Fixing Alignment in DnD

Alignment in Dungeons and Dragons is much maligned. So many players and dungeon masters discard alignment. Forget the lawful good and the chaotic evil. But I think Alignment is one of the best features of the game. Here is how I use it.
Thank you to JaimieWolfe for lending their voice to Michael Moorcock.
Find them at / jaimiewolfe
Please comment down below to join the discussion.
Follow me!
I'm a Twitch Affiliate!
twitch.tv/legalkimchi
/ legalkimchi
/ legalkimchi
/ legalkimchi
Dice Logo by Renée.
geggidy.carrd.co geggidy
Music:
oblivion by Rexlambo / rexlambo
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/a_oblivion
Music promoted by Audio Library • oblivion - Rexlambo (N...
Onion Capers by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.fi...
License: filmmusic.io/s...
Right Behind You Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Track: Lazy Sunday - Vendredi [Audio Library Release] Music provided by Audio Library Plus Watch: • Video ​ Free Download / Stream: alplus.io/lazy...
Shadowlands 5 - Antechamber Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...

[@ThatDangDad]

This was a really great discussion and one that I think would be interesting even if you didn't play D&D. My last D&D game, most of the party was a bunch of violent murderhobos, but we were motivated by stuff like toppling the powerful and screwing over bullies. If you were a member of the Baldur's Gate government, we were definitely pretty evil, but if you were a beggar or a political prisoner, you were pretty happy when we showed up covered in the blood of our enemies. Instead of playing evil like edgelords, we used it to explore interesting paths through the game, like... what if we DID join up with the demons or make a deal with a fallen angel because we figured it might minimize civilian casualties? What if we let the reaper live in exchange for her training our rogue in something? Playing in those gray areas is much more fun to me.

[@bradbutcher6512]

Sounds like how the British History Podcast talked about Vikings "If you were morally flexible, you could sign up with the crew. They took anyone."

[@hartthorn]

I'd been noodling a Kobold character that was gonna worship Tiamat, but had managed to mangle her texts so thoroughly that he was a noble, pure hearted warrior for justice. This video has given me a great toolset for realizing this guy.

[@stefanhuddleston6816]

The reason I discarded alignment 20 years ago wasn't that it was a bad idea rather that I found over the years that too many players made in prescriptive rather than descriptive. In my 44 years, I can't count the number of times I've heard players or GMs make statements like "You should (or worse, must) do X because you are Y alignment" or "we can kill them, they are Z alignment." In my experience rules in TTRPGs tend to eventually be viewed by many as directives, even when those rules should be viewed as descriptors to enhance RP. Others m8ilage may vary but for me, I've seen alignment disagreements cause more schisms than just about any other aspect of the game. While I like where Legal's head is here I haven't regretted dropping alignments from my table all those years ago.

[@blackdragongaming4539]

The interjection of your attorney brain coupled with the music cutting out was absolute gold. The line about the clerics faith and ideals being his goals, but not always his outcomes is something I've been trying to convince people of for ages. It's one of the biggest reasons I dislike rigid alignment systems in video games where you can't explain to a GM why you did what you did, and what your intent was, because alignment is supposed to be a reflection of your personal philosophies, not a cage with which to bind and restrict your actions, nor a summation of the whole of your personal history and life so far. Though, it does also very much remind me of the so-called 'BBEGs' I use in my campaigns; they're almost never, if ever, actually evil. Just deeply wounded people pushed much too far, with flaws and virtues all their own. No matter what the Guildmaster of Wyvernhold will do as a Dark Lord, they do it because the race of Men living there, in their greed and callousness, hurt the Guildmaster. The greatest lich lord ever known in the history of the world only wanted an eternity to explore and learn, and set about his ritual to ascend into undeath before rechecking his spells and magics, resulting in a millennia-long blight of half-sentient magic plaguing his homeland and destroying everyone and everything he'd ever known. The Paleblood Queen of the Grey Elves butchered an entire nation, nearly wiping out an entire people and culture, staining the nearby seas red for centuries and marring the very fabric of the world, but she did so because they entered her home, her actual home, not just the city or country she lived in, under the guise of friendship and trade before slaughtering everyone within before she'd even reached the ripe old age of twenty one as part of a plot by a mad spirit-deity spurring both sides onwards to more and more war and devastation. Terrible, terrible people who did terrible things, sometimes on accident, sometimes on purpose, and often not even of their own will, not really. But evil? That's debatable, and the Heroes that rise to stop them are often equally dubious and muddy in the disconnect between their ideals and their actions, and that's the point. "... they... ate our food, drank our wine, sang and danced with us, then... Then, in the night, they turned on us. [My father] died last night to a Human blade that belonged to a man he thought was his friend." They're not the good guys of the stories that make up the campaign setting, but they're not exactly evil, either. The worlds themselves almost run on those stories in a very real way. And, from a narrative standpoint, the stories are grand, tragic plays, and... accompanied by a suitable level of drama and theater.

[@eleanorapril5]

With this Law Chaos only alignment there's something really cool that you can do with beings from the outer planes where the upper planes represent the ideals people hold of law chaos and neutrality and the lower planes represent peoples fears about those alignments, and not necessarily an afterlife mortal souls get organized into. You can also use this to make celestials and fiends more morally grey and interesting as well. A chaotic character would probably work to undermine and resist the rules imposed by a lawful celestial, and the well intentioned lawful governors of a city would probably see a bunch of choatic celestials encouraging grass roots cooperation, as a threat to the good order of society. Depending on your worldbuilding this might mean that a paladin sworn to uphold the ideals of lawfulness might make a bargain with a lawful fiend without breaking their oath, and the warriors of a small chaotic cooperative could depend on channeling fiendish powers to defend their way of life.

