# Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!



## Tsuga C (Jun 13, 2019)

No surprises here. Players want freedom and aren't really into being bipedal sphincters constantly causing problems for and within the party, hence the preference for Chaos and Good over Law and Evil.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 13, 2019)

Of course it is. It’s the goodest good alignment as currently written, so it’s no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who don’t want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so it’s the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 13, 2019)

I also think many dms forbid evil characters, so there’s that


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Of course it is. It’s the goodest good alignment as currently written, so it’s no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who don’t want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so it’s the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns.




In my experience Chaotic Neutral is the evilest evil but your DM said you weren't allowed to be evil. I usually ban it in my games, as well as evil, unless I'm deliberately accommodating evil characters.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 14, 2019)

Warning - incoming rant.

I feel like Chaotic Neutral gets a bad rap from players that either misunderstand it or intentionally abuse it.

Yes, Chaotic *can* be a being of pure Chaos, but that's the farthest end of the spectrum that mere mortals can scarcely imagine.

For typical player races, Chaotic doesn't mean "acts completely at random" unless perhaps you are playing someone insane. Even the Joker from Batman does not act completely at random - he has motivations.

Yes, you think for yourself and don't let others tell you what to do, but you are still capable of working in groups and living in society at large, with all the expectations that brings.

Just like any other alignment, you need to use your character's values and motivations to decide whether to go along with the group/social consensus even if you disagree with it; if you decide to go off on your own path, it should be because to do otherwise would violate a deeply held value of your character with the understanding that there will be social consequences.

Sometimes those social consequences are enough to make a character, even a Chaotic one, conform. You still thought for yourself, and when weighing all the outcomes decided it was better to sacrifice your ideals *this time* rather than face the potential consequences, such as going to jail, losing your job, or even just wasting time rehashing a tired argument.

Similarly, Neutral does not typically mean that you swing wildly back and forth between the extremes of Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) depending on your mood. No, usually it means that you are just an average person, not willing to give up everything to do what is right, and also not intentionally harming others. You do the best you can with the least effort required because you probably do not actually feel that strongly about whatever moral beliefs you hold.

You may lean Good towards certain groups or individuals, you may lean Evil towards others, and with enough incentive you might lean even farther one way or the other - but that's also true for every alignment.

Now, none of that is to say that you can't play a character devoted to the ideas of Chaos and Neutrality, but even such a character will have motivations that guide their decisions.

So yeah, you can play CN as "do whatever the hell I want because Chaos! and Neutral!" - but then it doesn't really matter what you write in the alignment box because you're not role-playing your character anyway - how can you when your character has no motivations?

Anyway, rant over.


----------



## Wrathamon (Jun 14, 2019)

I'm guessing no alignment is so great that it breaks the chart so they had to remove it


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 14, 2019)

Not surprise. CB is flexible morality. You wanna be good, but still able to kill that dude you do not like.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Morrus said:


> In my experience Chaotic Evil is the evilest evil but your DM said you weren't allowed to be evil. I usually ban it in my games, as well as evil, unless I'm deliberately accommodating evil characters.



Hence why I said it’s the alignment least likely for the DM to allow.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2019)

I gotta agree with [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] on the whole CN thing.  Thing is, most people, really, are lawful by D&D standards.  They follow rules, they work (reasonably well) in groups every day and generally aren't out there to stir things up.  Funny thing is, I think most players choose CN because they don't want to allow the DM to have any hooks into their behavior.  It's really a shame that 5e ejected "unaligned" because, frankly, I think that's what most folks mean when they say CN.

Sorry, but, if your chaotic neutral character is 100% responsible and trustworthy, he's not actually CN.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 14, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Hence why I said it’s the alignment least likely for the DM to allow.




i misspoke. I meant to say Chaotic Neutral.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I gotta agree with @_*Morrus*_ on the whole CN thing.  Thing is, most people, really, are lawful by D&D standards.  They follow rules, they work (reasonably well) in groups every day and generally aren't out there to stir things up.  Funny thing is, I think most players choose CN because they don't want to allow the DM to have any hooks into their behavior.  It's really a shame that 5e ejected "unaligned" because, frankly, I think that's what most folks mean when they say CN.
> 
> Sorry, but, if your chaotic neutral character is 100% responsible and trustworthy, he's not actually CN.



I disagree that most people are lawful - I'd argue that people are mostly neutral.

How many people will follow a law that significantly inconveniences them if they're certain they can get away with breaking it? Seems like most everybody drives over the speed limit and fails to pay sales tax on out-of-state purchases unless forced to. A lawful person would uphold the law even when inconvenient for themselves.

That said, alignments in D&D are a spectrum - people can lean lawful without "being" Lawful. Maybe they're only 60/100 lawful, where 0 is absolutely chaotic and 100 is absolutely lawful.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Morrus said:


> i misspoke. I meant to say Chaotic Neutral.



Ahh, I see. Yeah, that’s probably the most likely non-evil alignment to get banned, but I think DMs disallowing CN is still fairly uncommon.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I gotta agree with @_*Morrus*_ on the whole CN thing.  Thing is, most people, really, are lawful by D&D standards.  They follow rules, they work (reasonably well) in groups every day and generally aren't out there to stir things up.  Funny thing is, I think most players choose CN because they don't want to allow the DM to have any hooks into their behavior.  It's really a shame that 5e ejected "unaligned" because, frankly, I think that's what most folks mean when they say CN.
> 
> Sorry, but, if your chaotic neutral character is 100% responsible and trustworthy, he's not actually CN.



It depends on what definition of the alignments you’re working with. In the way I prefer to use alignment, I agree with you on this 100%. But it is worth noting that the way I prefer to use alignment involves defining the alignments differently than the 5e PHB defines them. According to the 5e PHB, Chaotic Neutral means “[a character] who follows their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else,” and there’s really nothing about that definition that precludes being responsible and trustworthy. I don’t particularly _like_ that definition of Chaotic Neutral, but I think it’s safe to assume it’s the one most 5e players are working with.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 14, 2019)

Duh.  The alignment system sucks and "Chaotic good" is the closest to "I'm a normal person who generally does good but doesn't always follow the rules."

Can we have Unaligned back now?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 14, 2019)

Yeah, in my experience, most people agree that other people should be obeying laws and they agree to obey laws they think are reasonable. That doesn't make them chaotic.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> It depends on what definition of the alignments you’re working with. In the way I prefer to use alignment, I agree with you on this 100%. But it is worth noting that the way I prefer to use alignment involves defining the alignments differently than the 5e PHB defines them. According to the 5e PHB, Chaotic Neutral means “[a character] who follows their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else,” and there’s really nothing about that definition that precludes being responsible and trustworthy. I don’t particularly _like_ that definition of Chaotic Neutral, but I think it’s safe to assume it’s the one most 5e players are working with.




Well, the whole "follows their whims" right there makes them untrustworthy.  Particularly when combined with putting their personal freedom above all else.  Basically becomes, "you can't tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I feel like, which, right now, means that I'm going to sleep on watch because, well, I'm tired and you can't tell me what to do."  

If you follow your whims, that makes you untrustworthy.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, the whole "follows their whims" right there makes them untrustworthy.  Particularly when combined with putting their personal freedom above all else.  Basically becomes, "you can't tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I feel like, which, right now, means that I'm going to sleep on watch because, well, I'm tired and you can't tell me what to do."
> 
> If you follow your whims, that makes you untrustworthy.




No, breaking the trust of others makes you untrustworthy.

Because if my whim is to do what I agreed to, then I'm still following my whims, AND I'm being trustworthy.

Because realistically being X doesn't mean you're X all the time.  Trustworthy people can break promises and follow their whims.  Whimsical people can uphold agreements and follow the law.

Also, *cough* that last line really seemed to change in tone from "We're having a talk about fantastical alignment systems in a game where alignment is often presupposed to be a fundamental element of reality like time and space." to a rather accusatory commentary on real people.


----------



## Koloth (Jun 14, 2019)

I have always found the whole alignment system suspect considering the basic scenario in the game is:

Step 1: Meet at tavern
While in process of getting drunk, mystically acquire a mission(rumor, shadowy gal hires you, undercover castle guard needs help, etc)
Load up on weapons of mass destruction from the local armor/magic shop
Travel cross country while killing most things/people you encounter
Arrive at keep/castle/dungeon
Perform break and enter
Kill most of the inhabitants while looting the place
Find a little time to actually do the mission you were hired to do
Travel cross country back to origin place, again killing most things encountered
Deliver mission objective to person who hired you
Convert un-needed loot to cash at local loot conversion establishment
Go to step 1

When both Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are equally comfortable doing the basic mission, alignments are rather fluid.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 14, 2019)

Heh, yeah, it doesn't help that the fundamental basis of progress in D&D is centered on killing things. While it makes for a fun game, it can be hard to reconcile that with a Good or Lawful alignment.

To further muddy the waters, alignments started as being much more concrete / tied to the cosmos, having real effects in the world (some may have strong feelings about CN from this era), and have become sort of general guidelines on stereotypical behavior that may or may not have any bearing on how one actually plays their character.

I much prefer how it is now, perhaps because the people I've played with have never really made much of a fuss about alignment other than some 2e AD&D games involving paladins or evil characters (both of which can be fun if everyone is on board).


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2019)

I stand and proudly cheer for the Chaotics!  Long may they reign, and confuse us all!

Also, a DM who bans CN as an alignment is a DM in whose game I wouldn't play: if I can't do all the crazy stuff in the game (where it isn't real) that I can't do in real life, where *can* I do it?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> No, breaking the trust of others makes you untrustworthy.
> 
> Because if my whim is to do what I agreed to, then I'm still following my whims, AND I'm being trustworthy.
> 
> ...




But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful.  If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore.  That's lawful.  While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy.  

I've run into this argument from players before.  "Oh, I AM Chaotic Neutral, I just CHOOSE to be 100% reliable, always accomodating, completely willing to compromise for the good of the group and never act in a selfish or impulsive manner.  Since I CHOOSE that, it makes me chaotic."

Nope, it makes you lawful with some definitional issues.


----------



## MrZeddaPiras (Jun 14, 2019)

Not really that strange. If you think about the distribution of alignments in a fantasy society, most civilians are bound to be neutral-something, while adventurers should favor chaotic. You go from town to town, taking odd jobs and trying to do good in the meantime, that's chaotic good. If you're just there to amuse yourself, that's chaotic neutral. Evil characters are kind of hard to justify with the kind of content D&D is made of these days, because in the end there's always some kind of heroic quest involved, and if you're evil you'not heroic.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 14, 2019)

MrZeddaPiras said:


> Evil characters are kind of hard to justify with the kind of content D&D is made of these days, because in the end there's always some kind of heroic quest involved, and if you're evil you'not heroic.



There are antiheroes (Elric is canonically chaotic evil according to Dieties & Demigods). They perform the heroic quest for reasons that are not heroic. The trouble is that most players who say they want to play CE just want an excuse to be murder hobbos. The trick is to only allow players who are mature and naturally inclined to be altruistic to play evil PCs.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Jun 14, 2019)

[PF][/PF]I've spent a lot of time trying to make sense of alignment, with mixed results.

My biggest questions at the moment are "what would be the alignment of someone who is willing to do evil for the greater good" and "what would be the alignment of someone unwilling to do evil for the greater good, even if it is likely refusal to do so will result in greater evil".

The Blood War sets up a good scenario for these questions. On the one hand, the Blood War keeps demons and devils focused on fighting one another and distracts them from working their designs on the mortal world. Additionally, by letting the forces of evil fight one another the forces of good have more resources free to do good (as opposed to having their hands full fighting against fiends). However, the Blood War sometimes spills out into other sections of the cosmos, and the need for a population of devils large enough and strong enough to hold their own against the more numerous demons means that devils not only need to recruit mortals, but that too much opposition by the celestials against the devils' recruitment attempts could weaken the Infernal forces enough that the Abyssal hordes triumph.

Based on this scenario, how would characters of the various alignments view the supposed necessity of the Blood War?


----------



## MrZeddaPiras (Jun 14, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There are antiheroes (Elric is canonically chaotic evil according to Dieties & Demigods). They perform the heroic quest for reasons that are not heroic. The trouble is that most players who say they want to play CE just want an excuse to be murder hobbos. The trick is to only allow players who are mature and naturally inclined to be altruistic to play evil PCs.




That's all true, but most stuff out there, like the published 5ed campaigns for example, simply doesn't have the moral complexity to support that kind of narrative.


----------



## Radaceus (Jun 14, 2019)

I cater towards CG, and go for LN if i am 'constrained' by a need to be lawful, i.e., a follower of some semblance of laws. 

with regards to DMs banning alignments: This has been a game breaker for me in our 1E circle, because our DM of 30 odd years is stringent , and if you play evil every NPC hates you even the evil NPCs unless their racial ethics accept you ( see the plethora of charts in several handbooks of the era), this translates to the PCs are all good, the world they fight is all evil...
I also found that the PCs gravitate toward inter-party skullduggery, which worked quite well in the arly days (that first time your fighter revealed himself to be an Assassin, and sold us all to the Slavers in A4, making off with his bounty..great ending...sort of, and it worked, once!)
As well as,  I found players I had been playing with who were forced to play characters in this one quadrant of the alignment spectrum meta-gaming the DM's perception of alignment, and getting away with murder ( literally!), I saw LG's being chaotic, and good player doing evil things, and I came to loggerheads over the whol idea of banning other alignments from chargen. It's wrong, in that I mean, it's not really how groups of people work. We are all a little bit evil, and hopefully most of us are a more bit good, so there are these grey areas. And now I encourage my players to play any alignment they want at the table, but I want them to explain their actions when they do something 'meaningful'. I tell them at the start of a campaign, during chargen and party formation, that they need to have a reason for joining together and a cause or a goal that they are in agreement to work towards, otherwise they just wouldn't be in the same party. That they can be evil, and they can be good, and they can still coexist, no different than we all do in our work places and in public. 
It's been a couple years now and my mini social experiment seem to slowly gaining gas with these old grognards, as they have an NE,CN, NG, LN, CG, and LG all cohabitating without any arguments


----------



## jedijon (Jun 14, 2019)

That chart says two alignments make up half of all selected. And they’re chaotic good/neutral. And 5x more popular than lawful good.

Or we could look at the leading line only. What’s the ratio of unselected? AKA, those that don’t find value in the system? It may be that there’s simply a correlation in those that do find value in it are those that need others to know they’re chaotic [but not evil].


----------



## Morrus (Jun 14, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Also, a DM who bans CN as an alignment is a DM in whose game I wouldn't play




Now I have to recall that fancy gold-embossed invitation I sent you.


----------



## jedijon (Jun 14, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> does not typically mean that you swing wildly back and forth between the extremes of Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) depending on your mood. No, usually it means that you are just an average person, not willing to give up everything to do what is right, and also not intentionally harming others. You do the best you can with the least effort required because you probably do not actually feel that strongly about whatever moral beliefs you hold.




I resonate with your assessment.

There’s a lot more to alignment than the 9 box. And since everyone ends up seeing each category differently—or at least so widely within the category—that someone’s chaotic neutral is someone else’s lawful good...it should make us wonder if there’s anything in it at all.

I ask my characters to score their conscientious, presence, and conviction.

Since only good guys think in terms of good vs evil, 2/3rds of the options would feel like that chart is putting them in a box built by someone else.

What I want to know is whether you bother to think of others or whether you go out of your way for them. Whether you can walk into a room stealthily or never shut up. Whether you’re intense and driven or laid back and accept what’s happening now.

If you prefer—LG is high conscientious, at least average conviction for most character tropes, and your choice of how flamboyant they want to be about it.

But CG—can be anything from low conviction mercenary to low conviction loner in a world of zealots they roll their eyes at to high conviction ‘my tribe lives for freedom and you should too’, to ‘I just don’t align with power structures and organizations bigger than me and maybe my buddies I can gather in a tavern common room’ and still have a useful way to describe their character—in a way likely to convey meaning—that doesn’t feel prescriptive.

TLDR, alignment? There’s better ways to describe a character. Heck just Myers Briggs it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jun 14, 2019)

MrZeddaPiras said:


> That's all true, but most stuff out there, like the published 5ed campaigns for example, simply doesn't have the moral complexity to support that kind of narrative.



I would say that the motivations of a player character is a matter for the player and DM. I wouldn't expect to see it written into a published adventure.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 14, 2019)

I think CN gets a bad rap. In part I blame previous editions where they said things like "they'll change sides in the middle of combat just to see what happens".  You know what happens?  Nobody will accept you as part of your group. Because that's describing _insanity_, not an alignment.  The 5E description isn't much better, but a one line description can only do so much.  Alignment is just one thing that describes a character.  In my games they're no more or less important than ideals, bonds and flaws.  

For example I may have a CN barbarian who's ideals include finding stalwart companions to seek out adventure and gain fame and fortune.  Who's bonds are to those in his group and who's flaw is that he's brutally honest to a fault because he believes deceiving others is a sign of weakness.  He's chaotic because he thinks people should make their own rules, he's neutral because he doesn't really believe in concepts of good and evil.  An inveterate gambler, he's in it because he enjoys combat and loves gold.  He finds no joy in harming others, but he believes people should be responsible for their own lives.

I last played that PC in a 2E game, but the same personality and motivations could easily carry over.  He was quite loyal to his group, he was more trustworthy than a lot of people but rarely made long term binding agreements.  Basically believed in personal responsibility and freedom.  His primary motivation was to get fame and wealth while being completely honest about it.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 14, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> Heh, yeah, it doesn't help that the fundamental basis of progress in D&D is centered on killing things. While it makes for a fun game, it can be hard to reconcile that with a Good or Lawful alignment.




One of my favorite illustrations of this actually comes from a video game: Uncharted. Main character Nathan Drake is -- despite being a tomb robber and thief -- a fundamentally good person and would probably hover between NG and CG in D&D terms.

And in that game her murders hundreds of people, because it is an action video game and shooting mooks is the main mode of play that isn't jumping and climbing things.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 14, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Of course it is. It’s the goodest good alignment as currently written, so it’s no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who don’t want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so it’s the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns.




Er, by definition Chaotic Neutral cannot be more neutral than True Neutral.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 14, 2019)

I always defer to this chart when discussing alignments.



Hexmage-EN said:


> I've spent a lot of time trying to make sense of alignment, with mixed results.
> 
> My biggest questions at the moment are "what would be the alignment of someone who is willing to do evil for the greater good" and "what would be the alignment of someone unwilling to do evil for the greater good, even if it is likely refusal to do so will result in greater evil".
> 
> ...




In general terms, I'm running under the impression that D&D ethics, if it can even be called that, run on a mix of deontology and virtue ethics, with consequentialism relegated to a distant third. So in general, evil actions done for a good cause would still be evil. However, one evil act does not an evil person make; only if they become a regular habit can that person be described as evil.

In terms of the Blood War specifically, I feel that if you ask enough people in-universe who know enough about it to make an informed judgment, you'd get a lot of answers of either "it's evil, but it's necessary", or "it's a necessary evil, but it's still evil".  Nobody (or at least, nobody who isn't evil themselves) denies that both sides of the conflict are different shades of evil, but the existential threat that would come from one side decisively winning and then turning their attention to the rest of the multiverse heavily outweighs any ethical compunctions informed observers may have. And in the Devils' defense, if  they're being given a hard time, they can just point to the Wind Dukes of the Plane of Air and blame them for starting this entire mess.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jun 14, 2019)

Everyone is going to have a different interpretation of the alignment system to the extent that Ive seen arguments break out between DMs and players over it.  IIRC theres been articles in Dragon but for all the supplements printed over the years for all the editions I'm surprised TSR/WotC never printed a book dedicated to the alignment system.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful.  If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore.  That's lawful.  While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy.
> 
> I've run into this argument from players before.  "Oh, I AM Chaotic Neutral, I just CHOOSE to be 100% reliable, always accomodating, completely willing to compromise for the good of the group and never act in a selfish or impulsive manner.  Since I CHOOSE that, it makes me chaotic."
> 
> Nope, it makes you lawful with some definitional issues.




Not really, no. You don't have to be unreliable in any way to be chaotic - rather, the motivations are personally driven rather than based on some kind of external or social expectation. I might expect the PC to speak up for those motivations in discussions, in contrast to group or external expectations, but still be able to 100% fulfill their obligations if they agree to them and *still* be chaotic neutral.

Observable behavior isn't the sole determinant of alignment, particularly the lawful vs chaotic part. Is an action chaotic or lawful? Who the hell knows... unless we know *WHY* the character did it. Law and chaos are fundamentally different from good and evil because they involve motivation to a far stronger degree.

Did the PC choose not to murder someone because murder is illegal and breaks social norms? Or did they choose not to murder someone because it's a nice day and they feel good? Either way, someone didn't get murdered, but the mere fact that someone didn't get murdered tells me jack and squat without knowing why the PC chose not to do the deed.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Jun 14, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> I always defer to this chart when discussing alignments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I not only wanted to give xp for that, but to say that may be the greatest thing on Enworld.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 14, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> I always defer to this chart when discussing alignments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, the D&D alignment system is gibbering nonsense from any serious ethical analysis: makes for good acting notes, though.

In 5E, the Ideals/Traits/Bonds are more important in quickly throwing together a character, it seems to me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Er, by definition Chaotic Neutral cannot be more neutral than True Neutral.



By a natural language definition, you’d be right. But by D&D’s definitions, where chaotic seems to mean not caring about the rules, rather than being actively opposed to rules, chaos is just more extreme neutrality.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 14, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful.  If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore.  That's lawful.  While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy.
> 
> I've run into this argument from players before.  "Oh, I AM Chaotic Neutral, I just CHOOSE to be 100% reliable, always accomodating, completely willing to compromise for the good of the group and never act in a selfish or impulsive manner.  Since I CHOOSE that, it makes me chaotic."
> 
> Nope, it makes you lawful with some definitional issues.



"But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful. If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore. That's lawful. While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy. "

Even when I ran alignment this was not true in my games.

"Being" an alignment foes not mesn adopting every aspect of it. A chaotic character could be chaotic in a lot of different ways but still keep to his own code in some respects. 

"Your whims" does not mean random acts. Thsts more a form of  insanity. That means what you want to do and that can include not crapping on beneficial agreements. 

I think perhaps this exemplifies some of the issues that use of alignment tends to create - the driving to extremes and express lane ftom "must" to "always" or suddenly "you are honor thst alignment."

For too many folks, it's like alignment is used as a trap or an excuse.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 14, 2019)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I not only wanted to give xp for that, but to say that may be the greatest thing on Enworld.



I took it from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/bm0spf/oc_how_people_from_each_dd_alignment_sees_the/

(totes True Neutral on that chart)


----------



## Gradine (Jun 14, 2019)

I'd honestly like to see how "decline to state" stacks up with the other alignments on this list. I know they have to have some way to control for incomplete character projects and the like, but I'm curious to see how many games out there simply ignore alignment altogether.

The biggest problem with CN as an alignment is that the core rulebooks eventually leaned into the whole "Chaotic Wacky/Stupid/Insane" archetype when describing the alignment. The whole thing with the CN character deciding to charge the Gorgon just because. Ugh.

The bigger problem with the alignment system is that peoples' alignment, especially along the law-chaos spectrum, depends more on context than inner ethics. My current campaign features characters who are leaders of a small independent community. They are literal community leaders, which speaks to a lawful attitude. But when the big bully neighbors come to try to annex them, they decided that the community should remain independent. Which is more clearly chaotic.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 14, 2019)

A whim is a sudden desire or change of mind that typically doesn't have an explanation.  I imagine all characters regardless of their alignment have whims but a LG character won't typically allow that to interfere with their duties or goals.  A CN person follows their whims which can change every time the wind blows another direction.  If someone typically keeps their word and is reliable they are not CN.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Jun 14, 2019)

As with many things in D&D, I think of alignment in terms of pro wrestling:  some people stay heels forever (Jessie the Body, Bobby the Brain), some stay faces forever (Ricky the Dragon Steamboat), but most people make face/heel turns.  I figure if you are lawful, you don't make a lot of turns, and if you are chaotic, even the most dedicated fan has a hard time remembering if you are good or bad when you come down to the ring, since you change so frequently.  Of yeah, TN=jobber, because no one cares if you are a face or a heel.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 14, 2019)

Another debate that proves the alignment debate is pointless.

It’s just way too vague a concept to be truly useful. I also think 5e bond, flaws, and motivation notes are way more useful to helping a player figure out their character than alignment ever did.

Unaligned ftw!!


----------



## Reynard (Jun 14, 2019)

I prefer alignment as an actual Alignment with a real fundamental force of the multiverse -- and not necessarily by choice. You were born in Deep Winter? Sorry, your alignment is Neutral Evil. It's built into your DNA. No matter how much good you do in the world, your ka belongs to Gehenna. Good luck.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jun 14, 2019)

I think Lawful Good is one of the most misunderstood alignments. Most people think of it (and play it) as Lawful Obsessive. There's nothing inherent in Lawful Good that should make anyone inflexible. A lot of people play, for example, Lawful Good Paladins as total zealots. Hence, why people who *don't* play LG shy away from it. 

I mean, I'm probably LG in RL and it doesn't mean that I don't Speed or Jaywalk. People tend to bend rules, even ones they make for themselves. Characters should be like that, within reason.  You shouldn't have to pick "Unaligned" or "Chaotic" to act like a real, flawed person.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 14, 2019)

Morrus said:


> In my experience Chaotic Neutral is the evilest evil but your DM said you weren't allowed to be evil. I usually ban it in my games, as well as evil, unless I'm deliberately accommodating evil characters.




I've rarely ever seen the "evil" side of CN, and only ever from players that were disruptive no matter what they played. The CN characters I've seen have tended to just be motivated by people and what they want in life, without directly thinking or caring much about broad morality or cosmic scales. 



Kramodlog said:


> Not surprise. CB is flexible morality. You wanna be good, but still able to kill that dude you do not like.



Sometimes it's that. Usually it's a morality that is based on something like "hurting people for selfish reasons is bad, as has to be opposed", rather than "XYZ specific actions are Evil". That is, violence isn't good or evil, the results of violence are good or evil. If the result of me killing the dragon is that it stops killing villagers because they can't afford to bring it as many cows as it wants, then killing the dragon is Good, while the violence of the dragon themselves was Evil. 

That isn't flexible, it just isn't a specific action based metric of determination, it's a results based determination. Killing the guy you don't like is still evil if you're just doing it because you don't like or trust him. 



Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, if your chaotic neutral character is 100% responsible and trustworthy, he's not actually CN.



Why? The character values the bonds they have with the group, and cares about the success and failure potential of the group. 



Hussar said:


> Well, the whole "follows their whims" right there makes them untrustworthy.  Particularly when combined with putting their personal freedom above all else.  Basically becomes, "you can't tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I feel like, which, right now, means that I'm going to sleep on watch because, well, I'm tired and you can't tell me what to do."
> 
> If you follow your whims, that makes you untrustworthy.




They aren't bound by their every impulse. That isn't what that means. They decide their own actions, based on their own priorities and desires. Not getting ambushed in the night will generally match their own priorities and desires, unless they're literally a comic book style lunatic.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 14, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> By a natural language definition, you’d be right. But by D&D’s definitions, where chaotic seems to mean not caring about the rules, rather than being actively opposed to rules, chaos is just more extreme neutrality.




No, not by natural language.  By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral.  Below are some of the definitions.

5e: CN: creatures* follow their whims*, holding their personal freedom above all else.

        N: is the alignment of those w ho prefer to *steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides*, doing what seems best at the time.   

Whims are chaotic and impulsive, not neutral in any way. Steering clear of moral questions and not taking any sides, even chaotic and impulsive ones is more neutral.

3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He *is an individualist first and last.* He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. *He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions*. A chaotic neutral character does not 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) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A* chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable*, but his behavior is not totally random.

       N: 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 law vs. chaos.* Most neutral characters *exhibit a lack of conviction or bias* rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.

The prior editions are the same.  At no point has any edition which had both CN and N as alignments, had CN as more neutral than neutral.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Jun 14, 2019)

I have to agree with Morrus here.  There is a lot white room discussion about CN, but from my observations, the players that pick it tend to be the most disruptive.  They take it as a license to be douchebags.  These are the players that steal from the party, get other party members killed, etc.  When called on it they claim they were just playing their alignment. IRL (as opposed to the white room), there is generally no difference between CE and CN when played.

5e should have ditched the alignment system.  For the most part in 5e it doesn't make much difference (mechanically) what alignment a player picks because almost no spells or items are tied to alignment -- at least to the extent in previous versions.  Alignment might be useful for character creation to help a pick traits, ideals, bonds, flaws and then ignored afterward.  

It is either used to justify punishing a player or used by a player to torture their group. It can lead to tedious in game discussion as well.  Not a fan of it at all.

IMHO, the best way to deal with alignment is to simply ignore.  Substituting the optional Honor/Sanity stats would be much more meaningful.  Or the Taint stat from _Heroes of Horror_.

Back in AD&D days, we had a large group of players -- like 15.  Our main fighting character was a LE fighter that had an intelligent, powerful LE aligned flail.  We were fighting tons of undead and he was the powerhouse of the group.  A character dies and has to roll up a new 1st level character.  He chooses a paladin and as his first act detects evil on the fighter.  The game then devolved into a 2 hour alignment discussion among the players.  Eventually, we booted the paladin player because 1st level vs 7th level fighting hordes of mummies and because he wouldn't let it go.  We chose survival as a group.

After playing many different RPGs since then, none of which have anything like alignment in them, it became clear to me that alignment just needs to be thrown in the ash heap of RPG history.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No, not by natural language.  By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral.  Below are some of the definitions.
> 
> 5e: CN: creatures* follow their whims*, holding their personal freedom above all else.
> 
> ...



In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.

3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He *is an individualist first and last.* He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. *He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions*. A chaotic neutral character does not 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) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A* chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable*, but his behavior is not totally random.

       N: 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 law vs. chaos.* Most neutral characters *exhibit a lack of conviction or bias* rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.[/quote]
Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f**^ you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.



Maxperson said:


> Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.



Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No, not by natural language. By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral. Below are some of the definitions.
> 
> 5e: CN: creatures* follow their whims*, holding their personal freedom above all else.
> 
> ...



In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.



Maxperson said:


> 3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He *is an individualist first and last.* He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. *He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions*. A chaotic neutral character does not 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) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A* chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable*, but his behavior is not totally random.
> 
> N: 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 law vs. chaos.* Most neutral characters *exhibit a lack of conviction or bias* rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.



Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f*** you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.



Maxperson said:


> Again, CN is more dedicated to an idea, in this case individualism and the challenge against restriction, traditions and authority, something a neutral character doesn't do, because neutral is more neutral.



Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.
> 
> 
> Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is “f*** you, I’ll do what I want!”, Neutral is “eh, I’ll do what I want.” The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&D’s standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules.
> ...




That's not conceptually correct. CN *does* pick a side more than Neutrality does - it picks the side of individualism rather than the pragmatic approach between social expectations and individual choices a Neutral might take. It is not more neutral between social/order and personal/disorder than Neutral. It definitely favors a side.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 14, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 14, 2019)

But what else are you supposed to put down as the alignment of a petty criminal or gentleman thief who pisses on the law, but neither gives back to the poor or slits the throats of innocents in the night? They ain't good, they ain't evil, but they're definitely chaotic, sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jun 14, 2019)

I didnt read every post but the ones I read are discussing neutrality and the consensus seems to be that neutral characters dont care one way or the other.  I disagree.  The common man or woman might have this attitude, but most likely not an adventurer because depending on their personal goals theyre probably looking to establish or maintain some form of balance.  For example, embarking on and completing quest "A" will bring balance to "B".  Or faction "X" is growing too large and powerful wouldnt a neutral character or group try and intervene to restore balance in civilization?  I think they would.  Too many players play True Neutral for two reasons, 1) Im just along for the ride, and 2) My character does whatever he/she wants because they dont perceive their actions as lawful, chaotic, good or evil.  Lastly most people fail to realize that a TN character will act in accordance of one of the other alignments until some important situation/decision presents itself and thats when their TN convictions will force them to act according to their alignment.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 14, 2019)

I'll try one more time.



Charlaquin said:


> In other words, neutral doesn’t commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality.




No.  Chaotici Neutral is not committed to not taking a side.  In fact, it emphatically DOES take a side.  It's committed to the side of the desires of the individual who is Chaotic Neutral.  It is committed to whim and flights of fancy.  And in 3e, it's also committed to resisting authority, tradition and restrictions.  Those are all things that the more neutral True Neutral does not commit to.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 15, 2019)

It is interesting how alignment comes up in games.  I was playing a LG paladin in a game and another was a CG bard.  We came across a town where most of the population had fled or were captured by another force.  The bard decided to help himself to to some chainmail we found in someone's home which had only been abandoned for a day or two at most.  My character argued that he was stealing, his character argued that the place was abandoned and the owner forfeited any right to it, and we went round and round like this for a few minutes. 

I let it go for the sake of maintaining a pleasant atmosphere in the game but for me it does illustrate how differently people interpret alignment.  I wouldn't have a CG character of mine take the chainmail unless there was an immediate need for it.  i.e.  An emergency situation of some kind.  But "I'm just playing my character" wasn't a good enough reason for me to be disruptive.

I know people often complain about paladins being Lawful Stupid and that's certainly true at times.  On the other hand I've seen many groups treat the paladin as if he's an utter moron and try to engage in thievery, torture, or murder right under his nose.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 15, 2019)

Ok, I'll try to explain chaotic -at least how I see it-. Chaotic is not really unpredictable, at least not really unless you cling to tradition. Chaotic isn't active opposition to every single rule and authority either. Chaotic is freedom from authority and tradition (not about being a nancy contrarian that has to break every single rule and defy every single order). I have this scene from my fiction-making that illustrates my point.

[The four characters are "minor deities" of sorts -more like quite strong entities-. They embody cosmic principles, but have their own morality. I'll identify them as Panther, Pony, Hawk and Butterfly.
Panther embodies death and views himself as neutral evil. Pony embodies life and sees herself as Neutral Good. Both of them however are so obsessed with keeping the balance between life and death and the system that helps it keep like that, that in fact they are Lawful Neutral.
Hawk embodies balance, and he considers himself as true neutral, an impartial moderator between Panther and Pony. In practice, however Pony and Panther are so in sync that he barely needs to do any work. So he commits to keeping the tradition and law alive no matter who gets hurt, and in fact enjoys lording over the lesser creatures this way and actively benefits from the arrangement. (Lawful Evil)
Finally Butterfly embodies change. She is very empathetic, and will often go out of the way to aid the lesser creatures, constantly tearing apart the balance and violating the rules in the process.

During an important discussion Butterfly invokes the laws and traditions to get her way, essentially to get her own nominee to be considered to be their collective vicar -normally Pony and Panther each nominate a mortal they have groomed for a while and Hawk gets to choose-. Something that ends up not mattering much to her as she empowers her own mortals anyway. ]

Butterfly.- I want my boy to be considered. He is cool, and nice. He would do a great job.

Hawk.- Stop saying nonsense. 

Butterfly.- Why are you guys so mean? You never listen to me.

Pony.- Because you are evil.

Panther.- And flighty, and destructive. 

Butterfly.- Well, I don't care what you think. I get to nominate a kid, it's my right according to the rules YOU wrote.

Hawk.- You invoking law? You don't know a thing about the law! You always break it!

Butterfly.- I'm a free spirit. I do what I want. If I wasn't able to follow the law when I wanted, you would be able to control me. [She snickered at this point] And you don't get to control me. 

[Now Butterfly looks bitchy in this conversation, but in fact she is sabotaging the current process because the role of their collective vicar is a hard one, full of suffering and extremely taxing. Panther and Pony have already forced the previous one to reincarnate in order to nominate her again -exploiting multiverse shenanigans to reincarnate her twice at the same time so each one of them has a nominee- and expect to keep this going for eternity since that she was perfectly balanced in every way for the task and was quite submissive to the three of them. Butterfly finds this unnecessarily cruel as it means they have effectively enslaved their previous vicar for eternity just because it is the most convenient way to keep the system going]


----------



## Hussar (Jun 15, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Not really, no. You don't have to be unreliable in any way to be chaotic - rather, the motivations are personally driven rather than based on some kind of external or social expectation. I might expect the PC to speak up for those motivations in discussions, in contrast to group or external expectations, but still be able to 100% fulfill their obligations if they agree to them and *still* be chaotic neutral.
> 
> Observable behavior isn't the sole determinant of alignment, particularly the lawful vs chaotic part. Is an action chaotic or lawful? Who the hell knows... unless we know *WHY* the character did it. Law and chaos are fundamentally different from good and evil because they involve motivation to a far stronger degree.
> 
> Did the PC choose not to murder someone because murder is illegal and breaks social norms? Or did they choose not to murder someone because it's a nice day and they feel good? Either way, someone didn't get murdered, but the mere fact that someone didn't get murdered tells me jack and squat without knowing why the PC chose not to do the deed.




I disagree. Observable behaviour is the only determinant of alignment. Intention means nothing in an objective alignment system. 

People are evil because the DO evil things. I can think nasty thoughts all day long but if I’m outwardly kind to everybody then dnd says I’m good.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2019)

For me, the ONLY difference between Lawful and Chaotic is ‘collectivism’ versus ‘individualism’, respectively.

If one thinks in terms of the group, then one tends Lawful. If one thinks in terms of specific individuals, then one tends Chaotic.

The needs of the many outweigh the few = Lawful.

The needs of the few outweigh the many = Chaotic.




And ideal society that optimizes between social responsibility and personal freedom = Neutral Good = greatest, highest good.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful.  If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore.  That's lawful.  While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy.





Freedom doesn't mean not acting in the best interest of the group of people who you directly rely upon and are relied upon by. It means that the group isn't going to be able to pressure you into doing what you don't want to do/don't think is right, that when you are willing to fight for something it's more likely to be for the right of an individual (yourself or otherwise) to act of their own accord and live by their own Will than most other potential motivations, and that you aren't going to try to impose what you want on others (unless you're chaotic evil). Chaotic doesn't mean in DnD what it means in everyday conversation. IT's not "random" or even mercurial, though any character can be mercurial.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 15, 2019)

jedijon said:


> But CG—can be anything from low conviction mercenary to low conviction loner in a world of zealots they roll their eyes at to high conviction ‘my tribe lives for freedom and you should too’, to ‘I just don’t align with power structures and organizations bigger than me and maybe my buddies I can gather in a tavern common room’ and still have a useful way to describe their character—in a way likely to convey meaning—that doesn’t feel prescriptive.



This is *exactly* what I was trying to express - thank you for doing so in a much better way!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, if you ALWAYS do what you agree to do, that makes you lawful.  If your whims are to always be trustworthy, then, well, that's not chaotic anymore.  That's lawful.  While, sure, you can do one or the other from time to time, my point is, if you follow your whims and your personal freedom is paramount to you, is the highest priority to you, then you are inherently untrustworthy.





Freedom doesn't mean not acting in the best interest of the group of people who you directly rely upon and are relied upon by. It means that the group isn't going to be able to pressure you into doing what you don't want to do/don't think is right, that when you are willing to fight for something it's more likely to be for the right of an individual (yourself or otherwise) to act of their own accord and live by their own Will than most other potential motivations, and that you aren't going to try to impose what you want on others (unless you're chaotic evil). Chaotic doesn't mean in DnD what it means in everyday conversation. IT's not "random" or even mercurial, though any character can be mercurial.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 15, 2019)

Over the years I've developed my own philosophy of alignment.  While I don't lean on it too much, I do find it a useful tool at times to put myself into another person (or creature's) shoes.  So where I use it is in determining how NPCs and monsters respond, how they see the world.  This is based on the psychology 101 class from long ago.  The theory is that everyone views the world through frameworks and preconceptions.  

In other words, two people can look at exactly the same situation and have vastly different opinions on what is going on.  One person may see a beggar on the street and have empathy for someone down on their luck while another may see someone who is lazy or unwilling to work.  Yet another person would see someone that could be abducted and killed and no one would notice.  What they _do_ may not be that much different, their actions may tell you nothing about their alignment.  The CG person may pass the by only to volunteer at the shelter later, the LN person may push for laws to get them off the street, the NE person may give them a coin because they remind them of a childhood friend.

What I don't do is use alignment as a straight-jacket, people are far too complex to fit into one alignment all the time.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 15, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There are antiheroes (Elric is canonically chaotic evil according to Dieties & Demigods). They perform the heroic quest for reasons that are not heroic. The trouble is that most players who say they want to play CE just want an excuse to be murder hobbos. The trick is to only allow players who are mature and naturally inclined to be altruistic to play evil PCs.




Yeah, that's the problem I often have with CN and CE alignments in practice. There _are_ interesting characters one could play with those alignments and I've seen it done, but... but... all too often players seem to end up using the excuse "but it's on my character sheet!" as a way to legitimate acting out. If the contract of the table is that that's what people are up for, then fine, but it usually really isn't. Ditto with written down flaws.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 15, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> I have to agree with Morrus here.  There is a lot white room discussion about CN, but from my observations, the players that pick it tend to be the most disruptive.  They take it as a license to be douchebags.  These are the players that steal from the party, get other party members killed, etc.  When called on it they claim they were just playing their alignment. IRL (as opposed to the white room), there is generally no difference between CE and CN when played.




Yup, this is it, sadly. 




> After playing many different RPGs since then, none of which have anything like alignment in them, it became clear to me that alignment just needs to be thrown in the ash heap of RPG history.




I'm not sure I agree there. Every time I've tried ditching it, I kept finding my way back to it in various ways. In a current campaign, I've kind of embraced it by focusing on the Law vs. Chaos conflict. What I don't do, however, is make a big deal about it. However, I also try hard not to play with folks who fall into the murder hobo/griefer camp, though those tendencies do, sadly, exist in many otherwise decent folks.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 15, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I'm not sure I agree there. Every time I've tried ditching it, I kept finding my way back to it in various ways. In a current campaign, I've kind of embraced it by focusing on the Law vs. Chaos conflict. What I don't do, however, is make a big deal about it. However, I also try hard not to play with folks who fall into the murder hobo/griefer camp, though those tendencies do, sadly, exist in many otherwise decent folks.




I find that alignment has a few uses.  On the player side it helps new players by giving them an idea of how to roleplay their PCs.  For myself, I find it invaluable.  I have so many NPCs and monsters to play that I simply cannot come up with personalities for all of them.  Alignment is a quick, easy way for me to know how generally to roleplay that NPC/monster.

For my long time players, I've told them that they don't have to use alignment, but they can't seem to drop it.  They come up with complex personalities for their PCs and then jot down an alignment anyway.  That's as far as it goes, though.  I couldn't tell what any of their alignments are, because I just don't care.  So long as they are roleplaying their PCs according to how they see their personalities, that's all that matters.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 15, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I think CN gets a bad rap. <...> For example I may have a CN barbarian who's ideals include finding stalwart companions to seek out adventure and gain fame and fortune.  Who's bonds are to those in his group and who's flaw is that he's brutally honest to a fault because he believes deceiving others is a sign of weakness.  He's chaotic because he thinks people should make their own rules, he's neutral because he doesn't really believe in concepts of good and evil.  An inveterate gambler, he's in it because he enjoys combat and loves gold.  He finds no joy in harming others, but he believes people should be responsible for their own lives.




This is a very good example of a playable-in-a-party Chaotic Neutral character. 

Similarly, a current character I have is Lawful Neutral: A samurai who's very bound to the code of (pseudo-) Bushido. I could argue for chaotic because I'm going against the dictates of family at the moment. However, that's really more of a temporary thing and I've played very consistent to "the proper social order and, in particular, the chain of command needs to be maintained." I've negotiated with clear enemies according to protocol as well because, well, that's just how things are done. That same party has a Neutral Evil bard. He's on our side---it helps that the enemy involves an invasion from the elemental planes with the ultimate goal being reduction of our plane to the elemental ones so there's really no place for him in that particular order---but he is always looking out for his own advantage.


----------



## Mike Oliver (Jun 15, 2019)

Hexmage-EN said:


> [PF][/PF]
> My biggest questions at the moment are "what would be the alignment of someone who is willing to do evil for the greater good"




Neutral Good. 



Hexmage-EN said:


> [PF][/PF]
> and "what would be the alignment of someone unwilling to do evil for the greater good, even if it is likely refusal to do so will result in greater evil".




Chaotic Good. 

I’m going off the older definition of alignment which is a little more clear to me.  And these are two that players mistake for each frequently in classic D&D. 

Neutral Good’s primary drive is the greater good. Chaotic good believes in the importance, freedom, and sanctity of the individual. 

In my experience, many players that desire to play a more Neutral Good character choose Chaotic Good by mistake/not understanding the difference.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, that's the problem I often have with CN and CE alignments in practice. There _are_ interesting characters one could play with those alignments and I've seen it done, but... but... all too often players seem to end up using the excuse "but it's on my character sheet!" as a way to legitimate acting out. If the contract of the table is that that's what people are up for, then fine, but it usually really isn't. Ditto with written down flaws.




The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. They’re going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.

Get rid of the problem players, you get rid of the CN problem.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 15, 2019)

billd91 said:


> The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. They’re going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.
> 
> Get rid of the problem players, you get rid of the CN problem.




One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort.  It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.


----------



## Frankie1969 (Jun 15, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> douchebags.  These are the players that steal from the party, get other party members killed, etc.  When called on it they claim they were just playing their alignment.



I really wish I played in a party with a Chaotic Douchebag (CDB).



Show the party that I'm generous with friends and kind to civilians.
Upon first sign of CDB, interrupt to explain the importance of trust & good will.
Find an ally who agrees, quietly make plans, and watch for a second sign.
After it happens, at the next available down time, we flank & kill the CDB.
Look, it's nothing personal. I'm just playing my alignment: Chaotic Good.


----------



## Bobble (Jun 15, 2019)

Wow, not that most DMs didn't know this by 1980...


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 15, 2019)

Oofta said:


> One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort.  It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.




This is why, while I don't have alignment restrictions at my table, I do have "You must make a party friendly character who is interested in adventuring."

I don't care if you're chaotic, evil, or both; you can be all those things and still move the adventure and party forward.


----------



## Bobble (Jun 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I disagree. Observable behaviour is the only determinant of alignment. Intention means nothing in an objective alignment system.




So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.

Mkay.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 16, 2019)

billd91 said:


> The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. They’re going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.






Oofta said:


> One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort.  It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.




I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult. 

People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be social dynamics that can make it hard to just kick a player out. I also think that there can be valid reasons to say "No CN" or whatever, if the intended story doesn't line up with it. I'm not saying these issues all line up with the choice of alignment or some character issue on paper and thus can be headed off by banning a particular alignment or flaw because a real problem player will find a way, but saying "this is explicitly a heroic campaign" or "don't make an Edgelord or total loner" may be necessary.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 16, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult.
> 
> People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be social dynamics that can make it hard to just kick a player out. I also think that there can be valid reasons to say "No CN" or whatever, if the intended story doesn't line up with it. I'm not saying these issues all line up with the choice of alignment or some character issue on paper and thus can be headed off by banning a particular alignment or flaw because a real problem player will find a way, but saying "this is explicitly a heroic campaign" or "don't make an Edgelord or total loner" may be necessary.





If I have a campaign theme, I'll tell people to write up a character that makes sense for that campaign and we'll try to work something out.  If we can't, I'll discuss the issue with the player.  Ultimately though, I've never seen alignment really be that big of a deal on whether or not a player is going to cause problems for the group.  Some people just love playing the nihilistic anti-hero loner no matter what they put on their character sheet.  Try as you might to explain that what makes good drama on their favorite Anime doesn't translate into a good member of an adventuring team some people just don't get it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 16, 2019)

Bobble said:


> So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.
> 
> Mkay.




Following laws does not make you lawful.  The vast majority of people follow laws, not because they believe in them, but because they don't want to go to jail and/or pay lots of expensive fines. A type of lawful person believes wholeheartedly in laws.  If that sort of person intentionally violated a law, it would be an unlawful(both temporal and alignment) act.  Accidentally violating the law would not be an unlawful(alignment) act.

To further muddy the waters, though, there are different ways to be lawful.  Having a strict personal code of conduct and/or a lot of personal discipline is also a way to be lawful.  So long as that sort of person didn't have, "Don't break a law." as part of his personal code, he could intentionally break laws without it being an unlawful alignment act.

Lastly, even someone who is lawful of the first sort might break a law on purpose now and then.  While it might be a chaotic act, it's not as if he can't do it or will stop being lawful if he does.  It takes more than an occasional act outside of your alignment to switch you.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 16, 2019)

Oofta said:


> If I have a campaign theme, I'll tell people to write up a character that makes sense for that campaign and we'll try to work something out.  If we can't, I'll discuss the issue with the player.




Sure. I totally agree with that. 




> Some people just love playing the nihilistic anti-hero loner no matter what they put on their character sheet.  Try as you might to explain that what makes good drama on their favorite Anime doesn't translate into a good member of an adventuring team some people just don't get it.




That's certainly one of the most problematic types. There are others, such as a character that's hyper-focused in a particular domain that means nobody else need bother with that role and conversely that character is totally useless outside their narrow domain. 




> Ultimately though, I've never seen alignment really be that big of a deal on whether or not a player is going to cause problems for the group.




I think it's an imperfect signal but one that has some validity, although I've had players vehemently insist their characters are a particular alignment but they're the worst murder hobos around! There are others, such as a particular character type or certain flaws that similarly are signals of... look out.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 16, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Freedom doesn't mean not acting in the best interest of the group of people who you directly rely upon and are relied upon by. It means that the group isn't going to be able to pressure you into doing what you don't want to do/don't think is right, that when you are willing to fight for something it's more likely to be for the right of an individual (yourself or otherwise) to act of their own accord and live by their own Will than most other potential motivations, and that you aren't going to try to impose what you want on others (unless you're chaotic evil). Chaotic doesn't mean in DnD what it means in everyday conversation. IT's not "random" or even mercurial, though any character can be mercurial.




Freedom and personal freedom are not the same thing.  I was speaking of acting on whims.  Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable.  If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic.  



Bobble said:


> So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.
> 
> Mkay.




No, I'd call him mistaken.  

But following laws isn't the definition of lawful.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Freedom and personal freedom are not the same thing.  I was speaking of acting on whims.  Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable.  If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic.




No, whim is not being used that way in the PHB. We can safely conclude that, in part because if it isn’t the case then “chaotic” in 5e dnd is a wholly useless and nonsensical concept, that can only be applied to people that classically would be called “insane”, or some synonym thereof. 

Instead, we must conclude that “whim” means “one’s own personal desires and internal decision making process, irrespective of external expectations, norms, or rules. Chaotic characters can be consistent. 

Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 16, 2019)

Objectively speaking alignment is Dumb


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 16, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> Objectively speaking alignment is Dumb




Well, words on a page have an IQ of 0.  That's pretty darn stupid.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 16, 2019)

No big surprise. Better than CN.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 16, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, whim is not being used that way in the PHB. We can safely conclude that, in part because if it isn’t the case then “chaotic” in 5e dnd is a wholly useless and nonsensical concept, that can only be applied to people that classically would be called “insane”, or some synonym thereof.
> 
> Instead, we must conclude that “whim” means “one’s own personal desires and internal decision making process, irrespective of external expectations, norms, or rules. Chaotic characters can be consistent.
> 
> Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?




I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic?  What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?  

As far as “policing” goes, I’m not really sure where you are getting that. I guess my question to the player would be the same as my question to you - if this character never does anything that would be described as chaotic, then how is this character chaotic?

If the chaotic character acts exactly the same as the lawful character then why bother with the distinction?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 16, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, more importantly, why are you trying to police anyone’s alignment? Why are players having to justify their alignment to you, ever?



If for no other reason than if there's anything in the game that interacts differently with one alignment than another, or detects alignment, the DM needs to know what you are.

For my part, what the player writes on the character sheet is only relevant for the first while*, until I-as-DM have seen the character in action and made my own determination of its alignment as played; which trumps what's on the sheet.  And sometimes what I see is a long way from what the player wrote down! 

* - during this time I also have no problem at all with a character somewhat-arbitrarily changing alignment if the player's initial idea for the character isn't working out.  After this breaking-in period, alignment change - be it voluntary of forced - can have consequences particularly for some classes.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 16, 2019)

It's all a big waste of time... both the alignment system *and* all the discussion about the alignment system.

Just play your character and then worry about how you might've defined him with one of 9 boxes after the fact.


----------



## Jonathan Tweet (Jun 16, 2019)

Chaotic Good: "I'm a nice person, but I make my own decisions." 

That's Western individualism right there.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Jun 16, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but one’s self. It’s just Neutral with attitude.





This is objectively wrong.  This whole CN is more neutral than N.  By definition, chaotic individuals actively oppose laws -- especially those laws they see are victimless.  So laws against say prostitution, drug use, mandatory wearing of seatbelts, etc. they opposed because they oppress individuals.  This is not a more neutral than alignment.  A Chaotic Good person will try to change or go around laws on the assumption that people act with personal responsibility toward each other.  A Chaotic Neutral person would actively participate in smuggling, stealing from the rich because they have rigged the system, etc.  A Chaotic Evil person would engage in assassination in the attempt to overthrow laws they don't agree with.

True Neutral on the other hand is essentially "Live and Let Live", "Don't Rock the Boat", "I'm not getting involved" type of alignment.  It doesn't see to support or subvert laws.  If a law is inconvenient they may ignore IF they think they can get away with it and/or the consequences aren't severe enough to worry about.  They literally don't think about others before they act.  A person that throws trash out of a moving car onto the side of the road -- Neutral unless in a country like Singapore where they would get publicly canned for it.  A CG person would not throw trash out of a car because someone else would have to clean it up despite them thinking that the law is unnecessary.   A CN person would throw the trash to "screw the man" and cause more expense to the local government to clean it up.  A CE person would throw the most horrible trash possible feces, hypodermic needles and so forth not only to cause the local government trouble but all the people that support that government.

So, no Chaotic has an agenda -- it actively opposes Law.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic?  What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?





Being consistent has nothing to do with alignment.  A chaotic person may live by their own rules and have a complete disregard for authority while still acknowledging that they have to follow the laws of the land or suffer the consequences.  My character can be impulsive without being disruptive, reliable without being lawful.  What is it about alignment that makes you think they can't make friendships and long lasting bonds?  That they can't accept that they're better off working with a group instead of as a lone wolf?  Chaotic does not mean mentally unstable.

As far as what outside observers see, I don't see why it matters.  Let's take a scenario where the group is in a kingdom run by orcs and the group has discovered the orcs have a large number of human slaves.  Circumstances are such that they can realistically free the slaves.  


LG: We should free the slaves because the laws of the land are of little concern to me, the tenets of my faith are that people should be free.  The laws of the land are invalid
NG: Motivated by my empathy for the slaves, I simply want them to have better lives.
CG: People have the right to freedom and to choose the lives they want to live, not be forced into manual labor.
LN: The stupid filthy orcs live in squalor, they have no sense of order or decency.  Time to set things right.
N: The orcs have way too much power here, time to balance things out a bit.  Besides, helping them helps me.
CN: We're getting paid, right?  While the orcs are busy chasing down the escapees there will be fewer guard for their treasure horde.
LE: These orcs are terrible at this.  If I free them now, they'll realize that servitude to the law is their proper place.  As long as they stay in line I'll make sure they're treated better so that they're more productive.
NE: Ah fodder for my plans.
CE: Can I start a slave rebellion?  I don't care if they all die, it would serve them right, but just think of the fun glorious destruction we could have!

So I can justify the same basic action with any alignment.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic?  What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?



I think this all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the word Chaotic means in terms of alignment.

You seem to be of the opinion that being Chaotic is like being a kleptomaniac - both require the character to follow their impulses with little regard for the consequences.

Myself and others are of the opinion that Chaotic is NOT like being a kleptomaniac - one is basic motivation that can easily be overridden by other factors such as maintaining friendships, fear of punishment, etc., while one is basically a mental disorder.

Neither opinion is factually wrong - this is a game of make-believe, after all - but can you see how our interpretation might make the Chaotic alignments a little more acceptable as part of an adventuring group? Because you're right, under what I believe your and others' interpretation of Chaotic to be, no one in their right minds would allow a Chaotic person in their adventuring group (even, I would say, CG - Chaotic is, after all, by definition completely unreliable), much less trust them with their life.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic?  What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?
> 
> As far as “policing” goes, I’m not really sure where you are getting that. I guess my question to the player would be the same as my question to you - if this character never does anything that would be described as chaotic, then how is this character chaotic?
> 
> If the chaotic character acts exactly the same as the lawful character then why bother with the distinction?




you seem to think that the chaotic alignment imposes severe mental instability on a character. That is not the case. It’s as simple as that, really. 

You also continue to invent arguments to refute, instead of addressing what I and others are actually putting in our posts. That isn’t useful.

A chaotic character can work as part of a team, because a chaotic character isn’t some sort of comic book caricature or mental illness, like the joker. CN means you don’t care about laws, social norms, or have any particular respect or regard for authority, and you instead decide how to live and act based on what you want and what matters to you. You still have bonds, ideals, friendships, and the basic ability to reason. Chaotic does not mean “unable to control one’s impulses”. 



Lanefan said:


> If for no other reason than if there's anything in the game that interacts differently with one alignment than another, or detects alignment, the DM needs to know what you are.
> 
> For my part, what the player writes on the character sheet is only relevant for the first while*, until I-as-DM have seen the character in action and made my own determination of its alignment as played; which trumps what's on the sheet.  And sometimes what I see is a long way from what the player wrote down!
> 
> * - during this time I also have no problem at all with a character somewhat-arbitrarily changing alignment if the player's initial idea for the character isn't working out.  After this breaking-in period, alignment change - be it voluntary of forced - can have consequences particularly for some classes.




I mean, from my perspective, you’re describing a really bad dnd experience. That sounds like the kind of table I’d walk away from mid session, after the DM refused to compromise their need to control my character. 

You dont have a vote in what my character’s alignment is.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 16, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> I think this all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the word Chaotic means in terms of alignment.
> 
> You seem to be of the opinion that being Chaotic is like being a kleptomaniac - both require the character to follow their impulses with little regard for the consequences.
> 
> ...




Exactly this. Also, it’s wild that people have an easier time understanding how an Evil character can function in a group and sublimate their impulses in favor of other priorities, than with a Chaotic character.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 16, 2019)

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] I’d also add that any of those alignments could be attached to a character who just hates slavers, and will try to free slaves if they can, or a character whose main priority is group cohesion and the good of their party memebers (or 1 specific member), in a group that features 1 or more members who deeply care about the fate of these slaves.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 16, 2019)

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] I’d also add that any of those alignments could be attached to a character who just hates slavers, and will try to free slaves if they can, or a character whose main priority is group cohesion and the good of their party memebers (or 1 specific member), in a group that features 1 or more members who deeply care about the fate of these slaves.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 16, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Being consistent has nothing to do with alignment.  A chaotic person may live by their own rules and have a complete disregard for authority while still acknowledging that they have to follow the laws of the land or suffer the consequences.  My character can be impulsive without being disruptive, reliable without being lawful.  What is it about alignment that makes you think they can't make friendships and long lasting bonds?  That they can't accept that they're better off working with a group instead of as a lone wolf?  Chaotic does not mean mentally unstable.
> 
> As far as what outside observers see, I don't see why it matters.  Let's take a scenario where the group is in a kingdom run by orcs and the group has discovered the orcs have a large number of human slaves.  Circumstances are such that they can realistically free the slaves.
> 
> ...





Your LG is just another CG. It's an example of a CG cleric or paladin following his beliefs and the tenets of his CG god.  Below is what would be a better example of LG.

LG: Slavery is unjust and the tyrannical government enslaving the people should be overthrown.  New just laws against slavery should be instated.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 16, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> I think this all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the word Chaotic means in terms of alignment.
> 
> You seem to be of the opinion that being Chaotic is like being a kleptomaniac - both require the character to follow their impulses with little regard for the consequences.
> 
> ...




I play it as both.  During 3e I had a human with a greater fey bloodline(Unearthed Arcana).  The PC was a ranger/sorcerer, with my sorcery spells being illusion and charm primarily, with a few other "tricky" type spells, like benign transposition.  I played him like a normal PC some of the time, and impulsive, acting on his whim some of the time.  Sometimes I'd wait for the party to decide what to do about the door.  Other times I'd just open it up to see what was on the other side.

