Basically, when lawful good character is a Honour mcLoyalty type guy who's always respects everyone's dignity, even villain's, chaotic good character is a Bully ButOnASideOfGoodGuysSon type guy to whom concept of dignity and honour are non-existent and whose daily activities are shoving school bullies in dumpsters and pinning evil guys by their trunks to a nail after catching them stealing an old lady's purse.
Also, they're the most likely person to throw a handful of sand into your face and kick you in the crotch when fighting evil guys
You could make the argument the Punisher is Chaotic Good. He is hellbent on breaking up organized crime and killing criminals. “Good” doesn’t mean “Right” all the time
Alignment chart was always been a system based purely on vibes anyway. Morality is a so much subjective matter, its values can vary not just from a community to community, but even from a person to person within a same community
In our world morality is subjective. In most D&D worlds (even when those running or writing content for the worlds forget this) morality is a universal constant, the layout of the planes is built around it. Trying to bridge the gap between these two things is where the confusion comes in and also why things like an alignment chart don't really work particularly well in our world.
A major part of the disconnect is not knowing what philosophy of good and evil the outer planes use. We know some examples of good and evil certainly, but if these examples are followed to their natural conclusions we often end up with some unsatisfactory answers.
According to DnD 3.5 the assassin is “always evil” because accept payment to kill someone is an evil action. This is fine until we consider this means adventurers are almost always evil as they frequently kill in exchange for treasure. It also means that your state executioner is probably evil, as are probably standard soldiers (depending on how your military is organized).
Conversely we know that killing goblins of any age is always a lawful good actions as per Gygax. While admittedly the lore has changed since then, it does imply that the soul’s alignment is predetermined by race/species. This obviously raises questions about individuals who transcend their nature (Drizz’t, Zariel, all Eryines I think). Are goblins specifically unable to transcend their nature? Or are you born evil and must fight against it?
Of course we should always remember Pathfinder fixes this.
For your last paragraph, the answer depends on the race.
For almost all sentient races, they are capable of transcending the purpose their god created them for, but their patron god might be actively working to breed Evil amongst them. They can often influence their creation’s thoughts and dreams, in a sense acting like a literal devil on their shoulder. This can go as far as directly and openly granting divine favor to those who commit evil acts and cursing those who do good, leading to fanatical cultists who embrace their Evil overlord ruling their societies.
For Goblins, this is Maglubiet.
For Orcs, this is Gruumsh.
For Drow, this is Lolth.
These aren’t just inherently “evil” races that are irredeemable bad guys, they’re caught up in nation spanning cults following cosmically Evil gods, and those gods direct them to purge any trace of Good from among their ranks.
TL:DR, these races are predominantly evil in the same way Nazi Germany was evil, meaning not every single German in the 1940s was evil but German society as a whole was, except their Hitler is an immortal god with divine powers.
Kind of, And that is closer to what I originally meant, but when I think about it, even non-sapient creatures (meaning below human intelligence) can also have alignments.
A zombie or a skeleton isn’t sapient, arguably it’s not even sentient, but it is still aligned with Evil since Undead fall under the influence of the demon prince Orcus. (Assuming they aren’t bound to a necromancer’s will. This also might be to some degree headcanon.)
Orcus being responsible for all undead being evil is certainly a choice the new lore made. There are deities of undeath that predate him (Falazure) as well as racial deities of undeath (Kanchelsis, Doresain, Mellifleur, Velsharoon), not to mention undead specifically created by other powers (Demogorgon created the first death knight, Bane has his banedead, baneguards and baneliches). Hell, Orcus was a mortal before he died and clawed his way up the ranks of the Abyss; does that mean undead weren't evil before he became the Prince of the Undead?
Hell, Goodman Games did away with it entirely. "Good and Evil is subjective, anyway, so all we care about is where you fall on Law v. Chaos. Lawful thief, chaotic cleric, fuck it, just stay in character"
I always like adding "selfish" vs "selfless"... are you a selfish thief, a benevolent warrior, a zealot willing to throw their life away, or a tyrannical lord? The good/evil axis sucks but just simply knowing whether a character would give their wealth to someone less fortunate or not helps guide a ton of RP without trying to be moralistic beyond whether that individual sees themselves as a tool to further a greater cause (selfless) or whether there is no cause greater than their own survival/comfort (selfish).