[@LegalKimchi]

very cool idea. and i will do what may be the greatest compliment on GM can give to another... I'm stealing this idea.

[@rainbowmothraleo]

That's exactly how Planescape setting works. All Outer Planes and their inhabitants are made out of mortals' belief about what is good and what is evil, what is law and what is chaos. Thus, this setting is the only one, where alignment system kind of works and is necessary

[@SaytreJudd]

In my games, Alignment is typically ignored by most players. They are guideposts that help direct character interaction - not a set of rails that limit growth. That said, personally, I've always defined the alignment axis like this: Law vs. Chaos (Order vs. Freedom) Good vs. Evil (Community vs. Individual) A Lawful Good character will value Order that benefits the Community, a Lawful Evil character will value Order that benefits the Individual. A Chaotic Good character will value Freedom that benefits the Community, a Chaotic Evil character will value Freedom that benefits the Individual. I feel this gives a good metric to create character, organization, and society alignments so you can get a good idea of the values of that person or group.

[@supermot34]

Community vs. Individual is basically the same idea as Order vs. Freedom I think.

[@SaytreJudd]

@@supermot34 Not really - or at least not now I use it. Lawful Good = Laws should be followed for the good of the community. Personal rights/desires are a secondary concern. Chaotic Good = Personal freedom is the best good for the community. Laws can/should be disregarded if they get in the way of helping the community. Lawful Evil = The law is a tool that is used for my benefit. New laws can be created to protect my status and wealth regardless of whether it harms the community. Chaotic Evil = I have the freedom to pursue what is best for me regardless of the law or the desires of the community.

[@pronounsinmybio]

JAIME CAMEO!!!! And yes, I yelled THE GREATER GOOD. Gods, youre editing is just *chef's kiss*. So, in my setting there are a group of peoples that have an "evil" god, Malaki. He is the god of death, the sky, storms, and upheaval. But, he is also one of the most loved gods among the people and (within their mythos) the actual creator of the people. It is said that he loves his people and this is the reason he is the god of death, so that when a person dies, he can bring them up into the stars with him and be with him forever. Outsiders don't understand this and think of these people as a death cult. But the people have a saying: "If Malaki did not give us death, we would be left to wander the world forever without rest." And I really like that bit about "Those were his (the dragonborn cleric) goals but not always his outcomes". I see alot of people get uppity when a PC does something "outside" of their alignment and I rather prefer the idea that Law and Chaos are about what one strives for and believes, rather than the sum total of the actions, as if Alignment were an equation that must always total up correctly. (Also, also, also: FOR THE SWARM!!!!!!)

[@LegalKimchi]

ZERG FOR LIFE! That is fascinating, I love that idea!

[@Pendragondnd]

For the Queen of Blades!

[@malleableentity4473]

This was really enlightening. I think this will change how I view, and run, alignment from now on.

[@caseykootz7266]

I like this idea. Even the more recent editions of D&D have tried to “walk it back” a little on alignment, saying it’s not an absolute, just a general trend of behavior, etc. But entirely dropping “Good vs Evil” makes character and NPC choices much more nuanced and real. A despicable, greedy lord might still be altruistic towards his only daughter, etc. Love the flavor this gives a world. How do you see the notion of neutrality fitting in (or not) to alignments?

[@LegalKimchi]

There are those that have no allegiance to either side. Or those who truly feel like even balance is the only way. I think of the grey force users in star wars. Some might just think neither side is correct. Others may think that both sides are absolutely necessary, but only in perfect balance.

[@theodoreahlfeld4594]

Whenever I go to make a new character, I somehow always find myself back here. Always a great watch for the nth time.

[@Thagomizer]

I think Gygax acknowledged such complexities in the original DMG. It's totally possible in 1e, at least, for two characters to be of the same alignment and have major social and ethical disagreements, and even to be mortal enemies.

[@ehgodfrey]

I typically use Good-Neutral-Evil as Altruistic-Libertarian-Selfish, with a similar take on Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic only more literal.

[@Nojoro85]

Holy shit I wanna worship Tiamat now

[@floriankrell9438]

Thank you for this Video. This touched in something that was brewing in the back of my mind and gave it voice and it gave me hope. Thank you!

[@TheStartrek99]

For me, the good-evil axis is about motive. If the motive for the action is for the benefit of others it's a good action. If the motive for the action is the detriment of others, it's an evil action. The chaos-law axis is about method. If your method of accomplishing something deliberatly defies applicable laws or social norms, it's chaotic. If your method is strictly in line with any applicable laws or social norms, it's lawful. Occasionally the axies switch, the motive, for example, might be the defiance of the normal socal order, and, thus, chaotic, and the method might be stealing grain from corrupt officials and giving it to the poor, and, thus, good. But, for almost any non-neutral action, one axis will be motive, and the other axis will be method.

[@atashgallagher5139]

I have a demon in my campaign, she escaped her life of struggle and terror and survival by strength, and became a person who pursues freedom and prosperity and justice. Sure she is still wildly chaotic and sometimes even violent more so than the rest of the party, but she uses those same attributes that made her life as a regular demon evil and instead uses them as tools to make the world a better place more free of the shackles that bound her, because even in a chaotic realm such as the abyss, there was no true freedom from the oppressive weight of a constant fear and innability to trust anyone or feel like you could be helped by anyone but yourself.

[@DebWrites]

Just discovered your channel this week & loving it from a Fantasy author's perspective.

[@jalzahn4404]

You know what? I think you hit Eberron's alignment stance right on the head. Well, at least in my opinion.