One time we were breaking into a stronghold and were up in a secret stone passageway that opened up above a corridor.  The opening was set such that it could not be seen from the corridor.  However, unbeknownst to us, those down there had heard us and knew we were up there.  One of the PCs said in a whisper that he wished he knew how many were down in the passage.  My character, acting on impulse popped his head out to count.  I got a blast disk to the face(figuratively) as a result.  I got healed and said, "They can't have two!" and proceeded to try and check again, only to get a second blast to the face.  I popped back, got healed a second time and said, "There's no way they have three!"  Then I paused to give the other players a moment, which they quickly used to declare that they were grabbing me.  Everyone laughed and it's still, 10 years later, one of the moments we all remember and talk about.  

I think that whim and impulse are required for CN, but not as an always on thing.  Too much consistency in belief and the alignment stops being chaotic enough qualify.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Your LG is just another CG. It's an example of a CG cleric or paladin following his beliefs and the tenets of his CG god.  Below is what would be a better example of LG.
> 
> LG: Slavery is unjust and the tyrannical government enslaving the people should be overthrown.  New just laws against slavery should be instated.




It would make not sense that someone who is LG has to follow all the laws of the area they are currently in.  If it is illegal to be a worshipper of <insert LG god in your campaign here> in my hypothetical orc-controlled kingdom do you really expect that LG cleric or paladin to just turn themselves in to the local authority?  The fundamental belief system of my PC no matter what their alignment is not going to change because of where they happen to be located at the moment.  

I don't see how a PC could be playable if they had to obey every rule of every land they ever visit if they ever enter stray from countries that have reasonable and just laws.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Freedom and personal freedom are not the same thing.  I was speaking of acting on whims.  Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable.  If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Whims, by definition, are illogical and often unreliable."

No, not really... 

"a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained."

Nothing about illogical or unreliable there. Even capricious isnt requiring illogic.

Why did you buy it?
I liked it.
But its green. You usually hate green.
Yeah but it struck my fancy.

But the key is, eith alignment edspecially, you are not required to be 100% chaotic in every aspect of your life. 

I can be reliable and non-whimsical about say "saving lives" or "keeping my word (when given)" and still be quite whimsical at many many other times.

I mean, whimsical and chaotic isnt some compulsion to do crazy stuff. I can decide it's good to keep my word here just like I can decide eating regularly is good and not spoiling myself is too. 

 "If you never actually act on whims, you aren't really driven by whims which means you aren't chaotic. "

Two points... iirc the point bring made was you vould be reliable and be chaotic - kerp your word etc. Do, that's not saying never act on whims. I can choose plenty of non-disruptive whims to act on, right, and exclude the disruptive ones because chaotic =/= crazy.

Second, one of the first points I make is that alignment is DERIVED from actions/choices and alignment does not DRIVE actions. You are alignment ABC because you up you do XYZ things... it's not that you God XYZ things because you are ABC alignment.

But... of course GMs can choose to run games differently, but any time I saw GMs try to make alignment the compelling force of a PC it went badly.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 16, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I disagree. If your character is consistent, reliable, dependable and never impulsive, in what way is that character chaotic?  What about any of those descriptors would lead an observer to the conclusion that this character is chaotic?
> 
> As far as “policing” goes, I’m not really sure where you are getting that. I guess my question to the player would be the same as my question to you - if this character never does anything that would be described as chaotic, then how is this character chaotic?
> 
> If the chaotic character acts exactly the same as the lawful character then why bother with the distinction?



"- if this character never does anything that would be described as chaotic, then how is this character chaotic?"

Just to be clear - has anyone but you posted the notion of a character claiming chaotic that NEVER foes snything chaotic?

It seems like there is some leap from over a wide gulf of "mostly".


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 16, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## D1Tremere (Jun 16, 2019)

This is an example of the uselessness of alignment systems. Most people choose CG because it is basically the same as no alignment. You can be flexible with regard to laws and rules as you seek to adhere to whatever social normatives you give your character.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, from my perspective, you’re describing a really bad dnd experience. That sounds like the kind of table I’d walk away from mid session, after the DM refused to compromise their need to control my character.
> 
> You dont have a vote in what my character’s alignment is.



Actually, I do.

If you're playing, with any consistency and without some underlying reason, what to all appearances is a CG character but it says LN on your sheet, then as far as I'm concerned you're CG and that's what detection spells etc. are going to pull from you.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It would make not sense that someone who is LG has to follow all the laws of the area they are currently in.




Cool, because that's not what I said.



> If it is illegal to be a worshipper of <insert LG god in your campaign here> in my hypothetical orc-controlled kingdom do you really expect that LG cleric or paladin to just turn themselves in to the local authority?




No.  That would be silly.



> The fundamental belief system of my PC no matter what their alignment is not going to change because of where they happen to be located at the moment.




Correct.  However, a belief system that involves a belief that the laws of the land are of little concern and that everyone should be free, is chaotic.  Even in an evil land, 95% of the laws will not be evil and a good character would follow those, so the laws of the land are of concern to a lawful character.  The laws that a LG character would ignore would be the few unjust/evil ones.



> I don't see how a PC could be playable if they had to obey every rule of every land they ever visit if they ever enter stray from countries that have reasonable and just laws.




I don't, either, but then that wasn't an argument I put forth.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's all a big waste of time... both the alignment system *and* all the discussion about the alignment system.
> 
> Just play your character and then worry about how you might've defined him with one of 9 boxes after the fact.




Honestly, that's how I view it.  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s "breaking in period" makes sense to me.



coolAlias said:


> I think this all boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the word Chaotic means in terms of alignment.
> 
> You seem to be of the opinion that being Chaotic is like being a kleptomaniac - both require the character to follow their impulses with little regard for the consequences.
> 
> ...




Yes, I would view it that way.  Chaotic good gets the pass because, well, being good, the character still values the life and well being of others.  Think Wolverine from the X-men.  Disobeys orders, often goes off on his own and is frankly a menace to the team, but, generally well intentioned and often acts in other character's best interests.  A Chaotic Neutral?  Why on earth would I want that on the team?  The alignment is diametrically opposed to everything that a team represents.



Oofta said:


> It would make not sense that someone who is LG has to follow all the laws of the area they are currently in.  If it is illegal to be a worshipper of <insert LG god in your campaign here> in my hypothetical orc-controlled kingdom do you really expect that LG cleric or paladin to just turn themselves in to the local authority?  The fundamental belief system of my PC no matter what their alignment is not going to change because of where they happen to be located at the moment.
> 
> I don't see how a PC could be playable if they had to obey every rule of every land they ever visit if they ever enter stray from countries that have reasonable and just laws.




For one, following the laws of the land is not what lawful good is about.  Lawful Neutral?  Maybe.  But, the good aspect of LG means judging laws based on morality and acting accordingly.  What about LG would imply that they have to follow all the laws?

----

And, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s idea of whims.  You own definition states that whims are illogical - they cannot be explained.  

----

Lastly, it's this whole "well chaotic can be just as reliable as lawful" that has made demons in D&D unbelievably bland.  3e was particularly egregious for this.  Demons that have deep, methodical plots that involved many parts?  What?  Naw, you're the thing of raw chaos and destruction.  Plans are for weasel tongued devils.  You're a demon.  Live the life.

But, no, we get demons like Malcanthet and whatnot who are basically just devils with different damage resistances.  BOOORRRIIIINGGG.  

If CN is functionally no different than LG, then there's no point in having alignment.  If a CN character is just as reliable and dependable as a LG character, then why bother having alignment at all?

And, honestly, if you want to play a reliable, dependable, works well with others character, why is it a huge problem for that character to write Lawful Good on the character sheet?  What changes?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

I don’t really care to continue the argument about whether or not CN is “more Neutral than Neutral. That said, this:


WaterRabbit said:


> By definition, chaotic individuals actively oppose laws




Is not true, the way 5e defines the alignments. That’s actually the point I was (somewhat passive-aggressively) trying to hint at by claiming that CN was “the neutralest Neutral.” I do think that Chaotic individuals _should be_ opppsed to laws by definition, but if you actually read the definitions of the alignments in 5e, that’s not the case. CG individuals “act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” CN individuals “follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.” CE individuals “act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.” There is nothing about any of those alignments that necessitates active opposition to law. They all exhibit disregard for law, certainly, but disregard is, in my opinion, a hallmark of neutrality. Hence my (in hindsight, unnecessarily coy) assertion that Chaotic in 5e is just Neutral with attitude.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> For my part, what the player writes on the character sheet is only relevant for the first while*, until I-as-DM have seen the character in action and made my own determination of its alignment as played; which trumps what's on the sheet.  And sometimes what I see is a long way from what the player wrote down!
> 
> * - during this time I also have no problem at all with a character somewhat-arbitrarily changing alignment if the player's initial idea for the character isn't working out.  After this breaking-in period, alignment change - be it voluntary of forced - can have consequences particularly for some classes.



Interesting. I do something similar, but I treat the alignment on the character sheet as the character’s ideals. It is, in effect, a statement of intent. The player picked Lawful Good (or whatever) because they envisioned their character as someone who holds Law and Good as noble values, and strives to live up to them. However, people don’t always succeed at living up to their own ideals. So, any effects which care about your Alignment (so, basically none in 5e) will treat you as the alignment your behavior is consistent with, regardless of what your ideals are.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, that's how I view it.  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s "breaking in period" makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"And, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s idea of whims. You own definition states that whims are illogical - they cannot be explained"
But the definition I posted did not say "cannot be explained" it said unexplained. This gets to the crux of the divide you are creating... you are taking chaotic to an extreme, beyond preference and whim to dang close to insane.

That's a bias that I find myself not supported in the sources. 

Maybe it's how far you need to go to make your point, I dont know, but its unlike where in my experience the  majority of games I have seen who bothered with alignment were played.

It's odd that the DnD system draws so many to it that may see that as somehow how it was intended. I mean, few other games prompt this kind of expectation of lunacy. Even VtM with its Malkavians expected to see manageable levels of lunacy and in Cthulu that kind of thing was an expected outcome of exposure, not do much a defined starting point. 

Oh well. 

Hope it works for you and serves your games well.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

How does unreliable = lunacy?

Lots and LOTS of people are unreliable.  That doesn't make them crazy.  I've been accused several times here of going to extremes, but, all I've said is that a CN character is unreliable.  That's pretty much, AFAIC, the defining trait of a CN character - that they will follow their whims, not the wishes of the group.  That doesn't make someone insane.  Just selfish and unreliable.

Again, if your character is 100% reliable, never acts impulsively and is 100% worthy of trust, how is this character CN?  What about this character makes him or her CN?

To me, the hallmark of chaotics is that they are unreliable.  That's what chaotic MEANS.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Actually, I do.
> 
> If you're playing, with any consistency and without some underlying reason, what to all appearances is a CG character but it says LN on your sheet, then as far as I'm concerned you're CG and that's what detection spells etc. are going to pull from you.




about all I can say positive about that is that it’s a great argument for keeping alignment non-mechanical.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> How does unreliable = lunacy?
> 
> Lots and LOTS of people are unreliable.  That doesn't make them crazy.  I've been accused several times here of going to extremes, but, all I've said is that a CN character is unreliable.  That's pretty much, AFAIC, the defining trait of a CN character - that they will follow their whims, not the wishes of the group.  That doesn't make someone insane.  Just selfish and unreliable.
> 
> ...




You are literally the only person imagining an argument involving someone that is “100% reliable”, etc.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, that's how I view it.  @_*Lanefan*_'s "breaking in period" makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In all of this, you continue to miss the fact that no one arguing with you views chaotic/lawful as being a difference of reliability. 

You seem to define CN as literally not a sane person. A person who cannot keep watch because they don’t really want to, even though not doing so could easily get them killed, isn’t sane. You aren’t describing a CN character, you’re describing a person with no agency over their own actions.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Is not true, the way 5e defines the alignments. That’s actually the point I was (somewhat passive-aggressively) trying to hint at by claiming that CN was “the neutralest Neutral.” I do think that Chaotic individuals _should be_ opppsed to laws by definition, but if you actually read the definitions of the alignments in 5e, that’s not the case. CG individuals “act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.” CN individuals “follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.” CE individuals “act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.” There is nothing about any of those alignments that necessitates active opposition to law. They all exhibit disregard for law, certainly, but disregard is, in my opinion, a hallmark of neutrality. Hence my (in hindsight, unnecessarily coy) assertion that Chaotic in 5e is just Neutral with attitude.




I don't think they actively oppose laws at all.  I just think that for the most part, they ignore them as being too restrictive.  I've never seen a CN PC engage in a war on laws.    I also think that if a law said that you couldn't be punished for doing as you desire as long as it didn't harm someone else, the CN PC would be all for a law like that.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do something similar, but I treat the alignment on the character sheet as the character’s ideals. It is, in effect, a statement of intent. The player picked Lawful Good (or whatever) because they envisioned their character as someone who holds Law and Good as noble values, and strives to live up to them. However, people don’t always succeed at living up to their own ideals. So, any effects which care about your Alignment (so, basically none in 5e) will treat you as the alignment your behavior is consistent with, regardless of what your ideals are.




I also do something similar.  I don't even look at the character sheet or really care about what alignment is written.  If a mechanic keys off of an alignment, I just mentally assign whichever alignment is closes to how the PC is being played and move on.  I'm much more interested in PCs having complex personalities, than in seeing a PC constrained by an alignment.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> In all of this, you continue to miss the fact that no one arguing with you views chaotic/lawful as being a difference of reliability.
> 
> You seem to define CN as literally not a sane person. A person who cannot keep watch because they don’t really want to, even though not doing so could easily get them killed, isn’t sane. You aren’t describing a CN character, you’re describing a person with no agency over their own actions.




Insane is a type of CN(or other alignment type, depending on the insanity), though.  It's just not the only way to play CN.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Insane is a type of CN(or other alignment type, depending on the insanity), though.  It's just not the only way to play CN.




Good thing I’ve never said otherwise. 

Btw, I’m pretty sure the first dnd forum argument I ever engaged in was basically this argument, on the old wotc forums, back when 4e was still coming out. I think you were there. 

I wish those forums were still there, so I could go find out if anyone has changed their minds in that time.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Good thing I’ve never said otherwise.
> 
> Btw, I’m pretty sure the first dnd forum argument I ever engaged in was basically this argument, on the old wotc forums, back when 4e was still coming out. I think you were there.
> 
> I wish those forums were still there, so I could go find out if anyone has changed their minds in that time.




LOL  I was there!  And lo, when the D&d forum fell, there I was also.

It would be fun to go back and see those old threads.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Good thing I’ve never said otherwise.
> 
> Btw, I’m pretty sure the first dnd forum argument I ever engaged in was basically this argument, on the old wotc forums, back when 4e was still coming out. I think you were there.
> 
> I wish those forums were still there, so I could go find out if anyone has changed their minds in that time.



Honestly, I recall very similar alignment "discussion" in 1e so as far as I can tell, alignment has led to the same pointless disagreements over the same pointless positions nd strawmen since it came out. 

Only real difference us thst now it doesnt actually have mechanical penalties hanging on the outcomes.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Cool, because that's not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then I have no idea what you're saying. If a LG PC ignores laws they perceive as evil/unjust such as worshipping a LG deity then they would ignore the law allowing slavery if they believe that such a law is evil/unjust.  That does not make them chaotic, it just means they believe slavery is wrong.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> For one, following the laws of the land is not what lawful good is about.  Lawful Neutral?  Maybe.  But, the good aspect of LG means judging laws based on morality and acting accordingly.  What about LG would imply that they have to follow all the laws?




I was responding to MaxPerson who was stating that a LG person would not free slaves if slavery was the law of the land.  He stated that made them chaotic for ignoring a law.  At the same time ignoring a law that said it was illegal to worship their deity could somehow be ignored.

I disagree with that sentiment, that's all.  LG doesn't mean you obey all laws if you believe the law is significantly immoral or unjust.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Honestly, I recall very similar alignment "discussion" in 1e so as far as I can tell, alignment has led to the same pointless disagreements over the same pointless positions nd strawmen since it came out.
> 
> Only real difference us thst now it doesnt actually have mechanical penalties hanging on the outcomes.




Unless you are a paladin, but that's tied more to the oaths, rather than alignment.  It's just the the oaths tend towards a specific alignment or few alignments, so it's kinda sorta an alignment penalty mechanic to violate the oath.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Then I have no idea what you're saying. If a LG PC ignores laws they perceive as evil/unjust such as worshipping a LG deity then they would ignore the law allowing slavery if they believe that such a law is evil/unjust.  That does not make them chaotic, it just means they believe slavery is wrong.




The explanation was in the post you just quoted.  I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I was responding to MaxPerson who was stating that a LG person would not free slaves if slavery was the law of the land.




Except that not only did I never say that, I said directly that they would in my first response(and other responses) to you.  There would just be slightly different motivations.



> He stated that made them chaotic for ignoring a law.




Nope. This Strawman repeated for the 4th or 5th time still isn't true.



> At the same time ignoring a law that said it was illegal to worship their deity could somehow be ignored.




Didn't say that either.

Do you actually read my posts, or just type in responses for me before you respond?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> LOL  I was there!  And lo, when the D&d forum fell, there I was also.
> 
> It would be fun to go back and see those old threads.




Yeah there was a lot of good stuff.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah there was a lot of good stuff.




I know they gave us time to download/copy threads.  I wonder if some people here(or elsewhere) took advantage of that, and if so, are they out there somewhere to find.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> LG doesn't mean you obey all laws if you believe the law is significantly immoral or unjust.



The way I see it, Neutral good ignores unjust laws, Chaotic Good fights to disrupt unjust governments, and Lawful Good works to reform unjust governments.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> The way I see it, Neutral good ignores unjust laws, Chaotic Good fights to disrupt unjust governments, and Lawful Good works to reform unjust governments.




I disagree.  Let's take a scenario where there is an evil dictator in charge of a country that a LG Paladin enters.  In that country it's illegal to murder people.  However, there is also a law that allows the dictator's personal guard to ignore that rule murder anyone they like.  The Paladin is in the bar and the server accidentally spills an ale on one of the personal guard.  In response the guard stands up and draws his sword to remove the head of the offender.  The LG Paladin is going to step in and prevent the murder from happening, despite the law allowing it.  He's not going to sit back and allow the murder to happen, then create signs and go with the rest of the party to protest outside the castle until the dictator reforms things.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  Let's take a scenario where there is an evil dictator in charge of a country that a LG Paladin enters.  In that country it's illegal to murder people.  However, there is also a law that allows the dictator's personal guard to ignore that rule murder anyone they like.  The Paladin is in the bar and the server accidentally spills an ale on one of the personal guard.  In response the guard stands up and draws his sword to remove the head of the offender.  The LG Paladin is going to step in and prevent the murder from happening, despite the law allowing it.  He's not going to sit back and allow the murder to happen, then create signs and go with the rest of the party to protest outside the castle until the dictator reforms things.



I don’t know what part of what I said you think this disagrees with.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I know they gave us time to download/copy threads.  I wonder if some people here(or elsewhere) took advantage of that, and if so, are they out there somewhere to find.




I think there was an archiving effort here, and possibly elsewhere? Don’t know how much it got.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t know what part of what I said you think this disagrees with.




This part...



> The way I see it, *Neutral good ignores unjust laws*, Chaotic Good fights to disrupt unjust governments, and *Lawful Good works to reform unjust governments*.





You specifically call out the Paladin stepping in to prevent that murder(ignoring an unjust law) as NG, and then state that LG works to reform the governments.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This part...
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> You specifically call out the Paladin stepping in to prevent that murder(ignoring an unjust law) as NG, and then state that LG works to reform the governments.




Not who you were talking to, but I assume in a heroic fantasy context, by the time the Paladin is in a place to even dream of enacting those reforms, there are a lot of heads rolling around on the ground, most of them belonging to the LE tyrants. I'd be surprised if the incumbent administration didn't have to be removed by force. So the Paladin is still gonna go smite some fools.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 17, 2019)

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you do understand that sometimes misunderstandings happen, right?  My scenario was that the slave could realistically be freed and the way your response was phrased it sounded like the LG PC would not free them.  That the only way to free the slaves was to overthrow the government and change the law.  That until the law was changed, slavery should go unopposed.



Maxperson said:


> LG: Slavery is unjust and the tyrannical government enslaving the people should be overthrown. New just laws against slavery should be instated.




While overthrowing the government may or may not be the LG thing to do*, in many cases it won't be possible.  Freeing the slaves was possible.  Forums are not always a great place to discuss topics, but when I say "I have no idea what you're saying" that's an admission on my part that, well, I have no idea what you're saying.  Perhaps you should clarify before you start accusing people of constructing a strawman.

_*As much as my LG PC may hate the tyrannical government they may not have a better option.  For that matter, overthrowing the government will often be impossible._


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think there was an archiving effort here, and possibly elsewhere? Don’t know how much it got.




I have no idea where they would be.  Maybe [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] knows where the D&D Forum archive are, if they are here.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This part...
> 
> You specifically call out the Paladin stepping in to prevent that murder(ignoring an unjust law) as NG, and then state that LG works to reform the governments.



You’re assuming that these statements of what each alignment _does_ are meant to imply that other alignments can’t do those things. This was not my intent.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Unless you are a paladin, but that's tied more to the oaths, rather than alignment.  It's just the the oaths tend towards a specific alignment or few alignments, so it's kinda sorta an alignment penalty mechanic to violate the oath.



As you say, the paladin is now tied to oaths. Oaths are given a set of rather clear doctrine/tenet elements and the GM and players are encouraged required to work together on specifics for that character specifically. 

That is a vast improvement over the more blind 9verall LG vs others alignment of olde and paladin impact.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> Not who you were talking to, but I assume in a heroic fantasy context, by the time the Paladin is in a place to even dream of enacting those reforms, there are a lot of heads rolling around on the ground, most of them belonging to the LE tyrants. I'd be surprised if the incumbent administration didn't have to be removed by force. So the Paladin is still gonna go smite some fools.




I agree.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You are literally the only person imagining an argument involving someone that is “100% reliable”, etc.




If you went back to the example I brought up that started this all, it was from a player who WAS 100% reliable then claimed to be CN. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> In all of this, you continue to miss the fact that no one arguing with you views chaotic/lawful as being a difference of reliability.
> 
> You seem to define CN as literally not a sane person. A person who cannot keep watch because they don’t really want to, even though not doing so could easily get them killed, isn’t sane. You aren’t describing a CN character, you’re describing a person with no agency over their own actions.




Are you kidding?  Falling asleep on watch is not an uncommon thing.  It doesn't make people insane.  It makes them unreliable.  My personal rest time is more important than your safety.  Snore.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

But, reasking the question.

If there is functionally no difference between LG and CN, what's the point of alignment?  It's not even descriptive at that point because the descriptors are meaningless if opposite descriptors can apply to the same thing.

Where I do find it interesting is in alignment archetypes.  Wolverine makes a pretty good CG archetype, I think we'd agree.  But, what's a chaotic neutral archetype?  The only one I could think of was Q from Star Trek.  And, well, everyone keeps telling me that CN is totally reliable and completely okay with working with groups, so, Q obviously isn't CN by that standard.

So, what character would you see as being typical of a CN alignment?


----------



## Zarithar (Jun 17, 2019)

As a DM I'd rather have a player choose lawful evil than chaotic neutral. I agree with Morrus' take on this. Chaotic neutral usually translates to chaotic annoying.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> Not who you were talking to, but I assume in a heroic fantasy context, by the time the Paladin is in a place to even dream of enacting those reforms, there are a lot of heads rolling around on the ground, most of them belonging to the LE tyrants. I'd be surprised if the incumbent administration didn't have to be removed by force. So the Paladin is still gonna go smite some fools.



Oh, for sure! One way or another, there's some violence being done. The difference as I see it is, once the tyrants are overthrown, the LG Paladin says "Now to begin the work of establishing a new state, to restore just order to this society." The CG rogue says, "Now you're free to live your lives without the oppressive influence of a state!" And the NG Cleric says, "Now you'll need to decide for yourselves where to go from here."


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, reasking the question.
> 
> If there is functionally no difference between LG and CN, what's the point of alignment?  It's not even descriptive at that point because the descriptors are meaningless if opposite descriptors can apply to the same thing.
> 
> ...



I mean, when push came to shove, Q worked with the enterprise crew and helped them save that one planet from the asteroid. Once working with a group was in his own self-interest, he did it. It's not that CN is _necessarily_ reliable, it's just that nothing _prevents_ CN from being reliable, if that's what suits their whims.

Of course, by my standard, CN means someone who lives outside of society (whether literally in the wilderness or as a vagrant in civilized settlements) rather than sacrifice their individual liberties, and neither puts themselves in harm's way to benefit others, nor brings harm to others for their own benefit. I guess an example of a fictional character who fits that bill might be like... Tom Bombadil?


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, reasking the question.
> 
> If there is functionally no difference between LG and CN, what's the point of alignment?  It's not even descriptive at that point because the descriptors are meaningless if opposite descriptors can apply to the same thing.
> 
> ...



"If there is functionally no difference between LG and CN, what's the point of alignment?"

Is anyone here other than you claiming there is no functional difference between LG and CN?

So, going with one of your recent cases - on watch - itsbperfdftly gone for a CN to be very reliable on watch duty, if that is any part of personal history, for instance. Perhaps the CN is born out of a history where such a tragedy was involved. (Indirectly perhaps) and so now this charscter actively avoid responsibility and despises authority in favor of folks looking out for themselves  but when it comes to them bring forced into such roles- in those rare occasions, they do do reliably.

Imagine if you will a tragic tale where in a crisis a community or group listened to bad authority and relied on them to provide for safety only to have that authority prove incompetent or corrupt with tragic consequences.

Imagine one person coming out of that with "screw authority, everybody take care of yourself" who actively avoids positions of responsibility or authority and never relies on official or authority - views them all as default as incompetent or corrupt as that tragic day. This person might well be extremely reliable when they do have to take on such tasks. Thry might take on scout roles so that they don't work as often depending on others. 

Imagine another person coming out of the same case who saw it as the failure in authority that leads to the disaster, not that the folks followed, but that the authority failed them. To that person, becoming a beacon of authority that can be seen as competent, non-corrupt, etc to help honor and restore people's faith in order or institutions is key. That person seeks out cases and opportunities to take on authority and obligations- especially when they see cases of corrupton or incompetence again, trying to prevent the repeat tragedy. They may try and help build up or replace - depends on situation and means 

The former could easily be CN or anywhere on the C scale depending on other aspects and beliefs. The latter could easily be LN or LG but even LE depending on choices and beliefs and methods. 

So, there you have a case of some event producing very different characters on opposite sides of the alignment spectrum for law snd chaos but neither is " unreliable" as far as taking watch or necessarily performing s task they agree to take. The huge difference is one Avoids taking much responsibility and lives in a way that shows "self-reliance and take care of yourself" but the other seeks and takes on responsibility at most every chance and lives to show the value in that.

This kind of division between C snd L is far more common in actual rpg play than the view put forth that C or CN means taking a watch in life or death threat and whimsically doing something else. 

To me, you will find a whole lot of folks who agree (usually after bad alignment conflicts with GMs) that LG (or LN) is **not** "lawful stupid" and frankly that holds just as strongly for the C-side not being C-stupid as well.

But again, I find it odd that I am someone who jettisoned alignment in 1e and who played many many other systems where alignment never stained their system pages st sll, yet I am here defending the non-extreme alignment position. 

If extremes help your gsme, that's great. To me they fo have value at times but not at the point that you get yourself putting do much of your " options" painted in extreme corners. 

Seems to me that a GM eho enforces and reinforces their own notion of "chaotic must mean unreliable" has basically painted thst whole C-side as mostly out-of-bounds for PCs as really one things many parties and small squads will avoid like the plague is unreliable when it matters. 

If that helps your games, great.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I don't think they actively oppose laws at all.  I just think that for the most part, they ignore them as being too restrictive.  I've never seen a CN PC engage in a war on laws.



Perhaps, though one definition of a true CN is a (non-destructive/violent) extreme anarchist who in fact does actively seek to overturn any and all external laws and restrictions, to be replaced with personal responsibility for one's actions.


> I also think that if a law said that you couldn't be punished for doing as you desire as long as it didn't harm someone else, the CN PC would be all for a law like that.



A CG one sure would; a CN might stretch the definition of 'harm' just a little particularly when it comes to property - assuming, of course, the CN even believes in the concept of property/goods ownership at all. (some hardcore anarchists see ownership as the root of all evil)


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Imagine one person coming out of that with "screw authority, everybody take care of yourself" who actively avoids positions of responsibility or authority and never relies on official or authority - views them all as default as incompetent or corrupt as that tragic day. This person might well be extremely reliable when they do have to take on such tasks. Thry might take on scout roles so that they don't work as often depending on others. .




But, again, that scout has to report to someone.  You just said that they never rely on authority - so, that scout goes off, scouts, finds information, and then keeps it to himself because, well, what's the point of telling those incompetent idiots, they won't actually do anything about it?

Remember, this person places no value on the well being of others.  That scout could not care less that his companions get butchered except that it places him in danger.  So, the scout goes out, sees something really dangerous, and decides that discretion is the better part of valor and buggers off without telling anyone. 

Why?  Because he does not value loyalty and only values his own skin.  

I'm actually a bit surprised by the vigour in which folks are defending chaotics.  Chaotics are, by definition, unreliable.  A CN is CN BECAUSE he's unreliable.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, again, that scout has to report to someone.  You just said that they never rely on authority - so, that scout goes off, scouts, finds information, and then keeps it to himself because, well, what's the point of telling those incompetent idiots, they won't actually do anything about it?
> 
> Remember, this person places no value on the well being of others.  That scout could not care less that his companions get butchered except that it places him in danger.  So, the scout goes out, sees something really dangerous, and decides that discretion is the better part of valor and buggers off without telling anyone.
> 
> ...





And other people keep saying that reliability has little to do with alignment.  Not reporting that there is an orcish invasion coming is not chaotic, it's stupid.  There are stupid people or lazy people that fall asleep on watch of all alignments.  On the other hand if you say a CN may not report a crime they're witnessing I'll agree 100%.  They may or may not based on a host of other circumstances that are far too complex to put under a simple alignment system which only tell you a fraction of how a person is going to respond.

Alignments don't define _what_ people do, it helps define _why_​ they do it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Are you kidding?  Falling asleep on watch is not an uncommon thing.  It doesn't make people insane.  It makes them unreliable.  My personal rest time is more important than your safety.  Snore.




