Alignments

Good vs. evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies a lack of concern for others, and in extreme cases purposefully hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is necessary or convenient to their goals. Others are actively malicious, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are generally committed to others by personal relationships rather than by a general sense of moral obligation.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, particularly in the case of people or entities that recognize the objective existence of alignment in the default Dungeons & Dragons cosmology. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good/evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some (particularly druids) it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these people maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place, if not for all people then at least for themselves.

Animals and non-sentient creatures are neither good nor evil. Even man-eating carnivores and animals trained to kill are neutral because they lack the capacity to distinguish between morally right or wrong behavior.

Law vs. chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over dogma, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentality, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. He is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the law/chaos axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of ethical action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the ethical capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

The law versus chaos axis has generated some controversy and confusion. Different books, and even different parts in the same book, have interpreted law and chaos to mean different things. Among its different interpretations are a person's feelings on government and laws, a person's sense of honor, how orderly and logical a person's mind works, how flexible a person's mind is, whether a person prefers cities or countryside, and even how orderly a person likes to keep his or her house.

Lawful Good
"Crusader"

A lawful good character upholds society and its laws, believing that these laws are created to work for the good and prosperity of all. He is both honest and benevolent. He will work within the established system to change it for the better, and strives to bring order to goodness that other good-aligned characters might pool their resources to better the world. A lawful good character combines a commitment to oppose evil with discipline. Most lawful good characters live by a strict code of honor, or by the rules of conduct set down by their deity. They will generally selflessly act by these codes even at the cost of their own life.

Lawful good combines honor and compassion for the innocent.

It must however be stressed that blind obedience to local laws is not required by the Lawful Good alignment. A Paladin is not in violation of his alignment if he decides to take up arms against a usurper on behalf of the rightful king, for example, even if that means going against the sedition laws instated by the usurper.

An incorruptible cop, a ruler or politician who acts for the good of his people, and a soldier who refuses to compromise the laws of battle are all examples of lawful good characters.

Neutral Good
"Benefactor"

Neutral good characters do good for goodness' sake, not because they are directed to by law or by whim. Such a character will obey the law, or break it when they see it will serve a greater good. They aren't bound strongly to a social system or order. Their need to help others and reduce suffering may take precedence over all else.

This alignment desires good without bias for or against order.

A doctor who treats both sides in a fight and an aid worker who feeds the starving in a war zone are both examples of neutral good characters.

Chaotic Good
"Rebel"

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He is kind and benevolent, a strong individualist hostile to the claims of rules, regulations, and social order. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He will actively work to bring down unjust rulers and organizations and to liberate the oppressed. He finds lawful societies distasteful and will avoid them, often living as a nomad or hermit.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Noble rebel leaders fighting corrupt or venal regimes, vigilantes acting for what they see as the greater good, and anyone who "robs from the rich to give to the poor" are all examples of chaotic good characters.

Lawful Neutral
"Judge"

A lawful neutral character is directed by law, logic, tradition, or a personal code. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral combines reliability and honor, without moral bias.

A functionary, soldier or employee who follows orders without question regardless of the result and an impartial jurist who sticks rigidly to the rule book are all examples of Lawful Neutral characters.

Neutral
"Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. She thinks of good as better than evil &mdash; after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she isn't personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

The neutral alignment is without prejudice or compulsion.

This is the most common alignment of sentient creatures and the alignment of almost all animals and other creatures of very low intelligence.

True Neutral
"Balancer"

Some neutral characters commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They are of the true neutral alignment as described in Dungeons & Dragons.

A true neutral character sees good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. He advocates the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Some true neutral characters actively support balance in the world, and seek to avoid having any one side, law or chaos, good or evil, become too powerful over them or anyone else, and will work against whichever side is the most powerful. They tend to side with the underdog in any situation, and are often opportunistic in their actions.

True neutral is committed to the avoidance of extremes, and is non-judgmental.

Druidic True Neutral
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, all druids were true neutral. The true neutral alignment is central to the philosophy of neutral druids:

Because a druid's main charges &mdash; plants, animals, and the health of the planetary ecology &mdash; essentially lack alignment or ethos, druids feel free to use almost any means necessary to protect them.

The druidic order works to maintain the natural balance among the alignments. However, druids do realize that most individuals' actions &mdash; including their own &mdash; will not prove significant to the cosmic balance. The druid sees the friction between alignments as the driving force in the world.

When faced with a tough decision, a druid usually stands behind the solution that best serves nature in the long run.

Chaotic Neutral
"Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but does not strive to protect the freedom of others. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character doesn't intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others), evil (and a desire to make others suffer), or be lawful neutral. A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

A wandering rogue who lives both by work for hire and petty theft, and an arms dealer who sells his wares to the highest bidder, whatever that bidder may do with them, are both examples of chaotic neutral characters.

Lawful Evil
"Dominator"

A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He's comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He is loath to break promises, and is therefore very cautious about giving his word unless a bargain is clearly in his favour.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They feel these personal morals put them above unprincipled villains.

Many lawful evil characters use society and its laws for selfish advantages, exploiting the letter of the law over its spirit whenever it best suits their interests.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical", because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Other examples of lawful evil characters include tyrants, petty bureaucrats, and gang bosses.

Lawful evil is methodical, intentional, and frequently successful devotion to evil.

