help the people they care about, they will do so with no hesitation or remorse. And if they encounter strangers in the same situation, they wouldn't help them without it benefitting, even if it cost them nothing to do so. So I would say that a character who only helps a small group of people isn't automatically neutral and I would go so far as to say that anyone who only cares about the wellbeing of people they actively consider part of their 'in group' _and_ doesn't care about harm to anyone who they consider 'other' is actively evil.
For alignment, I've started using the MTG (Magic: The Gathering) color wheel. Each color has a different type of personality, ideals, and traits. It helps me understand a NPC/PC more because you can overlap traits/ideals on a character. Its not so stagnate as the D&D chart. The MTG color wheel can have characters hold to as few or many colors has the player wants for that story.
I've always had my own way of looking at alignment (mostly a way of reconciling viewing myself as more "Lawful" leaning with how much that's often demonized as "blindly following society"), but I doubt many others see it this way. I view Law/Chaos more in terms of personality types. Lawful people are routine-oriented and like making plans, Chaotic people are spontaneous, and Neutral are those who are a bit of both. I like this because there's advantages to both mindsets. Lawful people are less vulnerable to acting rashly without thinking, but are more easily caught off guard by unexpected events. Chaotic people are better at thinking on the fly, but might make rash decisions without considering the consequences until it's too late.
selfless and selfish is a good analogy for good and evil i think, law and chaos, a good definition i think is believing in the worth of structure and regulation vs the worth of liberty to act as you see fit
I appreciate how you just say “whatever” to WotC’s idea of replacing ‘race’ with ‘species’ and instead use ‘ancestry’. Sure, Pathfinder got there first, but recognizing that they got it right makes more sense than trying to avoid using a public domain word as if it were under copyright.
I dunno. I feel like ancestry has its own significant problems from a linguistic standpoint. In the sense that, for instance, a character who has a single Orc twelve generations back and two Elves twenty and five generations back in their ancestry _has_ Orc ancestry and Elf ancestry, but they have neither _the_ Orc, nor Elf Ancestry. And for that matter if we use real life examples, every human alive today is undeniably a member of the species Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens), but large segments of us have at least some ancestry from the different human species Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis). That's (part of) their ancestry, but it doesn't make those people Neanderthals rather than Modern Humans.
@@RvEijndhoven - There’s no single term which will encompass all that, yet we need a term to convey to the player “come up with a biological starting point”. From a certain perspective, ‘race’ may be technically correct, but if it’s misunderstood, it may turn people off before anyone has a chance to explain the intent. ‘Ancestry’ may be imperfect, but the term has less chance of being as misunderstood. In the Ghostfire Gaming setting of Arora, there’s just a list of abilities which tie to the character’s physical background. There’s a point system to buy abilities, mixing and describing them however you like. The complex ancestry you described could be represented as ‘half-elf’, ‘half-orc’, or simply ‘human’. It’s a little funny that humans can interbreed with other species, but I guess that’s their fantasy ability.
@@Keovar Well... Humans have interbred with other species in real life too. Neanderthals, as I mentioned, and also Denisovans (and probably a few other early hominids we haven't discovered yet). Different species can interbreed as long as they're genetically close enough. Ligers (and Tigons) and Mules (and hinnies) are common examples most people know, but they're often sterile, because while they're genetically similar, those similar genes are spread out over a different number of chromosomes. Hybridisation is also fairly common in various species of Dolphin and those are often fertile, because many (but not all) Dolphins have the same number of chromosomes. There's even a whole species of Dolphin, the Clymene, that resulted from a stable mix of two different Dolphin species (Spinners and Striped Dolphins), that reached a population size large enough to self-sustain. The 'problem' with the term species as a replacement for race in D&D lies not in the word chosen, but in the incorrect preconceptions people have about what the word means. For all the playable heritages in D&D to be different races of the same species, you'd need to be able to, if you selectively bred humans with the right features long enough, end up with, for instance, an Orc. Or an Elf. Or a Thri-Kreen... For Humans and Orcs to interbreed despite being different species, you'd just need them to have close similarities on a genetic level (or whatever magical thing substitutes for DNA in D&D) to be compatible (and the same number of chromosomes, if you want them to be fertile).
@@RvEijndhoven - Yes, I know there were once other types of humans on Earth, but fantasy usually goes with creationist origin stories, so genetics needn't be a concern. We don't need a term that accurately reflects scientific reality because basic biology isn't what most players are wanting from a fantasy game. "Ancestry" fits the theme. Half-elves and half-orcs are in D&D because Tolkien had them in his novels.
@@Keovar The point is more that species is not a bad word to replace 'race' in D&D, because most of the objections are related to people thinking that species can't interbreed, so children between orcs and humans or elves and humans which are canon in the forgotten realms (and so are children of orcs and elves, dwarves and elves and orcs and dwarves) would be impossible. But that's not true. Species is more or less the best word for what a 'race' in pre-OneD&D editions of D&D actually means. Meanwhile 'Ancestry' has its own major problem. A character having the Human 'Ancestry' doesn't mean that all their ancestors were actually human. Heck, a character with the Tiefling 'ancestry' could have more humans in their _actual_ ancestry than a character with the Human 'Ancestry', but because they outwardly show the signs of having one single fiend among their ancestry, they're treated as entirely separate from their human ancestry. And all that comes eerily close to the way racial categories are applied in the US. Where for the longest time (and in many cases still today) anyone with even a single black ancestor is automatically considered fully black themselves. In theory, at least. In practice they can usually avoid being considered black if they 'pass' for white. Much the same way that only people for whom the fact that they have a fiend in their ancestry is _visible_ are considered part of the Tiefling 'Ancestry', even though one of their parents usually has (by virtue of contributing only half of their child's ancestry) half as many non-fiend ancestors, but are considered of the Human 'Ancestry' because they don't _look_ -black- erhm... Fiendish.
A "game" I often play for myself at home is letting the dice build my character. Roll for Ancestry, then For Class, then for Background. Once I have my results, then I come up with the character's story and personality. It's been great fun not knowing what I would come up with
I made a bard cultist for an evil campaign. Basically he works as a recruiter and potential enforcer for said cult. The way I'm using him is that he loves to sow chaos, but knows when to cool his jets. Overall, he'll try to bullshit a bit and might steal some things, but he'll only "go nova" in moments that warrant it.