If the PC is unable to stay awake, alignment has nothing to do with it.  If the PC is deliberately going to sleep, it's not "your safety," it's "our safety" or more directly "my safety," which is a fairly crazy position to take.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Where I do find it interesting is in alignment archetypes.  Wolverine makes a pretty good CG archetype, I think we'd agree.  But, what's a chaotic neutral archetype?  The only one I could think of was Q from Star Trek.  And, well, everyone keeps telling me that CN is totally reliable and completely okay with working with groups, so, Q obviously isn't CN by that standard.
> 
> So, what character would you see as being typical of a CN alignment?




River from Firefly.  I've seen a few others, but I can't remember them.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Of course, by my standard, CN means someone who lives outside of society (whether literally in the wilderness or as a vagrant in civilized settlements) rather than sacrifice their individual liberties, and neither puts themselves in harm's way to benefit others, nor brings harm to others for their own benefit. I guess an example of a fictional character who fits that bill might be like... Tom Bombadil?




Tom is the epitome of the original true neutral druid.  He wasn't chaotic at all.  He just didn't care about things like law, chaos, good and evil.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps, though one definition of a true CN is a (non-destructive/violent) extreme anarchist who in fact does actively seek to overturn any and all external laws and restrictions, to be replaced with personal responsibility for one's actions.
> 
> A CG one sure would; a CN might stretch the definition of 'harm' just a little particularly when it comes to property - assuming, of course, the CN even believes in the concept of property/goods ownership at all. (some hardcore anarchists see ownership as the root of all evil)




Such an individual would die fairly quickly in a D&D setting, as it's literally him against the world. Even here in the U.S. it generally doesn't work out well for them, we had the Unibomber, but most of the "Anarchists" don't actually do anything but complain, since they don't want to die or be jailed.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2019)

Oofta said:


> And other people keep saying that reliability has little to do with alignment.  Not reporting that there is an orcish invasion coming is not chaotic, it's stupid.  There are stupid people or lazy people that fall asleep on watch of all alignments.  On the other hand if you say a CN may not report a crime they're witnessing I'll agree 100%.  They may or may not based on a host of other circumstances that are far too complex to put under a simple alignment system which only tell you a fraction of how a person is going to respond.
> 
> Alignments don't define _what_ people do, it helps define _why_​ they do it.




I would argue that alignment is more descriptive.  You are X alignment because of what you do.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I would argue that alignment is more descriptive.  You are X alignment because of what you do.




What you do is based on your personality and what you believe, though.  There are many, many reasons why someone would not report an orcish army, and you can find people of all alignments among them.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, again, that scout has to report to someone.  You just said that they never rely on authority - so, that scout goes off, scouts, finds information, and then keeps it to himself because, well, what's the point of telling those incompetent idiots, they won't actually do anything about it?
> 
> Remember, this person places no value on the well being of others.  That scout could not care less that his companions get butchered except that it places him in danger.  So, the scout goes out, sees something really dangerous, and decides that discretion is the better part of valor and buggers off without telling anyone.
> 
> ...



Again, extremism. Never relies on authority does not mean working as scout and not reporting info back. It doesnt mean nuts. It foesnt mesn crazy. It doesnt mean never dealing with others, it means getting paid up ftont  not being surprised if they screw it up. It's a belief not a compulsion. 

And where do you get that this person places no value on the well being of others ? Again, for CN that serms extreme. "unconcerned with the value of sentient life" is the description the PHB places on Artemis, the LE character. As a neutral in the good/evil a charscter is perfectly free to be a bit of both - not strongly driven either wsy. So, this character could be one who does value many folks lives but maybe not do worried about the bosses who get whats coming to them. 

As for defending cn, honestly, I am more opposing the insistence on extremism for alignments and it keeps getting thrown out then denied so much, it's well past raising my suspicions.

I think I can say that, speaking generously, you and I will just not agree here.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 17, 2019)

If I were going to describe a CN ftom fiction, Phillipe the Mouse from Ladyhawke. Willing to steal from anybody, distrusts mostly everybody but not the type to just kill for fun. 

Jayne from Firefly, likely, especially when the money gets good.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 17, 2019)

CN Han Solo start of ANH.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 17, 2019)

Well, since this has devolved into a discussion of "what is alignment" I guess someone should post what alignment Batman is.  Obviously he's the epitome of lawful chaotic good neutral evil.

View attachment 107105


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 17, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Honestly, I recall very similar alignment "discussion" in 1e so as far as I can tell, alignment has led to the same pointless disagreements over the same pointless positions nd strawmen since it came out.
> 
> Only real difference us thst now it doesnt actually have mechanical penalties hanging on the outcomes.




I think that's been true from way back.  

Dorm room style argumentation aside, IMO the real problem spots tend to be the conflicted alignments like Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Evil, where there's inherent tension between the adjectives. Part of it, I think is that there's an implicit notion that many people have that "Lawful" is also "good", hence "Lawful Good" is the best good. This leads to folks looking at various dilemmas that seem like they should be very difficult for particular alignments due to conflict between the first and second term. You could see 4E trying to nuke this whole debate by eliminating Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, and Chaotic Neutral. 

Oddly, Chaotic Evil's pretty simple---maximum mayhem and destruction. Of course, not that many people play Chaotic Evil, at least on paper, though there are plenty who do in reality (cue "murder hobos").


----------



## DND_Reborn (Jun 17, 2019)

Guess we're a goody-goody party, most are lawful good or neutral good, and only one chaotic good.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Tom is the epitome of the original true neutral druid.  He wasn't chaotic at all.  He just didn't care about things like law, chaos, good and evil.



Just going to ignore the “by my standard” part then?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Just going to ignore the “by my standard” part then?




I think the implication is he disagrees with your standard.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> If you went back to the example I brought up that started this all, it was from a player who WAS 100% reliable then claimed to be CN.



 Which you brought up as if it were relevant to what anyone else was talking about. 





> Are you kidding?  Falling asleep on watch is not an uncommon thing.  It doesn't make people insane.  It makes them unreliable.  My personal rest time is more important than your safety.  Snore.




Intentionally falling asleep on watch while in dangerous territory where there are potentially creatures that can easily kill your whole team in your sleep is one of two things. Insane, intentionally suicidal, or moronic. 

You say “your safety” as if the person in question isn’t capable of understanding _their own safety._ That isn’t a person who is both intelligent and mentally stable. 

Refusing to take watch is sane and not completely idiotic, but intentionally sleeping on watch? Come on, man.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 17, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I think the implication is he disagrees with your standard.



Wha... It’s _my_ standard. I’m not asserting that it’s the way D&D presents it, nor the way it “should” work. On the contrary, I call it my standard specifically to denote that it’s a personal preference that varies from common practice. Nobody has to share my preference, but arguing against it doesn’t make sense. I’m not asserting anything to make an argument against.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 17, 2019)

I think anytime that a lengthy and passionate argument breaks out about D&D alignment, Gary gets another set of wings.


----------



## Jharet (Jun 17, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Of course it is. It’s the goodest good alignment as currently written, so it’s no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who don’t want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so it’s the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns.




That would be LAWFUL GOOD and TRUE NEUTRAL.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Where I do find it interesting is in alignment archetypes.  Wolverine makes a pretty good CG archetype, I think we'd agree.  But, what's a chaotic neutral archetype?  The only one I could think of was Q from Star Trek.  And, well, everyone keeps telling me that CN is totally reliable and completely okay with working with groups, so, Q obviously isn't CN by that standard.
> 
> So, what character would you see as being typical of a CN alignment?



Jayne Cobb, from Firefly.

Jayne realizes that working with a crew is safer than working alone, but he doesn't have any particular loyalty to his crew. In a flashback, we see him selling out his former team because Mal gives him a better offer. He later tries to sell out part of his current crew (though he considers those two to be a dangerous liability, not crew), and only abandons that plan when it becomes clear that he's being double-crossed by the people he tried selling them out to. In a different episode, we see him reacting to disturbances aboard the ship by tearing away the sheet covering his wall-mounted arsenal... only to use the sheet to cover his head so he won't be disturbed in his sleep.

Jayne doesn't prioritize harming people, but he doesn't really care if he does. He prioritizes his own desires above those of others. That makes him Chaotic Neutral.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 18, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Just going to ignore the “by my standard” part then?




I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but this thread is about the D&D standard.  If we're going to go by your standard, then we can make Tom LG, NG, CG or any other alignment you feel like assigning him with your personal standard.  It's just not something that really goes with this thread.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but this thread is about the D&D standard.  If we're going to go by your standard, then we can make Tom LG, NG, CG or any other alignment you feel like assigning him with your personal standard.  It's just not something that really goes with this thread.



This thread is about “Chaotic Good is the most popular alignment” and whatever discussion evolves from that jumping-off point. Hussar made an argument about Q being the Ur-example of Chaotic Neutral and challenged folks to give him an example of an archetypical CN character that would be more compatible with a D&D adventuring party. I responded to that by pointing out that Q did in fact help the crew of the enterprise (on a few occasions, though I only gave one example), so clearly even the most quintessentially CN character is fully capable of working with others, provided doing so is in their own interest. As an aside, I gave an example of a character that fits well with CN as I define it at my own table. If you’re interested in discussing that aside, I’m up for that, but pointing out that it isn’t a typical example of a CN character is kind of redundant. I don’t claim that my interpretation of the alignments is in line with the way D&D presents them.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 18, 2019)

I appreciated the point that Charlaquin made in his post about ‘Chaotic Neutral’ being the ‘truest’ Neutral.

I interpreted this to mean: Chaotic Neutral: ‘I am going to do what I want, and I really dont care what the DM expects of me or my player character.’

In other words, ‘truest Neutral’.

Similarly for ‘Chaotic Good’: ‘My character is good, and I have zero interests in the DM manipulating or punishing me because of the DMs ethical opinions’. ... ‘truest Good’.

Similarly for ‘Chaotic Evil’: ‘My character does whatever I want. F everyone else.’ In other words, ‘truest Evil’.



I dont interpret the official alignments this way. But it helped me make sense of why Chaotic Neutral was surprisingly popular.



I assume, many of these players want the Chaotic Neutral character to kill monsters and steal treasures, and dont want to get entangled in reallife ethical implications.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 18, 2019)

For me personally,

Lawful = collectivism
Chaotic = individualism

So, Lawful Good is making an effort for the community as a collective effort to do good things.

Chaotic Good is making an effort to help others become their true self and discover their own talents and uniqueness as much as possible.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 18, 2019)

Yaarel said:


> I appreciated the point that Charlaquin made in his*** post about ‘Chaotic Neutral’ being the ‘truest’ Neutral.
> 
> I interpreted this to mean: Chaotic Neutral: ‘I am going to do what I want, and I really dont care what the DM expects of me or my player character.’
> 
> ...



***her, but no worries.

Yeah, this is more or less what I was driving at, though I was more thinking about in-character societal pressures than DM imposition. Lawful Good and Lawful Evil may sometimes find themselves in a position where the Good/Evil thing to do is not Lawful. Neutral, on either axis, is defined by indifference towards the central conflict of that alignment axis. It is only Chaotic individuals who are absolutely free to be as uncompromisingly good, evil, or uncommitted as they wish. I’m glad someone understood my point, even if you don’t agree with it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> What you do is based on your personality and what you believe, though.  There are many, many reasons why someone would not report an orcish army, and you can find people of all alignments among them.




The problem is, we're not mind readers.  We don't know why this character did X.  All we know is that he did X.  And, really, while there might be all sorts of reasons, reliability isn't one of them.  



5ekyu said:


> If I were going to describe a CN ftom fiction, Phillipe the Mouse from Ladyhawke. Willing to steal from anybody, distrusts mostly everybody but not the type to just kill for fun.
> 
> Jayne from Firefly, likely, especially when the money gets good.




Ok, now, let's use Jayne.  Would you consider Jayne to be reliable?  Is loyal, reliable, or anything similar be a proper descriptor of that character?



Zardnaar said:


> CN Han Solo start of ANH.




I'd probably put Han Solo as just neutral.  He's not actively opposing the empire, after all.  He might not like it, but, he's also not going to do anything about it.  That's about as neutral as it gets.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which you brought up as if it were relevant to what anyone else was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Who said anything about "intentionally"?  The character is unreliable.  Falling asleep on watch is pretty much textbook unreliable.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think that's been true from way back.
> 
> Dorm room style argumentation aside, IMO the real problem spots tend to be the conflicted alignments like Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Evil, where there's inherent tension between the adjectives. Part of it, I think is that there's an implicit notion that many people have that "Lawful" is also "good", hence "Lawful Good" is the best good.



Not helped at all by the fact that in the beginning - i.e. 0e and Basic - Lawful *was* Good; as there was no good-evil axis.  Just three alignments: Lawful (implied good), Neutral, Chaotic (implied evil).



> Oddly, Chaotic Evil's pretty simple---maximum mayhem and destruction. Of course, not that many people play Chaotic Evil, at least on paper, though there are plenty who do in reality (cue "murder hobos").



One could argue that the relative Evilness lies in who the hobos murder, and why.

Are they, for example, quite well-behaved in town and only killing everything when out in the field - where often everything is trying its best to kill them in return?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2019)

So, to amend my question slightly:

Can you come up with an example of a chaotic neutral character that is trustworthy and responsible?  

So far, the examples have been Q from Star Trek and Jayne from Firefly.  Neither would be described as trustworthy or responsible I think.  If CN is entirely plausible to be trustworthy and responsible, then there should be many examples we can point to where obviously CN characters are trustworthy and responsible.  Seems a fairly easy task given how everyone keeps telling me how it's perfectly normal for CN characters to be trustworthy and responsible.

I'll be over here at the bar waiting if you need me.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 18, 2019)

Yaarel said:


> Chaotic Good is making an effort to help others become their true self and discover their own talents and uniqueness as much as possible.




Touched by an Angel-style?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2019)

Thinking about CN archetype characters.

Deadpool.

Hulk (particularly before Thor Ragnarok)

Jack Sparrow

Lucifer from the Lucifer TV show (although, I'm on the fence on that one)

Maze from the Lucifer TV show (that one I'm pretty confident in)

That's my picks anyway.  Still not seeing a whole lot of "responsible" and "trustworthy" there.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 18, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Not helped at all by the fact that in the beginning - i.e. 0e and Basic - Lawful *was* Good; as there was no good-evil axis.  Just three alignments: Lawful (implied good), Neutral, Chaotic (implied evil).




Very Medieval in that sense and it's a direct lift from _Three Hearts and Three Lions _as well as Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books. 




> One could argue that the relative Evilness lies in who the hobos murder, and why.
> 
> Are they, for example, quite well-behaved in town and only killing everything when out in the field - where often everything is trying its best to kill them in return?




Being ruthless in the field is one thing, but murder hoboism often seems to go well beyond that, though, as one says, there are degrees. I have less problem with being ruthless out in the field, but even there things can go strange. I do think there's no substitute for knowing the table, though. A DM who constantly throws moral dilemmas (e.g., what to do about the orcish dependents?) to a table that's just there to roll some dice is in for some disappointment.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Who said anything about "intentionally"?  The character is unreliable.  Falling asleep on watch is pretty much textbook unreliable.




It was very heavily implied with your statement about the PC not caring about YOUR safety.  That indicates that it's a conscious choice to go to sleep.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, we're not mind readers.  We don't know why this character did X.  All we know is that he did X.  And, really, while there might be all sorts of reasons, reliability isn't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time. 

"He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most. 

Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, to amend my question slightly:
> 
> Can you come up with an example of a chaotic neutral character that is trustworthy and responsible?
> 
> ...





I take it my PC, Ulkar the Barbarian doesn't count?  I'm also assuming you'll just say "Han Solo wasn't really CN".  Which is the problem.  We don't always know what motivates fictional characters, and you've decided that CN means someone who is irresponsible, unreliable, lazy, has no friends or loved ones they'd sacrifice for, etc.

So there's no point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 18, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Who said anything about "intentionally"?  The character is unreliable.  Falling asleep on watch is pretty much textbook unreliable.




You literally repeatedly described a character deciding to sleep instead of keeping watch. Not trying but failing to stay awake, you explicitly described a decision.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 18, 2019)

Current American culture is heavily skewed to individualism.  Since ~80% of players can only play themselves, this means most players will only play a character that is highly individualistic, which means in practice not only do they tend to pick CG/CN but as a DM I prefer that they do so, since most will find the precepts of being lawful baffling and won't be able to play the character.  

In my experience, most CG characters tend to be in practice CN, while most CN characters tend to be in practice CE.  CE is rarely played, but when it is played it is played as a gross caricature of the ideology, and for that matter LG tends to be played that way as well.  In 30 years of gaming, I can't recall one PC choosing to play LE or NE except in a 'evil campaign'.  However, while the vast majority of players choose "Good" of some sort, only a fraction of players actually play that way.  The majority are good only in so far as it gives them some advantage, and will justify acting in an evil and ruthless manner whenever that gives them some perceived advantage.  I've found that majority which play this way can be easily tempted to change alignment to evil if you suggest some minor reward for doing so instead of a penalty.

I've never really decided if this accurately reflects peoples morality, or whether it is the nature of it being a game that encourages a ruthlessness dog-eat-dog mentality in most people.

I really curious to see how this would vary by culture.  When I was working as a research assistant, there was a grad student from Korea in the lab.  One day at lunch I was talking with her, and she confessed to me that she was lonely and wanted to go back to Korea.  She wanted her parents to pick out a good Korean boy for her to marry, and then return to the states.   This struck me at the time as both incomprehensible to the average American, and the very essence of being "Lawful" in the D&D sense - you trust someone else's judgment concerning your own life more than you trust your own.  To her this was a quite natural and logical arrangement, but almost every American I've described this to finds it unfathomable.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 18, 2019)

I thought of another representative of Chaotic Good: the Philantropist.

This is a person that has a lot of power. In the real world, this is usually financial power, but in an RPG it could refer to some form of personal power instead (mighty warrior, great wizard, etc.). They use this power to help people. But they strongly resist any attempt at having others control their power - they believe that they themself knows best how to use that power. They might even be right in their own case, though those restrictions on their own power would also bind others that are similarly powerful and less beneficient.

 In the real world, this would mean things like taxing that wealth and putting it to use for the public good. In a more fantastic context, it could refer to the Super-Hero Registration Act in Marvel Comics, or the Chantry overseeing the Circle of Magi in Dragon Age.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 19, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time.
> 
> "He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most.
> 
> Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.



I think Jayne is probably the best example of how I would play a CN character in D&D.

However, while I firmly believe CN is maligned, it seems to always be the go-to alignment for people that tend to be more disruptive than the average player.

On another note, someone mentioned demons earlier - I think they actually provide a great example of how Chaotic is NOT random, but instead describes the dichotomy between collectivism and individualism.

The Abyss is ruled by demon lords with literally armies of demonic followers. Each individual demon is a scheming, back-stabbing embodiment of CE, and yet they still are able to form armies, follow orders, etc. - when it suits them. If they think a different course of action is more likely to provide a bigger benefit (or lesser consequence) to themselves, they have no problem disobeying whatever orders they may have had.

The key here is that they are not acting randomly - if one had access to all the same information and insight into their situation that the demon did, one might be able to imagine a scenario from their point of view, weigh the options and figure out what that demon might decide to do, assuming one also understood the demon-in-question's individual motivations.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Would I consider Jayne to be reliable? Yes. Is he perfect? No. He makes mistakes and sometimes gets stupid but if you look at the series and movie on the whole he was there for them, alongside them, doing his job even whrn it sucked the vast majority of the time.
> 
> "He did his job almost always" would be considered reliable by most.
> 
> Did he sometimes give in to his own desires and ideas - sure - went after River himself, tried to sell them out once, etc... yup... again, not perfect and definitely puts himself number one.




Um.  Sometimes giving in to your own desires to the detriment of your comrades and selling them out is the definition of unreliable.  Even if he did one single time, they could never trust him again.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> The Abyss is ruled by demon lords with literally armies of demonic followers. Each individual demon is a scheming, back-stabbing embodiment of CE, and yet they still are able to form armies, follow orders, etc. - when it suits them.




This is a very bad example.  It only suits demons to do so because they'll be destroyed if they don't.  They aren't choosing to be in an army.  They are forced to by fear of death.  CE, "Might makes right."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> I think Jayne is probably the best example of how I would play a CN character in D&D.




I would rather favor Conan as a model, myself.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This is a very bad example.  It only suits demons to do so because they'll be destroyed if they don't.  They aren't choosing to be in an army.  They are forced to by fear of death.  CE, "Might makes right."



Just like it only suits a Chaotic character to not break laws or betray their friends, either of which might very well result in a death sentence?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> Just like it only suits a Chaotic character to not break laws or betray their friends, either of which might very well result in a death sentence?




Well. That’s fair I suppose. If the group is allowed to execute your character for stepping out of line, then your alignment doesn’t matter too much.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Um.  Sometimes giving in to your own desires to the detriment of your comrades and selling them out is the definition of unreliable.  Even if he did one single time, they could never trust him again.



No, it's the definition of not perfect. In fact, they did trust him after. Malcolm did specifically when he realized Jayne was actually ashamed of what he had done, not just upset he got caught. 

This is why alignments tend to not be extremes - all or nothing one-slip changes.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> I think Jayne is probably the best example of how I would play a CN character in D&D.
> 
> However, while I firmly believe CN is maligned, it seems to always be the go-to alignment for people that tend to be more disruptive than the average player.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

I think someone else pointed to the reason CN attracts the disruptors. It's the one seen as most do what you want that is approved in non-evil campaigns


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> No, it's the definition of not perfect. In fact, they did trust him after. Malcolm did specifically when he realized Jayne was actually ashamed of what he had done, not just upset he got caught.
> 
> This is why alignments tend to not be extremes - all or nothing one-slip changes.




But none of this changes the fact that Jayne was untrustworthy.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

coolAlias said:


> Just like it only suits a Chaotic character to not break laws or betray their friends, either of which might very well result in a death sentence?




No.  Not like that at all.  There's a difference between actively being forced to do something under penalty of death, and passively deciding not to do something, because it's possible that you might get caught.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> No, it's the definition of not perfect. In fact, they did trust him after. Malcolm did specifically when he realized Jayne was actually ashamed of what he had done, not just upset he got caught.
> 
> This is why alignments tend to not be extremes - all or nothing one-slip changes.





No.  Oversleeping and showing up late for your shift is "not perfect."  Deciding to betray your companions is freaking unreliable and untrustworthy.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2019)

See, I'm a little confused.  We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group.  Yes?  Does anyone disagree with that?  Would anyone put Jayne's alignment as something else?

So, what about Han Solo says Chaotic Neutral? He doesn't betray anyone.  He's self interested, sure, but, that's just neutral.  He doesn't do anything on a whim that I can think of.  

I can at least present pretty solid evidence for my alignment interpretation.  Other than, "Cos I said so" I'm not seeing much reasoning going on here.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, I'm a little confused.  We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group.  Yes?  Does anyone disagree with that?  Would anyone put Jayne's alignment as something else?
> 
> So, what about Han Solo says Chaotic Neutral? He doesn't betray anyone.  He's self interested, sure, but, that's just neutral.  He doesn't do anything on a whim that I can think of.
> 
> I can at least present pretty solid evidence for my alignment interpretation.  Other than, "Cos I said so" I'm not seeing much reasoning going on here.




I see Han as solidly neutral.  No law, chaos, good or evil there.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I would rather favor Conan as a model, myself.




Ok. Let's use Conan then.  I might quibble that Conan is CG, but, fair enough, let's go with CN.

Now, when you describe Conan, do the words, reliable, trustworthy or responsible immediately spring to mind?  Not to me they don't.  This is a character that gets blind, stinking drunk and captured on more than one occasion.  His companions get kidnapped (repeatedly) due to his irresponsibility.  He blows all his ill gotten gains immediately on wine, women and song.  Yup, sounds CN to me.

Put it this way.  Would you loan Conan 20 bucks?  Would you give him the keys to your car (willingly anyway)?  Would you leave him alone with your wife/sister for a prolonged period of time?

So, those would be my reasons for making Conan CN.  What are yours?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, I'm a little confused.  We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group.  Yes?  Does anyone disagree with that?  Would anyone put Jayne's alignment as something else?
> 
> So, what about Han Solo says Chaotic Neutral? He doesn't betray anyone.  He's self interested, sure, but, that's just neutral.  He doesn't do anything on a whim that I can think of.
> 
> I can at least present pretty solid evidence for my alignment interpretation.  Other than, "Cos I said so" I'm not seeing much reasoning going on here.




No, Jayne isn't CN because he betrays the group. If he had been an Alliance agent in deep cover who betrayed the group, he could easily be LN rather than CN. It's not that he betrayed the group - it's because of his motivations in betraying the group. He does what *he* wants and is fairly mean about it. He's motivated just by cash, not friendship or personal bonds of respect (unlike someone like Conan, who would also likely be CN).

Han's probably more CG than CN or N, though I can see him on the edge between CG and CN. He's a bit of a loner - Chewie being his only major companion. He doesn't mesh well with groups or group values which he largely scoffs at. He's idiosyncratic rather than conventional. He isn't necessarily going to stick around once the crisis is over. But when the chips are down - he's more reliable than not.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, those would be my reasons for making Conan CN.  What are yours?




I will let GentleGamer do the talking for me:
Conan's Morality


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well. That’s fair I suppose. If the group is allowed to execute your character for stepping out of line, then your alignment doesn’t matter too much.




Do you really have to jump to these absolutely wild hyperbolic versions of folks arguments in order to formulate a response?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, I'm a little confused.  We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group.  Yes?  Does anyone disagree with that?  Would anyone put Jayne's alignment as something else?
> 
> So, what about Han Solo says Chaotic Neutral? He doesn't betray anyone. *He's self interested, sure, but, that's just neutral.* He doesn't do anything on a whim that I can think of.



This, in my view is one of the major problems with the 9-alignment system as traditionally presented in D&D. The difference between Chaotic and Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos is simply a matter of degree, and the line between them is not particularly bright. Sure, we can probably all agree that betraying one’s allies falls on the Chaotic side of the line, but does one betrayal make a self-interest les character Chaotic Neutral? Can a character be considered Chaotic Neutral if they haven’t betrayed their allies? And while we’re at it, isn’t self interest a characteristic of evil too? What can a self-interested character get away with doing before crossing the line from Neutral to Evil?

This is why I prefer to define Chaotic as not simply valuing their own individual freedom, but being ideologically opposed to Law. A Chaotic character is not merely an individualist, but an anarchist. Or a libertarian, I suppose. They fall on the far bottom portion of the political compass, is my point. Just as obeying laws doesn’t necessarily make one Lawful, breaking them doesn’t necessarily make one Chaotic. Law and Chaos are strong ideological stances, and Neutrality is merely the lack of a stance.

Now, if Law is roughly analogous to Authoritarianism and Chaos to Libertarianism, I like to map Good and Evil to Altruism and Egoism respectively. A Good character seeks to do the most good for others regardless of the cost to themselves, and an Evil character acts in their own self-interest regardless of the harm it may cause others. Neutrality on this spectrum is likewise defined by not taking a stance. The ethically neutral character does not knowingly harm others for their own benefit, but nor do they go out of their way to help others.

Personally, I would say Jayne’s willingness to betray his allies doesn’t make him Chaotic (though his opposition to the Authoritarian government certainly does that). It makes him Evil. Han, on the other hand, he starts out New Hope skirting the line between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil (leaning towards Evil when he shot first, but towards Neutral after the edit), and by the end of the film has come around to Chaotic Good. And he pretty much remains Chaotic Good for the rest of the trilogy.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 19, 2019)

Once again, the idea that only a CN PC would possibly do anything such as turn on a fellow party member baffles me.  A LG PC that learns one of his compatriots is secretly a CE sociopathic murderer (as an extreme example) would likely turn their compatriot in to the local authority as soon as possible.  How is it any different other than motivation?

Picking some arbitrary disruptive behavior, whether that's falling asleep on watch, turning in fellow party members or whatever else comes up next is pointless.  Arguing about it even more so.  The motivation behind any action may differ, but to say "only PCs of one alignment" would do something like that is simply untrue.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> This, in my view is one of the major problems with the 9-alignment system as traditionally presented in D&D. The difference between Chaotic and Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos is simply a matter of degree, and the line between them is not particularly bright. Sure, we can probably all agree that betraying one’s allies falls on the Chaotic side of the line, but does one betrayal make a self-interest les character Chaotic Neutral? Can a character be considered Chaotic Neutral if they haven’t betrayed their allies? And while we’re at it, isn’t self interest a characteristic of evil too? What can a self-interested character get away with doing before crossing the line from Neutral to Evil?




It's worse than that, really.  You can have an upstanding citizen who would sacrifice himself to save the community, helps little old ladies across the road, donates money to help orphaned children, but secretly also abuses those children on a regular basis to satisfy his appetites.  Is he LG?  Is he evil?  Is he LG with evil tendencies?  Something else?  

Most people don't fall solidly within a single alignment, but rather have multiple personality traits which fall regularly within two, three or even more alignments. That's why I prefer my players just come up with a personality for their PC and then I don't bother to look at their alignment.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Once again, the idea that only a CN PC would possibly do anything such as turn on a fellow party member baffles me.  A LG PC that learns one of his compatriots is secretly a CE sociopathic murderer (as an extreme example) would likely turn their compatriot in to the local authority as soon as possible.  How is it any different other than motivation?




Turning A PC in for murder is not a betrayal.  There can be no expectation that your gaming buddies are going to be okay with you murdering someone and not tell the police.  The same goes for adventuring parties.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Once again, the idea that only a CN PC would possibly do anything such as turn on a fellow party member baffles me.  A LG PC that learns one of his compatriots is secretly a CE sociopathic murderer (as an extreme example) would likely turn their compatriot in to the local authority as soon as possible.  How is it any different other than motivation?
> 
> Picking some arbitrary disruptive behavior, whether that's falling asleep on watch, turning in fellow party members or whatever else comes up next is pointless.  Arguing about it even more so.  The motivation behind any action may differ, but to say "only PCs of one alignment" would do something like that is simply untrue.




I mean, it's not like a Paladin has ever joined a game only for the first thing for them to do is "Detect Evil" on the party and then "Smite Evil" on anyone who is non-good.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But none of this changes the fact that Jayne was untrustworthy.



If you take the term "untrusteorthy" to the extreme of anyone who ever messes up etc, then yup. But that makes everyone untrustworthy snd do the term becomes meaningless.