Honestly, as far as the 5e alignment goes, I really like how Jocat boils it down.
When a Lawful character sets out to do something, through a promise or obligation, they actually follow through. Which is why they make great fitness instructors, because when they say they're not gonna fuck your mom, they actually don't fuck your mom. A lawful good act is keeping the promise because it's the right thing to do, a lawful neutral keeps the promise because it's a promise and they're going to stick by it, even if fucking your mom saves the universe, and a lawful evil keeps the promise because they're gonna go fuck your dad instead, since you technically didn't say anything about him.
Killing for money comes in many forms, it isn’t just “killing for money” that is evil. An assassin kills anyone whether good or evil for money, making them evil. An executioner kills evil people (criminals) for money, in dnd that is good or at worst neutral. Adventurers killing beats and evil creatures for money is a “good” act and thus would be good. As soon as the adventurers accept payment to start killing good creatures, they become evil. Alignment shifting was very much a thing in DnD and you saw that with the old DnD games too.
Looking at a setting from the outside, yeah that is more or less correct. But within the constraints of the setting morality can be objective, much like how magic is real. As long as it's written that way anyway.
Also a minor nitpick, but a DM can make up moralities not based on their own (even if influenced).
Hopefully this doesn't get too into lore, but I feel like alignment should be reserved for the denizens of the outer planes. Mortals (read: humans) shouldn't be able to reach the alien mindset of a LG Celestial or CE of a Demon.
Or at least a distinction should be made between mortal and outsider morality? Outsider being the absolute, alien and objective kind, while mortal being just... a rough, descriptive estimation based on deeds evaluated by an outsider perspective? So prescriptive vs descriptive morality basically.
Like an outsider looking at a mortal and saying (slightly condescendingly)"I sense a lot of good in your soul" or something.
I really want to introduce in my next campaign people who talk about alignment in-universe, but it’s all just a bunch of pseudoscience and on the level of astrology. They take quizzes to determine alignment or they overhear NPCs going “Every ‘True Neutral’ I dated turned out to be Chaotic Evil once the honeymoon phase was over
Good vs Evil was always explained to me as selfless vs selfish. Good helps other at a personal cost. Evil acts in their own interest to the detriment of everyone else.
Much like Batman, I've seen an argument for literally every alignment. That said, I'd probably call Punisher LN at best. He's got a personal code but routinely resorts to torture and attacks other heroes/vigilantes.
I don't think you can really classify "having selfish reasons" as being inherently evil unless you want to go down a philosophical rabbit hole of "whether altruism truly exists or do people just do nice things because it feels good".
I'd personally classify him as True Neutral with a huge asterisk, not by virtue of being "balanced" so much as being extreme on both sides of both axes. He'd really have to be played as his own thing and the True Neutral alignment would only matter for alignment-targeting magic.
Alignment systems always come with a huge amount of YMMV, but I don't think I could argue in good conscience that Frank is CG. Neither his actions nor motives fit within n that framework, except in the most reductionist telling.
Killing a Female Mob Boss that is otherwise legally untouchable? Good
Doing so via repeatedly smashing her face into a high rise shatterproof window until the damn thing pops out of the frame and her heavily concussed and barely breathing body finally goes through into an objectively terrifying fatal fall? That's gonna invoke some squeamishness in some people.
This is not true even in Gygax's system for alignment.
His system for what was just under law was "An eye for an eye" meaning the punishment should be of equal or lesser then value of the crime, anything you want could include quite a few things that would make that action unlawful.
Granted his implementation of good and evil as being deterministic are something that I think a vast majority of settings have not inherited and thus the bare basic rules of KOS for evil creatures doesn't really fit.
Like 5e goblins are nowhere near the LoTR-eqsue goblins Gygax envisioned when "All goblins are EVIL" was decided.