[@LegalKimchi]

Is it weird that ive never read anything about ebberon? I make my own campaign settings show I haven't bought one in years

[@jalzahn4404]

@@LegalKimchi Eberron's alignment is fluid. All instances of "Always" on alignment don't apply. For example, all silver dragons are NOT all Lawful Good, all red dragons are NOT Chaotic Evil. A similar thing was applied to Clerics. In Eberron, it is entirely possible to have a Neutral Evil follower of a Lawful Good diety that can, and will cast granted spells in that deity's name. One religion in Eberron is the Church of the Silver Flame the Church as a whole is Lawful Good. One of its Cardinals is thoroughly Neutral Evil.

[@theprinceofawesomeness]

I do for the most part agre, however where we seem to differ is that i belive Alignment is objective and better seen as evil = selfish, good = selfless, Law = tradition, chaos = freedom. For outsiders they're absoluts and for mortals a way of thinking. I do hate the "i cast Detect Evil" mentality. One of my most played characters are a Lawful Evil Wizard who have an easy time falling in love with Lawful Good Paladins and Clerics. Point is a evil character can make genuin frendships with non evil characters, so an evil character at a murder diner dosent mean they did it. Small thing usally overlooked, Tiamat is one entity, the heads are not individuals or anything, they are one creature, as a Gestalt or Hivemind, tiamats personality may change from head to head due to scales but they are still a singular being merely controlling five heads

[@thechaotimagnet]

This the single best video on alignment I have seen, and one of the best D&D videos I have seen. Shaking the status quo. Who ever said Lawyers need to be Lawful?

[@worthasandwich]

Fantastic! I have a new place to send players when they are confused about alignment.

[@twi3031]

this really makes me think. I've long determined that I just like the 9-point model of alignment over the linear three-point alignment system, though I respected it. and recently I just got the Through Sunken Lands book that uses Law, Neutral, and Chaos as it's alignments. so now watching this, and having read that (which is very directly inspired by Moorcock by the way. he's listed as the most important reference material), I am realizing that what I have been seeing as limitations for the full range of expressing these various different directions you can take Law and take Chaos and take Neutrality/Balance are really opportunities to express the range of alignment interpretations more freely. I still don't know if I'm willing to fully dump the 9-alignment model (and I just don't believe morality is relative), I may rename and reflavour the good-evil axis at least to something else. perhaps altruistic-selfish, or communalist-individualist or something. which, again, would still leave room for interpretations ranging from cruel to benevolent without having to specifically model them within alignment itself.

[@JarredBournigal]

"My attorney brain says you CAN rationalize anything as good" lol. Great video. Keep up the good work!

[@deaconlasagna8570]

Great video. You are a cut above most other dungeontubers and it’s criminal that you aren’t bigger. It’s so interesting the way different dms have adapted alignment to suit their own moral frameworks in their game worlds. I’ve generally always treated alignment as like myers Briggs. It’s a general category whose accuracy varies between individuals. I tend to use good to mean compassionate/altruistic, evil to mean selfish and unaffected by cruelty, then used the law to chaos spectrum for how bound you are to a code of conduct. An lg cleric will violate their own ethics to stay true to their religioous commitment, an ng cleric always puts personal ethics first, and a cg cleric serves a god who is concerned with virtue with no consideration for dogma or piety. Similarly a ce cleric is cruel on a whim, a le cleric isn’t opposed to cruelty but is most concerned with fidelity to whatever evil power they serve. I also do like the idea of alignment reflecting who can claim your soul in the Manichaean cosmic struggle, where alignment is less about choice and more about how this moral universe judges your actions. I think, ultimately , I’d prefer a more sophisticated system for starting morality/cosmic allegiance, but as long as I run dnd I will keep alignment because it’s a touchstone for many players especially new ones. chaotic neutral and neutral evil have been popular ways for my players to start building their pcs personalities

[@colesrehab]

Been sharing these videos with my D&D group and the discussion points has been extremely insightful for our sessions and gotten them to think a lot about what they want to see in their character development. Thanks for the videos Kimchi

[@AnotherDuck]

Alignment is one of those things you really have to look at with the same eyes as you abstract the ability scores. It's a very (too) condensed way of representing the personality type of the characters. But still not as weird as Wisdom, which represents both wisdom and physical perception. Anyway. I've always looked at the good-evil axis as representing working for the benefit of others vs working for the benefit of yourself. Basically altruism vs selfishness. It tends to work reasonably well, and does make more sense than some abstract good and evil. Anytime people discuss the order-chaos axis, I'm always reminded of people asking which is the good sword in Soul Calibur. There are two relevant swords: Soul Calibur and Soul Edge. The former is order and the latter is chaos. The answer is that neither is the good sword, as both will corrupt the user towards the ultimate end of either extreme, so both are evil. One aspect that the alignment system fails to include in the distinction between the two neutral options: Non-aligned, and true neutral. One doesn't have an alignment, which is categorised as neutral, and includes animals. The other is about striving for a balance, which means allying with the currently weaker side.

[@andrewlustfield6079]

This is a really interesting conversation. Defining notions of good and evil is tricky and has bedeviled philosophers and theologians from the down of human existence. Order and chaos are easier to define, but good and evil are deeply subjective. That said, from the standpoint of classical mythology and folklore, the waters clear somewhat. Good is what ever supports the divine order the gods or god has created, and then the good of the community the characters either come from or have chosen to serve. Evil is that which seeks to disrupt, overthrow and destroy that divine order or do harm to the polis the character is from or serves. Homer is particularly illustrative are are the Greek playwrights. All of this is Zeus, Sophocles tells us after Oedipus Rex. We are the play things of the gods and our suffering does not impact them. Supporting the divine order is manifestly a matter of enlightened self interest on the part of anyone living in the world. Should the divine order collapse and the gods be overthrown, so will the cosmos the characters inhabit. I believe it was the Tick who said, "Blow up the Earth?!?!? But that's where I keep my stuff." I really like how you present your arguments. I'm becoming quite a fan of your channel. I wish you'd post more.