Moreover, here us the rub, it also tends to blow any claim linking reliability and any relationship to lawful vs chaos.

If falling asleep on watch means unreliable - there is nothing about lawful that says you dont fall asleep or fo so less than others.

If turning on comrades in certain circumstances means unreliable, well, a lawful type might well do so if his teammates are going severely unlawful, in directions they oppose - and turn them in. 

The Jayne calling the cops to turn them in for bounty could have played out just fine if Jayne had been a lawful type and the trigger was revelation if River and Doc as wanted criminals with now system wide alerts and high threat notice etc. 

The further you choose to step to the edges the less foundation you stand on.

But that's fine. The continual use of broadly scoped words into more extreme cases shows nothing more to be gained.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  Oversleeping and showing up late for your shift is "not perfect."  Deciding to betray your companions is freaking unreliable and untrustworthy.



And in the course of the show and the movie most every character that got any development at all  at one time or another made an intentional choice to defy orders, go against the group etc - even in cases that put others in danger - sometimes cuz they were led astray by those playing on their weaknesses. 

Remember the case where Mal's flaws led him to get taken out by Mrs Reynolds delivering the ship into the clutches of bad guys? The doctor not letting them in on how dangerous River was until after she blew? Heck, River with imbeded programming? How many times did River collapse at times of crisis, causing problems? 

In 5e terms, each character had flaws. Each character saw those flaws come up in ways that really showed them as "unreliable" and at times willing to let those flaws put the others at risk. 

That's maybe a bit of the reasoning behind 5e basically spending a lot more space on ideal, flaw, bonds than they did on alignments and especially on perfect adherence to alignments.

 I think to me it makes more sense to try to define flaws, bonds and ideals for most any long run characters (and their changes) than alignment or broader qualities.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> See, I'm a little confused.  We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group.  Yes?  Does anyone disagree with that?  Would anyone put Jayne's alignment as something else?
> 
> So, what about Han Solo says Chaotic Neutral? He doesn't betray anyone.  He's self interested, sure, but, that's just neutral.  He doesn't do anything on a whim that I can think of.
> 
> I can at least present pretty solid evidence for my alignment interpretation.  Other than, "Cos I said so" I'm not seeing much reasoning going on here.



"We all agree that Jayne is chaotic neutral because he betrays the group. Yes? Does anyone disagree with that?"

I do. Jayne is chaotic neutral for a lot of reasons - alignment is not determined by a singular act. 

Betraying your party to the authorities could be a lawful act or a good act as well - depending on the particulars. 

As for Han Solo, like most characters over long periods (here spread over multiple movies over like 40 years) his character does not seem to have a single alignment. I think to me I would try to define flaws, bonds and ideals for most any long run characters (and their changes) than alignment.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Han's probably more CG than CN or N...




Which Han?  It's like talking about Batman at this point.

Han starts out the original trilogy as CN, and then has a character arc which goes through a series of changes in his behavior and his moral priorities, so that by the end of the trilogy he is CG.

Han in the original extended universe starts off as a CG idealist, but is beaten down by the world until he is the jaded CN criminal we see in the beginning of 'A New Hope'

Han in the recent 'Solo' movie is presented as basically CN from the moment we meet him, with the apparent intention of setting him off on the beginning of the character arc we see in the original trilogy.  Han the young idealist who joins the Academy, is on the beginning of a bright career as a pilot, and then throws it all away then he sees the reality of the Empire's treatment of its non-human citizens isn't really present.  He ends up helping Chewie out of self-interest, and not out of compassion or other fine feeling.   He has no real moral core. 

Han in 'A Force Awakens' is basically unrecognizable as the character we knew at the end of 'Return of the Jedi'.  He's even much more of a defeated man than he was at 'A New Hope', having lost all the idealism and maturity that the had gained over the course of the trilogy, and is now acting as an irresponsible man-child who has abandoned his beliefs, his wife, his son, and in many ways is thoroughly wretched.   Since we are given little to no explanation of what has happened beyond some vague hints, and because there seems to have been no concrete idea what those events where and the authors seemed to think they'd be fleshed out at some future point if needed, it's really hard to know what Han's alignment is but it's a moral collapse not that far from Anakin's complete moral collapse in 'Revenge of the Sith'.   (And as badly explained and rationalized as that was, at least it was better explained and rationalized than Han's moral collapse.)   Han is CN, possibly even CE given the depth of his betrayal, selfishness, and irresponsibility, at the time of 'A Force Awakens'.


----------



## coolAlias (Jun 19, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well. That’s fair I suppose. If the group is allowed to execute your character for stepping out of line, then your alignment doesn’t matter too much.



It's not a matter of being allowed or not - every action has consequences, and in a world like D&D being killed for one's actions is always one of the possible consequences.

Even in the real world, the ultimate consequence for non-compliance with the law is death, though it doesn't usually escalate to that.

In the Abyss, whatever your immediate superior says IS the law, and death as a consequence is highly likely.

As for adventuring groups, how many characters have been killed in D&D history for stealing from the party? Definitely more than a few.

Death is an extreme example, and in my opinion even the most Chaotic of characters would not need such a strong deterrent to dissuade them from doing a lot of the whacky shenanigans they tend to get up to in D&D except for one small detail: usually the other players at the table do not have their characters react in a realistic fashion because to do so would mean the disruptive character would likely no longer be part of the group (one way or another), something which often means losing an actual player, too. Depending on the players' real-life relationships, that may not be an option, probably a big part of why CN is so hated.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 19, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Han in 'A Force Awakens' is basically unrecognizable as the character we knew at the end of 'Return of the Jedi'.  He's even much more of a defeated man than he was at 'A New Hope', having lost all the idealism and maturity that the had gained over the course of the trilogy, and is now acting as an irresponsible man-child who has abandoned his beliefs, his wife, his son, and in many ways is thoroughly wretched.   Since we are given little to no explanation of what has happened beyond some vague hints, and because there seems to have been no concrete idea what those events where and the authors seemed to think they'd be fleshed out at some future point if needed, it's really hard to know what Han's alignment is but it's a moral collapse not that far from Anakin's complete moral collapse in 'Revenge of the Sith'.   (And as badly explained and rationalized as that was, at least it was better explained and rationalized than Han's moral collapse.)   Han is CN, possibly even CE given the depth of his betrayal, selfishness, and irresponsibility, at the time of 'A Force Awakens'.




Are we watching the same movies?!? There's a vast gulf between Han's moral collapse between the movies and Anakin's. We certainly don't get the impression that Han is either a mass murderer or serial murder as Anakin/Vader clearly is. Han, as far as we can tell, just abandons his marriage and reverts back to smuggling and dealing with criminals in his own, not obviously vicious, way to get by. I don't know how that's somehow less rationalized than Anakin's fall - one assumes that having their only child turn into a Vader-wannabe and destroy a Jedi school as he falls to the dark side and join the closest thing in-setting to a Nazi state might be a bit disheartening.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Are we watching the same movies?!?




I'm pretty sure we are.  We both seem to agree as to the gist of the plot.



> Han, as far as we can tell, just abandons his marriage and reverts back to smuggling and dealing with criminals in his own, not obviously vicious, way to get by.




Just?  Just?  Rarely in a person's life do they have motive to engage in acts of stereotypical villainy like murdering a bunch of children.  Most of the evil of the real world occurs because of more mundane acts undertaken with more mundane motives, but those actions are no less evil for being mundane and ordinary than the ones that are extraordinary.  Often we find if we go digging, that the mundane acts are the basis and foundation of the extraordinary acts.   For example, if we go digging in the Dominican Republic right now, I bet we would find a simple but sorrid tale of greed, deceit, and bribery around some bottles of fake high end alchohol tainted with some poisonous, colorless, tasteless achohol unfit for human consumption but cheaper than the luxury items that it replaced.   But that scheme is for all it's mundaneness no less evil in the appraisal or in results than chopping up children with lightsabers.  



> I don't know how that's somehow less rationalized than Anakin's fall - one assumes that having their only child turn into a Vader-wannabe and destroy a Jedi school as he falls to the dark side and join the closest thing in-setting to a Nazi state might be a bit disheartening.




But Ben Solo's fall is less rationalized than Anakin's as well.  We still have no clear idea why it happened, nor did the explanations make any of it make any more sense.   While it would certainly be disheartening to have your only child turn into a serial killer and a Neo-Nazi, none of that would excuse his abandoning of his beliefs, his morality, his maturity, or his wife.   You don't get a pass on being evil just because you've had a hard time of it.   And since we still don't know why Ben Solo fell, we cannot assume as you have generously assumed, that the evil behavior of his father began in response to Ben's evil or was - as is often the case with children - the cause of it.   If we knew that Han abandoned is beliefs, his morals, and his wife before Ben went bad, would that instead mean Ben was excused because he was disheartened?


----------



## OB1 (Jun 19, 2019)

Late to the party here I know, but thought I’d put in my 2c 

The Good/Evil scale I can wrap my head around pretty easily

Good = I sacrifice of myself to help others 
Neutral = I help others if it doesn’t require sacrifice of myself, I help myself if it doesn’t require sacrifice of others 
Evil = I sacrifice others to help myself

Law/Chaos is a tougher one for me to get my head around, but what I’ve settled on is something around the idea of Entropy. 

Law - I expend personal resources (time, money, blood, energy) in the pursuit of changing the state of the world to my liking. 

Neutral - I expend personal resources now to reach my desired personal future state. 

Chaotic - I allow the world and/or my current desires to dictate where I spend my personal resources now, regardless of the effect in the future.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Turning A PC in for murder is not a betrayal.  There can be no expectation that your gaming buddies are going to be okay with you murdering someone and not tell the police.  The same goes for adventuring parties.





It's been years since I watched Firefly, but IIRC Jayne had no connection to the pair and actually thought they were a threat to the ship.  Getting money was icing on the cake.  That does not mean he would have turned in Mal for a profit, Mal was a friend and someone who had his trust and respect.

As far as Han Solo ... I'd still say he was CN.  After all he did shoot first in my version of the movies.  He did what he did for money and then out of friendship and loyalty to Luke and Leia.  I'm not convinced he did it for some greater good.  After a while he may have shifted alignment somewhat, but how much of that was just because he was caught up in everything is impossible to tell.  All we really know is that after the original trilogy and after he and Leia split he went back to being just another smuggler.

In both cases, the characters show loyalty and friendship even if there's no indication they were motivated by any sense of doing things for the greater good.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

OB1 said:


> Law/Chaos is a tougher one for me to get my head around, but what I’ve settled on is something around the idea of Entropy.




Law/Chaos has always been a little less clear than Good/Evil to the average reader, and while I think entropy has some connection at some philosophical level, at the practical ethical level your interpretation is pretty non-traditional.   Additionally, after reading through your list a few times, I feel no closer to understanding what you mean or why they contrast.

Without going into a long write up, one traditional axiomatic contrast I've heard is, "The needs of the many outweigh the few, or the one." versus "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."  Or, in somewhat the same vein, "To understand something, you have to see the big picture." versus "There is no big picture: only a lot of little pictures." 

And if you can tell intuitively which end of the spectrum is which, without me labeling them for you, then I think the contrasts do a pretty good job.

On a very practical level, the way that I judge whether a character in a story is lawful or chaotic is when making a big decision, where do they put their trust?   The Chaotic always reserves for themselves the right of appeal.   The consider themselves their own highest court, and feel that in so far as decision concerns themselves, they have every right to make a final determination.  They believe that they have or ought to have an absolute right to follow the dictates of their own consciousness.   This self-centeredness does not necessarily make them selfish - consider the self-centeredness of an axiom like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", but it does mean that they believe in the end that they are the highest arbitrator of what is right and wrong, and certainly what is right and wrong for themselves.  (We could go further into breaking down how within this framework, CG, CN, and CE differed.)

By contrast, the nature of being Lawful is to believe that you are always and always ought to be subject to some external review.  You are not your own highest court, and your own judgment ought to be subject to the judgment of a wiser higher power.   Your highest fealty is not to yourself, and if your own consciousness is prompting you to dispute that higher (or highest) authority you are the one in the wrong.   It is ultimately not for you to determine for yourself on your own authority what is right or wrong or how you ought to behave.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's worse than that, really.  You can have an upstanding citizen who would sacrifice himself to save the community, helps little old ladies across the road, donates money to help orphaned children, but secretly also abuses those children on a regular basis to satisfy his appetites.  Is he LG?  Is he evil?  Is he LG with evil tendencies?  Something else?
> 
> Most people don't fall solidly within a single alignment, but rather have multiple personality traits which fall regularly within two, three or even more alignments. That's why I prefer my players just come up with a personality for their PC and then I don't bother to look at their alignment.



That’s why I prefer to distinguish between a character’s ideology and their actions. The above character sounds like he holds Good ideals, but commits Evil actions. Which is fairly typical, to be honest. Most people tend to hold altruistic ideals in theory, but in actual practice behave more egoistically. At my table, that character would have Good written on his character sheet, but would count as Evil for the purposes of any mechanics that care about alignment. But, of course, ignoring alignment completely works just as well. Better for 5e, in fact, since 5e has almost no mechanics that care about alignment anyway.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It's been years since I watched Firefly, but IIRC Jayne had no connection to the pair and actually thought they were a threat to the ship.  Getting money was icing on the cake.  That does not mean he would have turned in Mal for a profit, Mal was a friend and someone who had his trust and respect.




Yes, but feeling because he had no connection to the pair that he had no obligation to act in any manner other than for his own benefit, and that he could choose to act in that manner entirely under his own authority is precisely what makes him Chaotic.   Being Chaotic doesn't mean you have no loyalty to your friends.  On the contrary, it tends to mean you only feel any obligation to be loyal to people you have a personal and emotional attachment to.   And despite the fact that he wouldn't have necessarily turned in Mal for a profit - and that's certainly not at all clear - he did go behind Mal's back and betray him.  

The real key in that scene is when Jayne thinks he's about to die, Jayne's last request to Mal is for Mal to not tell the others what he has done.   When Jayne says that, Mal realizes that Jayne has formed a personal emotional attachment to the rest of the crew, has realized that he has betrayed his friends, and does not what his friends to know that he has betrayed them.  Therefore Mal knows that Jayne is at that moment as loyal and repentant as Jayne is ever likely to be.



> All we really know is that after the original trilogy and after he and Leia split he went back to being just another smuggler.




The complete character assassination of Luke, Leia, and Han in the sequel trilogy ended my fandom relationship with Star Wars.



> In both cases, the characters show loyalty and friendship even if there's no indication they were motivated by any sense of doing things for the greater good.




I think we can make an argument that Han's character arc and transformation in the original trilogy is much more complete than Jayne's.   There are several really telling moments, but probably the most telling is when he tells Leia that though he loves her, if she wants to be with Luke, then for her happiness he'll get out of the way.   That's a declaration totally at odds with the character of Han when we first meet him in a New Hope.  He's still obviously Chaotic, and obviously if you are chaotic you are appalled by even the notion of "the greater good" (which if chaotic you think is a euphemism for evil), but the Han of 'Return of the Jedi' is motivated by fine feelings and not baser ones.   He's loving and compassionate and he's putting the needs and feelings of others ahead of his own in a non-cynical manner.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 19, 2019)

OB1 said:


> Late to the party here I know, but thought I’d put in my 2c
> 
> The Good/Evil scale I can wrap my head around pretty easily
> 
> ...



The Law/Chaos spectrum can be viewed analogously to the Good/Evil spectrum, but with personal wellbeing swapped out for liberty and others’ wellbeing swapped out for societal order.

Lawful - I sacrifice my own liberty to benefit society as a whole.
Neutral - I meet the expectations society places on me, to the extent that thru don’t impede on my personal liberty.
Chaotic - I eschew society in favor of retaining my personal liberty.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 19, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Yes, but feeling because he had no connection to the pair that he had no obligation to act in any manner other than for his own benefit, and that he could choose to act in that manner entirely under his own authority is precisely what makes him Chaotic.   Being Chaotic doesn't mean you have no loyalty to your friends.  On the contrary, it tends to mean you only feel any obligation to be loyal to people you have a personal and emotional attachment to.   And despite the fact that he wouldn't have necessarily turned in Mal for a profit - and that's certainly not at all clear - he did go behind Mal's back and betray him.
> 
> The real key in that scene is when Jayne thinks he's about to die, Jayne's last request to Mal is for Mal to not tell the others what he has done.   When Jayne says that, Mal realizes that Jayne has formed a personal emotional attachment to the rest of the crew, has realized that he has betrayed his friends, and does not what his friends to know that he has betrayed them.  Therefore Mal knows that Jayne is at that moment as loyal and repentant as Jayne is ever likely to be.




I agree with everything you said here.  Jayne is CN, but he cares about his friends and allies and what they think of him.  River and whats-his-name were not friends, they had done nothing tor earn his trust.

In my version of CN, a person can make close personal bonds ... he's just not going to extend that good will to a stranger.



Celebrim said:


> The complete character assassination of Luke, Leia, and Han in the sequel trilogy ended my fandom relationship with Star Wars.




I actually liked the movies, but then again I accept that it wasn't _my_ story to tell.  I think the movie would have been boring if the trio had been left on a pedestal.  To each their own.



Celebrim said:


> I think we can make an argument that Han's character arc and transformation in the original trilogy is much more complete than Jayne's.   There are several really telling moments, but probably the most telling is when he tells Leia that though he loves her, if she wants to be with Luke, then for her happiness he'll get out of the way.   That's a declaration totally at odds with the character of Han when we first meet him in a New Hope.  He's still obviously Chaotic, and obviously if you are chaotic you are appalled by even the notion of "the greater good" (which if chaotic you think is a euphemism for evil), but the Han of 'Return of the Jedi' is motivated by fine feelings and not baser ones.   He's loving and compassionate and he's putting the needs and feelings of others ahead of his own in a non-cynical manner.





So once again, he is capable of putting someone else's feelings above his own.  So?  He cares about Leia and wants her to be happy.  That doesn't change his alignment to good, it just means that he respects here choice and individualism.  Sounds like something a person with chaotic alignment would say.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 19, 2019)

My definition of law vs chaotic

Lawful: views the world as a clockwork mechanism.  Everything works according to a grand plan, even if we don't understand that plan.  When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly.  If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves.


Chaotic: there is no grand plan.  The only organization is that which makes sense for the people involved.  If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it.  Perceived organization comes out of individuals choosing to cooperate for themselves or their community.  Individuals should be judged by their worth or power, not by title or station.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> That doesn't change his alignment to good, it just means that he respects here choice and individualism.  Sounds like something a person with chaotic alignment would say.




After seeing everything we agree on, I'm beginning to think that the real problem is we have different definitions of good.   What would Han have to demonstrate in order for you to think he was Good?


----------



## Oofta (Jun 19, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> After seeing everything we agree on, I'm beginning to think that the real problem is we have different definitions of good.   What would Han have to demonstrate in order for you to think he was Good?





Well, I think it's easy to get caught up in assigning a detailed alignment chart for a fictional character, alignment is just one factor determining why somebody does what they do.  In addition, I'm not saying Han didn't shift alignments, people change.  But respecting that other people should also be able to choose for themselves is part and parcel of being chaotic.

As far as my overall definition of good and evil ... 

Good: this is complex, but essentially it comes down to empathy (the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), and not wanting to harm others.  This doesn't mean you don't fight or kill, but that you will fight and kill because you need to protect others.  You may do things for your own personal gain as long as you are not harming innocents.


Evil: in general evil people view others as objects with no inherent value.  They may love someone, but in many cases love them as a possession, something they own.  If the object of their affection doesn't reciprocate they may not care.  They may kill or cause pain in others simply because they enjoy it.  Your personal gain is all that matters, other people's goals do not unless they hold power over you or you can use their goals to manipulate them.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 19, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Well, I think it's easy to get caught up in assigning a detailed alignment chart for a fictional character, alignment is just one factor determining why somebody does what they do.




That's true.  Characters also have personalities, preferences and other sorts of dispositions.   



> But respecting that other people should also be able to choose for themselves is part and parcel of being chaotic.




True, but only fully true of True Chaotic.  Chaotic Good draws a hard line on choices that cause woe, and will even intervene if the choice is only causing woe to the individual making it.   They are balancing Freedom with Weal, and electing to have an active role with respect to questions of Woe and Weal.   They may want to live in a society with unlimited and untrammeled freedom, but they may realistically only see that as possible when everyone has transcended evil impulses.   Chaotic Evil on the other may believe in unlimited freedom for themselves, but think that not only does that freedom not extend to others, but that it should not extend to others.  They believe in a zero sum world were the only way to profit is at the expense of others, and where being heroic means being true to yourself and exploiting those that are weaker than yourself.

On good and evil, we are pretty close.  Empathy I believe is neutral - a largely intellectual skill that doesn't necessarily define a goal.  Compare the words Compassion and Mudita.  

But you do get close to what I think is the core idea when you say, "not wanting to harm".  My quibble there is that "not wanting to harm" is a passive state fully compatible with neutrality.  A CN may "not want to harm".   Consider the difference between the chaotic axioms: "Harm no one; do as you will." and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   The first is passive with respect to weal, while the second actively encourages it.  Since the hallmark of neutrality is passivity or indifference to the axiomatic questions, the first I see as a CN manta, while the second is CG.   So, what I would say is the core idea of good is closer to "Do the opposite of harm."   Promote weal, health, happiness, prosperity, growth, etc.   The ideal state of good is for everything to be infinitely abundant, and eternally healthy - growth and happiness and weal without limit.

Evil is the opposite, and again you touch on its central trait when you say, "objects with no inherent value".  But I would take it one step further, evil - in its unmingled and pure state  - doesn't believe _anything_ has inherent value.   Lawful evil and chaotic evil find value in something - "the greater good" of the community or the wants of the self - but evil in and of itself finds no good in objects, others, or the self.  All are equally worthless, and the process of evil is to prove this by removing any worth that things could be perceived to have - not just the degradation of others, but critically the degradation of self as well.


----------



## WaterRabbit (Jun 19, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t really care to continue the argument about whether or not CN is “more Neutral than Neutral. That said, _I am going to do so anyway, because everything before the "but" is BS._




FTFY.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 19, 2019)

WaterRabbit said:


> FTFY.



Nothing in that post was a continuation of the argument about whether or not CN is “more Neutral than Neutral.”


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2019)

Oofta said:


> As far as Han Solo ... I'd still say he was CN.  After all he did shoot first in my version of the movies.  He did what he did for money and then out of friendship and loyalty to Luke and Leia.  I'm not convinced he did it for some greater good.  After a while he may have shifted alignment somewhat, but how much of that was just because he was caught up in everything is impossible to tell.  All we really know is that after the original trilogy and after he and Leia split he went back to being just another smuggler.




Shooting first doesn't make him chaotic neutral.  It just makes him someone who wants to stay alive.  He knew what Greedo was like, and he knew what Jabba was like, so he knew he had to shoot first since Greedo had his blaster already pointed at him.  Anyone of any alignment could have made that call.



> In both cases, the characters show loyalty and friendship even if there's no indication they were motivated by any sense of doing things for the greater good.




Jayne's loyalty ebbs and flows.  It's not a constant thing, which makes sense for a chaotic neutral person.  Han didn't show any axis at all.  He wasn't chaotic in what he did.  He wasn't orderly or lawful in what he did.  He wasn't good or evil in what he did.  He was just out to survive without any strong dedication to an axis.  He was very neutral in my opinion.  At least until he fell in love.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s why I prefer to distinguish between a character’s ideology and their actions. The above character sounds like he holds Good ideals, but commits Evil actions. Which is fairly typical, to be honest. Most people tend to hold altruistic ideals in theory, but in actual practice behave more egoistically. At my table, that character would have Good written on his character sheet, but would count as Evil for the purposes of any mechanics that care about alignment. But, of course, ignoring alignment completely works just as well. Better for 5e, in fact, since 5e has almost no mechanics that care about alignment anyway.




You say he would count as evil.  Why?  Is evil so much more powerful than good that someone who is the quintessential lawful good person in every other way, becomes evil with that one evil habit?  Is any evil act no matter how small enough to do the same? If not, what's the weight of each type of evil act?  

Trying to figure that stuff out gives me a headache, so I just ignore it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You say he would count as evil.  Why?  Is evil so much more powerful than good that someone who is the quintessential lawful good person in every other way, becomes evil with that one evil habit?



Um. Maybe I interpreted “abuses children on a regular basis to satisfy his appetites” differently than you meant it, but it read to me like you were implying some Gilles de Rais stuff, which I don’t think it’s controversial to say makes someone evil, regardless of what other good they might do. It’s certainly an egoistic act, whatever you meant to imply, and by my standards therefore an evil act. If he indeed commits evil acts on a regular basis, then yes, he’s evil, even if he has Good ideals.



Maxperson said:


> Is any evil act no matter how small enough to do the same?



Certainly not, but you said it was on a regular basis, and the way I interpreted it, it was not a small evil act. I see what you’re getting at, though. What’s the tipping point? Personally, I equate altruism to good and egoism to evil. This makes Good something someone must actively work to maintain and Evil easy to fall into - to remain Good, one must consistently work to help others at cost to one’s self. Fortunately, D&D characters tend to be presented with a lot of opportunities to do that, but if a character doesn’t regularly take such opportunities, they’re likely to fall to Neutral until they get back into the habit. On the other hand, causing harm to others for one’s own benefit will land you in Evil territory pretty quickly, and coming back from evil requires more than just doing some good acts for a while. I think that’s fitting, especially for the genre. It’s easy to be Evil, but Good is something you have to work at constantly.

Worth noting, while I don’t allow characters who hold evil ideals, I won’t take a character away from a player if their actions end up being more consistent with evil, as long as they maintain good or at least neutral ideals, and are willing to work to redeem themselves. A character seeking atonement for evil they’ve done is still a hero in my book, it’s only those who embrace evil who become villains.



Maxperson said:


> If not, what's the weight of each type of evil act?



That’s something you have to get used to making a call on if you want to DM a game where alignment is enforced. Personally, I employ sort of a utilitarian standard. The greater the total harm caused by an act, the more evil it is.



Maxperson said:


> Trying to figure that stuff out gives me a headache, so I just ignore it.



That’s fair. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disregarding Alignment, or just removing it from the game entirely. I personally enjoy it because I think it suits the genre well. But I can absolutely understand and respect those who prefer not to use or pay attention to alignment.


----------



## OB1 (Jun 20, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> The Law/Chaos spectrum can be viewed analogously to the Good/Evil spectrum, but with personal wellbeing swapped out for liberty and others’ wellbeing swapped out for societal order.
> 
> Lawful - I sacrifice my own liberty to benefit society as a whole.
> Neutral - I meet the expectations society places on me, to the extent that thru don’t impede on my personal liberty.
> Chaotic - I eschew society in favor of retaining my personal liberty.




I like this!  My only quibble is the line with lawful about benefiting society as a whole, as it doesn’t work with LE.   How about this. 

Lawful - I work to increase Order. 
Neutral - I work to maintain Order
Chaotic - I actively or passively embrace disorder. 

Or even more simply

I create. 
I maintain. 
I undo.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 20, 2019)

OB1 said:


> I like this!  My only quibble is the line with lawful about benefiting society as a whole, as it doesn’t work with LE.




Why not? Evil society is still society. Any authoritarian regime expects its citizens to sacrifice pretty much all personal liberty for the benefit of society.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 20, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s why I prefer to distinguish between a character’s ideology and their actions. The above character sounds like he holds Good ideals, but commits Evil actions. Which is fairly typical, to be honest. Most people tend to hold altruistic ideals in theory, but in actual practice behave more egoistically. At my table, that character would have Good written on his character sheet, but would count as Evil for the purposes of any mechanics that care about alignment. But, of course, ignoring alignment completely works just as well. Better for 5e, in fact, since 5e has almost no mechanics that care about alignment anyway.




I would imagine that the majority of people do not know their own alignment, and misrepresent their alignment to others and even to themselves.   In D&D terms, it requires a high degree of Wisdom to be self-aware enough to know what you actually believe and what it means.   This is complicated by the fact that no mortal however wise is going to be absolutely pure in their alignment, but will depart from it consciously or unconsciously at times in a variety of ways.  And again, in D&D terms, the lower the character's Wisdom, the less understanding and willpower they will have to actually perform the deeds that they claim to believe in.

In the case of Maxperson's hypothetical child abuser, I don't think many members of the community will - once they discover his secret vice - think twice about labeling the man an evil monster.  All of his public good deeds are actually rather small acts which barely rise above the level of neutrality.  They create a few small moments of weal and health, compared to a potential lifetime of pain, suffering, and mental unhealthy in the man's victims.   The two things aren't even comparable.   They are clearly a public show that does not reflect the man's real character, which is better reflected in his private acts.   We in the real world recently had a series of scandals in which public figures who had squeaky clean public images, or which had received awards for their meritorious public statements regarding women, in reality behaved in this way in order to create a plausible front behind which they could safely engage in abusive and nefarious behavior.

I find it strange that someone would speculate that a person regularly abuses children to satisfy his appetites might possibly be good, or even just good on the net.   I mean, in certain sense I agree that people are more complicated than alignment, but I'm baffled that anyone would think that example demonstrates that or provides some sort of strong objection to having alignment in a fantasy game.

I tend to prefer in my games to have what is on the sheet reflect the characters actual alignment, and trust my players to play character's in a nuanced and complicated fashion.  Of course, they don't always do that, but at least then the player has no excuse for not knowing how I judge the character's actions.   So, at my table, the child abuser would certainly be evil of some sort and the player would be expected to know that, regardless of what the character believed about himself.   The character can believe that he is Lawful Good, and that he has a right to perform the abuse, and that it's for the best in some fashion or whatever other monstrous justification he gives himself.   I'd be very uncomfortable with a player acting out a character in a monstrous fashion of any sort, and not realizing that the character was a monster.  Heck, when it comes to a PC actually being a sexual abuser of children, I think I'd probably have to put a stop to that OOC because that would be some seriously sick crap.