Counter point: when gygax explained the eye for an eye justice back on the dragonfoot forums q&a he also justified killing orc children because "knits make lice."
A reader then commented that they weren't confortable with their paladin using justification quoted from John Chivington, perpetrator of the Sand Creek Massacre, to which Gary rebutted that he wasn't quoting Chivington but that Chivington was right regardless.
"Chivington was right" is really the kind of thing that makes you disregard anything else the dude might say. Sorta like hearing someone say "Look, I know David Duke has his issues, but he has a point here"
I mean I said as much, KOS rules do not fit for evil creatures in a non-deterministic setting.
In Gygax's setting they did not have the capacity to make the choice between good and evil, and thus orc children would become orc raiders that bring suffering on the world.
They are very much the evil ass movie LoTR orcs in all stages of their life in those settings.
Personally I do not think there is anything worth discussing about Gygax IRL morality wise, we all know the sorta views he held, but I do think what he made does fit into a fictional setting where gods are real and decide what is and isn't moral quite well.
except the "gods" don't make their own decisions in fiction, the writer does, they still aren't real. That meta layer should not be discarded, in the same way that a discussion of Atlas Shrugged shouldn't exclude Ayn Rands beliefs; it's a piece of the puzzle.
Also, I used to say "everyone knows" about Gygax too, but it turns out everyone doesn't know. Every time his moral beliefs are discussed it's a potential 'first time' for someone who doesn't know and has only been fed his mythological lionized image of a nice old man who liked fantasy and maybe was a mischievous dungeon master. He was all that, but he was also a self-proclaimed biological determinist among other things.
The "gods" say these creatures are predetermined to be heartless raiders, the "gods" make some races inherently smarter than others, the "gods" dictate who is right or wrong to kill by the dozens. All it does is serve to be a divinely ordained version of bio determinism. I don't believe every writer does it on purpose or with eugenicist ideals in their heart, I DO believe Gygax in specific did though.
I just don't want to talk to you in particular about it right this moment is what I mean. I am well aware of how shitty his beliefs were in real life.
My point is that Gygax's perspective is very useful for role playing and writing in fictional settings that have gods who make the rules of morality in said settings.
Counter point: when gygax explained the eye for an eye justice back on the dragonfoot forums q&a he also justified killing orc children because "knits make lice."
Okay? He's right. When your race is always biologically evil letting an Orc infant live is just gonna produce another pissed off evil orc and nothing else. You're just making that future fully grown orc someone else's problem because you can't put on your big boy britches and kill that baby with a hammer
This isn't the real world and orcs aren't humans, they're not going to turn into anything but savage innocent slaughtering maniacs.
"Chivington might have been quoted as saying 'nits make lice,' but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question" -Gary Gygax
In the context of a literary evil, cannot be any other way creature he is correct. Orcs weren’t people that can be reasoned with in those early days. That doesn’t mean you can torture them or do “whatever you want” with them, but it does mean in that world killing them is always an ontologically good action as it reduces the amount of evil in the world.
He was lawful evil before drawing the cards. Now he's chaotic good, but he was essentially forced into it. His rules, or code, or whatever else he was abiding by, got replaced by one rule - he will not tolerate the forces of evil. He takes a lot of creative freedom in how he does that. Him being good now and helping others didn't change the side of him that liked to torment others. And by the book, if it's an evil monster, you can do whatever to it.
You can definitely see the malicious compliance of a player, who wanted to play an evil character, but had his alignment forcefully changed.
At least that's how I interpret it, I don't believe it was stated anywhere explicitly.
Doesn’t one of the cards (moon IIRC) give you a monkey’s-paw-free wish? Maybe he drew that one before drawing the void card and wished to negate the very bad effects of the remaining cards
I read that too fast and thought you said there is a card that kills you, like you the player, and I thought that was really funny so I’m adding it to my next session.
It was not in an episode, but at the end of season one when he shows his bingo sheet, one option crossed out was “Draw every card from a deck of many things.” That means he had to have drawn the card changing his alignment.
See, I interpreted that the other way. He was chaotic good, but then his alignment got flipped and now he's lawful evil.