[@deaconlasagna8570]

I also think honor and/or infamy trackers are a good tool to improve how alignment works. You don’t chooose your alignment, your actions do.

[@ehgodfrey]

Though I don't dispute the unquestioned influence of Moorcock, don't forget Zelazny's Amber novels.

[@JCSamuelson]

One of the best analyses of alignment I've seen in a while. Even this old dog has new things to think about! Just one quibble: Three Hearts and Three Lions is by Poul Anderson, not Michael Moorcock, though the latter did cite it as an influence and its content is relevant to this discussion.

[@LegalKimchi]

you know, it does sound like i'm saying that three hearts and three lions is a moorcock book. That was not my intent. I was trying to give a nod to poul anderson's contribution to the "law and chaos" dichotomy.

[@mbcampbell82]

Very cool and describes better than I ever could my uneasiness around alignment and it's arbitrary and role-playing impeding nature. I found your appearance in the Liberal Cook's video. Nice to have such diverse interests overlap!

[@mbcampbell82]

*found your videos from the Liberal Cook's video I should have said.

[@genrepunk]

D&D's insistence of having planes of the various combinations of good to evil and law to chaos, at least in settings like the Forgotten Realms, makes it hard to fully let go of fixed concepts of each. Then again, letting those planes of principle be different for different visitors would be a lot more interesting than "hey look, a modron!"

[@Red-Feather-1]

Good thoughts and a solidly produced video! I'm not sure I agree with all of what you said, but I understand where you are coming from and it makes sense. I guess that's the first step. On a related note, your perspective makes for excellent role play; and for that your thoughts are excellent! Thank you for sharing!

[@MisfitKotLD]

I haven't been big for alignment in a long time, but I enjoy your perspective on it, especially the dragonborn follower of Tiamat.

[@lightwings9042]

Hey, i love your work and i am a lawyer myself in Brazil, your work is inspiring to me, keep doing it! 😁

[@TheDashingRogue]

You Sir have earned a sub.

[@alexandercandicedad1355]

As others have said, the Magic: The Gathering "color pie" works very well as an alignment system.

[@Aaron-iy7rh]

Really interesting take on alignment. Definitely going to be seeing how I can twist good and evil into an ideology instead of a static state

[@DBArtsCreators]

Good = Selfless Evil = Selfish I would actually add a third axis to the square, and make it a cube: an intensity axis, signifying one's devotion/seriousness regarding their beliefs, behaviors & philosophies. The lower the rank, the more detached you are from these things. The higher the rank, the more dedicated or even controlled by these things you are.

[@supinearcanum]

I feel like a lot of what you have said so far in this video is on par with what I've been harping for years, that good & evil as presented in D&D is very VERY obscure & ill defined, which leads to too much ambiguity from table to table & author to author so that nothing gets done, and it creates & exacerbates other problems like how fiends often tend to be more interestingly written and presented than the celestials you the PC are supposed to be allying with and eventually becoming in most cases. It's part of why I've started taking to thinking of that axis as more Selflessness vs. Selfishness rather than Good vs. Evil. It seems to be the most defining trait of the descriptor, and the idea that those who are evil become more & more selfish till eventually you reach self destruction through short term gains for long term ruins fits with what we often see. So, if someone is using the Law to Selfishly enrich themselves while tearing down an orphanage, LE; Breaking into the dungeon to save a child convicted to death because he stole some food, even though he's a stranger and it might throw the town into chaos? CG act. Then I tend to tell players that alignment happens through the actions you take compounding over time, so its subtle and slow. And that often, your sheet may not match what it is irl, but that's usually okay, and if you wanna know what it is, you can figure it out, and that struggle about what it is can be content for great stories.

[@sotpunkkatt158]

As a teacher in religion and history, this video is lit!

[@SerifSansSerif]

Actually, a murder mystery with lawful good paladins investigating to find multiple evil characters (and good) would be interesting and allow for a few red herrings where the guilty party is good is interesting.

[@antieverything1]

I love this video and I've heard the narrative that old-school dnd wasn't about good vs evil...and, yeah, odnd and all but one version of Basic doesn't have any mechanical "good" or "evil" alignments but this narrative depends on completely overlooking the dozens and dozens of references to "evil", "evil alignments", "evil clerics", etc. that appeared in spell descriptions, creature descriptions, etc. in Men and Magic, Basic DnD, and various supplements that predated the appearance of a mechanically relevant "good" or "evil" alignment in Holmes Basic and AD&D 1e (both 1977). Hell, in Men and Magic (1974) it lists "evil high priest" as an example of a chaotic creature and nearly all of the revisions of Basic explicitly state that chaotic behavior is generally what we would call evil. So, if ODND doesn't have good and evil, how does detect evil work? How does protection from evil work? How do spell effects work for evil clerics? What is meant by the references to "evil alignments" in Deities, Demigods, and Heroes (1976)?

[@prelude2nsanity]

One of the best breakdowns on alignment I’ve seen. Thanks!

