Classic DnD Alignments chart for WH Fantasy

[Ben Argo]

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the dnd alignment chart meme. If not, google it.

In your opinions, which LL would you say fit those nine categories and why? You can use in-game or lore reasoning.

Lawful Good: My Boi Franz. Uses the system against the wicked, does his best to protect the weak and innocent, truly serves the Empire of Man.

Neutral Good: Teclis. Wants to help as many people as possible so he has allies versus Chaos. Sure it isn’t entirely altruistic but he at least goes about his business in a friendly way.

Chaotic Good: this one is hard. I would have to say none of the WH leaders strike me as “chaotic good.” If Felix was a playable character, I would go for him. Maybe a Kislev leader or a TEB LL. Or, obviously, halflings.

Lawful Neutral: obviously all the Dwarf leaders, even the Slayer King. Their obsession with grudges means they’re willing to go to any length to “right a wrong.”

True Neutral: Settra. Yes, he’s lawful leaning but one of the only cool bits in End Times was his hilarious double middle finger to Chaos as he solo’d a Daemon army. He cares about himself and his country. He would do great evil or good, whatever is necessary.

Chaotic neutral: I would say Orion and crew. They don’t care about much outside the woods and they may invite you for a party or hunt you down.

Lawful Evil? Hard to say. Malekith or maybe Vlad. Both are cunning adversaries who use existing systems to manipulate political foes. They ruthlessly exploit those below them and manipulate things to go their way.

Neutral Evil: in Lore, Nagash. If we stick to LLs in the game, I guess I would choose Arkhan, history’s greatest wingman.

Chaotic Evil: Manny. Poor lad has some serious daddy issues. Idiot also tries to come off as a strategic genius but regularly lets his appetites get the best of him. Serious impulse control and MVP for Chaos in the End Times.

[Cacomistle]

引用自 Ser Pounce：

Well, I mostly agree with that to be honest.

Doesn't stop him from doing good in his own ways even though he's not doing it to help or save people.

So consequence-wise, I'd view vlad as one of the best characters in Warhammer personally. But thats not Dnd alignment. And I'd still rate him as lawful neutral as is, which is pretty good considering I think the only 2 characters I'd rate as good are Allarielle and Teclis (maybe Franz or Grombi but I don't know their lore well enough).

I don't think this is very controversial, but I think the dnd system is flawed. A sociopath who is good because he has deemed it effective to achieve their goals is to me exactly as good as a person who is good out of selflessness and empathy. Vlad is relatively close to the first (except I don't technically believe hes a sociopath). Dnd alignment views one as neutral or even evil, and one as good, even if both lead to the same result.

So vlad is stuck being neutral at best because of the system we're using to evaluate him. At least imo, cause obviously its subjective.

[Ser Pounce]

I did rate him as lawful neutral too so I have nothing to say about this apart than I agree with that.

The DnD system IS flawed. It's been accepted as something useful but flawed and mostly used as a generic system (and it wasn't much used anyway past a certain point).

[Wh♂♂par]

I'd really want to argue against the result-based argument. Because one result being the same in two cases, doesn't mean those results will be the same in the next two cases. If it's suddenly not effective for the one doing it for that alone - the effect/result - might not do the same thing another time, when it's just to help someone else. The reasoning behind actions is mostly as important, as it gives possible predictions to what will happen the next time.

If a man wants food and I give it to him, because I smell personal gain and another one asks me but I smell none, then that's two different types of goodness.

[Cacomistle]

引用自 Wh♂♂par：

I'd really want to argue against the result-based argument. Because one result being the same in two cases, doesn't mean those results will be the same in the next two cases. If it's suddenly not effective for the one doing it for that alone - the effect/result - might not do the same thing another time, when it's just to help someone else. The reasoning behind actions is mostly as important, as it gives possible predictions to what will happen the next time.

If a man wants food and I give it to him, because I smell personal gain and another one asks me but I smell none, then that's two different types of goodness.

Thing is too good intentions don't necessarily mean good results either. Whether you didn't see personal gain or believe"the greater good" involves that man not getting food, either way you don't give him food.

In some sort of results based argument I'd look at intentions, but only in respect to future results. So I'd compare an empathetic person with someone who we could consistently convince to give food for their own gain.

In respect to vlad for example I'd say he would consistently be benevolent to his subjects just because it will benefit him. Happy subjects will almost always be easier to lead.

[Wh♂♂par]

A truly good would, someone else wouldn't.

[mweilbuchner]

引用自 Ben Argo：

引用自 Harukage：

Every time I hear “greater good” I hear those villages from “Hot Fuzz” repeating the phrase in unison. Same thing happens when I start a new campaign and Tyrion shouts “For the Greater Good.” I get a chuckle every time.

A: "what happened to the grand theogonist?"
B: "he tripped and fell on his own spikes..."

[Ben Argo]

引用自 mweilbuchner：

引用自 Ben Argo：

A: "what happened to the grand theogonist?"
B: "he tripped and fell on his own spikes..."

Is....is that a Black Adder reference?

[mweilbuchner]

引用自 Ben Argo：

Lawful Good: My Boi Franz. Uses the system against the wicked, does his best to protect the weak and innocent, truly serves the Empire of Man.