I am curious what character would come about if you directly took the opposite of the "typical" character idea? Like, if you took Paladin, go for an Evil alignment. Or in this instance, make an anarchist with the Noble background?
I've always liked the idea of a "good" Oathbreaker Paladin. By starting out as an Oath of Conquest Paladin, an Evil Paladin subclass that forces you to act like a tyrant, and having a redemption arc, you technically break your oath. The Oathbreaker abilities are CLEARLY intended for an evil Paladin, but, while apparently the mechanics don't work that way, it'd be fun to play a totally heroic Oathbreaker who uses all those dark and necromantic powers for good.
My current party is Chaotic Good, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Lawful Evil. While this may seen like a recipe for disaster, it mostly has meant that people that treat them decently are also treated decently. While people that treat them awfully are brought under the full might of their power. It's been fun.
I always start with alignment when making my characters (typically for 5e). It serves as a good foundation & overlay for both figuring out what their background & personality are, as well as what class(es) they ultimately are. As for how I look at the sliding scale: * Good vs Evil = Selfless vs Selfish, in the same vein as the interpretation you mentioned in your video. Someone "good" is more willing to put themselves at risk for others and sacrifice of themselves for others. Someone "evil", on the other hand, puts themselves first more often and is more willing to hurt to limit others to get what they want. * Law vs Chaos = Cooperation vs Independence. I find this one a lot easier to grasp, imo. The more lawful one is, the more one tends towards order, hierarchies, the rule of law, and relying on others to achieve goals. On the chaotic end by contrast, you focus on yourself first and typically avoid relying on systems or other people for your goals, often to the point of saying "screw the rules" and making a beeline for whatever it is you're after (all of which leads to the chaotic people often being more unpredictable).
I find the idea of 'Lawful vs Chaotic = Cooperation vs. Independence' to be deeply flawed. Probably because I'm an anarchist, specifically a social anarchist, and we believe deeply in cooperation and relying on each other, while strongly opposing laws and hierarchies. There _are_ anarchists who are strongly devoted to independence and individualism (nor suprisingly referred to as 'individualist anarchists', although that's a bit of a muddied term since it refers both to anarchists theorists who have focussed more on the role of individuals in the cooperation necessary for anarchism to thrive, which isn't who I'm referring to, and to people who believe that complete self-sufficiency for every person rather than cooperation is necessary at all for anarchism to thrive). But then there are also people who believe strongly in law and order and hierarchies while also pontificating loudly on the importance of individualism and personal responsibility. Mostly because they don't want people to cooperate at all unless it's on their terms (say, 'cooperating' as individual employees in their company, but not _cooperating_ as members of union asking for a liveable wage from said company).
I've said this before, but it bears repeating, this is my personal interpretation of the alignment chart: Good-Evil is how society perceives your actions Lawful-Chaotic is how strongly you adhere to a personal code. This creates an array that has the potential to play nice with a party from any square, and still be productive.
I have sometimes viewed lawful and chaotic as the manner and way you do your actions. And good - evil I sometimes think can be seen as pro anti status quo or the way that you feel about systems or your ideals
@@yostinator81 I had an in-game bard npc once argue that the dichotomy of lawful and chaotic was identical to the dichotomy of good and evil because both notions simply sought to uphold the status quo of whichever society a person inhabited
Thank you so much for portraying a character that's ACTUALLY chaotic neutral, and addressing the ridiculousness that is "chaotic neutral characters act randomly".
I feel like this framework would be good to seed a campaign from the dungeon master perspective. The buy-in being that the players all share at least one alignment and you build the campaign around that. Perhaps the corner alignments would have combat Focus campaign. The true neutral alignment would be a social Focus campaign. The partly neutral alignments would have a campaign built around exploration. I like the idea of an extra planar campaign where alignments tangibly matter in a first edition sort of way. True neutral campaign would be about making allies in the partly neutral alignment factions and protecting an artifact or area from the radical Corner alignment factions. I would see the partly neutral party as a group of explorers that are generally focused on collecting powerful objects and consolidating them for their faction. I would see the corner alignments in a similar light to the devil-demon dynamics of the Blood war so that's why the corner alignments are combat focused. Each of the alignments could be given a particular class or Guild that best represents them in the world. As always, your videos are great and inspire Imagination.
You using the "L" word saved me from having to say it. I have seen so many players play CN as the "troll" behavior as you said. It led to me pretty much outright banning it as a playable alignment because so few do a proper job of it. Gandalf may have been grumpy, but, he was very charismatic; his force of personality was immense. Definitely an interesting approach, but, one I don't see ever using, myself, barring unusual campaign parameters.
Another tension with considering alignment is whether you define it by a character's actions or their intentions, because sometimes those things are not aligned (pardon the pun). I had a character that I believe began as sort of chaotic neutral, anti-establishment, and anti-authoritarian, but once she started to garner power she wanted to cause reform and help out all the poor and disenfranchised people in her city, particularly orphans. To that, I began viewing her as more of a chaotic good character (and I still do). However, she was too naive and too much a victim of her trauma to really know how to bring about that change in a healthy way, which led to her forming a pact with a devil for the necessary power to stop anybody else suffering in the same way she had. There was always a temptation towards evil there, but she merely saw the devils as a means to an end (and I suppose it's not up to me to judge whether deals with devils are inherently evil, even if she only ever used that power to bring what she perceived as justice to the people that perpetuated the system that caused people like her to suffer). In any case, our DM made me bump her alignment down to evil as a result of taking that deal, but that never sat too well with me. She was very much filling a dark anti-hero sort of archetype, but her motivation was always to help innocent people, to the point that she reneged on the deal unto her death when she was forced into a position where she would have to turn on her friends to bring her plans to fruition. Though maybe that in itself puts her back in the realm of neutrality, as an evil character wouldn't have hesitated to turn on friends, and a good character may have seen it as the necessary cost to slay the few to save the many, and that personal attachment to those people doesn't give them any inherent value over the lives of others. This turned into an essay, and it wasn't meant to, but I guess my point is that the character's motivation to save and protect innocent people and the people she loved never changed through that journey, but her means and actions did. Should this constitute a change in alignment? Is all that swing between moral and immoral acts simply emblematic of a chaotic alignment? If that is the case, why would we ever need the other alignments?