[@crankysmurf]

I still prefer the use of alignments for monster stats as a quick glance tool on how the monsters tend to behave on the law-chao/good-evil spectrum. The MM says up front that the alignments are the general behavior of the monsters but nothing is absolute as the DMs have final decision on the alignments of individual creatures (previous editions the monster statblocks' alignment had "often" or "always"). Remember that in D&D, the races tend to follow their creator gods -- this is why elves tend to be CG, dwarves LG, and orcs CE. Again, the keyword is "tend" -- for individuals there can be LE elves, CE dwarves, and LG orcs (the Odonti). Hell, there are fallen angels (Archdevil Zariel) and risen fiends (the succubi Fall-From-Grace (Planescape) and the succubus paladin Eludecia (3.5E Fight Club)).As for alignment for PCs? I don't bother with it.. I'm glad 5E has the character background traits to flesh out their characters instead of relying on them being "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral."

[@HantaleMedia]

There are some really interesting discussions about alignment floating out there! This was a nice shorthand summary! I highly recommend digging through the "Detect Alignment" blog by Bill Cameron. It's a lot of reading but a very interesting look at how alignment functions in the world and is reinforced by the mechanics (In this case of Pathfinder). It's a good read if you enjoy geeking out over philosophy and ethics in video games, which seems to be the case?

[@crumbling1192]

I've had very similar thoughts about alignment, and am currently working on a setting based on the 'traditional' linear system - but in this case, the dominant theology views both Law and Chaos as 'evil', in that they represent political extremism (authoritarianism or anarchy), and the perfect Balance of those two ideologies is the ideal 'good' (a reflection of my own ideology, tbh)... all of this inspired by Moorcock, of course .

[@kylanmarsh8194]

My big alignment issues is the fact that all this stuff in the universe of the game is in fact... well fact. It's pretty hard to very timant's behavior, beliefs or teachings when she's... you know, standing right there, calling you her slave, saying what she she says and explaining exactly what she means

[@mrlolswe]

What the actual F*ck that was good, and how come this is the first time I'm seeing this

[@mikfhan]

I often follow the Neverwinter Nights games, they set alignment to a twodimensional 99 by 99 point scale. Chaotic and Evil as 0 and 0 respectively. Most player characters begin as neutral 50/50 and their future actions gently shift them along either axis, with 33 and 67 entering non-neutral territory. By default this becomes descriptive instead of prescriptive. Forgotten Realms objective morality is difficult to accept; I see it as the heavens and hells view on the cosmic sense of the matter. Whatever mortals deem relatively moral is up to them how they use it to govern their societies, but in the cosmic sense and afterlife of the upper/lower planes, morality/ethics is ultimately an objective matter. Something a mortal mind will never fully understand.

[@curvingfyre6810]

Ive had an idea for a revamp on the alignment system for a while. No more good, evil, law, chaos. Instead, base things off interpersonality. Selfish vs selfless. Selfishness can include the character's main ingroup, like a tribe or religion. Selflessness requires expanding intent for 'good' to everyone equally, regardless of their origin. Where do your principles take you? Next, utility vs virtue. Do ends justify the means? To what degree? What *kind* of principles do you have? Finally, a new axis, conviction vs detachment. How strong are your convictions? This should be paired with a written blerb, maybe 200 words tops, about your characters specific beliefs and reasons for them. This way, even that one guy who wants max detachment and dead neutral for the other 2 axes has to justify it with a backstory.

[@gendor5199]

halfway in and I feel like just excahnge Good with Selfless and Evil with Selfish and you're way better off

[@scottmarsh2991]

I use the three-Alignment system because Dungeon Crawl Classics uses it to flavor level titles and such. My question for noobs to determine their character’s Alignment is, “How does your character feel about castles: bastions of safety or seats of brutal oppression?

[@toonezon4836]

after watching a Matt Collville video a few years ago about alignment, which also dealt with alignment as religeon to some degree, he brought up something called alignment language, an old obscure rule which back in the day was considered an actual language your pc knew based on their alignment. he also mentioned how in his games, if he uses alignment he likes them to be fluid. i loved that concept of fluid alignments. so alignments can exist in a game but can change depending on how you play. gotta say, the way you describe alignment as religion finally makes sence though, i didnt get it the same way in matts video. though have you considered alignment language? in the day it was an old rule, a language of the religion of law, neutrality, chaos, good, evil, etc. after that collville video i've come to reinterperate it as more of an empathic language, its easier for you to convince someone of something if they share your alignment, though your alignent itself is maluable. i feel like im rambeling and talking in circles, but thans for this added insite, especially on how the whole alignment as religion works. also dang i love that reinterpritation of gods like tiamat/bahamut

[@LegalKimchi]

when viewed as a religion, you can have some fluidity in alignment as well. think of it as conversion. and remember that alignment is the goal, but no one is perfect. And alignment language is interesting. I have always viewed that in the context of religion as well, like how the quran should be read in arabic, catholic mass was always in latin foe centuries, and the jewish people use hebrew.