Neutral Evil
"Malefactor"

Neutral evil characters do whatever they can get away with. They are out for themselves, pure and simple. They shed no tears for those they kill, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. They have no love of order and hold no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make them any better or more noble. On the other hand, they do not have the restless nature or love of conflict that chaotic evil villains have.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is pure pragmatism without honor and without variation — survival of the fittest.

Most career criminals, particularly those who harm others for money, such as hitmen, would fall under this category.

Chaotic Evil
"Destroyer"

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Fortunately, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

These characters will commit any act to further their own ends. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is power without control, selfishness unfettered by any law.

Many serial killers would fit this discription, as would many of the more psychotic paramilitary or gang leaders found in the world's most savage conflict zones.

Aligned Philosophies
While the nine point primary alignment system is sufficient for many needs, there are some who prefer a more multidirectional spectrum of morality with perameters for Justice, Value, Rights, Duty, Virtue, Equality, Trust, Free will, Consent and Freedom.

Most philosophies fall into several basic categories.
 * Consequentialism
 * Deontology
 * Virtue Ethics
 * Good and Evil

Consequentialism
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, on a consequentialist account, a morally right action is an action that produces good consequences. In other words, the ends justify the means.

Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from both deontology, which derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the nature of the act itself and virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character.

Utilitarianism
Hedonistic Utilitarianism is, historically, the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. It holds that right action produces the most happiness for all agents. "Happiness" on this account is defined as the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. Early theorists proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures. However, some contemporary utilitarians are concerned to maximize the satisfaction of preferences.

Ethical egoism and altruism
Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism may license actions which are good for the agent, but it is generally seen as detrimental to general welfare. However, some argue that a certain degree of egoism promotes general welfare for two reasons: because individuals know how to please themselves best, and because if everyone were an austere altruist then general welfare would inevitably decrease. Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist ethic which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone except for himself. Both Egoism and Altruism remain closely linked due to the interconnected nature of societal structures.

Rule consequentialism
In general, consequentialist theories focus on actions, however, this need not be the case. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile deontology and consequentialism. Like deontology, rule consequentialism holds that moral behavior involves following certain rules. However, rule consequentialism chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. Various theorists are split as to whether the rules are the only determinant of moral behavior or not.

Negative consequentialism
Most consequentialist theories focus on promoting some sort of good consequences. However, one could equally well lay out a consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad consequences. Of course, the maximization of good consequences could also involve the minimization of bad consequences, but the promotion of good consequences is usually of primary import. One major difference between these two approaches is the agent's responsibility. Positive consequentialism demands that we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative consequentialism may only require that we avoid bad ones. A more strenuous version of negative consequentialism may actually require active intervention, but only to prevent harm from being done.

Deontological ethics
Deontologists argue the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the goodness or badness of its consequences. In contrast, consequentialism holds that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes or satisfies good consequences as determined by an impartial determination of good and evils. Deontological ethics typically is thought to involve two important elements: prerogatives and constraints. Prerogatives deny that agents must always seek to perform actions with optimum consequences. Constraints place limits on what actions agents may undertake in an effort to bring about their own or the impartial good.

Primary Theory
The most famous deontological theory is that of a well respected Gilneas philosopher. In his theory, he claimed that various actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and that, conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings are morally right. Therefore, he claimed, we all have a duty to avoid the first type of act and perform the second type of act. He believed that this duty was absolute. He drew a distinction between contingent duties, which only need to be carried out under certain empirical circumstances, and categorical duties, which always need to be carried out, because they are based on a priori reasoning about the general nature of things, and thus apply no matter what the circumstances are. He thought of the duty to promote human freedom and rationality as the only truly categorical duty. He called this duty the categorical imperative, and described it at great length in his writings. Of the five formulations of the categorical imperative he developed, the three most well-known and significant are:
 * Act only according to that rule by which can also become a universal law
 * Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
 * Act as though you were through your rule, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking.

A system of virtue ethics, having offered an account of the good life, then identifies those habits and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve that good life: these habits and behaviours are the virtues. In the course of one's activities one will have opportunity to practice these virtues. Sometimes these virtues will be, or will seem to be, in conflict with one another: a common dilemma is the apparent conflict between honesty and compassion, when telling a friend the truth (about his appearance, say) would hurt that friend's feelings. In such cases the agent must exercise her practical wisdom to resolve the conflict. Ultimately, a lifetime of practicing these virtues will allow the agent to flourish and live the good life. In fact, in most accounts, practicing the virtues partially constitutes good life rather than being merely a means to that end.

Cardinal Virtues
Philosophers have identified four primary virtues that have generally been regarded as core virtues in this form of ethics, they are as follows.

Prudence
This virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place. Although prudence itself does not perform any actions, and is concerned solely with knowledge, all virtues had to be regulated by it. Distinguishing when acts are courageous, as opposed to reckless or cowardly, for instance, was an act of prudence.

Justice
Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. Discussions of justice can be divided into two broad fields. Distributive justice is concerned with the proper distribution of good things - wealth, power, reward, respect - between different people. While Retributive justice is concerned with the proper response to wrongdoing.

Courage
Courage, also known as bravery and fortitude, is the ability to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. It can be divided into "physical courage" — in face of physical pain, hardship, and threat of death — and "moral courage" — in the face of shame, scandal, and discouragement.

Temperance
Temperance is the practice of moderation. Classically, temperance was defined as governing natural appetites for the pleasure of senses according to the bounds of reason. No virtue could be sustained in the face of inability to control oneself, if the virtue was opposed to some desire; this is why it is classified as a cardinal virtue, where "cardinal" signifies "pivotal."