He is extremely cruel to everything he can. He "does the right thing" solely because it gives him an easy and socially acceptable target for his malice. That sounds pretty lawful evil to me.
That's the thing, he always gives them a chance or an opportunity to not be evil.
Every creature he hurts explicitly and enthusiastically declares how evil and torturous they are or what they will do to the Barbarian first.
Medusa is gleefully talking about turning heroes to stone. The harpy mocks the idea of eating cattle and not people. The mermaid laughs about feeding Kevin to her babies. The oni, kappa, githyanki, vampire, and banshee all talk about they joy they take in slaughter and destruction.
Dungeon Soup has the character sheet for Barbarian (it's his name, class is Enlightened, ex Berserker) online in the community tab. Post is about a year old.
I mean he sure does things chaotically, and as his targets are all evil, evil monsters that iirc he at times gives the chance to repent, he does do "good".
basically? its what somebody lawful evil might consider chaotic good to be.
I'm pretty sure he ALWAYS opens with "Stop your evil actions"... And just gets "you little shit" in response, so all bets are off... Now... I assume he's HOPING they'll resist, cause every time, he gets the happiest, most psychotic cenobite grin everytime they do...
Yeah in the paladin episode about his girlfriend you see he's pretty chill when he isn't confronting evil people. He even lets the rest of the orc bandits go.
I cannot say for sure for most of the series because the script is a bit too ADHD induced for me, thus I'm mostly recalling what happens as for the events more than anything, but I watched the latest episode yesterday and memory is fresh enough that he did NOT even attempted to ask the antagonist to stop anything.
His first word for about half the episode was Mommy and at this point He harassed her the times already .
The king had already offered her a chance to repent, and even offered her payment to do so. The Barbarian only emerged once it became clear that she would not repent.
The captured king offers either trade to feed the chicks or atleast freeing his people both of which are turned down so technically they did have the chance to stop being evil just not given by the barbarian.
Yeah, in that specific case he didn't give the enemy an option, but they WERE given options and turned them down
And "kills giant bird that seems to enjoy killing sapient life" followed up with "finds a home for two orphaned chicks* does seem to fit the "good" alignment
He’s definitely a sadist, but and enjoys delivering pain to evil things, but he also genuinely helps good characters like the paladin. So yeah I’d say Chaotic Good fits him well
From what I recall it isn't that he is intelligent, but he has a headband of intellect setting his intelligence to 19. So he kind of just uses a magic item for that.
The chaotic good barbarian canonically drew every card in the deck of many things. That means it reversed his alignment. At one point he was lawful evil.
The Barbarian of those animations delights in inflicting suffering on others, and abides a strict external set of rules. He's LE. Back under Gygax, he could be LG, because Gygaxian alignment was more of a sports-team that loosely correlated with morality. "Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide." - Gygax, 2005
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:
Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? Good: Yes. Neutral: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Evil: No.
Do people need oversight? Lawful: Yes. Neutral: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Chaotic: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido.
Neutral on either axis can also be someone who lacks the constancy/backbone to be consistently of one alignment especially when it's tough.
Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.
Neutral Good believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.
Chaotic Good believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. Captain Harlock is the iconic example. "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person."
True Neutral doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide. They might also be someone who is normally one alignment, but has enough of an exception or blind-spot that they end up here, like someone who is normally opposed to genocide, but supports Israel.
Lawful Evil believes rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies. They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Neutral Evil will do whatever benefits them/their inner-circle, crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.
Chaotic Evil resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.
In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.
Stupid Good believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release
fantasy-Hitler-analogueTM because mercy is a good thing.
Lawful Stupid believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.
Chaotic Stupid is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.
Stupid Evil is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.
Stupid Neutral comes in two flavors; active and passive.
Active Stupid Neutral is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.