[@BenjaminBlackhurst]

Love your take here. We can argue all day about moral relativism, but at the end of the day we want the sort of moral complexity this alignment revision enables. However, for those of us who did away with alignment-wholesale-years ago to enable a deep complexity as well as an uncertainty over NPC motivations, would you say there’s any reason for us to bring back the Law vs. Chaos axis?* *If my question belies a misapprehension of your point, please forgive me and maybe provide your thoughts anyway. :)

[@hitomisalazar4073]

I find it interesting you mentioned Moorcock. Because most everyone ties into the Jack Vance and Tolkien inspirations. But Moorcock I felt was a much stronger connection. Though yeah, as I mentioned in the comment you replied to pointing to me, I did start with Law vs Chaos. Funny enough I also usually pointed out that when 4th Edition went to a linear Alignment, Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil, that it was a brilliant move. Because D&D for decades have only really cared about a linear alignment. The adventures, the campaigns? They always focused on a single split. Good vs Evil, for about 2 decades at that point. Never did you really see something like Lawful Good vs Neutral Good. In fact I remember in 3rd Edition's "Book of Exalted Deeds" they pointed out specifically that "Violent, or even moral, conflicts between Good Alignments don't happen". So if you're not going to treat Neutral Good and Chaotic Good as if there's any real difference that people would be upset about between them... why bother? But I suppose that was always my difficulty with it. D&D is... odd. Particularly as the game has gone through various editions, writers, designers, and what they brought to the game. In part because modern D&D, which I call back starting to 2nd Edition AD&D (which I skipped 1st Edition AD&D), described a world of Objective Moral Absolutism. There was things that were Distinctly Good. And Distinctly Evil. It was a measurable force in the world as it were. There were creatures that were literally made of Pure Evil, like Demons of the Abyss and Devils from the Hells. And there were creatures of Pure Good, like Devas and Archons. It always struck me as weird. Because... while I recognize in reality there are people who believe in an objective moral standard? I don't believe in it myself. I just don't see the evidence and I instead see subjectivity everywhere I go. Heck even going back to American History I recall during the foundations of the United States the discussions on the subject of Slavery. With people going to the same books like the Bible, and claiming that God both said it was moral, just, and warranted, and that it was a sinful, evil practice that would bring the providence of god upon the nation. And considering the massive bloodshed of the Civil War, the latter view can be considered right. It is something I'd like to see more of in D&D adventure designs. And I definitely do it in my own campaigns I write up. But I'm disappointed by modern adventure design like say, Descent into Avernus. There's an evil cult. Who worship evil. And are doing things for the sake of evil. And... really no other good reason. Not even necessarily "to seize power" as they try to frame up because that's not really a part of what they're doing with the random murder of refugees. Though as an aside I'm also reminded of an old bit of writing advice I read ages ago. Your villains should never be out "for power". Power is not a goal. It is a means to achieve a goal. I also find a lot of questions of Good, Evil, interpretations, politics, and cultures in D&D however are kind of fixed by just locking off the planes. Having it so no one can really just Bamf over to the Outer Planes. That Gods can't manifest (or send their direct messengers) to the world to clarify things. Which I find kind of fascinating because when a lot of people talk about designing their settings? They immediately talk about the gods and cosmology. With the idea of some top down inflexible decrees and reality inflicted. While I tend to personally design things from the bottom up. I look at the mortal world. What themes I want to explore, what cultures, ideals, and conflicts are going to come into play. And making sure the playground is there. Keep the concept of a Cosmic Ultimate Truth a mystery that no one knows the real answers to. A cleric of a monotheistic religion who claims that only their god can grant miracles has the same powers as the polytheistic cleric claiming that annual appeasements to the gods among them is what blesses their lands and curses their enemies. And both end up right. But are they right? Well no one can just call up the Gods in question and ask. That two "good" communities can have conflict because they believe in different things. That in fact, it might be the most bitter of conflicts. As I find in history where things like Catholics and Protestants, who basically are 95% in agreement will go to horrendous, brutal, terrible measures against one another. That heck, most of the brutal, most violent, hateful episodes in humanity have been between people that have had those kind of 5% differences. Anyway, thanks for the video and the recommendation. :)

[@Introverted_goblin_]

I've been unfortunate to never run into players willing or able to play games like this. 99.9% of players want to min/max and beat stuff up. Or have one-dimensional characters with one viewpoint who are unable or unwilling to change. If this is your way of having fun, good on you, im just over it.

[@theodoreahlfeld4594]

In your experience how often do you see players take their alignment into consideration while the party deliberates? In my limited time playing, it seems like most players are more trait based in their action rather than alignment.

[@LegalKimchi]

I dont see it a lot. This is sort of me wishing it would. I want alignment to be more than it is in the current culture of dnd. People usually discard it. I think that's a shame and a loss of great roleplaying potential.

[@mikewaterfield3599]

Strange, for decades it seemed perfectly functional in AD&D. Order and Chaos are primordial. They predate notions of morality. Neutrality derives itself from being detached from the selfish or selfless.

[@bennolan9030]

Do you play Magic the Gathering? If you have I was wondering if you’ve ever heard of “color pie philosophy”. All very much similar to what’s talked about here, except instead of a law/chaos slide bar it’s five colors with individual meanings being combined to make more complex ones.

[@chameleondream]

I do enjoy your videos, even though I often disagree with them. They give me things to think about :-) To a degree good and evil are the value judgements of a society, and what one society sees as good another can see as evil, but when you say who is to judge? D&D has an answer. It has active divine powers who live in otherworldly country-clubs where only their own alignment holds sway. These gods also provide clerics and paladins with magic, characters who can get into some pretty deep trouble if they are caught using good power to further the cause of evil (or vice versa). The AD&D PHB doesn't mention law or chaos in the section on clerical magic, but a good cleric reversing a spell to do evil may soon find their own alignment flip-flopping, and in my book that also means they will be abandoned by their god. So the way I see it, law and chaos are the secular side of alignment while good and evil are the divine side. A lawful character can defy the law and still remain lawful. This is the heart of war, two overly lawful societies trying to beat each other into submission. But a good character cannot be evil and remain good. In D&D there is a divine authorities which will judge them as being one or the other. As for Alignment? Leave it as is, but keep free will. The big mistake of alignment was using it to limit player actions. Every character should be able to do what they want to do, but for those playing clerics and paladins? For them there will be consequences. PS: I liked the bit about Bahamut and Tiamat, but that also goes to show where Law & Chaos breaks down when compared to normal alignment. Bahamut is not Lawful but LG. Tiamat is CE. To correctly capture their character you need both secular and divine alignments. What you've described are two different dragons that are LE and CG. Which is fine. Why not have a LE single headed white dragon called Tumahab (white because that is the color of all the other colors combined) as well as a CG multi-headed metallic dragon called Tamait to balance out the powers? I've got to work on my naming ability.