I can only report on my experience with groups and players.   And my experience suggests to me that at least the plurality of groups and players that have a problem slapping an alignment label on their character sheet, have that problem precisely because they want to think of their characters as being heroic and good, even as those characters engage in a series of monstrous acts - cold blooded murder, torture, mind rape, arson, theft, etc.   They tend to play characters that like Maxperson's hypothetical child abuser, believe that the little bit of good they are doing, or the good cause they claim they are advancing, outweighs the fact that they are behaving more or less indistinguishable from the villains aside from - maybe - the color of the hat that they are wearing.   Every deception, every murder, every theft, and every act of abuse is justified because they need to win.   When I get those players at my table, I tend to just encourage them to play Neutral characters, and explain to them that most people in the campaign world don't believe alignment is all that important, or that it is entirely situational, or that ultimately what is right is what is practical and utilitarian.   It's a harsh world and they are just trying to survive and don't have time for philosophical arguments.   

This tends to make both of us happy.   If it turns out that they really want to play an evil character, they just didn't want to think of the character that they played as evil, I find I can usually bribe them into putting evil on their character sheet, by promising them some token reward like 100 XP "good role-playing" reward, if upon performing an evil act, they'll adjust Nuetral or Chaotic Neutral to Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.   And again, this makes both of us happy.   I now have the correct alignment written on the character sheet, and the player feels like they are 'winning'.   Win, win.


----------



## Age of Fable (Jun 21, 2019)

In order: Katniss Everdeen, jerk, bland hero, 'oh God I don't know'.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> Why not? Evil society is still society. Any authoritarian regime expects its citizens to sacrifice pretty much all personal liberty for the benefit of society.




Because it falls apart when you apply it to groups smaller than a country.  The Mafia is a classic lawful evil group that does not benefit society as a whole.  They only work to benefit their smaller society.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Because it falls apart when you apply it to groups smaller than a country.  The Mafia is a classic lawful evil group that does not benefit society as a whole.  They only work to benefit their smaller society.




So you're claiming that there has never been a government we would classify as LE?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I would imagine that the majority of people do not know their own alignment, and misrepresent their alignment to others and even to themselves.   In D&D terms, it requires a high degree of Wisdom to be self-aware enough to know what you actually believe and what it means.   This is complicated by the fact that no mortal however wise is going to be absolutely pure in their alignment, but will depart from it consciously or unconsciously at times in a variety of ways.  And again, in D&D terms, the lower the character's Wisdom, the less understanding and willpower they will have to actually perform the deeds that they claim to believe in.




Being absolutely pure in an alignment means that you are caricature of a person.  People are more complex than that and I doubt that a single person on Earth would fall into a single alignment.



> In the case of Maxperson's hypothetical child abuser, I don't think many members of the community will - once they discover his secret vice - think twice about labeling the man an evil monster.  All of his public good deeds are actually rather small acts which barely rise above the level of neutrality.  They create a few small moments of weal and health, compared to a potential lifetime of pain, suffering, and mental unhealthy in the man's victims.   The two things aren't even comparable.   They are clearly a public show that does not reflect the man's real character, which is better reflected in his private acts.   We in the real world recently had a series of scandals in which public figures who had squeaky clean public images, or which had received awards for their meritorious public statements regarding women, in reality behaved in this way in order to create a plausible front behind which they could safely engage in abusive and nefarious behavior.




I don't see how risking his life a dozen times to run into a burning home for the elderly, saving several little old ladies and standing tall and strong against the evil cult are "rather small acts which barely rise above the level of neutrality." And those just a few of his amazingly good acts.  I specified that he was quintessential lawful good outside of his one dark secret.  It's rather unfair to try and minimize the rest of his great deeds.



> I tend to prefer in my games to have what is on the sheet reflect the characters actual alignment, and trust my players to play character's in a nuanced and complicated fashion.  Of course, they don't always do that, but at least then the player has no excuse for not knowing how I judge the character's actions.   So, at my table, the child abuser would certainly be evil of some sort and the player would be expected to know that, regardless of what the character believed about himself.   The character can believe that he is Lawful Good, and that he has a right to perform the abuse, and that it's for the best in some fashion or whatever other monstrous justification he gives himself.   I'd be very uncomfortable with a player acting out a character in a monstrous fashion of any sort, and not realizing that the character was a monster.  Heck, when it comes to a PC actually being a sexual abuser of children, I think I'd probably have to put a stop to that OOC because that would be some seriously sick crap.




That's why it was an NPC, not a PC. 

In any case, if the player is playing a "nuanced and complicated character," that character isn't going to fall within a single alignment.  Real people have personalities with aspects that fall within 2, 3, and even 4 or more alignments.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2019)

Oofta said:


> So you're claiming that there has never been a government we would classify as LE?




Nope.  Not what I said.  I only pointed out that the existence of the Mafia and other LE small groups disproves the claim that LE "sacrifices itself for the benefit of society as a whole."  That's an untrue statement. Hell, when push comes to shove, a LE individual will often fail to sacrifice himself for the Mafia.  A belief in law does not mean that a LE individual gives up on his survival.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Nope.  Not what I said.  I only pointed out that the existence of the Mafia and other LE small groups disproves the claim that LE "sacrifices itself for the benefit of society as a whole."  That's an untrue statement. Hell, when push comes to shove, a LE individual will often fail to sacrifice himself for the Mafia.  A belief in law does not mean that a LE individual gives up on his survival.




Thanks, I didn't understand what you were trying to say.  As far as sacrificing themselves for the cause, that's going to depend on a lot of factors.  During WW II kamikaze pilots willingly sacrificed themselves for Imperial Japan on a regular basis.  There are many stories of soldiers (and civilians) sacrificing themselves for their country.

As far as the otherwise LG person with the "dark secret" I completely disagree. No amount of good acts will balance out acting on evil desires.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Being absolutely pure in an alignment means that you are caricature of a person.  People are more complex than that and I doubt that a single person on Earth would fall into a single alignment.




I think we said mostly the same thing, and agree on the basic point that people are complex.  I don't want to get too far into a discussion of real world cosmology, theology, or normative ethics that would have to be a part of talking about applying the idea of alignment to the real world, because invariably that would get religious or political or otherwise get people triggered.   



> I don't see how risking his life a dozen times to run into a burning home for the elderly, saving several little old ladies and standing tall and strong against the evil cult are "rather small acts which barely rise above the level of neutrality."




Well, those actions are far more detailed and spectacular than your original statement, which was only: "an upstanding citizen who would sacrifice himself to save the community, helps little old ladies across the road, donates money to help orphaned children".  To be honest, you complain about how someone who is perfect being a caricature, but I'm not sure that Dudley Doright is less of a caricature than your upstanding heroic person who is also and at the same time a depraved serial child abuser, and who is quintessentially lawful good but also and at the same time engaged in repeated acts of depravity.  I'm not convinced such a person is more realistic than someone whose worst faults are so minor, most people wouldn't even consider them flaws in their own character.  

I can imagine a hero like you suggest with dark secrets, but not to the degree of depravity you suggest.  Your upstanding citizen who is quintessentially lawful good cannot be quintessentially lawful good unless he knows both what honor and depravity are, and therefore cannot both be who you say he is and not know who he is.  The mental stress he would be in trying to live his life when the poles of his life are so far apart would be lethal.   I don't think there is any real world person who can endure the degree of division you are talking about.    



> In any case, if the player is playing a "nuanced and complicated character," that character isn't going to fall within a single alignment.  Real people have personalities with aspects that fall within 2, 3, and even 4 or more alignments.




I think we both agree that people are nuanced and complicated.  If you'd introduced that quintessentially lawful good hero, and then suggested his dark secret was something like he had engaged in affairs in betrayal of the vows he made to his wife three times in the last five years, I'd have believed this was a realistic character with a realistic flaw.  But nuanced and complicated doesn't even necessarily mean flaws as obvious as that, and indeed the very word nuanced suggests something radically different than your caricature of actually a saint but who is actually also a monster.   

At some level, I don't even believe in alignment as presented in AD&D.  I don't want to go into what I actually believe, because it would be more controversial than claiming alignment was real.  

But to the extent that I think alignment is useful, typically what I find when someone claims a radical division of alignment is that perceived incongruity can be rectified by assuming that the person has a different alignment and different motivation than was first conceived and conjecturing as to whether the seemingly disparate behavior can be unified and explained under the new motivation.   For example, your "quintessentially lawful good" characters radically disparate behavior can be explained if he isn't motivated by compassion and justice, but actually motivated by vain-glory and the real purpose he has is to receive ego inflating praise for all his deeds, which of course he believes is his rightful due.  If that is the case, then his abuse of the children he has bought and paid for can be explained by the same motivation.   Now, the new character we have conceived lacks any actual contrast in his character.   Despite the disparate manifestations of his character, he's not nuanced and complicated at all - he is a narcissistic megalomaniac and the contrast between his very public deeds and his very private ones goes away completely.   Of course, real world people do have contrasts and nuances and fail to live up to their own ideals all the time, but in the case of the sort of stark contrasts you are calling nuanced (even though nuanced is the opposite of stark) if they appeared in a character background for a PC that I was supposed to approve, I'd strongly suspect that in play I'd actually see a unifying motivation behind the supposedly complicated character and not actually four different alignments at the same time (which technically violates what an alignment is).

Maybe I'm wrong there, but in 30 years of play I've never actually seen what you claim.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Because it falls apart when you apply it to groups smaller than a country.  The Mafia is a classic lawful evil group that does not benefit society as a whole.  They only work to benefit their smaller society.



You’re trying to build definitions for the alignments to accommodate characters and groups being the alignments you’ve already decided they should be, which is going about it backwards in my opinion. The alignments should be defined with a consistent set of standards, and characters and groups’ alignments should be determined based on those standards.

That said, I still think the mafia is an ideologically Lawful Evil organization. Its members are expected to behave according to its rules, for the betterment of the organization as a whole. Individual members’ behavior may or may not be consistent with those ideals, but the fundamental principles of organized crime fall on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum, and the egoistic side of the ethical spectrum.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Nope.  Not what I said.  I only pointed out that the existence of the Mafia and other LE small groups disproves the claim that LE "sacrifices itself for the benefit of society as a whole."



And that’s not what I said. I said that the ideology represented by lawful alignment is a willingness to sacrifice _individual liberty_ for the benefit of society as a whole. It’s not about sacrificing your safety for others, that’s what Good is about. It’s about accepting certain restrictions placed on you (for example, having to pay taxes) for the betterment of society (for example, having paved roads).



Maxperson said:


> That's an untrue statement. Hell, when push comes to shove, a LE individual will often fail to sacrifice himself for the Mafia.  A belief in law does not mean that a LE individual gives up on his survival.



Yeah, because the Lawful isn’t about giving up on safety, it’s about giving up a certain degree of freedom.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Because it falls apart when you apply it to groups smaller than a country.  The Mafia is a classic lawful evil group that does not benefit society as a whole.  They only work to benefit their smaller society.




It really depends on what "group as a whole" means and there's no reason to suppose it would represent the _nation_ as a whole. IRL nationalism is actually a pretty new concept, only really dating to after the Napoleonic era. The Mafia and other similar ethnic criminal organizations are actually not all that uncommon in terms of being hierarchically structured groups that think of themselves as being part of the only "tribe" that matters. The societies they live in are viewed as outsiders or prey, primarily. Revolutionaries often engage in organized crime, first to fund their activities and then over time they become criminals. The fact that they are an in group makes them function well. I think many of these organizations end up as essentially being Lawful Evil groups within the overall society.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 21, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Thanks, I didn't understand what you were trying to say.  As far as sacrificing themselves for the cause, that's going to depend on a lot of factors.  During WW II kamikaze pilots willingly sacrificed themselves for Imperial Japan on a regular basis.  There are many stories of soldiers (and civilians) sacrificing themselves for their country.




My understanding of what military psychology has found is that for the most part soldiers don't really sacrifice themselves "for their country" but do for their buddies or small units, although larger concerns often are what get the soldiers into the smaller units in the first place. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but that's what the research suggests. In the case of the kamikaze, I also believe there was a substantial degree of "grooming" and deception going on, along with use of shame (a powerful motivator in Japanese society especially). The same things happen with other cases of essentially suicidal violence. 

Certainly the calculus of what a life is worth in an environment of total war really changes one's views. If you think you're going to die anyway, you might decide to take as many with you as possible. However, even as late as World War II there are many, many examples of soldiers refusing to fight, often passively by not shooting.  

Humanity is complicated. Fortunately, most of the faceless minions found in an RPG don't require such nuance.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I think we said mostly the same thing, and agree on the basic point that people are complex.  I don't want to get too far into a discussion of real world cosmology, theology, or normative ethics that would have to be a part of talking about applying the idea of alignment to the real world, because invariably that would get religious or political or otherwise get people triggered.
> 
> Well, those actions are far more detailed and spectacular than your original statement, which was only: "an upstanding citizen who would sacrifice himself to save the community, helps little old ladies across the road, donates money to help orphaned children".  To be honest, you complain about how someone who is perfect being a caricature, but I'm not sure that Dudley Doright is less of a caricature than your upstanding heroic person who is also and at the same time a depraved serial child abuser, and who is quintessentially lawful good but also and at the same time engaged in repeated acts of depravity.  I'm not convinced such a person is more realistic than someone whose worst faults are so minor, most people wouldn't even consider them flaws in their own character.
> 
> I can imagine a hero like you suggest with dark secrets, but not to the degree of depravity you suggest.  Your upstanding citizen who is quintessentially lawful good cannot be quintessentially lawful good unless he knows both what honor and depravity are, and therefore cannot both be who you say he is and not know who he is.  The mental stress he would be in trying to live his life when the poles of his life are so far apart would be lethal.   I don't think there is any real world person who can endure the degree of division you are talking about.




I know you want to avoid a real world discussion, and this is not to start one, but...  All the time we hear stories of a pastor or other upstanding citizen who gets arrested for something like this.  And many times those interviewed talk about how kind and upstanding the person was, and how he was constantly doing good deeds.  The good person with a dark secret is a pretty common happening.



> I think we both agree that people are nuanced and complicated.  If you'd introduced that quintessentially lawful good hero, and then suggested his dark secret was something like he had engaged in affairs in betrayal of the vows he made to his wife three times in the last five years, I'd have believed this was a realistic character with a realistic flaw.  But nuanced and complicated doesn't even necessarily mean flaws as obvious as that, and indeed the very word nuanced suggests something radically different than your caricature of actually a saint but who is actually also a monster.




I agree that the flaws typically won't be as severe as the one I described in this thread.  I went with the more severe one to illustrate the point and because it was a realistic one, having heard similar stories many times in my life.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> You’re trying to build definitions for the alignments to accommodate characters and groups being the alignments you’ve already decided they should be, which is going about it backwards in my opinion.




Um, no.  I'm not. The Mafia is the classic example of a LE group.  One used in many, if not most alignment threads that I've seen, yet rarely brought up by me.  



> That said, I still think the mafia is an ideologically Lawful Evil organization. Its members are expected to behave according to its rules, for the betterment of the organization as a whole. Individual members’ behavior may or may not be consistent with those ideals, but the fundamental principles of organized crime fall on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum, and the egoistic side of the ethical spectrum.




And yet they will not sacrifice for society as a whole.  They don't give a rats fig about society as a whole, except for how it can benefit them.  The biggest thing that most people can sacrifice for society is money, and the Mafia routinely avoided paying taxes.  Tax evasion was the one thing that they could usually pin on a mob boss.



> And that’s not what I said. I said that the ideology represented by lawful alignment is a willingness to sacrifice _individual liberty for the benefit of society as a whole. It’s not about sacrificing your safety for others, that’s what Good is about. It’s about accepting certain restrictions placed on you (for example, having to pay taxes) for the betterment of society (for example, having paved roads)._




Except it's not.  Virtually none of the LE mafia would sacrifice individual liberty for the benefit or society as a whole.  If they believed in doing that, they would have all turned themselves in to the authorities and confessed their crimes, giving up their liberty for the benefit of society as a whole.  Clearly they didn't do that.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 21, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> It really depends on what "group as a whole" means and there's no reason to suppose it would represent the _nation_ as a whole. IRL nationalism is actually a pretty new concept, only really dating to after the Napoleonic era. The Mafia and other similar ethnic criminal organizations are actually not all that uncommon in terms of being hierarchically structured groups that think of themselves as being part of the only "tribe" that matters. The societies they live in are viewed as outsiders or prey, primarily. Revolutionaries often engage in organized crime, first to fund their activities and then over time they become criminals. The fact that they are an in group makes them function well. I think many of these organizations end up as essentially being Lawful Evil groups within the overall society.



This person gets it.



Maxperson said:


> Um, no.  I'm not. The Mafia is the classic example of a LE group.  One used in many, if not most alignment threads that I've seen, yet rarely brought up by me.



That is exactly what you’re doing. You’ve decided that the mafia is a LE group because it is classically used as an example of one. But your interpretation of the standards that define Lawful don’t allow for them to be. Rather than revising your interpretation of what alignment best describes the mafia, you propose a revision of the standard that defines Lawful. Personally, I don’t see a conflict between Lawful defined as “sacrifices individual liberty for the benefit of society” and the mafia being LE, but if I did, I would change the alignment I attribute to the mafia, not the standards by which I assess whether or not something is Lawful.



Maxperson said:


> And yet they will not sacrifice for society as a whole.  They don't give a rats fig about society as a whole, except for how it can benefit them.  The biggest thing that most people can sacrifice for society is money, and the Mafia routinely avoided paying taxes.  Tax evasion was the one thing that they could usually pin on a mob boss.



Tax evasion is an unlawful act, certainly, but the ideology of organized crime is still one of individual members of the organization willingly submitting to the authority of the organization for the good of the organization as a whole. That’s political authoritarianism. That’s Lawful. That they don’t care about those outside the group except in how they can be taken advantage of is ethically egoistic. That’s Evil. Tax evasion is certainly an unlawful act, and certainly many mob bosses’ actions would probably be more consistent with Neutral in regards to law vs. chaos. But that doesn’t stop the mafia as an organization from being Lawful Evil.



Maxperson said:


> Except it's not.  Virtually none of the LE mafia would sacrifice individual liberty for the benefit or society as a whole.  If they believed in doing that, they would have all turned themselves in to the authorities and confessed their crimes, giving up their liberty for the benefit of society as a whole.  Clearly they didn't do that.



By willingly participating in a hierarchically structured group, every single member of the mafia is inherently sacrificing individual liberty for the benefit of that group. The mafia, or any other organization, is a society. That the interests of the mafia are in conflict with the interests of a broader society in which they exist does not change this fact. That the mafia puts its interests above the interests of the society in which it exists makes it Evil, not Chaotic.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 22, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> That is exactly what you’re doing. You’ve decided that the mafia is a LE group because it is classically used as an example of one.




No.  I've decided they are LE, because they fit the descriptions of LE to a T.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  I've decided they are LE, because they fit the descriptions of LE to a T.



So, where’s the disagreement?


----------



## BlivetWidget (Jun 22, 2019)

I feel like some of us have taken a suggested definition of Lawful and are arguing really hard for or against it as if it's the given definition.  From PHB122, while they do say the first attribute refers to:



> attitudes toward society and order




Let us approach this with 5e eyes and take specific over general.  The general description mentions both society and order, but for the specific description, let us consider the Lawful Neutral writeup (being Neutral on the morality side means we should just get a definition of Lawful):



> Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.




"Or" means only _one _of law, tradition, _or _personal codes has to be true to be Lawful.  I agree the general description muddies the waters, but the specific definition seems pretty clear and it doesn't have to be tied to society.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I know you want to avoid a real world discussion, and this is not to start one, but...  All the time we hear stories of a pastor or other upstanding citizen who gets arrested for something like this.  And many times those interviewed talk about how kind and upstanding the person was, and how he was constantly doing good deeds.  The good person with a dark secret is a pretty common happening.




Yeah, but people are not only really bad at evaluating their own alignment; they are really bad at evaluating the alignment of their friends and neighbors as well.  Most people will identify as good people whom they like, and who are friendly.  But a person who is amazingly friendly and cheerful and who makes you feel good and who is nice to you doesn't have to be good.  

Fundamentally, your alignment is revealed by what you do in secret when you have to make a choice about what you believe and making the choice like what you say you believe is costly.  Alignment is something that is only revealed by the testing.   A person who is comfortable and reasonably wealthy does not reveal their alignment by being generous.   A person who has nothing to lose doesn't reveal their alignment by telling the truth.  A person who is poor doesn't reveal their virtue through their austerity.   Most people will never know whether or not they are a thief until they don't have anything.  Alignment isn't how you treat upstanding members of the community who can reward you with status, respect, and financial remuneration.  Alignment isn't what you say you believe or what you do that gets you rewarded, it's what you do when you think you can get away with it.   So the fact the neighbors respected the guy and thought he was a good person tells us nothing about his alignment.   And real evil doesn't look like snarling villains.  It looks like the person in the mirror.   Above all, people assume goodness of people who are like themselves.  It's the old monkey hind brain talking.  

There is a line in Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn who looks like homeless ruffian is trying to win the trust of Frodo - an aristocratic hobbit.  Frodo's servant is telling him that it's beneath him to have anything to do with a person like Aragorn, and Frodo has a gift of discernment and says that Aragorn "Seems foul, but feels fair" but a servant of the enemy would go out of his way to look fair, but would feel foul.   Most people are not as wise as Frodo, and what seems fair feels fair to them.

Many good and wise stories teach this lesson - practically the complete works of Jane Austin, and of course The Good Samaritan come to mind.



> I agree that the flaws typically won't be as severe as the one I described in this thread.  I went with the more severe one to illustrate the point and because it was a realistic one, having heard similar stories many times in my life.




What I'm trying to get at is that the superficial aspects of a person like his charisma and his personality are not a person's alignment.  Without knowing the person I couldn't say what they were really like, but there is a saying that you only see a real man when he's behind closed doors.  And there is the old saying that if you want to do a good deed, make sure to do it in secret.   Good deeds done before others don't cultivate a good heart.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 22, 2019)

BlivetWidget said:


> I feel like some of us have taken a suggested definition of Lawful and are arguing really hard for or against it as if it's the given definition.  From PHB122, while they do say the first attribute refers to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I also, uh... Don’t really like what little 5e has to say about alignment. It’s vague enough that you can argue pretty much any character you want is whatever alignment you want them to be, and it has basically no effect on the game anyway, so it might as well not be there.


----------



## Gryphon04 (Jun 22, 2019)

Chaotic Good wins, because players can't be anything else, it's too hard, and your DM won't let you be evil.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 22, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Fundamentally, your alignment is revealed by what you do in secret when you have to make a choice about what you believe and making the choice like what you say you believe is costly.  Alignment is something that is only revealed by the testing.   A person who is comfortable and reasonably wealthy does not reveal their alignment by being generous.   A person who has nothing to lose doesn't reveal their alignment by telling the truth.  A person who is poor doesn't reveal their virtue through their austerity.   Most people will never know whether or not they are a thief until they don't have anything.  Alignment isn't how you treat upstanding members of the community who can reward you with status, respect, and financial remuneration.  Alignment isn't what you say you believe or what you do that gets you rewarded, it's what you do when you think you can get away with it.   So the fact the neighbors respected the guy and thought he was a good person tells us nothing about his alignment.   And real evil doesn't look like snarling villains.  It looks like the person in the mirror.   Above all, people assume goodness of people who are like themselves.  It's the old monkey hind brain talking.



Agreed. Or, to take an example from The Good Place:
[sblock]In life, Tahani was a world-famous philantropist, raising billions and billions of dollars for charity. Objectively, the world was a better place because of her. But the main reasons she did that was to impress her parents and to outshine her sister - not because of a sincere desire to help. And that is why she went to the Bad Place after death.[/sblock]


----------



## Oofta (Jun 22, 2019)

Staffan said:


> Agreed. Or, to take an example from The Good Place:
> [sblock]In life, Tahani was a world-famous philantropist, raising billions and billions of dollars for charity. Objectively, the world was a better place because of her. But the main reasons she did that was to impress her parents and to outshine her sister - not because of a sincere desire to help. And that is why she went to the Bad Place after death.[/sblock]




Well, in all fairness
[SBLOCK]Everyone is going to the bad place and has been for a while now[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 22, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> I also, uh... Don’t really like what little 5e has to say about alignment. It’s vague enough that you can argue pretty much any character you want is whatever alignment you want them to be, and it has basically no effect on the game anyway, so it might as well not be there.




Agreed, it's exceptionally brief, much like the almost total lack of description of skills. On one hand this gives the DM freedom but on the other hand it provides essentially nothing to work with. The only parts of the game that got solid attention (in the PHB especially) were the classes, combat, and spells.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 22, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Fundamentally, your alignment is revealed by what you do in secret when you have to make a choice about what you believe and making the choice like what you say you believe is costly.  Alignment is something that is only revealed by the testing.   A person who is comfortable and reasonably wealthy does not reveal their alignment by being generous.   A person who has nothing to lose doesn't reveal their alignment by telling the truth.  A person who is poor doesn't reveal their virtue through their austerity.   Most people will never know whether or not they are a thief until they don't have anything.  Alignment isn't how you treat upstanding members of the community who can reward you with status, respect, and financial remuneration.  Alignment isn't what you say you believe or what you do that gets you rewarded, it's what you do when you think you can get away with it.   So the fact the neighbors respected the guy and thought he was a good person tells us nothing about his alignment.   And real evil doesn't look like snarling villains.  It looks like the person in the mirror.   Above all, people assume goodness of people who are like themselves.  It's the old monkey hind brain talking.




Well, if you want to get down to it, everything everyone does is motivated by selfishness.  Good deeds make the person doing the feel good about themselves.  You work so you can survive.  You eat to live and avoid hunger pains.   Loving others makes you feel happy.  People will even gives up their lives, because it makes them feel good about themselves to sacrifice for others.  It's all about self.

Now, I also don't really agree with the blanket assessment that alignment is revealed by the secret self or through testing.  Many people genuinely enjoy helping others and doing good deeds, so who they are in public is also who they are in private and when tested.  What they do in private or under duress(testing) can confirm it, but it was revealed prior to that.   



> There is a line in Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn who looks like homeless ruffian is trying to win the trust of Frodo - an aristocratic hobbit.  Frodo's servant is telling him that it's beneath him to have anything to do with a person like Aragorn, and Frodo has a gift of discernment and says that Aragorn "Seems foul, but feels fair" but a servant of the enemy would go out of his way to look fair, but would feel foul.   Most people are not as wise as Frodo, and what seems fair feels fair to them.




Some of us can read people fairly easily.  We're essentially human Frodos.  



> What I'm trying to get at is that the superficial aspects of a person like his charisma and his personality are not a person's alignment.  Without knowing the person I couldn't say what they were really like, but there is a saying that you only see a real man when he's behind closed doors.  And there is the old saying that if you want to do a good deed, make sure to do it in secret.   Good deeds done before others don't cultivate a good heart.




None of them really do.  All good deeds, public and private, are motivated by selfishness.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 22, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Yeah, but people are not only really bad at evaluating their own alignment; they are really bad at evaluating the alignment of their friends and neighbors as well.  Most people will identify as good people whom they like, and who are friendly.  But a person who is amazingly friendly and cheerful and who makes you feel good and who is nice to you doesn't have to be good. <...> There is a line in Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn who looks like homeless ruffian is trying to win the trust of Frodo - an aristocratic hobbit. Frodo's servant is telling him that it's beneath him to have anything to do with a person like Aragorn, and Frodo has a gift of discernment and says that Aragorn "Seems foul, but feels fair" but a servant of the enemy would go out of his way to look fair, but would feel foul. Most people are not as wise as Frodo, and what seems fair feels fair to them.




Real life is filled with examples like that and I've used the Frodo meeting Aragorn story more than once to illustrate the difference of "seems fairer but feels fouler". 




> Alignment isn't what you say you believe or what you do that gets you rewarded, it's what you do when you think you can get away with it.   So the fact the neighbors respected the guy and thought he was a good person tells us nothing about his alignment.   And real evil doesn't look like snarling villains.  It looks like the person in the mirror.   Above all, people assume goodness of people who are like themselves.  It's the old monkey hind brain talking.




This is all very useful IRL, but one huge difference between RL and fantasy is that, at least in many (but not all) fantasy games, there are supernatural forces of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc., and, indeed, many characters are servants of these very powers. 

Even in a setting where there isn't a supernatural evil is often signaled by some kind of serious violation of personal integrity and total submission. So, for instance, in _Mass Effect: Andromeda_ (unfairly maligned IMO), the main adversary, the Kett, have goals that involve essentially a forced union of all other species with them, with the corresponding complete loss of identity. I think in D&D terms they're a good example of Lawful Evil. There's another adversary group, the Roekaar, that starts out as misguided whose methods go too far. Their primary motivation is fear of loss of identity after contacting aliens. However, things really get out of hand and they start going down the well-worn path that revolutionaries and resistance groups often have of fighting a dirty war. It's hard to say what their alignment is, exactly, but they're pushing towards Lawful Evil. Finally, the last set of adversaries, the various outcasts and pirates, are mostly motivated by selfishness and/or outright homicidal crazy. Many of them seem to qualify as Neutral or Chaotic Evil. 

Where one can play with these ideas in a D&D context often lets Good metamorphose into Evil. For instance, a Lawful Good society can have the leader go bonkers, much as the Kingpriest of Istar did in Dragonlance. Indeed, Sauron's motivation to turn to serve Melkor in Tolkien's Legendarium comes primarily from an excessive love of order and keen results that Melkor seemed to accomplish.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> None of them really do.  All good deeds, public and private, are motivated by selfishness.




IF, and this is a big "IF" you subscribe to that philosophy.  It's biggest flaw is that it's a philosophy of projection, developed by capitalist thinkers, who from other philosophical standpoints appear to be simply trying to justify the core element of capitalism "greed is good".  

I'm not going to engage in a deep ethics debate on real world philosophical systems.  I'm just going to point out that like most philosophies it's as true as you believe it to be.  

I much prefer to continue to talk about fantasy philosophical systems and fantasy morality.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 22, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> IF, and this is a big "IF" you subscribe to that philosophy.  It's biggest flaw is that it's a philosophy of projection, developed by capitalist thinkers, who from other philosophical standpoints appear to be simply trying to justify the core element of capitalism "greed is good".
> 
> I'm not going to engage in a deep ethics debate on real world philosophical systems.  I'm just going to point out that like most philosophies it's as true as you believe it to be.
> 
> I much prefer to continue to talk about fantasy philosophical systems and fantasy morality.




Name one thing that at the root, isn't motivated by what the doer wants or how it makes the doer feel. This isn't some nebulous philosophical question.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Name one thing that at the root, isn't motivated by what the doer wants or how it makes the doer feel. This isn't some nebulous philosophical question.