As someone who is very self isolating irl i tend to make similar to the one you have here, really interesting to think about the different ways one could embody chaotic neutral
You're the second person on Dnd RUclips I've seen define law vs chaos as, essentially, cities vs nature and what's interesting to me about that is Druids, the most pro-nature class, were long expected to be Neutral, not Chaotic. But that got me thinking, Druids were introduced when Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic were the only alignments. At the time, Law and Chaos essentially meant Good and Evil (seriously, with a couple exceptions like Elves almost every Chaotic creature/character was described in a way that made it clear they were, at best, entirely self-interested and would abandon their allies at the first sign of losing). This means that Druids were Neutral not because they didn't care about Nature vs Large-Scale societies, but because they didn't care about the Good vs Evil aspect of what Law and Chaos were at the time. In conclusion, in modern D&D more druids should be Chaotic Neutral
That view of Druids reminds me a bit of how Warhammer used to handle Elves. High Elves were good (well, as close as you can get for Warhammer, they were still elitist dicks), Dark Elves were evil, and Wood Elves were somewhere in between. They'll help if it benefits them and mercilessly kill you if they view you as a threat, but are pretty insular and don't care about wider struggles.
I didnt start with alignment. But I played in a princes of the apocalypse game where I was a tortle tempest cleric hermit. And he used to be a powerful warlord who went into hiding so not to be used as a weapon anymore. Then he got a vision of the apocalypse that brought him back to rejoin society at the start of the campaign. His name was Roshi.
I’ve always been interested in the concept of alignment but the execution is always confusing. I think it’s cool to try to pin down your characters values into one or two words but the potential and what can be understood is great. I think having some sorta example of what each alignment is like. I think it can allow for unique role play once it doesn’t limit everything you’d do
I tend to think of alignment as a broad-strokes representation of a character's politics - individualist versus collectivist, liberal versus authoritarian. It's not perfect, no model is, but it's a frame the mostly works. I also tend to think of ethical alignment (law vs chaos) not as two opposite extremes and a compromise between them, but as the three classical modes of discourse: lawful is ethos (tradition), chaotic is pathos (emotion), neutral is logos (reason).
I think certain in-character actions tend to really highlight the subjectivity of good and evil, in that they'll swing you disproportionately far towards evil in the eyes of some tables and not as much at others. You bring up the matter of whether theft or torture can be justifiable, which are two good examples, but there are lots of others I've come across. For instance: is raising the dead inherently evil? If so, why? If not, when is it justifiable and when is it not? Is trading material goods or worldly services for one's own soul always inherently evil? If so, which side of the bargain is the evildoer? Is it both of them? What about the devils whose job it is to enforce those contracts for both parties? Would attempting to break such a contract after the devil's side has been fulfilled inherently be an act of good? What about when celestials start making deals with mortals? I enjoy questions like these, which is why I think alignment should only be one of many tools, and it's important to consider whose opinion it ultimately represents. It's also part of why I love playing and GMing for warlocks.
I was watching the wrap up episode of exu Calamity and Travis said he made his characters with a picture in mind, not of the person but with a weapon or accessory and go from there. I thought that was super interesting and don’t think I’ve heard/considered that approach before.
I’ve been playing in an “evil” campaign for a while now, but rather than be cartoonishly villainous or giant assholes, we are instead just playing very selfishly motivated characters. It’s been a lot of fun. Why are we going out hunting monsters and slaying bad guys? Because we are mercenaries wanting money. Am I going to betray the party and steal the magical artifact to try and resurrect my dead sister instead of turning it in to our employer? Probably. But I also think every other party member is going to try and steal it, too! It’s been a blast
Its really fun to see the video tieing all the thoughts together after having experienced the creation process as well. These videos of following any random thread into a full personality were really helpful for me in making my last change even when I didn't start with any of the starting points you used yet. ( I got inspired by the Fey Foundling feat, dovetailing with the celestial obedience feat,, pathfinder feats)
I feel that alignment is somewhat confusing and althought I ask my players to add it, I never try to police their decissions because, as you said, it's not fun for the player. I might throw a line between good and evil if they start doing several evil actions consecutively, but I would talk with the player and let them know if that is the road they want to take and avoid not letting enjoy their new lifestyle.
Not shure it was a comment of mine previously that you got it because it’s not a unique idea but I am a prescriber or the Selfless vs selfish good v evil in alighnment. Verry cool to see B). My lawful vs chaotic for me is more on personal laws vs no laws, than as a structured system, definitely an interesting way to put it and fits as a better way to establish distinctions of the two that are more solid. Much swanky verry cool
I fear you made a Character ... but not a workable PC. The way you explained your character through, it doesn't sound like someone who would adventure with anyone or be adventured with by anyone. Other than that, I love your videos! Great Job.
I think the best CN character example in pop culture is Captain Jack Sparrow He does what benefits him the most, without giving a sh*t to what people think about him
I really felt that "please dont make this a libertarian". Wheneber I see a player obviously make a character to be fantasy right wingers i just internally groan. Especially as someone who makes my worlds very diverse seeing them froth at the mouth with barely contained bigotry is... Part satisfying part terrifying.
They could be a doomsday prepper, in denial of having social needs and delusional about how long they can really survive entirely alone. Maybe they tried going alone for a while, but the isolation drove them close to madness. Subconsciously, some part of their mind knows they need social interaction to retain functional sanity. The need to warn the world of impending doom is just a rationalization to maintain their ideology in principle while violating it in practice. Just be sure your group knows and trusts that you’re still a team player underneath the moody loner shell.
i chose chaotic neutral for my character because like they have their own morals and views on the world based on the society they live in, it's just that that society differs wildly from the others in the world, and thus my characters morals look like an absolute mess to others
If my player would be rolling for stats and s/he should roll way lower than the rest, I would just give them a feat. If they all rolled low, then it doesn't really matter because you are the one who makes the world and you should just consider that they need something slightly less challenging than a different group of people if they do a lot of fighting.
Unless you are talking about a clerical character, alignment should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.I generally play a Neutral Good character, because my values could be described as Neutral Good, and I believe strongly in my values and cannot imagine myself playing a PC with differing values.