<= just like settra, vlad, tyrion or any other of the "sane" rulers in warhammer.



in my mind most lords of malice would go to any length to "serve" their own people which would make the majority of them different shades of neutral.

then there are the "insane" potentates like malekith, archaon and consorts who could be classified as any grade of evil because - let's be honest:
who works on the destruction of everything if it ultimately includes oneself? or: who makes a sport out of killing if it destabilizes one's own power base again and again and again?

finally there are those who destroy just because it's in their blood. kazrak or skrolk would be nice examples for this. but those just don't know any better - which in turn would make them true neutral again.

bottom line:

it very much depends on perspective whether a character / faction can be classified as good or evil. from the point of view of - let's say - the innocent collateral victims of an imperial clensing-operation even karl franz might seem a bit on the darker side of the spectrum! ^^

[mweilbuchner]

引用自 Ben Argo：

引用自 mweilbuchner：

Is....is that a Black Adder reference?

use shears instead of spikes :-)

i was not going for the archbishop of bath and wells this time but: good thinking!! ^^

just like him most warhammer lords don't care whether it's "animal, vegetable or mineral..."
they would "do anything to anything" just to get what they need! :-))

[Wh♂♂par]

I swear to god, get that quote syntax right.

[Cacomistle]

引用自 mweilbuchner：

引用自 Ben Argo：

Lawful Good: My Boi Franz. Uses the system against the wicked, does his best to protect the weak and innocent, truly serves the Empire of Man.

<= just like settra, vlad, tyrion or any other of the "sane" rulers in warhammer.



in my mind most lords of malice would go to any length to "serve" their own people which would make the majority of them different shades of neutral.

then there are the "insane" potentates like malekith, archaon and consorts who could be classified as any grade of evil because - let's be honest:
who works on the destruction of everything if it ultimately includes oneself? or: who makes a sport out of killing if it destabilizes one's own power base again and again and again?

finally there are those who destroy just because it's in their blood. kazrak or skrolk would be nice examples for this. but those just don't know any better - which in turn would make them true neutral again.

bottom line:

it very much depends on perspective whether a character / faction can be classified as good or evil. from the point of view of - let's say - the innocent collateral victims of an imperial clensing-operation even karl franz might seem a bit on the darker side of the spectrum! ^^

Well I think most of us would view characters like Skrolk as neutral evil.

I think its a flaw in the dnd alignment system where both of these alignments are almost the same. Neutral evil says "She is out for herself, pure and simple." on the site I'm looking at just to give a basic idea. Whereas neutral neutral says "Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way". A character not committed to any ideals is gonna end up being out for themselves.

The only unique thing I saw was that neutral neutral characters prefer good. So I guess the difference here is just that a neutral neutral character might feel empathy and other emotions that they might prioritize over personal goals. To me it seems a good character might give a homeless person money even if it means they'll starve and they've got nothing to gain except the joy of giving, a neutral character might prefer the feeling of giving a homeless person money if they don't need the money themselves, and an evil character doesn't get those positive emotions from being nice so he just won't care.

Under that interpretation skrolk (and probably kazrak but I don't know his lore at all) are neutral evil. If thats not the difference then I don't understand dnd alignments well enough to say.

[Kaelus Von Sestiaf]

Eh, my take on it:
Lawful good: Dwarves, High Elves, Bretonnia
Neutral Good: Empire
Chaotic Good: i don't think that's a thing here, really. Wood elves, kinda, but no
Lawful neutral: tomb kings
True neutral: lizardmen, wood elves
Chaotic neutral: greenskins
Lawful evil: vlad-vampire counts
Neutral evil: mannfred-vampire counts, dark elves
Chaotic evil: norsca, chaos, beastmen, vampire coast, skaven

Keep in mind neutral good/evil is often described as the purest form of good/evil, as there's nothing else guiding them towards it, no code, no need for anarchy, just a drive to commit good/evil acts.

[Wh♂♂par]

Since I am on phone.
@Cacomistle.

I'd say quite the contrary on evil. Instead of indifference, they might even enjoy the suffering.

--------------

If I were to sort Chaos Gods.
Khorne a true and pure evil,
Tzeentch a true neutral,
Nurgle a chaotic neutral/good,
Slaanesh Chaotic evil.

[Harukage]

引用自 Cacomistle：

In respect to vlad for example I'd say he would consistently be benevolent to his subjects just because it will benefit him. Happy subjects will almost always be easier to lead.

That is not really the case. He is several times mentioned to care for humans to much. The last time it was said by Luthor Harkon. Vlad refuses to fully detach himself from humanity. He is comparable in this to Ushoran and Abhorash who are good guys in Warhammer world. Only Vald is too proud to admit it. His upbringing and past as Nehekharan noble and strategist Vashanesh also do not allow him to be lost in ideals.
The one who thinks of human the way you describe is Neferata. She uses mankind as a tool and shield.

[mweilbuchner]

引用自 Wh♂♂par：

I swear to god, get that quote syntax right.

huh?

oh! i think i know what you mean!! *slackjawedgrin*

avoiding answering within the quote box, right?