The problem is that this philosophical belief believes _exactly that_.  It believes it knows the root of what everyone is motivated by.  A desire to be happy, a desire not to feel pain, so on and so forth.  The problem is _you can't know that_.  You can't know if Joe did a Good Thing because Good Things make Joe happy, or for _some other reason_.  If Joe did the Good Thing for altruistic reasons then your entire philosophy implodes.  Because your philosophy is arguing that *altruism doesn't exist*.  And that, my friend is the kind of claim that philosophies make.  You can't prove it to be true because you can't collect sufficient data on the subject because you are at best relying on self-selection responses.  "Why did you do a Good Thing?"  And _that_ is something there is proof that humans rarely answer honestly, which is why self-selection surveys are generally considered poor statistical data gathering methods.

So, you may not like that your philosophy is indeed a philosophy, but it is.  And I'm not going to debate that point further.  /done


----------



## Beleriphon (Jun 22, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Sauron's motivation to turn to serve Melkor in Tolkien's Legendarium comes primarily from an excessive love of order and keen results that Melkor seemed to accomplish.




Sauron uses the well worn trope of "Only I know what is good for the world" in addition to "Following in the Bosses Footsteps".

For alignment I like comic book characters as examples, they tend to be fairly black and white in that regard. Some are hard to peg for a variety or reasons, but you can always find one solid example of an alignment in comic books. I'll use Marvel because I can think of more characters there that I can explain. DC is way easier with the bad guys (seriously Joker is Chaotic Evil).

*LG*: Captain America - He's Good, don't argue. Lawful, he thinks the rules and constitution of the United States are it, they define the best way to deal with the world and societies. He'll fight the US government if they're wrong, but he always stands up for The People.
*NG*: Spider-Man - He's Good, don't argue (or bring up weird one issue examples where Peter's a jerk). Spidey doesn't have any particular attachment to following rules or thinking a particular way of living life is best. He just does what he can to do Good no the cost to himself.
*CG*: Star-Lord - He's good, don't argue with me. Quill rankles at being told what to do, even if its actually helpful. Rules, order, they get in they way of living freely the way he wants. But he's also prone to letting his feeling take over even when they are going to get in the way. He might have self imposed rules, but they're... flexibile.
*LN*: Nick Fury - He's all about order - making sure the world keep spinning no matter what the cost. He wont outright kill somebody as more expedient option, but he's not above less than "Good" methods to accomplish his goals.
*N*: The Watcher - his whole job is to not interfere and just watch (doesn't always work, but on the balance I'd say Neutral)
*CN*: Domino - She's not a bad guy per se, but also not a good person. As morally flexible mercenary I'm going with Neutral, she has limits and wont go out of her way to hurt people, but also isn't above murder as a way of life. Chaotic is coming from the fact that the whole point is that she just goes and relies on her mutant powers to bend the world the way she needs it to, doesn't do plans as such, doesn't believe in rules, and thinks freedom for all is the way to go.
*LE*: Doctor Doom - For real, like really. Doom is lawful, he wants order, absolute iron fisted order that he's at the top of, because only he sees what is wrong with the world and only he can fix the world, damn the costs.
*NE*: Bullseye - he likes killing people. No particular attachment order, rules, or anything that creatures structure, he's willing to work with structure but he's really on interested in payback on Daredevil or getting paid so he can work find without structure and order as well.
*CE*: Carnage - literally incapable of functioning in any organized way - only goal is murder.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> So, you may not like that your philosophy is indeed a philosophy, but it is.  And I'm not going to debate that point further.  /done




I'm not going to debate it.  I'm not even going to quibble with what you've revealed about your own view of the real world.

However, going back to the fantasy world, one way to define each of the alignments point of view in a rational way is that the adherents to that philosophy do not believe that the other philosophies represent something that is actually real.  And, if they are correct in their assessment, then we would have good reason to believe that they are also correct in their philosophy.

For example, good aligned people tend to believe that evil is just the absence of good.   And, if good is correct, that evil is simply just unnecessary destructiveness, then Good really is the correct thing to believe in.  

Chaotic people tend to believe that order doesn't really exist and doesn't really reflect the nature of the universe, lawful people tend to believe that chaos is simply a flaw in the natural order, and so forth.

Evil for its part naturally believes that Good is not a real thing, that no one is actually good, that all morality is an artificial construct, that people who promote goodness are in some way scamming the credulous, or are in fact not brave enough to face reality, or that they are simply weak people relying on deceitfulness to create a herd mentality to protect from the strong and successful.  This is how you rationally justify evil, because if you are right and there really is no good in the universe, then evil is not only justifiable but inevitable.  

This framework is a part of how I've started looking at alignment in my own game universe.  I don't want to have characters in my game universe that are snarling puppy chewing villains simply because the plot and game mechanics require something for the PC's to kill.  I prefer that any reasonably intelligent character have some sort of defensible philosophical viewpoint to say why, of the different tangible forces of the universe why they would choose between them, and that if the PC tries to get in a philosophical debate with them, they'd be able to say why they choose what they choose.   If you really believe that Evil most reflects the overall nature of the universe and that Evil is not only going to win in the end, but perhaps should win in the end, then then it's rational - albeit tragic - to believe in Evil.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> This is all very useful IRL, but one huge difference between RL and fantasy is that, at least in many (but not all) fantasy games, there are supernatural forces of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc., and, indeed, many characters are servants of these very powers.




This is in fact the intellectual justification for fantasy.  In real life, because real evil and real good is often something ordinary and hard to discern and stories about it are often mundane, we can take those ordinary concerns and view them in a more extraordinary framework, and if we do it well then the extraordinary will teach us something about the ordinary, so that we ordinary people encounter ordinary problems we can heroically act like the figures in extraordinary stories.

It's often difficult to talk about good and evil in the real world, but in fantasy we can reify these concepts and make them easier to talk about by embodying them - much as they are embodied in the video game you talk about.

To reference some other arguments going on at EnWorld, humanity and its near human peers represents nothing more than humanity, with its capacity for both good and evil and its capability of reflecting both angles and demons.  The other things in a fantasy setting represent reified concepts of evil or violence or justice or compassion or whatever, that must be dealt with externally in the same fashion that humanity must deal with these forces internally.   So to face off against an orc externally doesn't necessarily represent some sort of tribal conflict, but resisting our own internal orcish impulses.  The fight itself is rarely important.  If we take Tolkien as an example, he repeatedly reinforces that the really heroic part is the mental preparation for the fight - the decision to fight - and then how the character deals with the consequence.   This is the great moment in the Hobbit where Bilbo has to descend into the dragon's den, that Tolkien treats as somehow more important than the fight with the dragon itself.  This is why the violence in Tolkien story always tends to go off stage or become a flashback, because Tolkien's story is ultimately about externalized and reified internal conflicts.   The Théoden slays orcs is less important than the fact that he chose to resist, because in doing so he was actually resisting the baser elements of his nature.  Denethor in contrast, doesn't choose to resist and is always forever giving up and fleeing.

So, yes, in a fantasy world there are going to be things like orcs, demons, and celestial beings, there are things that are going to be actually physical embodiments of things that are intangible in ordinary life.  They are going to be far simpler in their morality than any real world being, and they will have representatives in the mortal population that are perhaps unrealistically pure - or at least closer in nature to some people in this world we'd find uncommonly good or evil.   But that is I think OK.  It's OK to have a Galahad or a Snidely Whiplash in your fantasy story.   That doesn't preclude having more complex characters.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> For instance, a Lawful Good society can have the leader go bonkers, much as the Kingpriest of Istar did in Dragonlance.




I wanted to break this out and deal with it separately, because that is not actually what the story claims.

Bizarrely, in the story - and I don't know if Margaret Weiss or Tracy Hickman is responsible for this line - the author has the embodiment of Good in the story claim that Good does not exist and that ultimately Good and Evil are identical.   The Chronicles of the Dragonlance doesn't claim that the Kingpriest of Istar went bonkers, which would be reasonable, or that the Kingpriest fell in an act of Hubris, which would also be reasonable.

Instead we have Paladine asserting that the Kingpriest became too good, and that in becoming too good - by becoming too much of an extremist about good - that he become indistinguishable from evil.

This goes back to what I was saying in a post not long before this one about you can tell accurately what a person believes by what they claim is not real.  And when you see a writer claim that ultimately extreme good isn't any different than extreme evil, what you are really claiming is that Balance and Moderation ought to always be the order of the day.

So ironically what we have in that scene at the end of Chronicles is an author insertion where the author projects their own beliefs about the universe on to Paladine, because Paladine is the wise mentoring father figure.   But ironically the philosophy projects on to Paladine the embodiment of Good is in D&D terms True Neutrality.   Paladine doesn't claim that the Priestking was inflicted with self-righteous and hubris, but instead actually defends that moment as Good.... and then goes on essentially to warn against Goodness.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 22, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I'm not going to debate it.  I'm not even going to quibble with what you've revealed about your own view of the real world.
> 
> However, going back to the fantasy world, one way to define each of the alignments point of view in a rational way is that the adherents to that philosophy do not believe that the other philosophies represent something that is actually real.  And, if they are correct in their assessment, then we would have good reason to believe that they are also correct in their philosophy.
> 
> ...




When I run my "godless" settings, this is generally how I handle alignment, it's a matter of perception.  Good people do evil and claim it as good, evil people do good in order to further evil causes, they all think their position is the most reasonable and rational one and everyone else is crazy for not seeing the righteousness of their perspective.

But I don't particularly find this works well in a "alignment is real".  Good and evil, chaotic and lawful are all defined by the very reality they exist in.  People may still act outside those things and claim they were doing it with greater purpose and attempt to justify themselves, but justified evil is still not good.  

Which is one reason I always enjoy playing LE over LG.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> When I run my "godless" settings, this is generally how I handle alignment, it's a matter of perception.  Good people do evil and claim it as good, evil people do good in order to further evil causes, they all think their position is the most reasonable and rational one and everyone else is crazy for not seeing the righteousness of their perspective.




Wait?  What?  That's not at all what I said.   I didn't in the slightest outline a sort of moral relativism.   Each position is one of moral absolutism.  All I did was outline a framework under which a rational person might believe that their moral absolutism was correct.



> But I don't particularly find this works well in a "alignment is real".




Again, I did not outline a framework where alignment isn't real. 



> Good and evil, chaotic and lawful are all defined by the very reality they exist in.  People may still act outside those things and claim they were doing it with greater purpose and attempt to justify themselves, but justified evil is still not good.




Well, it will probably come as no surprise that I don't believe justified evil is good in the real world either.   But I do believe that morality is defined by reality.



> Which is one reason I always enjoy playing LE over LG.




I won't comment.


----------



## RobertBrus (Jun 22, 2019)

No alignment. Which is to say, let the alignment grow organically out of the character's personality (who they are before stats, die rolls, etc.). This will allow for a character with a main theme and nuanced variations. More like you and I. In short, more improv, role-playing, and storytelling.


----------



## Immortal Sun (Jun 22, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Wait?  What?  That's not at all what I said.   I didn't in the slightest outline a sort of moral relativism.   Each position is one of moral absolutism.  All I did was outline a framework under which a rational person might believe that their moral absolutism was correct.



Then I misunderstood.

Perhaps it was word choice.  If fantasy reality defines good and evil, then "belief" isn't necessary.  None of what you said would exist at all in an existence where "good" and "evil" are definitive concepts.  Whether they think their alignment is the correct one is immaterial.  None of them could claim any of the things you outlined, because again, the very fabric of reality outlines what is or isn't good or evil.  There's no "evil is just a lack of good" perspective, because there's a literal list, written into reality of what comprises evil.

Also, the best way to not comment is to, ya know, _not comment_.  Just a little FYI I've learned from this very forum.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> Then I misunderstood.
> 
> Perhaps it was word choice.  If fantasy reality defines good and evil, then "belief" isn't necessary.  None of what you said would exist at all in an existence where "good" and "evil" are definitive concepts.  Whether they think their alignment is the correct one is immaterial.  None of them could claim any of the things you outlined, because again, the very fabric of reality outlines what is or isn't good or evil.  There's no "evil is just a lack of good" perspective, because there's a literal list, written into reality of what comprises evil.




This assumes omniscience on the part of the participants.  Just because the world is or isn't something, doesn't mean that everyone observing it will agree on what it is or isn't.

Everyone in the fantasy setting can agree that there are forces and powers corresponding to the labels Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law.  But describing accurately what those forces are and represent is still a considerable challenge.  It's not even one that you can resolve by interviewing the forces and powers, because they themselves are obviously going to have biased perspectives and at least some of them are certainly going to lie, or tell half-truths, or perhaps decide that there are things mortals aren't meant to know.

If there is considerable evidence of the reality of forces and powers corresponding to Good or Evil or what have you, belief doesn't become less important.  Belief is never only or even mainly about deciding what is real.  Belief is about deciding on the basis of the evidence you have what you are going to do about it.   And even in an animist world of tangible spirits you can commune with, you still are going to have a ton of questions.

Moreover, if you were to interview agents of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos and ask them to describe the world, they would each describe something very different.  So yes, asked to describe Good, agents of Good would give a very different answer than agents of Evil, and agents of Good could still define evil as an absence of Good.  Whereas, agents of Chaotic Evil are very likely to tell you that there is no such thing as Good, and that the agents of Good are at best morally equivalent to themselves but in fact less honest.  They would say that everything comes down to a contest of power, and that the forces that call themselves "Good" in fact are simply trying to manipulate the weak into acting against their own interests to further their own at their followers expense.  

There is a really good treatment of this in part of the Paizo Adventure Path 'Rise of the Runelords', where the writer takes the Seven Deadly Sins and inverts them and invents a culture that says, "No, these aren't vices, but virtues: self-confidence, ambition, abundance, pleasure, leisure, outrage, sexuality."   So, then the question becomes, is it 'good' for something to be decadent?   Just because you can agree something is real doesn't mean you can agree whether it is right.  

The point is that even in a Planar Wheel cosmology everyone can still differ on what one ought to do.  It isn't obvious to everyone that Good is the correct way to behave or has the correct description of the universe.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 23, 2019)

Bouncing into the middle of a long thread straight from the OP:

CG classically is a "Commit random acts of kindness and senseless deeds of beauty" orientation.  
PCs like CG because it allows them to commit Evil deeds (kill intelligent beings and/or steal their stuff) while in the service of a good outcome in the end.
As time has gone by, younger generations entering the hobby object more strongly to being told "If your character does X, your character will be Evil" - perhaps because they hear "... you will be Evil".  CG alignment then serves as an 'escape hatch'.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 23, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I wanted to break this out and deal with it separately, because that is not actually what the story claims.
> 
> Bizarrely, in the story - and I don't know if Margaret Weiss or Tracy Hickman is responsible for this line - the author has the embodiment of Good in the story claim that Good does not exist and that ultimately Good and Evil are identical.   The Chronicles of the Dragonlance doesn't claim that the Kingpriest of Istar went bonkers, which would be reasonable, or that the Kingpriest fell in an act of Hubris, which would also be reasonable.




Interesting. I haven't read any Dragonlance since the '80s so I was going on memory and Wikipedia, which didn't have a lot of details. 

I'm in a campaign where, after winding the Horn of Change, we drove many of the forces of chaos out of the campaign world but this has created a real problem with the White Lords, a super activist Lawful Good group, taking over our characters' home city. They seem to be pretty set up for a fall when they go on the military warpath, though. So it's an intriguing idea that can be explored in a variety of ways.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 23, 2019)

Immortal Sun said:


> When I run my "godless" settings, this is generally how I handle alignment, it's a matter of perception.  Good people do evil and claim it as good, evil people do good in order to further evil causes, they all think their position is the most reasonable and rational one and everyone else is crazy for not seeing the righteousness of their perspective.
> 
> But I don't particularly find this works well in a "alignment is real".  Good and evil, chaotic and lawful are all defined by the very reality they exist in.  People may still act outside those things and claim they were doing it with greater purpose and attempt to justify themselves, but justified evil is still not good.
> 
> Which is one reason I always enjoy playing LE over LG.




I'm running a godless setting at the moment---I seem to gravitate to those---but in this case, Law and Chaos have taken over as the real prime mover forces. As I've said to folks playing in my games, all my games tend to have a hefty dose of Michael Moorcock and Fritz Leiber influence.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 23, 2019)

Eltab said:


> Bouncing into the middle of a long thread straight from the OP:
> 
> CG classically is a "Commit random acts of kindness and senseless deeds of beauty" orientation.
> PCs like CG because it allows them to commit Evil deeds (kill intelligent beings and/or steal their stuff) while in the service of a good outcome in the end.
> As time has gone by, younger generations entering the hobby object more strongly to being told "If your character does X, your character will be Evil" - perhaps because they hear "... you will be Evil".  CG alignment then serves as an 'escape hatch'.




I don't think it's just younger players. My guess is CG has been popular all the way back.


----------



## SDN (Jun 23, 2019)

*CN*

There is actually an example of a Chaotic Neutral in Batman. Two-Face. He's a random number generator if he's being written straight. He goes off the rails because his concept of "good" is really closer to Lawful Neutral.



coolAlias said:


> Warning - incoming rant.
> 
> I feel like Chaotic Neutral gets a bad rap from players that either misunderstand it or intentionally abuse it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 23, 2019)

Eltab said:


> Bouncing into the middle of a long thread straight from the OP:
> 
> CG classically is a "Commit random acts of kindness and senseless deeds of beauty" orientation.




So far, so good.



> PCs like CG because it allows them to commit Evil deeds (kill intelligent beings and/or steal their stuff) while in the service of a good outcome in the end.




This I strongly object to on several grounds.  First, it belongs to the hideous bias that chaotic is a conditional that makes something less good, while lawful is something that makes something more good.   Thus, in this construction Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good, and Lawful Evil is more good than Chaotic Evil.  This I reject entirely.  Both Chaotic and Lawful are equally concerned with good and evil, and so Lawful Good is all other things being equal no more good or less good than Chaotic Good.  Chaotic Good is not a pass that lets you occasionally be evil.

Secondly, by your construction, Chaotic Good is differing from Chaotic Evil only by some relative degree and not some difference in kind.   Basically, you've asserted that Chaotic Good gives you a certain number of passes to be evil while Chaotic Evil gives you more passes to be evil.   But you haven't really said how much, so you could also argue that as long as you thought you were doing things "for the greater good" that you could do exactly what Chaotic Evil would do and yet on the net you would be Chaotic Good.

And thirdly, perhaps most surprisingly, this justification of "for the greater good" is exactly the same justification that Lawful Evil would make for committing acts of evil.  A Lawful Evil PC could (and I will argue would) claim that murder and theft could be justified if the net result of his acts brought success (and weal of some sort) for his people.   Thus, for example, a LE character might argue that his theft and murder was justified because in the end it would benefit his family, his community or his nation.  And this perspective is actually entirely the opposite of the perspective of CG, because - since Chaotic is all about individualism and freedom - committing evil acts against individuals in the name of "the greater good" is from the perspective of CG exactly what is wrong with the world and exactly what CG will claim is the basis of evil - the dehumanization of individuals by assigning them collective identities.  

So, no, that is not what CG is about and indeed in many ways is it's opposite.

Chaotic Good is good where the individual's own conscious and reason, and the circumstances of the moment, and the needs of the individual are allowed to outweigh any set of rigid rules regarding how to behave.   In other words, it's a philosophy that bases itself around acts of compassion and mercy between individuals, rather than around a set of defined duties and moral codes.   From the perspective of LG, this is dangerous because the individual will be tempted to justify acts of selfishness and self-serving acts of evil as Good - just as you have done when trying to argue that CG allows you to commit murder or theft if it is in a good cause.   This shouldn't be surprising, because LG naturally considers both LE and CG to have departed more or less equally from the righteous path.   CG on the other hand looking at LG, argues that having a limited and rigid set of duties allows LG to argue its way out of committing acts of goodness because it's already done 'enough' according to its moral code, and further that it has the core philosophy it sees underlying evil, that is the dehumanization of individuals by representing them as members of a collective - whether it be 'citizens', 'fathers', 'soldiers', 'women', 'children' or what not.  

So in practice, CG is actually among the least, and perhaps _the least_ likely of any moral philosophy on the great wheel to justify killing an intelligent being and taking their stuff, because they don't see beings according to classifications but as individuals.   A CG individual is not going to be inclined to prejudge anything according to appearances or norms, and will require some sort of proof that the individual beings in question have committed crimes worthy of death and are unrepentant about it before exacting any sort of penalty.  Indeed, most CG individuals are going to err on the side of only killing in self-defense and will err on the side of assuming that the individuals they are confronting are only violent in self-defense (that is, they will tend to see themselves as trespassers, and the individuals they are facing have the same rights of self-defense that they would have in the same situation).  



> CG alignment then serves as an 'escape hatch'.




I agree that CG serves as an 'escape hatch', but I don't agree that it is the one you've identified.  What CG allows a PC to do is not have any accountability to anyone but themselves.  In other words, as a person that is CG, they are not under any obligation to have their actions reviewed by some superior, external judge.   They are accountable mostly or entirely to the dictates of their own consciousness.   Since most players hate feeling like they are constrained by any sort of rules, being able to decide for yourself what is good and right is liberating (and since freedom and liberation are really CG virtues this is really unsurprising).

Of course, if this self-centeredness in deciding what is right and wrong becomes too self-centered, either by being too passive ("I am not required to make any self-sacrifices to do good.") or too self-centered ("I am not required to consider at all what anyone else considers good, including even the target of my actions"), then that is Chaotic Neutral, since the ultimate end of such a philosophy would be that there is no such thing as right and wrong, only personal codes individuals have constructed on their own authority.   And what I find in play is usually that a large percentage of people who write down CG actually want to play CN, while a large percentage of those that write down CN actually want to play CE.   That is, they want to play CN as giving them a license to commit evil when it is to their benefit, and typically they'll see it as being to their benefit all the time, and their justification for this being "good" will typically only be that it is for some abstract "greater good" - which will eventually drag them all the way to neutral evil if they aren't careful.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 23, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It's been years since I watched Firefly, but IIRC Jayne had no connection to the pair and actually thought they were a threat to the ship.  Getting money was icing on the cake.  That does not mean he would have turned in Mal for a profit, Mal was a friend and someone who had his trust and respect.
> 
> As far as Han Solo ... I'd still say he was CN.  After all he did shoot first in my version of the movies.  He did what he did for money and then out of friendship and loyalty to Luke and Leia.  I'm not convinced he did it for some greater good.  After a while he may have shifted alignment somewhat, but how much of that was just because he was caught up in everything is impossible to tell.  All we really know is that after the original trilogy and after he and Leia split he went back to being just another smuggler.
> 
> In both cases, the characters show loyalty and friendship even if there's no indication they were motivated by any sense of doing things for the greater good.




Exactly. And Jayne is deeply upset by his own actions, not wanting the others to know why he was being shot out the ship like so much space garbage. Where does that fit in describing his alignment? 

CN characters can absolutely be reliable and trustworthy to the people they care about. Because being reliable to those people has absolutely frack-all to do with caring about reliability as a Good in itself. The CN doesn’t give a damn about the idea of reliability, and isn’t standing watch to meet some socio-cultural expectation (that would be lawful), or live up to some ethical code. They’re doing it because they care about the people they ride with. 

Good doesnt hold any any sort of monopoly on caring about people.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2019)

Or its a case of a character shifting alignment.  would not be the first time in Wheedonverse shows.  We won't ever know because the show got cancelled.



> Good doesnt hold any any sort of monopoly on caring about people.




Umm, yes it does?  Caring about people is the definition of good?  If you actually care about people, that makes you good.  Now, caring about this group of people once probably doesn't make you good, but, it makes you a bit leaning in that direction.  Repeatedly caring about other people does show a pretty strong leaning towards good.

But, yeah, not caring about other people?  That's pretty much the heart of what it means to be evil.

-----

And,  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], LG being the most good has always been the standard in D&D.  I'm surprised you'd argue otherwise.  There's a reason paladins were restricted to LG, once upon a time.  And, every archetype for LG is among the most good of characters - Superman, King Arthur, Gawain, that sort of thing.  Chaotic is selfish it its heart.  It's all about the self.  You can't be as good as the selfless (Lawful) by definition.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Umm, yes it does?  Caring about people is the definition of good?  If you actually care about people, that makes you good.  Now, caring about this group of people once probably doesn't make you good, but, it makes you a bit leaning in that direction.  Repeatedly caring about other people does show a pretty strong leaning towards good.
> 
> But, yeah, not caring about other people?  That's pretty much the heart of what it means to be evil.




Too broad. Too absolute. It’s not that evil characters cannot care about other people. They may well care deeply about a select few. LE mobsters may care deeply about their families... but, overall, their behavior in society in general is too violent and predatory to be anything but LE.

Neutral characters may care for a small circle of friends, family, and neighbors and stick up for them. But that would be because they have a close connection. They generally wouldn’t stick their necks out for people they don’t know, not without additional inducement. The difference isn’t that they won’t or can’t, rather, they aren’t strongly committed enough to altruism to do that for just anyone.

So good doesn’t hold a monopoly on caring for people, they just commit to it with a strength other alignments don’t.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2019)

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], I'd agree with that.

I wonder if you were to draw a venn diagram of those who argue that chaotics are trustworthy and responsible and those who personally identify with political ideologies that emphasize personal rights and responsibility and personal liberty, if there wouldn't be a very high degree of overlap.  I usually find that folks have a very difficult time separating their personal ideologies from their hobbies and any time one conflicts with the other, it always must be the other people who are wrong and just don't understand.  Regardless of the amount of evidence brought forth.

It's no different than when a beloved fictional character is changed and folks lose their cool.  That character couldn't possibly change in that way, and it doesn't matter if the change is interesting or cool or even logical.  It's not in keeping with their personal vision of that character, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

Or if a beloved author is criticised and shown to be perfectly normally human, with perfectly normal human failings.  Again, regardless of any evidence or argument, other people MUST be wrong because if they aren't, then I might like something that isn't perfect.  No it cannot possibly be that.  It must be everyone else.

The truly funny thing is, twenty pages or so ago, I asked for an example of a reliable CN character.  Twenty pages later, I'm still waiting.  If CN is so reliable and trustworthy, surely there must be hundreds of examples.  After all, I can give you a shopping list of LG characters that are reliable and trustworthy.  What's the hold up?  Why so shy?


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The truly funny thing is, twenty pages or so ago, I asked for an example of a reliable CN character.  Twenty pages later, I'm still waiting.  If CN is so reliable and trustworthy, surely there must be hundreds of examples.  After all, I can give you a shopping list of LG characters that are reliable and trustworthy.  What's the hold up?  Why so shy?



What's the point? You're just gonna argue that "they aren't actually reliable" or "they're actually True Neutral / Chaotic Good / some other alignment".


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And,  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], LG being the most good has always been the standard in D&D.  I'm surprised you'd argue otherwise.




I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.  If you mean that that fallacy was at times exhibited by Gygax and has been repeated ever since, then I agree.   If you mean it's surprising that I'd argue against such rank stupidity, then well, no, it's obviously stupid - of course I will argue against it.

Before going into a deep argument why it is wrong, there is a fairly easy structural proof.  By definition - including Gygax's definition - Neutral Good means a pure philosophy of good unmingled by other considerations.   Thus, you could equally call Neutral Good "True Good", in the same sense that Neutrality is "True Nuetral".   Lawful Good, by definition, is a mixture of the philosophy of Good with that of Lawful, and so there must always be a situation where the Lawful Good must depart from a pure Good perspective in order to accommodate lawfulness.   

Now, I'm not saying that a Lawful Good person couldn't argue for the reasonableness of doing so and that Goodness required Law or was fulfilled to the greatest extent by Law or that simply as a practical matter Law was required and that good was an incomplete philosophy.   Of course a Lawful Good person would argue these things.  But critically, they do so because they are biased by their a Lawful Good perspective.   

And basically my argument is that Gygax's ideas of what constituted Goodness were biased in a complex way by his own personal upbringing.  This can be seen by the fact that at the same time Gygax was capable of both advancing the idea that Lawful Good was the most good or goodness++, and also presenting ostensibly Lawful Good figures in a derogatory and even villainous manner.   This is reflective in my opinion of Gygax's own personal moral struggles.



> And, every archetype for LG is among the most good of characters - Superman, King Arthur, Gawain, that sort of thing.




I would note that by and large all of those characters are creations of the same moral code.



> Chaotic is selfish it its heart.  It's all about the self.  You can't be as good as the selfless (Lawful) by definition.




There is a fundamental flaw and misunderstanding in this statement, and that is contrasting "selfish" with "selfless". 

Selflessness is in fact evil, and as evil as selfishness.  Chaos is NOT about selfishness at heart, and not every thought of self is evil.   Consider the statement, generally recognized by most as an axiom of good - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   If in fact the holder of this axiom is selfless, then he doesn't care what is done to himself and so can justify doing anything to anyone else as well.  The axiom called the Golden Rule is in fact self-centered.  It asks the person to reflect on their own worth, and the assign to others equal worth.   The self has worth and must have worth for the Gold Rule to work, and while it's easy to overvalue the self at the expense of others, to undervalue self and so subject the self to self-abuse and self-degradation or for example suicide would also be an evil.   If you think about the idea of "selfishness" it cannot be the definition of evil, because that would be circular.   We know self-concern to be evil and therefore selfishness when self-concern is evil.  

Further, we can provide a counter example.  Lawful Evil is the philosophy of evil selflessness.  Lawful evil encourages its followers to sacrifice all self and all individuality for the good of the collective.  The adherents of this philosophy are not selfish, but are selflessly giving themselves for the cause.   By your argument they must be good, but in practice we recognize this selflessness as abhorrent.   And in practice, this philosophy we know to be capable of some of the most horrific evils that the world has ever known.  There are in fact sins of selflessness.

Yet at the same time, we also know of heroic figures that have sacrificed themselves selflessly for others and we call this good.  So it can't be the case that either selflessness or self-centeredness alone defines evil, as in either case there is an extra factor that when added to either makes for good or evil.

Again, your claim that selflessness equals to good and self-centeredness equals to evil is an inherently Lawful Good bias.  However, you can catch that bias by noting that people with a Lawful bias have a hard time arguing why Chaotic Good is good, or why Lawful Evil is evil.   They tend to resort to arguing that it is almost evil or else throwing up there hands in disgust and saying it doesn't make sense and a single axis alignment system would make more sense.