I think you are somewhat misrepresenting alignment by being sort of reductionistic with the whole Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil. It is not that the alignment system is somehow analogous to religions, faiths or different types of personal thoughts of governance and morality. It does however still mechanically represent what 'side' the being 'aligns' itself in regards to the metaphysical cosmic forces that is constantly locked in an eternal conflict about what ethereal force will govern the fundamentals of existence. The creators of D&D were inspired by the dichotomy found in the novels of famous fantasy author Michael Moorcock, who himself were inspired by early 1900s occult writing, which in turn were inspired by earlier Gnostic writing. While that cosmic conflict trickles down into the multiverse via emanations that influences the essentiality, nature and being of the creatures that inhabit them, that is also expressed in constructionistic formulations of government, lifestyle, and morality, they are still fundamental esoteric cosmic forces that govern the mortals on the material plane and the other planes of existence. For example, a Druid that lives out in the woods in an anarchistic commune will still (most likely) be aligned to the metaphysical concept of cosmic Law, because without it there no stability, structure, nor no system in nature and in life which the druid bases their entire being on being in sync with. If Chaos would reign, it would be as an aberration that would reduce all form and meaning to chaotic flux, a force of Entropy that would seek to mutate all of reality into an ever-shifting void of random energies. This concept isn't just a creation of early 20th century occultism or late 20th century Fantasy, but an inherently primordial thought in Humans, as many religions around the world describe an ether, a cosmos, an existence without anything. The metaphysical void state preceding the creation of the universe. Where there was nothing and where everything was ruled by arbitrary randomness.There was no thought and no order. There was no structure, nothing that governed nothing, nothing to tell things how it should be, no fundamental nature of any kind. A state of primordial chaos. This is exemplified in the concept of the Ginnungagap in Norse Mythology, for example. At first, there existed nothing, the Ginnungagap, and the realms of primordial fire and heat and ice and cold. Only was the 'cosmos made right' when the Gods, who came into existence for just that purpose, conducted the first primordial sacrifice (by slaying and offering up Ymir, the metaphysical and corporeal embodiment of Chaos, and with his body they metaphysically created the universe, and gave it laws, rules, structures, nature together with the physical world. That is why almost all humanoids and other material plane sentient creatures should be Lawful (Good, Neutral, or Evil) as we are inherent creatures of Law. For example, creatures created/influenced by the Metaphysical Cosmic Chaotic Force like Fiends (Demons) are therefore inherently Chaotic (Evil). Meanwhile, Fiends (Devils) are Lawful (Evil) as they are creatures created/influenced by the opposite fundamental cosmic force. As for why Chaotic deities exists (compared to real-life mythologies and religion where Chaos is an utterly negative force) is because D&D evolved through editions to incorporate Moorcockian concept of Balance of the the metaphysical cosmic forces; where too much Law will smother individuality, luck, and free will and too much Chaos will degenerate into the material world into arbitrariness, irrationalism and unfairness. There needs to be a balance (a concept often found in fantasy works, like Star Wars, inspired by New-Age religions) for the fundamental cosmic order to be, ironically, in order. If we go back to 1974 to the early days of D&D, then we can see that there was no such concept of Balance. Law was seen as an inherently good force, like in real-life, but since then alignment evolved since then to put more focus on the balance aspect, and now ultimately on the individual's personal beliefs rather than as their inherent cosmic alignment. TL;DR: I made a Paladin of Tymora that respects and believes in authority, law, community, and order, that has to deal with his lived experiences of being lucky (while others were not) and his belief that luck has to be earned, which has led him to be chosen and blessed by Tymora, which has ballooned into a lot of awesome in-character roleplaying about the concepts of alignment and the nature of the universe.
@@emilymitchell6823 Thank you, Emily. Everyone is of course free to run their game however they want, but that is the origin and thought behind the alignment system, and I personally believe that it can lead to a lot of interesting roleplay, themes, and stories.
I do not care for alignment if i were to use anything like it in a RPG game. It would Nature and Demeanor like use in the world of darkness games. but I have not played it in over 20+ years
In the entire history of the hobby, alignment most often comes up as an excuse for DMs to punish paladin and cleric players, paladin players to punish the rest of the play group, or for pedantic douchebags to have 4 hour long arguments on esoteric moral relativisms and terminologies that never actually mattered for the game. In some cases defining the alignments like this makes some of the problems go away. Good = Selfless Evil = Selfish Lawful = Dogmatic Chaotic = Shameless Neutral = Pragmatic In practice though, alignment is fuel for fights and gatekeeping. The five colors of the Magic the Gathering Color Pie are a much better alignment system than the one D&D has been using since TSR started circling the drain.
Have you ever created a character by starting with their alignment?
Thanks so much to Dscryb for sponsoring this video! Visit dscryb.com/supergeek and use the code SUPERGEEK at checkout to get 10% off of your first subscription payment.
dscryb.com/supergeek
I've created several of my characters starting with the alignment, now that I think about it; including me most recent character, which was Lawful Good. I wanted to play a character that fit the paragon trope.
LG and CE are my favorite alignments to play, so there's been a few times that I start with the question of which of those two alignments do I want to play.
to me chaotic neutral seams like when wolverine was living in the woods in the begining of the wolverine movie, the one with the giant samurai robot LOL
I feel like the more nuanced version of the Good V Evil spectrum is Good is trying to help the most people possible and trying to limit the pain to most, Neutral is trying to help your direct people, whether the party, the family or the community, so letting a different town be attacked to save your family, and Evil is putting your needs before all else. Still not perfect, but I feel like it helps fill out the Neutral line a bit more.
That makes sense. I've personally viewed the Neutral alignments as more "apathetic". I'm playing a True Neutral character right now who's helping out the party and generally doing good, the reason I see him as Neutral is all he wants is to live a quite, mundane life. He doesn't care about the bigger picture or any greater ideals unless they directly impact him or the people he's close to.
I kinda disagree, because I think that an important part of Good vs. Evil is that while Selflessness vs Selfishness is part of it, it cannot be the entirety of it.
A soldier who fights on the side of the aggressor in a brutal war of conquest because they believe that the glory of their cause and their duty to their homeland is more important than their own life or happiness is selfless, but they're certainly not Good. (That kind of character would be Lawful Neutral)
An evil character can still have people they care about and whose benefit they will work for, but the only thing that motivates them to help those people is that those are people _they_ care about (and so seeing them harmed would harm them too, by making them feel bad). If they have to harm people they don't know to help the people they care about, they will do so with no hesitation or remorse. And if they encounter strangers in the same situation, they wouldn't help them without it benefitting, even if it cost them nothing to do so.