[@amberkat8147]

Oddly although I've never read anything by the not-Tolkien guy you mentioned, the view of law and chaos in my own personal stories is almost exactly the same. I personally am neutral leaning towards chaos. I recognize that both chaos and law are essential for a society to function and survive. Too much law is stagnation, too much chaos undermines the basic ability to function. But as important as law is, it's not as fun or interesting, and I hate other people telling me what to do and always have. So I have my own code but outside that lean more towards a mix of personal freedom and common sense. Yes, you CAN poke that bear, but since the result may be a gruesome death, you probably shouldn't.

[@ramuk1933]

Wait... did you just make Tiamat based?

[@metaxu3305]

The key problem is that the basic DnD setting assumes a just world fallacy: good is statu quo. The core fantasy and published adventures are about fighting monsters, usually fiends or undeads, that threaten to destroy something - think 4E alignment system. That's not the kind of games I enjoy. I can think of five lightweight ways to make the Good/Evil axis somewhat decent, all of which I used, and two of them are actually interesting. 1/ Individual relativism. You are just as good as you think you are. The Catholic guilt guy is evil, the self-righteous criminal is good. By extension, celestials are still hollier than you and fiends card-carrying villains. Uninteresting. 2/ You are not good or evil, but nice or ruthless. The knight templar paladin is ruthless law, the orc warchief with a sense of honor is nice chaos. But it does not account well for exteriors. 3/ Cultural relativism. You are good or evil depending on how the local culture sees your actions. The genocide leader might be a hero to his people, and all orcs are evil by definition. It's more of a deconstruction of alignment than a real substitute. 4/ Self-serving vs community-oriented. More or less what alignment is becoming. The mustache-twirling tyrant sincerely convinced he brings order to the lowly masses is community-oriented, the good king who cares primarily about his glory is self-serving. Interesting. 5/ Divine relativism. My favourite, it allows to run exteriors as morally ambiguous. A guy upstairs decide what is good and evil, and it becomes an objective law of reality. The guy upstair is not simultenaously flawless, altruistic and nice.

[@toonezon4836]

you say that what is good and what is evil is in the eye of the beholder, but arent beholders usually, yknow, evil, or at the very least neutral? they're almost always chaotic, though some more ocd beholders might be considered lawful now that i think of it.

[@LegalKimchi]

This is why alignment is fun.

[@jfm.d5180]

Make Evil Evil Again....

[@robertsouth6971]

Alignments are important to the gods. They don't make sense to humans, so humans do them differently while calling them by the same names and while aligning with associated gods. Furhter, humans of different ethical alignments derive their moral motivations differently. Everybody isn't a clone of a regimented cult. Chaotics derive their moral habits based on personal internal motivations. Neutrals derive their moral habits from well formed ideologies independent of either individuals or society. Lawfuls derive their moral habits from social pressure and conformity with those around them. These sources of inspiration tend to produce different moral outcomes based largely in relation to single or double standards. Those who support double standards, hypocrisy, tend to become evil in a way that matches their ethical alignment. A Chaotic Evil is a psychopath: one standard for me, one standard for all others; but a Lawful Evil is a partisan who seeks to impose double standards on groups: my kind should rule your kind. Those who are ideologically prone to double standards are simple social darwinists who believe a harsh world separates the deserving from the undeserving. Similarly on the good side, there are intuitive empaths, win-win mutualists, and nanny state egalitarians.

[@powerist209]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJK2fGWAhap1jKs For some reason Warhammer kinda nailed Law and Chaos. Plus maybe Games Workshop predecessors were actual Elric fans. I mean on the "order" side, we had Imperium but they had society that would make Air Strip One of 1984 look like utopia (Thought Police are actual psychics, Big Brother is a vegetable psychic strapped to life support that also act as FTL beacon, and they are at war with everyone PERIOD). Plus providing reasons to join Chaos, either ignorance (due to censorship on Chaos) or desperation (like a charismatic priest leading a populist revolt is influenced by Tzeentch, or a plague forced people to pray to Nurgle for relief). Not much on Fantasy since that setting is more black-and-white even as a dark fantasy.

[@Dragonette666]