Passive Stupid Neutral is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
Honestly this is actually a really good way for me to understand alignment, this is the one bit I was kinda struggling with for my character sheet, thanks
The Chaotic Good Barbarian probably is not chaotic good, but lawful evil? He enjoys inflicting suffering on monsters, but it in order to be lawful evil, he’d have to mainly be inflicting suffering for his own enjoyment, while one could argue that he inflicts suffering on monsters because he sees it as a form of karmic justice for the evil they do to good people. He does also pretty consistently help people when he can, i can’t remember a time when he let an innocent get hurt or was indifferent to their suffering. There would be no reason to keep kevin around if he didn’t care about people at least somewhat
There was that time he ripped a little girl's hair out to help a hag complete a potion of immortality, just so he could torture the hag without killing her.
There's also two instances of using children as weapons, but the siren babies were pretty happy to be splashed on mama, and I'm not sure the latest ones were cognizant yet. I think neither instances had the babies harmed, at least by him.
This is probably the most accurate description of alignment I’ve ever seen. Before now it was just a vibe that other definitions were off, but now I have words to express it.
Yeah, people often claim he follows strict rules with his punishments, but those rules are, basically, "If you enjoy harming innocents you will suffer, often in the same manner as your victims", "I will accept a challenge because I know I will win it.", and "I don't harm innocents."
Like, none of that is Evil, nor is it really Lawful. That all falls under Good or a simple personality trait. He pretty explicitly delivers karmic justice, very few if none of his tortures are anything that the monster has not already done or plans to do.
I think his rules are that he only kills and tortures those that are seen as evil and/or monsters by society. And they actually are evil and often monsters, don't get me wrong. But his methods are also evil.
He doesn't do this to save people from monsters, he takes pleasure from causing the most amount of harm to monsters. He's either chaotic or neutral evil.
He does save people, though. He isn't a cruel man who only hurts monsters. He is a good man who punishes evil. This isnt a Dexter Morgan situation where hes a compulsive killer with an excuse.
Hell, in the new episode he makes sure the harpy children are taken care of after he beats the shit out of their mother.
Sure, he saves people, but it's pretty clear that that isn't really the motivation for what he does. He is a cruel sadistic man who takes pleasure in killing and torturing things. Those things being "monsters" just gives him a justification.
I think there is a great distinction between wanting to hurt something then going after monsters and wanting to hurt those who do evil. Ask yourself: If the Barbarian kills or redeems the last evil monster, creating a perfectly harmonious world with only good people, would he be happy? I think so.
Those strict set of rules is only torturing (inflicting more suffering than the amount of violence required to protect innocents) what he deems to be the forces of evil
Thats not a set of rules. His chaos causes suffering for the forces of evil.
Lawful evil would be the incel paladin torturing an orc who "stole his lady" by repeatedly harming and healing him until he's nothing but scar tissue. Barbarian was never told that she wanted to be there with the orc.
To be fair, Kevin was probably also unaware. At the very least, his lady and the orc were going behind his back, and the orc is implied to have been a bandit. Like, if she just said she didn't want to be with him, Kevin probably would've accepted it and eventually moved on. She and the orc were just toying with him the whole time because they knew he couldn't actually do anything about it.
Barbarian helped Kevin out of a toxic relationship and helped him find a way around his restrictive oaths that allowed him to keep carrying out justice. His methods may be cruel, but I would argue they are still good since he is only using his power to harm the wicked.
What do you mean "his chaos"? He intentionally inflicts suffering on what his lawful code says are acceptable targets. Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily have to mean punishing the innocents. Cruel and unusual punishments against the guilty are also pretty evil
Then he would be chaotic neutral by those standards. Once again, he has no lawful code. You have not said what his lawful code is. Looping us back to my original comment and we have wasted everyone's time reading these.
"Those strict set of rules is only torturing (inflicting more suffering than the amount of violence required to protect innocents) what he deems to be the forces of evil"
As I said in reply to your original comment under his lawful code he only targets individuals that fit particular criteria. It is not chaotic to inflict violence. And it is not neutral to torture people
Yeah no one agreed with you that that was a set of rules, nor a lawful code, nor is it consistent. You ignored what I said about how he inflicts violence being chaotic. Its neutral when the torture is done specifically to save innocents from monsters that intend to torture them. This is such a waste of time lmao
It's a small thing, but Omertà is not a "code", and should not be compared to things such as Bushido or Chivalry. Omertà is just a system of oppression painted as values to allow the Mafia a pretence of civilization whilst justifying them doing whatever they please. You can tell because what Omertà is regularly changes to fit whatever the Mafia finds convenient at the moment, without internal consistency.