So I would say that a character who only helps a small group of people isn't automatically neutral and I would go so far as to say that anyone who only cares about the wellbeing of people they actively consider part of their 'in group' _and_ doesn't care about harm to anyone who they consider 'other' is actively evil.
For alignment, I've started using the MTG (Magic: The Gathering) color wheel. Each color has a different type of personality, ideals, and traits. It helps me understand a NPC/PC more because you can overlap traits/ideals on a character.
Its not so stagnate as the D&D chart. The MTG color wheel can have characters hold to as few or many colors has the player wants for that story.
MTG Color wheel hell yeah
I've always had my own way of looking at alignment (mostly a way of reconciling viewing myself as more "Lawful" leaning with how much that's often demonized as "blindly following society"), but I doubt many others see it this way. I view Law/Chaos more in terms of personality types. Lawful people are routine-oriented and like making plans, Chaotic people are spontaneous, and Neutral are those who are a bit of both.
I like this because there's advantages to both mindsets. Lawful people are less vulnerable to acting rashly without thinking, but are more easily caught off guard by unexpected events. Chaotic people are better at thinking on the fly, but might make rash decisions without considering the consequences until it's too late.
I’d be interested in your take on evil character generation/play. How to incorporate them with a party of typical alignments, etc.
selfless and selfish is a good analogy for good and evil i think,
law and chaos, a good definition i think is believing in the worth of structure and regulation vs the worth of liberty to act as you see fit
Oh boy I wonder if he'll studiously avoid a Lawful Good paladin...
EDIT: Random roll, I like it.
I appreciate how you just say “whatever” to WotC’s idea of replacing ‘race’ with ‘species’ and instead use ‘ancestry’. Sure, Pathfinder got there first, but recognizing that they got it right makes more sense than trying to avoid using a public domain word as if it were under copyright.
I dunno. I feel like ancestry has its own significant problems from a linguistic standpoint. In the sense that, for instance, a character who has a single Orc twelve generations back and two Elves twenty and five generations back in their ancestry _has_ Orc ancestry and Elf ancestry, but they have neither _the_ Orc, nor Elf Ancestry.
And for that matter if we use real life examples, every human alive today is undeniably a member of the species Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens), but large segments of us have at least some ancestry from the different human species Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis).
That's (part of) their ancestry, but it doesn't make those people Neanderthals rather than Modern Humans.
@@RvEijndhoven - There’s no single term which will encompass all that, yet we need a term to convey to the player “come up with a biological starting point”. From a certain perspective, ‘race’ may be technically correct, but if it’s misunderstood, it may turn people off before anyone has a chance to explain the intent. ‘Ancestry’ may be imperfect, but the term has less chance of being as misunderstood.
In the Ghostfire Gaming setting of Arora, there’s just a list of abilities which tie to the character’s physical background. There’s a point system to buy abilities, mixing and describing them however you like.
The complex ancestry you described could be represented as ‘half-elf’, ‘half-orc’, or simply ‘human’. It’s a little funny that humans can interbreed with other species, but I guess that’s their fantasy ability.
@@Keovar Well... Humans have interbred with other species in real life too. Neanderthals, as I mentioned, and also Denisovans (and probably a few other early hominids we haven't discovered yet).
Different species can interbreed as long as they're genetically close enough. Ligers (and Tigons) and Mules (and hinnies) are common examples most people know, but they're often sterile, because while they're genetically similar, those similar genes are spread out over a different number of chromosomes.
Hybridisation is also fairly common in various species of Dolphin and those are often fertile, because many (but not all) Dolphins have the same number of chromosomes.
There's even a whole species of Dolphin, the Clymene, that resulted from a stable mix of two different Dolphin species (Spinners and Striped Dolphins), that reached a population size large enough to self-sustain.
The 'problem' with the term species as a replacement for race in D&D lies not in the word chosen, but in the incorrect preconceptions people have about what the word means.
For all the playable heritages in D&D to be different races of the same species, you'd need to be able to, if you selectively bred humans with the right features long enough, end up with, for instance, an Orc. Or an Elf. Or a Thri-Kreen...
For Humans and Orcs to interbreed despite being different species, you'd just need them to have close similarities on a genetic level (or whatever magical thing substitutes for DNA in D&D) to be compatible (and the same number of chromosomes, if you want them to be fertile).
@@RvEijndhoven - Yes, I know there were once other types of humans on Earth, but fantasy usually goes with creationist origin stories, so genetics needn't be a concern.
We don't need a term that accurately reflects scientific reality because basic biology isn't what most players are wanting from a fantasy game. "Ancestry" fits the theme.
Half-elves and half-orcs are in D&D because Tolkien had them in his novels.
@@Keovar The point is more that species is not a bad word to replace 'race' in D&D, because most of the objections are related to people thinking that species can't interbreed, so children between orcs and humans or elves and humans which are canon in the forgotten realms (and so are children of orcs and elves, dwarves and elves and orcs and dwarves) would be impossible. But that's not true. Species is more or less the best word for what a 'race' in pre-OneD&D editions of D&D actually means.
Meanwhile 'Ancestry' has its own major problem. A character having the Human 'Ancestry' doesn't mean that all their ancestors were actually human. Heck, a character with the Tiefling 'ancestry' could have more humans in their _actual_ ancestry than a character with the Human 'Ancestry', but because they outwardly show the signs of having one single fiend among their ancestry, they're treated as entirely separate from their human ancestry.
And all that comes eerily close to the way racial categories are applied in the US.
Where for the longest time (and in many cases still today) anyone with even a single black ancestor is automatically considered fully black themselves. In theory, at least. In practice they can usually avoid being considered black if they 'pass' for white. Much the same way that only people for whom the fact that they have a fiend in their ancestry is _visible_ are considered part of the Tiefling 'Ancestry', even though one of their parents usually has (by virtue of contributing only half of their child's ancestry) half as many non-fiend ancestors, but are considered of the Human 'Ancestry' because they don't _look_ -black- erhm... Fiendish.