I've always hated the Law vs Chaos alignment thing , the evilest acts in the world have all been done under the guise of "law" slavery, the holocaust, etc and Chaotic "groups" I guess the Mansons could be an example of a chaotic group , manage to kill a handful of people at their best. I think the only way alignments really work is if your game has gods that define the alignments, then there's not really any moral relativism. If you don't do that then you have people coming up with stupid stuff like trying to tell me if my Paladin winds up in 1944 Germany so she starts watering the ground with the blood of nazis , and she's trying to stop the holocaust, she's suddenly chaotic good because she's not obeying evil laws. It's Lawful Good, not boot licker. You also need to take into consideration that Gygax was a Christian, a JW to be exact, and I think he wrote free will into the rules. Humans and some of the demihumans seem to have free will. Even in the 3 axis chart, humans can be any of the alignment. There are also powerful creatures like dragons and they seem to have free will to a degree as well. But humanoids , by the book and RAW , do not. You don't have to run the game like that , of course, but I suspect that's a part of his reasoning. To continue that thought , it may be in the rules (not 100% sure) but in my games detect evil only works on truly evil creatures, which are usually powerful, extra planar entities. A demon trying to hide in human form would detect as evil. An assassin would not. An anti Paladin or an evil priest might detect as evil, but they would have to be higher level characters and not level 1 nobodies. This way you can have your murder mystery game and not spoil it. If you wanted to go with detect evil detecting ANY evil, and still throw a monkey wrench into things, have the murderer be good but they were compelled to do it by magic or by blackmail. "Kill x person or we take out your family." I usually don't have a single act change an alignment , so a good character could slay another one and not suddenly become evil. Of course they would be on the path to it. Do it a few more times and you've given in. You are the bad guy now. Finally I think Captain America is a good example of Lawful Good. He's even turned against the government at times but that doesn't make him chaotic. He's still following his higher power which would be freedom and the better parts of American values. So it's really the government that turned away from him.

[@peebothuhlu7186]

🤔 An interesting video. How soon until you create a video outlining ideas for DM's who are Moral Objectivists? 👍

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

Good = It means to act the least manipulative least opportunistic and least machiavellian way possible. Whenever such behaviour is observed it must be called out and if necessary stamped out if it becomes cancerous or a direct threat. Good alignment only accepts hierarchy that represents and promotes these values. Good can only be understood through metaphysical means from an ultimate authority otherwise its arbitrary. Law = Ideological capture through sociological enforced frameworks. This would most of the time boil down to be top down statism but could also be other forms of governance that presuppose a collective that has to subscribe to a rule of law material or metaphysical or both Chaos = Subversive frameworks meant to deconstruct. Can easily become its own ideological capture. Contradictions are embraced and weaponised Evil = liberal acceptance of the dark triad as equal or better than any other belief system on the soft side and totally senseless use of vile acts for personal gain or out of some arbitrary "necessity" on the extreme side

[@AibaunaGuara]

I think indestructoboy sent me

[@daleivarie7801]

The alignment system is hamfisted at best I stopped using in the 1980s I only use it if “the weight of the table” requires it

[@Rithkingwill]

This is why in my world, alignment is a linear spectrum of six alignments: LE-LN-LG-CG-CN-CE. The "Evil" alignments wish to eradicate the opposing side completely regardless of others desires or wills. The "Neutral" alignments adhere fully to their chosen side but do not wish to impose their will on others negatively, although they may try to persuade them. They may want their side to win, but they won't go too far. The "Good" alignments are those who make compromises, understand that it can't all be black or white, and have some harmony or balance with both sides.

[@toonezon4836]

every hero is the villain of someone else's story

[@digaddog6099]

I don't think of dnd evil as the same as the same thing as real life evil. You may have heard that "lawful" has nothing to do with law, as honor among thieves is defined as a lawful ideal in the phb. The same applies to evil. Go to the hermit background, and you will find the ideal of power. "Solitude and contemplation are paths toward mystical or magical power." So here we've got some dude just getting magic ripped as fuck in the wild, and the phb thinks of this as "evil." So I've redefined evil to certain relations of power, typically megalomania or a true belief in might makes right. This also stops neutrality not cosmic centrism, which I'm specifically trying to avoid. I personally think that a chaotic society would make a great fit for sortition. What could represent the ever changing and chance seeking ideals of chaos above a lottery?

[@LegalKimchi]

Fascinating ideas! I like it. I do think it has a little bit of wiggle room for interpretations, and i think that an interpretation that some cultures in your world can have is the use of sortition is really fun. Something like the interpretation of what law and chaos mean in your world is fun because it is your interpretation. i just think that good and evil have some extra baggage to them.

[@CaelReader]

Great breakdown of the history and source material of alignment, and I especially like your re-framing of it in-game as just moral philosophical disagreements. But, when you're at the point where "law vs chaos" is just battling ideologies and perspectives, even within each alignment... what is the utility of labeling that dragonborn as "chaotic"? Couldn't he just be a "follower of the Lady of Freedom"? Why keep the dualistic framework?

[@LegalKimchi]

Absolutely. But I also like the idea of the cosmic struggle between the two, mainly due to my love of moorcock work. I may follow up with a video on that.

[@crankysmurf]

Your definition of a "chaotic society" sounds like a libertarian dream.

[@futurewario9591]

Lucifer did not betray God for humanity he did it for himself & only himself.

[@gamewrit0058]

😇😈👍

[@jg36]

In Orthodox Christianity, Lucifer’s fall is born from his pride (that is, excessive self-love, even self-worship). He wanted to be the center of all things, but he’s not… which makes him angry! Maybe, “If I can’t be God, then I’ll be anti-God! I’ll become everything that God isn’t!” It’s a spiteful, childish attitude, if you think about it, and there’s really nothing to romanticize “The moment you have a self at all, there is a possibility of putting yourself first-wanting to be the center-wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan: and that was the sin he taught the human race.” C.S. Lewis

[@futurewario9591]

Some people are evil for the sake of being evil like serial killers & satanists.

[@Great_Duke_Astaroth]

True Good and True Evil don't make sense outside of Monotheistic structures, therefore I think if we wish to double axes model, we should replace "Good & Evil" with "Light & Darkness," and then make "Light & Darkness" domainate over in importance "Law & Chaos" Darkness is not inherently "Evil" nor "Light" inherently "Good." Light if abused is more decturictive than Darkness, likewise Darkness can relax and comfort just as the warmth of Light. Just as Chaos birthed Order/Law, Darkness begot Light.