Hello, i have opened this topic so we can discuss about the d&d alignments of skyrim groups.

Companions. I think companions are lawful neutral. They warn you about not transforming next to guards and they also care and order you to avoid killing any citizen while in a quest. They couldnt care less, if the target werent to pay. Although they have pride and rules, which they follow. They just dont mind other people' business.

College of magic. They are good, as they avoid harming innocent, or anyone in general. They follow the laws of the jarl and since they know people fear them, they refrain from experiments or conjuring, because they dont want to scare people. Lawful good.

Dark brotherhood. Neutral evil. They dont follow the general DB rules since they have forsaken the 5 tenets rule. They do have some structure but less solid, so they are neutral in that aspect. They kill people for money and fun, therefore they are evil.

Thieves guild. Hmm this troubles me. They know they break the law so they arent lawful, but they follow a set of internal rules so they are not chaos. About good vs evil. They are halfway neural to evil. They dont aim innocent, or use violence but then again stealing is general is bad, not the worst in the world though. Neutral neutral- evil neutral.

Blades. Lawful evil. They follow rules, but they use them as a tool of domination and try to erase one of the most ancient species. Fighting dragons to defend is one thing, kill everyone is another.

Greybeards. True neutral. I wont harm you, i wont go against any law without reason but if you touch me, i will bring you down.

Imperial army. Lawful neutral. They follow rules generally, while they do some things than are wrong, they will try to protect people in some sense. Sometimes they walk towards lawful evil, but generally they stay neutral.

Stormcloaks. Chaotic evil. They have the way of "everyone that is not with me, is against me", so there goes the chaotic. Also, they might have good cause, but they use brute force to achieve it. "Kill the high king and start a civil war." What if other people dont agree? Will you just force them?

Dawnguard. Fallen neutral good, so neutral evil. Neutral because they will even try kill the vampires without the jarl's permission in the respective quest. Evil because they have started from a good cause but now they will kill every vampire on sight.

Vampire clan. Chaotic evil. "Everyone who is not me, is prey".

Skyrim is not a D&D game.

There are a few here that will tell you it's not a game.

I have to agree with ghastley, this is not D&D, or AD&D, both of which I played for many years. Skyrim may be a 'video game', but it's much more than that to those of us who role play heavily, and it's different for each of us, and each character. Speaking for myself, it would be difficult, at best, to fit my characters into any particular slot you've listed. Plus, the way you've listed them is purely a matter of opinion, though from a D&D standpoint I'd have to agree with you on the Dark Brotherhood evil aspect, though not the neutral.

I'm not trying to be rude, just giving my opinion.

Welcome to the Forum!

Ok, i thank you for your opinions. I suppose no one else thinks this is interesting.

No doubt some will, or at least they will give their opinions too. That is what the forum is all about.

You're not the first, nor will you be the last to compare Skyrim in this way, and that's ok. Each to their own after all. The longer you're here, and the more you read and get to know people here, the more very different points of view you'll see. I hope you enjoy and stay!

It's very interesting to see how other people view the same game. Like Andra, most of my characters wouldn't fit into those slots.


I didn't answer earlier when I popped in and read it, because if I had more to say... and I generally do... I wait til I'm home and can't multi quote on my PC rather than have to scroll back and forth on my phone.


Plus we have quite the international community also... they tend to have different hours, so sometimes it might be a day or so later before they answer at all

Since we have an open chat, may i ask? If a true neutral, sees someone getting hurt, will they step up to defend or not?

I think, if one was truly neutral, they'd look at all the factors, who, what, why, etc, before deciding what to do, if anything. LOL By that time, it might be moot.

The only games I've ever found "alignments" (as in D&D) to be viable in are D&D/AD&D (and even then they weren't exactly "viable" - painful seriously). Truthfully? I'm thoroughly happy that such a rigid system of "behavior" hasn't happened in TES. Hope it never does.

I don't like "alignments", to me it's like "classes" or "birth signs"... I much prefer my characters to develop naturally. They may start out one way and develop completely differently. I may start out a character intending him or her to dual wield... somewhere along the way they pick up a shield and that is what they end as.

Same with Alignments, I had a character that was just supposed to be a hunter... to me that mean's... bow, dagger, axe ( cause it makes some sense ) light armor or clothing, sneak.. for 25 lvl's... 200 hr's... she was a hunter...exploring The Rift and Falkreath Hold... then one day... she stole something and poof...a thief was born because she liked the challenge of stealing things right out from under the owners nose.

No slot or tag... just a hunter who had a quirk.

I use D&D alignments when creating my Skyrim characters, but only as a tool for the characters basic conception. I think there is somewhat of a bias against alignments nowadays since characters that aren't good or bad -- that is they act more or less like average people -- or moral relativism is seen as being more sophisticated. The problem here is that this is really a myopic take on life. There are real-world crusaders and evil doers. Oh yes. They do exist. This seems to me to be a war against idealism, both good and bad, and a propping up of the mundane and mediocre over the exceptional. I get it. We lived for centuries under haughty nobles who openly felt superior in relation to the common folk, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that there are some individuals that simply are superior to us not just in ability, but in morality and determination. That said, I do like morally amorphous characters. I also like paragons of virtue and evil bastards. I like myriads of experience.

I will say that I don't agree with the OP's assessment of the Blades or the Stormcloaks at all. I can't see any way to frame them, organizationally, as being evil. Both are clearly Neutral in D&D terms, at least from my perspective. I'd say that the Blades are clearly Lawful Neutral and the Stormcloaks are Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Evil is the worst possible alignment, at least from an individualistic perspective, as it basically equates to sadist and serial killers. The only characters that fit that bill in Skyrim, in terms of major groups, are individual members of the vampires and Dark Brotherhood.

I'd also say that the Companions are clearly Neutral as an organization. There reluctance to get involved in politics is the key here. There are radiant quests where you're tasked with breaking the law by roughing up citizens. I can't see them being lawful because of that. That said, I think they range from good to neutral. Kodlak and Ria seem to be of good temperaments, while it's clear to me that Aela and Skor are Neutral to Chaotic Neutral.

All that said, there is a dearth of clearly "good" characters in the traditional sense, particularly among adventures. Mjoll is about the only major NPC/Follower that's clearly heroic and altruisitc in any significant way.

I don't have a problem with saying my characters are "good" or "evil"... I started a Character off as "bad" in the selfish sense to grow into down-right Evil in the "I want it, you have it, your dead, so I can get it" sense. Most of my characters are to the left of neutral, but some aren't... perhaps if I thought about each and everyone of them after the fact, then I could give them an exact alignment, but I don't start with them in one...not in my mind, because I know they will grow...one way or the other. Which is why I don't like "alignments" or "slot's" to me that just mean's they can't grow...grow from "evil" of one sort, to "neutral" or even to good.

Played the Baldur's Gate series quite a bit and am pretty familiar with the D&D 'alignment' stuff. Never thought the concept added much value. That said, I haven't thought too much about the game factions. Well, with one exception. When my character accidentally picks up an empty tankard in a tavern, she is reminded that the 'guards faction' is sure full on 'Lawful Stupid'.

As far as my (one and only) character, Buffy, she is what she is and unbound by those restraints. That said, I suppose I would say that she has, over the years, developed into what might be called Chaotic Good in D&D terms. Barely though, for she is held back by her taste for vengeance that can manifest on occasion as cruelty to her foes. On the other hand, she is incredibly nurturing to her friends. So, yeah, Chaotic Good I guess. Maybe.