A "game" I often play for myself at home is letting the dice build my character. Roll for Ancestry, then For Class, then for Background. Once I have my results, then I come up with the character's story and personality. It's been great fun not knowing what I would come up with
I made a bard cultist for an evil campaign. Basically he works as a recruiter and potential enforcer for said cult. The way I'm using him is that he loves to sow chaos, but knows when to cool his jets. Overall, he'll try to bullshit a bit and might steal some things, but he'll only "go nova" in moments that warrant it.
I am curious what character would come about if you directly took the opposite of the "typical" character idea? Like, if you took Paladin, go for an Evil alignment. Or in this instance, make an anarchist with the Noble background?
I've always liked the idea of a "good" Oathbreaker Paladin. By starting out as an Oath of Conquest Paladin, an Evil Paladin subclass that forces you to act like a tyrant, and having a redemption arc, you technically break your oath. The Oathbreaker abilities are CLEARLY intended for an evil Paladin, but, while apparently the mechanics don't work that way, it'd be fun to play a totally heroic Oathbreaker who uses all those dark and necromantic powers for good.
My current party is Chaotic Good, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Lawful Evil.
While this may seen like a recipe for disaster, it mostly has meant that people that treat them decently are also treated decently. While people that treat them awfully are brought under the full might of their power. It's been fun.
I always start with alignment when making my characters (typically for 5e). It serves as a good foundation & overlay for both figuring out what their background & personality are, as well as what class(es) they ultimately are.
As for how I look at the sliding scale:
* Good vs Evil = Selfless vs Selfish, in the same vein as the interpretation you mentioned in your video. Someone "good" is more willing to put themselves at risk for others and sacrifice of themselves for others. Someone "evil", on the other hand, puts themselves first more often and is more willing to hurt to limit others to get what they want.
* Law vs Chaos = Cooperation vs Independence. I find this one a lot easier to grasp, imo. The more lawful one is, the more one tends towards order, hierarchies, the rule of law, and relying on others to achieve goals. On the chaotic end by contrast, you focus on yourself first and typically avoid relying on systems or other people for your goals, often to the point of saying "screw the rules" and making a beeline for whatever it is you're after (all of which leads to the chaotic people often being more unpredictable).
I find the idea of 'Lawful vs Chaotic = Cooperation vs. Independence' to be deeply flawed. Probably because I'm an anarchist, specifically a social anarchist, and we believe deeply in cooperation and relying on each other, while strongly opposing laws and hierarchies.
There _are_ anarchists who are strongly devoted to independence and individualism (nor suprisingly referred to as 'individualist anarchists', although that's a bit of a muddied term since it refers both to anarchists theorists who have focussed more on the role of individuals in the cooperation necessary for anarchism to thrive, which isn't who I'm referring to, and to people who believe that complete self-sufficiency for every person rather than cooperation is necessary at all for anarchism to thrive).
But then there are also people who believe strongly in law and order and hierarchies while also pontificating loudly on the importance of individualism and personal responsibility. Mostly because they don't want people to cooperate at all unless it's on their terms (say, 'cooperating' as individual employees in their company, but not _cooperating_ as members of union asking for a liveable wage from said company).
Words. Words to describe Alignment. Back in the old days we just had initials. CE vs LG. Etc. :)
I made a lawful evil character for a good centric campaign. Verenge is one of my favorite characters I ever played.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating, this is my personal interpretation of the alignment chart:
Good-Evil is how society perceives your actions
Lawful-Chaotic is how strongly you adhere to a personal code.
This creates an array that has the potential to play nice with a party from any square, and still be productive.
I have sometimes viewed lawful and chaotic as the manner and way you do your actions. And good - evil I sometimes think can be seen as pro anti status quo or the way that you feel about systems or your ideals
@@yostinator81 I had an in-game bard npc once argue that the dichotomy of lawful and chaotic was identical to the dichotomy of good and evil because both notions simply sought to uphold the status quo of whichever society a person inhabited
Thank you so much for portraying a character that's ACTUALLY chaotic neutral, and addressing the ridiculousness that is "chaotic neutral characters act randomly".
Need that Chaotic Neutral grappler build in the vein of Jesse Ventura right now
I feel like this framework would be good to seed a campaign from the dungeon master perspective. The buy-in being that the players all share at least one alignment and you build the campaign around that. Perhaps the corner alignments would have combat Focus campaign. The true neutral alignment would be a social Focus campaign. The partly neutral alignments would have a campaign built around exploration.
I like the idea of an extra planar campaign where alignments tangibly matter in a first edition sort of way. True neutral campaign would be about making allies in the partly neutral alignment factions and protecting an artifact or area from the radical Corner alignment factions. I would see the partly neutral party as a group of explorers that are generally focused on collecting powerful objects and consolidating them for their faction. I would see the corner alignments in a similar light to the devil-demon dynamics of the Blood war so that's why the corner alignments are combat focused.
Each of the alignments could be given a particular class or Guild that best represents them in the world. As always, your videos are great and inspire Imagination.
You using the "L" word saved me from having to say it.
I have seen so many players play CN as the "troll" behavior as you said. It led to me pretty much outright banning it as a playable alignment because so few do a proper job of it.
Gandalf may have been grumpy, but, he was very charismatic; his force of personality was immense.
Definitely an interesting approach, but, one I don't see ever using, myself, barring unusual campaign parameters.
Your videos are always one of the highlights of my week. I watch them before going to bed then listen to them again on the way to work the next day
I love character creations
Another tension with considering alignment is whether you define it by a character's actions or their intentions, because sometimes those things are not aligned (pardon the pun). I had a character that I believe began as sort of chaotic neutral, anti-establishment, and anti-authoritarian, but once she started to garner power she wanted to cause reform and help out all the poor and disenfranchised people in her city, particularly orphans. To that, I began viewing her as more of a chaotic good character (and I still do). However, she was too naive and too much a victim of her trauma to really know how to bring about that change in a healthy way, which led to her forming a pact with a devil for the necessary power to stop anybody else suffering in the same way she had. There was always a temptation towards evil there, but she merely saw the devils as a means to an end (and I suppose it's not up to me to judge whether deals with devils are inherently evil, even if she only ever used that power to bring what she perceived as justice to the people that perpetuated the system that caused people like her to suffer). In any case, our DM made me bump her alignment down to evil as a result of taking that deal, but that never sat too well with me. She was very much filling a dark anti-hero sort of archetype, but her motivation was always to help innocent people, to the point that she reneged on the deal unto her death when she was forced into a position where she would have to turn on her friends to bring her plans to fruition. Though maybe that in itself puts her back in the realm of neutrality, as an evil character wouldn't have hesitated to turn on friends, and a good character may have seen it as the necessary cost to slay the few to save the many, and that personal attachment to those people doesn't give them any inherent value over the lives of others.