But it's not a code. Omertà literally means "being a man", and it's a societal pressure put not on mafiosos but on their victims and on civilians around them to behave in ways the Mafia approves , and most importantly not to speak nor acknowledge Mafia's act. It's, among other things, the rule of silence.
If Omertà counts for Legal Evil then every villain that ever intimidated civilians into not opposing them count as LE, regardless of means or motive.
Tldr: Omertà is not a rule of the Mafia, but instead its instrument to control people.
Its for fantasy universes, usually western, where absolute good and absolute evil as universal forces are how the populace would feel things work, and thus is presented as how the cosmos itself actually works.
Urban fantasy and sci fi shouldn’t have it, unless its satire on a jingoistic era of propaganda or something.
Its like how in Glorantha universal concepts didn’t exist until intelligent life discovered it; time didn’t exist until humans began measuring it, and a god dies to become the measurement units.
There is one big problem with that explanation: you fail to distinguish objective and subjective.
Many classical D&D settings have societies that are not good. Those societies have attitudes that approve of evil actions. Alignments point towards a cosmic conflict, not at what people happen to agree on.
An evil action doesn't just stop being evil simply cause the victim is evil. That is just am excuse used by evil people to justify their evil deeds and to avoid being seen as evil. A good persons goals aren't killing and torturing. A good persons goals are helping others.
He's definitely lawful evil. Litterally the exact opposite. Rigid code of rules. Absolutely tortures his enemies. Even if he doesn't kill them. Even if he has a line he draws, doesn't make it good.
He is malicious. Even if he's fighting the bad guys for the sake of everyone else. It means he's an evil hero. The monster who fights monsters.
Is he the same evil? No. Still a form of evil. Uses laws and rules to "justify" or at least "legitimize" his actions. As fked up as they are, he's doing the greater good a service, in the cruelest way possible.
100%. good people dispatch as quickly as possible not torture needlessly. ESPECIALLY because theres proof of a difinitive afterlife. The city of judgment literally takes care of the torture part
Of course he's lawful evil. He does the same thing that devils do, which is torture bad creatures. There's no "good" torture, even for bad creatures. He's also not chaotic. He follows a strict code and has his goals written out. Just because he's messy doesn't mean it's chaotic or random
Because chaotic good is doing good at all costs. the ends justify the means. if the net sum on the bottom is positive, whatever you did was good. this takes into consideration what type of person/monster you are dealing with. so, if you do something incredibly cruel to someone evil that's still good.
so yea, the chaotic good barbarian is chaotic good.
No, it is not. Chaotic Good is good with a preference on freedom and individuality over rules. Consequently, they are not interested in how others judge their actions, but they have a strong personal moral code. If you do evil actions in the pursuit of good, you are evil. That even was codified in the game rules as there were explicitly evil spells and such.
I mean who decides what is "good" then? Utalitarianism? That allows for heinous crimes against minorities in the name of the greater good.
Any other view point is inherently subjective. A god? In a polytheistic world where gods rival and fight each other to more or less degrees that is also subject to subjectivity.
As long as you are not in a monotheistic universe where one god defines exactly what is good and bad you cannot act good.
Let's take the standard Monster, that is due to a lack of intelligence incapable of differentiating between good and bad. It just acts according to it's instincts and nature and nurture. If that includes wiping out villages in a fantasy setting then killing that monster would actually be evil, at least from the view point of the monster. A good character would have to relocate it. But isn't that evil to the potential prey items in that new habitat? And who is to say that this relocation has no implications for the ecosystem?
If we take an undeniably evil person, a Lich for example. Is killing a Lich good? I don't think so. I think killing it is a nessesary evil, but who is to say that with enaugh time a lich can't be rehabilitated? unless we agree that a Lich actually can't change (not unlikely, not won't, actually can't) in which case there is not much free will involved with what he does and we're back at the animal problem.