My position is that Neutral Good, or True Good, considers the argument over which has more worth the collective or the individual to be entirely missing the point.  A collective has no worth if the individuals that make it up don't have worth, and in fact individuals do have inherent worth as individuals irrespective of their relationship to anyone.   But at the same time, the collective has great worth by being made up of individuals, and additional worth arising for the systems of relationships between the individuals that couldn't occur between isolated individuals.   Thus, whenever you veer too far to either side of sacrificing the individual for the good of the collective, or sacrificing the collective for the good of the individual you've departed the path of good.   And I would note that this theme is common in morality plays, and that many moral philosophies attempt to join assertions that respect the value of the self and self-judgment (dictates of ones consciousness) with sets of lawful codes that also externally review those same axioms in an attempt to provide a balance between the two.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Or its a case of a character shifting alignment.  would not be the first time in Wheedonverse shows.  We won't ever know because the show got cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I disagree.  Chaotic just means valuing individual choice over rules established by others.  People of all alignments can still care about other individuals, it's just not generalized.  _Some_ individuals may care about no one else because they're sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are evil.  But there are many stories of evil people in fiction and real life that were deeply committed to another, although they may love another individual the way I love my car.

In any case, I think alignment is just one piece of the picture and as much a simplification of human nature as HP.


----------



## zaruk6 (Jun 24, 2019)

Oofta said:


> In any case, I think alignment is just one piece of the picture and as much a simplification of human nature as HP.




I think this is the number one thing that players, new and experienced alike, tend to act like. It's a sort of Essence before Existence type thing, more prescriptive than descriptive. Alignment really should be based on the character's personality as opposed to vice versa.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The truly funny thing is, twenty pages or so ago, I asked for an example of a reliable CN character.  Twenty pages later, I'm still waiting.  If CN is so reliable and trustworthy, surely there must be hundreds of examples.  After all, I can give you a shopping list of LG characters that are reliable and trustworthy.  What's the hold up?  Why so shy?





You've been given examples, you just ignore them or disagree. I think even Jayne from Firefly was reliable ... to those that he valued and considered friends such as Mal.  

As far as other examples, I can't point out any (i.e. Han Solo) because you'll just say he wasn't CN.  Unlike my own personal characters, some of whom were CN and reliable to those he knew, we don't know the alignment of fictional characters.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

zaruk6 said:


> I think this is the number one thing that players, new and experienced alike, tend to act like. It's a sort of Essence before Existence type thing, more prescriptive than descriptive. Alignment really should be based on the character's personality as opposed to vice versa.




I agree with most of this but I think new and even experienced players mistake alignment for something it is not, namely, a description of personality.

The most common example is the idea that lawful characters are organized while chaotic characters are messy and disorganized.  This is simply not true unless we are talking about a spiritual incarnation of Orderliness.  

The result of thinking that alignment is a personality description is basically the idea that there are only 9 personalities and that they are all stereotypes.  

I'll fully agree that real world ethical systems often resist the simplistic characterization of the two axis alignment system.  But the majority of complaints I hear against the lack of realism of the system are mostly directed against the idea that people's personality is more complex than can be described by it, when I fact I don't really think it describes personality much at all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Or its a case of a character shifting alignment.  would not be the first time in Wheedonverse shows.  We won't ever know because the show got cancelled.



 No, it’s just nuance in characters. 





> Umm, yes it does?  Caring about people is the definition of good?  If you actually care about people, that makes you good.  Now, caring about this group of people once probably doesn't make you good, but, it makes you a bit leaning in that direction.  Repeatedly caring about other people does show a pretty strong leaning towards good.



Nope. 

Even evil characters and people can care about others. 

Perhaps you misread my statement, but “care about people” isn’t the same thing as “being an altruistic and empathetic person”. 

All alignments can form genuine attachments and care deeply about the well being of one or more people, a people group, etc. 

also, your idea that Chaotic is selfish is nonsensical, and without any particular obvious merit. Perhaps you can defend it, but as a flat statement by itself it’s completely preposterous. 

There is no contradiction in a selfless person who believes that liberty and equality better serve the common good than does a strict social order and strong governing body.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2019)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Selflessness is in fact evil




I actually thought that was a typo until I read the rest of the post. 

Needless to say, I disagree with this.  As does pretty much every single moral code in human history.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2019)

Oofta said:


> You've been given examples, you just ignore them or disagree. I think even Jayne from Firefly was reliable ... to those that he valued and considered friends such as Mal.
> 
> As far as other examples, I can't point out any (i.e. Han Solo) because you'll just say he wasn't CN.  Unlike my own personal characters, some of whom were CN and reliable to those he knew, we don't know the alignment of fictional characters.




The only one I even questioned was Han Solo and I'd point out that I wasn't the only one.  And, really, why would you consider CN Han to be reliable?  He leaves his wife after all.  Sure he comes back agains the Death Star, but, most people point to that as an example where he shifts to CG.  

Jayne was reliable?  The guy who, if he hadn't been caught, would have betrayed the entire crew and gotten half of them killed, all for a big payout.  You have a really different definition of reliable than I do.  It's not like he stepped back from betraying them.  The only reason he didn't betray the crew is because he got caught.  

The other example brought up was Conan.  And, again, I'll ask the same question.  Would you loan him 20 bucks?  WOuld you give him the keys to your car?  Would you entrust your daughter to him?

Q was brought up.  Ummmm, that's what you consider reliable?

Sure, folks, keep bringing up examples.  But, I'm still looking for one that you can convincingly say is reliable and trustworthy.  I mean, those aren't exactly the first adjectives I'd use to describe Jayne or Q or Conan.  Not that these are bad characters.  That's not what I'm saying.  Just that I'm not really sure I'd trust them all that far.

But, hey, what do I know.  Apparently selflessness is evil, chaotics can act 100% reliable all the time and this makes sense to some people.   

Just thought I'd pop in to see if anyone had actually come up with an example of a reliable CN character.  See you in another twenty pages or so.

-----------

Oh, and just in case folks think I'm totally making stuff up here, well, here is the definitions of law and chaos from 3e D&D



			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

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




Huh, looks like I'm still stuck in a 3e mindset about alignments.  They are personality traits (usually) and everything I said is 100% backed up by the rules.  Funny that.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The only one I even questioned was Han Solo and I'd point out that I wasn't the only one.  And, really, why would you consider CN Han to be reliable?  He leaves his wife after all.  Sure he comes back agains the Death Star, but, most people point to that as an example where he shifts to CG.
> 
> Jayne was reliable?  The guy who, if he hadn't been caught, would have betrayed the entire crew and gotten half of them killed, all for a big payout.  You have a really different definition of reliable than I do.  It's not like he stepped back from betraying them.  The only reason he didn't betray the crew is because he got caught.
> 
> ...




See, here's where the goalposts are shifting all over the place. We started with the possibility of CN characters working well in groups without stirring things up, being responsible while being on guard duty, stuff like that. Things that actually play out in a game (rather than 30 years of downtime/backstory). All of that is well within the bounds of CN alignment.... hell, it's well within the bounds of *any* alignment as long as the interests of the individuals don't differ too much. 

But on the whole life of a person? What alignment is Luke Skywalker? He's not CN - he's probably not even CG because he's got a little too much influence of regimens, obligations, and traditions mixed in with his individualism. He's probably NG and *he too* disappears for years. *Nobody* is likely to be 100% with reliable choices over their lives no matter what their alignment is - particularly not when dogged by as much war, tragedy, and destiny as a main character in a movie franchise... or a PC when you consider all the BS their players put them through without a sign of PTSD. You're setting up an impossible standard for CN - which is, no doubt, very convenient for your argument in this thread. 

And yeah, I may not loan Conan $20 - knowing him, I'd just give it to him and predict that the next time he's in town after a successful adventure, our friendship would net me a pretty fantastic night on the town with ale and whores on his tab. 




Hussar said:


> Oh, and just in case folks think I'm totally making stuff up here, well, here is the definitions of law and chaos from 3e D&D
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, looks like I'm still stuck in a 3e mindset about alignments.  They are personality traits (usually) and everything I said is 100% backed up by the rules.  Funny that.




Notice, that's *can* include, not must include. *Must* lawful characters be as close-minded, judgmental, and unable to adapt as chaotic be unreliable?


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I actually thought that was a typo until I read the rest of the post.




I'll give you this much.  When I try to explain this sort of thing, I run short of English vocabulary.  "Selflessness" has several different definitions, one of which contains only emphasis on a lack of self concern, and one of which contrasts the lack of self concern with a deep concern for others.  Selflessness as characterized by deep concern for the well-being of others I don't disagree is good, and in fact if you closely read my post you'll find I say so (in apparent contradiction) at one point.  However, be clear that by "selflessness" I mean exactly what I said in the post - utter disregard for the value of self.   The selflessness that I'm holding up as bad is not the one that for example causes a police officer to trade his life for something of equal or greater value - the lives of the people he's sworn to protect, for example.   Recognizing the value of others equals ones self value is fully laudable even to a Chaotic Good philosophy, and indeed is central to it.   The selflessness that I'm talking about is when someone sells their life for something of little or no value or is made to believe by themselves or others that they lack value, an impulse seen for example in self-destructive lifestyles.



> Needless to say, I disagree with this.  As does pretty much every single moral code in human history.




Well, feel free to disagree with me all you want, but your assertion that every single moral code in human history disagrees with me is both erroneous and short-sighted.

Erroneous, because I'm pretty sure what I've stated is congruent with mainstream Judeo-Christian ethics, which is one of the more (most?) influential moral codes in human history.  For example, the fact that the self has value and should be valued is why self-destructive acts can be considered to be wrong in its framework, and as I pointed out why the Golden Rule works.   This is something not all moral philosophies agree with.   Some more "lawful" minded moral philosophies reject the Golden Rule precisely on the grounds of its self-centeredness, proof if any more were needed that it leans Chaotic.  I could get into a very detailed discussion here and start quoting scripture, but when I start doing things like that it makes people uncomfortable.   Suffice to say, under one of the more dominate moral codes in human history seeing great value in even the least valued others is good", but seeing no value in the self and so selling the self cheaply is bad.    

Short-sighted, in that other even more "chaotic" philosophies go the other way and assert the complete sovereignty of the self, and so reject both selflessness and additionally that self-destructiveness (so called "victimless crimes") can be condemned by anyone else.   For example, selflessness is the great evil of Objectivism, which while it's not a moral philosophy I subscribe to, is nonetheless definitely a code of normative ethics and one that a great deal of people claim to subscribe to.   In the description I've outlined, Objectivism is unsurprisingly Chaotic Neutral (pure self-interest, but not at the expense of others freedom), and unsurprisingly sees calls for "the greater good" and collectivism as being the basis of all wrong in the world.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 24, 2019)

Oofta said:


> You've been given examples, you just ignore them or disagree. I think even Jayne from Firefly was reliable ... to those that he valued and considered friends such as Mal.
> 
> As far as other examples, I can't point out any (i.e. Han Solo) because you'll just say he wasn't CN.  Unlike my own personal characters, some of whom were CN and reliable to those he knew, we don't know the alignment of fictional characters.




River was also CN.  Jayne was unreliable, even to Mal, which is why Mal was so upset with him all the time.


----------



## Oofta (Jun 24, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> River was also CN.  Jayne was unreliable, even to Mal, which is why Mal was so upset with him all the time.




I'll just have to plead "I don't remember every detail of a TV show I last watched over a decade ago."


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Or its a case of a character shifting alignment.  would not be the first time in Wheedonverse shows.  We won't ever know because the show got cancelled.




Character growth arcs often involve shifting priorities. Insofar as D&D has a personality stat, this could well be indicated by an alignment shift. 





> Umm, yes it does?  Caring about people is the definition of good?  If you actually care about people, that makes you good.  Now, caring about this group of people once probably doesn't make you good, but, it makes you a bit leaning in that direction.  Repeatedly caring about other people does show a pretty strong leaning towards good.




Sure, and one interpretation someone else suggested was essentially a notion of how large the circle of caring was. 




> And,  @_*Celebrim*_, LG being the most good has always been the standard in D&D.  I'm surprised you'd argue otherwise.  There's a reason paladins were restricted to LG, once upon a time.  And, every archetype for LG is among the most good of characters - Superman, King Arthur, Gawain, that sort of thing.  Chaotic is selfish it its heart.  It's all about the self.  You can't be as good as the selfless (Lawful) by definition.




I agree that's how things were implied, but D&D has been inconsistent about this. Of course, it's a game, not a treatise on moral philosophy and D&D has always been a pastiche of many different influences. 

Part of it is because alignment didn't originally even have Good and Evil, just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, with an implication that these also were Good, Neutral, and Evil, respectively, though it's not explicitly spelled out. These were lifted from _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ by Poul Anderson as well as Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion (who got them from Anderson) and indeed the paladin class really is a direct lift from the protagonist of_THaTL_'s abilities. From what I understand (I am not a Medieval historian) the notions of Order vs. Chaos are pretty strongly represented in Medieval thought. 

I don't know the exact history of the Hollywood Squares grid alignment but it was there in AD&D but Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic was around in BECMI until the end of the line. Lots of things got assigned alignments pretty much on the "oh, crap, we need to put something in to make the deadline... let's just get it done!" line.  

I do like the different paladin takes that appeared in 3.5's _Unearthed Arcana_, where they had paladins for the other three extreme alignments (paladin of freedom for CG, paladin of tyranny for LE, paladin of slaughter for CE), representing divinely inspired warriors of different types. I played a Paladin of Freedom for a bit in a late 3.5 game. This character was constantly bucking the dictums of the temple, feeling it was more focused on the organization than on actually helping people. 5E kept this to some degree with the different Oaths, which are loosely related to particular alignments, though not exactly so.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But, hey, what do I know.  Apparently selflessness is evil, chaotics can act 100% reliable all the time and this makes sense to some people.




For the record, while I don't really care about the topic, I do agree with you that CN characters are not reliable. 

Although, I think the actual argument you are in is over what is meant by "reliable".  I concur with some of the other posters in the discussion that Chaotic characters can form friendships and have commitments and emotional bonds to other people, and that these feelings will make them somewhat trustworthy with respect to those people.   I'm just not sure that this makes them "'reliable" in the usual sense of the word.   It more means that you can be assured that some CN values you enough, that they would not sell you out cheaply.   For example, Malcolm can rely on Jayne to the extent that as their relationship progresses, he knows Jayne will value it more and more highly because Jayne recognizes the benefit of the relationship and the value of Malcolm as a person.   I don't think Malcolm ever believes that there is some point at which Jayne would never sell him out.


----------



## SDN (Jun 24, 2019)

Both of you are overlooking the one overriding difference between a fantasy world and our own: THE GODS ARE REAL.

And make their realness known in several ways, from the granting or withholding of spells to various forms of direct communication up to and including direct communication through actual appearances. In short, an external definition of what meets a given ethos has been established, and will be enforced. 

Most GMs and fantasy novelists overlook this factor, but it's going to influence how people in that world will react.

Edit: One example of a novelist who doesn't overlook this is David Weber in his Bazell Banahkson series. I highly recommend it.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And basically my argument is that Gygax's ideas of what constituted Goodness were biased in a complex way by his own personal upbringing.  This can be seen by the fact that at the same time Gygax was capable of both advancing the idea that Lawful Good was the most good or goodness++, and also presenting ostensibly Lawful Good figures in a derogatory and even villainous manner.   This is reflective in my opinion of Gygax's own personal moral struggles.




Or, you know, him not actually thinking that the various things he wrote for the PHB and DMG were, you know, equivalent in intellectual depth to, say, _A Theory of Justice... _which is to say, E. Gary Gygax != John Rawls.  Whatever his own personal flaws, Gygax wasn't pretending to present anything besides useful fictional source material.


----------



## RobertBrus (Jun 24, 2019)

*It's a game, not moral philosophy*

I'm all for philosophy, I have a degree in it. But this is a game. The alignment mechanics is a simplified system to provide some parameters or restrictions to a character. You can't one day risk your life with no reward to save the village, and the next torture someone cause it "might be fun." That's it. There's no great moral code nor philosophy behind it.   In many ways it is silly. Only in comic books - and the older ones at that - do you find this type of one-dimensional categorization. Even the terms are poorly chosen. The common definition for the term "chaotic" doesn't mean what it is meant to mean in RPG's.    Perhaps using this simplistic system designed for a game is asking far more than it was ever intended to provide. It's a game. Fun, but not the basis for a master's thesis on morality.  Maybe the better, as in more productive, discussion would be on whether or not we should continue to use this system. Or at the least, redefine and rebuild it.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

SDN said:


> Both of you are overlooking the one overriding difference between a fantasy world and our own: THE GODS ARE REAL.
> 
> And make their realness known in several ways, from the granting or withholding of spells to various forms of direct communication up to and including direct communication through actual appearances. In short, an external definition of what meets a given ethos has been established, and will be enforced.




Yeah I mentioned somewhere upthread the fact that RL morality and ethics descriptions and so on have pretty limited degree of applicability. The goal of fantasy ethics and morality is to make for interesting and thought-provoking fiction and allow us to explore things that don't exist IRL. One could, for instance, view Tolkien's elves as an exploration of comparative theology---evidently he did to no small degree. 




> Most GMs and fantasy novelists overlook this factor, but it's going to influence how people in that world will react.
> 
> Edit: One example of a novelist who doesn't overlook this is David Weber in his Bazell Banahkson series. I highly recommend it.




There are examples of fantasy fiction that doesn't, but ones that are much more focused on personal scale things won't tend to. There are examples, though, all throughout fantasy fiction of characters who have some kind of stronger relationship with a divine being having to deal with that relationship in some fashion or another. A good example is Janet Morris' Tempus from _Thieves' World_. Tempus has a personal relationship with a war god, Vashanka, that causes him a great deal of grief. Tempus is, of course, essentially an avatar. Another is Yardiff Bey from Brian Daley's _Coramonde_ duology. He sold his soul to a devil for arcane power and needs to deal with the consequences. However, one thing I do think that this kind of relationship might be a tough one for a protagonist character, and indeed, Yardiff Bey, while a POV character at times, is the story's main antagonist. Daley actually explores this issue a good bit when one of the other characters describes the difference between wizardry and sorcery (terms defined in the novel, not connected to D&D usage) and how it relates to the ethical choices a practitioner of the arcane arts makes. Harry Turtledove put quite a bit of this into the _Videssos_ series, with the protagonist of the first four novels (_The Misplaced Legion_, etc.), Marcus, being extremely skeptical but coming to understand the role the divine played in life over time and eventually accepting the faith of Phos. I don't really know more modern fantasy because I've largely stopped reading it, so pardon that my examples are rather old.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

RobertBrus said:


> I'm all for philosophy, I have a degree in it. But this is a game. The alignment mechanics is a simplified system to provide some parameters or restrictions to a character. <...> That's it. There's no great moral code nor philosophy behind it. In many ways it is silly.




Totally agree that it's really no more than a sometimes useful two-word phrase descriptor of a PC and that we shouldn't treat it with the same seriousness as genuine RL moral inquiry. 



> You can't one day risk your life with no reward to save the village, and the next torture someone cause it "might be fun."




I think you could, but that kind of character might be a good candidate for Chaotic Neutral. 



> Only in comic books - and the older ones at that - do you find this type of one-dimensional categorization. Even the terms are poorly chosen. The common definition for the term "chaotic" doesn't mean what it is meant to mean in RPG's.    Perhaps using this simplistic system designed for a game is asking far more than it was ever intended to provide. It's a game. Fun, but not the basis for a master's thesis on morality.  Maybe the better, as in more productive, discussion would be on whether or not we should continue to use this system. Or at the least, redefine and rebuild it.




Given that it has two descriptors, I would call it two dimensional, right? (You may have meant by one dimensional that it wasn't very deep. I agree with that.) From what I understand, many authors and screenwriters find assigning alignments useful as a starting point for their characters, so the D&D alignment system has seen some use outside of D&D. However, I think it's important to recall it's a starting point, not a finishing point. 

I've played with various rebuilds of it. A friend of mine used a three score system: Integrity, Mercy, and Courage. Characters had values assigned to them and (on an optional basis for the player) one could check against that score. I often found that helpful to make decisions when I felt genuinely torn about what action I'd take, essentially using the dice as a way to help guide improvisation. For example, a character with high Integrity and Courage but low Mercy would likely be OK with treating prisoners harshly as long as it wasn't against a personal code but would be highly unlikely to run in the face of opposition. Of course, if a Courage check was failed, this might be a good opportunity for some uncharacteristic behavior to emerge. White Wolf's _Exalted_ had four numbers: Compassion, Conviction, Temperance, and Valor and one often needed to make checks against these stats.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

SDN said:


> Both of you are overlooking the one overriding difference between a fantasy world and our own: THE GODS ARE REAL.




Well, I will note that in order to debate that at any depth, we'd have to veer into discussions that are verboten according to the board rules, but that we ought to note that none of the assertions you make are different in kind from what many people claim to observe and experience regarding this world.  So the difference between a fantasy world and are own with respect to "the gods are real" could only be a difference in degree and not kind.

In any event, the critical term in your statement that you overlook is the plurality of 'gods'.  Regardless of the reality of the gods to the inhabitants of the fantasy world, the plurality of real gods means that the inhabitants cannot know with certainty what the correct way one ought to live is.   Are all the gods equally right?  Are some gods more right than others?   If the gods offer conflicting accounts of what is real, how do you decide which ones to trust?   Amongst a variety of established ethos, which one ought one to choose?   And, frankly, ought we to have trust in these so called gods to begin with?  What exactly makes a god worthy of trust?   All of these are going to be things that mortals will need to decide for themselves irrespective of the reality of the gods.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Or, you know, him not actually thinking that the various things he wrote for the PHB and DMG were, you know, equivalent in intellectual depth to, say, _A Theory of Justice... _which is to say, E. Gary Gygax != John Rawls.  Whatever his own personal flaws, Gygax wasn't pretending to present anything besides useful fictional source material.




I'm actually neither denigrating nor praising him, and certainly don't mean by saying moral struggles to mean he had greater than the usual moral failings.  

So far as it goes, I consider Gygax's description of the alignment system more coherent than most later writers as he seemed to have a better handle on defining good and evil than 2e and 3e writers did.  Third edition was particularly incoherent for example.  

Indeed, the very fact that Gygax struggled to come to grips with what he believed at various points in his life to me suggests someone who is likely to have given this more than the usual amount of thought.  Nonethless, it can also mean (and this is what I was trying to point out) - especially for early Gygax - that the Gygax writing on that day doesn't fully agree with the Gygax writing a short period later because his own thinking on the subject is evolving.  Yet, again, I'd still put up his description in preference to what most TSR and WotC writers put forward.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Indeed, the very fact that Gygax struggled to come to grips with what he believed at various points in his life to me suggests someone who is likely to have given this more than the usual amount of thought.




I'm not sure one could conclude from the fact that his writing in D&D evolved much about his own personal thoughts. D&D itself was a rapidly evolving thing during the course of the '70s, with many of its tropes not really being solidly established until the late '70s. 

Ironically enough, my stepmother studied moral psychology when she went back to school as an adult and got a graduate degree. Her thesis advisor, who became a very close friend of the family after graduation, knew Gygax quite well, but neither he nor Gygax are alive so there's no point asking.




> Nonethless, it can also mean (and this is what I was trying to point out) - especially for early Gygax - that the Gygax writing on that day doesn't fully agree with the Gygax writing a short period later because his own thinking on the subject is evolving.  Yet, again, I'd still put up his description in preference to what most TSR and WotC writers put forward.




I can't really recall all the nuances of that over the years, but Gygax's writing, as florid as it often was, was pretty well thought out.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 24, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> This I strongly object to on several grounds.  First, it belongs to the hideous bias that chaotic is a conditional that makes something less good, while lawful is something that makes something more good.




I blame Basic for this. As far as I remember the line had Lawful as code for Good and Chaotic as code for Evil. That distinction took me by surprise the first time (I mean why would a chaotic cleric be unable to cast healing spells?)


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 24, 2019)

MoonSong said:


> I blame Basic for this. As far as I remember the line had Lawful as code for Good and Chaotic as code for Evil. That distinction took me by surprise the first time (I mean why would a chaotic cleric be unable to cast healing spells?)




Upthread I talked about the origin of Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, but it was taken from a few well-documented fictional sources (Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock) and predates the use of good and evil, which evidently first appeared in 1977 and was maintained in AD&D and then was brought back in BECMI---not sure why exactly, but it would be interesting to know. See alignment for some discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 25, 2019)

MoonSong said:


> I blame Basic for this. As far as I remember the line had Lawful as code for Good and Chaotic as code for Evil. That distinction took me by surprise the first time (I mean why would a chaotic cleric be unable to cast healing spells?)




The fact that the Law and Chaos axis predates the Good and Evil axis is part of it, but if you think about it, that only moves back the question one step.

Why did Gygax tend to treat Law as Good and Chaotic as evil, or as stand-ins for those things in the first place?  For example, the B2 "Caves of Chaos" might as well be "Caves of Evil" for the temple of Chaos is adorned in various demonic trappings, and chaos is used more or less interchangeably with evil.   This also predates Basic.

In the source material, say Morcock, this doesn't occur.  Both Law and Chaos are inimical to life, and extremes of Law or Chaos make life impossible.   Life can only flourish - what Gygax identifies as 'Weal' - if Law and Chaos are in balance, and it is the forces of Neutrality, the representatives of life that must make their way between these life destroying extremes, that are identified with what Gygax identifies as the essential motive of Good.

So while you are in part right, this still begs the question why is Law seen as Good and Chaos as Evil by Gygax when that isn't really what is in the source material.

And I think that the answer is that Gygax is even more than most from his upbringing likely to equate Law with Good, and so engage in the same bias we see in the definition of "selflessness" and have the same "common sense" about selflessness that Hussar is up the thread evidencing when he suggests that selflessness is obviously good and he is stunned anyone would argue otherwise.  

It's telling that "Selflessness" means both the abnegation of self or "motivated by no concern for oneself" and also at the same time "concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own."  Nothing about the abnegation of self or lack of concern for oneself necessarily implies compassion toward others or any sort of charity or any sort of proper valuation of or concern for others, and yet there it is built right into the language.  There is a certain level I get it at, since it runs contrary to human nature to not be selfish, the most common and obvious sorts of vices are sins of selfishness, but I consider selflessness a very bad antonym for selfish or a bad synonym for humble.  I also consider it likely that sins of selfishness stand out to us more, precisely because we feel wounded by them - that is even what we choose to view as evil is motivated in the main by selfishness.  

So, I think it is just natural to assume if you come from a certain cultural mind set that anything to do with the self is bad, and that all virtue consists entirely of self-denial of some sort and that naturally if self-denial to reduce ones inflated self-importance is good, then even more self-denial must be better.   And for that matter, we could certainly point out some Eastern philosophies that greatly praise selflessness in the literal sense of self-abnegation, but tellingly not all of them assume that self-abnegation naturally leads to attachment to and compassion for others.  Indeed, some of them would find that outcome inimical to the intention.   

Gygax I think properly associates Good and Evil with Weal and Woe, and although that definition is somewhat circular and leaves us needing to define Weal and Woe, it avoids the contradiction of having both the evil and chaos having to do with individuality and distinctiveness and law and good both having to do with commonality and conventionality.  

Yet at the same time he never quite seems to give up the idea that LG is most good and CE is most evil.   

But it's also telling that when he first creates a concrete conception of the divine for his fantasy world, both of the deities he creates are humorous but still quite pointed parodies of Lawful Good thinking.  I don't think that's remotely an accident.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Jun 25, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> The fact that the Law and Chaos axis predates the Good and Evil axis is part of it, but if you think about it, that only moves back the question one step.
> 
> Why did Gygax tend to treat Law as Good and Chaotic as evil, or as stand-ins for those things in the first place?  For example, the B2 "Caves of Chaos" might as well be "Caves of Evil" for the temple of Chaos is adorned in various demonic trappings, and chaos is used more or less interchangeably with evil.   This also predates Basic.
> 
> In the source material, say Morcock, this doesn't occur.  Both Law and Chaos are inimical to life, and extremes of Law or Chaos make life impossible.   Life can only flourish - what Gygax identifies as 'Weal' - if Law and Chaos are in balance, and it is the forces of Neutrality, the representatives of life that must make their way between these life destroying extremes, that are identified with what Gygax identifies as the essential motive of Good.




The Cosmic Balance is a Moorcock idea. However, it's not Anderson, where there's no such philosophizing. Anderson is, IMO, unquestionably the much more influential source on Gygax---something Gygax himself said but is also quite clear from reading Anderson. 




> And I think that the answer is that Gygax is even more than most from his upbringing likely to equate Law with Good, and so engage in the same bias we see in the definition of "selflessness" and have the same "common sense" about selflessness that Hussar is up the thread evidencing when he suggests that selflessness is obviously good and he is stunned anyone would argue otherwise.




Likely. As I recall he was a somewhat devout Christian of some flavor---can't recall where I remember seeing that, so take with an even bigger than normal grain of salt. He was active in Republican politics but, again, what one can conclude from that is not entirely clear. 





> Gygax I think properly associates Good and Evil with Weal and Woe, and although that definition is somewhat circular and leaves us needing to define Weal and Woe, it avoids the contradiction of having both the evil and chaos having to do with individuality and distinctiveness and law and good both having to do with commonality and conventionality.





I am not a Medieval historian, but my understanding is that Order vs. Chaos is very much in line with the way the Medievals thought of things, rather than good and evil, per se, in line with the "forces of civilization vs. barbarism" type thinking. It's also pretty strongly inherent in the kind of frontier thinking common in, say, Westerns. This is very much inherent in adventures like _B2: Keep on the Borderlands_. 





> Yet at the same time he never quite seems to give up the idea that LG is most good and CE is most evil.






> But it's also telling that when he first creates a concrete conception of the divine for his fantasy world, both of the deities he creates are humorous but still quite pointed parodies of Lawful Good thinking. I don't think that's remotely an accident.





I think that's true regarding the kind of implied "LG is the goodest of good" though I'm uncomfortable with the psychologizing that's going on about what Gygax personally thought about moral questions based on what he put in a game. A lot of what he put in D&D were tropes that were likely familiar to his likely readers, though of course many were not and needed explaining (e.g., Vancian casting). For example, most of the early cleric spells like Sticks to Snakes or Flame Strike are obvious ripoffs of things that appear in the kind of late '50s Bible epics that starred Charlton Heston.


----------