This turned into an essay, and it wasn't meant to, but I guess my point is that the character's motivation to save and protect innocent people and the people she loved never changed through that journey, but her means and actions did. Should this constitute a change in alignment? Is all that swing between moral and immoral acts simply emblematic of a chaotic alignment? If that is the case, why would we ever need the other alignments?
I would love to see a video on evil characters!
(Any/all)
As someone who is very self isolating irl i tend to make similar to the one you have here, really interesting to think about the different ways one could embody chaotic neutral
You're the second person on Dnd RUclips I've seen define law vs chaos as, essentially, cities vs nature and what's interesting to me about that is Druids, the most pro-nature class, were long expected to be Neutral, not Chaotic.
But that got me thinking, Druids were introduced when Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic were the only alignments. At the time, Law and Chaos essentially meant Good and Evil (seriously, with a couple exceptions like Elves almost every Chaotic creature/character was described in a way that made it clear they were, at best, entirely self-interested and would abandon their allies at the first sign of losing). This means that Druids were Neutral not because they didn't care about Nature vs Large-Scale societies, but because they didn't care about the Good vs Evil aspect of what Law and Chaos were at the time. In conclusion, in modern D&D more druids should be Chaotic Neutral
That view of Druids reminds me a bit of how Warhammer used to handle Elves. High Elves were good (well, as close as you can get for Warhammer, they were still elitist dicks), Dark Elves were evil, and Wood Elves were somewhere in between. They'll help if it benefits them and mercilessly kill you if they view you as a threat, but are pretty insular and don't care about wider struggles.
"Turtling Up"?!? Amazing.
I didnt start with alignment. But I played in a princes of the apocalypse game where I was a tortle tempest cleric hermit. And he used to be a powerful warlord who went into hiding so not to be used as a weapon anymore. Then he got a vision of the apocalypse that brought him back to rejoin society at the start of the campaign. His name was Roshi.
I actually posted this as you were going over the background and didn't even realize you made a tortle! I love it!
I’ve always been interested in the concept of alignment but the execution is always confusing. I think it’s cool to try to pin down your characters values into one or two words but the potential and what can be understood is great. I think having some sorta example of what each alignment is like. I think it can allow for unique role play once it doesn’t limit everything you’d do
Alright. I appreciated that sponsored bit intro. Kudos.
I tend to think of alignment as a broad-strokes representation of a character's politics - individualist versus collectivist, liberal versus authoritarian. It's not perfect, no model is, but it's a frame the mostly works. I also tend to think of ethical alignment (law vs chaos) not as two opposite extremes and a compromise between them, but as the three classical modes of discourse: lawful is ethos (tradition), chaotic is pathos (emotion), neutral is logos (reason).
I think certain in-character actions tend to really highlight the subjectivity of good and evil, in that they'll swing you disproportionately far towards evil in the eyes of some tables and not as much at others. You bring up the matter of whether theft or torture can be justifiable, which are two good examples, but there are lots of others I've come across.
For instance: is raising the dead inherently evil? If so, why? If not, when is it justifiable and when is it not?
Is trading material goods or worldly services for one's own soul always inherently evil? If so, which side of the bargain is the evildoer? Is it both of them? What about the devils whose job it is to enforce those contracts for both parties? Would attempting to break such a contract after the devil's side has been fulfilled inherently be an act of good? What about when celestials start making deals with mortals?
I enjoy questions like these, which is why I think alignment should only be one of many tools, and it's important to consider whose opinion it ultimately represents. It's also part of why I love playing and GMing for warlocks.
I was watching the wrap up episode of exu Calamity and Travis said he made his characters with a picture in mind, not of the person but with a weapon or accessory and go from there. I thought that was super interesting and don’t think I’ve heard/considered that approach before.
Same! It’s such a fascinating idea, it immediately went onto my list of future videos in this series :)
I’ve been playing in an “evil” campaign for a while now, but rather than be cartoonishly villainous or giant assholes, we are instead just playing very selfishly motivated characters. It’s been a lot of fun. Why are we going out hunting monsters and slaying bad guys? Because we are mercenaries wanting money. Am I going to betray the party and steal the magical artifact to try and resurrect my dead sister instead of turning it in to our employer? Probably. But I also think every other party member is going to try and steal it, too! It’s been a blast
Its really fun to see the video tieing all the thoughts together after having experienced the creation process as well. These videos of following any random thread into a full personality were really helpful for me in making my last change even when I didn't start with any of the starting points you used yet. ( I got inspired by the Fey Foundling feat, dovetailing with the celestial obedience feat,, pathfinder feats)
My chaotic neutral character was basically fl4k from borderlands 3.
I feel that alignment is somewhat confusing and althought I ask my players to add it, I never try to police their decissions because, as you said, it's not fun for the player. I might throw a line between good and evil if they start doing several evil actions consecutively, but I would talk with the player and let them know if that is the road they want to take and avoid not letting enjoy their new lifestyle.
Not shure it was a comment of mine previously that you got it because it’s not a unique idea but I am a prescriber or the Selfless vs selfish good v evil in alighnment. Verry cool to see B).
My lawful vs chaotic for me is more on personal laws vs no laws, than as a structured system, definitely an interesting way to put it and fits as a better way to establish distinctions of the two that are more solid. Much swanky verry cool
9:00 you're describing hedgewitches who live outside of the city and provide healing to passersby
My brain is chaotic silly; so I'm not sure what categories are left? But I hope next is creating a character from the trinket chart...
The short of it is, chaotic neutral doesn't equate dumb.
I fear you made a Character ... but not a workable PC. The way you explained your character through, it doesn't sound like someone who would adventure with anyone or be adventured with by anyone.
Other than that, I love your videos! Great Job.
To me chaotic is believing external codes don't matter and neutral means actions that don't aid other people but also don't harm innocent people.