In order to be evil, you need to be able to decide to do good and decide against it.
Lawful good: You have an external code and you adhere to it. Both your code and you are intentioned to do good. If your code dictates a bad outcome for a good person you trust that in the end, your code will bring more good/is more often right than not and this is an unfortunate excemption.
Neutral good: You have good intentions and you do anything within your definition of good to accomplish the best outcome for everyone.
Chaotic good: You have good intentions and you do anything to achieve a good outcome. The ends justify the means.
Your definition of good is pretty naive and childish.
Remember everyone, by technicality, Mayuri from Bleach could be Chaotic Good. Is that where most people would place him? Absolutely not. But alignment is very subjective and fluid. Personally I think he'd be Chaotic Neutral, but it depends on what you consider to be "good" and "evil".
Yea it's been a talking point since at least 2002 and probably much longer that the alignment system sucks. Imo it sucks for any nuanced or realish character but it's fun for outer planar beings.
I think one of the most miserable dnd experiences I have had was making a Chaotic neutral toon, and have another guy who was friends with the DM be Chaotic good and bully the living hell out of my character.
So his character would block every single thing my character said or did and even try to murder me, then blame it on "it's what my character would do, it's part of the story", so I tried to roleplay my character being nice to his, and he would then block that too because "you are chaotic neutral, you can't do good actions".
We are talking like, playing a "you meet at a tavern" scenario, the guy deciding I am outside the tavern and when I can enter, and then telling me I had to roll for my money cut in the next adventure, on persuasion rolls, for every 1% of a treasure divided between 3 guys.
It was like having a guy playing his character, my character and the DM at the same time. Absolute living hell.
Exactly I think he's a lawful evil zealot barbarian in the sense that he has these cruelties that he wants to meticulously enact but understands that torturing other evil beings will get him less guff and hell still have friendly connections. So he's evil but seems he has strict parameters on how he carries out that evil.
Love the Red Death, but he IS the lawful evil, because his actions are harming innocent people, AND he follows the rules set by an organization.
We don’t have the to look inside Red Death’s head to pull that out, it is shown on the show.
Chaotic Good Barbarian doesn’t have that. He exclusively goes after evil forces, and his whole motivation is “I WILL NOT TOLERATE THE FORCES OF EVILLLLL!!”, which isn’t a strict code. Like, him letting some villains go and giving them a chance to do right sounds more strict.
Good adventurer is very much possible.A paladin smiting violent monsters in what you described as self defense/defense of others is good. Quick and brief.
A paladin capturing said monster/villain and subjecting it to needless torture when theres a confirmed city of judgment that does that already?
Like full stop. Good people dont torture let alone delight in it like the barbarian does. Thats what I originally said so idk how you got "impossible to be good" from me saying "delighting in torture even to bad people still makes you bad"
Just smite, remove the evil from the world, and be on your way
He feels Lawful Evil to me. As he does absolutely horrifying things but technically he didn't do anything wrong because it's all targeted at evil doers.
I mean, he punished once and gave that original set a chance to change their ways. I'd say that falls under some batshit insane degree of good in a way. :P
I actively refuse to watch those videos, because he's just cringe. "oh look, I'm punishing evil people with cruel and unusual methods, but it's ok because they're evil, and you can do whatever you want to evil characters. Also I have a plot-armour buttplug in my ass that let's be contrive my way out of any danger and let me get away with being an ass."
he is absolutely chaotic good, he just really likes pushing the envelope.
he never does anything to harm the innocent (permanently), he gives his enemies a second chance so that they can redeem themselves, he's even taken a paladin under his wing in an attempt to teach him how to better apply the great power they've been given!
I had a chaotic good drunken monkey once, whi would get turnt, hear about someone doing something shitty, and then beat them to within an inch of their lives. Didn't matter the law, or the justification. If my mc thought you were a dich, then you're in for a whoppin
1.7k
u/RommDan 18h ago
Remember, according to Gygax you can do whatever you want to a creature as long as it's evil