I’ve also always read meditation as medication
I think the best CN character example in pop culture is Captain Jack Sparrow
He does what benefits him the most, without giving a sh*t to what people think about him
I'm glad Mike himself called out the Libertarian agenda he was getting into, lol
I really felt that "please dont make this a libertarian". Wheneber I see a player obviously make a character to be fantasy right wingers i just internally groan. Especially as someone who makes my worlds very diverse seeing them froth at the mouth with barely contained bigotry is... Part satisfying part terrifying.
I'd love a video about villain/evil campaign PCs!
They could be a doomsday prepper, in denial of having social needs and delusional about how long they can really survive entirely alone.
Maybe they tried going alone for a while, but the isolation drove them close to madness. Subconsciously, some part of their mind knows they need social interaction to retain functional sanity. The need to warn the world of impending doom is just a rationalization to maintain their ideology in principle while violating it in practice.
Just be sure your group knows and trusts that you’re still a team player underneath the moody loner shell.
i chose chaotic neutral for my character because like they have their own morals and views on the world based on the society they live in, it's just that that society differs wildly from the others in the world, and thus my characters morals look like an absolute mess to others
If my player would be rolling for stats and s/he should roll way lower than the rest, I would just give them a feat. If they all rolled low, then it doesn't really matter because you are the one who makes the world and you should just consider that they need something slightly less challenging than a different group of people if they do a lot of fighting.
I love the idea of a genderfluid turtle!
(Any/all)
Is there a specific time you do livestreams? I would totally check them out!
Unless you are talking about a clerical character, alignment should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive.I generally play a Neutral Good character, because my values could be described as Neutral Good, and I believe strongly in my values and cannot imagine myself playing a PC with differing values.
I think you are somewhat misrepresenting alignment by being sort of reductionistic with the whole Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil. It is not that the alignment system is somehow analogous to religions, faiths or different types of personal thoughts of governance and morality. It does however still mechanically represent what 'side' the being 'aligns' itself in regards to the metaphysical cosmic forces that is constantly locked in an eternal conflict about what ethereal force will govern the fundamentals of existence.
The creators of D&D were inspired by the dichotomy found in the novels of famous fantasy author Michael Moorcock, who himself were inspired by early 1900s occult writing, which in turn were inspired by earlier Gnostic writing. While that cosmic conflict trickles down into the multiverse via emanations that influences the essentiality, nature and being of the creatures that inhabit them, that is also expressed in constructionistic formulations of government, lifestyle, and morality, they are still fundamental esoteric cosmic forces that govern the mortals on the material plane and the other planes of existence. For example, a Druid that lives out in the woods in an anarchistic commune will still (most likely) be aligned to the metaphysical concept of cosmic Law, because without it there no stability, structure, nor no system in nature and in life which the druid bases their entire being on being in sync with. If Chaos would reign, it would be as an aberration that would reduce all form and meaning to chaotic flux, a force of Entropy that would seek to mutate all of reality into an ever-shifting void of random energies.
This concept isn't just a creation of early 20th century occultism or late 20th century Fantasy, but an inherently primordial thought in Humans, as many religions around the world describe an ether, a cosmos, an existence without anything. The metaphysical void state preceding the creation of the universe. Where there was nothing and where everything was ruled by arbitrary randomness.There was no thought and no order. There was no structure, nothing that governed nothing, nothing to tell things how it should be, no fundamental nature of any kind. A state of primordial chaos. This is exemplified in the concept of the Ginnungagap in Norse Mythology, for example. At first, there existed nothing, the Ginnungagap, and the realms of primordial fire and heat and ice and cold. Only was the 'cosmos made right' when the Gods, who came into existence for just that purpose, conducted the first primordial sacrifice (by slaying and offering up Ymir, the metaphysical and corporeal embodiment of Chaos, and with his body they metaphysically created the universe, and gave it laws, rules, structures, nature together with the physical world. That is why almost all humanoids and other material plane sentient creatures should be Lawful (Good, Neutral, or Evil) as we are inherent creatures of Law.
For example, creatures created/influenced by the Metaphysical Cosmic Chaotic Force like Fiends (Demons) are therefore inherently Chaotic (Evil). Meanwhile, Fiends (Devils) are Lawful (Evil) as they are creatures created/influenced by the opposite fundamental cosmic force. As for why Chaotic deities exists (compared to real-life mythologies and religion where Chaos is an utterly negative force) is because D&D evolved through editions to incorporate Moorcockian concept of Balance of the the metaphysical cosmic forces; where too much Law will smother individuality, luck, and free will and too much Chaos will degenerate into the material world into arbitrariness, irrationalism and unfairness. There needs to be a balance (a concept often found in fantasy works, like Star Wars, inspired by New-Age religions) for the fundamental cosmic order to be, ironically, in order.
If we go back to 1974 to the early days of D&D, then we can see that there was no such concept of Balance. Law was seen as an inherently good force, like in real-life, but since then alignment evolved since then to put more focus on the balance aspect, and now ultimately on the individual's personal beliefs rather than as their inherent cosmic alignment.
TL;DR: I made a Paladin of Tymora that respects and believes in authority, law, community, and order, that has to deal with his lived experiences of being lucky (while others were not) and his belief that luck has to be earned, which has led him to be chosen and blessed by Tymora, which has ballooned into a lot of awesome in-character roleplaying about the concepts of alignment and the nature of the universe.
I genuinely love a decently lengthy RUclips comment that teaches me things, so thanks!
@@emilymitchell6823 Thank you, Emily. Everyone is of course free to run their game however they want, but that is the origin and thought behind the alignment system, and I personally believe that it can lead to a lot of interesting roleplay, themes, and stories.
watching this video with my twilight cleric with 5 charisma
Mike made D&D Diogenes…
I do not care for alignment if i were to use anything like it in a RPG game. It would Nature and Demeanor like use in the world of darkness games. but I have not played it in over 20+ years
In the entire history of the hobby, alignment most often comes up as an excuse for DMs to punish paladin and cleric players, paladin players to punish the rest of the play group, or for pedantic douchebags to have 4 hour long arguments on esoteric moral relativisms and terminologies that never actually mattered for the game.
In some cases defining the alignments like this makes some of the problems go away.
Good = Selfless
Evil = Selfish
Lawful = Dogmatic
Chaotic = Shameless
Neutral = Pragmatic
In practice though, alignment is fuel for fights and gatekeeping. The five colors of the Magic the Gathering Color Pie are a much better alignment system than the one D&D has been using since TSR started circling the drain.